elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aeroplane Flight Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Operating a MINDS-i multicopter below treetop at a sports park. Winds were reported NNE at 3 kts; but seemed just a little stronger than that - perhaps just over 5 kts. All calibrations had been completed just an hour before; but roll/pitch quickly proved to be faulty. They would move in one direction; but not the other (trims were centered). UAV continued to track further away and up to probably 50 feet in altitude. I put it in auto mode; to return to launch site; but it only seemed to loiter (fixed position). Perhaps this was a function of it not being able to roll or pitch in the direction needed to return. When I took it out of auto mode; it continued to track further away. It soon became evident that I would not be able to bring it back; so I tried to bring it down gradually in altitude as it disappeared beyond trees.I ran to the neighborhood in the direction the UAV was tracking. I spoke to eye-witnesses who said the UAV came overhead and was working its way down and tracking roughly down the street. Their prediction was that it landed in bushes/trees down the street. I scoured the streets and driveways and looked through some bushes and trees. One of the eye-witnesses helped me look where he thought it was headed. We could not find it; but there are a lot of bushes and trees in the yards around there. No other people were out and about. I knocked at a couple of doors; but no one had heard or seen anything.I returned home and called the local police to report the event and then thought to log on and report it as a safety event. I haven't seen a runaway UAV before. It's sobering to feel a loss of control in the situation.




Synopsis: A UAS pilot lost control of his MINDS-i multicopter after it failed to respond to any control inputs and disappeared into a neighborhood.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Arrived at gate. Ground power was established while passengers were deplaning. APU was then shut down. Immediately thereafter lots of commotion outside. First Officer opened his window to hear what ground personnel were saying. Apparently flames were shooting out of the APU with lots of smoke. This continued for nearly a minute; yet we had no indication of an APU fire on the overhead fire panel. After some discussion; First Officer and I decided that at the very least we should shut off the APU's source of fuel; so I pushed its fire P/B but did not discharge an agent through the APU. Normally an APU would shut itself down and discharge a bottle on its own if a true fire was sensed. In this case; the fire warning system did not sense a fire yet there was some sort of abnormal tail-pipe fire associated with the APU.  Operations; Maintenance; and Airport Crash Fire Rescue were called. Every fire truck in all the county showed up but the fire and smoke had dissipated by the time they arrived. No visible external evidence of fire could be seen after the event. Maintenance took possession of the aircraft.




Synopsis: An A321 APU had an apparent tail pipe fire after shutdown so the crew used the APU P/B to close the fuel and called the Fire Department.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The aircraft was operating without an APU due to MEL. Ground power and air was requested on the in range call.  Upon arrival at our gate the left engine was shutdown and the hand single was given to the ground lead for ground power.  The individual acknowledged with a nod.  During this time the aircraft beacon was on.  After several minutes waiting for ground power I noticed on the ICAS that the fueler had hooked up to the aircraft.  I immediately shut down the aircraft and went to emergency power.  I went out to speak with the supervisor in charge of training the new ground personnel at IAD.  I explained the importance of stopping an unsafe action and keeping personnel clear of the number 2 engine.  Further; I explained how dangerous it was to attempt to fuel an aircraft while an engine is running and with passengers on the aircraft.  I was disappointed with the response that they are new and by placing the blame on the fueler.  This incident was a total breakdown in the safety chain.  The ramp personnel failed to stop or acknowledge a major safety issue.  Clearly some basic training is warranted.  I would also question why we have personnel on the ramp whom are not receiving the proper training.  Under no circumstances is this acceptable and the new ramp personal need to focus on safety and be taught correct procedures.  If you see a safety issue; say something and attempt to correct it.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 Captain reported ground personnel failed to follow SOP and hooked up to fuel when an engine was still running.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 25
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was on a VFR (Visual Flight Rules) cross country flight at 4;500 feet MSL. Weather was clear with no ceiling and at least 25 mile visibility. I was cleared into ZZZ Bravo. While approaching ZZZ my ADSB (Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast) showed a target to my south at the same altitude and 4 mile away. I could not see it but kept an eye on my screen. It started to converge and eventually I got an aural warning from my ADSB. During that time I lifted the wing of my aircraft to be sure I hadn't missed visual sight of the traffic. I still couldn't see it yet it was now very close so I called ATC (Air Traffic Control) and asked. Their reply was that the only traffic they saw for me was about seven miles to the north or northwest. Very shortly after that the image on my screen converged completely and the disappeared. I continued the flight normally and while listening to ATC another aircraft called in with the same situation. The Controller mentioned to him that another aircraft had this as well. I chimed in and told the Controller that it was me and he asked a few brief questions because he was concerned. No negative outcome just a disturbing puzzlement. My conclusion was a phantom signal from my own airplane; a bounced signal; or perhaps an unauthorized drone. Very peculiar so I decided to report it.




Synopsis: Pilot reported an erroneous target on ADS-B display.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 15
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E N90
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prior to departure; a standard briefing was obtained from FSS. The Briefer was specifically asked if there are any parachute jump activities in the vicinity of the CCC VORTAC. The reply was that there were no parachuting activities in this area. Upon arrival at the VOR while conducting a visual practice search; it was discovered that there were jumpers in the air. It would be helpful if the operator would notify FSS about such activities so close to a NAVAID.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reported jumpers in the air in the vicinity of CCC VORTAC even though there was no notice of the activity.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Ice/Rain Protection System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [We] experienced an 'ANTI-ICE DUCT' emergency in flight. The emergency occurred in icing conditions during the initial arrival phase into [destination]. At the time the event occurred the aircraft was in known icing conditions and the ice detecting system indicated ICE. Less than 30 seconds after turning on both the cowl and wing anti-ice switches; the ANTI-ICE DUCT Master Warning was indicated by the EICAS System. The aircraft flight controls were transferred from the First Officer to the Captain. The Captain [notified ATC] and began to immediately climb out of icing conditions while advising ATC of the situation. At the time the aircraft altitude was 10;000 feet MSL. ATC authorized a climb to 14;000 feet. The Captain requested 15;000 to remain above the cloud deck. At the time the cloud bases were reported to be 2;200 above field elevation with an outside air temperature less than freezing. The First Officer completed the QRH procedure. The Captain elected to return to [departure airport] as icing conditions were not known to be [there]. The First Officer agreed with the Captain's decision to return. After completing the QRH procedures; the flight attendants were advised of the situation; the company was advised of the situation; the passengers were made aware of the reason why the flight was returning. For safety reasons; emergency equipment was requested to be ready.  This Captain requested a straight in approach and the request was granted by ATC. The aircraft was safely landed without further incident and was able to return to the gate under its own power. The passengers were briefed on the event by the Captain and subsequently de-planed. This was the second time within a 2 week period that this Captain experienced this emergency with this same aircraft.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 Captain reported returning to departure airport after experiencing an 'ANTI ICE DUCT' Master Warning.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Other Flight School
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Other Flight School
Reporter function: Instructor; Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing rollout
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was training with my student 12 miles roughly north of ZZZ Airport. We decided to head to ZZZ1 to practice some landings. We tuned to their CTAF frequency and started listening to other aircraft that were in the traffic pattern at ZZZ1. There were 2 or 3 and they were using Runway XX. We made our report 10 nm out of the airport; another report at 5 nm stating our intentions. We flew over the runway and entered the pattern on the downwind Runway XX reporting every position in the pattern. We reported base Runway XX; final Runway XX. As we landed on Runway XX still rolling on the runway we noticed a Seneca landing on the opposite threshold; Runway XY. Not once they reported their position as they were coming down to the airport.  The aircraft landed and bounced a bit; we thought they were going around but the aircraft came in our direction ignoring us; we were forced to run onto the grass to avoid a collision.




Synopsis: C-150 Instructor reported a Ground Conflict on landing rollout with a NORDO aircraft landing opposite direction resulting in a runway excursion to prevent ground collision.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Trainee
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the first departure to southwest at 1;000 ft we had a bird strike. We requested the Tower to return back to [departure airport]. On the way back after extending the landing gear; the left main gear position light was not illuminating. We tried to troubleshoot the landing gear following the checklist. We executed an emergency gear extension and requested the Tower to do a low pass to verify the gear position. ATC informed us the left gear appeared to be damaged. For a better visual of the gear; ATC requested us to do a turn back to the opposite direction and do another low approach. On the second low approach; they confirmed the gear appeared to be half down and crooked. So we [requested priority handling] and we turned around again and did another low approach to establish control effectiveness. We requested to leave the airspace and gain some altitude to try to get the gear down by doing maneuvers. We did not have a positive indication of the faulty gear. We decided to secure the left engine because of unknown damage to the left wing due to a bird strike. We landed on runway; the gear was still intact after landing. We vacated on taxiway and shut down the engine following the checklist. We got towed back to the ramp safely. Airplane is grounded for further maintenance inspection.




Synopsis: PA-44 student pilot reported returning safely to departure airport after experiencing a bird strike that potentially affected the landing gear and left engine.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Blinding reflection from solar facility. It is so bright; it is uncomfortable to look in that direction; even with sunglasses. This means scanning for traffic from that direction isn't done.




Synopsis: B737 Captain at FL380 reports being blinded by the solar array southwest of LAS.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Citation Latitude (C680A)
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Spoiler System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Inspector
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Manuals
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During routine inspection of Aircraft X; inspection discovered 'ROLL SPOILER SECTOR ASSY HAS EXCESSIVE PLAY AT ROD END'. After further review; inspection discovered the steel bushing in roll spoiler sector had become loose and over the course of time caused the mating hole in the sector to enlarge to the point of being unrepairable. The technicians searched the maintenance manual for instructions on removing and replacing the sector assembly only to realize that Textron failed to include this information in their manual. After further research; technicians found that the CE-680 Maintenance Manual contained the information required for removal and replacement of the sector assembly. Further consulting with Textron led to another email granting permission to utilize the procedure from the CE-680 maintenance manual with replacing the sector assembly. The sector assembly (P/N: 7461115-6) was removed and a replacement was ordered and received. Upon pre-installation inspection; technicians discovered that the new sector assembly was missing a bracket (P/N:7469170-6). This bracket was attached to the old sector assembly using 2- rivets. After consulting with Textron that Tech Data pertaining to the installation of missing bracket was not available; they provided an email with a OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) drawing of location and position data for installation. With the original bracket now installed on the new sector assembly; technicians discovered cable rigging; adjustments; and testing was not specific to the R & R (Remove & Replace) of the sector assembly. Upon further consultation with Textron; determined that the lack of detail instruction; and the lack of confidence from OEM representation; coupled with the risk on our part that a task is being inadvertently left out is the reason for this MSAP filing. The suggestion is to escalate this issue to the appropriate level of responsibility to force the OEM to provide adequate Tech Data to perform the required tasks and to additionally force the OEM to address the lack of quality control; missing data; and inadequate instructions that exist in the current revision of the CE-680A Maintenance Manual.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician working on CE-680A reports that maintenance manuals are lacking critical repair information.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Hazmat paperwork said that there was dry ice in the lower forward cargo area; so FCAC (Forward Cargo A/C) should be 'on'.  I turned it on right after I signed the paperwork.  I did not check to make sure there was a note on the release referencing this; to account for an extra 500 pounds of fuel burn enroute.  We discovered my mistake while trying to determine why we were burning more fuel than expected.  Most of it was due to winds; and we landed with plenty of gas; but 2;500 below plan.  We called operations to alert them and ask for how much extra fuel we should expect to burn and they said a little over 500 pounds; so it was not an issue.  The other 2000 pounds was for winds stronger than forecast; to the best of my knowledge.  Operations also said that it was the responsibility of ZZZZ Ramp to let them know about the dry ice so they could plan the fuel more accurately; but someone forgot to let them know. Failure of the ZZZZ Ramp to keep Operations informed of the dry ice in the lower forward cargo area.  Failure of the Captain (myself) to make sure there was a note on the FP/R for FCAS 'on'.




Synopsis: B-777 Captain reported a communication breakdown between flight crew and dispatch regarding additional fuel required due to Dangerous Goods in the cargo compartments.