elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Workload; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were descending on the Tammy Four RNAV arrival; LIT transition; landing south. In between LIT and JESSC; Center told us to expect to land north. The Captain was PM and deleted all waypoints between JESSC and the runway in an attempt to delete the landing south arrival and switching it to a landing north arrival. While approaching JESSC; and aware that no waypoints remained after JESSC; the Captain tried several times to reload the arrival from JESSC without avail. The Captain did not select the LIT transition on the TAMMY 4; thus not loading the waypoints after JESSC. The Captain then quickly loaded waypoints manually after JESSC; as we descended through FL180. As pilot flying; I set my altimeter to the field altimeter setting of 30.21 passing FL180; and leveled at 16;000 feet before JESSC; as per the STAR. When level; we heard the altitude alerter sound. I looked cross cockpit and noted that the Captain's altimeter was set to QNE; thus displaying 15;700 feet. He reset his altimeter to QNH and flight progressed normally. First; we could have avoided the problem by not deleting all the waypoints down track of the TO [active] waypoint on an arrival and by; instead; selecting the correct transition when inputting a STAR. These would have reduced the workload in a critical phase of flight. Third; remind the other crew member to set QNH when passing FL180; even if he is task saturated.




Synopsis: When the Captain/PNF became task saturated programming a runway change while descending via the TAMMY RNAV STAR to MEM; he failed to reset his altimeter passing FL180. The altitude alert warning sounded when the PF leveled at 16;000 feet while the Captain's altimeter read 15;700 feet.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared to line up and wait on Runway XXL at Taxiway XX in ZZZ. Shortly after we were cleared for takeoff. I was the Pilot Flying and I advanced the thrust levers. When taking the controls from the First Officer I accidentally bumped the tiller on the way to the yoke. As we were accelerating we got a Steering Inop Master Caution. We aborted the takeoff roll. We stopped and I knew that it was my error that caused the EICAS message; so I decided to reengage the steering to turn off the runway. We turned off and asked ATC to put us to the side so we could run some checklists. After running the checklists I informed the First Officer that I had bumped the tiller and caused the EICAS message. We decided to continue and had enough fuel to depart.I recently upgraded to this aircraft type and this was my first aborted takeoff as a Captain. I haven't been flying much unfortunately; so I felt a little rusty going in. The first error was bumping the tiller on the takeoff roll. This caused the steer inop and caused the aborted takeoff. The next error was not calling maintenance to verify everything is working as intended. The message trigger was when we were accelerating with the Steering Inop.I need to take my time and not rush. I felt as though I rushed myself getting off of the runway.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported aborting a takeoff roll when the tiller was accidentally bumped; causing the steering to disengage.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Wingtip
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other During Maintenance
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: After engine change; I was moving crane away from aircraft and started turn too early to clear the wing. Co-worker warned me but the brakes on the crane were ineffective and would not stop the crane in time to prevent the crane striking the aircraft. The crane struck the trailing edge of the right wing causing minor damage to the trailing edge wing box; near the right wingtip. Aircraft was positioned next to the hangar wall with several pieces of equipment and other engines positioned near the aircraft making the path I had to maneuver away from the aircraft crowded and limiting my options for maneuvering away from the aircraft. Much of the equipment available to us here is in marginal condition at best. Provide the crew here with safer; newer equipment that is not worn out and a hazard to work with.




Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) reports that a crane he was moving after an engine change on a B717-200 aircraft struck the trailing edge wing box near the right wingtip. Brakes were ineffective on crane.
Date: 201309
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout we experienced a PITCH TRIM MAIN FAIL warning message. As pilot not flying I canceled the warning. The Captain; as pilot flying; disengaged the autopilot and continued to hand fly the airplane. We decided to level the airplane at FL270 prior to entering RVSM airspace and run the QRH. We followed QRH procedures and selected the main trim system cut out. According to the QRH the autopilot could still be used so we decided to continue with the flight. We retrimmed the airplane and engage the autopilot once level at FL330. We notified Maintenance and asked for their input. They concurred that we continue to our destination. Although [our destination] was some distance away we decided to still continue since we could engage the autopilot as long as it was properly trimmed; and we had confirmed that we would have enough fuel even if we left RVSM airspace. Along the way we had the option of [another suitable airport] in case any other malfunction of the trim system occurred. The flight continued to the destination. The only trouble we had was keeping the airplane in trim with the autopilot engaged. Several times we had to disconnect it; retrim the airplane; and reconnect the autopilot. We also slowed to .73 to limit some force on the elevator. We decided to use only Flaps 22 at [our destination] in case we had issues trimming the nose up. We landed without any other problems. The main threat obviously would have been the complete loss of the ability to trim the airplane. We talked about and planned for that possibility. We also had the QRH out and ready; and we read the procedures for that. Other threats included not being able to remain in RVSM airspace; which would have used more fuel to burn to our destination. However; using the FMS we decided that we had enough fuel to get to [our destination] and plenty of options along the way. I think the situation was handled in a proper manner. Good CRM was used. If anything; it helped me put a perspective on how to properly work as a crew and handle an abnormal mechanical situation. I'll use it to guide me in decision making.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 flight crew suffered a main pitch trim failure.  The completed the QRH procedure and determined they could continue to destination using the autopilot which they disconnected from time to time to allow manual retrimming.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Southeast of EWR at 6;000 ft; ATC called traffic at 6;500 ft at 11:00. Shortly thereafter; TCAS annunciated 'Traffic' then 'Maintain Vertical Speed' then 'Descend'. As the flying pilot; I complied with the TCAS guidance while the captain reported 'TCAS R/A'. After we were 'Clear of Conflict'; ATC scolded the Cessna traffic saying 'I need you to maintain 6;500!'


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: B737 Crew reported a NMAC on climbout from EWR.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80; Tower ATL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On the DIRTY 3 Arrival; passing HAARY; Approach asked how the turbulence was.  When we said it was ok; ATC asked if we were deviating without advising ATC of a deviation. After we said no; we looked at our course map and advised we were on course. The phase of flight did not afford time to expand on the discrepancy because we were switched to another Approach frequency. Our flight instruments showed no anomalies. Upon arrival into Atlanta; while monitoring the PRM Tower frequency;  monitoring frequency Tower asked us our airspeed. Shortly before switching from Approach to Tower; Approach told us to reduce to 180 until the FAF.  So; we were in the process of slowing our airspeed when PRM monitor frequency asked our airspeed.  After I responded on PRM frequency that we were reducing airspeed; ATC Tower frequency asked us if we were on the main frequency. I replied 'Yes; and also monitoring 132.55.'This is the fourth or fifth time I have had a radio check; confirm airspeed; and confirm altitude on the PRM monitoring frequency. My understanding; and I might be wrong; of the PRM frequency is that it is for traffic alert and notice of deviations of an urgent and safety nature. We already diverted before this; so this just added to our complex day. My suggestion is to communicate on PRM frequency for immediate safety concerns. I don't understand why Main Tower frequency doesn't communicate such concerns.


Second narrative: Since it was not relayed to us the level of the discrepancy seen by ATC; we are unsure of the severity of their perceived deviation. If the size of the deviation was revealed as substantial or consistent; the FMC would have been written up. Because it was a one time event in an aircraft we had flown for multiple hours; we attributed it to a glitch.


Synopsis: A B737NG crew on approach to ATL reported communication issues and confusion with ATC inquires.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: C90.TRACON, IL
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: This event occurred during a training session. The winds were reported out of 210 at 60kts at 3000 feet causing the northbound base leg to carry a lot of speed and slop the north turn from the downwind wide. My trainee recognized that the compression on the base leg was too great and Aircraft X would need to be vectored off the approach and issued a turn north through the final approach course at 3000. It was my understanding that he intended to resequence Aircraft X. I did not hear the trainee turn Aircraft X back to the west and issue a descent to 2500 in an attempt to save his sequence. When I observed Aircraft X start a turn to the northwest I asked my trainee what Aircraft X was doing and to make sure he was turning east. My trainee then informed me of his plan to save his sequence; however this turn placed Aircraft X in an MVA of 3300 at 2500ft at a heading that did not allow for a legal RNAV approach. I instructed the trainee to turn Aircraft X south out of the MVA and climb. While this got Aircraft X out of the MVA I believe it resulted in less than standard wake turbulence separation with the succeeding aircraft.I believed my trainee to be far enough along that I would not have thought that he would have considered a turn into a prominent MVA. It was this assumption that allowed me to focus on other issues occurring during this training session and ultimately led to the oversight.




Synopsis: Chicago TRACON Instructor reported that an aircraft was turned off final; into a lower Minimum Vectoring Altitude area. Aircraft was then instructed to a different heading in order to exit the lower MVA area.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HPN.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; Windshear; Turbulence; Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D HPN
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While being vectored to the ILS 16 at HPN; I miss heard a vector heading of 270 and descended to 2;000. I read back 170 and a descent to 2;000. While turning the aircraft in moderate turbulence to 170 and descending; I flew into a downdraft and the rate of descent increased and the aircraft showed a low altitude alarm even though I was able to stop the aircraft at 1;900 and climb back to 2;000. The Controller questioned if we were having a problem and asked why we were not on a heading 270. We turned back and a new vector to the ILS 16 we were given with no further comments.




Synopsis: An Air Taxi Captain at 2;000 FT on approach to HPN misunderstood N90 vectors and turned to 170 vs 270 and then; in turbulence; descended below 2;000 FT causing a low altitude alarm.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aircraft Furnishing
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On preflight of crew O2 masks the only available means of sanitizing the masks was SaniWipes. SaniWipes have been determined not to be effective against COVID-19 virus. CFR 135.89 requires use of O2 mask if one pilot leaves flight station above 25;000 feet MSL. Adequate means of sanitizing the masks is required.Adequate means of sanitizing masks is required ASAP.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported the only available means to clean the crew O2 mask was to use SaniWipes; which are reportedly inadequate.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: A11.TRACON, AK
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ANC
ATC / advisory: TRACON A11
Second aircraft: Medium Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Working Radar; Handoff; and another sector combined. Aircraft X; contacted me requesting VFR advisories. Aircraft X was radar identified eastbound at 1;400 feet. Aircraft Y departed on the North Shore Departure; VFR; was radar identified. I observed the conflict and issued traffic to both aircraft. Both aircraft responded that they were searching for traffic; neither reported traffic in sight. When Aircraft Y reached the boundary of the Class C; he requested termination of radar services and frequency change. I issued traffic to Aircraft Y once more before terminating radar services. After the traffic passed; Aircraft Y transmitted on frequency (I believe this was directed at Aircraft X) that they didn't appreciate the maneuver performed by Aircraft X as they passed each other.I was working multiple frequencies and did not have time to have a conversation over frequency about exactly what had happened. After Aircraft X landed he reached out to me on frequency to indicate his concern about the event. He informed me that he was forced to perform an 'emergency climb' to avoid Aircraft Y and stated that he 'almost hit him'. At the time prior to the event; both aircraft were outside of the Class C airspace. During each aircraft's avoidance maneuvers; one or both of the aircraft may have penetrated the Class C shelf.No recommended airspace or procedure changes. Event was a combination of frequency congestion; traffic complexity and volume; and possibly inability of pilots to see and avoid other aircraft.




Synopsis: A11 TRACON Controller reported an aircraft had an NMAC with another aircraft the Controller had just terminated radar with.
Date: 202107
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Cycle Machine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We went through a fume event on Aircraft X. It only affected F/A's [Flight Attendant] #1 and #3. The fume felt like a severe piercing acrid; mentholated winter-fresh smell. It started slowly and it rapidly increase to the point in which our eyes started watering; and our throats; and noses became irritated. Initially we both thought either of us was chewing on a winter fresh gum for our breaths. We then asked each other: 'Are you chewing gum?' we both said 'NO!' At that moment the odor/fume got excruciatingly pungent. The fume event lasted for about 5 minutes. We both complaint of having a growing headache. After landing; we both spoke to the Captain about our symptoms. The Captain wrote a mechanical report on the aircraft; and he will follow it up with another report.I am however; requesting for both F/A's to get checked medically through airline protocols; to see if we are fit to continue on our sequence.I am strongly advising for the two F/A's affected on this incident to get check out by medical staff.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a fume event during cruise causing physiological symptoms. Captain submitted an aircraft maintenance report at destination.