elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working a panel backlighting MEL. All three instrument panels affected drew power through a common fuse; F0401. As the dimming controller had already been changed; I suspected the fuse. In order to get access to the fuse; a number of instrument panels must be removed -- including the Number 2 fire handle panel on the flight deck. Fuse F0401 was indeed blown; and upon installing a new fuse from stock; the panels' backlighting worked again. When I reinstalled the fire handle panel; I installed it upside-down in its mount and failed to notice. I did not double-check my work upon completion; and no other mechanics involved in work on the aircraft noticed the improper orientation. In addition; the aircraft made 3 legs before the problem was reported. Operation of the fire handle would not have been affected with this orientation.More cockpit familiarization training for mechanics is required; as well as a company culture of having other technicians check work performed.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported installing cockpit panel upside down without noticing.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I departed on a local area flight in my LSA Experimental Weight Shift Aircraft. The weather was severe clear with winds calm. After an hour flight I returned to the airport and made a call 5 miles out announcing my intentions to land. As I reported my position my radio shut down apparently from a low battery. I continued my approach watching for traffic in the area. I routinely fly most mornings and rarely is there traffic in the area at that time. As I fly a weight shift aircraft I have nearly 360 degree visibility and at 45 KTS plenty of time to watch for aircraft in the air and ground. There were no aircraft visible on my approach; so I chose to shorten the route and enter directly straight in to [the runway.]I landed as normal and began taxiing to the exit when I saw a large fast aircraft on final for Runway 17 in the opposite direction of my position. It appeared the aircraft which was an executive jet came straight in and did not see that I was on the runway. As I could not taxi fast enough to get off the runway I decided to pull off into the grass and clear the runway for the approaching aircraft. The jet landed normally and didn't even notice me until they were coming to a stop at the end of the runway. After taxiing off the runway and securing my aircraft I tracked down the Captain/owner of the jet to check that he was okay. He said that he didn't see me until he was already on the ground and at first thought I was 'just a tractor mowing the grass.' He asked if I had heard his radio calls and I told him my radio was out and he shrugged his shoulders and said that there was nothing he could do. My opinion was that as I was already on the runway taxiing at an uncontrolled airport it was his responsibility to see and avoid. Luckily no one was hurt and nothing was damaged.




Synopsis: An LSA pilot reported having to taxi off the runway into the grass to avoid a collision with a corporate jet landing on the opposite runway.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We had a repeat write up on FMS flickering inflight. I coordinated with maintenance to have the FMS changed out in ZZZ. When programming FMS for takeoff; the FMS would not give us the Green Send command to send off our passenger weights. We called dispatch for manual numbers. On arrival in ZZZ1 area we noticed the landing numbers came back with a VRef. speed on 125 knots. The zero fuel weight was 42.5 and landing fuel was 3.7 giving us landing weight of 46.2. our VRef speed on the card is 140 knots. I know from personal experience that a full aircraft VRef speed is around 141 knots. That is a 15 knot difference. We used the 140 knots. I have never seen this happen before so I wanted someone to look into it. I hope it is a onetime glitch.




Synopsis: The Captain of a Bombardier CRJ reported that the Flight Management System put out erroneous information.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On descent we received a L2 FUEL QTY/USED CHK alert. We requested priority handling. While running the checklist we were switched to Approach and were told they were handling it as an emergency and we acknowledged. Finishing the checklist; it did appear we had 'lost' 3000 pounds; but there was not enough time to determine where from (idle descent). The aircraft fuel increased as we descended to where we were only 1000 pounds low; then 2000 pounds low on shutdown. Lowest tank was #2; approximately 1400-1600 pounds lower than #1. Approximately 24000 pounds total.




Synopsis: MD-11 Captain reported observing a fuel quantity indication anomaly during descent.
Date: 201503
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was marshalling arriving aircraft into gate. I made a signal to the Captain to stop. I also made a stop signal to the two wing walkers because the left engine was still running. I went to the front near the front tires of the aircraft and was about to grab the chock when suddenly I saw that the aircraft was moving forward fast. I immediately run in front of the aircraft to make a signal to the Captain to stop the aircraft. A safety personnel also waving and making a signal to the flight deck to stop. It stops an estimate of 5 feet past from the mark. Once it stops I and the safety personnel chocked the front tire of the aircraft. I put my headset on and talk to the flight deck and say is everything alright? Flight deck says they are all good and the brakes didn't work. I said alright I'm going to hook up the tow bar and the pushback tractor and push the plane few feet away. Conversation ends when I disconnect the headset.




Synopsis: Marshall; directing an aircraft into the gate; signals the captain to stop then advances to insert nose wheel chocks. Suddenly the aircraft is moving again and the Marshall scrambles to get clear and signal another stop. The captain informs that brake failure occurred. The aircraft is pushed back five feet to the correct parking mark.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
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; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While performing maneuvers around 6;500 feet; PUI (Pilot under instruction) went to raise the landing gear; where we received a Gear System Fail CAS message and a red indication on our nose gear. At that moment; the PUI was unable to identify if the nose gear was still down or not as it was night time. I recycled the gear down where all 3 indications showed green. I then raised the gear a second time and the nose gear showed red. We began a turn back to ZZZ (from the practice area) and the PUI was finally able to identify that the nose gear was still down. I attempted once more to recycle the remaining gear down and then back up but there was no change. I chose to then lower the landing gear a final time and proceed back to ZZZ with the gear extended. I wrote the plane up for maintenance after landing.




Synopsis: PA-44 instructor reported nose landing gear extend/retract system failed; resulting in flight back to home base with gear extended.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Our flight was originally dispatched with an FAA call sign Aircraft X. During taxi out; we encountered a maintenance problem that required a return-to-gate. A new aircraft was assigned to us. When we were re-dispatched; our call sign was Aircraft Y. The flight proceeded normally until Cleveland Center transferred us to Chicago Center near the LFD VOR/DME. Chicago informed us that another Aircraft Y was also on his frequency and that he had received no flight plan information for our target. The controller assigned us a new call sign; [similar to Aircraft Y]; and then gathered the basic flight plan information he needed. The cause of this event appears to be the dispatching of two flights using the same call sign; without the use of a differentiating FAA call sign; between the same two airports; operating at the same time. Dispatch and ATC should work together to identify call sign conflicts. ERAM (En Route Automation Modernization) should also be able to more proactively identify call signs that are duplicate between more than one Center (e.g.; when Aircraft Y is filed out of ZOB; and [also] filed out of ZAU; ERAM at both Centers should not process the second flight plan until the call sign duplicate is eliminated).




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported Company dispatched flight with duplicate aircraft ID creating ATC automation error.
Date: 201211
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At FL350; at dusk in VMC conditions (we had been VMC the whole flight); we received a 'Pressurization Flow' light. I initiated an emergency descent; declared an emergency with ATC and asked for the QRH. My initial thought was to try to 'save the cabin' namely; to keep it below 10;000 FT. It fairly quickly became apparent that we were not going to be able to do that and we initiated the 'Cabin Alt/Warning/Rapid Depressurization' QRH checklist. First Officer had his mask on at that time and began that checklist. He took care of the 'Cabin Alt' Red Box items and the Checklist while I put my mask on and continued with the descent while talking to ATC. In the descent; somewhere in the upper 20's; we did get the 'Cabin Alt' Warning light. At some point in the descent we were advised by the flight attendants that the masks had dropped. We leveled at 10;000 FT at which time I asked our Number 1 Flight Attendant if any passengers seemed to be hurt. She said that one First Class Passenger stated that he had a cold and was having some trouble initially but that he seemed to be fine by the time we leveled off. The passengers seemed fine; the aircraft was performing well with no secondary issues; we had plenty of fuel and after discussion with First Officer I elected to continue to [destination]. We asked to be met by paramedics even though there were no injuries to my knowledge but it seemed best to have them there to look at our First Class Passenger and anyone else who might need attention. What could we have done better? One thing that I wish that I had done differently was that I initially was the pilot talking to ATC and flying. Somewhere in there; however; I relinquished the radios to First Officer so that he ended up talking to ATC and running the QRH. He did a very good job but was carrying more than his share of the load.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 had no additional information]


Synopsis: MD-82 flight crew reported loss of pressurization at FL350. Declared emergency; executed descent; and continued to destination.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AUS.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class C AUS
ATC / advisory: Tower AUS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Landed and turned off on to the taxiway. The weather was IMC with rain right at sunset. The design of the turn off has fillet so it appears to start as a high speed exit but then has sharp turn to right. Surfaces were very wet. Airbus nose wheels skid easily when the surface is wet and I know that and should have made the turn off slower. I turned off to the  right but then when making a harder turn to right when the nose wheel skidded and would not turn more to right initially. After a few seconds I was able to correct back to centerline using brakes. I can't recall my exit speed but it was not that fast; maybe 20 kts. to start. The fillet is a trap and did not do me any favors. Either an actual high speed exit or a 90 degree turnoff would have been better but with the fillet it appears to start like a high speed exit but then you have to make a hard right turn. I inspected all tires on postflight and they all looked like brand new tires with full tread and no issues. I also know that a sliding nosewheel on a wet surface is not going to cause any tire damage.  During the skid I was probably 10 kts.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported they temporarily lost control of their aircraft while taxiing.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
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: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting; 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 Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Automation Overrode Flight Crew; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were descending on the BULLZ 5 arrival into ORD when the aircraft laterally deviated from the FMS course missing the turn from COGGS to the SOOLU Intersection.  For reasons that neither me nor the Captain can explain; the aircraft was in ROL mode instead of NAV.  The Captain identified the error and I corrected the aircraft back on course.  ATC questioned whether we were on the BULLZ 5.  The Captain said we had missed the turn and were already in the turn back on course.  No further action was needed and we continued to ORD. We are unsure as to why the aircraft was in ROL mode instead of NAV.  Neither of us recalls hearing an audible ding notifying us of the change to the FMA nor remembers making any unfavorable selections.  We believe that the aircraft must have entered into the undesired state by accident and without a clear explanation. It just goes to prove that vigilance in the cockpit is vital for a safe flight.  I am glad we caught the error when we did.




Synopsis: While on the ORD BULLZ 5 arrival; an EMB-145 FMS without knowledge from the flight crew; transitioned from the NAV to the ROL Mode which caused a track deviation but no apparent conflict.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: K90.TRACON, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Recip Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E K90
ATC / advisory: TRACON K90
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Recip Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X requested VFR flight following for a short flight from at 1;000 feet. The pilot had opposite direction VFR traffic indicating 800 feet. I issued the traffic at 8 miles. Aircraft X did not have the traffic in sight. The VFR aircraft indicated level at 800 feet so at 5 miles I reissued the traffic and suggested a VFR climb if not in sight. Aircraft X did not have the traffic in sight and executed a climb to 1;500 feet. At 3 miles; I reissued the traffic and advised the pilot that the targets appeared likely to merge. The pilot did not request a vector for the traffic. Aircraft X then reported the traffic in sight at his same altitude of 1;500 feet; and not at the indicated 800 feet. During the time both before and after the conflict; the VFR traffic showed single sweep altitude changes to altitudes of 1;200; 1;600; and 1;700 feet; very infrequently.I should have issued proactive vectors to de-conflict the traffic situation since both altitudes were not verified.




Synopsis: K90 TRACON Controller reported an unidentified VFR aircraft was a NMAC with a VFR aircraft the Controller was working.