elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Was being vectored for stadium visual approach at 4000 ft. Was given slow to 190 kts (from 240 kts) and cross TEB at 3000 ft. cleared for Stadium Visual approach. Went to LVL change with speed brakes out to get slowed/configured; got distracted trying to get flaps 10 deployed as the airspeed kept gusting up to 210 kts. We set touchdown zone elevation in around TEB and I was getting the aircraft further configured for landing. I forgot to reselect VNAV and we descended to around 1300 ft. and got a low altitude warning from Tower. I was visually flying the aircraft already and proceeded to click off the auto throttles and climb back to 1500 ft. by SLIMR and landed.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported receiving a low altitude alert from TEB Tower on a visual approach.  Lack of awareness of FMS mode was cited as contributing.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Galley Furnishing
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: The [Galley] Oven racks don't stay in place and do not lock when pulling meals out.  During the flight there is potential of getting burned or severely hurt.  What is the best way to retrieve the meals and prevent the oven racks from falling out?  Is this [situation] violating an FAR since they [racks] are not secure and have the potential of causing serious harm?  What steps is our air carrier taking to ensure the safety of its employees?  Safety Concern.

Callback: Reporter stated that although the new galley oven racks are made of metal; they are very flimsy; bend easily; especially when loaded with two or three hot food plates and do not have safety stops to prevent the racks from completely sliding out of the hot oven compartment. Their B737-900s came with the new ovens and racks and have also been installed on their reconfigured two-class B767 aircraft. He doesn't know if the B737-800s have the new ovens. Galley ovens on previous fleet model aircraft he has worked had much stiffer metal racks with safety stops that prevented the rack (tray) from completely sliding out of the oven. Flight Attendant would have had to lift the rack up to clear a lip (safety stop) before they could remove the hot plate rack. Reporter stated that numerous internal company documents have been filed by flight attendants about hands; arms; and upper body areas being contacted by the hot plates or splattered by hot food caused by the racks falling out of the ovens due to the lack of safety stops as the racks are pulled out to access the hot plates. No response yet from his air carrier about improving the strength and adding safety stops to the new oven racks.



Synopsis: A Flight Attendant reports the new galley oven hot plate racks on their B737-900 and B767-300 aircraft are very flimsy; do not stay in place and do not lock when pulling meals out. Previous oven racks had safety stops. Concerns also raised about the potential for getting burned or severely hurt.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: VFR UNCONTROLLED AIRPORT.  Visual approach with unlimited visibility. We chose to RNAV 03 for awareness. From approximately 15 miles I stated that there is a terrain issue with this approach. We elected to continue with the autopilot flying to allow us to better scan for VFR aircraft. As we approached the hill under the path I stated that I would be surprised if we didn't get a GPWS. We were almost past the hill when the GND PROX momentarily annunciated and extinguished faster than you could respond. (No PULL UP)...I contacted FOQUA to review this airport.




Synopsis: Captain reported problems with approach because of terrain; causing Ground Proximity warnings resulting in an unstabilized approach.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-30 Twin Comanche
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Elected to reject takeoff after airborne due to lack of acceleration and climb performance. I was not in position to trouble shoot problem and took conservative action to avoid loss of control. I could have selected the longer runway for departure which would have improved margin of error for existing conditions at [the] airport.




Synopsis: PA-30 pilot reported rejecting the takeoff after liftoff because of poor aircraft performance.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flying at [cruise] altitude we received an EICAS message C HYD QTY. After checking our status page we realized we were down [to] 49 percent. Realizing we had a leak in the center system we elected to depressurize the system by turning off both electric pumps and the center demand pump and switching autopilot from center to left. This stopped the loss of fluid. We now had one hour and 20 minutes to plan for a total loss of the center system and our plan of action. Since we had 49 percent left in the center system and this was holding we decided we would turn the pumps on when on approach and see if gear and flaps would extend normally. We discussed our option if they did not and we both were well versed on HYDRAULIC SYSTEM PRESSURE (C ONLY) checklist. On approach flaps and gear did extend; however fluid loss was increasing. We had discussed that the loss of all center fluid down to the standpipe was a possibility; so we could use reserve brakes and steering if needed. Approach and landing were normal and we had 11 percent fluid left with steering commands normal. We taxied in leaving the flaps down and had enough fluid to steer to parking. The cause of the leak was determined to be an o-ring the size of a dime that had deteriorated.




Synopsis: B767 pilot reported landing safely with a leak in the C hydraulic system that ultimately reduced quantity to 11%.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Wheel Assemblies
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other after the fact
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Found damaged #2 main landing gear tire; replaced #2 wheel assembly.After removing installed wheel and before transporting it back to [the] hangar; failed to deflate the damaged tire in accordance with the Aircraft Maintenance Manual NOTE '...deflate the tire to prevent transporting an inflated tire.' Tire assembly was shipped still inflated.




Synopsis: A Maintenance Technician reported neglecting to deflate an unserviceable landing gear tire prior to shipping it.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Light: Night
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Time Pressure; Distraction; Confusion; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: In about an hour when I took the desk a flight reported that ATC in ZZZZ area issued very long reroute and crew asked for help and figure out what was the reason for the offset. I advised OM; chief dispatcher and ATC coordinator desk for help to figure that out because dispatcher is not supposed to call ATC facility directly. The investigation took some time and in about 30-40 min crew reported that ATC put them back on filed route. Such deviation cost fuel and crew started thinking about a fuel stop somewhere [along the route]. Crew calculations along with mine showed that REMF [Remaining fuel] dropped down from 16.0 down to 12.5 lb or about an hour. Optimizing route did not make a difference to save fuel so I advised the crew that we were working on possible fuel stop preferably at online station. Crew decided to continue to their filed destination and make a final decision later based on fuel progress. Further investigation proved that Sabre handled airspace restriction but due to 40 mins delay it put the flight thru the time frame when restricted airspace become active.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported a B777 crew on an international flight was rerouted by foreign ATC which cost time and fuel. Dispatch discovered later that a 45 minute airspace restriction along their filed route necessitated the reroute.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: None
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Wheel
Component problem: Design; Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: General safety concern to raise awareness of recent safety of flight issue. Three incidents of nose wheel bearing failure on Company MD-11 aircraft have occurred within the last 10 months [on three separate aircraft at 3 separate locations]. Through our software I do not see this happening prior to 11/XX/16. This issue happens at high speed during takeoff and landing. Douglas MD-11 nosewheel installation and design is unique to all other Company fleet types. My observations are as follows:1) MD-11 nose wheel final torque is the lowest of all Company fleet 25ft/lbs. Initial torque is also comparatively low. 2) Axle sleeve that contains both inner and outer bearing races (possibly migrates).3) Tang washer part# ACG7220-1 contains a small 90 degree lip. This lip must fully seat in narrow channel made by axle and axle sleeve. 4) Tang washer is a snug fit circumferentially (possibly cocks sideways during installation). 5) Safety bolt does not go through axle. Douglas MD-11 nose gear design is cantered and set back further. During hard turns heavy side loads occur on the wheel and axle in the direction of the turn.

Callback: The reporter stated he's been in the industry over 30 years and this is the first time he has seen nose wheel bearings fail. The reporter stated since the beginning of the year he has seen 4 failures. The reporter also stated that flight crews would write this up as a nose wheel vibration or shimmy and the mechanic would find the nose wheel bearings completely destroyed and the wheel leaning against the strut. The reporter stated that he doesn't have any idea of what caused the failure and only suspects that the wheel shop is installing incorrect bearings. The reporter stated since he wrote the report he has changed his mind suspecting the tab washer as being a problem.



Synopsis: MD-11 Maintenance Technician reported 3 incidents of nose wheel bearing failures.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Duchess 76
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Propeller Pitch Change Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After completing several landings at a local airport; I requested a full stop taxi back to the active runway. Upon exiting the runway the propeller on the left engine feathered without an adjustment of the prop governor or a decrease in oil pressure. The RPMs were low but the manifold pressure remained high which was an immediate notification that something was not right.Because only one propeller feathered it made it difficult and unsafe to continue taxiing at the controlled airfield. I then requested assistance from Tower and informed them of the situation. We were clear of all runways but sat on Taxiway A until the FBO was able to tow us back to the ramp. The problem has occurred three times before on the same aircraft. The aircraft has been squawked previously and returned to service but the problem persists.




Synopsis: An instructor pilot aboard a Beech Duchess was surprised when; after turning off the runway following a landing; the left propeller feathered for no apparent reason. This was the fourth instance of this exact event despite the aircraft being returned to service following each of the prior three events.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Just after accepting [this desk] as part of the turnover process; Aircraft X sent an ACARS indicating they had just encountered severe turbulence at FL240 just west of ZZZZZ. I asked the crew to confirm severe; which they did; and we ended up conducting an ARINC call. The crew informed me they encountered SEVERE TURB; +/- 40kts; loss of control; roll to the left and right of up to 40 degrees and a loss of altitude of 200 to 300 feet. The flight was planned at FL340; above the forecast turbulence ZZZ area; which was FL260 - FL330 [along that route of flight] with remarks on the release. During the subsequent 'Call Me'; the crew indicated ATC informed them the best rides were FL240; so they halted their climb at FL240. After the severe event they descended to FL200 where they reported it was smooth. The crew informed me there were no injuries; AC (aircraft) damage; and everyone was seated including the FA's (Flight Attendants) during the severe event.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported receiving a flight crew message indicating a temporary loss of aircraft control during severe turbulence encounter.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZSE; Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Filed SUMMA9 BKE transition; clearance was SUMMA9 J54 BKE. We looked and saw they overlaid each other so we left the BKE transition in the box. Approaching SUMMA and passing through transition level and running checklist; ATC gave us direct to KOTAA. Requested spelling and thought we heard KOTTA and inserted that into the box; which displayed within 160 miles of our position but not on J54. We knew something was not correct; we requested spelling again; got it in the box and were turning when ATC gave us a heading on course.Lesson learned: Type in SUMMA9 J54 BKE (without BKE transition) so as to have the points in the box.Questions I have: Why does ATC sometimes feel the need to give us a 'direct' clearance just a few miles before we are approaching a turn point? Maybe one of those two waypoints (KOTAA & KOTTA) need a name change as they are very similar and near each other.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported being cleared direct to KOTAA; but mistakenly entered KOTTA which is 221 NM southwest.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Oil Line
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the walk around; my FO (First Officer) informed me that the engine was leaking oil. When I went back with them to see how bad it was; I saw about 2 quarts of oil on the ground in a 3 feet wide puddle on the ground. The engine was still dripping oil and there was a noticeable trail all the way back from where we taxied in. I immediately informed Dispatch and Maintenance. When Contract Maintenance came out; they had us start the engine so they could see where the oil was coming from. During the run-up; we were losing about a quart of oil a minute and the oil was coming from a cut in a pressurized oil line. Turns out a coupling on the pneumatic hose for the starter was incorrectly installed; so that it was rubbing against a pressurized oil line and ended up chafing a 1/8 inch cut in it. It was lucky the majority of the cut happened on landing because if it happened in the air; we would have lost the engine in a matter of minutes. Maintenance also remarked that it looks like the engine was freshly installed because there were many couplings all over the engine that were improperly installed and/or loose.First Officer observed oil spillage on walk around. Improperly installed components on engine. Called Maintenance and cancelled the flight. Better maintenance inspections and stressing the importance of not skipping the walk-around.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported the First Officer discovering an engine oil leak during the pre-flight walkaround.