elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MMMX.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON MMMX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were on the AVSAR2 arrival and ILS 05R into MMMX. Digital ATIS was OTS. There was a NOTAM that stated that; for VFR arrivals; the outbound course from SMO should be changed from 160 to 168 degrees. There was also a note in the paperwork describing the change and that note also stated that the changes were already incorporated and that the chart was current. We discussed the ATIS report and decided the change was meant for VFR approaches. Upon leaving SMO at 160 degrees; ATC told us to intercept the 168 radial outbound. We completed the rest of the approach without incident. On the ground we asked Clearance; and they told us the change should have been on the chart already.Digital ATIS being out helped cause the confusion; because the audio ATIS was unclear.




Synopsis: A confusing NOTAM; unclear ATIS; and a flight planning reference from the company incorrectly advising the current chart reflected the change in the NOTAM caused a short track deviation by the flight crew of an air carrier flight inbound to MMMX.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Thrust Reverser Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [Aircraft] had...a note in the MEL which stated: 'When the deactivation procedure is completed; the L(R) REV UNSAFE caution Message or L(R) REV UNLOCKED caution message may show continuously or intermittently on the EICAS primary page and the REV amber icon may show inside the N1 gauge.' As soon as we got weight off the wheels L REV UNLOCKED caution message; the REV Icon and the caution single chime appeared. These messages and associated chimes would appear; go away and re-appear every 2-5 seconds. We were flying [to] a Special Airport at night. I felt that this distraction would adversely affect the safety of the flight. I contacted our Dispatcher and choose to return to the airport. During the descent; the First Officer informed me that we needed to land with about 5;500 LBS of fuel to be at maximum landing weight. I calculated that we would be 300 to 400 LBS overweight on landing. Based on information I had received in the past; the company preferred us to land overweight rather than circle for an extended period of time to burn off fuel. Just write it up as an overweight landing and Maintenance would do an inspection and it was not a big deal. Based on this; I choose to land overweight. After we had taxied to the gate and spoke to the Chief Pilot; I began to question this decision. The company really does not have the authority to tell us to violate a limitation. We had not declared an emergency and could have put up with the distraction for a little while longer to burn off some fuel. In this situation I really had three options: 1. Continue to destination; which I feel would have been unsafe. 2. Circle; burn off fuel and land below max landing weight. 3. Declare an emergency and land overweight.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 flight crew returned to departure airport due to recurring Thrust Reverser caution messages. Captain elected to land overweight in accordance with company policy; but later questioned this decision.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SBN.TRACON, IN
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Airspace: Class C SBN
ATC / advisory: TRACON SBN
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: The FWA-SBN shout line was OTS (Out of Service); and we were given a phone number to call FWA if we needed anything on a regular phone line. It was evening and the traffic was very very light; when all the sudden the shout line lit up and started spewing tones and random electronic sounds; totally masking the TED (Tower Display) and rendering it non-functional. I couldn't hear the aircraft and they couldn't hear me. The tones would stop and it would start to work again. While it was toning I had no indication that I was transmitting. I keyed up the PET2000 emergency transmitter and used that to talk to the plane I was working into SBN. As soon as I got them cleared and over to tower I called FWA on the land line; to tell them to stop whatever they were doing with the line. They told me they weren't doing anything at all; that it had been given up to the local phone company. I called [Maintenance Control] and told them what was happening; that it was preventing me from transmitting and receiving to/from aircraft and the activity on the line needed to cease right away. They called back later informing us that they were ceasing activity while SBN was open. Our facility is falling apart. We have STARS; but the comm gear; lines; radar; etc all are dated. They show their age and are always OTS. We need better equipment that will be reliable and not be broken at least 1 day a week; or the facility needs to be consolidated to a place where the equipment isn't falling apart due to old age. In addition; the person who gave up lines to a local phone company for god knows what they did to it can't even be held to account. We have no real procedures for handling this stuff; and we have no idea who released it; or who at the phone company started running stuff on the line.




Synopsis: SBN TRACON Controller reported malfunctioning shout line; as well as problems with old equipment and poor logistics.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: L05.Airport, CA
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLA; TFR FIRE FIGHTING
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I got a weather briefing via DUAT's before I left for the airport. I also updated my iPad WingXPro7 moving map software with the latest weather. I missed the TFR's in the Lake Isabella area. I was relying on my moving map software that puts the TFR's on the map. We did some sightseeing in the Bakersfield area and then started to head for L05. We saw smoke north of 62CL and we started to climb above 5;500 FT to get a better view so we could report fire. As we got closer we saw helicopters dumping water. I turned away from smoke and continued to climb. I would estimate the helicopters were at least 3;000 FT below us. When we landed at L05 I updated my moving map software again and still no TFR's. I called FSS on my cell phone to confirm TFR's and they gave us 2 in our area. We then mapped out TFR's before our return trip. I should have read my DUAT's briefing more thoroughly.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reports inadvertent entry into a fire fighting TFR when he fails to see the NOTAM in the list provided by DUAT's. His iPad with WingXPro also failed to display the TFR both before and after the event.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Door Warning System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after takeoff at 2000 feet AGL; the master caution light illuminated with a single audible tone. The ECAM displayed an open condition for the lower forward cargo door. All exterior doors were verified closed while signing the weight and balance paperwork and during the before start checklist. The captain made a decision to return to ZZZ and began to coordinate with flight control. The FO coordinated with ATC for vectors to return for a visual approach to the same runway just departed. Due to the compressed time line we [advised ATC]. The crew accomplished the approach checklist; set up for and briefed the approach; and executed normal procedures for a visual approach and landing. After landing; the gateway personnel verified that the lower forward cargo door was still closed. During taxi back the ECAM door open indication went away and indicated a normal (closed) condition.




Synopsis: A300 First Officer reported returning to the departure airport due to an open cargo door indication.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb out from ZZZ; in a turn to 090; EICAS Message - RUD SYS 1-2 INOP appeared with [the associated] warning. I was hand flying at that time and did not feel any flight control problems. I directed the First Officer to run the QRH; the system reset successfully and we continued the climb to 15;000 on autopilot. Upon reaching 15;000 MSL the same message came up again; and the AP kicked off. I immediately took the controls; hand flew the aircraft and had the First Officer run the QRH again; and the system again reset successfully. I directed the First Officer to contact ATC; request a return to our departure airport and declare an emergency. ATC vectored us and asked us to initiate a descent to 11;000 feet; and asked us for the SOB; Fuel...etc. I told the First Officer that we'd get back to them on that. I then informed the Flight Attendant and passengers of the situation and the First Officer advised Dispatch via ACARS. During the descent and vectoring; the same message popped up 2 more times; and we dealt with those expeditiously; having had the benefit of recent experience. We were vectored for XXL; Tower cleared us to land; and we landed safely and taxied to our gate.




Synopsis: When the flight crew of an E145 received repeated EICAS warnings of both rudder control systems inoperative they opted to declare an emergency and return to their departure airport.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I requested not to train on final because I do not feel proficient or comfortable with the new management mandate to issue 170kts to every aircraft on final. It has dramatically increased our workload on final and added complexity to training. I was ordered to train on FR2 (Final Radar 2) 16L/17R. There was a very strong NW wind which made blending aircraft particularly difficult because of wind speed variation at different altitudes. Of the first couple aircraft we had; Aircraft X had no one in front of him and my trainee restricted him to 170. Neither of us expected the aircraft to drop so much ground speed. My trainee had no choice but to speed restrict Aircraft Y immediately which slowed the descent and resulted in a go around. There were two more nearly identical situations where I told my trainee not to speed restrict the first aircraft to avoid another go around; despite the fact that he made a concerted effort to push aircraft down so that matching speeds would be easier. Pushing aircraft down also put us closer to the 16R final; adding complexity and compromising safety. During our training session there were 6 more times I had to intercede for improper speed control and to compensate for the mandated speed restriction. This feels like a contradiction to how I've been trained and how I've been taught to train. There's currently a recurrent training class being taught in our building that is emphasizing the 7110.65 in relation to speed control. Because of this; I am confused as to my priorities when issuing speeds to aircraft. Remove the 170kt mandate or provide a provision that allows controllers to use their better judgment for operational priority or when it compromises safety. Address improper use of speed control on an individual basis.




Synopsis: D01 Controller reported of a mandate that has the controllers slowing every aircraft to 170 knots on final. Controller reported they did not like this and wanted the mandate changed.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan 208B
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: While climbing enroute; we encountered icing at 6900 feet msl.  We could no longer climb and maintain 120 knots.  We advised Center that we were returning to [the departure] airport and requested direct to the runway initial approach fix.  ATC advised that the minimum vectoring altitude in that sector was 7000 feet msl.  We then advised Center that we would not be able to maintain 7000 feet msl.  The ice continued to accumulate on the aircraft while we were enroute to the initial approach fix.  In order to maintain 120 knots we maintained a descent rate of between 100 and 300 feet per minute.  Despite being below the minimum vectoring altitude; we were able to stay well above the terrain during our slow descent and verified our terrain and obstruction clearance using Capstone and our Garmin GPS.  At 4000 feet msl we were below the clouds and at 3500 feet msl the outside air temperature was above freezing and the ice began to break free of the aircraft. At approximately 3000 feet msl; we were able to cancel our IFR clearance and turn directly to the airport and landed without any further incident.  Filing pilot reports on inflight icing conditions can prevent other aircraft from flying into those same conditions.




Synopsis: C208B Captain reported icing in flight that made it impossible to maintain minimum vectoring altitude in an area of high terrain. They descended to warmer air and landed safely at departure airport.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning Distribution System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had the aircraft deiced and anti-iced at the gate with engines off and APU running. It was snowing at the time. After an uneventful taxi out and run up of the engines; we departed. The takeoff profile was uneventful until a couple hundred feet off the ground. I noticed a burning smell coming from the vents. The captain called out this burning smell as well and mentioned it smelled like burning deice/anti-ice fluid. After a couple more hundred feet in our climb; the cockpit quickly filled with white smoke. The flight attendant also called us via the emergency button. She notified me that the cabin was quickly filling with smoke as well. We turned off the packs as the obvious corrective action to stop the smoke. After doing this; the smoke began clearing and we finished our take off profile. At 4000 ft; the Captain transferred the controls to me. I coordinated with approach to return to the field; create time to run checklists; and set up for the approach. The Captain ran the QRH procedure; talked to the Flight Attendant; and briefed the passengers. At this time; the smoke had completely dissipated and we returned to normal procedures. The Captain briefed the approach and then I transferred the controls back to him to fly the approach. The approach and landing were uneventful. Emergency vehicles did an exterior inspection of the aircraft after clearing the runway and then followed us back to the gate. Deice/anti-ice sprayed too closely to the APU inlet.Maybe reminding the iceman to avoid the APU inlet especially when we are at the gate and deicing/anti-icing with the engines off.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported smoke in the cockpit and cabin after takeoff.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Eclipse 500
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While enroute at 17;500 feet; I was distracted by troubleshooting an airspeed disagree CAS that resulted in loss of autopilot (and the need to hand fly raw data). I did set TCAS to unrestricted and checked periodically for targets in a 20 NM radius. However; I saw the conflicting target only when my TCAS issued a traffic advisory (it is not able to provide RAs) for a target directly underneath me; at 500 feet. At that point; I could not see the target (below me); I could not easily ascend (I was at 17;500 feet without a clearance into Class A); so I continued to hand fly my course and the target eventually descended. Contributing factors were the airspeed disagree (possibly due to a bad pitot tube). Next time; I will scan the TCAS information more frequently.




Synopsis: EA50 pilot reported an airborne conflict 500 feet below his cruise altitude of 17;500 feet.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Incursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon landing; strong gust went from 220 to 180 direct crosswind at 22 knots. After landing on roll out wind picked up airplane about 1 foot and moved it to right about 6 feet. Upon set down right gear collapsed causing other gear to retract and airplane slid down runway then off runway and over a runway light. Aircraft sustained skin damage and prop strike.




Synopsis: M20 pilot reported landing in a strong crosswind then being picked up by a gust and deposited six feet to the right which caused the gear to collapse.