elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 5
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Aircraft component: FCC (Flight Control Computer)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On downwind for PRM approach to Runway 28 ATL descending through 5;500 FT for 4;000 FT both flight directors failed simultaneously and autopilot disengaged. First Officer (PF) assumed manual (un-flight-directed) control and leveled aircraft at 4;000 FT. Tried to cycle F/Ds with no joy. Communicated with ATC 'unable PRM.' Vectored south; then west; then north over the top of airport at 5;000 FT on vectors for basic ILS to Runway 26R. During vectors attempted to regain FDs and/or A/Ps. During troubleshooting; crew noted heading bug on First Officer's PFD frozen on 090 degree heading and would not respond to changes made to heading on MCP. In addition; First Officer's PFD displayed commanded airspeed was frozen at 230 KTS and would not respond to changes made to airspeed on MCP. During ATC assigned climb from 4;000 FT to 5;000 FT MCP altitude window reset itself to 50;000 FT several times; requiring multiple resets back to 5;000 FT. Noted Captain heading bug and airspeed responding normally to MCP inputs. First Officer did outstanding job of hand flying aircraft through multiple; compound malfunction environment; during high workload in high density ATC environment. Control of aircraft transferred to Captain. Reengaged both FDs; with Captain as master; and reengaged A/P A. Flew rest of approach with A/P A to visual approach passing 1;500 FT AGL. First Officer's FD command bars redisplayed as landing gear was lowered and flaps were selected to 15. Suspect some combination of FCC B and/or MCP failure. This would be an excellent scenario for recurrent training this year with our current emphasis on automation download and hand flying skill maintenance. Would need to see maintenance action regarding this malfunction and corrective action before recommending preventive measures or further corrective action.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported multiple autoflight anomalies on approach; perhaps related to FCC failure.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I called Flight Services to file a VFR flight plan to ZZZ. The plan I offered was indirect and kept me out of the TFR nearby. We briefly discussed me being allowed to enter the TFR to my destination. He stated I was good to go as long as I filed a flight plan as I do when I fly through the SFRA in the Washington D.C area. I told him I was planning to contact ATC for flight following as well to insure I remained legal in the TFR. He continued his briefing and I asked when I should activate my plan. He stated it wouldn't be necessary for me to activate it. He said it was on file or something of that nature so I wouldn't have to activate. Once airborne; I immediately contacted ATC for VFR flight following request. They approved. Along my route of travel ATC kept vectoring me at my request. I requested vectors to ensure I did not violate any airspaces. Everything should be on the recording. They kept saying no problem. Approximately 10 NM from ZZZ ATC asked me to copy a phone number to call Center upon landing at my destination for a possible airspace violation. Also; about the same time; I lost my signals to my GPS and my Mode C. It seemed like everything that could go wrong was!After landing; I noticed a government airplane sitting on the ramp at the facility. Airport personnel told me; my wife and I had to get off the ramp immediately. I went inside the FBO and called Flight Services to close out my flight plan. The gentleman advised me there was no plan opened for me. After a moment of investigating; he told me the person filed me IFR not VFR. It was clear to him when I filed that I was flying VFR. I then called Center. After collecting my information; they told me I had nothing to worry about and no actions were being taken and that I did nothing wrong. After a long sigh of relief; I decided to report this incident. I will be submitting a request for all audio exchanges between myself and flight services.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reported filing a VFR flight plan with Flight Service and being advised of a TFR at his destination. VFR flight following was used; but 10 NM from his destination he was asked to copy a phone number. After landing; when closing his flight plan he was informed there was no VFR flight plan; but there was an IFR flight plan on file.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Other Documentation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Software and Automation
Primary problem: Software and Automation

Narrative: Aircraft X ZZZ to ZZZ1. On the beginning of a three-day pairing; during the walk around; the FO (First Officer) found possible evidence of a bird strike in the #2 Engine. ZZZ Maintenance was called out and inspected the aircraft for a bird strike. The inspection was written up and the logbook was cleared in accordance with the maintenance manual. No damage found and Maintenance said the aircraft was good to go; so we departed for ZZZ1 only eight minutes late and landed uneventfully. Upon our arrival Maintenance put a lock on the aircraft for an incomplete inspection. ZZZ1 Maintenance completed the inspection in the first 30 minutes of our ground time. Maintenance took the aircraft out of service two hours later because they could not get the new Maintenance Software Program to accept the write-up and took the aircraft out of service.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported a 2 hour delay due to the new automated maintenance reporting system having software issues.
Date: 201903
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aircraft Documentation
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: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Manuals
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I have reviewed the current 737 QRH procedure for 'AOA Disagree' for the B737-MAX 8; and find it lacking in detail and guidance. Bulletin page X contains troubleshooting guidelines for Erroneous AOA scenario; as well as procedures regarding what to do. Shouldn't this all be part of the abnormal in the QRH? The QRH is the one place where pilots can go to quickly find a procedure that aids in troubleshooting and correcting any emergency or abnormal; so it should be the only repository of this relevant information. In the event of an AOA Disagree occurrence; pilots currently have to not only consult the QRH; but Bulletin as well. This uses up precious extra time; which may not be available. In terms of the TEM (Threat and Error Management) model; it actually removes barriers and weakens the procedural backstop that we rely on for time critical responses. In fact; the AOA Disagree abnormal gives no guidance at all.I suggest that Bulletin be incorporated into the QRH AOA Disagree abnormal. Put all the guidance currently in the bulletin; into the QRH abnormal. Also; As part of the Additional Information; contrast the AOA Disagree with the IAS Disagree (Airspeed Unreliable) abnormal. There is overlap between these two abnormals that could potentially cause confusion. A hyperlink could also be added to take one to the Runaway Stabilizer checklist. I believe all these changes would streamline our response to the AOA Disagree abnormal; as well as add a stronger barrier in the procedural process.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported concern that supplemental B737 Max Angle of Attack Disagree guidelines are contained within a Bulletin rather than the aircraft Quick Reference Handbook.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During a test flight; the aircraft in question was being test flown after a major repair. To test the attachment of the wing; a soft field take-off was performed to an immediate landing. On the second take-off the same technique was used; however during the acceleration part of the take-off the airspeed was noted to read zero on both the G1000 airspeed tape; as well as the analog indicator. Since the airplane was airborne and the runway is relatively short; it was questionable whether the airplane can land after having been stabilized in ground effect. The decision was to continue with climb out and come around for a landing using known pitch attitudes and power settings; as the approach strategy; and using the ground-speed from the GPS as a rough reference. No change in airspeed by activating pitot heat. When the alternate air source was opened a drastic change in the altimeter was noticed - 250 feet variation -; but no change in airspeed. Squawk was set to 7700; and Approach was contacted as a standard procedure. The landing was executed and Approach was contacted through a phone number upon request by ATC. The airplane suffered no damage at all. The mechanic re-inspected the airplane; the airspeed indicator was adjusted; the airplane was fast taxied twice and airspeed still did not read at all. The third time; the mechanic readjusted; and airspeed came alive during ground roll. Test flight continued with no other discrepancies noted.




Synopsis: DA40 pilot reported the airspeed indicator failed during a test flight following major work on the aircraft.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Upon the aircraft's sudden and abrupt ascent; I was thrown back-first into the aft galley [striking some structure with my] mid back; near the left shoulder blade while performing pre-landing safety duties.




Synopsis: A Flight Attendant was injured when the aircraft encountered turbulence.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Challenger 350
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Liferaft
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; MEL; Procedure
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: On Date Aircraft X [Company] Rev 00 deferral per MEL 25-XX-XX was put in place for the two forward life-rafts removed (due overhaul) while parked at ZZZ; the 3rd life raft remained installed. Due to the remote location of the aircraft vs home base; the flight crews physically performed the life raft removal and transport to the service facility absent of direct maintenance personnel; acting as the Maintenance Director designee as requested; instead of talking the crew through performing the deferral per our operations manual I performed the electronic paperwork side of the process without verifying that an INOP placard was applied to the empty cabinets by the crew. The lack of proper [Company] MEL placarding wasn't discovered until after an event revealed the lack of placarding several weeks later after Aircraft X flew more than 50 miles from shore.Recommend adding routine discrepancy/MEL training for all [Company] personnel to build comfort with deferral writing and operating manual procedures in place; in this case; specifically as it applies to responsibilities for corrective/deferred actions. We could also emphasize how important it is for flight crews to monitor the deferral list prior to every departure and be free to ask questions about discrepancy questions to our Maintenance Director. I will also ask for a picture of the in place placard for the next deferral opportunity.




Synopsis: Challenger 350 Technician reported that MEL placards were not installed after life rafts were removed for overhaul.
Date: 202003
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: With the recent concerns regarding COVID-19; I see two areas [where] we can make some improvements to enhance the Safety of our Passengers and Crew.1. Wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds; especially after coughing or sneezing. If soap and water are not available; use hand sanitizer. This is very hard to do in an aircraft lav. I would suggest; effective immediately; we place hand sanitizer (with the WHO recommended alcohol content) in all aircraft lavs at all times.2. It appeared that starting about six months ago; Ground Ops would often open the potable water servicing door upon arrival (as opposed to when service was about to take place). Before COVID-19 this was more of just an inconvenience to through Passengers (no lav water in the sink) - now it is more of a safety issue; I would recommend Ground Ops disable the potable water during servicing for only the minimum amount of time required to complete servicing. Many thanks for taking the time to read this report.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot gave suggestions to improve passenger safety during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On taxi out the flight attendants contacted us to advise of a passenger disturbance regarding the use of face coverings.  Two passengers were asked up to four times regarding the proper use of the mask and were advised that both the nose and mouth must be covered at all times unless actively eating or drinking.  They initially complied; however; they continued to pull the mask below the nose which was the cause for the several attempts by the flight attendants.  Upon first contact; I made an additional announcement regarding the policy of face coverings and stated to the flight attendants that returning to the gate may be an option to remove those individuals that were non-compliant.  Shortly after I was advised that the passengers were finally cooperating and we continued on to our destination and advised to keep us advised to any further issues. I contacted Dispatch in-flight and advised of the situation; I asked that an airline representative and security meet the plane to discuss further policies regarding face coverings which concluded the incident.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported being advised by flight attendants during taxi out that passengers were not complying with face mask policy.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Staffing; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft Y was at 2;000 feet MSL; and issued a climb to 3;000 feet to avoid converging VFR traffic who I was not talking to (squawking 1200) observed at approximately 1;700 feet MSL. Sector complexity was high due to IFR/marginal VFR conditions as well as an increase in usual volume we have seen over the past months. I was working 2 different frequencies as well. When I issued a climb to 3;000 feet to Aircraft Y; he read back 3;000 feet; and then I moved on to other priorities. The next time I observed Aircraft Y's altitude; I observed 3;400 and told him to stop his climb and issued a turn away from conflicting IFR traffic (Aircraft X at 040). I also turned Aircraft X away from Aircraft Y and issued traffic. I did not issue a Brasher warning.This was the busiest session; both traffic and complexity wise I have worked in many months due to decreased traffic volume due to COVID-19. I feel like if I had scanned better I would have caught Aircraft Y's altitude bust before I did. If my workload increases to this level in the near future; I feel asking for a split from the departure sector; or even calling someone over to act as a coordinator; or a '2nd set of eyes' when I feel task saturation is causing my scan to break down would be beneficial. I feel that both of these actions could prevent this from occurring again.Another important take away from this event in preventing [a] re-occurrence is to not have an expectation bias assuming a pilot will comply with your instructions; even if he reads it back correctly. A constant scan is absolutely critical at all times; (busy or slow) to ensure pilots are doing exactly what you told them and to prevent separation/deviation errors due to complacency and/or expectation bias.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported an aircraft overshot an altitude clearance resulting in a conflict.
Date: 201909
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Emergency Equipment
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: All company policies and procedures were followed correctly. Upon preflight activities; I turned the cabin lights to 'off' and checked the brightness of the photo strips. They were not sufficiently bright to aid in the event of an evacuation especially in the presence of smoke or fire. This is an ongoing problem that has not been adequately addressed to date.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported that the photo luminescent strip for emergency exit path lighting are too dim to be of any use in an actual emergency.