elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [We] just leveled off at 14;000 FT when the Master Caution light came on; looked up and saw on the overhead panel that the Low Oil Pressure light and Generator light on the #1 Engine [were] on. Started the APU and got out QRH. Thinking it was the Engine Low Oil Pressure light; I thought we had an engine problem. [I] started running the checklist and began feeling a little rushed and uneasy at this time. Put the APU on line. Ran the checklist and secured the engine. We talked to ATC and asked for vectors back. Landed; all was ok and uneventful. Taxied to the gate and called for Maintenance to come out to the aircraft. That is when we looked at each other and realized we had run the wrong checklist. During all of this; I felt rushed to secure the engine and didn't take the time to stop and look around and see what was going on. 'Big mistake;' I should have slowed down at this time and made sure what I was doing was right thing. Next time if given the chance; the outcome would be a lot different.


Second narrative: [Narrative contains no additonal information].


Synopsis: B737-300 flight crew report a master caution light at 14;000 FT caused by a generator off light and a CSD low oil pressure light. Believing the oil pressure light is for the Number One Engine; it is shut down and the flight returns to the departure airport.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On taxi out; the CA's (Captain) trim switch was tested per the MEL and was used to set the takeoff trim. After takeoff on initial climb out; the CA attempted to engage the autopilot without success. However shortly after that; the CA verbalized that his trim switch was also not working now. CA was using considerable forward pressure to keep the nose down and ultimately had to pull the power back to better control the aircraft. We quickly agreed we needed to return to ZZZ due to controllability concerns. CA continued to hand fly while I coordinated with ATC and set up for an otherwise uneventful return to landing at ZZZ.[Station Maintenance] was able to duplicate the problem on the ground after the event. The faulty FO (First Officer) trim switch was locking out the CA's trim switch and tripping the autopilot.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported pitch control problems after takeoff due to a trim switch failure.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FHR.Airport, WA
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 2
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G FHR
ATC / advisory: TRACON NUW
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying the RNAV (GPS) 34 straight in approach into FHR. The airport wall veiled in smoke/haze. The approach went well and I had visual contact with the airport 2 miles out. As I approached the runway; I was a little high and floated; so I decided to go-around. It was a mental slip. As I was flying downwind; I realized that I messed up; but I had visual contact with the airport and at that point thought it was safer to continue the pattern. I turned to base and then as I turned to final; I turned late. I decided then that I would just over fly the airport and fly the published missed. I contacted Whitney Approach for instructions to get back on the approach. Approach rightfully rebuked me for the go-around and then gave me instructions to return me to the approach. I flew the approach and landed without incident. Key learning from this event:1. If you cannot land for any reason; you must fly the published missed; regardless of prevailing conditions; unless you have cancelled IFR with ATC or until ATC has given other instructions.2. As time permits; scan the missed procedure on final to aid in preparation.3. Increase the time spent briefing the missed procedure when briefing the approach.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported having to go-around after being high on the final approach to FHR airport. Reporter stated a missed approach should have been executed rather than a go-around.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PVU.Airport, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: DA20-A1 Katana
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D PVU
ATC / advisory: Tower PVU
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was cleared for takeoff on Runway 13 and instructed to make right traffic. I was on a right crosswind when tower called me and said that another aircraft had just departed Runway 18 and had me in sight. I then looked and saw the aircraft that had just departed Runway 18 off to my right and below me. The other aircraft passed directly underneath me on its upwind with vertical separation at an estimated 400-500 feet.




Synopsis: DV20 pilot reported an NMAC with another aircraft shortly after takeoff from PVU.
Date: 201911
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Landing Gear Indicating System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon takeoff from ZZZ. After completing after takeoff flow I noticed red/green left gear indicators on. I informed the Captain and completed after takeoff checklist. Captain remained at aircraft controls with autopilot on. I referenced QRH and landing gear disagree procedure while Captain communicated with Maintenance and Dispatch I informed ATC of speed requirements during climb. We completed the steps in the 'gear disagree' procedure and opted to continue to ZZZ1 and [request priority handling] with ATC. We checked hydraulic levels and they were normal. We discussed our options regarding any subsequent problems we might experience and Captain briefed me on his configuration plan for the aircraft on arrival and landing into ZZZ1. Maintenance and Dispatch responded to our choice of options and we pressed on to ZZZ1. Captain flew an uneventful arrival and approach into ZZZ1 and the landing gear lowered normally with all green indications. Maintenance Technicians met us at gate.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported left 'red/green landing gear disagree light' illuminated on departure; but opted to continue the flight.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At Time ZZZ ramp loader [namd] walked on flight deck with Dangerous Goods Form showing Dry Ice was loaded in the forward compartment and stated he had loaded it himself in the rear. I asked him to correct the Dangerous Goods Form to show that it was loaded in the rear. We received an ACARS message from company at Time showing AUTODangerous Goods Form notification. The corrected Dangerous Goods Form was brought to the flight deck at approximately Time. We had a takeoff time slot of Time to ZZZ1. On taxi out we received our load close out that did not have the R/A (Restricted Article) Dry Ice on it. We contacted company via ACARS and Aircraft X replied at Time that Dry Ice of less than 5lbs will not show on close out and that our close out was good. We finished all takeoff checklists and lined up for takeoff and departed at Time. At Time some time during takeoff roll we received an ACARS message that said our load closeout had been cancelled. Then; multiple company messages that followed updating the load closeout and that it was determined to be 8 lbs of Dry Ice. The corrected load closeout was received at Time. The flight was operated to ZZZ1 uneventfully.[Situation was caused by] I believe that the casual factors are a communication disconnect between the ZZZ base and loaders to loads and planning in ZZZ2. Captain [recommends] a fix [to correct] the way we automate the communication of Hazardous Goods to Load Control & Dispatch.




Synopsis: A-321 Captain reported a communications breakdown between flight crew and Dispatch regarding the correct amount of Hazmat cargo on the NOTOC. Hazmat cargo discrepancy corrected after aircraft departure.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Smoke and fumes in flight deck noted by smell and sight. Complied with emergency procedures; declared an emergency. Flight attendants had difficulty understanding communication due to the oxygen masks but were able to understand the situation and perform their duties. Landed safely.




Synopsis: A CRJ-900 flight crew declared an emergency and landed safely following recognition of smoke and fumes on the flight deck.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Staffing
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: The issue is [the] extreme limit of CPC (Certified Professional Controllers). We were working with 3 CPC's on a shift that a year ago any less than 9 CPC's on a shift would have been unacceptable. The facility is combining 2 and 3 positions to one controller during very busy and complex traffic. All because a lack of CPC controllers due to COVID issues and minimum staffing due to the agency not hiring any more controllers for our facility. This whole COVID issue has caused all the rules and agreements to go out the window. It is unacceptable for the safety of the NAS! We are just treated like robots like we always have been. There is no empathy for the stresses in our lives outside of work. This year has created A LOT of stress due to all the COVID uncertainty and constantly changing ideas about how to deal with it. Also all the political stress that has gone on all year. As much as we try to push out personal issues and feelings when we work; we are still human. We are not robots. And some days all the crap going on in society added to an unacceptable over taxed work load just gets to a person. We need more controllers at ZZZ TOWER! Also the positions need to be de-combined when traffic is busy. Combining 3 positions to one controller puts that controller at risk of missing something. And that is not fair to that controller or the flying public. The flying public deserves better than this.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported low staffing levels during periods of complex traffic combined with undue outside pressures have created an unsafe situation.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CDN.Airport, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E CDN
ATC / advisory: CTAF CDN
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: Flying a practice instrument approach to CDN to a miss. Fine. But on short final: Whoops! Construction equipment all over the runway! No safety threat from the (planned) miss; but maybe a little scare for the workers? We get all our data from the ADS-b system these days; not phone calls to Flight Service.We need the METAR system to broadcast any airport or runway closures as part of the METAR format; in a way that ForeFlight; Garmin Pilot; FLYQ; Xavion; and the and all the other EFB applications can interpret! We are using these applications to get our data; and if mine had said 'runway closed!' or 'airport closed!'; then this possibly-uncomfortable situation could have been avoided. See we need the METAR data to broadcast airport/runway closure via the ADS-B system to the applications so we can get this info where we are really looking for it. I wrote Xavion and would surely do my part to code display of this info in my application if the info was available!




Synopsis: Lancair pilot reported lack of necessary airport information available from METAR via ADS-B on EFB applications.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HDC.Airport, LA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DJI Mavic 2 Pro
Operator: Commercial Operator (UAS)
Operating under: Part 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Utility / Infrastructure
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D HDC
Reporter organization: Commercial Operator (UAS)
Reporter function: Person Manipulating Controls (UAS); Remote PIC (UAS)
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Remote Pilot (UAS)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person UAS Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Software and Automation
Primary problem: Software and Automation

Narrative: Airspace was verified with DJI controller; unable to access B4UFly due to signal loss.  DJI controller did not indicate class D airspace or prompt user. After commencing flight proximity to airport was discovered; flight terminated.

Callback: Reporter stated the Class D airport was completely missing from DJI's Fly Safe App. Reporter indicated this operation was conducted under a blanket COA.



Synopsis: Part 107 pilot reported UAS controller software did not indicate Class D airspace. During flight the Pilot became aware of their proximity to Class D airspace and terminated the flight.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Wing Trailing Edge
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was deadheading in the cabin and seated in the last aft row. At cruise altitude; likely at a flight level; I looked out the window and saw what appeared to be aircraft wing skin cavitation; on the left wing; on the outboard flap upper surface area near the flap out most hinge area. The right wing area looked similar to the left wing but was less severe. This distortion of skin appeared to go back to normal below 10;000'. I informed the Pilot In Command verbally via interphone and directly upon landing. I informed my supervisors via phone call and followed up with a report.Possible fleet wide issue with EMB-145 skin separating in the wings or possible fatigue. Passengers and cabin crew may not have been able to notice this discrepancy. Therefore; it is possible this EMB aircraft and others have not been noticed before.  I have only seen this once before on an EMB-135 aircraft in December 2012; and brought it up then to the company's attention in a report. An Airworthiness Directive (A/D) to inspect the EMB skin; at high altitudes; should be required. Otherwise; the PIC will never know that the aircraft is experiencing this skin condition. Deadheading Pilot. Possible fleet-wide issue with EMB skin separating. Skin separating/damage.

Callback: Reporter stated the collapsing or cavitating panel was actually at the left wing trailing edge just forward of the outboard end of the outboard flap. Once they had descended to 10;000 feet; the wing panel had faired out with the wing and remained smooth even with the flaps extended. Flaps are electrically driven only; no back-up standby system and no hydraulic actuators.Reporter stated that Maintenance did check the wing area and trailing edge panels and they all seemed secured without any damage. Maintenance Control noted there were no reports of vibration from previous flight crews operating the same aircraft; so the aircraft was released to service.



Synopsis: While deadheading in the cabin and sitting in the last row of an EMB-145 aircraft; a Captain notices a section of the left wing trailing edge skin cavitating; collapsing at cruise altitude. Skin distortion appeared to go back to normal below 10;000 feet and remained smooth with flaps extended for landing.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bombardier Learjet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Observed a 15% split between engines at flight idle during descent. Same problem as reported by previous pilot to [Director of Maintenance]. I was advised by Chief Pilot of this pilot's report and informed me he had a discussion with [Director of Maintenance] and would correct [the] problem prior to dispatch. Upon returning from mission; I noted the problem still existed and the [Director of Maintenance] advised discovering a piece of the fin that connects the N1 (Low Pressure Compressor) fan blades on the #2 engine had broken off and impacted the intake wall and nicked some blades in the secondary fan before being ejected ostensibly through the bypass. This was determined to be the cause of slight vibrations and unusual tone in engine during power changes.I was then advised by the [Director of Maintenance] and Chief Pilot they believed the damage occurred during a flight preceding mine and were closely monitoring the N1 fans on both engines because of strange tones and vibrations reported by several pilots who flew the plane.My question is why the damage wasn't discovered by the mechanics inspection preflight and post flight inspection before being released; especially since the mechanic was performing adjustments due to the recently reported discrepancy. (Damage to N1 was not clearly obvious to a pilot peering in the intake; it required one to look behind the blades.)




Synopsis: Learjet flight crew observed engine anomalies during descent.