elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: SA-227 AC Metro III
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was level at 10;000 with autopilot engaged; when I noticed an uncommanded pitch up and climb. The electric trim amber light was illuminated on autopilot annunciator panel. I disengaged the autopilot to return to level flight. It took considerable forward pressure to lower the nose. The pilot's trim switch made its normal trim in motion sound. The trim indicator showed pitch up to the upper green limit and it didn't move. I switched to the copilot's trim and used the yoke switch and the override switch with similar results. I continued to struggle to keep the nose level for several minutes. I started slowing and below about 180 knots; the trim started responding normally. I [advised ATC] and made an uneventful landing using the ILS. Only sometime later did I remember that I'd had a similar problem on a flight the previous evening. Again; the nose pitched up while on autopilot and I had to disengage the autopilot and use the trim switches to regain control. The earlier event only lasted a few seconds and was easily rectified at cruise altitude and airspeed.




Synopsis: SA-227 Metro pilot reported an uncommanded pitch up with the autopilot engaged.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beechjet 400
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After departure flying the RUUDY FOUR I believed that the crossing restriction was to cross WENTZ Intersection at or above 1;500 FT. I leveled the aircraft off at 2;000 FT prior to crossing WENTZ. ATC notified me of the deviation and said that there was no issue caused by the deviation.




Synopsis: A confused BE40 pilot departed on the TEB RUUDY FOUR and did not level at 1;500 FT prior to WENTZ so ATC notified him of the error at 2;000 FT.
Date: 202107
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Jet bridge Operations
Reporter function: Gate Agent / CSR
Human factors: Time Pressure; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Jetbridge trainer and trainee on Jetbridge XXX; moving off XX. Trainee called for ramp guide person; guide person standing directly under Jetbridge XXY Door XY. From below the [Door] XY door; the guide person guided us back as Jetbridge went to our right toward the engine; guide person not moving from below [Door] XY door; Jetbridge XXY. Heard someone on the radio transmit you need to go forward and straight back; you're close to the engine". While trainee still at the control; trainer looked out the right side of Jetbridge. It appeared the Jetbridge was less than a foot away from the aircraft engine. The Ramp (lead?) on the tug directly behind us was advising us by radio to stop and move forward. With no guide; trainee moved Jetbridge forward and stopped then trainee proceeded to move Jetbridge backwards to the 6 o'clock direction and then the same guide person appeared below us at Jetbridge XXX [Door] XX."


Second narrative: I was guiding the jetbridge back I was telling the jetbridge driver to go to the left but she was not following my directions. She kept on going back towards the engine almost making contact with the engine. So I told her to stop same time as my ramp lead saw what was happening and had to call the jetbridge driver to make her go forward so she would not hit the engine; but the whole time she was looking at her screen and was not following my directions.


Synopsis: Ground Personnel reported difficulties and communications problems while training new employees to operate the jet bridge safely.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Our departure station agents boarded [a] disabled female passenger. She was disoriented and did not know where she was going and what her own name was. The Operations Supervisor determined she would be OK to fly by herself. I was very concerned with this decision and voiced my concerns to both Operations and the Captain. She was going to an east coast airport with a stop mid continent. At our intermediate stop; I was assisting wheelchair passengers when she slipped by me unnoticed. As soon as I noticed I immediately went to search for her in the terminal along with the C Flight Attendant. The Operations Agent asked us not to leave the aircraft and stated a Customer Service Agent would find her. We informed him the woman did not know her own name so since she couldn't be paged and we were the only ones who knew what she looked like. We went looking for her and I found her at baggage claim and escorted her back to security. She did not have a boarding pass to get through security so I had an airline employee wait with her until a Supervisor could get her back through security and onto the plane. Operations needs to more carefully evaluate a passenger such as this to more properly decide if she is able to travel independently.




Synopsis: A Flight Attendant questioned whether a developmentally disabled female should fly unaccompanied. It was ignored and at an intermediate stop the passenger slipped out beyond security before being found.
Date: 201909
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance; Person Other Person
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This is the second request to bring attention to the issue with a Fish Pole (PF51) [hoist]. We continue to receive this tool in the shop that clearly has not been operated properly. In [report] we indicated an injury. There was a QR code sent to the calibration lab to install on the storage box which will lead the technician to the video. There is an issue with this process. 1) It does not update the training record on file. 2) There is no guarantee someone will watch the video. This will make 4 issues in the past 4 months.We produced and supplied a training video on the proper operation of the PF51 Fish Pole after the first incident. It has still not been made mandatory for the technicians in the field using the Fish Poles. Because of that; the technicians have not received the proper training on the correct method of operation. Because of that we have seen bird caging/ back lashing on the spool; and damaged cables. The APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) or the other components being lifted could have dropped and caused very serious injury or damage. We have a safety responsibility to assure every technician and supervisor reviews this video and understands the operation. [We suggest] mandatory annual recurrent training.




Synopsis: Mechanic reported improper use of a Fish Pole hoist and technicians not following proper procedures.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Wing Fairing
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Company Policy; Logbook Entry; Manuals
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: I was not able to find any information on how many fairings were missing for CDL (Configuration Deviation List) 78XXXX. After looking at the CDL on the flight plan; the entry; and in [database]; I called Maintenance Control to try to find out how many fairings where missing due to the weight penalty being based on the amount of coupled fairings. Maintenance Control was only able to tell me that they were showing in their system that 4 fairings were ordered so they would assume to base the restriction on 4 fairings missing. I then called the [Maintenance Operations Manager] seeing if they could get me any better information. The [Maintenance Operations Manager] told me that when the flight landed in ZZZ they would have someone go out to the plane and count how many fairings were missing so I could apply the correct penalty.There is nowhere documented where Dispatch; and sounds like [Maintenance Control]/ [Maintenance Operations Manager]; can find how many fairings are missing on the aircraft without physically having someone go out and count the fairings. Have a system that Maintenance Control can report how many fairings are missing where the Dispatcher; and Maintenance Control can reference.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported information was unavailable for a CDL regarding missing wing fairings.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On the CAVLR3 arrival into IAD at FL220 we were cleared to 'descend via'. The FO was flying [and] he put 6000 ft in the altitude window. I went off COM1 to say goodbye to passengers and give arrival brief. We encountered some turbulence and autopilot disengaged. I came back to COM1 and noticed we were below profile and the FO was correcting manually. Exact altitude loss unknown; recaptured profile. No word from ATC. PIREP: possible mountain wave or wake turbulence.Unknown or possible attention to aircraft trailing. Also weather could have been a factor. Suggest offsetting further from aircraft ahead? Possibly intervene sooner.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported descending below the profile on descent to IAD when they encountered turbulence that may have been a wake encounter.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: Dash 8-100
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were level at 11;000 feet in cruise; ATC issued a traffic advisory. We requested a turn away from the traffic to avoid getting into a build up. A few seconds passed and the traffic was indicating 300 feet above. An RA was complied with causing us to enter a build up. We descended approximately 500 feet. After the RA cleared we climbed back up to our assigned altitude. The traffic that we responded to was not at the appropriate altitude for flight and was not talking to ATC. We responded to the RA; notified ATC




Synopsis: A Dash 8 First Officer reported receiving an RA in cruise and following the RA commands caused them to enter a buildup.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Second aircraft: Caravan 208B
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft Y was a parachute aircraft that was shipped to us out of 10;000 feet. The aircraft climbed to 14;500 feet. Aircraft X was climbing southbound in close proximity to the jump aircraft. The controller advised Aircraft Y of Aircraft X; and the pilot responded they had just released the jumpers. Aircraft X checked on climbing to 12;000 feet. The controller advised Aircraft X of the parachute aircraft. Aircraft X advised the controller they were responding to a TCAS resolution and descending. Aircraft X descended to 10;500 feet. Aircraft Y was at 11;500 feet and descending.This is not the first instance of [the approach facility] running aircraft in close proximity to parachute aircraft that they have shipped to us. This has happened multiple times at the [approach facility] and [approach facility] airports. We have contacted either the Front Line Manager or CIC on duty and discussed the situation with them. They continue to run aircraft near or directly under the parachute aircraft.Educate the [approach facility] controllers of the hazard this poses. This situation could potentially lead to a fatality of some kind. [A] jumper could be killed if they hit a plane; or the plane could take damage and kill the occupants.Set up a zone around the parachute operator. When the aircraft is flying [approach facility] is not allowed to put aircraft in this airspace.




Synopsis: Aircraft Y; a VFR parachute aircraft; was descending out of 11;500 feet. Aircraft X; an air carrier; was below Aircraft Y while climbing on a converging heading. Aircraft X received a TCAS/RA on Aircraft Y and responded accordingly. Aircraft Y released parachutists in the immediate vicinity of the Aircraft X's departure route.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Level at 4;000 feet we were on a heading to intercept final into XXL into ZZZ. ATC turned us left to avoid traffic. We had traffic on our TCAS to the left. We tried to verify if left was actually what ATC wanted and they verified yes. Upon taking the new heading; I saw Aircraft Y out my side of the aircraft maneuvering in circles. It was doing a climbing left 360. Just as Aircraft Y was turning our direction; the movement of the aircraft seemed to stop in my windscreen. As we all know; that indicates it was coming right at us. I turned off the autopilot and turn our aircraft to the right and almost braced for impact. The plane was less than 300 yards away. We never received an RA (Resolution Advisory); but that was close. We need to be hyper vigilant coming into ZZZ. These near misses are getting out of control. This was the third one in two days for me alone. ATC can help; but eyes out the windscreen and no heads down work coming into ZZZ. Period. Be careful everyone!




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported experiencing an airborne conflict on approach to landing that required immediate evasive action to avert a collision.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-300
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: Pressurization System
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Took with flaps 15 no bleed takeoff with 900 foot stopping margin.  At 3;000 FT; the First Officer reconfigured the bleeds and packs.  Climbing through 4;000 FT got a Main Pressurization Controller failure.  Noticed we were not pressurizing; so I slowed my assent and ask to level off at 8;000 FT.  First Officer ran checklist for Main Controller failure and went to standby and got a green light.  I saw there was no bleed pressure from either engine.  Went back to APU bleed and had bleed pressure.  Still had no pressurization; so I checked the outflow valve was closed and cycled the pack and noticed no APU bleed pressure drop to the left pack. Tried the right pack and no bleed drop.  At 8;000 FT and the cabin was at 5;000 FT climbing.  Checked engine bleed circuit breakers and they were in.  Thought it was a bleed trip problem so ran the checklist and could not get the engine bleeds back with trip reset or engine anti-ice on. Still had APU bleed but I could not get the packs on.  Asked the First Officer if he had any other ideas and he said no.  The First Officer ran the landing numbers for our weight and we returned to the departure airport.  Notified Operations; Dispatch; and the Flight Attendants.  Made a 500 foot per minute descent and landed.  Maintenance found a computer in the EE compartment had come un-racked.  They re-racked the computer and the bleeds and packs worked again.




Synopsis: After departure a B737 bleeds and packs would not operate to pressurize the aircraft. After troubleshooting at 8;000 FT they returned to the departure airport where Pressurization Control Computer in the E&E was found unracked.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: A90.TRACON, NH
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E A90
ATC / advisory: TRACON A90
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft on unexpected; uncoordinated arrival routing.Flight plan strip indicated Aircraft X to be on ZBW16/A90 LOA routing. Flight was not on that routing but going direct the fourth fix indicated in the LOA route. This was not coordinated as required.The amended routing had been entered into the flight plan; however a new flight plan strip was not generated by the amendment.Comply with the ZBW/A90 LOA or coordinated deviations verbally as required.Investigate if the ERAM (En Route Automation Modernization) automation performed correctly to verify if the required flight plan change was transmitted to the arriving sector.




Synopsis: Boston TRACON Controller reported an aircraft on unexpected; uncoordinated arrival routing.