elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
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 E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were descending on the ILS [and] had just entered sterile cockpit and ATC asked if we had the airport in sight. We responded that we did and they cleared us for the visual and gave a speed reduction from 250 kts to 210 kts. I set the speed selector to 210 kts and after the throttles went to idle for the slowdown we received an ENG 2 CONTROL FAULT caution message on the EICAS. My FO grabbed the QRH and I told him that I had the aircraft and the radios and he would run the QRH for the displayed message. We performed QRH which after disconnecting autothrottles asked if the engine was responsive. I advanced the engine 2 thrust lever and there was no response; this was at approximately at 8800 ft. The QRH said that throttle response would be either slow or stabilized in an idle condition. The engine was stabilized at idle and the QRH told us to prepare for a single engine approach and landing. After determining that the throttle was unresponsive we told ATC our problem. We informed the flight attendants of the situation even though we were in sterile because I felt they should be aware of the situation. We did not brief the passengers because of the high workload and felt that it was more important to get the airplane on the ground since we would be landing very shortly. I elected to keep the non-responsive engine running because it was at a stabilized idle thrust condition and there was no indications that I felt warranted a complete shutdown. We configured the aircraft early to ensure a stabilized approach. In the high workload I forgot to arm the approach mode and ended up slightly high on glide slope. I clicked off the autopilot and hand flew the approach to an uneventful landing. We taxied to the gate and deplaned normally without any further incidents. Once everyone was off the plane I called Dispatch to notify them of the event as required per the Flight Operations Manual.


Second narrative: While descending through approximately 10;000 MSL after speed reduction to 210 knots; EICAS message 'ENG 2 FADEC CONTROL FAULT' appeared.


Synopsis: EMB-175 flight crew reported landing with the #2 engine at idle thrust; with no response to thrust lever input; due to a FADEC fault.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) conducted a facility audit. During the audit; they found several consumable products with an expired shelf life in the Fire / Storage in the hangar. The FAA brought these items to the Supervisor's attention at the time and the Supervisor responded properly and removed the items from use. I received a phone call and an email stating that the FAA had decided to issue a SNAAP (Streamed No Action and Administrative Action Program) Letter to me regarding the incident.Monthly audits performed at the base failed to identify or locate the material prior to the expiration. This is not caused by an improper audit; but by the extensiveness of the task and the number of locations requiring the audit. In my opinion; the tasks is too large to be 100 % accurate.Expired shelf life or improperly labeled material was found in the work area.After the FAA brought the items to our attention; Management disposed of the items.[Company] needs to implement a new program dealing with shelf life material. Possibly an electronic program to Label; Monitor; Track; and Control shelf life items; or a 'one Time Use' program so material is not stored for later use and have the possibility of expiring. The current program is too complicated and labor intensive; and a 100% level of accuracy is difficult to achieve. Also; our Company culture needs to change as well so employees stop storing items for later use creating the possibility of the finding.




Synopsis: Maintenance Manager reports that audit found expired consumable products in stock at maintenance facility.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 E Super 21
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Failed; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After departing for home field; the landing gear failed to raise. When within range I called Unicom; advised the attendant of the situation; and asked him to stay on duty to visually verify that my gear was down. When I was adjacent to the terminal; he verified that the gear was in fact down. I had a green gear down light and with visual confirmation I landed the airplane. I felt the wheels on the pavement and immediately the airplane was on its belly. I shut everything down and got out. The airport attendant had closed the runway and met me at the airplane. He called a tow and we got the airplane back on its wheels and towed it to the hangar. It's worth noting that after being serviced [earlier this year]; the gear had failed to raise as I departed for home. I returned to the shop and they worked on the squat switch for several hours before releasing it. I had not had any more issues until this incident.




Synopsis: M20E pilot reported that after being unable to raise the landing gear; the gear collapsed on the landing roll.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 140 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cargo Compartment Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While serving as First Officer; the following event occurred.After takeoff while performing the After Takeoff Flow Checklist; crew noticed illuminated BAGG EXT button at approximately 4;000 ft. Crew [advised ATC]; and asked to return to ZZZ while also requesting assistance from Crash Fire Rescue. Crew performed the [recommended procedure] in the QRH; returned and landed safely at ZZZ on Runway XXR. Crash Fire Rescue crews inspected the baggage compartment on the taxiway and then escorted the airplane back to the gate for further inspection.There were no live animals onboard and no personnel injury or aircraft damage noted. Unsure of cause of smoke alarm; overweight landing reported to Maintenance with a touchdown descent rate of 250 fpm.




Synopsis: ERJ-140 flight crew reported cargo compartment fire warning after takeoff; resulting in a return to land.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ; Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: SR22
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was given a heading for a (diverging) right downwind for [the] visual. I was advised to remain at 7500 feet as the approach controller tried to get me in sequence for a touch and go. I was given directions to a lower aircraft which I understood that I was to follow and then immediately told to climb to 8500 (1500 above pattern) due to converging traffic. In fact this would have put me at the same altitude as the converging traffic; a Cirrus; there was immediate evasive action required by me. I was brought back into the pattern and told to follow Diamond Star; then they said 'that's not going to work because you are overtaking him by 50 knots'; I was on Right base and the other traffic was on final. I had not slowed down because I was being vectored all over.On departure after switching back to tower I was told to maintain an altitude and given a heading which took me into the [a near by] Class D airspace. I continued to fly this heading until the approach controller turned me out of the airspace. I assumed I had been cleared into as I was vectored to the airspace. I don't know what was going on that day but it was pretty scary.I am uncertain if they created a collision hazard by flying me on a heading and making me climb to a converging aircrafts heading or that I truly violated airspace squawking a discreet code and being vectored into [a near by Delta] airspace at 8500.




Synopsis: Cessna 182 pilot had to maneuver to avoid oncoming traffic in the airport pattern. While maneuvering he entered another airports class D airspace inadvertently. Once clear of traffic the pilot departed the airspace and landed normally.
Date: 201702
Location: X51.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF X51
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other Post-Flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was attempting to land at runway 27U turf at X51 when I heard the ramp vehicle come on Unicom asking to cross 27U. I called final for 27U and the airport car stated that it is holding for me. The airport car distracted me so I came in 15kts fast and decided to go around after passing 1/3 of the runway without touching down. As I was turning base to final I was informed of bird activity near the runway distracting me from flying the aircraft. I finally spotted the birds and determined that they were of no conflict with my flight path. On short final I was having difficulty locating the runway environment due to poor airport markings. I was certain I was lined up on the runway right up until I touched down at which point the terrain was much rougher than I recall from my prior landings on the turf runway. Upon turning off of the runway we taxied over to the tie down area where we were informed by the airport manager that we had landed to the side of the grass runway in the grass. I was informed that no touch and goes were permitted along with landing an aircraft over 3600 lbs. The AFD did not indicate that either prohibited. They went on to say that only tail draggers; helicopters and gliders are permitted to land on the grass.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported he landed to the side of the grass runway 27U at X51.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 2000
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Window Ice/Rain System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During post engine start checks both pilots and flight attendant saw an orange glow up in glare shield vent emitting heavy black smoke with particulate matter. The aircraft was immediately evacuated; engines were shut down; and all generators and batteries turned off.After evacuation ships main batteries in forward service compartment were disconnected. Fire department was notified and responded. They inspected the aircraft and found no further evidence of an active fire.

Callback: The Reporter stated that the windshield heat contactor over heated and as it melted the smoke entered the cockpit through the vent directly below the window.



Synopsis: A DA 2000 First Officer reported that after engine start the glare shield vent emitted an orange glow and black particulate smoke as a windshield contactor failed. The aircraft was shutdown and evacuated.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LSE.Airport, WI
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 15
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-6
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZME
ATC / advisory: Tower LSE
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While flying [a charity flight] I heard on the radio; 'Wow! That's a nice RV'. I suspected that I was close to another aircraft for that transmission to occur; however I could not locate one. After looking all around; I noticed the Taylorcraft also providing rides about a mile in trail of me and at the same altitude.I was surprised that it was at the same altitude because I was briefed that low-wing aircraft were to fly at 2000 feet and high-wing would fly at 2500 feet. When I got on the ground and after the Taylorcraft landed; I introduced myself to the pilot of the Taylorcraft and inquired about how close we were. The pilot said that I flew over the top of him. I was shocked because I expected that he was near 2500 feet. I told him that I was briefed that low-wings were to be at 2000 feet and high-wings were at 2500 feet. He replied; 'Yeah; but I can't get to 2500 in this'. I never saw the Taylorcraft and informed the pilot that I never saw him. He said 'That's scary!' I agreed.I was fairly upset with myself for not seeing the other aircraft and reflected on what could have distracted me. At the time I was pointing out to the [passenger] the instrument panel; specifically the altimeter and airspeed. However; I was still doing my traffic scan. I believe that this should be a learning event and I intend to brief this at our next [organization] meeting.




Synopsis: RV-6 pilot reported a near mid-air collision with another aircraft while on a charity flight.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Manuals; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was sent to a hearing for the events stemming in June 2012. On that day; I observed moisture ingress on the R-3 (Right) cockpit window while checking a Logbook. I was charged with violating company rules. The charges were eventually dropped. Now I'm again being brought in for another investigation (which is the application of discipline) for the moisture ingress I documented [also] in June 2012 on the L-3 (Left) cockpit window on another B757-200 aircraft. On this occasion I was sent to the aircraft to unlock the cockpit door for a Rockwell Collins Contractor and noticed the moisture ingress when I stepped into the cockpit. Management has nothing but contempt for the FARs and a safe airline operation. They expect me to ignore obvious defects to avoid a delay. My Air Carrier is aware it has a major problem with moisture ingress in the B757 [cockpit] side windows; which are not permitted because it may lead to [electrical] arcing. Yet; the company has not issued an Engineering Order (E/O) to inspect their B757 fleet or sought any other remedy. Instead; I get harassed when I discover moisture ingress during the course of the day. This is now my 2nd report on the subject and Management still continues to harass me for the discovery of obvious defects. At this point; I believe we need new management leadership.




Synopsis: A Line Mechanic reports he continues to be harassed by Maintenance Management for discovery of obvious defects and moisture ingress at the L-3 (Left) and R-3 (Right) cockpit side windows on their B757-200 aircraft.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: During our arrival Center asked us to descend and maintain 33000 feet. We complied and during our descent we received a frequency change to the next Center. We checked in with our current altitude which was 35000 feet and advised of our crossing instructions. Once we reached 34000 feet we received 'Traffic Traffic' on our TCAS. The pilot flying switched to VS mode and shallowed the descent. We then received a Resolution Advisory (RA). We advised Center but he said there was no traffic in our area. We advised him of the RA and that we had visual on the traffic below us; which was an airliner. He again said that the only traffic near us was 40 miles ahead of us. We said nothing else and continued the arrival.




Synopsis: A Pilot reported they recieved an RA for traffic and sighted the traffic but ATC stated they showed no traffic in that position on their radar.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A CRJ7 departed Runway 1R on the SFO8 SID. When the aircraft began their right turn to the SID heading; I shipped them to NorCal. When I went to clear the next arrival to land; I noticed the CRJ7 almost due eastbound about 2 miles north of final climbing out of 3;000 FT. This was not an issue for my arrivals. My Local Assist and I briefly discussed what could have taken place. Maybe NorCal turned them early was our thought. About three hours later; a Supervisor asked me if I remember anything unusual about this flight. I said they appeared to have eastbound outside of my airspace for some reason. The Supervisor then explained that NorCal had the pilot call; and found out they were flying the wrong SID. This is where it gets bizarre: The aircraft was filed; KSFO.DUMB6.LIN... The aircraft was cleared; KSFO.SFO8.SFO.LIN... I am curious how the pilot(s) got the plane to depart on a SID that does not connect with the runway used? The DUMB6 is only used for Runways 10 and 19. The SFO 8 SID is only used for Runways 1/28. Determine what anomaly took place to allow this to occur.




Synopsis: SFO Controller described a confusing turn initiated by a SFO8 departure; later discovering the aircraft in question was flying the DUMB6 SID contrary to the clearance issued.