elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Manuals; MEL; Procedure; Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Logbook Entry
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: I issued Configuration Deviation List (CDL) CDL 32-1 and CDL 32-2 mistakenly; due to having to have the [Main Landing Gear (MLG)] doors removed due to lightning strike damage on them. At the same time; I was looking into limitations in the Structural Repair Manual (SRM) of the damage to both the fairing and the door. I noticed that the [MLG] door could not have allowable delamination and was informing the Mechanics X and Y [in ZZZ1] of this reference. I also at that time overlooked the important rule of it being two systems because of how it is worded in the SRM; as they both have two different functions. I am aware of this now and it will not occur again.I believe that this occurred because in the CDL Manual the wording is one; as a fairing and the other as a door. If; in the CDL they list do not remove MLG fairing; if MLG door is also removed; then I believe I would have noticed this and it would have prevented me from allowing this [CDL] to be issued. Also if the computer lock would have engaged preventing this from being issued then it would have stopped it also. I am now aware of this being same system and was accidental.


Second narrative: Basically; the error went through several hands beginning with the midnight Dispatcher giving his initials for two Configuration Deviation List (CDL) [deferrals for] parts of the same system. Neither the Midnight Dispatch nor the Maintenance Controller at the time caught it and then the aircraft flew four flights.I suggest that Maintenance Control's system have a flag or automation that prevents the input of two CDL's on the same part. Or; that this is included in the CDL verbiage 'Warning' against the issuing of the other CDL. Failure of the midnight Dispatcher and Maintenance Control to catch the error of issuing CDL's 33-2 and 32-1; of which only one part of one system [CDL is allowed] per Embraer's CDL list; Section 3-02; under limitations Paragraph 4. Aircraft was swapped [after] another Dispatcher caught the discrepancy.


Synopsis: A Maintenance Controller and two Aircraft Dispatchers report about improperly applying two Configuration Deviation List (CDL) deferrals on the Main Landing Gear (MLG) doors of an EMB-145 aircraft for lightning strike damage.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
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: Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Departed having a destination and an alternate. Weather at all airports was IMC. As we prepared for the approach to destination we were faced with only one option due to winds and visibility conditions. We executed the RNAV approach and had to execute a missed approach. After evaluating the current fuel condition and weather we proceeded to our alternate. While on the ILS approach; the weather deteriorated rapidly dropping to 700RVR. We cancelled the approach and requested a delayed vector to gather information and come up with a plan of action. The weather over our alternate kept getting worst. After communicating with dispatch we decided to go to another alternate with a current visibility of 2 miles. We were almost about 15 miles away when we became aware that the current conditions were dropping rapidly. From my seat I could see that airports south of my position were under clear skies while to the north were completely IMC. With the little fuel onboard and the meteorological trend; I couldn't risk to execute an approach that could end with a missed approach. I just didn't think I was going to have enough fuel afterwards so we requested ATC to vector us to the most suitable airport south of our position with a long enough runway. We requested ATC to provide us with the necessary information about the airport (frequencies; etc). We didn't have charts for the airport since it is not an approved airport for our operations. Nevertheless it was an airport with a long enough runway; an air carrier service terminal; Security Identification Display Area (SIDA) ramp and most important; current weather conditions assure us with a safer approach to a landing environment within safe distance due to our current fuel onboard remaining conditions. At the end; my plane with all of my passengers and my crew were safe on the ground.


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


Synopsis: CRJ-200 crew reported they executed missed approaches at their destination and alternate airport due to deteriorating weather conditions. They reported landing at an airport that was not approved for their operations with ATC assistance.
Date: 201811
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B777-200
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: Compressor
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Compressor stall at 35;000 feet approaching 30 west track D. We diverted off track; descended and turned toward our diversion destination below 28;000 feet. We briefly had a TA leaving the track with an aircraft below us. The engine was eventually shut down due to EGT rise. Normal diversion procedures were followed and a safe landing was made.




Synopsis: Air Carrier pilot reported receiving a Traffic Alert while descending and diverting due to a compressor stall.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Weather elements / visibility: Clear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Other init1al approach
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Part 91 flight [to] ZZZ with no passengers. Was descending on the [STAR] arrival into ZZZ. Reached the final fix of the arrival (ZZZZZ) for radar vectors at 8;000 ft. TRACON Controller gave us a heading of 190; descend to 6;300 ft. Made the turn to 190 and started down at 1;000 fpm; then at 7;300 ft. the Controller gave command of 'alt alert; turn immediately to a heading of 340 and climb to 8;000 ft!'  We made the turn and climb. On the original vector; we noticed on the assigned heading we where aimed towards [canyon] which has a peak of 5;720 ft.




Synopsis: Air taxi Captain reported while on approach and receiving a heading and altitude instruction from ATC; shortly thereafter receiving a terrain alert from ATC.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B NCT
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Visual Approach. Between 3000 ft.-4000 ft.; cleared to intercept localizer on heading 310; at 2;300 cleared visual approach to 28L. Autoflight system failed to capture FAC correctly. Following autopilot 'intercept' of course; crew visually recognized the aircraft was well right of FAC. Distraction from the course error/correction resulted in aircraft being well above glidepath. PF (Pilot Flying) aggressively descended towards glidepath which resulted in an over correction. Relief Pilot observed 1.5 dots below glidepath on FMC; visually saw 3 red VASI lights and called out '3 red VASI.' Aircraft system Caution illuminated and announced 'Glideslope.' Tower verbally called 'glidepath' warning. PF corrected. Aircraft was stable at 500. PF continued to landing without further incident.




Synopsis: B787 First Officer reported an autopilot error led to an unstable approach and landing.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: DC-9 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Oil Filler Cap
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I signed off a Service Check inspection and then signed the Airworthiness Release for its flight. The aircraft departed flying to its destination. I was informed that I needed to complete this report due to the fact that after the aircraft landed; the #1 engine oil reservoir cap was left off during servicing by the previous shift. During its flight; the oil in the #1 engine reservoir slowly exited the tank out the open servicing port and landed with only four quarts reading on the quantity indicator. The oil tank was re-serviced and the cap secured for the return flight. According to the DC-9 Maintenance Manual; engine oil servicing must be accomplished within 30 minutes of engine shutdown; which was accomplished on the previous shift. When we accomplish the Service Checks on our DC-9s; the aircraft have been on the ground for several hours already. We usually check the oil quantity indicators in the flight deck to verify they read 12 quarts or more. If an indicator reads less than 12 quarts; we will run the affected engine for two minutes and check oil at the reservoir. As the indicators on this aircraft both read over 12 quarts during our Service Check; we did not look at the reservoirs and notice the oil reservoir cap was off.In the future we will specifically check the oil reservoir caps for security on our DC-9 engines during every Daily and Service Check inspection.




Synopsis: Technician reported a DC-9 oil reservoir cap was left off of Number 1 engine.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cargo Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Require a pressure when replacing door sealsOur original flight was delayed by 3 hours due to a MX write up from the flight crew that brought the aircraft in. They noticed a loud noise coming from the rear of the plane while inflight. MX personnel found the rear cargo door seal needed to be replaced and did so. Once that was completed we boarded up the plane and took off for ZZZ. While climbing out through approximately FL280; the Captain and I notice the pressurization page pop up and the cabin alt flashing. The cabin altitude was climbing through 9000 at about 800-1000fpm. The Captain and I decided to don our oxygen masks and shortly after the ECAM message for high cabin ALT came on. At this point the Captain initiated an expedited decent and requested priority handling with Center and I ran the ECAM actions. The Captain descended and made a left hand turn back toward ZZZ1 away from the mountains. The flight attendants were notified by the Captain. Once the cabin altitude was back below 10;000 and the ECAM had extinguished we removed our masks and continued with ATC instructions with vectors to ILS 25L into ZZZ1. We ran all normal checklist and briefed the arrival/approach. Dispatch was notified via ACARS and operations via coms. The approach and landing was uneventful. The aircraft was under max weight and no damage had occurred. It was a normal landing with a couple emergency vehicles standing by. The oxygen masks in the cabin did not deploy and there were no injuries to any person. One flight attendant reported a headache and another used one of the aircraft's portable oxygen units. Neither of them wanted any medical assistance. While at the gate; MX personal looked at the cargo door. It was their belief that the new door seal was faulty.




Synopsis: First Officer reported loss of cabin pressure after maintenance had replaced a cargo door sill; resulting in an expedited descent and an air turnback.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PHL.TRACON, PA
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: TRACON PHL
Second aircraft: A330
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Was windy on final approach and had good visibility. The first aircraft (an A320 or similar) was given a visual approach. While the aircraft could have turned toward the field; the pilot turned back up to join the localizer on his own. This created about a loss of about a mile; but not a loss of separation with the heavy aircraft that was about 4 behind and higher which turned into 3. I did not expect this so I maintained 1;000 feet and turned the trailing aircraft northbound to gain additional mileage; looking for around 4 miles on final. Additional traffic was to the north eastbound at 4;000 feet; but the path of the trailing aircraft I turned was behind that traffic so not a factor. When an additional mile was gained; I cleared the heavy for a visual approach. The company traffic was well ahead and there was not a separation problem but a slight over take on the speed due to an increase in compression caused by strong headwinds. I asked the trailing aircraft to advise when he saw the traffic ahead so he could maintain visual separation. He advised he had traffic in sight and instructed him to 'maintain visual separation' with traffic ahead. It took numerous attempts to get a correct read back from the pilot. He said he had responded three times but had only responded with his call sign; nothing else. I advised him that I needed more than just a call sign as a response. I could have called the tower to have them maintain visual separation if able with the traffic instead of continually trying to get a proper read back. Many times the pilot will say they have the airport in sight on their own accord and I will clear them for the visual approach. Instead of this; I believe I will run more ILS approaches even with good VFR weather to control the aircraft.




Synopsis: PHL Controller reported a possible loss of separation when traffic on final failed to respond appropriately to a visual approach clearance.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Traffic Management
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Charlotte Meter Position utilizes several weather tools to assist in determination of airport operation direction and arrival rate/capacity. Specifically wind direction directly relates to a North or South operation and the associated AAR (Airport Acceptance Rate). Additionally the need for accurate and precise wind information is directly related to ATCT Tower operations and anticipated airport volume/ demand. One tool is ITWS (Integrated Terminal Weather System) weather monitor that is installed in the CLT ATCT and ZTL TMU. The CLT ITWS was showing wind of 120/10 KTS - The CLT METAR/ASOS was showing 07009G20 KTS. The ITWS wind was 50 degrees out of sync with the actual winds on the airfield. Several times the CLT TMC was preparing to change direction of operation based on the ITWS winds. This would have placed aircraft landing with a significant tail wind for a south operation at CLT. The ITWS consistently shows a large difference in direction of the winds and speed when compared to the actual METAR on the CLT airport. This is a recurring situation for the Charlotte operation. The problem was brought up to the CWSU and the ITWS sensor was checked; however the problem remains of incorrect data on the ITWS. The CLT ITWS sensor and/or programming need to be check for consistency to match the reported airfield winds.




Synopsis: ZTL Controller voiced concern regarding weather tools available to ATC and the wind reading inaccuracies that sometimes occur.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: P19.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E P50
ATC / advisory: CTAF P19
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on a visual approach to P19 for landing and was anticipating landing on runway 35 since the weather report favored that runway. At about 5 miles out; local traffic indicated that 17 was in use. I realized I was approaching from the wrong side of the field for 17 and needed to select a transition route. Turning immediately would have violated the class D airspace to the east; and crossing directly over the field at midfield would have required flying over a set of houses west of the airport that visiting pilots are asked not to overfly. I elected to cross over the field just south of runway 17 to avoid the two airspace issues. During this period; a Cessna called that it was departing 17. I saw what I believed to be the departing traffic that had called on the CTAF and had heard only one aircraft call a departure. It turned out the aircraft I saw had not made a radio call; and the departing traffic that had made a call was still nearer the airport and below me as I transitioned from the west of P19 to the east. We passed much closer than intended; probably at 250-300 feet total separation. Neither aircraft took evasive action; but we became visible to each other just prior to the point of closest approach. The departing aircraft continued on course and I proceeded to land at P19 without further incident.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported a near-mid-air-collision while maneuvering towards a non-towered airport when a departing aircraft had not announced departure on the CTAF.