elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202007
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: State X has issued a 14 day quarantine for anyone entering the state from certain locations. We have had several co workers who have traveled out of the state. It has been brought to management's attention that these employees are in the breakroom without masks and are not adhering to the quarantine rules. These agents are putting other co workers and our customers in jeopardy by being on property.  The supervisors; leads and the travelers themselves all said that it was approved by our upper management. Per the state websites essential workers must get prior written approval from the state before travel. Upper management told select people and never put this policy in writing. They say we are essential workers; which is true but our job does not require travel. The essential worker status is just to come to work when we were on the stay at home order.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported that co-workers are not adhering to quarantine rules and are not wearing COVID-19 protective masks.
Date: 201701
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was Pilot Flying on a vectored heading to intercept localizer final; level at 2500. The autopilot was on and holding altitude. Just prior to course intercept; we got a Stab out of Trim warning. I looked back at my instruments and the aircraft was descending and about 100 feet low with the autopilot on. I immediately disconnected the autopilot to manually climb back up to altitude while intercepting the Localizer. The trim was heavy nose down; and electric trim was inop while the aircraft continued to descend until I could get enough muscle on the controls; and manual trim; to climb back to altitude. We were about 400 feet low and Approach called us and notified us he had a Low Altitude Alert on us; and gave the min vectoring altitude 2100 MSL for our location. We maintained localizer; climbed back up to 2500 MSL; captured the glideslope; ran the QRH and continued the approach using manual trim. We talked about a missed approach; but decided it would be safer to continue and land. We broke out at about 700 ft to a normal landing using manual trim. After clearing the runway; the Captain tried his electric trim and it was operational; so I tried mine and now it worked. The Captain wrote up the trim; Contract Maintenance came out; we ran the trim but it would just stop on its own. Maintenance determined the trim motor was going bad and the trim was intermittent.I don't know of anything that we could change to keep this from happening again. We don't use manual trim very often; and there is learning curve on how much you have to spin the wheel and how much force is required to move it.




Synopsis: B737-NG First Officer reported receiving a low altitude alert from ATC on approach when the stab trim failed leaving them with manual trim only.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Equipment / Tooling; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: While the APU was suspended in the lifting sling; it 'flipped over' to an upside down position. High center of gravity while APU is in cradle/sling. Cradle/sling assembly is allowed to pivot; therefore allowing APU to flip over. Sling pivot points should not be able to move. Hangar. APU removal/installation sling.

Callback: Reporter stated the APU cradle is mounted to four attach points on the Honeywell RE220 APU and two cables on each side form an 'A' shape that connect to a single point above the APU at the CRJ-900's internal structure. There are also two hand crank assemblies; one on each side that are used to lower the APU from it's compartment. There are four turnbarrels to level the APU as the Honeywell unit is lowered from the APU compartment. The APU tends to be nose heavy due to components on the forward end. As they were adjusting the turnbarrels to maintain a level position; the APU suddenly rotated nose down at the two side pivot points and flipped 180-degrees; basically turning upside down without anyone pushing on the unit. Reporter stated that because of the APUs weight and the Center of Gravity (CG); if the APU starts to flip; he doesn't think anyone can stop the movement. There was discussion afterwards about attaching a third cable for the third Mechanic to help guide and maintain a balancing effect; but mechanics feel that procedure would only mask the real issue which is a design problem that Bombardier has yet to improve. The CRJ-700 uses similar equipment and procedures to Remove and Replace (R/R) that aircraft's APU. Reporter believes a design change is necessary to prevent serious injury or death of technicians.



Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) reports that a Honeywell RE 220 APU unit 'flipped over' to an upside down position as the unit was being lowered from the APU compartment of a CRJ-900 aircraft.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On final at the final approach fix for Runway XXR at 170 knots we configured aircraft with gear and final flaps of 25. We received and EICAS message of TE Flap Disagree"; the flap indicator was between 20 and 25. We evaluated the situation and discussed how the go around would be executed; then informed ATC and performed a go around without flap retraction not exceeding 137 KTS. We successfully ran the QRH and were vectored back to [Runway] XXC to an uneventful landing with a reference speed of 127 KTS and taxied to the gate. We notified ATC knowing we would be in a non-normal landing configuration. Emergency vehicles were not requested but present for the landing."


Second narrative: On Runway XXR at the final approach fix at 170 KTS we configured aircraft with gear and final flaps 25.  We received an EICAS message of TE FLAP DISAGREE" the flap indicator read between 20 and 25 degrees.  We evaluated the situation; discussed how the go around would be performed not exceeding 137 KTS.  While being vectored back to land we ran QRH successfully and were vectored back to [Runway] XXC to an uneventful landing with a reference speed of 127 KTS and taxied to park.  We did notify ATC knowing that we would be in an abnormal flap configuration.  Emergency vehicles were not requested but present."


Synopsis: Flight Crew reported a Go Around after the Trailing Edge Flaps did not extend due to flap assymetry.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While on the MANSEC leg of the JFRYE3 STAR into ADS yesterday afternoon; we were issued a traffic call.  The ATC advisory informed traffic was at 1 to 2 O' Clock at 5;500 feet. We were on a heading of 090 and level at 6;000 feet as signed by ATC.  Upon visually scanning for traffic; which was also indicated on TCAS; I spotted the traffic at 1 to 1:30 and headed north; to cross our flight path right to left. The traffic looked to be closer in altitude than 500 feet; but at low altitudes it is often difficult to tell.  I informed the customer pilot in the right seat; who was working the radios that the traffic was in sight. He also confirmed a visual on the advisory target.  Approximately 10 seconds after the visual sighting a TCAS RA was issued to 'Monitor Vertical Speed'.  Within 5 seconds after that ATC issued a clearance to descend and maintain 3;000 feet. As that instruction was being issued an additional RA to 'Climb' was issued. Guidance was approximately 15 degrees nose up and traffic was indicated less than 300 feet below our aircraft.  I executed the RA instruction and informed ATC. ATC simply responded 'Okay; descend to 3;000 when able'. After receiving the 'Clear of Conflict' acknowledgment from the TCAS II system on the aircraft; the descent to 3;000 feet was initiated.




Synopsis: Corporate jet Captain reported a NMAC in the D10 TRACON area while on the JFRYE 3 arrival.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This event occurred during a first time solo flight. Two successful takeoffs and landings occurred before the incident. After the second full stop landing; I taxied back and prepared to takeoff again. During takeoff roll; the aircraft began to fishtail and abruptly became airborne at a slower than usual airspeed. In an attempt to regain control; power was removed and the plane eventually landed in the grass to the left of [the] runway. The aircraft rolled onto [an adjacent] runway before coming to a complete stop. The aircraft was not damaged during the incident. Upon further inspection it became obvious that the failed takeoff occurred because the flaps had not been stowed before make the third takeoff attempt. This could have been avoided by ensuring the pre-takeoff inspection had been completed.




Synopsis: C172 student pilot reported losing control of aircraft on takeoff roll because the flaps had not been retracted following previous landing.
Date: 201811
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Approaching FAF for the ILS; FO (First Officer) is PF (Pilot Flying); intercom phone rang repeatedly. Captain picked up and [a flight attendant] answers asking if we're close to landing. Captain explains yes; with landing gear about to be deployed (!). [Flight Attendant] frantically states the Seatbelt Sign is not on and she needs to rush to get things completed. Captain tried sign and [the Flight Attendant] confirms no sign and no chime. No chime was heard while climbing through/descending 10;000 feet either; though this isn't always audible in the Flight Station and nothing was commented to pilots otherwise. Seat belt sign (along with PA) was used for turbulence once during transit; but again; nothing conveyed to forward crew. On taxi in and while inspecting circuit breakers; Captain found Seat Belt and Lavatory Smoke breakers out. Captain preflighted all breakers before doing external walk around; with everything secured at that time. While he was outside; a new flight bag with current Jeppesen changes was installed by his seat; with the FO present during this. He now believes that in their haste to install it; they must have knocked the breakers loose (breaking the head off the Seat Belt one). Fixed and worked properly [by Maintenance personnel].




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported two circuit breakers were damaged after maintenance work in the cockpit.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; MEL
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: B737-700 aircraft; in cruise at FL400; Center directed a descent to FL360. Shortly after initiating the descent; I noticed the cabin altitude climbing at 1;500 FPM. The Captain and I began scanning for reasons for this loss of pressurization; however all indications seemed normal (Bleed pointers sensed; outflow valve closed; pressurization controller in alternate per MEL). I donned my mask in anticipation of receiving the Cabin Altitude (Alt) Horn and got the QRH ready. Before the cabin exceeded 10;000 FT; the aircraft leveled off at our assigned altitude of FL360. The resulting increase in thrust immediately restored control of our cabin. We asked ATC for a constant descent at a reduced rate so that we could keep thrust on the engines; and had an uneventful approach and landing. The ALT Warning horn never went off. Maintenance later identified the cause of the failure to be a loose clamp in the AFT pressure bulkhead. System malfunction.

Callback: Reporter stated the APU was 'Off'; not operating. Only engine bleeds were being used for the air conditioning packs. He felt a pressure change in his ears shortly after they started their descent from FL400. That's when he looked up at the overhead P-5 panel expecting to see some indication for what he felt in his ears. But all indications were normal; except for the 1;500 FPM cabin rate of climb. Both engines were at flight idle when they were descending. When the B737-700 leveled off at FL360 and the thrust increased; cabin control was restored.Reporter stated the auto mode for the cabin pressure controller was previously deferred (MEL'd); so they were using the Alternate (ALT) Mode per their MEL. On the ground; Maintenance pressurized the aircraft during a two-hour layover and said the APU body fuselage duct was leaking at a clamp where an APU duct shroud is located at the aft pressure bulkhead.



Synopsis: Pilot reports that shortly after initiating descent from FL400; he noticed the cabin altitude climbing at 1;500 FPM on their Next Gen B737-700 aircraft. Before the cabin altitude exceeded 10;000 FT; the aircraft leveled off at FL360 with an increase in thrust that immediately restored control of the cabin. Maintenance found a loose clamp in aft pressure bulkhead.
Date: 201905
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Twin Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On initial climb a Twin Cessna which had taken off behind me came quite close to a collision with my aircraft. I was direct westbound; but must have drifted slightly south during my climb (A slight left-hand turn is required at our airport during the climb). The Twin Cessna was turning slightly southwest bound when it passed me on the right side and crossed in front of me. No evasive action was necessary to avoid collision; but the aircraft was very close.




Synopsis: A pilot departing a non towered airport reported a NMAC.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On descent into CLT; while in speed mode set for 235 knots at a descent rate of 1000 ft per minute; there was an instant raise in airspeed to 251 knots for 1 second. The high speed; red chime came on. The airspeed immediately returned to normal. The aircraft was written up for inspection. Possible wake turbulence encounter. Corrected immediately. No proper amount of time to avoid and detect due to instant nature of speed increase.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported a momentary flap speed limit exceedance following a possible wake turbulence encounter.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was training on a combined sector. A CRJ-200 departed ahead of the C680. The Air Carrier was a CRJ-200 series and was not climbing very well. The C680 was a Citation climbing much better and was gaining speed on the CRJ-200. As per the Automated Information Transfer (AIT); I flashed the C680 then the CRJ-200 to our high sector. The high sector put in FL310 for the C680 and later FL290 for the CRJ-200. I was scanning; and possibly coordinating point outs for the CRJ-200; when the 310 was put into the data block for the C680. The high sector called me and asked me if it will work out between the C680 and the CRJ-200 and if they had speeds. I went to my R-Side and asked do they have speeds. He said no and I coordinated that. The high sector said to stop the CRJ-200 at 270 and the C680 at 290. I say OK and turned to my R-Side and say stop (pointing at the CRJ-200 at 270 then pointing the C680 at 290). I didn't verbally say the call signs as I was pointing to them on the scope. I do not recall seeing the 310 in the data block ever; only the 290. When my R-Side asked did you tell me to stop him at 290; I said it was in the data block so no; thinking that was the only altitude that was put in there. As the C680 kept climbing through 290; the high sector asked what is he going to and my R-Side said 310 because no one told me to stop him. My R-Side told the C680 to descend to 290 then the high sector said no keep him going to 310 is OK. The data block was already handed off to Center and we could not change it. I did not call the Center to coordinate what he was climbing to. Miscommunication was key here. The high sector put in an altitude of 310 and my R-Side immediately said 310. I think the error occurred between me and my R-Side. My R-Side must not have understood what I was meaning when I pointed at the scope at the two aircraft and said 270 and 290 respectively. I should have gotten a more clear acknowledgment from my R-Side.




Synopsis: Enroute Developmental Controller described a mis-communications event between him and the R-Side Controller eventually leading to an airspace incursion.