elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 MAX 8
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fan Blade
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During early morning walk around of Aircraft X; a MAX registered in Date; (XA00; dark). I came to the inspection of #2 engine inlet and blades; etc. I noticed that every blade exhibited a central area of wear on its back face about 1'-2' away from the hub on the composite part; but more importantly that I noticed that every blade seemed to have some cracking or hazing to it extending over the surface of the blades as well. I have had limited exposure to LEAP engine wear; and as such made a note of it. I took a close look at the #1 engine as a comparison to see if it matched; and it did not. It certainly had the small patch of wear exhibited by removal of the black color so that the composite looks grey or white; about 1'-2' out from the hub but did not have the hazing and surface cracking the #2 had. As such I asked for ZZZ Maintenance to take a look and tell me if it was normal wear and tear. They advised that it was and we had no issues for our series of flights in the aircraft.My concern is that this wear looks to someone unfamiliar with it as something 'bad' and might cause unnecessary delays at especially Contract Maintenance stations; etc. in the future if identified by others on walk around.




Synopsis: First Officer reported concerns over Engine Fan Blades with wear and discoloration on the aft faces.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Observer
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was working Dallas High and Waco Low combined and started to get aircraft that were already deviating around thunderstorms that were covering the north half of my airspace.  Aircraft were mostly confined in the lower 1/3 of my airspace and all deviating.  I got multiple Austin arrivals that I had to descend below all the Houston Departures and provide MIT with barely any room the turn aircraft.  In the middle of this; my supervisor came over and informed me that the OM was watching and had called him to order me to start calling weather.  I was too busy at the time to call weather and I feel this was an unnecessary distraction at a bad time.  I'm being told now that many supervisors are telling other controllers that I had a blatant disregard for safety and simply refused to call the weather out of spite.  This is grossly inaccurate and upsetting to me because I am now being paraded about as an example of what not to do.  If the OM was up front watching me; he should have realized that it was getting busy and should have called the supervisor to suggest the sector be split off.




Synopsis: ZFW Controller reports of weather and deviating aircraft in his sector.  Controller is told by FLM to issue weather and states he was too busy to issue the weather.
Date: 202007
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: [The First Officer] and I flew Aircraft X from ZZZ to ZZZ1. During the cruise portion of the flight; we both felt the airplane vibrating a bit more than usual. We looked around near the engine and props to see if anything from that area would cause the vibration and also looked at the engines performance page on the Multi Function Display screen to see if there were any abnormalities. Everything was performing normally and we decided to scan everything through our window starting from the inboard part of the wing; then the engine and the outboard part of the wing. We ensured the flaps were up as well. We then looked at the horizontal stabilizer and saw it shaking up and down as if the plane was hitting turbulent air. It looked a bit more than what we usually see. We both agreed we could continue safely to ZZZ1 but would divert and land immediately if we felt the vibration get any worse. As we continued to fly the vibration was intermittent. There was not a repetitive pattern rather the plane would vibrate for 10-20 seconds and then return to a normal vibration. During our descent the vibration was more frequent; instead of intermittent; but was not more intense. Once we parked at the gate in ZZZ1; I examined the rear section of the aircraft and called maintenance to request someone come look with me. During the inspection I saw that a screw had pierced through the plate which is connected to the horizontal stabilizer and the bottom of the fuselage. We brought the plane to the maintenance hangar and I asked [the] ZZZ1 Maintenance Manager to look at the plane with me and I told him about what I found. As he inspected the screws in the plate on the other side of the fuselage a screw fell out in his hand. I then called Maintenance/Operations Control and told them what was happening since the plane was going to be written up and our next flight was going to be delayed.




Synopsis: Air Taxi Captain reported excessive vibration on descent which caused the aircraft to be removed from service at the destination airport.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 70
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Other / Unknown; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Passenger; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During takeoff from ZZZ we observed air noise and an odor coming from the cabin. The FO (First Officer) said it smelled hot while for me it smell like bleed air. We were at v1 so we continued. After takeoff the cabin duct overheat CAS appeared. We were cleared to 4000 ft; but requested to level at 3000 ft to sort things out. We were VMC so we told the Controller we needed to return and had the airport in sight. We were cleared for the visual and told to contact the Tower.The CAS light disappeared after turning the cabin temp knob to full cold and reducing power. We decided to burn fuel off instead of an overweight landing. We coordinated with the Tower to circle north of the airport. While circling we maintained 250 ias to burn down fuel quicker in case we had to land immediately.After slowing for landing we found that at 185 kts with the gear and flaps down could have burned fuel off just as quick as 250 with the boards out. That would have been an option to stay below 200 in the class D.




Synopsis: LJ-70 Captain reported a fume event during takeoff accompanied by a Cabin Duct Overheat CAS message. Flight crew executed a safe air return.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCEL.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Other N/A
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying; Relief Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was going to let this go but cannot. We had a near event with volcanic ash that could've been completely avoided/threat negated with better local information. Ie: wifi. The call to me at my home seemed (at least initially) very hostile. Like I had made a severe misjudgment. Remember; I was the bunkie. Did you receive a report from either of the Flyers? You complained the report wasn't detailed enough; did I put a 20 min limit on filling this form out?  I advocated that we should cancel the flight. The Captain and Flying First Officer (FO) felt it was safe to go. We worked out a compromise that we all could live with (especially after finally being able to plot forecast path compared to SID. The Captain advocated a delay of up to 5 mins; the 6th min we cancel. The flying FO and I agreed to this very firm number. On takeoff while the two flyers concentrated on the SID; terrain and obstacles I stayed eyes out searching for any type of haze. We missed it all.The question should not have been directed at me and my actions but on the reason for the report to start with. Why does our airline NOT have a place where sufficient data can be obtained to plan a safe; comfortable; route/flight plan avoiding any and all 'issues.'




Synopsis: B767 First Officer laments the lack of information provided by his company on the location of volcanic ash departing SCEL and the company's response to his earlier report on the subject.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Landing
Airspace: Class B MIA
ATC / advisory: Tower MIA
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the visual approach backed up with the LOC-DME 26R at Miami; I selected V/S taking us out of the pre-briefed LOC and VNAV configuration I had briefed. I said nothing. I simply wanted a shallower glide path that agreed with the PAPI. As we came through about 300 FT AGL; I was curious about the VNAV path and mashed VNAV. Yes; I know better. The throttles drove up of course and I clicked the A/T off. I judged myself to be slightly high at the 100 FT callout and the FO called out 'plus 10kt.' At 500 FT; the call was stable; target. We landed; the FO called '4000 FT remaining' and we turned off at L3 or L2. I need to be disciplined to fly the plan especially close in to the runway. Alternatively; calling out the FMS inputs would have made a difference. The original switch to V/S would have given the experienced FO the SA to respond to the 'VNAV' input with a N-o-o-o.


Second narrative: Approach normal until about 250 feet. At 250 feet Pilot flying engaged VNAV and the throttles advanced causing an increase in speed. Captain (Pilot Flying) disengaged auto throttles and made a correction to get speed back to approach speed. We crossed the threshold a little fast; maybe +10 knots and landed longer than intended. I felt uncertain of whether I should call for a go around and ultimately; I did not.


Synopsis: B767-300ER flight crew reported an unstabilized approach while non-standard use of automation was flown into MIA.
Date: 201303
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: Our company once again turned on DDS (Dispatch Decision Support.) Once again this system caused major problems and safety issues. This program increases the dispatchers workload by trying to recommend when and if an alternate should be used for the destination airport. This system pretty much only looks at visibility and ceiling. Pays no attention the other weather phenomena such as thunderstorms frontal systems or convective activity. After dispatching for some time it was discovered that all radio closeouts (weight and balance) was omitting the runways that was being used to determine the landing weight. I took immediate action and ACARS all my flights in the air with correct runway information and then manually added runway weights for all flights not released. Cause; DDS once again did not work properly. Suggestions; Leave the dispatching functions and decision making to the confident and experienced licensed dispatchers.




Synopsis: Air Carrier complained about the new dispatch software which reportedly increases workload and fails to complete required actions.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cargo Pit Compartment
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Aircraft; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was reassigned to fly a ferry flight for what I thought was to move a flight into position for a revenue trip. Instead it was a maintenance reposition; one time ferry flight; for a fuselage repair. This aircraft had extensive corrosion damage in the aft baggage [cargo] compartment that was discovered on a filter replacement the day before. The extensive damage had been there for quite some time.The photos shown to me by Company Air Carrier Maintenance Technician; were eye opening. There was extensive damage to the stringers; and there was a wire bundle that could be seen hanging loose; no longer secured in place. When I asked the Technician about the damage; he said he had seen worse. The photo looked like something you would see on a visit to the Titanic.  For the safety of crews and passengers alike; I feel that an inspection on all Boeing B757/767 needs to be accomplished before a hull lost happens due to improper Inspection/Maintenance. This problem can have the same consequences as the MD-80 jack-screw problem. We need to get these aircraft inspected and repaired system wide immediately.

Callback: Reporter stated not only was the extensive corrosion an issue; but the loose; hanging; unsecured electrical wiring was chafing and could have shorted out; or caused a fire in the Aft Equipment area. The amount of corrosion must have taken some time to develop. That's why he feels inspections of that area on B757/767 aircraft should be accomplished immediately.

Second narrative: I was helping a new Mechanic just back from furlough; [just] aft of the rear bulkhead in the aft pit. While helping him; I noticed this corrosion. The B757 was ferried to company Maintenance Base to repair the Fuselage Frame. The aircraft is still being worked. No other factors involved.


Synopsis: A Captain and Maintenance Technician report about extensive corrosion damage found in the Aft Cargo Compartment; Aft Equipment Bay of a B757-200 aircraft. Pilot also notes immediate inspections and maintenance need to be accomplished on B757/767 aft fuselage sections to prevent a hull lost from similar excessive corrosion.
Date: 201703
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing about 10 minutes early we had to wait for a gate on the ramp just short of gate. The parking brake was set with one engine running. After about 15 minutes of waiting for our gate to open up we (the pilots and 1 flight deck jump seater) hear a loud repeated banging on the flight deck door. The Captain quickly called the forward flight attendant and the jump seater got out of his seat and looked through the peep hole on the door. The flight attended explained that an irate passenger from the back of the aircraft had come forward and was standing at the door pounding on it because he was going to miss his connection. She said she told the passenger that he cannot do that. The jump seater confirmed that a man was standing at the door. The Captain quickly made a PA to demand all passengers immediately take their seats and that it was not ok to bang on the flight deck door. The Captain had me call operations and explain we had an irate passenger banging on the door and need a gate as soon as possible and requested law enforcement and a customer service manager meet the airplane. We were changed to [a different] gate; taxied around the terminal and parked. Law enforcement met the plane and dealt with the passenger on deplaning.


Second narrative: Law enforcement questioned him and he apologized; said he was bipolar with explosive personality and was off his meds. Law enforcement contacted the FBI; they were ok with a strong verbal warning and let him go. The Flight Attendants were ok with that as was I; along with Dispatch and corporate security through the Dispatcher. Customer service supervisors and inflight supervisors were also present. Law Enforcement escorted him out of the secure area of the airport.


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported an irate passenger began banging on the flight deck door while the aircraft was waiting for a gate.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Aircraft component: Flight Dynamics Navigation and Safety
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was flying through an area of developing isolated precipitation. I had been authorized by ATC to deviate multiple times due to precip and build-ups but at the time was on my flight plan direct route. At the time my Nexrad weather (Sirius XM through a Garmin display) showed no precip directly in front of me. Upon entering a cloud (cumulus with base at about 6;000; top estimated at 13;000) I immediately encountered heavy precipitation and severe turbulence with increases (300+ FT) and decreases (200 FT) in altitude. Upward turbulence caused me to exceed 300 FT (by about 50 FT) from my assigned 10;000 FT altitude on one occasion. I had switched off my autopilot and was hand flying the aircraft as soon as I encountered turbulence.  As I was recovering and was back at 10;000; Memphis Center advised me that he showed me more than 300 FT over my assigned altitude. He then gave me the local altimeter setting. I advised him of the brief encounter with precip and turbulence that caused my changes in altitude. Center advised that he showed no precip on my route at that time. He authorized me to deviate as needed to avoid further build-ups.  My Nexrad had shown no precip either. Less than a minute after the incident my Nexrad showed an area of precip immediately behind me. I continued to my destination without further incident. In retrospect I should have asked to deviate around the cloud in front of me. I was in VMC prior to entering the cloud and saw no indication I would encounter precip. I could see the cloud base and saw no precip and since I saw none on my Nexrad I chose to stay on my direct route rather than ask for a deviation around. The fact that I was in an area of rapidly developing isolated precip should have told me that conditions were such that there was a likelihood of encountering what I encountered; regardless. In such conditions requesting deviation off course would be a much better plan.




Synopsis: PA-32 pilot reports entering a rather benign looking cumulus cloud; that has no returns showing on XM Nexrad; to find a rough ride with 300 foot altitude deviations. Once clear of the cloud the Nexrad does show some returns.