elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202007
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Rudder
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While performing rudder lube tasks for aircraft [coming out of] storage; the aircraft rudder was inadvertently damaged during the removal of the flight control lock.During restoring the aircraft to normal condition after completion of rudder Lube AMM XX-XX-XX/XXX; AMM YY-YY-YY-YYY-YYY an additional lift/personnel should have been in place to remove pressure off lock rather than move rudder hydraulically to enable removing rudder lock.


Second narrative: We were assigned the rudder lube for aircraft [coming out of] storage. The rudder was damaged while trying to remove the actuator locks.The rudder could not be moved from the leading edge and pulling the lock at the same time. When trying to use hydraulic systems to move rudder full right to over come the weight; the damage occurred. We should have used an additional person to move the trailing edge of the rudder manually as per AMM XX-XX-XX/XXX.


Synopsis: Air carrier maintenance technicians reported that the rudder was inadvertently damaged while preparing to perform rudder lube on an aircraft that was being returned to service from storage.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IWS.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E I90; Class G IWS
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90; UNICOM IWS
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was operating a flight from ZZZ to IWS with two passengers on an IFR flight plane and talking with Approach. Approach cleared me for the Visual Approach into West Houston Airport; untowered field and approved my frequency change. Before I switched to CTAF; I heard a traffic alert as Approach asked if I was still on the frequency. I heard the traffic call for crossing traffic 500 feet below me; I'm not sure what lateral separation was with the initial call. I acknowledged the traffic alert and stayed with Approach instead of flipping to CTAF.I saw that I had a nearby ADS-B target converging with my flight track and was scanning furiously for that aircraft but could not see him. The other aircraft was climbing; and was converging vertically as well as laterally. I have a low-wing aircraft and dipped the left wing and slipped to try to make visual contact but did not find it; as it was already quite a bit inside the wing in my line of sight at that point. As I saw the ADS-B track continue to converge and pulled up and right sharply to evade the target. As I did that; the other plane unmasked from behind my wing and I was able to maintain visual separation for the 10 or 15 second we were closest to each other. Approach called the traffic as no factor at the same time and I cancelled IFR with West Houston in sight as we were in VMC and set up for downwind entry overflying midfield.I explained to my passengers that we had to move the plane away from another aircraft which had failed to yield and that we were not in danger. On reflection; I should have positioned the aircraft more aggressively to drop the left wing to see the other plane earlier. I also could have immediately asked for a vector from Approach to keep me clear; although this traffic appeared to be climbing out of Dan Jones (T51) or Dry Creek (TS07) and presented a late radar contact for the traffic call.




Synopsis: GA pilot on a Visual Approach to IWS non-towered airport reported an NMAC with an unidentified VFR target. The pilot was still on Approach frequency and had not switched to CTAF.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climb out from ZZZ and per our procedure; we delayed putting the landing gear up. On the after takeoff checklist; I placed the landing gear lever to OFF and that is when we received an ECAM message that stated ' Landing gear door not closed' We decided to level off at 8;000 ft. and maintain a safe speed of 220 kts. The Captain who was the Pilot Flying maintained radio control with ATC while I ran the QRH for the proper procedure which said 'not to cycle the landing gear'. After the QRH and the AOM; we called flight control to informed us to perform a diversion. The Captain used his discretion and [advided ATC]. I hit the divert key on the center pedestal; changed the airport destination and started the process of setting up our approach for Runway XXR in ZZZ. We had two jumpseaters onboard with us and the Captain elected to call [jumpseater] to help us in every possible way and ATC was extremely helpful which was beneficial to our safety. We landed safely and taxied to our ramp.




Synopsis: A300 pilot reported a landing gear door malfunction after takeoff; resulting in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SUS.Airport, MO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 900
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D SUS
ATC / advisory: Tower SUS
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Our aircraft was cleared for takeoff on Runway 8R at SUS; traffic issued as opposite direction at 1;700 FT crossing final 3 miles out southwest bound. Turn right heading 150; after departure climbed straight ahead to 1;700 plus FT before commencing turn. During turn received climb RA to miss previous issued traffic which had climbed to 2;300 FT. We climbed to 2;700 FT per the RA and traffic passed 200 FT directly underneath. Copilot called a brief sighting of aircraft during turn but could not maintain visual.




Synopsis: DA900 Captain reported an NMAC shortly after takeoff from SUS.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: MD-88
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We were cleared for takeoff behind a MD-88 on Runway 26L full length. We were cleared for the RNAV NUGGT 6 departure. We encountered wake turbulence from the aircraft that took off in front of us which caused a slight deviation left of course. ATC ATL Tower issued us a turn to the right just as we got out of it. We thought we waited a sufficient amount of time for the MD-88; but wind must have pushed the wake into our flight path.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported deviation from assigned ATL RNAV departure track as a result of a wake vortex encounter.
Date: 201905
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Safety Instrumentation & Information
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Aircraft
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: General safety concern. Evacuation Checklist on First Officer's yoke didn't match the QRH Evacuation Checklist. I have been briefing FO's for the past several years that in event of evacuation; they can use the checklist on the yoke clipboard or the back of the QRH; as I remember that at some point in my career I read that somewhere (I cannot find that now in any publication). My FO confirmed that some other Captain's brief the same thing. He also pointed out that his clipboard evacuation checklist did not match the QRH checklist (the one on my clipboard did match the QRH). Have I been wrong all these years; or are we allowed to use the checklist on the yoke clipboard for evacuation? If we are allowed to use it; then at least this particular aircraft's FO yoke clipboard evacuation checklist needs to be updated. Make sure all yoke clipboards on all aircraft have the Evacuation Checklist that matches the QRH's.

Callback: Reporter indicated that there was no feedback yet as to how many other aircraft have been found to have incorrect yoke-mounted evacuation checklists.



Synopsis: B737 Captain reported noticing during preflight that the Evacuation Checklist on First Officer's yoke didn't match the QRH Evacuation Checklist.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: T75.TRACON, MO
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B STL
ATC / advisory: TRACON T75
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were arriving STL and had a big tailwind. We were cleared via the KAYLA arrival which was the first time for both of us. While descending we got switched from landing Runway 30 to Runway 11 or 12. We expected 11; so we put that transition in the FMS; but then were changed to Runway 12. As a result we had to change the FMS three times in descent. It's really not any different (in hindsight); but we got caught up in a task management overload situation and before we knew it were 2;000 feet high at the two waypoints past KAYLA. Immediate action was taken to descend faster and ATC did not seem have a problem with it. I don't believe there was even another aircraft within 50 miles at the time. However; it was definitely a mistake on our part. Serious lesson learned. Fly the airplane.




Synopsis: An MD-80 First Officer reported difficulties complying with the late stage crossing restrictions while descending via the KAYLA RNAV STAR to STL. Changes to their assigned landing runway from northwest to southeast were reported as primary contributing factors.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after takeoff; during climb out the engine felt like it was misfiring or stumbling. It did it 3 consecutive times.  I had just been transferred over to Departure; I reported to them that I needed to return to the airport as soon as possible. I had departed Runway XY and departure turned me back toward Runway XX and had me contact Tower. I contacted Tower and they cleared me to land. During the downwind and base legs the engine stumbled 2 more times and felt as if it was going to stop. The Tower had asked me several times if I was going to need assistance on the Ground. I responded that I was not in need of assistance at that time. I made a safe landing on Runway XX and was cleared to taxi back to parking. I immediately reported the event to my supervisor. He grounded the airplane.




Synopsis: Instructor Pilot reported an air turn back after engine roughness was experienced on take off. A precautionary landing was made successfully at the departure airport.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: C90.TRACON, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E C90
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: On the WATSN3 arrival into ORD; the controller started issuing holding clearances since O'Hare had just 'lost a runway.' Just a few miles before we reached MKITA; the controller issued a clearance to hold as published.I looked at my chart and saw no published holding pattern at MKITA. I didn't think to scroll to the edge of the chart since HAUPO and HALIE both had patterns published on the course. We reached MKITA just a moment later and asked the controller for a vector since we didn't see a published pattern.The controller informed us the pattern was 'on page two of the chart.' Then; I zoomed out and saw the inset boxes on the left side of the chart. No ball note directs pilots to look elsewhere on these new charts! If there were no other published holds; I would have looked elsewhere. But; having some published on the course while others are in boxes is very confusing when a hold is suddenly issued at the last possible moment to join it.As we turned back towards the pattern; the pilot of another aircraft reported they were also unable to locate the published pattern.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported an anomaly with charting hold patterns in the ORD area. Some patterns are published on the second page and crews are not guided to look for the patterns there by zooming out on their EFB's.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Trainee; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was being trained by another company pilot to inspect their contracted pipelines. He was pilot in command in the left seat and I was a trainee in the right seat. On the final leg of the day we approached a band of low clouds and poor visibility. I told my trainer that I wanted to turn around and he disregarded my concerns. He descended beneath the low ceiling in poor visibility. He continued to press the weather for approximately 20 minutes and then landed. Despite being a long way from home base I refused to fly with this pilot again. I got myself home at my own expense. Once back at home; I reported the events to the owner of the pipeline patrol company. His response was dismissive and without concern. I will no longer be working for this company; it is clear that their expectation of their pilots is to disregard weather minimums and flight regulations.




Synopsis: DA40 pilot reported he was uncomfortable with the flying pilot's decision to continue in marginal weather during a training flight.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: ATR 42
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Distraction; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During departure climb the airplane experienced a failure of the right engine. The prevailing environment in the cockpit promoted a breakdown in CRM (Crew Resource Management) prior; during and after the incident which led to a failure of complying with established procedures. Also; the Pilot in Command failed to declare an emergency after the engine was shut down. Although the airplane was under control the whole time and an eventual landing without incident was conducted; under different circumstances the breakdown in CRM could have led to a worst outcome.




Synopsis: First Officer reported engine failure on departure caused a return to the airport and a safe landing but the Captain did not comply with established procedures.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LEX.TRACON, KY
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Manuals
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: New Letter of Agreement (LOA) between TRACON and ARTCC went into effect. LOA briefings were conducted for a simplified LOA that allowed for greater control on arrival and departure aircraft to minimize coordination between TRACON and ARTCC. However; a previous segment of the LOA; one giving TRACON control for descents outside the lateral boundaries of the airspace to 10;000 feet on a STAR was inadvertently dropped from the new LOA. While the intent was not to remove that section; it was. We didn't get briefed on the missing section and have been operating under the previous provision that gave us control for descents to 10;000 feet. This has likely resulted in many dozens of airspace Operational Deviations.We just now are getting pre-position face to face briefings to suspend this practice until a new; amended LOA containing the dropped provision is signed and put into effect.Develop a facility 'area team' to have a team of controllers and supervisors meet; at the same time; to review all LOA/SOP changes to minimize the risk of overlooked items of this nature. I would recommend a Front Line Manager/Controller/Staff person team be implemented and given official time to all meet in committee to review proposed changes.




Synopsis: A revision to a Letter of Agreement (LOA) was published. Previous preapproved coordination rules were accidentally omitted from the new LOA. The rule allowed TRACON controllers to descend aircraft while still in ARTCC's airspace. Controllers were not briefed on the omission and continued to operate under the previous rule which no longer existed in the new publication.