elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Control
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 Critical
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: We were given clearance to descend from FL390 to FL380 and after reaching FL387 we were told to immediately climb back to FL390; nothing more was said from Center. About 10 minutes later in our descent passing FL280 for 12;000 we received a 'stab trim unscheduled' EICAS for about 5 seconds followed by a 'Stab Trim 2 and 3' message. The Captain was hand flying at 280 KTS and he immediately sensed the nose wanted to drop. Extra back pressure was required on the control column to keep the nose up. We ran the flight manual procedure for 'Stab trim 2 and 3 inoperative' and that referred us to the jammed stabilizer landing procedure. We contacted Dispatch and Maintenance and coordinated a plan for arrival. We did declare an emergency with Center and got vectors and priority handling for a long straight in ILS. The approach and landing were uneventful but extra back pressure on the column was required during slowing and configuration changes. The stab trim was jammed at 2.8 degrees.


Second narrative: Maintenance informed us that the aircraft had experienced the same problem a couple of weeks earlier. The aircraft was very nose heavy during maneuvers to land.


Synopsis: B747-400 flight crew reported jammed stabilizer on descent. The crew ran the procedure; declared an emergency; and a normal landing ensued. Maintenance advised the same aircraft had a similar issue a few weeks prior.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CMA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D CMA
ATC / advisory: Tower CMA
Second aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had taken my student to CMA for pattern work. During the course of doing pattern work; we had begun doing abnormal landing configuration training. After several patterns; we were cleared for the option Number 3; behind an Arrow joining downwind abeam the numbers. Initially; we did not have any aircraft in sight; and I had my student report negative contact to the Tower. We continued on downwind. Shortly thereafter; due to my student's accent; the Tower did not understand that we did not have the aircraft in sight. He used the verbiage 'aircraft not in sight.' Not fully understanding; the controller asked if we did or did not have traffic in sight. At that point; we noticed a plane landing behind us; and another off our left wing on final. My student reported traffic in sight as we had an aircraft clearly visible passing our left wing on final. At this point; I made the mistake of not having my student verify with Tower that the aircraft at our 9 o'clock was in fact the traffic we were to follow. We turned base to follow traffic as we thought we were sequenced properly. As we began to turn final I saw an aircraft at our 3 o'clock; converging quickly; and took evasive action to avoid a collision. I rejoined the south downwind; and continued in for an uneventful landing. To avoid the scenario; we should have checked final more thoroughly; and should have verified the traffic was the correct aircraft.




Synopsis: SR20 flight instructor reported an NMAC with another light aircraft in the pattern at CMA airport.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: Tower DCA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Troubleshooting; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I am a Captain for a major carrier; and have flown in and out of DCA with that carrier for many years; much of the time being based there.  I currently fly all over the US.DCA Tower is unique in the US. They are consistent in that they are always 'Climbing in my cockpit' trying to fly my aircraft. Landing there yesterday; I was told 'Expect minimum time on the runway'; immediately after I landed; the controller was telling the aircraft taking the runway to 'power up'.  They tell aircraft to taxi faster to clear exits for landing aircraft.I understand DCA is a busy airport; I was based there for years. The military low level helicopter traffic that routinely is in the DCA traffic area complicates matters. But this is probably the most dangerous airport in the United States; strictly based on the the fact the controllers are pushing; pushing; pushing; in an attempt to handle the traffic they have.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of DCA controllers 'climbing into my cockpit' and how they are telling the pilots various things that he feels they shouldn't be doing.
Date: 201212
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B747-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After being airborne a couple of hours we noticed an unusual rate of fuel being burned and a higher thrust required to maintain our cruise speed of .84M at our planned weight. When we reached our planned cruise altitude of FL380 our EPR setting was above 1.48 to maintain .84M which should have been lower at our 'planned weight'. We descended to FL360 and still our thrust required to maintain .84M was high. At our planned weight it should have required 1.22 EPR; it instead required 1.37. Our fuel deficit continued to increase so we suspected that there was an error in what our actual weight was. Based on performance requirements we estimated that we were actually 100;000 LBS heavier based on the power/fuel flow required to maintain speed per the OPS. Because the airplane had burned fuel on schedule on the previous two legs flown by this crew we ruled out a performance issue with the aircraft's powerplants; thus reinforcing our suspicion.We relayed this information to Dispatch and the worked out a new flight plan and fuel burn calculations that we would be arriving with approximately 29.0 FOB [Fuel On Board] and; if a diversion was necessary; at our alternate with only 14.0. We continued on our flight and repeatedly requested updates on our destination weather while keeping Dispatch in the loop on our fuel situation. Our main concern was that fuel would be a serious problem if we had to go to our alternate. Our fuel deficit continued to worsen so that by the time we arrived at our destination we landed with just 22.8 FOB. Our planned fuel burn was 135.9 and our actual fuel burn had been about 168.0. We calculated our landing performance card based on our suspected 100;000 LBS heavier weight and the aircraft performed normally; maintaining a proper 3.5 degree pitch attitude on the ILS approach with the amended bug settings. The weather was approximately 400-500 broken with visibility 1.5 miles on arrival. We were originally supposed to land with 41.1 FOB if our weight was correct. The individual responsible for overseeing the weighing of the freight and making sure that the information is accurately recorded should be more diligent. The error of not accurately recording the weights affects aircraft performance and can cause an unsafe operation.




Synopsis: A B747-200 flight crew noted their fuel burn and thrust required to maintain flight planned altitudes and cruise Mach were excessive and suspected the flight plan and fuel required had been based on faulty load planning data.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After departure and out of sterile; the A Flight Attendant called to inquire if we had an armed individual onboard as her manifest showed that. I informed her no one had advised me or presented me with any LEO paper work or credentials. We began discussing other manifest anomalies including a CEO/Must Ride sitting where one of our reciprocating jump seater was sitting. I then asked her to come to the cockpit and bring her paperwork to discuss it further. Once it was determined that there were other errors on the manifest I asked her to go back and do a passenger count. A discrepancy of 12 passengers was determined. It was then noted that the Gate Agents had given us a manifest dated [incorrectly]. We counted all extra passengers as adults and calculated we were 2300 Lbs. heavier than expected at Take Off and adjusted our Landing Weight accordingly. I then rechecked our T.O. numbers to see if we had exceeded any performance limitation weights; which we hadn't; but the V speeds were approximately 2-3 knots slower than desired.More thorough training and supervision of station personnel.More auditing from management.


Second narrative: [Report Narrative Contained No Additional Information.]


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported discovering several anomalies in the weight and balance data after takeoff. Apparently station personnel used numbers from a flight on a different date.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While conducting a visual approach into ZZZ we noticed traffic at our altitude at the FAF on the TCAS. Asking ATC they replied that there was no traffic in the area. We continued the approach. At around 1;700 MSL we got an RA to descend. During the RA Tower issued us a low altitude alert. At around 1;000 MSL the RA event ended. We were very unstable as a result of the RA and elected to go around. Upon attempting the approach again ATC noted traffic slightly east of the FAF indicating 300 AGL and maneuvering. We extended downwind to intercept the LOC past the FAF so we would not turn into the traffic again. Passing the FAF I identified the traffic as a maneuvering helicopter. Again about 200 feet after the FAF we got a 'maintain vertical track' followed by a climb RA. We followed the RA to 500 feet above the assigned missed approach altitude. We then descended back to the missed approach altitude of 2;000. Upon attempting the approach again we elected to fly left instead of right traffic. ATC advised we kept base tight to avoid the traffic; which was still maneuvering underneath the FAF. We flew around a 2 mile final and landed uneventfully.Helicopter should've been in contact with ATC when maneuvering in such close proximity to ZZZ.




Synopsis: Flight Crew flying EMB-175 aircraft encountered a Near Mid Air Collision with helicopter during approach.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: It was busy night which included a lot of new guys assigned to this aircraft. There was several hours of very heated conversation on a 'parking/storage' procedure that the supervisors were implementing. With no guidance or help to accomplish this procedure. Along with the supervisors telling us one way; and veteran leads saying something different; and having both sides arguing and going round and round about what should be done; and what procedure we should follow. On a side note the procedure has changed hourly; daily; weekly and monthly; it's still a fluid situation. I was given the AML at the end of the night; to review the paperwork. The aircraft had been finished by the AMT's and all the paperwork was done; stamped and put into system. But with an open write up in the log book; it couldn't be closed. So I was advised to close out the discrepancy and add an open item. I filled out a report the night I was told and submitted it. The bantering back and forth. The discussion should they use the GPM or AMM? Should we use the parking rule and cover the engine intakes; cover all static ports. Too many different procedures with no real guidance on what action should be taking. Everything that went on that night was in a large part...part of the 'Dirty Dozen' Human Factors.The procedures should be the same; it changed 4-5 times that week alone. I couldn't see the original write up. Also the closing out of the log book without leaving any open items. The communication of what proper procedure should be reviewed and discuss before implementing it at zero hour. With so many questions on how to accomplish it with safety being the strongest concern. I filled out a report the night I was told about the incident and submitted it.




Synopsis: Technician reported not being able to make a correct log entry due to confusion regarding proper aircraft parking/storage procedures.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BDU.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: CTAF BDU
Second aircraft: Sail Plane
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departed Boulder Airport around XA:45 on [date] heading to a job 4.5 nm wouthwest of the field. Made my radio calls on departure that I was departing direct to the southwest. Two other aircraft responded their positions.2 nm out of the airport a glider flew over my aircraft from my 4 o'clock position to my 10 o'clock at about 10 ft. directly above me. The glider yelled out over CTAF seconds later 'helicopter that was a near miss'.I responded 'why aren't you making radio calls? You came from my blind side'The glider did not respond.I asked again 'Why no radio calls glider?'Again no response.I left a message with their company and was never able to talk with anyone. I did talk to the airport manager and let him know of the issue.Today on my way into the airport the gliders were again flying in front of other aircraft; including myself. These two instances are the only times I have flown around this airport during midday. And both times the gliders were a big hazard. I understand that they have right of way over powered aircraft but it is very hard to avoid something that you don't know is there. A simple radio call could fix the issue.




Synopsis: Helicopter pilot reported that a glider pilot failed to make radio calls and caused an NMAC.
Date: 201503
Location: PDX.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: First Officer (FO) flying HHOOD2 arrival; VMC until about 7500 feet. ATC gave us descent to 6200 feet and we were in clouds at that point. Received further clearance to descend to 5000 feet. During descent at about 5300 feet [GPWS] 'terrain terrain' announcement sounded. FO reacted with power and pitched up to stop announcement. We told ATC and broke out of clouds. I assume GPWS was a closure rate warning.




Synopsis: An A320 Captain reported receiving a GPWS terrain alert on arrival into PDX in IMC. The pilot flying executed an escape maneuver. The reporter feels it was likely a closure rate alert.
Date: 202112
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: SFO was using RNAV GPS 10L approach.  Sky conditions were clear; night VMC. The First Officer was flying and was on the VNAV path profile before the FAF.  Crossing the FAF on profile at approximately 1;800 ft. AFE; we got a Terrain; Terrain warning. There was a moment of surprise as we processed what the warning was.  The warning went off twice and then ended by the time we realized exactly which warning was occurring. I noticed the RA indicated 940 ft.  The approach remained stable; fully configured and on speed by 1;000 ft. and on VNAV profile. Talking with other crews after landing; they got the same warning.  The closure rate on the VNAV profile with the rapid terrain change at the FAF is what we believe caused the warning.  There is no mention of this in the airport 10-7 pages. We should have gone around by the flight manual guidance but by the time we understood the warning; the warning ceased.Note: It is impossible to comply with standard ATC speed of 180kts to the FAF and be fully configured which may have prevented the warning.




Synopsis: Pilot reported receiving a terrain warning inbound to SFO. Other pilots reported the same issue to reporter.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Aircraft component: Cooling Fan; any cooling fan
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Avionics; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Fan blower avionics vent 20HQ wiring and associated connector burnt. Connectors 358QF14 and 183QF14 were found burnt along with wiring between said connectors and blower fan control relay 8HQ. Spattered metal and soot found throughout contactor box 107VU126. This is my second aircraft to find this type of damage in the past 2-3 months. I believe this is occurring due to poor manufacture design of vent fan control system. Redesign of system.

Callback: Reporter stated this involves A320 aircraft; and it's becoming a widespread issue.  He stated they have now seen 5 aircraft with the same burned wiring; and it appears to him to be under-gauged wire spec from Airbus.



Synopsis: Technician reported burnt wires and evidence of arcing and fire in circuits associated with the Avionics Vent Fan Blower. Reporter further stated he has now seen a total of five aircraft with similar damage.