elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B IAD
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While descending via the HYPER 4 arrival the FMS went into sequence inhibit mode (uncommanded) after MOWAT level at 5;000 FT. This caused confusion between the FMS map and our situational awareness which told us to descend down to 4;000 FT for the HUSEL restriction and the FMS which was telling us to stay at 5;000 FT. I had started to descend after MOWAT but as a result of the confusion quickly leveled off due to the FMS indicating 5;000 FT at the next fix. After a few seconds I determined the error with the FMS and had to do a rapid descent to make the HUSEL restriction; however this restriction was complied with. I am still unsure why the FMS went into sequence inhibit. Additionally and unrelated to the first automation error; during the visual approach into Runway 1R the autopilot had difficulty capturing the localizer due to a strong tailwind on base. This resulted in a significant deviation (half scale) towards the parallel runway before the deviation was corrected. The FMS error may have been caused by an error a few minutes prior where when attempting to sync the heading bug the heading mode on the FCP was hit instead; however this error was immediately noticed and corrected with no deviation from the desired flight path. This was the only abnormal event that occurred before the FMS error; but doesn't seem to explain what happened. The localizer capture error was caused by a strong crosswind on the final approach course. This type of error seems to occur on a regular basis if the autopilot is allowed to capture on its own.




Synopsis: CRJ200 First Officer describes some auto flight anomalies that are common and may be attributed to FMS and or autopilot design.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Service/Access Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were departing on the last of 4 legs of [our trip]. We were set up for a Runway XX departure with traffic flow; but on taxi out; Tower offered Runway XY. There was a bit of tailwind so the takeoff data was now full power. We accepted and did all the applicable checklists. The First Officer was flying and I believe during or right after my 80 kts. call; we saw a Master Caution light. I quickly saw that it was an aft service door. At that point in time I aborted the takeoff. What I did not take into account was the pace of acceleration due to full power and a very light aircraft. By the time I took control of the aircraft and reduced power to idle; the RTO took effect and we were stopped by probably mid field. It was fairly uneventful and we taxied back to have Maintenance check out the aircraft and I spoke with Dispatch and the [Chief Pilot] via telephone. We got all signed off and flew home with no further problems.It really reinforced the mindset of being prepared for any takeoff to be an abort. As for learning; I think a discussion of different scenarios 'around 80kts' could be helpful. This abort turned out OK; but one leg earlier departing with a heavier aircraft could have turned out differently.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a service door warning during takeoff roll; resulting in a rejected takeoff.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLE.Airport, OH
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B CLE
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I instructed the aircraft to descend to 3;000 and I thought I heard him read back descending to 3;000. I was verifying with another aircraft that he had the new ATIS showing the new landing runway when I should have been turning the A319 to join the localizer. The A319 went across the localizer and as I was turning him back to join from the other side I noticed his altitude was below 3;000 and issued him a climb to 2;600; gave a low altitude alert and a leaving the Bravo advisory. I failed to issue a reentering the bravo airspace advisory. The low altitude alert goes off a lot when it is not a factor but never went off even when the aircraft was 600 FT below the MVA.




Synopsis: CLE Controller described a below MVA event when traffic vectored to the localizer failed to intercept as expected. The reporter also listed a failure to provide exit/entering Class B information during the occurrence.
Date: 201810
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Very windy in ORD so we had a high Vref+wind (163). As we descended below 500 feet the airspeed reached 175; causing the flaps to 'blow up' to 25; and we received the 'too low terrain' warning. I recognized the situation and immediately advised the OE pilot to manage the speed better. It was still barely daylight and I mistakenly thought approach could be continued because it was daylight; the situation was identified and being corrected. At the time of touchdown the flaps deployed to the landing position. I subsequently reviewed the SOP and recognize a go-round is mandatory below 500 feet; period. I debriefed the student appropriately and take full responsibility for not directing the go-around.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported failure to execute a go-around during an unstabilized approach to ORD in windy conditions.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: YSSY.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Turbulence; Windshear
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower YSSY
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Relief Pilot; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: On takeoff out Runway 16R; at approximately 90 knots an aural alert of windshear ahead was sounded followed by a windshear alert on the FMA. Captain called for a reject and initiated the reject at 100 knots. He taxied the aircraft off the runway and we complied with the appropriate QRH checklists. Also; the FOM was referenced as well. The aircraft and the weather was deemed acceptable by all 3 of us to attempt another takeoff after about 15-20 minutes and we subsequently took off uneventfully.Wind gusts were the probable cause; the aircraft was fully functional and no other factors contributed to this event.Aircraft worked as advertised. ATC was helpful. The crew referenced the appropriate checklist and company issued manuals. Weather was the causal factor in this case.


Second narrative: [Report Narrative Contained No Additional Information.]


Synopsis: A heavy freight aircraft crew rejected their takeoff at about 100 knots complying with a windshear alert. The QRH was completed and a successful takeoff followed.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Windshear; Icing
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: Ice Detection System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were flying to LGA. We got cleared to DIALS and 2;500ft for the Expressway Visual 31. The current weather was sustained winds above 20 knots with gusts going over 30 knots. There was also LLWS advisories for the field. We had been getting constant light turbulence with the occasional moderate chop potentially from about 5;000 all the way to the surface as well. The autopilot was turned off and we made the turn to go up the expressway and everything was going fine; just minor deviations. The Pilot Flying (PF) had to fight the weather conditions pretty thoroughly throughout the whole approach. We were a little high; so the Captain (PF) was making the corrections. When we wrapped around Shae Stadium; we were set up; slightly high and so adjustments were being made. When we wrapped around the stadium; the winds shifted from a tail wind to a headwind; and I think this gave us some issues. At one point I think we may have gotten slow for our set speed but the deviations may have been due to the wind shifts and gusts as well as wind shearing. We were focused on flying and I did not catch the speed exactly but I made a call about the deviation and PF made necessary adjustments. We landed smoothly like any other landing but I felt uncomfortable on the ground because I feel we may have gotten slower than expected. We had gone through a cloud earlier in the flight that gave us ICE PROT Speeds; even though the icing condition only lasted maybe a few seconds. We also added a few knots for the gusts. I think due to the wind shift and high energy speeds; the wrap around Shae Stadium was what ended up hurting us the most on the approach combined with it being a more advanced visual and the weather conditions on the field.




Synopsis: First Officer reported concerns about low speed on a night Expressway Visual 31 approach to LGA.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Other Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Other During a work shift
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Our airline's new automated dispatch generator system recommended NO Alternate for one of my flights based on unreliable and inadequate information. The program recommended NO alternate for the flight but apparently had not read the current forecast of light rain and snow; three miles visibility and broken clouds at 800 AGL. I caught the event prior to departure time and assigned an appropriate alternate based on FARs; company training and experience. This automated system dispatches flights in direct contradiction to FAR 121.619 and other approved; proven regulations; company policies and back up procedures. DISPATCH NOTE: This flight was written with legal alternate by the morning Dispatcher and the automated system's recommendations came to the evening Dispatcher.This program is unreliable; unsafe and has a high error rate which; during high tempo workloads; could INCREASE chances of illegal releases and possible illegal flights if not caught by the flight crew. It also has a high potential of causing potential flight delays due to last minute fuel increases for alternates the program did not recommend or illegal flights if not caught by flight crews and Dispatch before departure time.




Synopsis: An air carrier Dispatcher believes the newly implemented computerized dispatch program is inadequate or unable to provide consistently legal and timely flight releases.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CYUL.Airport, PQ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Embraer Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON CYUL
Second aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On final approach; aircraft started a violent uncommanded right roll. The autopilot disengaged and we got an 'autopilot fail' caution message. Captain and First Officer both grabbed the controls before the Captain called 'My aircraft'. Captain reestablished control and hit the auto pilot disconnect to silence the alarm. With the aircraft under control and well above 1;000 feet; Captain continued the approach by hand; staying above glide path on approach. [We] asked ATC if were following a heavy. ATC confirmed we were 7 miles in trail of a B777.Sudden right roll detective by outside reference and instrument scan. Autopilot disconnecting by master warning and autopilot aural warning. Wake turbulence from a B777 7 miles ahead. Regained manual control and stayed high of glide slope to avoided further wake encounters. ATC should have warned us we were following a heavy. Also ATC and the other aircraft were conversing in French so we were not even aware of a heavy on freq. All aircraft and ATC conversing in one language would have reduced the possibility of this happening.




Synopsis: Embraer regional jet flight crew reported experiencing a 'violent' roll to the right on approach to CYUL 7 miles in trail of a B777.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departing [on] RNAV Departure. At the positive rate callout I called for gear up; speed; and nav. I was following the Flight Director through 300-500 when I realized the NAV mode hadn't captured and we were still in heading mode. I disregarded the Flight Director and turned to the left back to our course. The Captain had tried three times throughout the departure to arm the NAV mode to no avail. By the time I noticed the deviation and turned on course we were approximately one dot to the right of our course. I believe we might have penetrated a Prohibited area. On the fourth attempt the lateral mode armed and I flew the remainder of the departure without incident. After several minutes we were given a phone number to call. [On arrival] I was being vectored to final for RWY XY. I switched to green needles and armed the NAV mode to intercept the LOC with autopilot engaged. The autopilot captured the LOC and almost immediately dropped the Lateral NAV mode and reverted to ROL mode. The Captain tried several times to rearm the Approach mode to no avail. I disconnected the autopilot and followed the PAPI to an uneventful landing using raw data.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported that a malfunctioning Lateral Navigation mode caused a course deviation on departure and reversion to a raw data; hand-flown approach.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Other Aerial firefighting
Aircraft component: Wing Attachment
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Instructor; Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Inspection Authority; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Released aircraft for service with exceeded life limited structural major repair of the R/H aft wing attach fitting that was previously installed. The repair was unknown at the time because no record of it was entered in the aircraft maintenance logs nor was there a form 337 filed with the FAA. It wasn't until after the aircraft had been in operation for one season that a engineering order for the repair was discovered at the previous owners location during a records search. The engineering order placed a life limit of 500 cycles or 1 year whichever occurs sooner on the repair with 100HR recurring visual inspections in the interim. Since its discovery the repair has been evaluated with a damage tolerance assessment by a Structural Designated Engineering Representative and incorporated into our structural inspection program. FAR 91.417 states that any life limited item or item requiring recurring inspection shall be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records and 91.419 requires that owner operator who sells an aircraft to transfer the permanent aircraft records to the purchaser at the time of sale. I believe the failure to follow these rules by the previous owner/operator led to the problem we have today. Moving forward documenting maintenance in accordance with FAR 91.419(a) in the permanent records such as the maintenance log books and submitting a form 337 would appropriately mitigate this problem.




Synopsis: Inspector reported over flight of a major repair conducted by the previous owner concerning a wing attach fitting repair that was not documented correctly.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 J (201) / Allegro
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Down Lock
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Made an uneventful landing on RWY XX. As I was rolling out; I felt an abnormality with the right landing gear and reported to the tower a possible flat tire on the right main gear. Upon making the turn to exit the runway to the left; the right main gear collapsed.




Synopsis: A M20J pilot suffered a right main gear collapse while exiting the runway after landing.