elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201910
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Design
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: The permanent EFB (Electronic Flight Bag) mount restricts Pilots ability to move the flight controls in violation of CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) part 25.777(a)(c) which states Cockpit controls:(a) Each cockpit control must be located to provide convenient operation and to prevent confusion and inadvertent operation.(c) The controls must be located and arranged; with respect to the Pilots' seats; so that there is FULL AND UNRESTRICTED MOVEMENT OF EACH CONTROL WITHOUT INTERFERENCE from the COCKPIT STRUCTURE or the clothing of the minimum Flight Crew (established under 25.1523) when any member of this Flight Crew; from 5 ft. 2 in. to 6 ft. 3 in. in height; is seated.I am 5 ft. 9 in. and according to the US Navy I am anthropomorphically average and was not restricted from flying any aircraft in the Navy during my service. I have never had any issues with any control restriction until the EFB mount. Additionally I sit in the recommended position per [Company manual]. Oddly enough this makes the restriction worse as the slightly higher seated position further restricts ability to lift outside arm.The ground steering tiller AND the flight control yoke are adversely affected when the EFB is mounted in either vertical or horizontal position. The only option I have been able to find acceptable is to NOT mount the EFB and leave it on my bag or on glare shield. Both are susceptible to inflight movement; not ideal; likely against AOM/FRM guidance; but greatly preferable to not being able to move controls freely. I have previously reported this issue but was rebuffed by EFB Team who stated the design had an STC (Supplemental Type Certificate) and met requirements. I most strongly DISAGREE and sincerely believe this issue needs a fresh look by parties not desirous of particular outcome.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported that an Electronic Flight Bag mount interfered with the movement of the flight controls and could be a potential safety risk.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Clear; calm; 10
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Loss of engine power during initial climb.




Synopsis: Cessna 150 Student Pilot reported loss of engine power in climb led to an off airport landing.
Date: 202008
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: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the PIC and flying pilot. During our assessment for our approach into ZZZ; we mentioned the high rate of unstable approaches into ZZZ as noted on the airport page.  I even stated I would be slowing and configuring early to make sure we met the stable approach criteria.  When cleared for the approach and about 20 NM out; I started slowing and configuring. The next thing I realized was we were getting high on our vertical path and I was unable to safely catch up.  As we passed 1;500 feet AGL; I told the First Officer (FO) to prepare for a go-around. I dove for the path but found myself 40 knots too fast as we approached 1;000 feet AGL.  At 1;000 feet and no hope for safely recovering; I told the FO to advise ZZZ Tower we were going around.  A go-around was completed to a second successful approach to a full stop.We briefed it; we were completely aware of the high frequency of unstable approaches into ZZZ and still fell victim to my poor energy management.  A three week gap of no flying prior to this trip took the sharpness out of my flying.  I 'chair flew' a departure the evening before to help mitigate my lack of frequency but my lack of focus during the approach led to this situation.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported the lack of flying was a factor in experiencing an unstabilized approach.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SSC.TRACON, SC
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cheetah; Tiger; Traveler AA5 Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E SSC
ATC / advisory: TRACON SSC
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On IFR flight plan; cruise configuration at 4;000 feet MSL in contact with SHAW TRACON. Glider appeared off my left wing from above and within 500 feet. Don't know if glider pilot could see me under and below his wing - also in my blind spot due to canopy. I can't see an aircraft descending from above. Asked Approach Controller if the glider was indicated on radar. Got response from trainee Controller that no aircraft was on radar near me - Supervisor Controller responded that glider operations in the GAMECOCK I MOA all week - information provided via NOTAM for area. Supervisor Controller informed me I should have NOTAM and should be looking for gliders. I did not respond on frequency but instead contacted the SHAW TRACON OIC the following Monday and asked that they review this as a safety event. Gliders are difficult to see and are not required to contact the airspace controlling agency (operating inside MOA). These aircraft should operate transponder even if VFR to increase overall safety of all aircraft.




Synopsis: AA5 pilot reports an airborne conflict with a glider at 4;000 feet inside the Gamecock I MOA while on an IFR flight plan. The glider was not talking to ATC; had no transponder and was not visible on Radar.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MSP.Airport, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B MSP
ATC / advisory: Tower MSP
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Had a near miss with a drone while on final into MSP.  On the Date about XA30 we were on final to runway 12L at MSP and I noticed something fly past the left side of the aircraft.  I did not see it clearing and asked if anyone else on the flight deck saw that.  We had a airline pilot in the jump seat and he stated that he saw it and it was definitely a drone.  We were on the visual for 12L at MSP at about 2;800 feet just inside WASHY (the final approach fix); just left (north) of the final approach course.  The drone was fairly large and yellow.  I did not see the exact configuration as it passed by so quickly.  The drone went passed us on the left side of the aircraft from nose to tail.  I did complete a post flight walk around to verify we did not hit it and found no indication of any kind of impact on the aircraft.Drone operating at altitude and in airspace not authorized.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew had an airborne conflict with a UAS while on final approach.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Tower, CA
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Event started with LC2 requesting a ZILLI (southbound) SID from the South Controller (LC1). LC2 was told to follow the ZILLI in the slot (LUAW). LC1 had one ZILLI in a departure roll while another ZILLI was slowly going into LUAW. LC2 misunderstood and followed the wrong (first) ZILLI and ended up side by side with the second ZILLI. This was legal since they are on diverging heading; however; not preferred by the Departure area controller since it takes extra time and space to build the needed three miles. As the Assist; called the Departure area controller to explain and apologize. The line was busy. I called LC1's Assist to ask if they had called the Departure area controller to do the same. They said no. I then turned to the CIC who said that he was on the line talking to the Departure area controller. As I turned around and sat back down; I heard Aircraft X say that they had been cleared for takeoff; but had observed the RWSL 'Red' lights on and traffic was crossing downfield. I observed traffic crossing at taxiway AA and BB downfield. I had not heard the crossing or takeoff clearance instructions by the LC2 Controller who was also training. Perhaps the use of the memory aid when traffic is crossing or the runway is unusable.




Synopsis: LAX Tower Controller reported two side by side departures and a runway crossing that were not coordinated correctly.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger in XX2. Saw him sleeping with no mask on. An announcement kind of woke him up so I finished the job by saying Sir; that woke him up and I said I'm just going to need you to wear your mask. To which he said that he just had surgery on his nose for cancer and that the mask hurts. I told him I was sorry for his nose and then said but it is our policy. He started to get a little [bit] of an attitude and said something about our policy. At that point I found a way to end the conversation because it was going nowhere. Then I went and explained it to the A Flight Attendant.We both believed giving him a warning would cause a bigger scene and we only have about 40 minutes flight time left. So far no one has complained about him; but if someone does we will have to issue the warning at that point.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger resisted adhering to face mask policy. No further action was taken for fear of escalating the situation.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: PA-60 600 Aerostar
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: An Aerostar checked on my frequency and advised that he had smoke in the cockpit and was declaring an emergency. I asked the pilot his intentions and he wished to land immediately at the closest airport. The Aerostar was not yet in my airspace. I began offering airports to the pilot; and he advised that he had visual with an airport 'at his 10 o'clock.' The pilot began a sharp turn and rapid descent towards an airport. My D-Side completed coordination with all affected sectors including the sector that the aircraft was in and the Approach Control into which the aircraft was descending. The pilot later advised that the smoke had cleared in the cockpit and he determined the source to be a heater. He advised that he wished to continue to his original destination.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described what may have been an airspace infraction when an aircraft declared an emergency; started an immediate descent and turn toward the nearest airport.
Date: 202112
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Other Documentation
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Procedure; Software and Automation
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: On takeoff with ENGINE FIRE/FAILURE; EFB content locker crashed. Came back up with spinning wheel and eventually was able to get the QRC to run the checklist. Pulling paper QRHs off this fleet would be a giant mistake; in my opinion. This is not the first time I've had to report the EFB and associated apps.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported EFB content crashed while doing checklists for an engine fire. Reporter recommends retaining the paper copies of the QRH on the aircraft to mitigate this situation.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beech 1900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We performed a run-up and determined that the airplane was safe for its first flight of the day. We ran all appropriate checklists and took off without incident. Climbing through 22;000 FT the Master Warning flasher illuminated with no associated annunciator. Approximately 10 seconds later; the Right Oil Pressure Low annunciator illuminated along with oil pressure and torque gauge fluctuations. The engine performance was rapidly decreasing and we elected to shut the engine down in flight; as the checklist required us to do. We secured the right engine; made a right turn back to [departure] airport; declared an emergency and began a slow descent. In the descent; we got updated weather; ran all appropriate checklists; and coordinated Crash; Fire; Rescue Operations with Air Traffic Control. We were cleared for the visual approach and landed without further incident. After the airplane was brought to a complete stop; we shut down the running (left) engine and were towed off the runway back to the maintenance hangar.


Second narrative: [No new information]


Synopsis: B1900 flight crew reported low oil pressure in right engine climbing through FL220. Engine was shut down; an emergency declared; and a return to departure airport was safely executed.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 2
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 MAX 8
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ; Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While on the arrival into ZZZ at FL 220; we were running the Descent Checklist. When I pressed the Recall I noticed a 'FLT CNTRL' light illuminated. We found the 'SPEED TRIM FAIL' light illuminated. After completing the 'SPEED TRIM FAIL' Checklist in the QRH; we discussed our options and concerns. Shortly after starting our descent on the arrival; we noticed an 'IAS DISAGREE' on both primary displays.We complied with the immediate action items for 'Airspeed Unreliable' then ran the QRC along with QRH for 'Airspeed Unreliable.' The IAS was intermittent for a while. It was visible when there was 6 knots or greater difference between the Captain and FO altimeters. During that time we were descending in IMC conditions with Engine Anti-Ice on. We felt like the Captains airspeed seemed more accurate based on ground speed; Prog page on the MCDU and ATC. At one point on the descent we had an 'ALTITUDE DISAGREE' for 1-2 seconds. It never illuminated again after that. At that time we decided to request priority and ask for vectors into ZZZ and the approach.We flew the approach and landed with no further issues. The 'IAS DISAGREE' was illuminated the entire time in the terminal area and approach. We had anywhere from 2-20+ knots difference in our airspeed indicators. During the approach we elected to split the difference in the airspeed indicators for our target speed; because we couldn't be sure which one was accurate at that time due to altitude and speed changes by ATC. We utilized the 'UNRELIABLE AIRSPEED CHART' in the Performance Table for pitch and power to verify indicated airspeed.Possibly blow out the pitot lines and perform a pitot static check for the max aircraft that's been parked for a longer duration and put pitot covers over them. Don't remove the pitot covers until ready to fly.




Synopsis: B737 MAX 8 Captain reported an indicated airspeed disagree issue during arrival.