elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EGLL.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B777-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON EGLL
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were given a speed reduction to maintain 250 KTS speed by London. Flying in VNAV; as the speed decayed I pushed FLCH to continue our descent and capture the speed as the airplane would smoothly pitch over. The airspeed continued to decay; but the airplane did not start down; it seemed to level off. I disconnected the autopilot to arrest the speed reduction by continuing the descent. The Relief Pilot and I both noticed that the lower foot seemed excessively high. To prevent the airspeed from approaching the foot; I incorrectly called for flaps one to lower the foot. The Relief Pilot put the handle to flaps one but within a few second he stated that our altitude was too height for flaps so he re-selected flaps up. I do not believe the flaps came out. We were both distracted by what we thought to be an excessively high foot; and I was distracted further by the airplane not descending fast enough with the autopilot on and subsequently hand flying to remain within the appropriate envelope. The foot is higher at higher altitudes; but we both thought it was higher than normal. Using a Green; Yellow; Amber; Red analogy; I was not willing to let the airplane exit the Green realm and I wasn't willing to try and figure out the automation anomalies that seemed to exist. This may or may not be related however the trim setting on the close out was 6.0 and the FMC indicated 8.0 which we all three noticed as being unusually high. Not any of the three of us had seen a trim setting this high. The trim setting actually worked fine for take off; maybe better than usual. The First Officer was on break and not in the cockpit. Next time I am in this situation; I will not be so quick to try and comply with the requested speed reduction but rather coordinate with ATC to possibly delay the speed reduction or maybe take a turn if necessary. I remained well within the proper flight envelope but ATC would probably have been cooperative in delaying the speed reduction.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reports getting slower than desired when directed to slow to 250 KTS by ATC above FL200. FLCH is selected as the speed passes through 250 KTS; but the aircraft does not pitch over. Flaps 1 are called for then immediately retracted due to the altitude and the autopilot is disconnected and the nose pitched over manually. A high nose up trim setting on departure was thought to be factor.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Pre-flight

Narrative: Our Dispatch Software suggested going no alternate to DFW. The flights arrival time in DFW is XA17z. The forecast one hour before and one hour after the arrival time showed a ceiling of BKN020 at XB00z. If I do not show an alternate I will be at the very edge of legality and could be illegal if the ceiling drops below forecast. The alternate burn for [this aircraft] is 949 LBS. There is very little; if any; difference in gate release fuel by adding the alternate with minimums hold fuel and just going with an adequate amount of holding fuel and no alternate.The Dispatch Software does not have a buffer limit for either ceiling or visibility and will take you right to the legal limit every time.

Callback: The Reporter stated that the software is being release in stages and what they have now is only part of a larger system. Unfortunately the design engineers did not include active dispatchers for input about their current and future needs. One issue with the onset of RNAV procedures is the program will not calculate fuel usage during climb and descent level offs. Another issue is the requirement for a dispatcher to manually enter wing and engine anti-ice system usage and the resultant fuel burn. The Reporter stated dispatchers are getting some pushback from flight crews but he personally will add additional fuel if a pilot requests it. Management at the highest level in his airline has been notified about the present and anticipated problems. One item dispatchers requested but not considered in the current design is a FAA Traffic Management interface tool which would allow them to predict peak and slack traffic times at a flight's departure or destination. Such a tool allows more accurate fuel management because of known delays.



Synopsis: A Dispatcher described his Company's newly released Dispatch Planning Software which has a limitation in fuel planning for alternates and holding based on the automated weather input and may cause an illegal dispatch fuel load.
Date: 201912
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Stratolifter (C-135 / 717)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Communication Systems
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Night interfacility flight: Aircraft was just procured as a spare the previous day. Unfortunately; the radio was not programmed for our area; unable to obtain required cable needed for programming. As a workaround we were to talk to our communicators on the portable using an adapter. I was told by those familiar with said workaround that I would be able to hear the person transmit and then hear the reply. After startup the flight plan was given by the flight medic and I realized I could not hear him or the reply. I was already skeptical of the process but when this occurred I made it clear that it was not adequate; the flight nurse in the back said he really didn't like it-- made decision to abortAircraft came with a full load of equipment but not included was a cable which is used to program the radio- this is a spare aircraft so should be the most important piece of equipment included. Also; there was no effort program our aircraft with our usual Dispatcher; Flightwatch. So we could not talk to our Dispatcher and they could not track us. Workaround was to use portables to plug into the aircraft. We had no operating frequency for Aircom; our other Dispatcher; they could track us. Before the aborted flight Aircom had called and advised me that due to the problem that they would not be dispatching us. When we finally did get a flight assigned to us I could not get a risk approval because each agency thought the other was going to do it. Bottom line: all of this could have been avoided if the cable was included in the Aircraft. Mechanic says he has called around and can't find one. Also; it is important to have the Aircraft programmed into our area's sky connect so they can track us.




Synopsis: ECD-EC135 pilot reported canceling mission due to communication cable missing and unable to make workaround operable.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Falcon 900
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: At just after XA00Z descending to 9;000 feet; while being vectored from ZZZ Approach to intercept the final approach course for Runway XXR at ZZZ we experienced an RA. Just before the aircraft alerted us to the resolution; the Controller started to give us a traffic alert but his radio call was overtaken by the aircraft resolution audio and we began the immediate climb. We only saw the conflict aircraft for a matter of seconds on the TCAS before we realized he was climbing into our descent. The resolution had us climb the airplane to an eventual altitude of 9;700 feet before alerting us that we were clear of conflict. We advised the Controller that we were responding to an RA and when we were clear of the conflict. He continued our vectors and released us to ZZZ Tower soon after; where we advised him a second time that we had experienced a RA. We landed at ZZZ without further incident.




Synopsis: Falcon 900 Captain reported responding to a TCAS Resolution Advisory to climb; avoiding another aircraft that was only detected by the TCAS system for a matter of seconds.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZTL
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: On descent into CLT; open descent; 6;000 selected in the altitude window. Approaching AAIRE on the JONZE 2; I asked the FO to verify our descent clearance as it didn't feel right being cleared to 6;000 with departures at CLT coming off of 18C. As I asked this; I disconnected the autopilot and arrested the descent at 8;820. The frequency was quite congested (CLT Approach) so the FO was unable to get a word in. However; as I continued the climb from 8;820 to 9;000; CLT Approach did ask us to climb and maintain 9;000. To my knowledge; there were no traffic conflicts; however it was a very uncomfortable situation.Flying into CLT has become problematic with the CDA arrivals. The CHESLY has become legendary for altitude busts; and the JONZE 2 isn't much better. The scenario goes something like this; you check in with Atlanta Center and receive a 'descend via' clearance. Not long after; you are turned off of the arrival and given a 'descend to and maintain' clearance. This process usually repeats itself a couple of times (either with Atlanta Center or Charlotte Approach) before you are assigned a final descent clearance. This system makes it very difficult to fly the arrival. Please know that this isn't pointing blame; but pointing out a problem. As PIC; the responsibility ultimately falls on me. However; a smoother process would be helpful.Eliminate the CDA arrivals into CLT. We rarely fly them as published.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported an altitude deviation during approach to CLT while on the JONZE 2 RNAV Arrival.  Captain stated the CDA arrivals to CLT are allegedly problematic and should be eliminated or a 'smoother process' should be implemented.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Purser advised of unusual fumes in cabin.  I investigated and concurred that there were unusual; and  strong fumes that resembled burning plastic.  We accomplished the 'Smoke; Fire; Fumes' checklist. Since the condition continued; we followed the checklist's [direction] to land at the nearest suitable airport. We declared an emergency and diverted to ZZZZ for smoke and fumes in the cabin. Unusual event that was caused by a fan motor overheat.


Second narrative: Smoke was detected around door 2R by cabin crew.  Accomplished 'Smoke; Fire Fumes' checklist and declared emergency with ATC.  Landed at nearest suitable airport; with no evacuation needed; [then] made logbook entries.  Cabin crew did an outstanding job and cannot say enough about them.  We all worked together to the point I cannot think of one thing we should have done differently even looking back a day later.


Synopsis: B777 flight crew is informed of fumes in the cabin and the Captain; who was initially on break; investigates.  After running the smoke and fumes checklist the crew elects to divert to the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 201704
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other tow
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Damage incurred to left wingtip/scimitar; occurred during towing operations to the west satellite parking area. As the operator approached the lead in line; the wingtip made contact with the mobile stairs that were staged rampside. The marshaller attempted to halt progress of the tow; but the tractor operator did not observe the stop signal in a timely manner to avoid any damage to the aircraft.




Synopsis: Tug driver reported damage to the wingtip of an aircraft being towing due to contact with a set of mobile stairs.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After completion of the Before Taxi Checklist; I began a slow turn toward the taxiway centerline and noticed the nose wheel steering tiller was frozen in place.  I used a little more thrust and differential braking to try to straighten the nose wheel but it was stuck in a hard left turn position. I set the parking brake and asked the F/O to call Ground Control to let them know we would be staying in position to run a checklist for a steering malfunction. I considered calling Maintenance through the Dispatcher; but decided instead to call local Maintenance via aircraft radio/Company frequency as there was no such checklist and it was clear the aircraft could not taxi.  Local Maintenance responded to our radio call by telling us to 'stay right there; engines running;' and that they 'would be out to meet the aircraft' on the taxiway. In just a few minutes; a Mechanic showed up with something in his hand and walked toward the nose wheel.  He reappeared after a minute and motioned with hand signals for me to try to move the tiller.  Freedom of movement was not 100 percent so he again walked under the nose and reappeared in a minute with the same request. This time the nose wheel steering was perfect. The Mechanic scurried away (it was 18 degrees F and windy) and I proceeded on and completed the flight uneventfully; until it happened again two legs later. This time I elected to shut down the aircraft and have it towed back to the gate. The local Mechanic inspected the aircraft and said that the nose wheel steering bypass valve had excessive dirt and grime on it and the problem could be solved by a thorough cleaning of the valve at the gate. That was accomplished. This time; I wrote up the malfunction in the aircraft logbook. I am writing this report because I believe I should have documented the original complaint because a Maintenance action was actually performed on the aircraft; even though the Mechanic waved us off after completing his activity on the taxiway. At the very least; there would have been a second record of this event occurring on this aircraft.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported the tiller would not turn the nose wheel. The tiller became operable after maintenance; but a flight 2 legs later the same anomaly occurred.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was out for the afternoon with the aircraft owner. On board were my son and his two grandsons. We had just refueled and topped off our fuel tanks after attending a 'fly-in.' We were in cruise flight heading northbound paralleling the state highway when we experienced a loss of engine power. I turned to the aircraft owner and asked what happened and he said: 'I want to see if we can glide to 'the reservoir.' I thought he was joking because the reservoir was at least 8 miles away and we were only 2;000 FT AGL at the most. It was after a moment or two that I realized he was not thinking clearly and; so I began basic emergency procedures.I noticed that he had moved the mixture to 'cut off' instead of simply retarding the throttle. I first pushed the mixture to full rich; prop forward; and then attempted this restart; but the engine was unresponsive to our efforts. Because of the time utilized in attempting a restart and the pending emergency landing we had insufficient time to complete an Emergency Checklist. Unable to reach the hard surface road we elected to land parallel to the highway as much as possible. We extended the landing gear prior to touchdown and landed nose first followed by the main gear. The impact was sufficiently hard to collapse all three gears.




Synopsis: Two pilots in a Cessna T210 were forced to conduct a gear down off field emergency landing when they experienced sudden engine failure at about 2;000 FT AGL.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BUR.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground BUR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After push back we were cleared to taxi to Runway 15 and cleared to cross Runway 8. I began the taxi and noticed an A320 parked at gate and noticed the tail was further out than the regional jets that usually park there. In the interest of proper clearance with the Airbus; I steered the aircraft slightly left which caused the left wing to go past the Runway 15 hold line. There were no aircraft on Runway 15 at that time. I then taxied normally to Runway 15. Ground Control asked me to call the Tower; and they told me that I had a runway incursion. Continued normal flight. An Airbus parked at [gate] gives very little room to taxi by which makes you naturally focus on having proper clearance and not focus on the Runway 15 hold line.


Second narrative: Taxiing to RWY15 at BUR the Captain started taxiing left toward the taxiway edge line to ensure clearance from an A320 parked at [an adjacent] gate. I double checked our clearance and then told him we were clear and that he needed to come further right to the taxiway centerline. He agreed and made the correction. Just prior to crossing RWY08 ground stated 'possible pilot deviation' and gave us a phone number to call. Upon reaching the hold short we pulled into the holding area and the Captain called the phone number. The flight then continued without incident.


Synopsis: EMB-175 flight crew reported ATC advised them of a runway incursion taxiing for takeoff at BUR when they swung wide to increase clearance to a parked A320.