elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Bell Helicopter 407
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Planned scheduled maintenance for AAIP (Approved Aircraft Inspection Program); 12 month Main Rotor Hub and Blade Assembly inspection. Installed received MicroVib II vibration analyzer tool and proceeded with the inspection. Track and balance was well within limits after the first maintenance flight and no adjustments were needed and done. The vibration analyzer tool was then removed; inspection signed off in logbook and aircraft returned to service. Two days later; I was told to send the vibration analyzer tool to another base and while going through my [aviation maintenance software]; I noticed the vibration analyzer I have received was overdue for calibration. I notified my Regional Maintenance Director and informed him the situation and was then told to take the aircraft out of service until an up to date calibrated vibration analyzer tool was received and the 12 month Main Rotor Hub and Blade Assembly inspection was re-performed. The next day; a calibrated vibration analyzer tool was received and the inspection was re-performed and signed off in the logbook; and aircraft returned to service.Special tools being received at the base should be reviewed for proper tool calibration certificate; decals and overall condition. Also Tool Department and/or personnel shipping out special tools should be aware of its calibration date and overall condition before physically shipping tool out.




Synopsis: Aircraft Technician reported using a vibration analyzer tool with overdue calibration.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On a flight I experienced a dramatic loss of power and subsequently declared an emergency with Approach. Approach advised that the closest airport was ZZZ. I maneuvered the airplane for an emergency landing on the grass strip. The landing was uneventful and after coming to a stop discovered large quantities of oil on the belly. The exact cause of the leak is not known at this time.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot experiences a dramatic loss of power at 3;000 FT and is able to land safely on an available grass strip.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Duchess 76
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Propeller Pitch Change Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As per [procedure]; we had to shut down the engine and restart it in the air. When trying to unfeather the left propeller; blade angle did not move at all so the left propeller did not unfeather. Tried to restart the left engine using the 'without unfeathering accumulator' checklist and the left engine did not move; we cranked the engine 4 times up in the air with no success. Decided to come back to land single engine. We requested priority but did not declare emergency. On the ground we tried to restart the engine with no success; we tried 3 times. On the ramp with the Chief Instructor and a mechanic we tried to figure what the issue was; apparently the accumulator does not have enough pressure to unfeather the propeller; showed about 35 PSI when the aircraft's manual says it should have approximately 300PSI.Airplane went down for the same reason one day before this incident happened. Mechanics should double check that the airplane systems are working properly before putting the airplane back on line. Probably a second opinion of how the squawk was resolved could help to prevent this scenario.




Synopsis: BE-76 instructor pilot reported the left engine did not unfeather following a test flight shutdown.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine Thrust Reverser
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After departure climbing through 12;000 feet; and increasing speed through approximately 290 knots; ECAM showed Number 1 Engine reverser deployed. We stopped our climb at 13;000 feet and reduced speed. Upon thrust reduction decelerating through 250 knots the indication went away. We were discussing the situation when the light returned. We didn't have any other indications of an actual engine reverser deployment. We decreased the speed further; to 210 knots approximately and the light went out again. We requested vectors back and we landed without event. ATC notified the emergency vehicles as a precaution. The reverser was subsequently MEL'd.




Synopsis: Airbus First Officer experiences ECAM message indicating the Number 1 Engine reverser deployed at 12;000 feet and 290 knots. No actual indication of reverser deployment is felt and upon slowing below 250 knots the indication disappears. The indication reappears and the crew elects to return to the departure airport.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Climb
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU; TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Directed by SOCAL Departure to maintain 280 KTS below 10;000 feet during climb. Verbally confirmed the clearance and complied with ATC instructions. Similar; on descent; instructed by Chicago Center to maintain 300 KTS until further notice. At 11;000 feet and cleared to 7;000 feet; queried ORD Approach Control as to the speed they wanted from us. Was instructed to maintain 300 knots until further notice and continue our descent; which took us below 10;000 feet at 300 KTS.Followed ATC instructions for non-standard speed below 10;000 feet; which we assumed was for aircraft separation during the climb and the descent.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reports of two instances where they were instructed to maintain a speed higher than 250 knots while below 10;000 feet.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On climb out experienced loss of both PFD's and MFD on Garmin G-1000 glass panel along with autopilot disconnect. For 2-3 minutes prior had avionics cooling fan failure alert along with 2-3 other avionic component intermittent failure alerts. While assessing alerts all displays shutdown with no NAV/COM. Reverted to back up gages and hand flying. Since it was not IMC [I] elected to return to departure airport using wet compass for navigation. Used cell phone to contact FBO to relay message to Tower of situation and intention to land entering left downwind for active runway. Gear would not lower so began manual extension. When used push to test gear down light found lights inoperative and realized had lost all electrical. Checked generator switches and found I had failed to turn both generators on after ground power start resulting in battery depletion. Reset generators and recovered electrical and NAV/COMs. Contacted Tower and landed without further incident. Personal assessment of contributing causes: Pilot failed to turn generators on after ground power start and being distracted trying to get attention of line personnel to disconnect ground power. Not adhering to check list due to long time familiarization with airplane and systems. In recurrent simulator training always did battery start procedure. Although pilot was legally current practical competency may not have been at optimum level due to low flight hours in past few weeks. Use of sunglasses in bright light may have dimmed recognition of annunciator panel lights. Avionics standby backup battery did not function although armed. Later tested and found would not hold charge; reason under evaluation.




Synopsis: BE20 pilot reports electrical failure shortly after takeoff with loss of G1000 and communications. The electrical failure is not initially detected but when discovered it is determined that the generators were never turned on after engine starting with a ground power cart.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Air Carrier X was at FL320 requesting FL380. I was training the R-Side during what was becoming an extremely busy session. Multiple warning areas were active; weather had developed in the middle of the sector; and TMU [Traffic Management Unit] had re-routed many aircraft through our sector. Additionally; we had TMU initiative to obtain 40 MIT for Metro airports. Data Blocks were overlapped; and the R-Side was having trouble keeping the frequency. He/She first climbed Air Carrier X to FL340; then immediately gave a descent clearance to another aircraft in the sector. Air Carrier X had opposite direction slightly offset at FL330. The subject aircraft reported their TCAS showed traffic underneath at 500 FT; and after the Data Block was separated; and the Conflict Alert went off; we saw that Air Carrier X and Air Carrier Y had lost separation but were not in immediate danger. I keyed up to turn Air Carrier Y 20 degrees right; realizing I could not 'save' the situation but wanted to obtain more separation given the situation. Both my focus and the R-Side trainees' was on another situation; as well as our boundaries given the amount of handoffs to make or take. When Air Carrier X was climbed; both of us were also unaware of Air Carrier Y due to the amount of Data Blocks. We had an extremely difficult time working with the military. They were both not accepting any point-outs; even though it was commercial airliners that needed to deviate for weather. This presented not only an extremely complex workload; but compromised safety.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described a conflict event when the military was reluctant to allow entry into several restricted areas for air carrier deviation requests.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Filed route of flight: ZZZ [...] DRK GABBL HLYWD1 KLAX. ATC had previously cleared Aircraft X to DRK flight plan route. There was a strong line of thunderstorms extending from Kansas down to Texas; so we asked for weather deviation south of course.  We were assigned 'direct to San Angelo; SJT; then Newman flight plan route'. The FO (First Officer) read back 'cleared direct SJT; Newman; flight plan route. Approaching SJT we required additional airspace south of course for weather deviation. We confirmed heading with ATC and were cleared direct Newman when able. The waypoint NWMAN is a point on the HLYWD1 Arrival on our filed flight plan release. I think the FO read back the phonetic NWMAN to the controller but there was no response. About 20 minutes after being cleared direct to point NWMAN; ATC assigned a 260 heading and queried what clearance we were provided.  The controller told us we were off course.  We responded with our clearance direct NWMAN flight plan route. As we looked at the enroute chart; we noticed there a was a VORTAC called Newman labeled EWM near ELP.  This point was not on our flight plan release; but this is when we realized the previous controller meant the VORTAC Newman not the point on our flight plan release labeled NWMAN.  We were then assigned direct DRK flight planned route. Both the Ft Worth and ABQ ATC controllers were understanding; professional and very cordial during the process. The FT Worth ATC radios were very busy with many aircraft asking for weather deviations. The radios were very busy and difficult to understand at times due to the weather.  There is a waypoint and a VORTAC named Newman.  They waypoint was on our route of flight. Use phonetic for VORTAC and names for the waypoint.  If using the name of a VORTAC then state the name and follow with the word VORTAC to differentiate between a VORTAC and a waypoint.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a navigation deviation due to a waypoint and VORTAC homonym.
Date: 201909
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My crew and I received a 777 Aircraft X arriving in ZZZ. The pilot was coming in a little fast and didn't slow down upon entering the gate envelope. We noticed that the engine was getting dangerously close to the jet bridge. We managed to stop the plane short of its proper mark and avoided a collision involving the jet bridge and left engine. The engine was roughly 12 feet from the jet bridge. This was my first time wing walking a 777 into that gate and was unaware of there being two jet bridge parking boxes; the narrow and wide body boxes. After advising Customer Service to move the jet bridge to the proper spot; we towed the plane to the 777 line; chocked the wheels and then offloaded the plane. After completing the task; we were called to the [Ramp Control] office. Behind closed doors; without a shop steward present; we were accused of incompetence and spoken to in a disrespectful; condescending manner. We were not asked if we were OK; or even acknowledged that fact that we avoided a possibly major accident. We were treated like individuals who would intentionally wish harm on each other and our valued customers. The fact that there was a huge failure in complying with normal protocol in regards to Zone informing customer service to move the jet bridge prior to the planes arrival; the ramp supervisors not making sure ahead of time that the jet bridge was properly positioned and [Ramp Control] placing people who weren't experienced bringing wide body planes in or even communicating with the ramp to make sure the gate was set up correctly; is alarming. The mistakes made should have been shared by everyone and yet the blame was placed solely on an inexperienced crew who made the best of a bad situation. I acknowledge my lack of knowledge/experience/training with properly receiving 777's. I wish that management would've owned up to the fact that it was an overall team failure and not try to pass the buck to those lowest on the totem pole. Before our shop steward showed up; we felt intimidated and disrespected. We did our best out there and only wanted to be addressed with dignity and respect. We take pride in our jobs; and care about each other and our customers. It was a near miss and we take that seriously and have learned a lot from this event.




Synopsis: Ramp Crew reported marshalling a 777 into the gate and stopping the airplane short to avoid hitting the jet bridge.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Heavy Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Hand-flying on ILS final in VMC underneath several layers of SCT-BKN clouds down to ~2500 feet. Approx;6 mi final (near FAF); tower cleared us to land #2 behind Cessna on close base; and then cleared another aircraft to take off. Takeoff aircraft reported FOD on runway; and tower told them they would check. We asked tower for position of FOD; and he responded something to the effect of 'short of runway'. He then asked takeoff aircraft for position and type of FOD. Aircraft responded 'green metal'; tower then relayed to us 'between A2 and A3' (near our touchdown zone). At this time we were approximately 2 mi; and Captain decided to go around.On go around; Captain Pilot Flying (PF) called for Flaps 20; LNAV; VNAV; but failed to call for autopilot. Delay in autopilot call was due to excessive nose-up trim that needed correcting; airplane was not fully stable. By the time nose attitude and trim was brought under control; altitude was approaching MAP altitude of 3000 MSL; and eventually reached 3500 feet. At the time; Pilot Monitoring (PM) was switching back to approach control. Captain told PM to ask for VFR downwind; which was granted; but 3500 feet altitude was reached before VFR clearance received. No traffic conflict.Continued VFR pattern to uneventful landing.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: Captain called for a go-around due to FOD reported on the runway. During the go-around event the cleared climb-to altitude was overshot by 500 feet.