elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201412
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Furnishing
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Upon touchdown this afternoon my iPad/ram mount decided to become airborne and lodge itself under the MD80 rudder pedals. (Gee; I didn't think my landing was THAT bad). Fortunately there was no adverse effects on the landing rollout or in directional control of the airplane. But now I'll need another iPad. I have two suggestions:1) Add an item to the cruise checklist which reminds you to re-secure the ram mount at a high cabin altitude when the suction is weakest. (I've penciled it on my checklist).2) Issue each pilot a 12 inch lanyard with a carabineer clip which can be secured to a part of the aircraft. Then; when both suction cups fail (and this happens fairly frequently) you can save the cost of an iPad replacement and keep the ram mount assembly from becoming a projectile; possibly ending up under the rudder pedals.




Synopsis: MD-80 First Officer experiences his iPad Ram mount losing its suction during landing and falling under the rudder pedals. No problems with aircraft control were encountered but the iPad was damaged. The reporter suggests reattaching the Ram mount at the top of descent for maximum suction during approach.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Light: Night
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 BOS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were on the taxiway taxiing to the runway. I saw a van approaching our aircraft at a moderate speed; then it appeared that the driver began to accelerate into our path. I told the Captain to stop the aircraft; he immediately applied brakes and upon seeing the van turned to the left to avoid a collision. At that moment it then seemed like the driver of the van finally saw us and immediately came to a stop. It is difficult to remember how close we came to the van but I am sure that if either operator had not taken evasive action then a collision; particularly between the van and the number two engine pod; would have been possible. I do not believe that the driver of the van was trying to assert a right-of-way; rather that he or she was not looking where they were driving.We then made an announcement to the passengers explaining what had happened. We coordinated with Ground Control to identify the van and informed them that we had to take evasive action to avoid a collision. After crossing the runways we called the Flight Attendants to ensure that they hadn't been standing and that neither they nor the passengers had been injured. We then departed and completed the flight as normal.


Second narrative: On taxi out the First Officer yelled 'watch out!' This caused me to start depressing the brakes while simultaneously looking over in his direction. At this point I saw a white van that was paralleling us on the ground vehicle road next to the taxiway veer dramatically towards the aircraft. This caused me to maneuver the aircraft to the left in order to avoid a possible collision. After the maneuver we came to a stop; and continued to make our way to the runway for takeoff. We reported the incident to Ground Control; but we could not get an ID on the van due to the fact that it was dark.


Synopsis: ERJ 175 Flight Crew reported a near ground collision with a van.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B IAD
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Hyper 7 RNAV (STAR) over YACKK @ 4;000 ft. First Officer stated as he was looking forward/down and something caught his attention. He stated 'as we passed over it; looking down at approximately 1;000 ft below us' it appeared to be a drone. This was reported to Approach Control. After landing RWY 1R; IAD Tower requested a verbal description and the First Officer described seeing the cross pattern of the drone from above; half mile north of YACKK.


Second narrative: I was pilot flying approximately 1/2 mile N of YACKK fix on Hyper 7 Arrival. Saw what I thought was a small balloon just to the right of our flight path and below us approximately 1/4 mile ahead. I leaned forward to get a better view of the balloon as it passed below us and it was clearly a drone. I saw the X pattern and white fuselage that looked to me like a DJI Phantom drone (I fly drones and am familiar). The drone was below our flight path but MUCH higher than the 400 ft altitude restriction on them. I am just estimating but believe it was at approximately 2500-3000 ft. I could be off on altitude somewhat but it was well above 400 ft. The other pilots did not see the drone. By the time I realized what it was it was passing below us.


Synopsis: B-777 flight crew reported passing over a drone by 1000 feet while at 4000 feet on the HYPER 7 ARRIVIAL into IAD.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower 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: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was Captain and pilot flying. During acceleration on takeoff roll we heard two loud 'bangs' and observed ENG #1 EGT in the red. I rejected the takeoff at about 100 knots. Tower reported seeing some smoke from aircraft; then reported the smoke dissipating. Still on the runway; brakes were set; passengers were told to remain seated; and 'situation under control' was communicated per procedure.  Based on noise; vibration; and engine behavior we thought we might have blown a noise tire and ingested rubber in Engine #1. We taxied clear of the runway; had the runway swept for FOD and the aircraft examined by Airport and Maintenance personnel. Tires all appeared intact; there were no overt signs of damage or fire.  Loud 'bangs' were apparently due to the compressor stalls; as was the over temperature. Two aircraft lurches may have been caused by brakes momentarily grabbing due to electrical transients triggered by the compressor stalls.We shut down Engine #1; kept passengers and cabin crew informed while evaluating the situation; and coordinated with Maintenance and Operations. Then we taxied back to the gate and deplaned.  The flight subsequently canceled.




Synopsis: During takeoff at about 100 knots an A321 crew heard two loud bangs accompanied by a red Engine 1 EGT; so the Captain rejected the takeoff and returned to the gate where the flight was canceled.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other All Phases
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Throughout all stages of the flight Passenger X and Passenger Y; kept removing their face masks to talk to each other and their daughter. Passenger X kept her mask below her chin throughout boarding and when I passed by her I told her she needed to keep her mask on. She initially complied but for the rest of the flight she kept pulling her mask down and placing her fingers in her mouth and on her nose. During final compliance checks before landing her mask was down again and she was touching her nose. I told her to pull her mask up again. She refused and said she needed to blow her nose because of an ear issue. I told her she can pull her mask up over her nose and mouth and then pinch her nose over the mask and blow to relieve the pressure. She refused. I told her again that regardless her mask needs to cover her nose and mouth and continued my compliance checks. She ignored me and kept her mask down for landing. The couple did not take the mask policy seriously and ignored my warnings as if they were merely suggestions. They were blatantly non-compliant and they did not require their daughter to wear her mask at any time either.I believe that the couple should be placed on the mask noncompliance list because of their blatant non-compliant behavior and the way they ignored my instructions. There was not time during the flight to issue the warning or to call the pilots to arrange for [customer service] to meet the flight because we were in final descent during sterile cockpit.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a family was non-compliant with face mask policy throughout the flight.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This took place during the special staffing for COVID-19 and I was on position at a very busy sector; I was about 30-45 minutes into my shift. I split off this sector due to the large number of aircraft in the airspace at that time; there were about ten on the frequency with at least ten more on 1200 codes in about a 15-20 mile area of airspace. I was speaking as clearly and quickly as I could; and calling traffic and issuing VFR instructions and assigning altitudes and I was aware of just one IFR aircraft on the frequency. I completely missed that Aircraft X was IFR and when they checked in; I told them to advise the weather and maintain VFR at or above 045; due to all the other traffic; I gave him traffic calls and various assignments for VFR altitudes; all of which the pilot read back as VFR instructions. Normally; this aircraft operates VFR; especially when conditions are very good VFR; and I don't know if there was datablock overlap; but I did not realize that he was IFR until I turned him onto the final approach course; I normally give radar vectors for approaches to these flight school aircraft for practice approaches. When I moved the datablock; I realized it was IFR and I apologized to the pilot after asking whether he was IFR (since he answered all my VFR instructions); and I later found out that when he passed by the only IFR aircraft I was working (Aircraft Y) that they were separated by 2.92. I feel badly that I missed the datablock; although I also feel that I was working very hard with high complexity and I ended up terminating flight following to a few aircraft due to the number of aircraft on frequency and in the airspace. I feel like the situation was controlled and I just missed that his datablock was IFR because I had so many aircraft on frequency and in the airspace.I would just normally have had a handoff or extra set of eyes watching me if I was working this amount of traffic at this sector; but due to our staffing situation with COVID-19; we have just a few controllers per shift.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller working COVID-19 schedule reported a loss of separation between two IFR aircraft while accidentally providing VFR instructions to one of the aircraft.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ICT.Airport, KS
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ICT
ATC / advisory: TRACON ICT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On arrival into ICT we were cleared down to 3;000 FT for a visual to 19R. The airport was insight and we got cleared for a visual approach. The Captain as the pilot flying selected 2;000 FT in the MCP. A shallow descent was initiated. I called out towers that were on our left and right on the approach into 19R. The Captain leveled off having the towers insight. A little later the GPWS warning 'obstacle' with pull up alerted us about the towers. A climb was started in VFR conditions all while being well clear of the towers. Climb power was added and no parameters were exceeded. A write up was entered into the logbook by the Captain at the gate in Wichita. The Captain also called the Duty Officer to inform them and to make sure nothing else was needed. This could have been prevented by remaining at 3;000 FT until glide slope intercept and following the glide slope to the runway.


Second narrative: Accepted a visual clearance from Approach Control to 19R coming in from the east. [I] started a descent from 3;000 FT MSL to 2;000 FT MSL to establish myself on around a 4 mile final to 19R. First Officer called out a radio tower at approximately 11 o'clock; and I acknowledged and kept it insight. Passing around 2;500 FT; with the tower at the 10 o'clock position; received an 'Obstacle' warning from the EGPWS. Since the tower was in sight at all times; I started a shallow climb that resolved the conflict and turned off the electronic warning. No engine or aircraft parameters were exceeded; a write up was entered in the logbook and the Duty Officer was contacted.I probably accepted a clearance to a visual early from approach. I should have stayed higher on the descent profile and not been so aggressive with the visual traffic pattern. First Officer back-up was invaluable with maintaining the threat in sight and then resolving the conflict. Lesson learned is to take vectors to final more readily when tired and flying into an unfamiliar field.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reports accepting a visual approach to Runway 19R at ICT from the east and descending early; causing an EGPWS alert with the towers in sight that likely caused the warning.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ; TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: With the right seat as pilot flying; we took off on the SID transition; and around 11;500'MSL we smelled an odor. Approximately 12;500'MSL; we could visually see smoke in the flight deck; and it was increasing. Left seat called out cabin smoke; completed Immediate Action Items; notified flight attendant; completed Quick Reference Guide; advised ATC and return to the departure airport; notified company; and informed passengers of the intention to return. During this time; we had leveled off at 14;000'MSL; turned to an initial heading of 090; then planned and executed the ILS approach. After landing; we had fire and rescue visually inspect the exterior prior to continuing to deplane. Off loaded the passengers and contacted maintenance.The mechanical failure that lead to the smoke in flight deck is the threat; error; and undesired aircraft state. The action of the crew by following the company-issued procedures helped to remove or reduce those effects.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 Captain reported smoke in the cockpit after takeoff; resulting in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: 1S6.Airport, ID
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: CTAF 1S6
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: At the Priest River; ID airport (1S6) the tall fir trees at both end of the runway are infringing on safe aircraft landing approaches The local Bonner County Commissioners and the airport advisory board have avoided taking any action even though the hazard has been pointed out numerous times. Only two of the board members are rated pilots; and apparently have no vested interest in local airport safety. The County Commissioner is mainly interested in obtaining FAA grant money for supposedly 'improving' the airport's infrastructure. Since the board's inception; this airport has deteriorated to sub-standard conditions. Fuel is no longer available; snow does not get plowed; runway lights do not work; and safety markers and lights have deteriorated. The only 'improvement' that has been accomplished is the installation of a $250;000 fence whose entry gate will not operate properly most of the time. The County Commissioner has installed a group of 'yes-men' who blindly follow this uninformed tyrannical lead. I fear for the safety of aviation. I had lodged a similar complaint a year ago; and was contacted by some FAA guy in Seattle who spoke only broken 'English'; who told me 'not to fly into trees; it be dangerous'. Can somebody fix this problem please?

Callback: The reporter states that the airport has steadily gone down hill over the last five years; with the Airport Board not doing anything that has been requested by or would benefit the users of the airport. He does not believe that the local property owners would have any objection to having their trees topped; but the Board does not support the project.



Synopsis: General Aviation pilot describes tall trees on both approaches to 1S6; which the Airport Board refuses to address.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Snow; 5
Light: Night
Aircraft: Citation I/SP (C501)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Attitude Indicator(Gyro/Horizon/ADI)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [I] received clearance via cell phone while on ramp. Completed checklist and took-off on Runway 31 and initiated climb to 6;000 FT. At approximately 3;000 FT engaged yaw dampener and autopilot in heading mode. Contacted Center and received clearance to 'turn on-course' and climb to flight level 230. Initiated left turn with heading bug of approximately 100 degrees toward final 'on course' heading and proceeded to change the altitude pre-select (located just right of panel center) from 6;000 FT to FL230 and re-arm. Sensed problem; speed was rapidly increasing and DG was spinning too fast for a standard rate turn; VSI indicated rapid descent airspeed rapidly increasing and attitude indicator abnormal. Confirmed autopilot was still engaged and continuing to roll aircraft. Disconnected autopilot and assumed manual control. Attitude indicator did not correspond to input. [I] confirmed left turn with turn needle. Rolled aircraft right until turn needle moved right and DG stabilized and pulled aircraft from dive to prevent ground impact. [I] continued climbing to top of cloud layer. Notified Center of failed attitude indicator and asked for clearance to nearest VFR airport. Proceeded to VFR airport and landed. No injuries to any passengers onboard.




Synopsis: A CE501 pilot reported attitude indicator failure with auto pilot engaged in IMC. Recovery from the steep turning descent was initiated using the turn needle and the aircraft was climbed to VMC before diverting to a VMC airport.