elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Aircraft component: Angle of Attack Vane
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After nearly an hour of de-icing to remove significant ice from the entire aircraft; we taxied to the runway; did a 30-second run-up; and took off normally. Flaps were retracted at approximately 180 kts. and accelerating on climb out. After flaps were up; we got both stick shakers. Copilot was flying and initially lowered the nose a few degrees from climb pitch as we looked for problems. AOA was normal; pitch and power settings were normal for climb out; there was no Auto Slat Extension; Flaps and Slats indicated UP; and all 3 airspeed indicators agreed as we stabilized at 245 kts. Our initial thought was that we had faulty input to one or both FCCs because everything else looked normal regarding airspeed and AOA. We also had several other intermittent warnings throughout our troubleshooting process - ALT comparator flags (even when altitude did not disagree); AS comparator flags (even when airspeeds did not disagree); and PRED WSHEAR FAIL. We continued towards destination while we attempted to troubleshootUnable to determine a definite reason for the stick shakers; we conference called [Dispatch]; [Maintenance Control]; and MD-11 Chief Tech pilot. After extensive discussion about how and when the stick shakers activated; and everything about airplane performance being normal; we pulled the CAPT STICK SHAKER circuit breaker; and the stick shaker stopped. The First Officer STICK SHAKER circuit breaker was still operational; so the assumption seemed correct; that the cause of the stick shaker was a faulty flap position input to the #1 FCC. After we extended the flaps at destination; we reset the CAPT STICK SHAKER circuit breaker; and the stick shaker did NOT return; which again supported the assumption that it was a faulty flap position input to FCC #1From [Maintenance Log] - FCC-1 FAILS TEST ALPHA VANE N135.9. T/S PER FIM 22-XX-XX. FOUND AOA-2 SENSOR BEARING BAD NOT ALLOWING SENSOR TO MOVE FREELY.




Synopsis: MD-11 Captain reported an erroneous stick shaker activation during climb after retracting flaps.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft movement after shutdown.  On arrival in ZZZ Ramp X at aircraft shutdown aircraft moved forward after a nose chock was inserted.  Both engines were shut down at the time of aircraft movement.  Movement was immediately after shutdown of Number 2 engine.  This was evident to me because the nose tiller turned 180 degrees right after Number 2 engine shutdown which at the time I assumed was some kind of mechanical malfunction.  After I was briefed by the mechanic [I] realized that it was caused by aircraft movement.  This baffled me because I didn't understand why.  When I got home I reread our shutdown procedures.  I noticed that I did not follow the cautions of checking the accumulator pressure being in the green band.  The truth be told I have not been checking this for years.  I have been checking for aircraft movement only after releasing the parking brake.  A huge mistake that thankfully did not cause any injuries or damage.  Most embarrassing for a seasoned Captain.  I guess I need to go through all my normal procedures again highlighting all cautions and warnings.  Surprising that in so many years of line checks and training events this bad habit never caught up with me.




Synopsis: A300 Captain reported the aircraft moved after engine shutdown with nose chock already inserted. No damage or injuries were reported.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Central Computer
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Manuals; Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I operated as PF (Pilot Flying) from ZZZ to ZZZ1. The aircraft CADC2 (Central Air Data Computer 2) had just been replaced. Prior to takeoff I asked the FO (First Officer) to state any discrepancy at 80 KIAS in hopes we could catch any issues. We were cleared for takeoff on XXL. At 80 KIAS I called '80' because I did not hear the FO. He made a comment like 'not again!'. We were now above 100 KIAS. I again continued the takeoff. Since we had dealt with the same exact issue 3 hours prior and the TCAS was far less crowded I elected to continue the SID flying raw data. We leveled at 5000 ft MSL to run/finish checklists and finish cleaning up aircraft. I then elected to continue flying eastward. WX as far as we could see was VMC. We had issues contacting the company on both SATCOM and JETCOM. We continued to step climb in hopes of better reception. About 20 min after takeoff at approx FL230 we finally contacted company. After talking with [Maintenance and Operations]; checking wx with dispatch I decided to continue to ZZZ1. Possible divert fields were all VMC. The FO started his disapproval several times. However; we had an operating primary and standby system plus good wx. I continued. We climbed to FL370 east of ZZZZZ with [Center]. Uneventful en route; arrival; approach and landing at ZZZ1. Reviewing our procedures and my decisions I realized the next day we entered RVSM airspace without verifying with ATC rather than two primary; independent altimeter systems we instead had a primary and standby.




Synopsis: Captain reported failure of CADC2 for the second time resulted in loss of Air Data on Captains side during takeoff.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Parked Ramp
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As I came to a complete stop on the south side of the ramp; my Right Brake was very soft; or weak. It felt like there was no pressure. In order to determine if if I needed to write the brake up I pumped the brakes and tried to see if I could obtain any pressure in the right brake. I was trying to determine if the pressure had just bled out; or if it was gone completely. I was able to get a little pressure; but determined that something didn't feel right and decided to shut down with plans to write up the brake and call maintenance. I chocked the nose gear and went to spin down the right engine when I noticed a small puddle underneath the brake reservoir in between tire 3 and 4. This wasn't a big surprise as I had noticed that something was wrong prior to shutdown. I decided to go inspect the situation further and complete the walk around. As I got to the back side of the right wing I saw the entire gap between both tires completely up in flames. I immediately went back into the he airplane and got the fire extinguisher. I extinguished the fire with in a minute of noticing it was on fire. The brake fluid was pouring out from the reservoirs for several addition minutes until maintenance arrived and helped monitor the situation.




Synopsis: Pilot reported they noticed a loss of brake pressure while taxiing and after parking observed flames from the leak. Pilot extinguished the flames.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance

Narrative: On approach to runway 22L in Newark; during radar vectoring under the control of New York Approach; we experienced a TCAS/RA while in level flight at 5000 feet MSL. I was the pilot flying at the time; so I immediately disconnected the autopilot; and began a climbing escape maneuver to 5300 feet MSL; before descending back to 5000 feet MSL; after the intruder aircraft has passed 300 feet below our left wing. My First Officer advised ATC; and we continued without any further incident to a safe landing at Newark Airport.




Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported responding to a TCAS Resolution Advisory due to near mid air collision.
Date: 201812
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Beechcraft Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While practicing landings on RWY XX at ZZZ with a pre-solo student who owns the aircraft; winds calm; traffic very light. A Bonanza (Aircraft Y) was heard 10 miles to the west; who intended to land on RWY XY (opposite runway). I radioed the Bonanza that this would be a full stop landing on RWY XX and there should be no conflict. On very short final [another] Bonanza (Aircraft Z) was spotted on the runway and a go around with a right climbing turn was initiated. Runway XY-XX was closed because the Bonanza had blown two tires. So we landed without incident on Runway XZ. I believe there was some confusion about which Bonanza was where. I believe that the fact that sometimes pilots give position reports with aircraft type (Bonanza) only was a contributing factor.




Synopsis: Flight instructor reported another aircraft was observed landing in the opposite direction on the same runway; so a go around was performed to avoid a conflict.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was conducting a CFI single engine add on with a local DPE (Designated Pilot Examiner). ZZZ was extremely busy and using LAHSO (Land and Hold Short) rules for RWY XX and RWY XY. We were probably on the ground for close to thirty minutes before we were cleared to taxi to the run up area and another thirty minutes before we were cleared to takeoff. For the final maneuver of the check ride; the examiner asked for a power off 180 landing to RWY XX. He was directing me throughout the entire maneuver (when to turn base; what airspeed to hold; how much bank to use; when to deploy flaps; etc.) and his instruction led me to a very high final approach altitude. I stated; 'We need to go around; we are too high.' I was scared we would break the hold short lines for RWY XY. He replied with; 'We are not going around; I do not want to get stuck up here for another hour.' Trusting in his judgement as a DPE and giving in to the politics of student pilot vs DPE; I continued to land and as I thought; we landed very far down the runway. We did land and stopped completely before RWY XY. Once in contact with Ground; they issued me a phone number for a possible pilot deviation. Myself and the DPE spoke to Tower on the phone. I was put in a very difficult situation between trusting my inner judgment or trusting the advice of a seasoned DPE; who denied my request to be conservative/safe and simply go around. This experience has taught me that a pilot can always go around and I am truly sorry for not exercising that right. As I stated; I let the politics of 'the DPE is always right' cloud my inner judgment and was scared to act against him. I will use this experience to teach the importance of a 'go around' to future pilots; and to always lean on the safe side of flight.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported a communication breakdown with a Designated Pilot Examiner resulted in an unstabilized approach to landing.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Time Pressure; Workload
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Circle to land 13 in VMC conditions. During the breakaway maneuver half way through the circle [procedure] I realized that I could only trim back and not forward. Tried copilot yoke switch; Suitcase handles and secondary trim to no avail. It trimmed back and not forward. We briefly did the QRH Checklist and in less time than it took to read this we were landing. 'Aviate; Navigate then Communicate'; no time to declare an emergency as we landed right away. The airplane was perfectly trimmed (trim back during landing) and did NOT want to execute a go-around with a jammed trim unable to trim forward. Textbook wise I SHOULD have declared an emergency to be ready to use my Captain's authority and I'm never shy about declaring emergencies BUT believe me this happened very quickly the airport was fine and we had already gotten our clearance to land and I just wanted to concentrate on landing ASAP and not experimenting around with the horizontal stabilizer trim in flight (similar to other MD-80 trim/jackscrew incidents).I was subsequently able to fix the problem by refusing the offending airplane and getting a new one for my leg back.


Second narrative: I started the stabilizer inoperative QRH procedure but our altitude; position; the fact that we were currently correctly trimmed and time remaining made it obvious that the safest course was to normally land the aircraft.


Synopsis: A MD-80 Captain detected an inoperative elevator trim but because the aircraft was in a circling approach VMC with the airport in sight; no emergency was declared and flight landed as soon as possible in trim.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E EWR
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While descending on the PHLBO STAR into EWR; passing through 8;300 for 8;000; we received a TCAS RA to 'descend' and 'monitor vertical speed.' Shortly after that ATC called traffic at 12 o'clock and 1.5 miles at 8;200 FT. I replied that was the same altitude we were passing through and that we were responding to a TCAS RA. ATC cleared us to continue descent to 6;000. We then visually acquired a Cessna approaching us head-on and co-altitude. I pointed out the traffic to the First Officer and told him to increase the descent rate. The aircraft passed by just slightly left and above us (approximately 200 - 300 FT of separation. ATC subsequently said the aircraft was at 8;500 FT; but may have descended to avoid a cloud. However; from our vantage point we could see only scattered wisps of clouds above; but a solid deck below at about 5;500 FT. I advised that it was way; way too close for comfort. The rest of the flight was uneventful.The Cessna may not have been at the proper altitude; but would have still been a factor for our descent even if he had been at 8;500 FT. No traffic advisories were given until the RA was received and being responded to. I have no idea why a VFR aircraft was flying directly against the arrival flow into a major airport at an altitude through which all inbound aircraft must descend.Just glad TCAS was working. It has become more common to see this equipment on MEL; so I am extremely glad it was functioning properly. The results of this incident would have been decidedly different without it. Also glad we were able to visually acquire the target in sufficient time; albeit with the help of the TCAS.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 descending via the PHLBO STAR suffered an NMAC with opposite direction VFR traffic.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On short final we experienced engine failure on #2 engine. Fully configured while monitoring the Captain's approach I called '1;000 FT' after my call out I felt a bump on the controls. It felt like a autopilot disconnect or maybe him bumping the yoke. However; he said 'did you feel that; it felt like we may have hit a bird.' I responded;' yes I did' and right after that around 800 FT the engine trouble began. As I responded with 'yes I did' I immediately looked to the EICAS. As my eyes reached it the N1 and N2 values on engine 2 began to move down and up uncontrollably followed by vibrations on the airplane and a bumping noise which began soft and quite and quickly got loud and rough. I told the Captain there is a problem with #2 I think we are losing #2. By this time the Captain had added a little thrust but no thrust was needed to maintain airspeed. The aircraft was holding airspeed without additional power. I radioed ATC 'lost #2 engine declaring emergency landing 26R' looking at the EICAS and seeing the FADEC had commanded the engine to go to idle thrust; I said to the Captain 'we've lost #2 its rolling back to idle pull the thrust back to idle on #2'; which he did and performed memory items for engine failure. By this time we were around 400 FT and had no indication of fire we decided to continue and just land safely on the runway rather than try to perform a QRH checklist while still in the air. After landing safely and leaving the runway we performed the appropriate QRH and talked with everyone. I believe we should train engine failures on approach 1;000 FT and less. Only 1 time have I ever practiced this event and it was in B737 simulator. I believe that training and all airline training helped a ton.




Synopsis: EMB145 First Officer describes an engine failure during approach below 800 FT possibly due to a bird strike. After performing memory items for the engine failure the crew elects to continue to a safe landing.