elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 45
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During approach; abnormal control forces were noted while trimming the aircraft for landing configuration. Horizontal stabilizer was not moving in the primary trim switch position. Crew elected to switch to secondary trim; no horizontal stabilizer motion was detected. We chose to go on a missed approach to run the appropriate QRH checklist; after switching back to primary trim; PIC tried once more to move the trim position and noted small movement; but at a reduced rate. Aircraft was then configured for landing and a normal approach and landing was successfully made. Once parked at the FBO; trim system functional check was completed; no abnormalities were noted. Aircraft was grounded for maintenance personnel to perform an inspection on the horizontal stab system.




Synopsis: LR45 Captain reported encountering a Stabilizer Trim malfunction.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fan Blade
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Lead Technician; Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working as a mechanic when I was assigned to a radio call for possible blade damage to the number 2 engine on [Aircraft X]. When I inspected the damage to blade 13 on initial inspection the blade appeared to be properly addressed per the AMM (Aircraft Maintenance Manual) 72-XX-XX-XXX-XXX-XX. My normal procedure is to check a 30 day history on the AC (aircraft) then contact [Maintenance Control] to determine if the repair had been documented and the follow up FPI (Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection) had been accomplished within the requisite 10 cycles or 25 hours. There was nothing in the AML (Aircraft Maintenance Logbook) or safe for the previous 30 days for [Aircraft X]. I then contacted [Maintenance Control] to have them check the engine log for the Number 2 engine to look for damage noted to blade 13. The [Maintenance Control] technician informed me that the company no longer tracks repairs to blades and told me that if there was a question about whether the blade was addressed properly or not my only recourse was to re-accomplish the AMM. When I asked how they were tracking the FPI for the blade after blending I was informed that if the FPI was deferred per the AMM there would be a [notice] but I would only see it for 30 days after the follow-up and if the FPI was accomplished at the repair there would be no documentation of the repair.The Company needs to either resume tracking repairs to the engine per the engine log or come up with a new system to track them.




Synopsis: A Maintenance Technician reported that a repair and follow-up procedures were not documented as per company procedure.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TOA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D TOA
ATC / advisory: Tower TOA
Second aircraft: Cessna Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I'm a new Private pilot and had planned a VFR cross country flight. Holding short of 29R I requested a right downwind departure. Tower cleared me for take off (but for a straight-out departure). My mistake [was] to have not listened in carefully for the amended takeoff instruction. I read-back that I was cleared for take-off. I then took off with the assumption that I was to proceed with [my requested] right downwind departure and started the right crosswind turn. What I saw was pretty scary! Another Cessna at my altitude was approaching from my left to join the traffic pattern inbound to land on 29R. Both of us immediately diverted and avoided collision. The Tower Controller was furious at me and asked me to contact them at the earliest opportunity after landing!I did call back after landing and we discussed the situation. ATC insisted that it was solely my fault (which I accepted). I suggested that there was a human factor involved and such situations can be minimized by ATC personnel including a couple of words each time the clearance is different from what is requested (like 'AMENDED CLEARANCE') so that the pilot can be re-emphasized of this fact. On the pilot's part; he/she should read-back and acknowledge acceptance.




Synopsis: An inexperienced Private Pilot failed to note the Tower had cleared him for a straight out departure vice the downwind deparature he had requested. When the pilot turned the crosswind leg he had to perform evasive maneuvers to avoid another aircraft entering the pattern on the downwind leg.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Weather elements / visibility: wet ramps
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: This [safety report] is intended as more of a general concern issue and not limited to this particular flight. On numerous occasions; throughout our system; I've noticed that the J-lines are often times very difficult to see at night when the ramps are wet. This is especially hazardous when the line is at an unexpected angle (not perpendicular to the ramp) or involves a turn during entry to the gate or when the marshaller isn't providing accurate guidance. Has anyone considered using reflective paint (as is used on some taxiways and runways) on the J-lines so as to increase their visibility?




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported taxi guide lines associated with gate alignment were difficult to see when the ramp was wet and suggested reflective paint be used to increase visibility.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We realized we were close to After Take Off Gross Weight (ATOG). We got the current ATIS and we had approximately 600 FT of stopping distance on a 12;000 foot runway. We both commented on the high ref speeds for takeoff. Vr was 160 knots. The wind was a crosswind and not really helping us for takeoff. I even commented that we would be close to tire speed limits. I used the entire available runway for takeoff and did a run up before releasing the brakes. The First Officer called V1 and rotate on the correct times. I rotated the aircraft but I usually rotate just a little slower on an -800 to avoid a tailstrike. I noticed on the PFD just after liftoff that the groundspeed was 204. I waited just a little longer than normal before raising the gear to let the tires slow down. I cannot verify that we exceeded the tire speed but I believe it was close.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported they may have exceeding wheel speed at takeoff.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; Rain; Thunderstorm; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating under: Part 137
Flight plan: None
Mission: Agriculture
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I left during VFR conditions to spread cover on a crop 5 miles south of the airport. When I reached the field the weather quickly closed in on me to less than 1 mile visibility and less than 500 ft ceiling trapping me against the ground. I was able to stay at 100 ft AGL and follow my last GPS track back to [the departure airport]. I passed over the city at about 100 ft AGL in order to maintain ground contact and reach the airport. Forecast weather did not call for IMC conditions until later in the day.




Synopsis: Thrush S2R pilot reported overflying a city at low altitude after becoming caught beneath an overcast layer.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: OMDB.Airport, FO
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground OMDB
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: FAILURE OF THE COMMERCIAL 1 EFB TO PROVIDE TAXI DESIGNATIONS ON CHART.  Landed on OMDB Runway 30L and exited as instructed at K8 Taxiway.  After contacting Ground Control we were instructed to taxi on L Taxiway and hold short of KC and subsequently told to continue and hold short of KA.  Neither of these holding points are depicted on the Commercial 1 Taxi Chart.  This caused us to stop taxi and confirm where the points were.  This caused some delay for OMDB Ground during busy airport operations.  Post flight I referred to the Commercial 2 Taxi Chart and the points are easily displayed.   This along with the many other inadequacies of the Commercial 1 Product have convinced me to revert to using Commercial 2 paper products in the airplane.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reports that his EFB using Commercial 1 charts does not depict taxiways and holding points that are routinely used by Ground Controllers at OMDB.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Leading Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach the CA (Captain) had called for gear down and flaps to 15; gear extended normally but we noticed we had a yellow amber light on the LE FLAP TRANSIT light and the flap needles were split. We executed a go around and advised ATC of our go around and [requested priority handling]. We were vectored around by ATC for another approach. While vectoring; we ran the appropriate checklist and resolved the amber light and had a green flap light. Remainder of the approach was normal as was the landing and taxi. ARFF (Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting) crews were standing by and followed us to the gate. We left the flaps in the down position for Maintenance inspection.




Synopsis: A321 First Officer reported flap issues on approach; requiring a go-around and priority landing.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Other Demonstration
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were invited by the military to demonstrate a small; Styrofoam model aircraft equipped with a low-cost autopilot that gave it autonomous control (i.e. a UAV). We were not paid for this activity. This was to be conducted at a military field; in active restricted airspace; under the local control of the government agency in charge of the military field. Our flight test plan; radio frequencies; and vehicle were approved by the controlling agency. We also carried a $1 million liability policy on the model airplane/UAV for just this event. We conducted about twenty flights during the day. Each individual flight was also approved by the controlling agency for the military field. A Student Engineer who had experience in these vehicles was flown in from across the country to be the actual 'pilot.' The vehicle was programmed to fly a circuit around the closed airfield and was never out of visual sight. Recent conversations with the FAA indicate that we should have also had an airworthiness certificate. We did not know this was required under these conditions and did not have one for any of the flights during the demonstration. No conflicts with manned or unmanned aircraft occurred and all flights were uneventful.




Synopsis: A small Styrofoam UAV was flown in military airspace on demonstration test flights but an FAA air worthiness certificate was not obtained prior to flight.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Baron 58/58TC
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Landing Runway XX in ZZZ. I made a hard landing; causing the aircraft to veer to the right off the runway and come to a stop in the grass. I towed it back to my hanger fearing damage may have occurred to the landing gear. There were no contributing factors other than misjudging the distance to the runway and making a hard landing.




Synopsis: BE-58 pilot reported a loss of directional control during landing resulting in a runway excursion.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing out at 7;000 MSL; there were uncommanded AC electrical interruptions and fluctuations. The outflow valve also automatically ran to the full closed position. An immediate landing was requested by crew and granted by Approach Control. An uneventful landing was then executed.




Synopsis: MD82 pilot experiences electrical anomalies and power interruptions climbing out of 7;000 feet; which also causes the outflow valve to fully close. An emergency is declared and flight returns to departure airport.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Time Pressure; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Approximately 30 minutes after departure; the flight experienced multiple failures associated with loss of FMGC 1. The Captain requested a phone patch with Maintenance. The SELCAL frequency was 128.9. The Captain had difficulty hearing Maintenance so Dispatch requested ARINC to patch the flight to Dispatch. During the 2nd phone patch; the Captain was unable to speak to Maintenance numerous times. ARINC said the background noise from our office was blocking out the crew's ability to transmit. After asking a group of people sitting close to Dispatch to quiet down; the Captain was able to communicate better; but the room noise was still so loud that constant communication could not be maintained throughout the patch.




Synopsis: An A320 Dispatcher reported that the human generated noise in the dispatch office was so high that he had difficulty on a phone patch with a flight discussing an FMGC issue and so he demanded people sitting close by be quiet.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On walk around I located several maintenance items. Both fire indicator lights were inoperative on the nose gear and I also questioned several holes that appeared to be missing rivets. They were entered into ACARS per FOM/FAA procedures. I was asked by Local Maintenance to show rivet location and both of us were unsure what the holes were for. While walking back toward the jetway a Maintenance Supervisor; aggressively questioned the timing of the write ups so close to departure. I asked him if I was supposed to 'overlook' items; especially fire suppression indicators. He yelled 'I guess you don't care about on time departure' dismissing the importance of the Maintenance issues. The mechanic and I were both speechless that a Supervisor was indicating that we should not write up fire suppression items that are found close to departure time. He asked me if I cared about on time and yelled 'nice attitude.' Supervisors intimidating pilots about write-ups are inappropriate and against company policy and I would imagine against FAA policy as well. It is unsafe and against everything safety stands for. The reason for my concern and extra vigilance of the fire panel stems from IOE where the LCA stressed that there had been a 777 found to have the entire fire panel of the nose gear to be either faulted or unpowered until a First Officer pressed and tested the lights. The aircraft had believed to been operated for an extended period of time with no fire indication and potentially no suppression. It was stressed that it's my responsibility to check the lights and integrity of the system and I am the final check of the integrity of the system. On the cowl rivets; I noticed that several were threaded and looked suspect. The local Maintenance person agreed that they should be inspected. They did not appear to be drain holes.




Synopsis: B777 First Officer reports discovering that both fire indicator lights were inoperative on the nose gear during preflight. A Maintenance Supervisor states to the First Officer that finding the discrepancies so close to departure time indicate that the First Officer does not care about on time departures.