elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Started a descent from 36;000 [feet] following VNAV path with autopilot on. Aircraft was a touch high; so opened speed brakes at normal rate to detent. When retracted speed brakes at normal to slow rate; aircraft banked to 25-30 degrees to right in approximately 2 seconds. Attempted to stop bank by turning off AP; autothrottles; and rotating yoke in opposite direction. Took approximately 2 seconds to return to level flight. Continued flight without using speedbrakes. Had been a previous Maintenance write up for this; but had been closed the day before. Other flights had occurred since closing of write up. Continued on to destination.


Second narrative: Aircraft had a previous report of a roll to the right when retracting the speed brakes. During our descent at about FL360 and 300 kias; the First Officer; who was flying; extended the speed brakes in a very normal fashion. When he retracted the speed brakes in the same; very normal fashion; at about the mid-point of retracting them; the aircraft rolled at about 15 degrees per second to about 30 degrees right wing down. At that point; the autopilot had responded with about 60 degrees of left aileron which stopped the roll; and by this time; the First Officer's hands were on the controls which then caused the autopilot to revert to CWS mode. Then; the aircraft returned to wings level and the First Officer stowed the speed brake handle. There were no further anomalies and the remainder of the flight was unremarkable.


Synopsis: B737 Flight crew reported uncommanded 25-30 degree roll while retracting speedbrake. Uncommanded roll previously reported.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Just leveled off at 29000 feet; passenger seat belt sign was on; flight attendants were beginning service. No turbulence at the time of the event; we hit a moderate jolt that lasted 3 seconds; strong enough that two flight attendants were hurt. I believe it was the wake from another aircraft. [One Flight Attendant] strained her right ankle. [Another Flight Attendant] complained of lower back pain. According to the lead flight attendant they were ok to continued to our destination but just to be sure he requested paramedics meet the aircraft.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: B777 flight crew reported two flight attendants were injured as a result of a wake turbulence encounter.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Corporate
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Breakdown in communication from Operations Manager In Charge (OMIC) to affected areas/sectors concerning radar outage:We use 3 NM separation in most of sectors 34 and 47. Sector 34 uses the COV radar site (Providence Approach's radar). I was working the sectors combined. Using descend via procedures to RY22L at BOS. Had Aircraft X off of Cape Cod at 16000 feet going to HPN routed PROVI..PUT..NELIE..(Preferential route) HPN. Gave them a 280 heading to go south of PROVI with the plan being to give them direct NELIE when they were 3 miles west of PROVI. Advised BOS descend via arrivals to cross PROVI AOA 17000 feet; then descend via 22L transition. As I was about to issue the HPN aircraft direct NELIE his 3 NM HALO changed to a 5 NM HALO and I received an ERAM alert that COV was Out of service. I waited until Aircraft X was 5NM west of PROVI and issued direct NELIE. There were 3 BOS arrivals that went over the top of the Aircraft X aircraft at 17000 feet. I advised the Front Line Manager of the outage and asked if he knew about it. He said no. He then called the Operations Desk and informed them of the outage. At XA:11z we received a written message at the sector stating 'COV radar will be released from XA:00z Until Further Advised.' The phrasing of this message implies that it was a planned outage. When radar sites fail the message will normally state 'COV RADAR FAILED.' If the timing were just slightly different Aircraft X would have been 3 miles west of the BOS arrival as the 3 mile J-Ring went to 5 miles and there would have been an operational error.I'm not sure what the current procedure is for forwarding equipment outages to the areas. But; whatever it is; it needs to be stressed that such outages that impact separation standards MUST be relayed immediately and verbally coordinated between the supervisors and controllers.




Synopsis: Sector was notified of a radar outage affecting separation standards 11 minutes late. The Controller worked four aircraft during this period none of which had separation which was less than required.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EISN.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure; Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were coming in on the Olapo 1-L arrival into Dublin (over Olapo) and were given instructions to hold at KERVA intersection with a speed of 210 and a descent out of FL 230 to FL 190. The Captain (CA) put a hold in the box of right hand turns 1 min legs and an inbound course of 099 degrees as indicated in the arrival. I agreed to this as well as the relief pilot.Once over KERVA Dublin 132.575 asked us if we were holding as published. We answered no we didn't see a published hold. He told us not make it 210 inbound heading; right turns and 1 min legs. We switched to this and then realized in small print on the far right of our arrival chart there is a box with std holding procedures that indicate 210 inbound. I never heard the controller say hold as published nor don't remember him saying it.He gave us several alt adjustments and speed restrictions (one was below what the aircraft could operate safely at) we might of just not heard the controller correctly. Understanding that we had a published hold and hearing it stated would of keyed us into the fact that there was published hold on the chart to look for. Every time in come into Dublin it is always something different this is a very non standard airport with procedures runways changes etc. They turn you very close to the airport most of the time and other times switch runways and not tell you.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew approaching Shannon Airspace needed ATC clarification as to what holding pattern to use at the fix.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Crossfeed
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were at cruise altitude at FL 350 and about 1 hour from landing. I was the pilot not flying and we did a bathroom swap and I went first. Upon my return I noticed that the main fuel tanks needed to be rebalanced so I set up fuel panel for that. When my FO returned I forgot to mention to him that I was balancing fuel. We then became distracted by several descents from ATC and then the RNAV arrival descent. I noticed that our fuel was out of balance with left tank at 6.2 and right tank at 4.5. I then rebalanced fuel and got both tanks even when we rolled onto final for the visual.This was my fault as I should have waited to rebalance once my First Officer was back in cockpit. At the least I should have remembered to tell him when he returned. The bathroom swap out and its distractions is not good time to rebalance fuel!




Synopsis: A Boeing 737 Captain reported a fuel imbalance condition which was the result of fuel crossfeed mismanagement and an intra cockpit communication breakdown. The situation was corrected and an uneventful landing was accomplished.
Date: 202101
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Other unknown
Flight phase: Other N/A
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Other / Unknown; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other NA
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Over last few days; there is indication that certain aviation companies are looking into making the COVID vaccine mandatory for their employees. I strongly believe that this is a potential security risk; due to the fact that if an individual is forced to do something against their will; they might fight back. In the aviation industry; as history has shown so well; there is a strong possibility that airplane safety might be compromised; especially by individuals that have direct access to the unsecured aircraft; such as gate agents; operations personnel; mechanics; and ground handlers.Due to the significant safety concerns; I strongly urge the FAA to prohibit mandatory vaccinations.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported concerns with airlines possibly making it mandatory for employees to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B PHL
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During the logbook inspection I noticed a reset of AIR PACK 2 REG FAULT in the maintenance logbook that was instructed by [Maintenance Controller]. I contacted the [Maintenance Controller] and inquired about the entry; and the Controller informed me that Maintenance did not do resets. They had line Maintenance come out and test the pack 2 regulator; and it passed. This write up had been in the logbook 4 previous times and all had been reset per the QRH. The flight was completed without incident.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported incorrect entries in logbook; requiring Maintenance action.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Turbulence
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Speedbrake/Spoiler
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: ATC assigned [us to] descend to 8;000 ft; reduce airspeed to 210 K. I deployed the spoilers and aircraft began an immediate left turn; we were navigating straight ahead. I disconnected the Auto Pilot and the aircraft immediately rolled into a left 45 degree bank; I stowed the spoilers and proceeded to turn back right; but not before we turned approximately 40-50 degrees left from our initial heading. ATC asked about our heading; and we advised asymmetric deployment of spoilers. Upon landing no spoiler deployment on the right side according to the configuration page. We wrote the problem up and Maintenance could not duplicate; we suspect the spoilers were frozen; it was light mist at departure airport.We are assuming the spoilers were frozen due to precipitation at the departure airport.That would be Flight Operations issue as there is very little a crew can do to prevent frozen spoilers in-flight.




Synopsis: MD11 Captain reported encountering an asymmetric spoiler issue during descent. Captain stated the spoilers may have been 'frozen' due to precipitation at departure airport.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Upon arrival into ZZZ; we got the current ATIS. The ATIS was indicating that ZZZ was landing south and to expect visual approach to Runway XX. There was no NOTAM or indication on ATIS that the localizer for Runway XX was not in service. As Pilot Flying; I briefed a visual approach to Runway XX with ILS back up for course and vertical guidance. ILS for Runway XX was selected and checked. We were cleared for the visual and asked to keep within 5 miles if able. I configured the aircraft on a base leg and planned to intercept the visual final over ZZZZZ; which is 5.0 miles on the final. On the base to final turn; I noticed that the glide slope did not look correct as it was showing I was well below. I immediately looked at the ID (Identifier) and noticed it was indicating IFBS and should have been IXNA. I instructed the First Officer to turn off the flight directors and bring up FPV (Flight Path Vector). We intercepted a visual final and landed normally; however; the glide slope warning was sounding throughout the approach as it was the incorrect glide slope. After parking at the gate; I asked Tower if the localizer for Runway XX was not in service. I was told that they had not got around to switching it; as they were using Runway XY earlier in the day. The Identifier for ILS XY is IFBS.The localizer frequency was broadcasting for the non-landing runway without any notification on ATIS or advisory from ATC. It might be worth informing ATC at ZZZ that many airlines use ILS as a backup to visual approaches and this causes incorrect indications that can cause confusion. Also; broadcasting a localizer frequency and course on the same runway in the opposite direction of landing traffic is concerning from a safety aspect in my opinion.




Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported airport broadcast incorrect Instrument Landing System identifier.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LOM.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E PHL
ATC / advisory: CTAF LOM
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was performing pattern work at LOM. Although there was a moderate amount of commercial and private traffic; no sequencing problems arose until Aircraft Y ignored my radio calls that I was turning left downwind and took advantage of an altitude below the standard 1500 feet pattern at LOM to pass my aircraft AFTER I was established on left downwind. I expressed surprise over the radio but was met only with laughter. Aircraft Y continued ahead of me and landed at LOM. After landing; I asked the pilot why he cut me off in the pattern. His excuse was 'you were above pattern altitude.' I am based at LOM and hold pattern altitude religiously once turning downwind from the upwind/crosswind climb. He was at perhaps 1300 feet. I made a corrective maneuver and did not attempt to reassert my position as #1 in the pattern. On the ground; his passenger stated 'you only announced left crosswind;' a lie; as the crew at LOM (who heard the incident on the radio) always joke with me for announcing my every turn and position. The pilot did not respond when I quoted the FAR that states an aircraft at a lower altitude (in this case; deliberately below the official pattern altitude at LOM) shall NOT take advantage of that fact to cut off another aircraft [on final; but this goes for any leg of the pattern.]I think my hands have finally stopped shaking. A student pilot with fewer hours would have been traumatized by the close call.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported on downwind at LOM being passed underneath by another GA aircraft that continued on to a landing that required a corrective maneuver for separation.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Second aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was training someone on Ground Control. He requested a poor crossing because there was an aircraft a little too close he didn't see. The Local Controller denied the crossing. Then the Ground Controller then read the hold short instructions correctly to the pilot of Aircraft X. The pilot read back the hold short instructions incorrectly although the language barrier and/or order he used made it difficult to understand his incorrect read back. The aircraft then crossed Runway XXL at Alpha with Aircraft Y on about 3/4 mile final. I saw the Aircraft X entering the runway and immediately told Local Control to send around Aircraft Y on final. I was going to have Aircraft X stop; but he was already too far forward so I had him continue across RWY XXL and hold short of RWY XXR. Aircraft Y landed without a go-around because Aircraft X had crossed the runway. I have said this before; but I think this facility needs to have a safety logic system. There are a multitude of disparate reasons that there are so many runway incursions here; but because of this very reason; no single procedural change will fix it all. A safety logic system adds a needed layer of safety and should be considered as soon as possible.




Synopsis: Ground Controller reported an runway incursion because of a bad read back.