elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SLC.Airport, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Embraer Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B SLC
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: SLC Tower cleared us for takeoff Runway 16L on the RNAV WEVIC6 to HOPTO which is the first fix; RNAV captured as usual and at acceleration altitude autopilot were engaged and as PM (Pilot Monitoring) after engaging autopilot I saw the aircraft started heading to the left of course; PF (Pilot Flying) disconnected the autopilot and start hand flying; meantime departure key on the mic asking where we were going and we advised them with the situation. My observation on PFD the flight director were to the right; LNAV course to the left totally in disagreement with the right picture. After hand flying few fixes PF asked to re-engage the LNAV mode which at this point capture properly. Upon landing; Captain had the opportunity to speak with SLC Tower about the issue; which looks per the conversation it's been happening to several aircraft; a write up were made and maintenance came to fix the issue and tested the automation.Since this event happened to several different airplanes on the RNAV WEVIC departure it will benefit if tower clear airplanes on a heading then maybe direct to HOPTO till the problem gets figured out; the database or programming (coordinates) issue.


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


Synopsis: Embraer Regional Jet Flight Crew reported that the aircraft did not turn toward the correct fix on departure.
Date: 201809
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: As a result of maintenance delays; the company modified our pairing and consequently violated portions of the pilot collective bargaining agreement. While completing a grievance with my company for the aforementioned violations; it came to my attention that our report time was adjusted on day 1 from XX:35 (original) to XX:44 (modified). I am submitting this report in the interest of safety and to inform of possible report time modifications made by [the Company].


Second narrative: Maintenance issues delayed [our flight]. As a result; I would have violated Part 117 (FDP > 13 hours) if I had operated [the flight]. Crew Scheduling modified our pairing and changed our flight to a deadhead. As a result of this modification; [multiple] contract violations occurred. Despite the FO (First Officer) reading [the specific violations] verbatim to Crew Scheduling; twice; he was advised by [Crew Scheduling] that 'the company finds no violation has occurred and we recommend you fly it and grieve it.' He then asked Crew Scheduling to connect him with a chief pilot; and was told they would not do that; but he could call them on his own time. As a result; he called and spoke with [the chief pilot]; who also advised us to 'fly it and grieve it;' which we did. Also; it has come to my attention that our original report time of XX:35 has been adjusted to XX:44; and as a result; shows a duty of exactly 14 hours. The [original documentation would] show the correct report times and scheduled duty of 14 hours and 10 minutes. This does not appear to be honest; ethical or even legal to go back in to the system to modify times so that it appears that we were legal to do the trip. In the end this all led to a fatigue call due to reduced rest and a long 4 leg trip the next day.


Synopsis: A321 flight crew reported the company adjusted schedules to avoid exceeding the hour limitation in the FARs.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RJAA.TRACON, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON RJAA
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: This report is being submitted to report a low altitude wake turbulence encounter and provide feedback for assistance with tracking the performance of the new Upset Recovery Training program. On arrival to RJAA [we] encountered wake turbulence at approximately 3000 ft MSL and 200 KTS with autopilot B engaged and flaps 1 set. The flight had just broken into VMC conditions with light rain; solid cloud layers above and some SCT cloud layers below. RJAA Radar was vectoring the flight on a left base leg (heading west) to join final for RJAA ILS-Y 16L with the FO performing PF duties while the CA was PM. As the Controller issued a speed reduction the aircraft began to rapidly but lightly bounce; pitch and roll around its axis for a few seconds before rolling abruptly to the left. The 'BANK ANGLE - BANK ANGLE' aural alert sounded and the PF immediately executed the upset recovery procedure as the aircraft was approximately 45 degrees angle of bank left wing down.Scanning the Pilot Direction Indicator for recovery; the CA thought the lateral Flight Mode Annunciator switched to Control Wheel Steering just before the autopilot was disconnected. After the autopilot and auto throttle were disconnected; the FO/PF pushed the nose down slightly and rolled wings level rapidly; checked airspeed and recovered to level flight; airspeed did not vary by more than 5-10 knots during the event. The CA/PM reset the Mode Control Panel and the autopilot and auto throttle were reengaged afterward. Following this upset recovery event the crew made sure everything was okay; evaluated the situation; and the flight then joined the ILS final and safely landed on RWY 16L.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported encountering wake turbulence on arrival into RJAA.
Date: 201811
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: For several months now; I encounter a 5 second delay when switching to an open Jep Pro. Obviously we switch between several apps during the course of a flight. It does not matter if I swipe between apps or get to Jep Pro via the home button and screen. When Jep is selected; the wheel turns for 5 seconds. While sometimes just an annoyance; during busier times it is a safety issue. For example switching between content locker to view the meters/feet conversion table and then back to Jep in the descent for [an international] arrival. I've checked around. Every other pilot I've asked is experiencing this. Regardless; I called technical support and they gave me their standard delete and reinstall instructions. I did so and now have moved to a 6-7 second delay. I cannot recall when this started exactly. I will say it was not happening when we started with the current iPad and happened after one of the updates.




Synopsis: B777 First Officer reported the iPad is slow to switch between applications.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Lost hydraulic system 2 on takeoff. All fluid leaked out. Ran checklist [and] returned for landing. Taxied to gate under own power. Hydraulic system 2 right pump was MELed. New engine.


Second narrative: We had maintenance delays on preflight and pushback. Engine #2 had previously been replaced. Number 2 hydraulic pumps or system had MEL. As Captain pushed throttles up I checked hydraulic system one last time. All normal. About 70 knots lights came on then extinguished. At 400 ft AGL system warnings came on. Both pilots flew as I went to relief pilot duties. Number 2 hydraulic system failed. Number 2 system had no hydraulic fluid at all. Ran HYD 2 fail checklist. First Officer landed uneventfully. This was going to be a long fix. Took 16 hrs before ready to fly again.


Synopsis: MD-11 flight crew reported returning to departure airport after experiencing loss of Number 2 hydraulic system.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Confusion; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The flap fail caution message occurred due to the disconnection of the right torque tube from the PDU (Power Drive Unit) motor. At ZZZ airport; we received a turnover from day shift where Aircraft X had a flap fail caution message. We were dispatched to work on it for that evening. Our work compromised of finishing the installation of the BPSU (Brake Position Sensing Unit) on the right side; due to right flap misalignment the flaps needed to be manually retracted to achieve correct configuration. The flaps were mechanically and electrically rigged per AMM (Aircraft Maintenance Manual) instructions and the torque tube was connected and my confirmed installation by my colleague which is the RII (Required Inspection Item) [certified personnel] on duty through the tug test per AMM and the measuring mentioned on the [work order]. The BPSU was installed per AMM instructions which required mechanical and electrical rigging which were performed correctly per AMM instructions. The torque tube was installed correctly per AMM instructions and was confirmed installation by my colleague which was the RII [certified personnel] on duty through the tug test and measured per the [work order]. After verification of correct installation and configuration we closed all panels complying with FOD check and moved on to the operations check. We performed an operational check of the flap and slat system per AMM instructions for at least 7 times consecutively and no message onboard or issue and the repair was good per AMM standards. Performing a separate documentation that states the removal; installation; and tug test of the torque tubes to reassure every component is installed and documented correctly.




Synopsis: CRJ700 Maintenance Technician reported improper documentation of maintenance.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Drinkable/Waste Water Syst
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: During takeoff as the flight deck applied power a water line in the galley burst. This caused copious amount of water to pour from underneath the oven and through the galley carts rapidly flooding the galley and continuing on down the aisle. I signaled an emergency to the flight deck and our takeoff was aborted. We quickly taxied back to the gate at which time the First Officer informed the passengers of what was happening and the AFT flight attendant and I began to clean and soak up the water. We deplaned once we arrived up to the gate and waited for maintenance to arrive. Water and electrical in the galley was deferred and we departed a few hours later as a live flight. Frozen conditions of the aircraft when we arrived the morning of the flight.




Synopsis: Frozen water may have been the culprit responsible for a rejected takeoff when the flight attendant signaled the cockpit that water was flooding the galley; later determined to have been from a burst water system likely attributable to the frigid overnight conditions.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloud top approx 6;000'; 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuselage Fairings
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I left on an IFR flight plan. I did my normal/full preflight inspection and completed all checklists. The Takeoff and climb were normal. I was at about 8;500 ft just coming up on my cruise altitude of 9;000 ft when I noticed a vibration/shaking that I had never experienced before. As my speed came up at 9;000 ft; the vibration/shaking increased. I looked at engine instruments and all were normal/nominal. I looked at the wings and tail and nothing unusual was apparent. The vibration seemed to be getting worse.  I was being handed off by Departure but I told the controller I was having an issue with the plane and needed to divert and land immediately. I requested ZZZ; she said - I think - that ZZZ was below minimums and suggested ZZZ1 which was at 700 ft. I took that. I was asked if I was declaring an emergency; I believe I said something like 'not now'; but on the turn back and descent to ZZZ1; the vibration seemed to get worse so I [advised ATC]. I decreased power to approach levels (about 35% power) and descended pretty quickly from 9;000 to 3;000. Once at 3;000 ft and at much lower speeds (about 120 kts) the vibration lessened. I received vectors to the ILS; came out of the clouds at about 800 ft; no issues on the approach or landing. Tower was very helpful; asked details for her report; and contacted a mechanic on field. Once out of the plane; I did a walk around and found the issue: an aerodynamic fiberglass faring at the top of the passenger side landing gear strut had come loose and was dangling about 6 inches below where it should be and would have been disrupting airflow under that wing. After consulting with a Cirrus mechanic; I had the faring and wheel pants removed from the landing gear. I did a flight test in the pattern and the plane handled normally. I then flew to where a Cirrus mechanic is located for inspection and eventual repairs.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot experiences an abnormal vibration as he climbs to 9000 feet on an IFR flight plan. When the cause cannot be determined the reporter elects to divert to a suitable airport and lands safely. Post flight reveals that a gear strut fairing at the fuselage is partially detached and the likely cause of the vibration.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was flying north at 5;500 MSL; when I felt the engine start to run excessively rough. Feeling that serious damage might occur to the aircraft; chose to shut the engine down and make a dead stick landing.I did land safely in an open clearing with very minimal damage to aircraft. After inspection of the engine and not finding any visual trouble; I decided to disassemble wings and trailer the aircraft to maintenance facility. Upon further inspection I found the counterweights to be not secured properly. I have a Repairman's certificate for the plane. This aircraft is an Experimental Home-built plane.




Synopsis: A pilot shut down a single engine after it was running rough and then executed a dead stick landing. There was minimal damage to the aircraft.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I came into the station to turn Aircraft Y. [I was asked] to stay to get engine run training on Aircraft X. The aircraft had damaged blades from previous flight. [A team of three] mechanic removed and replaced 3 fan blades and 3 opposites for weight purposes and other blades were NDTed (Non-Destructive Testing) for damage.After the blade replacement; I was asked to train for engine run qualification. [Two of us] were being trained. We did an engine run for vibs (Vibrations) per the AMM (Airplane Maintenance Manual) test #6. We contacted tower and they contacted ground operation to put the aircraft in a location to perform a high power run. They pushed us into location; and ground operations was in front with communications with us and tower.The Vibes (Vibrations) for the fan were out of limits high: couldn't go above 76%. We then returned to the gate and [Trainer] called maintenance control. [Trainer] said that they instructed him to have [the team of three] to remove the spinner and run the engine again.We pushed back for more engine run training per the engine run maintenance check list card and AMM test #6; and [Trainer] was in the 1st observer seat and [another mechanic] was in the doorway; ground operations was in front of the aircraft in a car and all were in communications with tower. We ran both engines up and the vibes were lower than before; and closer to within limits. We taxied back to the gate and shut down. When we got out the mechanics on the ground informed us that when we started to go to full power they heard a noise. Ground operations or tower didn't inform us of this. We then looked at the engine and noticed the damage to the blades and cowling. Called maintenance control and informed them.The barrel nuts for holding the spinner on came out of their respective mounts and flew into the blades and engine acoustic creating the damage.




Synopsis: Maintenance reported that during a B767 engine run; the barrel nuts for holding the spinner on came out of their respective mounts and flew into the blades and engine cowl acoustic lining causing damage to the blades and lining.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was going direct to ZZZZZ [Intersection] landing; so he was in a slow descent I told him to increase the rate; he did. Aircraft Y was climbing on a 300 heading the aircraft were going to be separated and the RA alert made the Aircraft X climb into the Aircraft Y and then forced the Aircraft Y to descend.I should have had a Human [assisting me]; but it's too difficult to speak through a mask and give control instructions.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported an airborne conflict.