elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise at FL350 Level 1 SYS 3 Air Off alert. Ran QRH and was messaging Dispatch to check weather and if they wanted us to continue with Wing Anti Ice unavailable. Checked weather at ZZZ1 ZZZ2 ZZZ3 about that time we got a Level 3 Manf Number 3 Fail alert. ZZZ was nearest suitable airport.


Second narrative: Returned to cockpit to find Captain working a QRH problem. We had an Air System 3 Off alert at cruise; a Level 1 alert. The air system schematic showed our manifold 3 in red and the MANF light red on the overhead. We were discussing the listed consequences. Not to pressurize the manifold if it was failed and lack of anti ice. We would have needed anti-ice to continue to destination. As the Captain was continuing to work through the QRH we received a momentary manifold fail. The manifold fail called for a diversion to the nearest suitable airport. We reviewed the weather and the captain decided to divert to the closest and it had VFR weather.


Synopsis: MD11 flight crew experiences a Level 1 SYS 3 Air Off alert at FL350; followed shortly by a Level 3 Manf Number 3 Fail alert. Crew diverts to the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I've had four Flaps 1 departures in the last four days; which is cool; because I get why we are doing it. It provides less engine stress because if you have adequate runway; it reduces your takeoff power significantly; BUT it also causes a significantly longer takeoff run. So; every takeoff in the last three days we hit the proceeding aircraft wake turbulence around 400 feet; and continued to stay in that wake turbulence till one of us made a turn away. B737; Airbus...etc wake can be quite disturbing but manageable; but if that happened behind a heavy; that might be more than disturbing.So; in the past; where a normal flaps 5 departure; we were probably all rotating at similar points; and the 737 was climbing maybe even above someone's low level wake; now; at flaps one; we're rotating most likely PAST previous aircraft rotation point and hitting their departure wake; fairly consistently; when it is at its strongest; low level; low speed; and heavy.Without any condescension at all; I'm guessing nobody thought about how a longer takeoff roll might impact initial rotation and climb into wake turbulence at high volume departure airports. Since the new performance software seems to lean in the direction of Flaps 1; if there's an available runway; this might increase controllability issues or worse on a more frequent basis.Flight dynamics; TERPS criteria and engine performance are not my expertise. I don't have a solution. I really like the new software. Maybe suggest that in high traffic airports; when there are multiple close in departures in affect; where low level wake turbulence could be a concern; the crew use their judgment to possibly run Flaps 5 data; and if permissible; run change triangles prior to departure? Only thing I can think of.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer expressed concern about using Flap 1 takeoff procedures; because with the longer takeoff roll a wake turbulence encounter is more likely.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Distraction; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After level-off at 35;000 ft. got a ECAM ENG ADV indication. #1 ENG Oil Temp was 168C. Followed QRH Supplemental Advisory for PW HI OIL TEMP. Oil quantity was good; no secondaries were observed; reduced power to Flight Idle; observed no reduction in temperature. Addressed QRH ENG HI OIL TEMP procedure which indicated imminent shutdown with conditions we were observing; temperature continued to rise and peaked at 176C. We were approaching ZZZ; decided to do an immediate divert with the intent of landing before engine shutdown became compulsory. Coordinated with Dispatch and [notified] ATC; landed at ZZZ. First Officer did an excellent job positioning and preparing aircraft for landing.


Second narrative: Hi Eng Oil Temp #1; got initial advisory at cruise. Leveled off 35;000 ft.; 168C. Followed QRH Advisory which led to Eng Oil Hi Temp QRH procedure. Temperature peaked at 176C; showed 36C to 40C hotter than #2. Engine during descent at flight idle. ATC was notified; did not shutdown engine.


Synopsis: A300 flight crew reported abnormally high engine oil temperature in number one engine. Flight immediately diverted prior to having to shut down the engine.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Extra 200/300 Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Balloon
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: There was a NOTAM for balloons in the vicinity but not one that said there would be balloons surrounding the airport making it impossible to land. Not just a few balloons but [almost one hundred] to be exact. I had to make unusual attitudes to land to avoid collision with any balloons. My wing tanks couldn't take the unusual attitudes and my engine quit just a few hundred feet from the ground. I had to make a quick landing and avoid the balloons.Just as a note: I started making position calls 25 miles out; and every 5 miles to 10 and then each mile. Not one of the [many dozens of] balloons replied. I know the frequency was good and my radio was good; because the ground crew at the FBO came out to watch me land dead stick. They then complemented me on the landing. To launch [close to a hundred] balloons all along the perimeter of the airport fence and not make appropriate notice is asking for an accident. I fueled and departed and notified several other aircraft in the vicinity and of the congestion and understatement of the NOTAM and they diverted.




Synopsis: Extra pilot reported maneuvering around hot air balloons near the destination airport led to fuel starvation on final approach.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CYEG.Airport, AB
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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: Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; MEL; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: Dispatched with MEL 32-XX-XX ECAM Brake Temperature Indication(s). [Aircraft Release] showed #2 ECAM Brake Temperature Indication Inoperative.Later discovered enroute that maintenance had entered an update to the work in progress for the #2 ECAM brake temperature indication including ECAM Brake #1; #5 and #6 temperature indications to the list of inoperative indications. It is my belief I dispatched with the incorrect MEL description. I should have had maintenance include the additional inoperative ECAM Brake Temperature Indications prior to accepting the aircraft. Post flight I discussed the issue with 2 line mechanics; Maintenance Control and the Duty Officer. All maintenance personnel believed that because the MEL allows us to dispatch with one or all indications inoperative; the maintenance work update was sufficient to update the MEL and it does not matter that the MEL did not include the #1; #5 or #6 ECAM Brake Temperature Indications into the MEL description. My Duty Officer was like me; unsure.The question arises if it is legal to dispatch with an MEL and later add updates to include more inoperative items under the same MEL but with no change to the initial description. My heartache to this approved procedure is that these maintenance updates can be pages long. Pilots want to know in the MEL description what is broken so they can adequately brief their MEL operational procedures. If a maintenance update is made that includes additional items to that MEL; I believe the MEL should be updated to include all items in the description. Before I left the aircraft; Maintenance did agree to include the additional inoperative items in the next Aircraft Release. I later checked and they complied with my request.




Synopsis: Captain reported that aircraft MEL was modified after takeoff; calling into question whether the aircraft was dispatched legally.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We pushed out on time and starting taxiing. We ran checklist and procedures as normal and didn't notice anything out of the normal. We took off and turned to heading 180 as instructed. Once in the turn Tower told us that there was some fluid coming out of the right wing and it was clearly visible during takeoff. We immediately requested to level off and Tower said 'maintain 6;000'. Shortly after; they also gave us a frequency change for further assistance if needed. I asked the Captain what he wanted to do and he said 'we are going to do a precautionary air return to [departure airport]'. I contacted Departure with altitude and our intentions to return; they asked for souls and fuel onboard even though we did not declare an emergency. I also stated that the reason for the return was a possible fuel leak and the return was precautionary. We also requested delayed vectors so we could analyze the situation; run any required checklist and set the airplane ready for landing. We ran the QRH on 'Fuel Leak'; and after only noticing that the right tank was consuming fuel at a faster rate than the left one; we started to get the airplane ready to land. Captain also asked for any input our jumpseater may have had; but he had nothing to say except to ask the Flight Attendant to check the top of the right wing for any abnormality. We brought the airplane down to the ground safely. We landed and came to a complete stop for the Fire Inspector to do a visual check. The Fire Inspector told us that is was ok to continue to the ramp shortly after. Captain contacted Maintenance Control and the issue was left in their hands.




Synopsis: EMB-145EP First Officer reported Tower informed them of a fuel leak shortly after takeoff. Flight returned to departure airport for a precautionary landing.
Date: 202010
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: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: It was a configuration 2 takeoff out of ZZZ and I was the PF. After passing 1;000 feet AFE; I selected climb power and the FO verified climb power. After accelerating through 'Flap' speed I called for 'Flaps 1;' the FO selected flaps 1 and called 'Flaps 1.' After the flaps were at 1 and as the airspeed was accelerating to '[Clean]' speed; I engaged auto pilot 1 and stated 'Autopilot 1.' While confirming autopilot 1 engagement on the FMA; I heard the FO say 'flaps up' while disarming the spoilers. I immediately stated 'Negative; Negative!' and reset the flap lever back to Flaps 1. After accelerating through '[Clean]' speed the flaps were retracted.I feel that saying 'Autopilot 1 or 2' can be confused with a flap configuration change. I have also noticed basic mistakes occurring with pilots returning from leave. It seems to happen a short time after their return to the line when comfort levels are starting to return.I feel that the PF should select autopilot on and use the callout 'Autopilot IS on.'




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a flap setting issue during climbout and stated that a callout sounding similar to the flap callout may have caused confusion.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HCF.TRACON, HI
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B HNL
ATC / advisory: Tower HNL
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was working the TRACON supervisor position when Aircraft X was sent around on runway 8L by local 1 due to an aircraft still on the runway. Local 2 was working an aircraft who was departing a parallel runway. There were numerous coordination's with the TRACON regarding headings and altitude of the two aircraft. In the end; Aircraft Y went to departure on a 120 heading; stopped at 2000 feet; which is below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA) and Aircraft X was on a 140 heading climbing to 040. Although I was not witness to the operation in the tower; and do not know what kinds of coordination happened; I feel having local 2 open in the tower is unsafe. The aircraft at Honolulu; both arrivals and departures; are so intertwined with each other that they should be on the same frequency; worked by the same person. Local 2 alleviates frequency congestion; but does not make the tower safer. It is unsafe to have aircraft in such close proximity to each other; crossing flight paths; and be on two different frequencies. I suggest terminating local 2 and going back to a single local control position.




Synopsis: HCF TRACON Supervisor reported a go around and a departure from parallel runways were cleared to conflicting headings with one of the aircraft assigned an altitude below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: A300
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Fatigue; Distraction
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During climb passing about 2;500 feet and at 220 KIAS and in a right turn to avoid weather I as Pilot Flying (PF) inadvertently allowed bank angle to reach 35-40 degrees followed by GPWS 'bank angle' aural warning. My focus was on the weather radar and thunderstorm avoidance instead of flying the plane.  Recovery was immediate and smooth with no stick shaker or physical vibration indicating a stall. Autopilot was engaged and aircraft cleaned up. No loss of PFD information and no exceedances of flight control limitations occurred.  No abnormal flight control conditions were noted and flight was continued to destination.  [Logbook] entry made.Human error - failed to aviate first. Distracted by multiple cells of weather displayed on screen. Fatigue - well rested day before event but trip revision; minimal crew rest and long duty day the day before; and this being the fourth night of hub turns had me short on sleep for the week Non- compliance - unintentional exceedance of bank angle normal limits of 30 degrees.Aviate first; use autopilot during high workload; don't fixate on one issue - keep scan going.


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


Synopsis: A300 flight reported bank angle limit was exceeded after takeoff when pilot flying was distracted by weather in the area.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Despite landing past the touchdown point of the last arriving aircraft; after landing and while slowing down; the aircraft encountered wake turbulence from another aircraft; most likely the Airbus that departed before my arrival. The aircraft tried to roll on the ground and veered to the left then right.




Synopsis: C210 pilot reported encountering turbulence from a departing Airbus that affected his landing roll out directional control.