elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Enroute [from] ZZZ; [we] received Master Caution light at 36;000 feet for System A Engine Driven Hydraulic Pump. [We] executed QRH procedure then noticed quantity in System A was zero without the expected additional caution lights.Executed phone patch to Dispatch and Maintenance on ARINC. Maintenance expressed concern about running electric pump with a zero quantity indication.[We requested priority and] diverted to nearby to ZZZ1. [We] checked overweight landing app and hydraulic loss landing chart. [We] tried lowering landing gear early resulting in total loss of System A including expected low pressure lights. [We] conducted second Hydraulic QRH procedure for total loss of System A and integrated 737 qualified jumpseater in Manual Gear Extension procedure. Landed Runway XX at ZZZ1. ARFF personnel inspected aircraft and revealed tire damage and leaking hydraulic fluid. [We] had gear chocked and pinned. Passengers deplaned by [read] door and escorted by AARF to terminal on foot. [We] turned aircraft over to local Maintenance and contacted ZZZ Chief Pilot.It seems the #3 tire shredded and caused System A hydraulics to leak. Tire shred was unknown until after landing.Loss of System A QRH procedure starts with three low pressure annunciator indications; but we only had one of these; initially causing speculation whether this was the correct procedure to apply or not.


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


Synopsis: Boeing 737-800 flight crew reported the complete loss of System A hydraulic fluid after a supply line was damaged by a tire failure.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 15
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Global Express (BD700)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Just after passing ZZZ Intersection we received an amber 'HYD 1 LO QTY' CAS message. We then displayed the hydraulic synoptic on the #4 DU for review and initiated the appropriate checklist. On the synoptic; we noticed the hydraulic system 1 quantity at 16% fluid and depleting rapidly. Anticipating total fluid loss we reviewed the HYD 1 LO PRESS checklist as a precaution; discussed situation; and elected to divert the aircraft to ZZZZ. In the descent to ZZZZ and hydraulic system 1 quantity at 6%; we started the APU and elected to perform a precautionary shutdown of the #1 engine. This was done after discussion and systems review to prevent possible further safety issues and aircraft system damage.  [ATC was advised] at this time to ensure flight safety and priority handling. Shortly after precautionary engine shutdown; the quantity and pressure on hydraulic system 1 fully depleted. We then completed all appropriate single engine approach and landing checklists and subsequent single engine landing at ZZZZ with no further flight issues.




Synopsis: A Bombardier Global Express HYD 1 LO QTY CAS alerted so the crew completed the HYD 1 LO PRESS Checklist. They then secured the #1 engine as a precaution and diverted to the nearby airport.
Date: 202012
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I'm making a landing at ZZZ; I executed a missed approach on the first attempt.  On the second landing I failed to initiate a missed approach in time and had to continue to the landing due to obstacles that would possibly be in the flight path of a go-around.  Upon landing I was unable to stop the aircraft before exiting the end of the runway and hitting mowing equipment.




Synopsis: Pilot reported on second go-around; having to land to miss obstacles in the flight path.  Pilot was unable to stop aircraft and exited runway hitting equipment.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Navigation Light
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I did the walk-around prior to our flight. The navigation light switch was in the # 2 position which I've always known to illuminate the aft (outboard) Nav lights on the wing tips.  The right wing tip was illuminated correctly but the left wing tip light was illuminated in the # 1 position (forward and inboard).  When we switched it to the # 1 position then it illuminated the aft and outboard bulb. This seemed backwards from normal so we wrote up the discrepancy and after an hour of research maintenance said it was normal.  We both explained that we had never seen it before but they said that was how it was supposed to work according to their wiring diagram. So either we are being taught incorrectly and our FM is vague or the maintenance document is incorrect.  But I have never seen two different bulbs illuminated on opposite wing tips with a given switch position.

Callback: Reporter stated he saw the same A320 a week later and the same NAV light discrepancy still existed. He still suspects that having two different bulbs illuminated on opposite wing tips with a given switch position is not correct. Because if that opposite light bulb configuration is actually correct; that means all the other A320 aircraft are incorrect; which doesn't seem likely.



Synopsis: During a pre-departure walk-around; a First Officer (FO) notices two different light bulbs would illuminate on opposite wing tips when the A320 Navigation light switch was moved to either the # 1 or # 2 position. When in position #2; the right wing tip outboard aft Nav light was illuminated correctly; but on the left wing the inboard forward bulb was illuminated.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Returning to the airport after doing some air work the Tower advised winds were 19 [kts.] gusting to 24 from 190 degrees. Runway in use [would involve a crosswind landing] so I made the decision to ask for [a different runway] as it was slightly more favorable considering the tail wind component.[This] aircraft was manufactured with brakes only on the left side with a stick and rudder pedals only on the right side; where I sat during the flight.Because the passenger said he had never flown [this aircraft] before and after the airwork we agreed I should make the landing...aeronautical decision making failure on my part; should have gone somewhere else or waited for better winds.I briefed the left seater that if I had a problem keeping the aircraft pointed down the runway I would call for rudder and a tap on the brake.I landed; the crosswind overcame the rudder; I yelled for rudder and brake but off we went into the grass; taking out a runway distance marker; ground looped and wiped out both gears.Even though I had practiced a left seat landing four days earlier; it was outright dumb of me to attempt a landing in that kind of wind condition; and secondly; my skill level wasn't up to the situation. No one was hurt; thankfully; but the gear collapsed and the airplane was [damaged].




Synopsis: GA pilot reported loss of directional control on landing roll that resulted in a runway excursion and aircraft damage.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: Aircraft X started flashing for me to take the automated hand off over the HII airport which is in my airspace already.  The aircraft was showing at 090 descending to 060.  My MVA in the area is 061.  I called sector 10 who had control of the data block.  They were in the process of radar identifying the aircraft and stopped him at 080.  The controller at 10 told me he had just taken over the sector and was told the aircraft was radar contact lost but IFR.  I didn't have any other IFR traffic in the area.  No loss of separation.  There has been an ongoing problem with the radar coverage in that area.  I could see aircraft below Aircraft X but not him.  I believe the auto pop function activated when the aircraft got back into radar coverage and started the hand off.  Non radar procedure shouldn't have been needed during normal operations.  I believe that is why sector 10 didn't realize there was a problem with picking the aircraft back up before entering my airspace.  There has been several issues with the radar in the area of HII; EED; IFP airports.  This is one more example of an unsafe situation in my opinion because of the radar not functioning properly.




Synopsis: ZLA Controller describes a situation where an aircraft is auto handedoff to him but is already in his airspace.  He doesn't observe the target and coordinates with another sector who is handing off the aircraft to him.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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 Critical
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On taxi out; the aircraft behind us reported fire and smoke in engine number two tailpipe. We determined no cockpit indication of fire. We accomplished the Severe Engine Damage QRC and subsequent QRH. We shut down the number two engine; pulled the number 2 fire handle; and disconnected the autothrottle. No other actions were required of the QRH. The First Officer requested fire trucks to inspect the engine. I communicated with the Flight Attendants and passengers regarding the situation at hand. I asked the Lead Flight Attendant to visually inspect the tailpipe of the number two engine. She reported back to me that there was some residual smoke but no fire. We established communication with Fire and Rescue. Fire and Rescue and Maintenance visually inspected the aircraft. They reported back that the smoke had subsided. After approximately 10 to 15 minutes; they gave us approval to connect the tug and safely proceed to gate. The APU was started; and engine number one was also shut down. The Flight Attendants advised on debrief that the overall atmosphere in the cabin was calm throughout the event. The taxi back to gate was uneventful.


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


Synopsis: B737NG flight crew reported shutting down the Number 2 engine after smoke and flames were reported by another aircraft.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Tank Cap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Relief Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: About 20 minutes after takeoff; Lead flight attendant called the flight deck to inform us that a passenger observed fluid coming from the right wing. I asked; what color of fluid the passenger had seen; she informed me clear fluid.As relief pilot; I exited the flight deck about 10 minutes later to observe the right wing. I observed what I would judge to be about 1 or 2 gallon per minute of fluid streaming from the trailing edge of the right wing; and could trace the origin to the mid-wing fuel cap. I called the flight deck to inform the Captain of the situation. About 15 minutes later; the Captain called back to the cabin to ask me to reassess the leak. I observed no change in the situation.I returned to the flight deck to find the duty crew had initiated fuel dumping and had coordinated a diversion. I assisted in calculating our landing fuel; ACARS communication with dispatch; informing the flight attendants and passengers; and reviewing the QRH; as well as making logbook entries.After an uneventful landing; we were able to get the fuel cap O-ring replaced. Flight attendant duty time was an issue but they voluntarily waved their limit and we were on our way within about 4 hours. Remainder of the flight was uneventful.




Synopsis: B767-300 Relief Pilot reported that they observation of fuel streaming from the trailing edge of the right wing. It was determined that the source of the leak was a wing-tank fuel cap; and an uneventful return to the departure airport was accomplished.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Received the clearance to fly the HUDAD1 RNAV Departure in DFW via PDC. On the PDC clearance the Altitude clearance was 'climb via SID' with no altitude listed. I consulted the departure using my LIDO charts. On the depiction the chart said for initial altitude see inset. I looked at the inset and saw an altitude of 5000 feet listed for YAMEL. I thought this was the initial assigned altitude so I set it in the altitude preselect. I briefed the clearance with the captain before pushback and the error was not detected. We taxied out to runway 17R and were cleared for takeoff. As we climbed we were told to contact departure. The captain checked in with departure and we continued to climb to 5000 feet. We began to level off at 5000 and remained there for a few seconds when departure queried as to what our assigned altitude was. The captain told him 5000. He told us to check the departure and that it was in fact 10000. He told us to continue the climb to 10;000; which we did. The captain apologized and the controller said 'no problem'. It didn't seem to be an issue with the controller since there was no traffic in the immediate vicinity. The LIDO chart format has very important information scattered. While it may seem trivial; having a visual depiction and a textual description on 2 separate pages is not user friendly. We cannot compare the two side by side. The visual depiction of the departure and the assigned altitude was also misleading. It has been very difficult to transition to the information depiction on LIDO charts; especially when going into unfamiliar airports. The only two ways this can be solved is getting comfortable with the charts; which may or may not happen and may result in other transgressions before one is comfortable. The other way is to use charts with better depictions of the important information; such as Jeppesen.




Synopsis: EMB 175 FO reported difficulty interpreting the LIDO charts used for a DFW departure.
Date: 201906
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi; Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Flight XXX loaded without bags to secure. [Load Planning] talked to Lead and the Supervisor to correct the issue but issue corrected only on [load report]; but not on aircraft. Asked audit for arrival and no action taking by ZZZ team. Hazmat wasn't secure with bags and showing 15 bags in Pit 4 was not loaded.




Synopsis: Air carrier Load Planner reported; after aircraft departure; loading documents were altered to suggest correct Hazmat load configuration.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Safety Instrumentation & Information
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Troubleshooting; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While climbing through approximately 10;000 feet; we were alerted to a VIA (Versatile Integrated Avionics) FAILURE. After checking the QRH; multiple alerts began appearing. I contacted Maintenance Control and Dispatch and relayed our situation. They suggested a return to the departure airport. The alerts continued; and I declared an emergency. We had no map displays; the DU's (Display Units) were flickering; the Captains' airspeed indicator was unreliable; the stall warning was going off; no autopilot or autothrottles; and we were in manual pressurization mode. The First Officer was the flying pilot and did an outstanding job while I tried to prioritize what we had and didn't have. We landed and after evaluating the condition of the aircraft; decided to taxi to the gate with CFR trucks following us.It appears the #1 VIA had a complete failure. The QRH was no help. The level 1 alert only states; 'Do Not Change EIS Source' and that the fuel quantity comparator will be inaccurate. I feel the QRH should give you a bit more info as to what to expect.




Synopsis: A B717 VIA (Versatile Integrated Avionics) #1 failed in flight with numerous failures including the Captain's airspeed; stall warning; autopilot and autothrottles. An emergency was declared while the flight returned to the departure airport.