elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: A321
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flight departed Runway 26L from ATL behind an Airbus A321. Airbus had just rotated when we were cleared for takeoff. On rotation just as Captain called for gear up aircraft encountered wake turbulence causing stick shaker to activate. Captain slightly lowered nose and shaker immediately went away. Regained airspeed and continued departure with no further incidents.

Callback: Reporter suggested increased separation from A321 type aircraft.



Synopsis: CRJ Captain reported encountering wake turbulence departing ATL in trail of an A321 that resulted in a stick shaker.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Staffing; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Whomever decided to split up desks gave me 11 additional aircraft's to dispatch and flight follow until the X shift comes in at XF:00 hours am.Since I start at XA:00am it means I had 19 aircraft on my desk as usual with an additional 11 aircraft on top of that. Half of my shift I was dealing with 30 aircraft and it wasn't an issue until XE:00 am when we started to get reroutes based on the weather.My Coordinator tried to find a solution but we were so close to XF:00am; it was better to keep them until the relief takes them. Another problem is how the phones are set. It appears that I have a higher priority so I get almost all the calls to whatever code share I work.We have to make sure the desks are spread evenly including the desks for dispatchers who come in later. Phones need to be set so inbound calls are split evenly. We also need more people early in the morning.  The X shift helps the night shift but puts more load on the morning shift who actually dispatches twice as much aircraft than the night shift.  We could use some dispatchers back in the morning.It would also help everyone in Dispatch if we could simply get pilots to use the extensions to call Dispatchers.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported working an overloaded desk and overall staffing issues.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approaching rotation speed on takeoff the Pilot Flying said it felt like the rudder pedals locked up in neutral. He rotated the aircraft and we became airborne. Shortly afterward he tried pushing alternately on the left and right rudder pedals and they were indeed immovable. And I found the same thing on my side. I announced that to the Pilot Flying (PF) and we continued a normal climbout and cockpit flow to reach a safe altitude where we could evaluate our status. I engaged the yaw damper; which engaged normally; and then the autopilot and we continued our climbout. The 680 climbs quickly; so we were climbing in the teens as the I pulled out our QRH checklist for Jammed Rudder. We had just flown into ZZZ on a short flight from ZZZ1 at 10;000 ft.; so we knew that cold soak was not a factor. We had not set the flight control gust lock because the winds were calm and we were doing a quick turn. When we started engines; we did a 'full throw' flight control check (including the rudder); per our checklist; so we knew the flight controls were free before taxi. Anyway; as the Jammed Rudder checklist was run with no relief; we [requested priority handling] and diverted into ZZZ2 and used the longest runway; XXL. On about a 3 mile final; the rudder became free; and a normal landing and rollout ensued. Maintenance drove over from our home airport (ZZZ1). Unfortunately the problem could not be duplicated. The aircraft flight control gust lock system was thoroughly inspected and it was determined that it was operating normally and could not have caused the jammed rudder. Maintenance examined the rudder control cables from the rudder pedals to the rudder and found no problems in the flight control system. In short they were unable to definitively identify what caused our jammed rudder condition. Since then the aircraft has flown 4 legs with no further problem.




Synopsis: Citation 680 Captain reported diverting after the rudder system jammed. A precautionary landing was made and the rudder worked normally during landing.
Date: 202110
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other All Phases
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: After 4 days of giving new hire FO IOE I was exhausted. We finished up our four-day trip just about 2.5 hours late due to maintenance issues and an understaffed airline.  The four-day finished at XA30pm. I then had to take the employee shuttle from the terminal which took time. I finally drove home to my place and made it to sleep around XDam [two and half hours later]. I did my best to sleep and I was unable to get adequate rest for the 5 legs I was supposed to fly on my 5th straight day of duty.  The sign in was supposed to be 12 hours on the dot almost from when I finished my 4-day trip.Cause - Understaffed airline forcing us to do the last turn of the four day. The last turn resulted in maintenance issues and required a plane swap. Due to this flight; we were 2.5 hours late and I was super tired from doing 2 straight weeks of IOE.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported going to work while extremely fatigued and attributed the challenging schedules to staffing issues at their company.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Aircraft: Embraer Phenom 100
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON PHX
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The EAGUL5 arrival can be misleading for aircrew and could result in an unsafe position. If an aircrew were to pass HOMRR just below 16;000 FT; in accordance with the arrival procedure; and then be required to be between 11;000 and 10;000 FT within four miles; an unsafe descent rate could ensue (1;500 FT/NM or > 6;000 FT/min). Avionics systems read 'HOMRR at or below 16;000 FT' to be '16;000;' and when calculating ability to be between 11;000 and 10;000 FT in four miles; determines that it cannot be done and thus reads unable. Please consider altering the STAR to allow a more gradual descent.




Synopsis: Phenom 100 Captain reports that his FMC incorrectly reads the HOMRR crossing restriction on the EAGUL5 RNAV to PHX as a hard altitude instead of 'at or below' as depicted. This makes the VNNOM crossing restriction impossible to achieve.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were being vectored for a visual 22L into JFK. Just after crossing the shore of Long Island at 4000 ft heading 040; speed 250 KIAS about 2-4 miles southwest of FRG airport; [the First Officer] and I were both heads up because of all the VFR traffic surrounding the airport. It was a beautiful day. That's when something caught my eye passing off the left side of the aircraft. It was only visible for about 3 seconds before it passed about 100-200 ft below us; but it was quite clearly a drone. It was white and shaped like a box. Looked like one of those phantom quadcopters or larger. The First Officer did not see it. I reported it to the Approach Controller and then called to give a more detailed report after we parked at the gate.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported a NMAC with a UAV on a visual approach to JFK Runway 22L.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Interphone System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Following the Crew Chief's instruction; I went to the aircraft. I was informed by a cabin crew member that the cabin interphones were not operating correctly. I called the office to request technical assistance. A Technician arrived to assist me approximately 5 minutes later. After discussing the issue with the Captain; it was determined that the fault was with the chime at L1 Door. As a result the Customer Service Manager falsely accused me of making the aircraft late on purpose. This is a troubling trend the Managers have recently adapted towards aircraft departures.This has an unsettling after effect whether intended or unintended by management to lower actual write ups in the logbook to thus lower maintenance delays subsequently impeding with the safety of the travelling public whom have put their safety and the safety of their loved ones in our hands. Furthermore; through intimidation; as well as impediment with legal and compliant documentation required for aircraft departure; myself as well as every mechanic here at this airline's number one responsibility is to the safety of all onboard. The unsettling truth for Maintenance at Company is non-maintenance management attempting to dictate how maintenance is performed. Allow us to have the time to properly maintain aircraft.




Synopsis: B777 Maintenance Technician reported that while attempting to repair a cabin interphone problem; a Customer Service Manager accused him of intentionally delaying the flight.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Electrical Distribution Relay
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Avionics
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other During Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon opening P-110 Power Panel to install new wiring; found six relay bases installed incorrectly.  Because of improper installation of the bases; four of the installed relays were contacting panel structure or the adjacent relay.  Relay bases affected: DK23022; DK23025; DK23040; DK23041; DK23042 and DK23043.

Callback: Reporter stated he has 15 years experience; much of the time in avionics doing special wiring modifications on various aircraft for an air carrier. He was installing new wiring for Wi-Fi and passenger seatback touch screens on some of their B777 aircraft when he saw the improper relay installations in the Left P-110 Power Management Panel in the lower Main Equipment Center (MEC). Reporter stated all the relays have a common base; are installed with three screws and involve the In-flight Entertainment System (IFEs). When properly installed; there is approximately 1/4' of an inch clearance between the relays. But since the bases of the six relays were torqued at an angle and installed on the opposite side of their mounting flange; the tops of the relays were contacting the adjacent relays and chafing against the inside of the P-110 Power Panel. He suspects the six relays have been flying around in that condition for three years; possibly since the last Service Bulletin (SB) modifications involving the Cabin IFE System that brought some of their B777 up to a base standard to allow future expansion of cabin IFE equipment. The six relays were replaced and installed correctly.



Synopsis: An Aircraft Avionics Technician reports finding six relay bases installed incorrectly; contacting structure and adjacent relays inside the Left P-110 Power Panel located in the lower Main Equipment Center (MEC) on a B777-200 aircraft.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: At the gate in ZZZ; a Flight Attendant comes up and tells me about a passenger issue regarding a passenger who wasn't wearing a mask. Evidently this passenger had been flagged for noncompliance with the mask policy on a previous flight. The Supervisor came and told me that she had counseled the passenger and boarded her. I saw the passenger board without her mask and pointed it out to the Supervisor. The Supervisor turned and reminded the passenger again that her mask needs to be in place. The passenger complied. I asked the Supervisor what her gut level feeling was and she answered that she thought the passenger could be a problem. I asked why are we boarding her then? At that point; a Flight Attendant went back and had a discreet discussion with the passenger; advising her that we were ok with her flying; but only if she wore her mask. She complied and slept most of the way to ZZZ1. We did depart one minute late; and the delay message referenced our needing to deal with this passenger. Two other people were also non compliant. A couple boarded with masks pulled down and while carrying coffee cups. The man asserted that he knew airline policy and if he was drinking; he was exempt from mask usage. The Flight Attendant told him that it's only for active drinking; not just holding the cup. Initially; he was dismissive of her instructions; but eventually he and his companion did put their masks up. By the end of the flight; he and the Flight Attendant had a respectful discussion about the policy.The Supervisor knew the first passenger had caused trouble yet boarded her anyway. Certainly the agent saw the other couple board while not complying with the mask policy.  I feel there still isn't enough specific guidance on mask usage.The airline needs to be very specific with passenger expectations regarding mask usage. It's a hot button issue and it creates division among the other (compliant) passengers which could lead to an inflight altercation and diversion. The mask policy is also creating a lot of chances for passengers' noncompliance with crew member instructions. People look for loopholes. The airline needs to be very blunt and specific; vs leaving it to the cabin crew to play the role of babysitter.  It distracts from their primary safety role.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported being advised about a possible non-compliant passenger regarding mask wear.
Date: 202109
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: I am writing this report to request some communication and coordination between DEN ATC and JEPPS.  The reason for this request is that routinely; DEN ATC does not use the Tower frequencies that are printed on the JEPPS Approach plates.  For example; there is only one ATC Tower frequency printed on each one of the approach plates; however; DEN Tower does not always adhere to these frequencies.  It is frustrating that DEN Tower does not use the frequencies printed on the JEPPS plates.  I submitted a report on this same issue years ago; and I did get a response that DEN ATC was not aware of the Tower frequencies printed on the JEPPS plates.  I was informed that most of the time; DEN ATC uses some type of reasoning for which frequencies they use for each runway; but that reasoning does not match up with the frequencies on the JEPPS plates.  DEN is the only airport that always has this issue.Can someone from JEPPS get together with DEN ATC and communicate which are the correct frequencies for each runway.  The frequencies that DEN Tower uses should match the same frequencies that are printed on the JEPPS Approach plates.This is all on top of the fact that it is extremely frustrating and adds to our high work load when DEN TRACON changes our STAR and/or arrival runway two or three times when we are close to the airport.  This has to stop!  Absolutely ridiculous that they make so many changes to arrivals and runways every single time we fly into DEN.  I would rather fly an extra 3 minutes than have to change the arrival and runway in the FMC two or three times within close proximity the airport.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported ATC frequency does not match published frequencies on Jeppesen approach charts for DEN airport.