elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 1
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large UAS (At or above 1320 lbs)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Remote PIC (UAS); Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Military Base started a controlled burn in a field adjacent to [the] runway in use (Runway XX). We were conducting a training flight under VFR in a Large UAS equipped with IR (infrared) cameras. Smoke from the fire was not visible on the IR cameras that we use for flight and visibility was unrestricted in IR. We decided to continue the training flight utilizing these cameras. After a couple hours; Tower queried us about our flight visibility. We responded that our visibility was unrestricted with the IR cameras. They had immediately prior to that question informed us that visibility to the North was 1 SM due to the smoke from the fires. They then said that we did not have an LAO (Local Area Orientation) with them to be able to use our IR visibility as flight visibility. We then told Tower that we would make the next landing to a full stop for flight termination. I am filing this report due to Tower reporting 1 SM of visibility which falls below Class D VFR weather minimums despite our actual visibility being unlimited.




Synopsis: UAS Flight crew was operating a large fixed wing UAS in low visibility conditions and returned for landing after being advised by ATC the flight crew did not have the proper authorization for conducting operations in those conditions.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on approach to Chicago we were told by ATC to contact Tower over the outer marker and we did not contact Tower at that time. Prior to landing; when I realized we had not contacted Tower; I was about to call when on short final we had what felt like wake turbulence (not sure if it was wake or wind gusts but felt like wake turbulence) the autopilot was off and I was busy keeping the plane steady; got distracted and did not make the call. The wake turbulence was not severe; but was enough to distract me from calling the Tower. When we landed we realized we still had approach frequency on the radio. We contacted Ground once clear of the runway and were given taxi instructions as normal. Distracted over the outer marker and distracted again one short final. Don't get distracted and follow ATC instructions.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information]


Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew reported they failed to contact Tower prior to landing when they were distracted by a wake turbulence encounter.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground MEM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Received taxi instructions from Ground. 'Charlie; Alpha; Sierra; clear to cross 27'. After reading back clearance my head was turned and I was busy with using iPad for charts due to EFB inop. Captain made turn on Victor to cross runway at Sierra versus instructions to cross at Charlie. I didn't notice turn until plane was too far established on Victor; notified Captain of our error had consequently received new taxi instructions/clearance from Ground. After discussion Captain indicated he had expectation bias on utilizing taxiway Victor. There was also nonstandard clearance phraseology by ATC by saying 'clear to cross 27' instead of specifying which taxiway to cross the runway i.e. 'Clear to cross 27 on Charlie; Alpha; Sierra.' ATC clearances should be given in sequential order of events to take place and eliminating any assumptions needed to interpret what was said.


Second narrative: We were given; 'Charlie Alpha Sierra cross 27.' I turned left on Victor and the First Officer told me that we were cleared to cross at Charlie and I slowed my taxi to a crawl. Two seconds later Ground Control informed us that we were cleared Charlie Alpha Sierra but to continue Victor Sierra and that it was not a problem. The rest of the taxi and flight was uneventful. Expectation bias. I had taxied Charlie Victor Sierra so many times in the previous week that that is what was in my head. I did not verbalize our taxi clearance as I normally do. The First Officer had turned to his iPad (EFB MEL'D) to turn from the parking diagram to the taxi chart so his head was turned as I made the wrong turn; whereas he would normally be heads up .. Ground Control issued our taxi clearance in an odd format; 'Charlie Alpha Sierra cross 27;' as opposed to cross 27 at Charlie Alpha Sierra but ultimately I screwed up and it was expectation bias.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew describes a taxiway incursion caused by the Captain's expectation bias to follow the normal route; while this clearance was slightly different.
Date: 201705
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I worked with a XA00Z start time. At XC30Z I identified a workload safety issue; where I would have 20-22 flights out at the same time. This is an excessive number of flights to be flight following while also having 4-5 more flight plans to release in the next hour. As the Dispatcher I took steps to maintain the safety of the flights under my operational control and I notified the IOC Director; Sector Manager; and Chief Dispatcher of this workload issue. I spoke with 3 Captains on the phone and instructed them to remain at the gate until released for departure due to the pending workload issue. At XD10Z; another Dispatcher offered to take some of my flights. I sent him a total of 4 flights; 3 of which I was holding on the ground due to workload issues.At approximately; XD30Z the IOC Director on Duty; came to my desk to intimidate me about doing the high workload in the future. He stated that it was a VFR day and that no one else ever complains about the workload on this desk. He also stated that he cannot be moving flights off this Desk every day. He then proceeded to ask me if I needed 'additional training.' I believe this visit occurred to intimidate me to do the high workload in the future and to not ask for help. I believe [my company] is in violation of CFR 121.395 at this time and immediate action is needed by the FAA and company Management to prevent an aircraft incident or accident. Reduce the number of flights on the Dispatch Desks.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Dispatcher identified a workload safety issue; where he would have 20-22 flights out at the same time while also having 4-5 more flight plans to release in the next hour. He elected to hold flights on the ground and was admonished by a supervisor.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On initial climb out through approximately 1;000 feet AGL the blue CAS message autopilot fail and Yaw damp fail came on for about 3 seconds and then went away (autopilot was never turned on). The trim was stuck in the far right position between the last 2 white lines and could not be moved to the left. We continued our climb up to 10;000 while troubleshooting the yaw damp and rudder trim. We concluded it could not be fixed airborne and decided we were going to divert. We then advised the passengers of our diversion. ATC gave us vectors for the ILS where an uneventful landing was made.


Second narrative: Captain flying. Shortly after departure the captain said that something was wrong with the flight controls; then there were 2 brief (blue) CAS messages indicating YD and AP disconnect (the AP was not yet being used). We both noticed that the rudder trim was pegged far right; and could not be moved. The captain was applying full left rudder pressure; however aircraft heading could not be maintained unless left aileron was used in order to slip the aircraft. We asked for a level off at 10;000 and ATC asked why; to which I replied we had a rudder trim issue. Captain asked me to take over the controls while he searched the QRH; but nothing matched our situation (I explained that I had experienced the same failure 3-4 weeks prior). It was obvious that we could not continue; so we decided to divert because it was close; and had an 8;000 ft runway. Captain then headed back to the passenger to explain the situation. Captain set up the approach while I continued flying. Turns were made very slow and deliberately with only 5 degrees of bank. For straight and level flight I found that 20 percent torque relieved some rudder pressure while maintaining altitude with an airspeed of about 165. I rolled onto an 8-10 mile final; then handed the aircraft off to captain for the final approach and landing. He decided on a flaps 15 landing. We expected that the lower airspeed during the approach and landing; along with the extended landing gear would have a stabilizing effect; which it did. A normal flaps 15 landing ensued.


Synopsis: PC-12 flight crew reported the rudder trim failed to the far right position and could not be moved. They successfully diverted.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During enroute climb; eight minutes after takeoff passing FL220 while hand flying; we received an amber CAS 'FGC 1 FAIL'. System 'auto' switched to FGC 2. While I (pilot flying) continued to trim for climb; PIC (pilot not flying; in right seat) pulled QRH and requested a level off at FL270 & slowed to 250kts with ATC. Within a few seconds of trimming thru trim switch; CAS 'FGC 2 FAIL' illuminated. Manually switched back to FGC 1 thru Sensor panel and noticed that electric trimming moved trim wheel very slowly and immediately CAS 'FGC 1 FAIL' re-illuminated...auto switching back to FGC 2 and selecting electric trim off. Attempted to reset electric trim but unable and started using manual trim wheel. It was noticed that the manual trim was extremely difficult to operate and had spring back when moved. Referring to QRH it lead us to recovering FGC; however would require us to pull CBs that would fail; FMS; auto throttles; FGC; bus controller and Eng instruments. We felt that the FGC FAILING may be due to trim being hard to move from possible water frozen on cables (plane sat overnight in rain on ramp) or possible trim cable off a pulley and did not want to aggravate a plane we could control manually.We contacted the chief pilot on duty of issue and for divert suggestions. It was decided to divert to a suitable airport and after getting ATC clearance; proceeded there and landed without further issues hand flying using manual trim.[Although the] preflight trim check and control check; completed prior to flight; did not reveal any issue; I would continue to do these [while] noting if any binding is accruing in trim wheel. However; checking these on ground without any air loads is not the same as we experienced in flight. During this event we worked with ATC informing them of our progress and complied with all routing and clearances issued.




Synopsis: A GLF5 flight crew experienced seriously compromised pitch trim capability during climb through FL220; ultimately generating FGC 1 and then 2 FAIL CAS messages which alternately went away when they switched between them. They diverted to a nearby airport utilizing manual pitch trim; the use of which also required excessive effort. The reporter speculated that a cable off its pulley or ice on a cable restricting passage may have been the culprit.
Date: 201410
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: Sector was left uncovered for mid shift (2200-0600 local).  Flights that were originally released by this sector on the afternoon prior shift were apparently left on this sector with no dispatcher coverage.  Flights that were un-monitored that I am aware of were flights [listed].A SATCOM call was answered by Dispatch.  This call was from [flight number] airborne.  [Dispatcher] asked who was handling this flight; nobody had it on any of the staffed desks. Further investigation lead to discovery that the flight was still showing assigned to a sector which was unmanned for the graveyard shift due to staffing issues.   I took the call.....flight crew was concerned as they had been waiting for their redispatch message; and had sent datalink messages requesting the same; but with no replies from dispatch.  I explained to the crew that their flight had been assigned to a sector that was currently not manned and apologize for our not responding.  Asked them to give me a few minutes to review the flight and follow normal protocols in preparing the redispatch; and that I would have it up to them within the next few minutes.  Redispatch analysis was completed; everything looked good; sufficient fuel existed for redispatch; and datalink was sent.  RDA was received by dispatch a few minutes later from the flight crew.




Synopsis: Air carrier Dispatcher reports not all flights were properly covered because of staffing issues.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DC-10 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cargo Compartment Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Workload; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action; General Evacuated; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Following electrical transfer got LVL 1 VIA 1 Fault. Shortly thereafter got a flashing CARGO FIRE AGENT DISCH light. Directed the First Officer to ensure the cargo area was clear of personnel. This took approximately one minute. Once he informed me the area was clear I executed the phase one's. Had the First Officer evacuate the jumpseaters and keep all ramp personnel away from the aircraft while I had informed the fire department (via the ramp tower) and maintenance. Fire Department inspected the cargo area with no evidence of fire; cargo trans-loaded to another aircraft. There was concern from a Maintenance Supervisor that the fire agent was discharged prior to ensuring the area was clear. The First Officer confirmed that no personnel were present within a minute and then the agent was discharged. I believe there has been a considerable number of flashing DISCH lights upon power transfer. Consideration should be given to modifying QRH in how we handle this type of issue (i.e. prior to block out and after block out).




Synopsis: A DC10 LVL 1 VIA 1 FAULT occurred during the preflight electrical power transfer followed by a flashing CARGO FIRE AGENT DISCH light so the Captain had the aircraft evacuated; called the fire department and maintenance. No fire was evident and the QRH procedure may require modification.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I recently began my private-multi training in the Piper Seminole PA-44-180. Myself and my instructor (right seat); were involved in an accident due to a failed right main landing gear. After completing our lesson; we returned to the airport for two successful touch and go's. During the third approach; we had established on the downwind for Runway 04 with gear down. Current wind conditions were 350 at 12 KTS; gusting 17 KTS; [and] a crosswind less than both my demonstrated ability as well as the aircraft limitations. Once established on final; I completed the final check to ensure landing gear was down; three green lights illuminated; and could verify with gear down in the mirror. Tower updated winds to 360 at 12 KTS; gusting 21 KTS; [and] a crosswind that was manageable and within mine and aircraft limits. Final approach speed was approximately 80 KTS to compensate for crosswinds and gust factor. Proper crabbing methods were used and with winds from the left side; I touched down with the left main wheel; then the right; followed by the nose wheel. Before I was able to lower flaps or add power for the touch and go; a loud noise was heard and the right main gear gave way. The aircraft was aggressively pulled to the right; despite full aileron and rudder to remain on centerline. In order to avoid the grass and risk digging the propeller into the ground; we tried to exit on the taxiway. My instructor managed to safely exit the active runway; stop the aircraft; secure the engines; and allow us to safely exit. Since the gear were verified in the down position numerous times before touchdown; and because we had completed two prior landings in the same crosswind manner; we believe the cause of the accident was due to a faulty right main landing gear. In the future; I truly do not know how this could have been prevented. A thorough pre-flight walk around was conducted and nothing faulty was noted with the landing gear. The gear was verified down in-flight; and functioned normally on prior landings.




Synopsis: PA-44 student pilot with instructor; experiences a right landing gear failure while landing with a left crosswind.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Exterior Pax/Crew Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During takeoff roll at 100 KTS and 218;000 LBS; an EICAS alert 'Left Aft Entry Door Open' appeared. Abort initiated immediately. Tower contacted. Emergency declared. Taxied off runway and into holding area where Fire Department completed an infrared inspection of the brakes and a visual inspection of the tires and air frame. No discrepancies noted by the Fire Chief. Completed taxi to the gate where the emergency was terminated.


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


Synopsis: A B757-200 flight crew rejected their takeoff when the aft left entry door EICAS message illuminated at about 100 KTS.