elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201902
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight deck door was closed and locked before pushback by A Flight Attendant. During takeoff flight deck door inadvertently opened. I was working C position and strapped into my jumpseat. When this event happened. I quickly turned and attempted to shut [the] door even though it was physically impossible to do so at takeoff speeds and initial climb ( being it is a steel reinforced door and extremely heavy at that point during flight). I did my best at what I was trained to do; protecting flight deck from a possible breach; while holding the door closed to a point until I could get out of my jumpseat to actually close it. In the process; I was hurt by the strain on my left side of my body (arm; shoulder and neck) at that particular angle being strapped in for my safety during takeoff. I did not know the extent of my injury until a few hours later as my neck and shoulder region began to swell up due to the strain. I did seek medical treatment via company afterwards later in the day as my trip was over. Our B flight attendant claimed that this was not the first time experiencing the MAX 8 door inadvertently opening during takeoff. This was my first experience. My concern is are people reporting this. Is this a possible problem with the MAX 8. I personally can not claim human error or equipment problem. But worth investigating to ensure safety of flight crew as this could be a possible security breach in the worst case scenario. There is no protocol for an inadvertent flight deck door opening during takeoff in our manual; so I did what I instinctively knew. protect flight deck from a possible breach. In the meantime I did get hurt in this event as it is truly difficult to close that door at takeoff while strapped in the forward jumpseat. I want to bring light to this subject in what is the right thing to do in this event.




Synopsis: B737 MAX Flight Attendant reported incurring a minor injury while attempting to close the flight deck door when it opened during takeoff.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E PHL
ATC / advisory: TRACON PHL
Second aircraft: MD-11
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While on descent to Philadelphia (PHL Approach) we were cleared to cross BUNTS Intersection at 8;000 FT. Flight conditions were smooth air; 10 miles visibility and clear. While descending through 11;000 FT the aircraft entered a severe upset state; full scale brick (yaw) deflection; and the aircraft rolled 30+ degree bank to the left and to the right. I disconnected the autopilot and attempted to maintain control with the hand wheel (yoke); and let the yaw damper straighten out the rudder. The yaw damper would not keep the aircraft straight and for a moment I thought we had experienced an 'uncommanded yaw motion' and asked for pilot not flying to disconnect the yaw damper but then corrected myself and kept it engaged. We exited the upset and regained aircraft control and leveled at 11;000 FT. At this time we queried ATC as to what type of aircraft was approximately 8-10 miles ahead and below us. ATC responded that it was a heavy MD-11. At the time of upset; the aircraft was 700 FT below us and around 8 miles ahead of us. We reported to ATC that we had entered an upset possibly due to the MD-11's wake. ATC replied; 'Roger; we are complying with published separation standards; but you are the second aircraft to complain about his wake.' ATC then took us off our arrival (turned 20 degrees left) and descended us lower to avoid the MD-11. We contacted the Flight Attendant to insure she was ok. She was fine; but was out of her seat during the event accomplishing normal approach duties. We then landed without incident. I'm calling into question the FAA's current published wake turbulence separation standards for heavy aircraft. ATC was complying with published regulations; however; our aircraft still entered a severe upset.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported loss of control because of wake turbulence from a preceding MD-11 on approach to PHL. Reporter questioned current wake turbulence separation standards.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ORD
Second aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We had just landed and were instructed by the Ground Controller to proceed north and hold short of Taxiway U. While on Taxiway B just short of the A20; I noticed a foreign air carrier B-777-300 start to taxi parallel to us on the International Ramp. At intersection A20; the triple seven turned left immediately in front of us. I stopped quickly to avoid a collision while; at the same time my First Officer jumped on the outbound Ground frequency and told them to stop four times. After I determined they had enough room to clear our aircraft (approximately 100ft) I called our Flight Attendant to make sure our passengers were OK and she informed me they were. We then asked Ground for clearance to proceed. Once parked I called ground to ask him if the triple seven had been given taxi instructions and advised to look for traffic (us) off his left.  His reply was; 'I was not talking to the other Ground Controller.' I suggest the need for additional training for the Ground controllers at ORD. They need to be communicating with each other so that they don't give conflicting instructions to two different aircraft on two different frequencies.




Synopsis: An ERJ taxiing to the gate after landing at ORD had to stop abruptly when a B777-300 exiting the International Ramp turned immediately in front of them.  ATC later advised the aircraft were under the direction of separate Ground controllers who had not coordinated the conflict.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OQN.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E PHL
ATC / advisory: CTAF OQN
Aircraft component: Transponder
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon takeoff from an airport within the Philadelphia Mode C transponder ring; the aircraft's transponder was 'On' but was not reporting Mode C altitude; due to a potentially misleading indication on the panel. According to the 'Garmin G3X Touch Pilot's Guide;' Rev. H; page 117: 'ON Mode can be selected at any time. ON Mode generates Mode A and Mode S replies; but Mode C altitude reporting is inhibited. In ON Mode; a green ON indication and transponder code appear in the mode field of the Transponder Data Box.' This can be a misleading design. The pilot puts the transponder into 'Manual On Mode' and sees the green 'ON' indication with the transponder code. But behind the scenes; the selection of 'ON Mode' inhibits altitude reporting. The manual further says: 'Altitude Mode is automatically selected when the aircraft becomes airborne. Altitude Mode may also be selected manually.' There is no indication that having selected the 'ON Mode' requires the further selection of the 'Altitude Mode' to turn on the mode C altitude reporting; especially since it says; without qualification; that altitude mode 'is automatically selected when the aircraft becomes airborne.' Thus; with this setup; it is way too easy to take off in an area where Mode C altitude reporting is required; believing that the transponder is doing exactly that; when it isn't. The indication on the G3X panel; when the system is 'ON' but not in altitude reporting mode; should indicate something like 'NO Alt' or similar. Further; since the G3X is quite a capable navigation tool; it should be able to determine if it within a 'Mode C' veil; and if so; flash a warning if altitude reporting is not enabled.




Synopsis: Light sport aircraft pilot reported that the transponder did not report altitude as expected/required.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Initial Approach; Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was scheduled to operate to DFW. Prior to the flight; both the Captain and I discussed that we were both very unfamiliar with DFW (my first time and his first time in 7 years). Both of us noticed that there was a note regarding that FOQA has had a high rate of unstabilized approaches that occur at DFW. We were given the BONHAM 5 arrival and we were told to expect Runway 35C. We complied with all the applicable restrictions; including the restriction to; 'cross and MAINTAIN 220 KTS at STONZ.' We ended crossing STONZ at 11;000 FT for departure traffic and finally getting a descent clearance to 7;000 FT abeam the field. At that time; ATC cleared us down to 3;000 FT and hurry down and expect a short approach. After slowing and getting the flaps to 20 degrees we got a turn to the base turn at 5;000-6;000 FT. At this time I called for the gear to be selected down (much earlier than I normally do) and I was able to stabilize the aircraft well before 500 FT AGL as required by the Company (day VMC conditions). We landed normally and taxied to the gate. While I did meet all aircraft and company limitations; it was certainly not the prettiest approach. After seeing first hand how operations work in DFW; I can understand why we have so many unstabilized approaches. There are three main issues that contributed in our case. 1) The cross and MAINTAIN 220 KTS at STONZ is not conducive to slowing and configuring the aircraft. Also; I believe every other aircraft that frequently flies into DFW can configure somewhat at that speed. 2) Expectation Bias. I expected this approach to be just like other airports; slow abeam the field and have a 10-20 mile final. It wasn't until ATC said short approach that my expectation changed. 3) ATC. Short approaches are a great use of airspace and are a good thing. That said good communication is vital. If ATC had said expect a short approach earlier; I would have configured the aircraft differently.




Synopsis: A First Officer noted that after a DFW BONHAM 5 Arrival with a short approach to Runway 35C he understood why FOQA data was identifying an unusual number of unstabilized approaches.
Date: 201809
Location: I19.Airport, OH
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Other Person
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Ham Radios are mounted near the obstruction light on the West Second Street water tower in Xenia; Ohio; next to the Greene County Lewis A Jackson Regional Airport. The 2.4 and 5.8 GHz radio antennas are mounted above the light on a mast that passes up past the light. This cannot help but reduce visibility of the light in some directions. The City of Xenia water treatment division approved this installation. I would not like to see this contribute to an accident.

Callback: The reporter stated that the water tower is not in the path of the airport; but along side of the airport; and has a light indicating an obstruction. The reporter stated that a contractor for the city installed the 2.4 GHz antenna along side the light on the water tower. The reporter also stated that a couple of antennas were installed using the same post as the light is on. The reporter stated that the antennas are well above the light obstructing the light illumination from the air. The reporter stated that the antenna mast is right up against the light causing it difficult to see from any angle.



Synopsis: An observer reported that Ham Radio Antennas are blocking a water tower obstruction light.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OCH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G OCH
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: In Nacogdoches County Texas; I was mistakenly piloting an UAV in class G air space. I was flying at approximately 350 ft AGL taking photography of the sunset off the treetops. I noticed an airstrip in the distance and immediately grounded the aircraft. I researched my location and realized I am within 5 miles of Mangham Jr. Regional Airport in Nacogdoches; TX. I assumed Angelina county airport was the only airport in the area. I will make every effort to familiarize myself with local airspace with sectional charts prior to flying. I will also make contact with ATC in controlled airspace prior to flying.




Synopsis: DJI Phantom 3 UAS pilot flying at sunset discovered he launched near an airport when he viewed the airport through his UAS video camera.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Software and Automation
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Experienced loss of GPS functionality due to interference or jamming on Aircraft X along route from approximately LOGMU to UBONA on [Date].  Approximate time period XA43z - XB29z. Suspect jamming or interference.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier pilot flying in foreign country airspace reported GPS jamming.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: DC-10 30
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Check Pilot
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: En route at FL350; received a level one HYD 1 OFF alert. [We] declared an emergency with Center. Uneventful landing was able to taxi clear of the runway. Stopped aircraft on taxiway; was inspected by Maintenance and ground personnel; hooked up to a tug; and towed to our gate. Good coordination all the way around.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 had no additional information.]


Synopsis: MD-10 flight crew reported loss of #1 hydraulic system. After coordinating with appropriate entities a normal landing ensued.
Date: 201911
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operating under: Part 121
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: The pressure washer needs to be connected; to make serviceable. East hangar lavatory/wash rack. Vehicles are oily and dangerous. Have told Management to have hooked up several times. Request is going on 2 months now. Please hook up and make serviceable.




Synopsis: Maintenance Personnel reported pressure washer needs to be made serviceable.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I received a phone call from the Technician working the aircraft. He reported the left elevator trim actuator part number 6660161-20; had the primary drive gear installed on the wrong shaft of the actuator making it unusable for the left hand application. They had talked to Cessna Technical Support and they advised at that time it was not permissible to swap the primary gear to the other shaft. I placed another -20 actuator on order at that time. [The next day] I received another call from [the Technician] advising the second actuator they received also had the primary drive gear on the wrong side. I contacted Cessna technical support and he told me it was permissible per the CMM [Component Maintenance Manual] to swap the primary gear as long as the roll pins were replaced and loctite was reapplied. I ordered the roll pins and asked the Technician to try and swap the primary gear to the appropriate shaft per the CMM. [He] called back a little over an hour later and advised that the shaft on both actuators broke when he attempted to remove the primary gears. I placed another -20 trim actuator on order and called Cessna technical support. I told [them] what had happened with the actuator shafts when the Technician tried removing the primary gears and asked him to personally check and make sure the next trim actuator they shipped was orientated per the -20 spec before it got shipped. [The Cessna Representative] called back and advised they found an actuator that was assembled properly and it was being shipped out. He also indicated they had found four more of the -20 trim actuators that were not assembled properly and were pulled from inventory. It would appear there was a breakdown in the assembly process of the 6660161-20 trim actuator. I would suggest a follow-up with Cessna Quality Assurance asking them to advise what measures they are putting into place to assure proper assembly of the actuators to avoid further issues like this in the future.




Synopsis: Maintenance personnel identified that the replacement Cessna 560XL left elevator trim actuator was not properly configured. A second unit was also found to be improperly configured. After Cessna Technical Support advised a procedure to reposition the gear; the Technician damaged both units. A correctly configured unit was located but Cessna identified and removed from stock 4 additional incorrectly assembled units.