elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fire/Overheat Warning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: 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: Chart Or Publication; Procedure; MEL; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [EICAS] Status message - DET TURB OVHT ENG R about one hour into flight. Checked for message in QRH. Could not find. Relief Pilot and First Officer later checked and could not find either. Sent notification to Dispatch. They requested we call [Maintenance]. Upon [communication] patch with Maintenance; it was determined that a cautionary landing was recommended. Maintenance stated there was no Turbine Overheat notification protection and therefore a landing [best] best course of action. Maintenance stated QRH required this for the indication. We stated we found no such status message in our QRH; but decided best course to follow Maintenance and Dispatch recommendation. Requested ATC course direct ZZZ and declared an emergency. Reviewed QRH procedures for an Overweight Landing and elected to do so. Landed on speed at 157 KTS/500 FPM descent rate at 552 K. Normal rollout. Remaining issue is why above status message not in QRH? Did find it in MEL under 77-3. If item can be flight crew placarded; why air interrupt the flight? [Recommend] update/correct QRH for above Status message. Dispatch/Maintenance recommendation inconsistent with MEL. However; we opted on the side of conservancy rather than continue. Indication malfunction.


Second narrative: Decision made to return to ZZZ; declared emergency; reviewed procedures for Overweight Landing and executed same. Landing; rollout and taxi in [was] uneventful. The status light and its relationship to the QRH are confusing as written.


Synopsis: Four pilots question why an air turnback was recommended by Maintenance when the same EICAS Status message for a Right Engine Turbine Overheat indication on their B777-200 aircraft could be placarded by the flight crew; in flight; under MEL 77-3. An emergency was also declared. No reference to status message in their QRH. Erratic Autothrottles on final also noted.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 40
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After being switched on downwind from XXL to XXR; requiring overflying the field; and then being told to go around and switch again to XXL; the engine sputtered and lost power while on downwind for XXL; approximately abeam the departure end. I immediately began a 90deg turn toward the runway and advised tower I would be landing against traffic (on YYR). I was able to lower the gear and partial flaps; complete the 2nd 90 deg turn onto the runway; landing about 2000 ft down. Tower directed traffic on final to XXL to go around. I turned off the runway at Taxiway X; but had to get out and pull the plane across the line.This experimental aircraft has both fuel gauges and a fuel flow/totalizer instrument. The gauges are not very accurate; and in the past I have depended on the totalizer for actual fuel-on-board.  In this case; the gauges were reading empty (as they often do below ~7 gals/side); but the totalizer reported 13.3 gallons remaining (of 60 gals total capacity) when I entered the pattern. After pulling the plane to a safe area; I sumped both sides and both showed no fuel. I added 3.5 gals from a gas can to the right tank. The engine started fine and I taxied the plane to the hangar without incident.  I was very lucky indeed.I am not the builder; but the 3rd owner of this unusual GP-4 experimental aircraft. In my honest opinion; the discrepancy between the heretofore reliable fuel totalizer and the actual gauges led me to disregard the gauges; the wrong response.  Because of the tank arrangement in the plane; it is not possible to 'stick' the tanks to check fuel. I think that the correct fix for this problem is 3-fold. [1] Replace the unreliable fuel  gauges with a carefully calibrated digital system. [2] Recalibrate the fuel flow/totalizer instrument over a number of flights against actual measured fuel used. [3] Until both #1 and #2 are completed; fully fill the tanks and set a *maximum* flight time of 4.5 hours between fills. (Nominal average fuel burn; chock-to-chock; is 10 gph. Total capacity is 60 gals; so this should leave at least 15 gals as minimum fuel.




Synopsis: GP-4 pilot reported loss of power on downwind due to fuel exhaustion.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: System Monitor: Indicating and Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After leveling at 10;000 ft MSL; IMC; we had an ICE caution message appear. We turned on the wing anti-ice system. The cowl anti-ice was already on. Shortly after an ANTI-ICE DUCT warning message posted on ED1. While we were running the QRH checklist the warning message extinguished. It did not reoccur. Then an ANTI-ICE DUCT caution message posted on ED2 for approximately 15 seconds; then cleared. It did not reoccur. Approximately 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch of rime was visible on the wiper arm at this time. We notified ATC and requested an emergency return to ZZZ and lower altitude to get out of the freezing precipitation. An intermittent R Wing A/I (anti-ice) caution message posted until landing. It did not stay up long enough to run the R WING A/I caution QRH checklist. We returned to ZZZ safely. No ice accumulation was noted on post flight inspection.  Apparent equipment failure. Wing anti-ice warning and caution messages in icing conditions with ice accumulating.




Synopsis: CRJ900 pilot reported experiencing intermittent R Wing A/I Caution messages during cruise.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D JAC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Fatigue; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Staffing; Human Factors; Company Policy; Weather
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: I was on the sector for a long time and every aircraft I spoke with deviated around weather the entire time. For 2 months now we've been working up to 2 hours at a time; sometimes over. We're fried mentally. A controller comes in to relieve me and I tell him to work my Assist for a minute while I get caught up. He sits there and doesn't help; so now I'm really behind. We released the first arrival and a departure while I leave the aircraft direct to downwind to build in space. I cleared the aircraft for a visual approach and I thought the first aircraft was about to land so I cleared the second aircraft for the visual approach and shipped him to Tower but I think the first aircraft had flown around the airport to lose altitude or something while I was trying to get my deviating route lines caught up. I shipped the second aircraft to Tower when the first aircraft wasn't on the ground but Tower used visual separation so it was okay; but we are operating on a razors edge with not nearly enough staffing and we're getting killed. Help us. Staff our area and facility! We are keeping airplanes apart in impossible conditions every day and being set up to fail. We're all sick of it. You should have an Assist position any time there are JAC arrivals and weather but we are pressured to run without one due to low staffing. Unacceptable!




Synopsis: Center Controller reported clearing an aircraft for visual approach and handoff to Tower prior to receiving a landing assured call for previous aircraft.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
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
Reporter qualification: Other Safety Analyst
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Hidden dangerous goods found in container from Aircraft X at warehouse by breakdown. 31 piece nickel metal hydride batteries found in one fiberboard box in bad condition not prevented from short circuits.




Synopsis: Safety Analyst reported discovering packaging and handling errors of HAZMAT shipment on arrival.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZAU
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Second aircraft: Sail Plane
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Environment - Non Weather Related; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Very near miss/midair with white glider while on the FISSK4 arrival into MDW. Was at 250 knots [and] 4;000 feet as I recall in contact with Chicago. Approximately over IGQ airport; close to the boundary of the mode C veil on the charts. Glider came from left to right; I saw it at the last second and realized it was going to come very close in front of us but we were not going to collide. No time to react or even say anything or take the controls from the SIC. I alerted Chicago of the near miss and at that time said we missed by 500 feet. After analyzing the event it was much closer; maybe 100 feet - 200 feet vertical and horizontal. I could see the pilot inside the glider. No TCAS alert or target; even with it on the 7.5 mile range. Chicago had no target or communications with the glider. No evasive maneuver was accomplished. Landed uneventful and passengers were unaware of the event.




Synopsis: Captain reported an NMAC with a glider while on approach to MDW airport.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Captain flying descent on BUFIE arrival. Captain reset altitude window for descent on arrival to lowest crossing limit. Captain commanded aircraft start down early for crossing restriction with the expectation of LNAV clearance direct to SLI at our request. Aircraft began descent for crossing restriction and when I noticed altitude deviation I told the Captain. Captain immediately corrected the deviation. ATC issued a clearance direct SLI immediately after the deviation.




Synopsis: When the Captain of a B757-200 preset the bottom altitude of an anticipated RNAV STAR clearance he failed to ensure an appropriate VNAV mode and the aircraft began a premature descent.  The First Officer intervened and ATC shortly issued the anticipated clearance.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Exhaust System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Exhaust gas leak on board while conducting a biannual flight review. Upon entering left midfield downwind; I noticed a smell of exhaust fumes in the cockpit and requested right turn out direct to ZZZ. Tower approved this turn out and we headed direct to ZZZ at 2500 feet. Upon reaching 2500 both pilot and I (instructor) began feeling symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning. We slowed the aircraft down momentarily to open the windows to get additional fresh air into the cockpit. We then proceeded to close the windows so we could get our speed up to land back at ZZZ for a straight in approach. We requested all other traffic in the area to heed us so we could arrive with no delay and everyone flying at ZZZ made sure to stay clear and help us arrive as quickly as possible. I did not officially declare an emergency with ATC as it was more vital to communicate my intentions with the traffic currently flying at ZZZ which proved to be a huge help to us; however I should have declared an emergency with the other tower and landed there as soon as I smelled the exhaust rather than try to make it back to ZZZ.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported detecting exhaust fumes while in the traffic pattern and elected to depart the pattern and return to home base.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: 7M3.Airport, AR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-7
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZME
ATC / advisory: CTAF 7M3
Second aircraft: Beechcraft Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: While conduction a 141 stage check for cross country training enroute I had the student divert to 7M3 (Bearce Airport as labeled on the sectional chart). While in the process of diversion I heard a radio call over multi-comm 122.9 for a Baron B58 enroute to Mount Ida airport. Looking at the sectional there is no clear indication that 7M3 is associated with Mount Ida as there are several small towns in the vicinity. This diversion was done as part of a 141 stage check to assess the student's ability to divert while in the air and a sectional was the only document referenced. While on a base descent to set up for landing I caught sight of a Baron B58 passing below us on final. A climbing right turn was executed out of the pattern. I announced over 122.9 for the position of a Baron in vicinity of Bearce. And a Baron replied that he was on final into Mount Ida Airport. The Baron had broadcasted a single call that was inbound to Mount Ida; I had broadcasted several calls as to our intentions to land at Bearce. After talking to some other local pilots the airport's name as stated on its sign is Mount Ida Airport; yet the sectional provides no indication directly of this name. This situation could have been avoided by using the proper terminology as stated on the sectional map and also by myself consulting an AF/D possibly prior to the flight. If the airport is commonly known as Mount Ida its name on the sectional should include this to avoid future confusion.




Synopsis: A flight instructor reported an airborne conflict; due in part to airport name confusion. Reporter was inbound to 7M3; an airport that is listed as Bearce Airport on sectional charts; but is often referred to as Mount Ida by pilots familiar with the airport.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Nacelle/Pylon Skin
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During preflight; First Officer found a crack in the inboard pylon of the Number 3 engine. The crack had migrated across a previous weld. The crack was reported to Maintenance; and written up in the logbook. Maintenance consulted with Maintenance Control and determined that the crack could be stop-drilled; an EA was required; requested and received. A two hour delay was incurred. Original crack was welded. Crack started at a rivet hole and migrated across the weld. Several things bother me. Why was this not discovered by Maintenance? Why did the out-going crew miss the crack unless it started on our flight which is doubtful. I think we need an individual from flight operations with a significant maintenance background and use them to QA maintenance on our aircraft. I have flown with this First Officer before and he keeps finding things that are being missed. Maintenance apparently needs more people...staffing adequate.




Synopsis: MD11 Captain reports a crack in the inboard pylon of the Number 3 engine being discovered by the First Officer during preflight. A previous crack had been repaired by welding; but the crack had propagated through the weld. A stop drill is authorized and accomplished. The Captain questions scrutiny of the aircraft by Maintenance and other flight crews.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
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 ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic System
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Just after takeoff we received a 'Bleed 1 Overpress' Caution msg. We waited until completing the after takeoff checklist and the autopilot was engaged before running the QRH procedure. The aircraft we were flying had Pack #1 deferred and this played a role in the mistake I made. The QRH procedure directed me to cycle the #1 Bleed button and I mistakenly cycled the #1 Pack button. After cycling the #1 Bleed button if the root caution msg is still present the procedure isolates the duct and requires a return to the nearest suitable airport.  We [advised ATC] and returned to ZZZ. All other checklists and procedures were completed [and the] remainder of the flight was uneventful.The primary cause was misreading the QRH procedure. I feel that had I cycled the Bleed 1 button we would have cleared the msg and we could have continued to our filed destination. I fixated on the existing MEL associated with the #1 pack and that led to not carefully reading the QRH. Also when I saw a diversion would be necessary if the msg persisted; I got ahead of myself by beginning to immediately think about how to handle the divert.Slow down and take time. Reread checklists and procedures. Also do [not] assume association of MELs to other caution msgs.




Synopsis: ERJ-175 First Officer reported returning to departure airport after receiving a 'Bleed 1 Overpress' caution message and incorrectly running the QRH.