elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Even though the trip pairing should have allowed for more than enough rest; I wasn't able the get more than 7 hours total of restless sleep in those two nights.  I found myself making mistakes that I never made before on that last leg; such as looking right at the pack switches and turning them off instead of the hydraulic  switches.  Scheduling sent an ACARS enroute to call after we landed and I sent one back calling in fatigued.  Restless sleep on my part; not sure why.




Synopsis: B717 First Officer reports informing crew scheduling that he is too fatigued to take another flight at the end of his scheduled trip pairing.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-88
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: PFD
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise flight the Captain's Primary Flight Display (PFD) and attitude indicator tumbled. The autopilot and autothrottles disconnected. The Navigation Display (ND) indicated a map fail message. The heading on the RMI changed approximately 90 degrees in wings level flight. All navigational instruments were lost. The First Officers PFD attitude was still correct; therefore controls were handed over to myself; the First Officer. The Captain began running through the QRH procedures. The QRH directed us to attitude and heading fail; which we accomplished. However; this did not result in restoring a heading. We were navigating by the whiskey compass. We then proceeded to another QRH section IRS fault. This allowed us to input our compass heading. Afterward; the autopilot was useful for holding basic level flight. At this time; our only navigation information was VOR directions from the RMI. We called maintenance; our discussion with them was fruitless. Therefore; we coordinated a diversion with dispatch. [Requested priority handling] with ATC. [Coordinated] with the flight attendants; notified the passengers; and completed appropriate checklists for the diversion. We landed safely.In this case; it appears there was a mechanical discrepancy. Such failures happen from time to time and are not completely preventable.


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


Synopsis: MD-88 Captain's primary flight display/attitude indicator; navigation display & RMI failed in cruise flight. Controls passed to First Officer. Crew complied with Quick Reference Handbook procedures followed by a safe landing at a diversion airport.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: ATC cleared us to descend to 3;000 ft and slow to 180 knots and fly heading 360. We reported the preceding Airbus in sight. ATC gave us heading 300 follow the Airbus for the visual approach to 27L. Right after establishing the 300 heading; we encountered heavy wake turbulence. The autopilot disconnected as the aircraft rolled through 50-60 degrees and the 'Bank Angle' aural sounded. I used full aileron control input to stop the roll and established a heading of about 315 degrees. In an effort to increase spacing from the Airbus and side step the wake; I maintained that heading. To increase the stall margin I called for flaps 30 and continuous ignition to be added. The First Officer complied and notified ATC we encountered wake turbulence. The speed slowed below 180 prior to DEPOT and was at about 160 1.5 - 2 miles prior to DEPOT. Wake turbulence nibbled at the aircraft several times after the first encounter and we were very focused on controlling the aircraft and taking action to mitigate further loss of control. Another Controller then chastised us for slowing early and [then] he demanded compliance in the future. Because we were focused on controlling the aircraft; we did not adequately articulate the need for us to deviate from the ATC instructions. The controller was not able to interpret our notification of encountering wake turbulence as our having a difficulty controlling the aircraft. Speak up quickly and precisely when an undesired state is encountered and to notify ATC that the flight is unable to continue on the clearance.


Second narrative: An error of mine (pilot monitoring) to not speak up to ATC and ask for a slower speed because of too close separation with the aircraft ahead that caused the dangerous wake turbulence encounter.


Synopsis: CRJ900 flight crew reported encountering significant wake turbulence in trail of an A320 on approach to ATL.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Excursion Taxiway; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Weather was bad (snow and very low visibility). Taxied Air Carrier X via Delta and Delta Two and cross Runway 23L. I forgot that Delta Two was closed because it wasn't plowed. Air Carrier X slid off the taxiway into the grass at Delta two. He didn't know if he was past the hold short lines; so we closed the runway. Had to get a tow to get him off the grass. I just forgot that Delta two was closed. It's a common taxiway that we use during the Air Carrier outbound push and I reverted to old habits.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a taxiway excursion when an air carrier was cleared via a closed taxiway during snow and very low visibility conditions.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; 10
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We left mid afternoon in a C-210 and wanted to get a few hours in before nightfall. The weather was VMC the entire trip although we did deviate to avoid some weather. After a 30 minute deviation I decided to turn around and land before we went into some marginal VFR weather. The nearest VMC airport was 10 miles south of us and was reporting winds slightly favoring Runway 36. I entered a left downwind for Runway 36 and saw that the wind sock indicated a gusting wind from the east. I crabbed the plane for a crosswind landing. We landed on the upwind side of runway for a crosswind landing. After landing I got hit by a large gust of wind from the east which pushed the airplane to the west side of runway. Although I increased right rudder and right aileron the left main wheel went off the runway into the mud. After that happened the airplane was non responsive I could not get it back onto the runway. I pulled the yoke all the way to my chest to keep pressure off the nose wheel and we were almost at a complete stop when the nose wheel hit a rut and we [nosed] over on the back side of plane. Most of the damage was done to the plane while trying to pull the airplane out of the mud. The prop did strike the dirt at idle speed. Other than that there was not a whole lot of damage.




Synopsis: After diverting from his VFR trip due to weather enroute; the pilot of a C210 lost control on landing in gusty crosswinds; exited the runway and got mired in mud causing the aircraft to nose over onto its back.
Date: 201904
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After level-off Captain did all-call and ask if we smelled any odd odors; especially around row 19 and wing area. All flight attendants did cabin check and reported no odor. Captain said there was a dirty sock smell in cockpit and to continue monitoring cabin for odors. On a further check; flight attendant in the mid cabin noticed the odor for a split second. Flight Attendant 3 said she smelled it briefly and had a metallic taste. Reported both to Captain; he advised there were fume event write-ups in log book. Notified deadheading crew members. After landing; I had the dirty sock smell at my forward jumpseat. Breathed it in making arrival announcement; the back of my throat [felt] raw with an acid taste. Eyes burned voice went in and out and was coughing. Notified Captain after passengers deplaned; and he said it had come back on landing in cockpit also.


Second narrative: The Captain phoned the aft galley after level off to check around row 19 for a dirty sock smell. We did smell it faintly. I did not smell it when at my jumpseat. We continued to monitor but did not smell any more the rest of the flight. The Captain said they had the dirty sock smell in the cockpit! #3 had a metal taste and headache. #1 had throat congestion and smelled the fume on landing! We were unable to check on the Captain and First Officer after landing because the mechanics came on board.


Synopsis: A321 flight attendants reported dirty socks odor in flight. Flight attendants reported experiencing health issues.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class A ZZZ; Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the takeoff roll; we received a caution message and the 'STAB TRIM' caution message. As we were above 80 KTS; and the above did not involve engine fire/failure; loss of directional control; or the aircraft's inability to fly; we continued the takeoff. The initial climb out proceeded normally; with the aircraft handling satisfactorily. I attempted to reset the stab trim with the switches; but to no avail. The First Officer (F/O) and I both tried our trip disconnect switches and made sure that the trim switches themselves were centered; still the stab trim would not engage. After running the QRH; the stab trim would still not engage. I called Maintenance (MTX) over the radio and advised them of the situation and was hoping they had some trick up their sleeves to make the trim engage...still to no avail. I then [advised] Center and requested a return to the departure airport. I called the Flight Attendant and advised her of the situation and gave her the TEST items. I also spoke to the passengers and advised them of what was wrong and of our intention to return. We completed the 'prior to landing' part of the QRH and executed a flap 20 landing on rwy 18C. After we taxied in; we off loaded the passengers and I spoke to Maintenance Control and to the Dispatch Supervisor; giving them the information they needed about our flight. We then swapped into another aircraft and continued on to our destination.In speaking to MTX on the telephone after we landed; they seemed to think; based on the diagnostic codes in the computer; that there was a short in the Stab Trim panel on the center console. In speaking to the mechanics who came out to repair the aircraft; they thought this was possible as dirt/debris/water/etc. from shoes drips onto and into the center console when people get in and out of the seats on the flight deck.




Synopsis: A CRJ-200 EICAS alerted STAB TRIM during takeoff but the crew continued. In flight; the Stabilizer Trim was found failed and would not reset so the flight returned to the departure airport for maintenance.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The callsign conflict was missed -- in my opinion -- as the result of two circumstances.  First; I am still working on developing a workflow.  Although I do have significant Dispatch experience; my coming up to speed in systems familiarization still has me with a handicap in reviewing potential conflict. Second; the workload for company employees as the result of significant cancellations; schedule adjustments; and non-scheduled flying as the direct result of the COVID-19 circumstances is requiring increased schedule activity.  The resulting delays; reposition flights; extreme biohazard precautions within the offices and other company property...are all responsible for degrading the inherent stability otherwise found in well-established systems and in the best practice of dispatching.  Communication -- while still required -- must be remote and minimized.Corrective action:  It is my opinion the only course of action which would have prevented this occurrence is tighter communication.  I do believe that if the ATC coordinators; Dispatch coordinators; and dispatchers were free to openly and routinely communicate as enjoyed in the past (absent COVID-19); and the situation were moot; we likely would not have had a callsign conflict.  When balanced against the risk of closer socialization and systems still in place with ATC as risk mitigation; I do not believe that corrective action is warranted at this time and the systems in place today consistent with best practices and in the good interest of public health; worked as best as they could have.We were dispatching Flight ABC and received an ACARS from that aircraft notifying us that ATC had given them a new callsign -- Aircraft X 'ABCE' -- as the result of a callsign conflict.  An identically numbered flight; ABC; no additional E; which was being operated by different Dispatcher was late inbound  due to equipment delays.  The callsign conflict was not apparent to us -- the dispatchers for this flight; nor was it recognized by the second flight's Dispatcher; ATC coordinators; or Dispatch coordinators.  We acknowledged the new callsign; continued the flight as planned.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported a similar callsign issue and cancellations attributed in part to COVID-19 pandemic related work environment.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were on a visual approach to Runway 27 and while slowing from 210 to 190; we selected flaps to one and then flaps to 5. We noticed the zipper was not lowering and then noticed the flaps were indicating up. We had no EICAS warning. We accelerated back to 210; and tried to cycle the flaps. Again; flaps did not indicate any movement and no ICAS warnings. Fuel was at about 7;400 LBS. We asked for radar vectors to the north to troubleshoot and set up for possible approach to [the longest runway]. At this time I noticed we had a status message SLAT/FLAP ELEC. Again; with no EICAS message; I opted to set up for an all flaps up landing. We ran the landing with all flaps up checklist in the QRH. Flew an uneventful flaps up monitored approach to landing without requiring further assistance. When clear of the runway; we checked the brake cooling chart in the QRH before taxiing back to park. [We] landed at 167 KTS at about 163;000 LBS with auto brakes 4.




Synopsis: B757-200 Captain reports failure of the flaps to move to the selected position during approach with no EICAS warnings; but with a status message indicating Slat/Flap Elec. A zero flap landing ensues at a landing weight of 163;000 LBS.
Date: 201702
Location: BGGL.ARTCC, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center BGGL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: At XB:15 message arrived from flight stating the following:Over ABERI… Switched satellite coms from satcom to satlink and want to check if we can still data communicate with you via iridium's satlink system. Please respond. XA:25.At XB:16 a response was sent to the crew. At XB:36 the crew sent the following message:So that took 1 hour… Thank you for the reply. Estimate ZZZZ at XH:00When timeline for when messages were received by dispatch; the crew responded that the message was sent from the plane at XA:25. Message follows:Correct. We sent the message at XA:25.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher reported a flight crew checked their communications to Dispatch via the Iridium SATLINK system while on a polar route over ABERI intersection. The crew's message took 50 minutes to arrive at Dispatch whereupon the Dispatcher immediately issued a reply to the aircraft. Twenty minutes after the Dispatcher sent the reply; the crew sent back confirmation that they had received the Dispatch reply.