elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Second reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Cessna 182 doing aerial work. Engine went quiet. We noticed manifold pressure went to 13.2 manifold. Completed Engine failure in flight check list. No change 13.2 manifold. Contacted ATC Approach to advise them that we [had] partial power loss. Direct ZZZ airport. Second restart attempted - No change 13.2 manifold pressure. ATC Approach said direct ZZZ airport. Third restart - total electrical power loss. Smelled burning. Landed ZZZ. Secured engine upon landing. Rolled off runway to taxiway and secured aircraft.


Second narrative: I served as a sensor operator in the right seat of a single yoke (there are no controls on the right side) C182 doing aerial survey work. Suddenly; the engine went quiet; and the PIC (pilot-in-command) and I noticed manifold pressure went to 13.2'. It was determined there was an engine failure and we began to run the engine failure in flight checklist. Upon attempting to restart the engine; there was no change from the previous result. The manifold pressure remained at 13.2.' Approach was contacted and communicated there was partial power loss. A direct turn was made to the closest airport; ZZZ. A second engine restart attempt was made and failed. The 13.2 manifold pressure reading did not change. A third engine restart was attempted; and all electrical power was lost; including the radios. Just before loss of electrical power I noticed that two of the cylinder CHT (Cylinder Heat Temperature) gauges on our engine monitor were white; indicating that two cylinders were cooler than the others. There was a successful landing at ZZZ; engine was secured on short final. We were able to clear the runway and stop on the taxiway. Both the PIC and I were okay and the aircraft was undamaged.


Synopsis: C182 pilot and non-flying observer reported an engine failure followed by an electrical system failure resulted in a diversion to a nearby airport.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
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: Powerplant Lubrication System
Component problem: Failed; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: In cruise the First Officer called out a loss of oil pressure on number 1 engine. Oil pressure was in the red at 8 PSI and remained at that reading to landing. Number 1 throttle was reduced to idle immediately and thereafter oil quantity went to zero. LOSS OF OIL PRESSURE Checklist led to ENGINE FAILURE or SHUTDOWN Checklist and the engine was secured. The First Officer was designated to land the aircraft. I called ATC and declared an emergency requesting a lower altitude and declaring a nearby airport for diversion. I completed all remaining checklists; notified flight attendants; passengers; and Dispatch and then landed uneventfully. I have no suggestions for avoiding a recurrence as the problem was caused by a maintenance issue. However; I can offer the following; the aircraft assigned to us had just had an engine replaced and this was the first flight after engine change. I was concerned so I left the lower Display Unit on during flight to monitor engine parameters. At top of climb; the left side showed seventeen quarts of oil and the right side showed eighteen quarts of oil. I saw no abnormal indications until the loss of oil pressure was discovered in cruise.




Synopsis: A B737-800 lost right engine oil quantity and pressure at cruise because the engine was incorrectly install prior to this flight. An emergency was declared and the flight diverted.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Transitioning from GOATZ ONE arrival to the ILS 25 left. Sequenced closely behind aircraft approximately 3 miles ahead. We were directed to maintain 170 kts to Lima. We intercepted the glideslope at 5;000 feet and soon after started experiencing up to moderate turbulence associated with wake vortices from the aircraft ahead. I inquired as to the type of aircraft we were following and eventually got the answer that we were behind a 757. I directed the FO [First Officer] who was flying to slow to increase separation and informed Approach that we were experiencing moderate turbulence due to too close spacing. Spacing was increased to approximately 4 nm for an uneventful landing. This event occurred because the FAA has decided that it is safe and has made it legal to sequence smaller aircraft behind a 757 as if it were a 737 or AB320 ie. 3 nm. The legal distance used to be 4 nm and rightly so. Last year I submitted a similar debrief where we were sequenced 3 nm behind a 757 and experienced an aircraft upset of over 30 [degrees] angle of bank. When we attempted to right the ship; the flight controls did not respond for 2-3 secs and then degraded to alternate law at approximately 1;500 feet. We stabilized the aircraft and continued to an uneventful landing. Once at the gate; Maintenance advised us that the FO's AOA probe had actually broken loose. The aircraft was subsequently downed for the rest of the day. At that time I called and debriefed Los Angeles Approach Control and Tower on the issue. As it turned out there was no need to sequence us that close behind the 757; there was plenty of room behind us. I thought something would finally be done to re-institute the 4 nm safety sequence but apparently not. How many more planes do we have to break and how many more passengers do we need to scare before we realize that there was a reason why there used to be a longer spacing behind a 757 due to its strong wake vortices? I find it very hard to believe that one more mile behind a 757 is going to greatly affect the landing efficiencies at airports; whereas I am sure it will increase safety and comfort for crews and the flying public.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence on arrival into LAX in trail of a B757. Reporter expressed concern with the new procedures allowing closer sequencing behind B757 aircraft.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gust Lock
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Had issues starting engine at hangar. Reinstalled gust locks to check condition of batteries. Batteries checked ok; re-entered airplane; attempted successful start of engine and had good systems checks. Shut down; re-closed hangar; re-entered airplane; re-started and taxied to runup area. Again good checks. Took runway with 17 knots gusting to 28 headwinds and applied power.At 40 knots aborted takeoff because gust locks were still installed. At power reduction; encountered gust and aircraft attempted to lift off. With control stick motion restricted; the airplane porpoised and when nose gear hit runway; the nose wheel broke off nose strut. Propeller impacted the runway and shattered.Evacuated the airplane after a call to tower. Tower had advised that fluid was leaking from the belly. I returned and found that tank drain was partially open; probably from nose wheel touching it in passing. Made verbal reports to NTSB and airport OPS. Towed aircraft to hangar with assistance from FBO Lectro Tug. At hangar gave statement to FAA.Distraction from starting issues started the sequence. Re-secured gust locks before successfully starting engine. Windy conditions necessitated use of gust locks unless controls firmly in hand/foot. Did not complete standard pre-departure brief the second time after the interruption. Pilot error.




Synopsis: After engine starting issues at the hangar the gust locks are re installed during trouble shooting by the pilot of a small aircraft. The second start attempt is successful but the gust locks are forgotten about until 40 knots in the takeoff roll and the takeoff is rejected. With limited elevator control porpoising commences and cannot be controlled. The nose gear separates and the propeller contacts the runway.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After completing my walk around in preparation [for the] flight; I entered the cockpit and began my flight deck equipment flow. It was brought to my attention several weeks ago that crew members have been finding tan colored; felt disks placed under the foam covers of the earpiece; and checking for these disks has now become an additional item on my equipment flow. I believe that these disks are being placed in front of the earpiece in an attempt to distort or eliminate the audio coming from the headset. I alert the Captain each time I discover these disks have been found in the headset so he too is aware of the problem as it relates to the safe operation of the aircraft.Placing these felt disks in front of the earpiece is a deliberate attempt to sabotage the aircraft and render the audio portion of the headset unusable.I can't be certain when these felt disks were placed in the headsets; but researching the inbound flight number and associated crew members would be a logical place to start. I will continue to submit an ASAP report each and every time that I find the aircraft has been tampered with in hopes that this will aid in determining which person; or persons are responsible for this unprofessional/criminal act. Operating in our environment is challenging enough without having someone intentionally disable the aircraft in an attempt to jeopardize the safety of the flight.




Synopsis: A319 FO reported that during preflight he sometimes finds the headsets have been tampered with; with apparent malicious intent.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA20 Undifferentiated
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Landing on Runway XX; made landing on center line and was coming to a stop and I felt a gust of wind blow the plane side ways with ground and skid off runway. Hit marker sign.  I attempted to give full right rudder but tire slid in dirt. It was a Student Cross country flight. The contact happened at ZZZ.




Synopsis: Student pilot reported runway excursion on landing rollout.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff roll the Captain aborted our takeoff right after the '80 KTS thrust set' call due to the loss of his PFD; ND; and top E/WD screen going blank with diagonal line across each screen. We reached a top ground speed of about 95-100 KTS and maximum braking kicked in for about 1-2 seconds before the Captain disconnected autobrakes via the brake pedals. We taxied to the gate while monitoring brake temperatures. Top temperatures reached were about 550 degrees C while at the gate. The mechanic met the aircraft and chocked the wheels and we released the parking brake to allow the brakes to cool. Conditioned air was used to expedite brake cooling and brakes returned to normal temperatures in about 20 minutes. The lower ECAM screen indicated an 'EIS DMC [Display Management Computer] 1 Fault' and a mechanic positioned the EIS DMC switch on the lower center consol from normal to the DMC 3 position by the mechanic and all three blank screens returned to normal display. As the mechanic was working the problem; the Captain contacted Dispatch and the Chief to insure that all checklists and requirements were met prior to continue with a deferred DMC 1. All agreed to continue and; after sufficient brake cooling; we departed with no further incident. Upon our arrival DMC 1 was replaced and the DMCs were returned to normal operations.




Synopsis: An A320 crew rejected their takeoff below 100 KTS when a DMC fault caused the Captain's flight displays and the upper multi-function screen to blank out. After brakes cooled and maintenance deferred the #1 DMC the flight continued to its destination.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TTD.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D TTD
ATC / advisory: Tower TTD
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was departing on a routine flight. When I talked to ground control for a taxi clearance; I requested following and was given departure instructions with a squawk code and departure frequency. After pre takeoff checks; I switched over to Tower frequency; and was cleared for takeoff on Runway 25. I acknowledged the clearance and taxied on Alpha 8 Taxiway towards the end of the runway. Prior to lining up on the runway center line; I made a 45 degree left turn to check for landing traffic; and it was clear. I then lined up with the runway and advanced the throttle to full. I rotated at 70 knots; and then lowered the nose to about 80 knots. At around 250 feet AGL on my climb out; suddenly a helicopter appeared off my left wing tip. The helicopter was traveling the same direction as myself; descending; and was much slower. My position was in front of the Control Tower; approximately 20 feet north of the center line of Runway 25. The position of the helicopter was in front of the Control Tower; and between Taxiway Bravo and Runway 25.  I believe that the helicopter was descending to Taxiway Bravo. I don't know from which direction initially; or whether they had a clearance to do so. However; they had drifted north of the taxiway significantly. And had I drifted to the left of the center line instead of slightly to the right; and they would have drifted just a little more into the active runway area; there is a good possibility that they would have landed on top of my wings.  Since it seems unlikely that ATC would not know about this slow moving helicopter; why was I cleared for takeoff in the first place? Especially because it wasn't even busy! And since I was cleared for takeoff; why was neither the helicopter nor myself informed about the other's position? If the helicopter was cleared for an approach to the taxiway; why were 2 aircraft given clearances on a close collision course? The problem is that it is very difficult; if not impossible for either aircraft to see each other in this situation; making it more dangerous than other close traffic encounters. And I was given a direct clearance for this!  Obviously; the solution would be to not have cleared us for takeoff. After all; I would rather burn a little more fuel than have an avoidable accident; but since I was cleared for takeoff; I should have been informed of the other traffic.




Synopsis: Cessna 172 pilot reported an NMAC with a helicopter on departure from TTD. Reporter stated he would have appreciated a traffic alert call from ATC.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Commercial Operator (UAS)
Operating under: Part 107
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: Commercial Operator (UAS)
Reporter function: Remote PIC (UAS)
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student; Flight Crew Remote Pilot (UAS)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other day after flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Operation in violation of Certificate of Waiver issued for UAS flights of multiple aircraft. I was issued a part 107 waiver to operate multiple aircraft with one remote pilot. One of my waiver provisions is to issue a NOTAM 24 hrs in advance of my operation. I flew yesterday without a NOTAM issued. We had issued a NOTAM to close the runway at airport ZZZ in which our operations are taking place. I thought this NOTAM was sufficient to satisfy our requirements.  When reading the operational waiver again today I took note that provision X of my waiver was not satisfied by the issuance of a closed runway NOTAM [as follows]:Not less than 24 hours prior to conducting operations that are the subject of this waiver; a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) must be filed. The NOTAM must include location; altitude; and/or operating area; time and nature of the activity; and number of sUA flying in the operating area; To correct my mistake I called to issue a NOTAM as soon as I discovered my error.




Synopsis: UAS Pilot reported noncompliance of CFR part 107 waiver due to not issuing a NOTAM.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 3 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ORD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Taxiing into the ramp area at ORD; we twice had to bring the aircraft to a stop due to two fuel trucks not giving way to us/not staying behind the white lines by the gates. One fuel truck drove right under our left wing outside of the white safety lines. We were on the 'line' taxiing to our gate and the fuel truck was southbound along the east side of the concourse. Reporting this to the Ramp Tower; I was told this is a recurring problem all day long. The Company Ramp Manager has complained to the Fueling Company; all to no avail. The drivers seem to have no regard for other aircraft; safety lines; rules; etc. The Fueling Company needs to educate the drivers in airport rules. I have a feeling they already know those; but knowingly; willingly; blatantly decide to disregard them. Suggest ORD/Chicago Police be dispatched to monitor the trucks and take appropriate action when needed; before a collision with aircraft occurs.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Captain approaching the concourse had to stop his aircraft twice to avoid fueling trucks which did not remain within ground traffic safety lines or give way to taxiing aircraft.