elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 9
Light: Night
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot/Static Ice System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach; using STAR arrival. Flight was normal; descending via the STAR. We were on Vnav Path all the time; until Vnav jumped around 6000 ft showing us above the path. At this time we saw the runway and extended flaps 20; gear down; speed brakes up; slow down to normal speed; reported runway in sight; and were trying to make stable approach until we reach 500 ft and; if unable; to go around. We made S-turns and descent in normal parameters. Landing was made well within landing parameters.We had [an] MEL on the Right Auxiliary Pitot Static probe heater inoperative which affected the Center ADC and possibly could cause unreliable AIS or altitude which in our situation contributed to unreliable Vnav Path condition.




Synopsis: B747 Captain reported that while descending on a STAR in VNAV mode; the VNAV abruptly reset 6;000 feet lower. A stabilized approach and uneventful landing were made despite the high; in-close position. An MEL on the Right Auxiliary Pitot Static Probe Heater may have been a factor as the Center ADC was affected.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departing ramp area with south flow; ATC miscalculated speed of an aircraft taxing north. We were positioned from the push; tail south and facing north; parallel to the inner taxiway. I was the PIC in the right seat. Ground cleared us to taxi to runway; 'Outer with a transition.' Upon making 45 degree left hand turn and not yet on taxiway; the pilot in the left seat applied brakes firmly and did not enter the taxiway; yielding to the aircraft passing left to right at a high rate of speed. Ground told us; 'Sorry; he came out of nowhere.' The Number 1 Flight Attendant fell down in the first class area and the Number 2 Flight Attendant apparently had some bruising on her right thumb that we found out about post flight. All flight attendants repeatedly stated they were okay and did not want to return to the gate nor did they want medical attention prior to departure and after landing. Captain in left seat did a very nice job of avoiding an incident which could have had much more of a drastic outcome.The event could not have been avoided by the crew other than using a lesser braking application. However; in my opinion due to the circumstances at hand; the application of brakes was quite proper. Possibly change to policy and procedure which could have prevented potential flight attendant injuries is to always have them seated while taxing; or change the push-back procedures to have the tails pointed 45 degrees away from intended taxi path to give the captain the opportunity to clear left for oncoming traffic before adding power.


Second narrative: [Narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew described a ground conflict with a high speed taxiing aircraft requiring sudden braking; causing injury to standing and unsecured flight attendants.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu Meridian
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was flying over Denver then over the Rockies in the early afternoon. We were at FL260. Our briefing gave us no suggestion of convective activity. On the weather Datalink there was no suggestion of convection. Yet on my onboard radar there were buildups in front of me that suggested significant convective activity. We were IMC. The tops were around FL280. I asked for this to get over the cloud cover and visually avoid any convective activity. We broke out at FL280 and continued on our route west. The activity was below us. We were able to stay out of significant weather by climbing to FL280. Our limitations on the aircraft are a maximum altitude of FL270. Due to the confusion between our radar and the data link I felt it was appropriate to climb above the weather for safety reasons. When the tops were appropriate we descended to FL260. This was exceeding the aircraft limitations for safety reasons. The plane is capable of flight at this level without damage.




Synopsis: PA46 pilot at FL260 reports detecting convective activity using on board Radar when none was forecast nor was it being displayed by weather datalink [Nexrad]. The decision is made to climb to FL280; out of IMC to visually avoid the cells; which is above the designed service ceiling for the PA46.
Date: 201307
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After being cleared to cross FATHR at FL240 and while passing through FL310 we were informed to expedite our descent through FL270 by Miami Center. When passing through FL300 we were abruptly told to level off. We noticed another aircraft on the TCAS coming directly at us from the south. We also noticed that the altitude difference between us was steadily decreasing from 1;400 FT on down. When we got a TCAS RA and the order to climb the First Officer (flying at the time) executed the avoidance procedure. Considering the fact that I observed a 200 foot difference between us and the intruding aircraft as its symbol passed through our aircraft symbol I believe that had the First Officer not executed the RA procedure in the appropriately and timely manner in which he did we would have very likely been involved in a catastrophic mid-air collision. After being unable to get into FLL due to severe thunderstorm activity we diverted to MIA. While on the ground there I called the ATC Supervisor and was told that an international airlines jet which caused the problem was NOT following the ATC instructions given to avoid us and was deviating for weather. Our weather radar indicated that there was nothing in the area that necessitated a deviation.




Synopsis: Air Carrier inbound to FLL experienced a TCAS RA; ATC reported the other aircraft involved failed to follow ATC instructions.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RIL.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: ILS Runway 26 into RIL. We utilized VNAV function to descend via the ARC from COMFR to the final approach course. As the aircraft began to descend the pilot not flying noticed first that the FMS had sequenced early as in it would be performing a 'smart descent'. I then disengaged the automation and manually leveled the aircraft off and initiated a climb. As we passed the fix JIGOM we were 200 feet low. The remainder of the ILS approach was in VFR conditions with no disruption to our customer's arrival into RIL. Upon clearing the runway and canceling IFR the ATC Controller made no mention of any issues. I suggest not using VNAV on a feeder route or an ARC on an instrument approach. I recommend sticking to the tried and true method of selecting VS and performing the step downs. Yes VNAV would create a smoother more comfortable environment for our customers. However as we see; it is not reliable for this purpose.


Second narrative: I believe the sequencing of the Honeywell avionics on the VNAV function got confused as our base for the descent prior to the ILS portion of the approach was too close. I suggest crews not to use VNAV for vertical navigation on this approach.


Synopsis: A Fractional crew on the RIL 26 ILS was 200 FT low at the JIGOM crossing restriction after the First Officer disconnected the autopilot to slow the descent because the FMS for unknown reasons disregarded the constraint.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SEA.Tower, WA
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: Tower SEA
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Made visual contact with a GA aircraft on final approach to SEA runway 16R ahead of us. Continuing down the glideslope; we came to within 300 feet of the aircraft and a TCAS RA was issued; we climbed clear of the conflict and were then able to return to our glide path and make a stabilized approach and landing.Given the location of the aircraft relative to the approach path it is likely the GA aircraft had violated Seattle's Class B airspace; which is obviously not something we can control. However the TCAS system worked as designed and conflict was avoided without any abrupt maneuvering. Beyond additional focus on airspace awareness within the GA community; I do not have any additional recommendations.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported TCAS Alert on approach.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Aircraft component: Exhaust Gas Temperature Indicat
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While climbing through 18;000 ft.; we noticed the #1 engine had an amber 'XX' for the EGT (Exhaust Gas Temperature) display.No ECAM or status messages accompanied the failure of the EGT.The lack of ECAM messages for loss of EGT; along with no guidance in the QRH; led the FO (First Officer) and I to agree that continuing another 3 hours to ZZZ1 with no indication of the internal engine temperature was not the safest course of action. I contacted Dispatch and advised of our intention to return to ZZZ.We obtained ATC clearance to ZZZ. Flight attendants were briefed of the precautionary landing status; and an announcement was made for the customers assuring them of their safety. [Priority handling with] ATC was requested due to overweight landing. Uneventful overweight landing was accomplished on XXR. AML (Aircraft Maintenance Logbook) entries were made; Dispatch was notified; and Company and fatigue reports were filed.The FO was extremely helpful in accomplishing all tasks asked of him in a detail oriented; extremely efficient manner. Please thank him for his professionalism.[The cause was a] failure to fix repeat maintenance item;  [there is] lots of history on the engine.


Second narrative: During climb above 18;000 ft.; I noticed that the EGT (Exhaust Gas Temperature) indication for the left engine was displaying amber XXs. I notified the Captain of it and we proceeded to follow SOP and found no guidance in our manuals. After contacting Dispatch and Maintenance; we decided to return to ZZZ and request priority handling due to being overweight for landing. We landed without any further incident.[Regarding a cause; there is] nothing I can think of at this time except the issue with the EGT indicator.


Synopsis: Flight Crew reported a return to departure airport due to the loss of engine temperature indication on engine number 1.
Date: 202001
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At FL350; for no reason; aircraft went into control wheel steering and started descent. Disengaged autopilot; corrected situation and notified ATC. No TCAS. Aircraft stable for duration of flight. Made logbook entry.




Synopsis: B737NG Captain reported that an uncommanded autopilot mode switch resulted in an altitude deviation.
Date: 201308
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Ramp agent walked directly in front of a running engine to put a late bag in the forward cargo compartment. We had pushed back from gate and had been cleared to start engines. I advised the Headset Operator we would be starting engine number 2. At about 50% N2 during the engine start the Headset Operator advised that they had a late bag. I acknowledged the Headset Operator with an; 'Okay; standby.' My intention was to let the start finish; get starter cutout at 56% N2 and then shut down the engine so that the bag could be placed aboard. At about the time that the engine reached starter cut out I noticed the Master Caution light illuminate. I looked up and saw that the doors light on the system annunciator and the forward cargo door light on the overhead were illuminated. I immediately shut down the Number 2 Engine. I asked the Headset Operator what was going on down below and he stated that one of the wing walkers had taken the bag and placed it in the forward cargo bin. I told the Headset Operator how unsafe I believed the wing walker's actions to be and that he needed to relay that to the wing walker immediately. I then switched over to the ops frequency and reported the incident to them. Ops advised that they would let the Supervisor know. I could not believe someone would knowingly walk in front of a running engine like that.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported a ramp employee walked in front of the operating Number 2 Engine. Captain promptly shut down the engine.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; 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
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Event started on climbout. Landing gear failed to retract (Gear Handle Solenoid) did not release handle for retraction. Gear stayed down and 3 green locked lights stayed on. After advising ATC for vectors for a troubleshooting gear anomaly; elected to land and consult our Maintenance personnel.  Similar problem encountered by a crew in the same aircraft a few weeks earlier. Attributed to low nose strut nitrogen charge after takeoff; nose strut would not go to full travel which inhibited nose strut squat switch from making contact allowing retraction sequence to commence. Consultation with Maintenance and visually confirming no noticeable issue with gear; decision was made to attempt inflight maneuver of simple pitch up to allow gravity to pull nose gear to full length. No passengers aboard-only crew. Attempt from prior event an year earlier with different crew was successful. This simple fix lulled me into complacency and with Maintenance stating to try it; I flew aircraft with known potential problem.  Normal takeoff VFR; gear would not retract again with brisk rotation. Advised ATC of gear anomaly again and flew VFR circuit to normal landing and return to FBO. My decision making flawed in that I could not have known it was just a low serviced strut. Although; there was plenty of strut showing for dispatch in the nose strut of the aircraft. Following day; Maintenance did discover low strut pressure and serviced. Ops was normal. I will never attempt a flight in an aircraft with a known issue until I have Maintenance personnel inspect the aircraft.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contains no additional information.]


Synopsis: CE750 flight crew reports' failure of the landing gear to retract after takeoff due to inability to raise the gear handle. Flight returns to departure airport for a normal landing. Nose strut servicing is thought to be the culprit and with maintenance concurrence; another takeoff is made with a vigorous rotation but the gear does not retract. Strut servicing does solve the problem.