elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autothrottle/Speed Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The Captain was flying and after takeoff the white FMC message dealing with the autothrottle appeared and the Pilot Flying noticed an amber EGT exceedance.  The autothrottles and VNAV were inoperative at that point after takeoff.  The TAT probe was indicating a higher than normal temperature which we determined to be the root cause of all the problems.  We consulted with the QRH and Dispatch and all agreed to air return to ZZZ without any further issues.


Second narrative: Just after takeoff the aircraft experienced a loss of data from the TAT probe (repeat gripe).  This initially manifested itself as an autothrottle limit error and a rapid increase in #1 EGT (yellow backfill on gage but no other indications) and loss of VNAV and related FMC functions.  We continued to climb to 16;000 feet MSL and informed ATC that we may need to return to ZZZ.  I passed aircraft control to the FO and initiated radio contact with Dispatch.  After initial contact; radio communications with Dispatch were lost; but Dispatch replied via ACARS that they agreed a return to ZZZ was prudent.  Release was amended.  ATC; cabin crew and passengers were informed; no emergency was declared.  The aircraft returned to ZZZ without incident.TAT failure is a high workload event similar to unreliable airspeed.  The number of items that rely on the TAT is huge; and once the event occurs there is (a) no real clue as to what the causal factor is; (b) no QRH guidance for the NN; and (c) a plethora of conflicting data and flight deck indications.  Thought should be given to educating our Pilot group to the risks and indications associated with TAT failure.


Synopsis: Flight Crew reported an air turn back after the TAT probe failed; causing the auto throttle to malfunction.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SGR.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Night
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Airframe
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Aircraft was parked and triple chocked at KSGR airport TX when it was hit by lightning. No personnel were involved.An extremely active line of thunderstorms moved into the greater Houston area overnight. Extensive flooding and wind damage along the path of the storm was reported the next morning.  Most utilities were knocked out for varying periods of time. The crew was off duty at the time of the incident. Upon arriving at the airport the crew walked towards the aircraft with the intent of initiating the preflight and noticed a large debris field of what turned out to be chunks of concrete varying in size from 3 inches in diameter to dust. The concrete chunks were found as far away as 12 feet and sprayed in all directions; though generally towards the rear of the aircraft.A sizable crater in the concrete was observed next to the left main gear and upon further investigation; burn marks on the sidewall of the tire as well as minor skin damage to the underside of the wing was found. A an area of approximately 3 feet by 2 feet on the underside of the wing was covered with concrete dust and the dents were observed scattered in this area suggesting that lightning exited the aircraft through the tire and the energy caused a minor explosion in the concrete next to the left main gear.  The resulting crater measured approximately 10x10 inches and an inch deep.Further investigation revealed that all three tires had acted as a grounding point. The left main being the most obvious; followed by the main gear and right main gear (in order of severity).  The main gear was flanked by two 3x3 inch craters. One almost directly below the forward maintenance access hatch on the right side of the aircraft; the other about 3 feet from the forward maintenance hatch on the left side of the aircraft. Again; chunks of concrete were observed in the vicinity and evidence of a small explosion was visible on the right forward maintenance hatch in the form of concrete dust and pitting in the fuselage over an area of approximately 2 feet by 2 feet.The concrete under the right main tire looks to have some minor damage; but is otherwise unscathed.The entry point appears to be next to the left rear static wick; on the outside corner where a small hole can be observed.  Maintenance control; scheduling and dispatch were notified and the aircraft grounded pending inspection and repair.




Synopsis: Approaching the aircraft for preflight; crew noticed extensive aircraft damage from an apparent lightning strike of the ramp adjacent to the aircraft.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My Trainee and I relieved another training team about 15 minutes prior to the event. It had been busy with military practice approaches and the team we relieved was a little behind. Traffic was as complex and busy as my Trainee had seen since we started training; including multiple military student pilots in high performance aircraft making practice instrument approaches. My Trainee did not immediately 'attack the problem' and started to get behind by failing to answer some calls. He did not get to start talking before I had to assume the position. My Trainee remained seated to take care of strips and data block entries. I was talking pretty fast and my Trainee was not keeping up with data block entries; even when I gave specific instructions. Approach was holding 6 UH60 aircraft over the ZZZ VOR and the data blocks were overlapping pretty bad. A BE20 was an overflight in our airspace when we took the position. The BE20 was IFR at 100 navigating VOR1..ZZZ..VOR2. I became very busy with IFR traffic our primary airport; as the BE20 entered the area of data block overlaps. I did not ensure that the Trainee had made the automated handoff. We also had a CIC working as a handoff; and the watch Supervisor watching from another scope. The BE20 was observed on our tag in another controller's airspace. The CIC called the adjacent Controller and they stated that they had been blocking for the BE20 and considered it a RADAR hand off. I am not sure of the legalities so I filed this report. The Trainee was removed from position soon after the event. Do not consider training with a lower time trainee when traffic is at this level.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller providing OJT experienced an airspace incursion event when the Trainee became overwhelmed with the volume and complexity of traffic; the reporter acknowledging that allowing training to continue was in error.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: L30.TRACON, NV
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Second aircraft: Medium Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Vectors off the RNAV arrivals were necessary for sequencing. This is not uncommon due to traffic volume. The speeds altitudes at the outer fixes are 280 knots 19000 feet to 14;000feet (Arrival window) for RKSTR arrivals and 250 knots and 19;000 feet for CHOWW arrival. Getting Aircraft X and Aircraft Y to descend became an issue due to their speeds of 280 knots or greater. They of course couldn't get below 10;000 feet until slowing to 250 knots. Both aircraft were on vectors to intercept the localizer outside the Initial Approach Fix of PRINO. Crossing altitude for PRINO is 8;000 feet. I observed Aircraft Z on the NIITZ departure converging toward Aircraft X and Aircraft Y. The last restriction for the NIITZ departure is OLBLU 10;000 feet and 250 knots. This departure crosses over the Runway 26L localizer about 9 miles outside of PRINO. This is where Aircraft X and Aircraft Y were being sequenced to. I called MED departure sector and instructed them to turn Aircraft Z left to avoid a loss or even a near midair collision. The Departure Controller turned Aircraft Z in time and IFR separation was maintained. MED departure sector has [approval] to climb through LAK arrival sector.The outer fixes of RKSTR and CHOWW need to be lowered to at least 17;000 feet. Also; the speeds must be 250 knots. This would allow the departures to climb over the arrivals. As it is now; we are accepting arrivals at 19;000 feet and departing with an altitude of 19;000 feet. The arrival and departure tracks cross. Also; the NIITZ departure requires another fix beyond OLBLU to force aircraft to climb above the arrivals. This new fix should have an altitude of at least 15;000 feet and the speed of 250 knots. The NIITZ departure as published now. Allows aircraft to accelerate faster than 250 knots after OLBLU. This equates to an aircraft accelerating at 10;000 feet instead of climbing faster.




Synopsis: L30 TRACON Controller reported the adjacent sector had to vector a departing aircraft to avoid a conflict with two arriving aircraft. The reporter states the published arrival and departure procedures are unsafe and do not ensure separation between aircraft.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: During climb-out the rudder trim completely failed. We could find no procedure in the QRH or the Flight Manual (FM) dealing with this failure. As we strongly considered a return to our departure airport; but we wanted maintenance input. We tried contacting Dispatch through the AIRINC frequency we were given. For more than 30 minutes we heard strange phone connection noises on the frequency as AIRINC attempted the Dispatch connection. In the meantime; while climbing through 22;000 FT; the rudder trim suddenly started working again. We received a data ACARS message from Dispatch that they had phone problems and had trouble getting through to us on VHF. Finally; after approximately an hour of fruitless attempts; we were able to patch through to Maintenance Control via Dispatch/AIRINC on HF. By then; we had already decided to proceed as the trim system had been working continuously for some time. I am concerned that the requirement to maintain company contact is not working. Having read numerous reports regarding AIRINC communications problems and now experiencing first-hand how this system has become useless; I will add that in our case the help we were expecting from talking to maintenance instead became a huge distraction and greatly interfered with our flight duties. Had we decided to divert; we would have been on the ground before getting through to company. [We were] spending more than an hour listening to useless radio noise while switching back and forth to make position reports and constantly reassigning cockpit duties serves only to detract from safety. Additionally; the FM and QRH had no guidance for our particular problem; also served to distract.




Synopsis: Air Carrier on an oceanic flight experienced rudder trim difficulties but was unable to communicate with Dispatch through AIRINC for coordination efforts.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Before we pushed off of the gate we were advised from the pushback driver to hold off on engine start; as we're were waiting for another aircraft that had already pushed back behind us. As we began the pushback; he cleared us to start engines and we did. When the pushback was complete; we did our flows and the before taxi checklist. At this point I saw an aircraft taxiing out for departure; that was also in the alleyway. We were on the left taxi line; which is the inbound line for the alleyway on our chart. I noticed that there was an aircraft taxiing into the alleyway; and they were already on the inbound line. Since no communication is necessary to taxi from the alleyway I turned on my taxi light and was adding power and asked my First Officer if it was clear right; and he said there was an aircraft just about to pass us. I was just about to pull right to clear the traffic that was coming at us. Had we not cleared right; we were both in agreement we would have hit Company who overtook us as they were taxiing rather fast. We're not sure why they decided to pass us on the right.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Pilot Crew reported a critical taxi conflict leaving the gate area.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
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: Autoflight Yaw Damper
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; MEL; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After showing up to start our shift I noticed that Yaw Damper (YD) 1 had been deferred. I briefed the MEL book and verified that 'YD1 inop' status message was indeed illuminated indicating that YD 1 was selected off. All of the MEL parameters had been complied with. After take off the status of the yaw dampers had changed to a yellow caution message. Which led me to believe that neither YD was engaged. The auto pilot would not engage. I reset YD2 and all YD messages were gone I selected YD1 engage so as to disconnect YD1. YD 1 did not disconnect. We continued our climb as we tried to figure out the issue. Finally at flight level 340 we felt uncommanded yaw inputs which were verified by the flight controls EICAS page. There were no abnormal EICAS messages.  We described the situation to Center and requested lower to trouble shoot the problem. After being cleared to FL240 we descended and slowed the aircraft as I searched through the QRH for possible corrective actions. After finding 'uncommanded yaw inputs' I was directed to turn off both yaw dampers. I selected both yaw engage buttons but neither yaw damper disconnected. I tried this several times. I requested priority handling from Center and was cleared direct to our filed destination. We slowed the aircraft to 250 knots as directed by the QRH. Sometime later the YD 1 white status message appeared on EICAS 2We considered deviating and landing at several other airports. After the YD inop status message appeared the uncommanded yaws stopped. Although I did notice that some yaw was occurring on the Flight control page. We continued on to our filed destination and landed without further event.




Synopsis: A CRJ-900 Yaw Damper 1 (YD1) was MEL'ed. After takeoff; YD-2 was engaged which also apparently engaged YD-1. At cruise uncommanded yaw inputs occurred which were verified on the EICAS. The crew descended; completed the UNCOMMANDED YAW INPUT QRH procedure and disconnected both yaw dampers.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TNCA.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower TNCA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Staffing; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: Tower said no fire rescue on airport; cleared to land at own risk. After landing we questioned personnel and were told they walked off job (strike) for 3 hours. No NOTAMS or information about this was issued prior or during flight. Nothing said by Approach Control. Saw fire rescue men there but holding protest signs.




Synopsis: During final approach to TNCA a Controller notified a flight crew that because Airport Rescue and Fire Fighters were on a three hour strike they would land at their own risk. No advanced notice was given.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb out at approximately 15;000 feet the RH engine experienced an uncommanded power reduction. We leveled off at 16;000 feet and notified ATC that we would need to return. We contacted Dispatch via radio to tell them of the power event and that we would be returning. I took over flying duties and the First Officer began [performing] the required QRH checklists. During the descent the RH engine flamed out. At this point we declared an emergency with ATC and informed the flight attendants; but told them we would not be bracing the cabin. We landed and terminated the emergency once we exited the runway. Upon further reflection; we received at least 3 'Engine Oil' aural warnings which led me to believe the FADEC attempted to relight the engine twice with the engine flaming out each time. I elected to secure the engine at this point as I did not want the engine to relight at an inconvenient time and eliminate the distracting messages during approach. My guess is the PS3 sensor failed or was providing inaccurate data to the FADEC.




Synopsis: CRJ700 Captain experiences an uncommanded thrust reduction in the right engine during climb. During descent for return to the departure airport the engine flames out. Several automatic relights are allowed to occur before the engine is secured by the Captain and a single engine landing ensues.