elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was Pilot Flying for the leg. It was a flaps 20 takeoff. As we accelerated at 1;000 ft. AGL; I called for flaps 8. We immediately received a 'flaps fail' caution message. The captain ran the QRH and I took the radios. I told ATC we could not go higher than 15;000 ft AGL and were limited to 220 knots. Our first inclination was to continue [flight]; but after further evaluation of our fuel and the QRH; which states land at the nearest suitable airport; we [requested priority] and diverted. I called the Flight Attendant and told her we would be diverting for a flap malfunction and that there would be fire trucks standing by as a precaution; but that it would be a relatively normal landing. She asked if we would make a passenger announcement. I told her yes. The Captain made an announcement to the passengers; and followed up with another call to the Flight Attendant. The Captain took the flight controls and became Pilot Flying. I took a second look at the QRH to make sure we hadn't missed any steps. I then began to setup the aircraft for a visual approach. We asked for a 15 mile final to be sure we were configured properly for the approach and landing. The Captain touchdown smoothly. As we decelerated; we received a left thrust reverser unlocked caution message. We were unable to stow the thrust the thrust reverser. The Captain called for the Left Thrust Reverser Unlocked QRH. We ran the QRH and elected to shut down the left engine.[My suggestion is to] continue teaching and training the flaps fail scenario in the sim.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported flap failure after takeoff.
Date: 201904
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Aircraft component: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This jet required 5 units of left rudder trim in level flight. It also required multiple rudder trim adjustments on approach. We wrote this up; and the jet was taken out of service. It was out of service for about three days.Turns out the rudder was out of rig; the rudder ratio changer had to be replaced; there was a damaged shear pin in the original rudder ratio changer; the rudder ratio changer input rod had a broken bearing; and the control rod for the upper rudder power control actuator had a broken nut plate and frozen bolt. At least I think that's what happened -- the maintenance history is a little hard to follow -- especially since we no longer have access to the [electronic] logbook!I don't know how long it had been flying around like this; but I wanted to give this some visibility via [safety report] because flight control system malfunctions are rare; at least in my experience. A malfunctioning rudder ratio changer; in the right failure mode; could potentially be catastrophic.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported excessive rudder trim inputs were needed during flight.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FXE.Airport, FL
Aircraft: Quest Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: After a full day of flying; waiting to clear Customs; FAA investigators separated employees to interview about running a charter operation. This aircraft is used solely to support the business that the owner of the aircraft operates. After nearly 45 minutes of questioning; investigators asked to see all documents of mine and the aircraft. My bags were still being held by customs in another room; so copies and older documents were provided from the one bag in the conference room. It was stated it was not necessary to get all paperwork at this time. Upon completion of being questioned a ramp check of the aircraft was performed; but failure to obtain pictures of my pilots credentials now that we were at the aircraft happened as they were not asked for. To prevent reoccurrence; questioning of this nature should only be done with corporate legal counsel present (this was stated to the investigator multiple times). This should not happen at the end of a duty cycle; and all possessions should be with the crew prior to being reviewed as we were at a customs facility.




Synopsis: A Corporate pilot reported they were questioned by FAA Investigators about their company operation.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While descending via the SERFR2 Star and approaching EDDYY intersection I was notified that I will be below class B airspace for the next 1/2 mile. The current speed constraint was 240 kts which meant I was above the 200 kt limit below Class B airspace. It happened because the STAR published altitude constraints didn't respect the Class B floor. Have the Class B vertical limits printed on the STAR chart if the STAR altitude constraints are below the floor.


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


Synopsis: A321 flight crew reported being advised by ATC that the SERFR2 arrival would take them below Class B airspace. The design of this arrival caused them to momentarily exceed the speed requirement below Class B airspace.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 140 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon being towed in to gate at ZZZ; the tow in tug ran low on power (Low Battery). The ground crew instructed us to set the parking brake so they could go find a new tug. Once a new tug arrived; they had to pull the low power tug off of our aircraft. The aircraft was short of the gate area and had not completed the turn into the gate. The ground crew pulled the low battery tug and tried to hook up the new tug to the aircraft several minutes went by; they asked us to release the brakes and set them several times. Then the ground crew asked us to turn the steering on to straight the nose wheel. I asked how much it had to be turned they said just a little. I asked for them clear the tug and people from the nose gear. I was told it was clear and to turn it on. Hydraulics were turned on for the nose wheel steering and we attempted to straight the nose wheel. Nothing happened; hydraulics were then turned off. Ground crew said it did not work and we needed Maintenance to come help. I was asked to call local Maintenance. I called on the radio; Maintenance crew came out and proceeded to tell me the nose wheel was past 90 degree and that something might have broken. I relayed the story from before to the Maintenance personnel over the intercom. Several minutes went by the Maintenance personnel then informed me that we will have to deplane by air stairs because they were worried about the over turned nose wheel. I was instructed to make a write up in the Aircraft Maintenance Logbook for Maintenance; which was completed. The aircraft was deplaned by stairs and the bags were valeted to the passengers. Ground crew over turned nose wheel. Have ground crew be aware of nose wheel limits.




Synopsis: EMB-140 Captain reported ground crew over turned the nose wheel while using a tug.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C SNA
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X was cleared to follow another aircraft on the visual approach to SNA.  Aircraft X was descending out of 4000 ft and I was about to switch the aircraft to tower when an aircraft appeared 1 mile away at 3500 in direct conflict with Aircraft X.  I issued a traffic alert and instructed the aircraft to turn left immediately if the traffic was not in sight. The pilot responded that they were turning left. When traffic was clear I recleared Aircraft X for the visual approach.  The aircraft that appeared in front of Aircraft X was actually a VFR aircraft approximately 15 miles north landing at HHR.  STARS or our Fusion radar erroneously displayed an aircraft that was not there in direct conflict with another aircraft.  The SNA downwind has been plagued with these types of events as well as aircraft appearing to jump around by more than a mile in some cases.  These events are occurring during a critical phase of flight and having to issue safety and traffic alerts for aircraft that do not exist is dangerous.There are filters in place to help alleviate these events from happening but it is not enough.  Many incidents like this happen or aircraft jump by a mile on the SNA right downwind without controllers reporting the events because we have become desensitized to such events.  The WAM (Wide Area Multilateration) Service Volume is a ground based system being implemented on the LAX final to solve the same problems we are having on TUSTIN.  I suggest that this system be extended to include the TUSTIN sector.




Synopsis: SCT TRACON Controller reported STARS or Fusion radar erroneously displayed a target which caused a fake conflict with a SNA arrival.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flight requested climb from FL360 to FL380. Aircraft was on division line between [two ATC] Centers. Center advised a short delay. [Controller] subsequently cleared us to climb to FL380. Passing through FL365; flight crew detected Traffic Alert TA on map display and visually acquired traffic opposite direction at FL370 and at 10 o'clock position. Crew initiated right turn to increase separation and advised [Center] of conflict. [Center] advised both aircraft to turn 30 degrees right immediately. Suspect loss of separation at altitude.Crew suspects two possible causes of event. Most likely is a controller error by Center. [Center] may not have correctly accounted for inbound other carrier's aircraft arriving from [adjacent] airspace. Another possibility is that Crew took climb clearance from FL360 to FL380 that was intended for another aircraft and that the incorrect climb readback was not detected by Center. A Company Flight Number was also heard on Center once we were handed off to new Center.


Second narrative: The Controller concluded with; 'Thanks for your help.' We were neither told to call anyone nor told to call a controller by any ATC agency the entire flight about the event.


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported airborne conflict and a TCAS TA in climb to FL380. Captain speculated either ATC error or readback/hearback contributed to the event.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Since we are operating on ERAM full time; the military airspace that is going active does not populate on our scope until the minute it is active. I had tried to turn a B747 three minutes before they were going to conflict with scheduled military airspace; but they did not respond. I had to answer land line; after doing so; I went back to the B747 and turned them even further to avoid the military airspace. It took an additional call to them after that to get them to turn. They clipped the corner of the restricted airspace; however no aircraft had been cleared into the airspace; but it was real time airspace. For us this means when it's scheduled it is active. I recommend that ERAM has at least a 10 minute notice before the military airspace is turned on to allow the controller to be more proactive. Unfortunately in this case; since the aircraft was not listening and I was forced to answer land lines so that two sectors at Toronto center didn't violate my airspace; I don't think it would have helped.




Synopsis: ZMP Controller described an airspace incursion event listing the ERAM's 'actual' activation time for map displays as a contributing factor; noting the restricted airspace should be displayed ten minutes before activation.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT; Tower SFO
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying south over Marin County at 3500 feet with flight following enroute to SQL.  I requested a transition over SFO (Class B) and was cleared at or below 2000 feet.  A few miles north of SFO airspace I noticed a cloud deck at about 2000 feet a few miles ahead.  I had only a short time before entering Class Bravo and got rushed a bit.  I decided to descend below the clouds to comply with the 2000 foot altitude restriction.  As I got lower; so did the base of the clouds and I entered them at about 1200 feet.  I called SFO and requested vectors.  Denied.  I stopped my descent at 800 feet for safety reasons.  I was still in the clouds and there was traffic in the area. I immediately began a climb to get altitude and broke into the clear in less than a minute well within the 2000 foot altitude restriction.  The rest of the flight was uneventful.  ATC did not request I contact them.  Nonetheless; I did enter clouds while flying VFR. I ascribe this problem to the fact that things happened quickly once ATC cleared me into Class B at or below 2000 feet with a cloud deck below me.  I now realize I should have done one of three things: (1) I could have made a 180 degree turn to the north whence I came because conditions there were CAVU and I would have had time to sort things out; or (2) called ATC and requested an Oakland transition as it appeared clear of clouds to the east; or (3) asked ATC for a SFO transition at my original altitude of 3500 feet where there were no clouds.




Synopsis: While on a VFR flight plan; C-172 pilot encountered IMC while attempting to descend below clouds in aircraft's path. Pilot climbed out of clouds and continued in VMC.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon commencement of our initial pushback; the Tug Driver informed us the packs sounded 'different' than normal. With all normal indications from flightdeck; we discussed possible causes. Once both engines were started and the APU was taken offline; the Pushback Crew confirmed the packs sounded 'closer to normal.'  Flight was uneventful.  Upon arriving; I went down to the ramp to request the Pushback Crew let us know if the packs sounded abnormal to them once we started the push. Once on the ramp; I decided to closely inspect the cabin outflow value. I discovered in the far back of the Outflow Value area what appeared to be a black duffle bag.  Ultimately; the decision was made to have Contract Maintenance remove the aft cargo bulkhead wall for best access to the bag and inspection of the aircraft. More bags were then discovered stashed behind the bulkhead wall. The bags were first inspected by the hazardous material K-9; and then produced a positive hit from the drug K-9.['This is most likely an internal issue with access to the aft cargo bay and resources to remove and replace the aft bulkhead wall to stash contraband. Aside from the obvious issues with these illegal actions; these persons have no concern for the potential life threatening impact to the safely of the aircraft. Emphasize close inspection of Cabin Outflow Value space during exterior inspection. More importantly; consider some type of tamper resistant system for the aft bulkhead wall to hamper future smuggling.']




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported discovering possible contraband on his aircraft.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: B737-900
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Several months ago; ATC for the ATL airport instituted a new reduced separation program for departures. This program seems to be used on a hit and miss basis. Many Tower controllers still use the greater separation distance between heavy and lighter aircraft. On the date in question we were set to depart behind a B777; B757 and B737-900. We were cleared to line up immediately after the B737 was cleared for takeoff. Before the B737 was half way down the runway; we were cleared for takeoff. I elected to wait until that aircraft rotated and began to climb before I advanced power for take off. Through approximately 1000 ft AGL; we flew into the wake of the 737 and were rolled at a moderate rate. It took almost full aileron input to keep our aircraft close to wings level. Shortly thereafter; as our paths diverged; we again flew into the wake of the 737; this time the roll rate was somewhat faster; again requiring full aileron input to keep our airplane from exceeding a 30 degree bank although we were not originally in a turn. The autopilot was never engaged in anticipation of this problem due to the reduced separation.Some factors for consideration might be to reconsider this reduced separation for departures. A fully loaded CRJ; regardless of variant has much less available energy for recovery than one of the heavy aircraft we are now following so closely. Additionally; a 737-900 is essentially a 757 and puts out a similar wake although somewhat mitigated by the winglets. This reduced separation program seems to be more of a convenience for the controlling agency to facilitate more aircraft launches; than a program concerned with separation safety.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence departing ATL in trail of a B737-900.