elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On preflight in ZZZ; during cockpit checks it was discovered that the elevator trim would not move back (up). It moved forward but did not roll back with electric or manual. It was jammed. The tab would not show any movement also when trim wheel being moved. It felt as if trim wheel was slipping. Maintenance had just replaced the throttle quadrant cover and obviously had altered the trim. He obviously failed to check the trim after finishing. The trim tab was in the takeoff position and this could have been missed and would have caused a disaster on takeoff being jammed. Also 2 tools were left in 2 different places of the airplane. One was left under rudder pedals of right seat.Suggest subcontracted maintenance should be held more responsible when performing maintenance.




Synopsis: CE560 Captain reported the elevator trim was malfunctioning after maintenance had completed work on the throttle quadrant.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: In cruise flight; crew heard lavatory smoke detector go off and shortly after we received a Master Warning 'LAV SMOKE' indication. This lasted for 5-10 seconds. Crew donned O2 masks and by the time we had them on the indication disappeared. I called the flight attendant who said a passenger had been in the lav. When she opened the door; the passenger appeared startled and asked what the noise was. She replied it was the smoke detector and asked him if he was smoking or vaping. The passenger was seated in first class; seat XY; and was quoted saying 'I fly you guys all the time; I would never smoke in the lav.'The flight attendant checked the lavatory and could not find the source of the smoke; she also checked the trash bin. The flight attendant asked this passenger a few more times later if he set the alarm off and he continued to deny. The flight attendant did not catch him in the act nor saw any smoke/vape product on the individual.Flight continued safely to destination at my discretion. I had previously observed a passenger blow a cloud of vape while in the jetbridge in ZZZ prior to boarding our flight. We determined this was the same person. I did not get a chance to question the individual as he took off as soon as the door opened. While on the crew van; the same person in question was seen; in a waiting area; vaping.I should've asked Dispatch for their opinion and possibly had law enforcement meet us on the ground; conduct a search of the passenger; and determine if he broke policy. I also should've called the duty officer to ask their opinion. I was searching for guidance on passenger enforcement; but could not find any.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported a passenger activated the lavatory smoke detector while vaping in flight.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bombardier/Canadair Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was on Visual Approach backed up with the RNAV Approach. On Visual Approach had a couple big down drafts around 1500 ft. with some precipitation when I went near a big dark cloud. The rest of approach was normal. Fully configured by 1;000 ft and on speed and glide path stable approach. The winds reported were variable at 4 kts. Over the threshold began to flare and pull engine to idle; at about 15-20 ft; at 115 kts; all lift went away; felt bottom drop out of us; and aircraft dropped approximately 15 ft to runway. Control inputs did very little to correct situation to arrest the increased rate of descent. I got a big tail wind gust or got caught in a microburst of some sort. The aircraft slammed onto the runway right main first; breaking and collapsing the right main gear. I slid down runway 2;000 ft. or so before leaving the pavement to the right. No injuries. Pilot and passenger unhurt.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a possible microburst or other weather event resulted in a hard landing that caused a runway excursion and damage to the aircraft.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C SJC
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X received a revised clearance that included the original LOUPE4 and BMRNG. While resetting the FMGC to include the BMRNG the Maintenance Release Document (MRD) was broke by ground crew; and gate personnel were trying to get the door shut. All distractions on the flight deck. The crew was talking to Maintenance on the phone. The LOUPE4 has a very small picture and verbiage associated with it; another threat. The 123 heading was taken out and the BMRNG transition was put in to the FMGC. Upon takeoff Aircraft X began a turn to intercept the 340 outbound not realizing that the radial was after the 123 heading back to SJC VOR then out the radial. ATC stopped the turn with a vector and control heading back around the to the VOR fix. Upon getting to altitude and cruise; looking at the small picture and text; was the procedure realized. Other than vectors no ATC action noted.




Synopsis: A First Officer reported the flight crew deviated from the assigned SID.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E MIA
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: I copied; read back and understood the ATC clearance as; 'cleared to destination via the FLL4.departure; THNDR; LBV; LAL; SZW; as filed...' The FLL4 SID did not display any 'transition' options in the FMS. I saw that it was a radar vector SID and it stated to fly runway heading off Runway 08; then radar vectors. I loaded the FMS with the FLL4 SID and manually typed 'THNDR' as the first waypoint; expecting radar vectors to THNDR. On the upwind leg; we were given an ATC vector heading northbound; and then north westbound; then something indiscernible; followed by 'fly heading 270 to join the THNDR transition'. We flew 270 heading and quickly joined a course line to THNDR. Shortly afterward ATC advised we should intercept the 335 radial from Dolphin VOR to THNDR. We had intercepted a course line from the FLL airport to THNDR. Not a course line from Dolphin VOR to THNDR. ATC then gave us a 'cleared direct to THNDR' and a frequency change. As a 'Radar Vector' SID; the FLL4 SID is unquestionably 'UN-conventional' in its format. Typical Radar Vector SIDs display a multitude of free standing waypoints; one of which you can expect to be vectored towards; and then cleared direct. The FLL4 Radar vector SID displays several waypoints but; connected by short course lines to other fixes. I was expecting radar vectors to THNDR. Apparently ATC was expecting something different. I thought TERPS was to standardize chart format; to enhance commonality in chart presentation and; therefore; enhance safety. What a great concept! I have never seen a Radar vector SID displayed like the FLL4 SID.




Synopsis: A C-560XL Captain and crew departing FXE were confused by their clearance via the FLL SID and what they believed to be an unusual SID format which utilized only enroute transitions following departure headings and radar vectors.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Staffing; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working the North Local position on the Runway 12L/R configuration. Weather was snow/sleet IFR; low visibility; low ceilings. Air Carrier Z (A320) landed and was slow to exit at Papa 4; I asked the pilot how the braking action at Papa 4 was; [and] I received a poor report past the Papa 4 intersection. I then instructed the pilot to contact Ground Control. My next landing aircraft was Air Carrier X (CRJ) which I cleared to land with a poor braking action report past Papa 4. Air Carrier Z changed his braking action report to 'NILL' on the Ground Control frequency. I recall hearing the 'NILL' report from the Ground Controller just as Air Carrier X was flaring out. Since all my arrivals had exited Runway 12L prior to Papa 4. I thought the runway was still safe to use prior to that intersection; at least for this last arrival since they were close in on final. I issued the 'NILL' braking report to Air Carrier Y past the Papa 4 intersection; and cleared them to land. Air Carrier Y exited Runway 12L prior to Papa 4 with no problem. I then recall hearing the airport manager closing Runway 12L. There was a lot going on at my North Local position at this time; wind; weather; low ceilings; compression on final; braking action advisories; watching the required staggered separation on our close parallels; and scanning the runway as well. As always it's always good to have a second pair off eyes when air traffic is complex; which it is at ZZZ. I feel a dedicated local coordinator position during busy traffic would be a great asset to each of our local positions.




Synopsis: Tower Controller chronicled a poor braking action landing event when the exact nature and location of the poor braking was confused and another aircraft was cleared to land; shortly after the runway was closed.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing through 10;000 ft when [we heard] a bang and continuous vibration were experienced. A scan of the engine instrumentation showed a maxed ITT (Inter Turbine Temperature) on the right engine and reduction of N1 and N2 percentages. The first officer; who was the flying pilot at the time of incident then assumed the additional duty of ATC communication and stated our need to return to [departure airport]. He and I discussed the situation and agreed upon the engine suffering severe damage. I then ran the Immediate Action Items for L (R) ENG FIRE Message or Severe Engine Damage (In Flight). After we had gone through step 4 I elected to skip steps 5 and 6 as we did not have a fire indication. I then stopped the checklist there and commenced the checklist for L (R) REV UNLOCKED Message as the right reverser was displaying unlocked. The checklist did not secure the reverser so I proceeded to the single engine procedures checklist as directed in step 7 of the first checklist.Before the checklist; the FA called on the interphone and I briefed her on the situation. I then made a PA to inform the passengers since the engine was secured. I decided this was an appropriate time to make the address as I was already taken away from the checklist by the FA's call. I then returned to the single engine procedures checklist to prepare the aircraft for landing on one engine.After completion of the single engine procedures checklist; I sent a couple ACARS messages to my dispatcher and maintenance control. In the meantime the FO and I prepared the aircraft for the approach; ran the descent and approach checklist; and a few minutes later I assumed control of the aircraft for the landing phase of the flight. We accomplished a successful landing in an overweight scenario and came to stop on the runway. I set the parking brake and made a PA to command the passengers to remain in their seats and stand-by while ARFF vehicles made a visual assessment of the condition of the right engine. From the information they provided; the FO and I decided it was possible to safely taxi to the terminal for a normal deplaning for the passengers.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported returning to departure airport after inflight shutdown of the right engine due to high inter turbine temperatures.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: B737-700's data block showed he was at FL230 with a clearance to descend to FL190; when I accepted the hand off from Sector 22. Shortly after; Conflict Alert activated; showing ERJ175 climbing to FL230 in direct confliction with B737-700. As it worked out; B737-700 was stopped above ERJ175; but the transferring Controller did not show it in the data block; nor did he/she call the receiving Controller. When B737-700 checked on my frequency; showing he had a clearance to FL190; the aircraft checked in level at FL230. I asked him to verify his assigned altitude and he verified he was level at FL230. This situation is a reoccurring event and must be addressed. The data block should always indicate what the aircraft is doing; per the 7110.65. If procedures are in place that makes this impossible; then procedures need to be changed. In this case; the transferring Controller should have called the receiving Controller. This habit of 'pre-loading' data blocks is unsafe and must be stopped.




Synopsis: ZBW Controller described an unsafe condition when traffic being transferred to his/her frequency contained inaccurate data block information activating a false 'Conflict Alert'.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Turbulence
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
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
Human factors: Workload
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: On approach Into New York's LaGuardia airport; Runway 31; we experienced a wind shear event that caused a go around. During the go around we were assigned an altitude of 3000 ft. Upon reaching 3000ft the Captain asked for me to request a block of airspace from ATC because we were struggling to keep proper pitch and wings level attitude in moderate turbulence. Due to workload and ATC congestion I was unable to make the request and one updraft ballooned us to an altitude that was approaching 3200 feet. Once we got to a higher; and slightly smoother altitude we handled the bleed one over pressure that had occurred at application of max thrust during the wind shear event; and assessed the situation. We thought it best to divert to JFK for more favorable conditions. We landed uneventfully.


Second narrative: We had shot 1 approach and tower called the go around. The aircraft rejected their takeoff for wind shear. Second time we came around we got a wind shear warning. I followed the wind shear guidance on the go around. They gave us 3000 ft. When I reached 3000ft we were in moderate turbulence and do to the excessive winds I was unable to maintain altitude. I ended up 200ft high and then shortly after 200ft low. We tried to ask for a block of altitude but due to radio congestion could not. By the time we had a chance to get a hold of NY we were out of the worst of it. We also were dealing with a 1 bleed over pressure and running the QRH. We ended up diverting to KJFK to get fuel since now we had used our extra. ATC said nothing about our altitude deviation.


Synopsis: ERJ-175 crew reported 2 missed approaches due to wind shear followed by a diversion because of low fuel.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DJI Inspire 2
Operator: Commercial Operator (UAS)
Operating under: Part 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Reporter organization: Commercial Operator (UAS)
Reporter function: Remote PIC (UAS); Person Manipulating Controls (UAS)
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Remote Pilot (UAS)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of VLOS (UAS)
Detector: Person UAS Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Breached 400 ft. ceiling in airspace authorization. Was on a very fast climb and was keeping VLOS (Visual Line of Sight) of the UAS in order to see and avoid all aircraft. RPIC (Remote Pilot in Command) was monitoring altitude by briefly breaking VLOS to look at GCS (Ground Control Station) screen. RPIC was briefly distracted by a member of the flight crew and the interval between checking the GCS screen exceeded anticipated amount of time. When RPIC saw the UAS exceeding altitude; RPIC immediately stopped and began descending. RPIC should have crew member read off altitude during fast climb.




Synopsis: Commercial UAS crew operating a UAS exceeded authorized altitude during climb while in close proximity to Class C airspace.