elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
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: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While at cruise flight at FL380; a very small; non-identified yaw moment was felt. The First Officer did not feel it; but I did. However; I could not rule out just some turbulence. About 10 minutes later; a more significant yaw moment was felt by both of us. I turned to the flight control page; but noted no irregularities. No EICAS messages. Within two to three minutes; we began to experience a series of what felt to be rudder deflections. No EICAS messages; rudder movement on the flight control page were approximately 5 to 10% deflection within the limiter; and the slip indicator was nearly full deflection outside the sky pointer. The aircraft felt as if Dutch Roll was imminent; however; the yaw dampers recovered. This proceeded to continue. The First Officer and I discussed the possible responses while observing the flight control page. I quickly checked the QRH for any procedure that may have been related to our issue; but did not identify a procedure that would apply. We decided that the safest thing was to divert. An ACARS was sent to Dispatch of our possible diversion and suggested a nearby airport. We communicated with ATC requesting lower. We informed them that [we] were working through something and might need to divert. I communicated with the lead Flight Attendant of what were experiencing and our probable diversion.During the descent; the deflection of the rudder continued; so we informed ATC that we would be diverting. We declared an emergency due to flight control irregularity and requested CFR. I informed the lead Flight Attendant of our status; precautionary landing; 15 minutes; no need to brace. I then made an announcement to the passengers. The arrival was uneventful; other than continued; however; lessened rudder deflection. Operations acquired a new aircraft; and the flight resumed with all passengers about 4 hours later. I am unaware of why we had rudder deflection. Possibilities range from YAW Damper malfunction; but there were no EICAS messages to suggest this. Other possibilities included rudder damage or malfunction; which is why we diverted.




Synopsis: A CRJ-900 flight crew declared an emergency and diverted to a nearby airport due to repeated uncommanded rudder deflections.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Trainee
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing out of ZZZ; aircraft experienced a loss of power and we were forced to make an off airport landing. The aircraft did not sustain any damage and there were no injuries.


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


Synopsis: Cessna 172 instructor and student pilot reported a loss of engine power which resulted in a forced landing.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MKE.Airport, WI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C MKE
ATC / advisory: TRACON MKE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departing MKE; loaded flight plan in FMS; including ACCRA 1. Looked over SID and verified constraints. Captain briefed departure per the FOM. I was PF and we were trying to make up time for departing late; so CA managed speed to 300 KIAS unannounced to me. Through about FL180; before switching us to center; controller advised us that the speed for this SID is 250 KIAS. We didn't see it on plate. On most plates; this is written somewhere on the Plan View of the procedure. After we both looked at the very congested information on the plate; we finally both found it in the very top right corner of the Notes section. We should not have missed this; but maybe it should be posted in a more prominent place. It seems that there is not any uniformity in the way many restrictions/altitudes are notes on the various plates sometimes.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer reports not noticing the speed limit of 250 knots until advised; on the ACCRA1 departing MKE; until notified by ATC.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X started descending from his assigned altitude of 10;500 right on the boundary maybe a little bit inside of the Fire TFR. Once he cleared the airspace I gave him descent instruction to 10;000. At that point he advised me that he was having engine trouble and need to go directly to ZZZ. I turned him right to a 070 vector for the airport and advised him of the MIA in the area; the distance to ZZZ and the local altimeter. I asked if he could hold altitude and he was unsure but was going to try. At this point I had already notified my Supervisor of the issue and asked for a D-side and the status of all the airports in the area; whether they where open or not due to all the closures for the firefighting activity. Aircraft X was able to see the airport at approximately 3 miles out at about 8;500 MSL. I then advised him of the runway configuration and the CTAF frequency there but to remain with me till advised and asked him if he was looking to cancel IFR. At that point he canceled IFR and I told him to remain on his present code for Flight Following and further assistance. I then got notice that ZZZ was in fact closed for firefighting ops and advised Aircraft X of it and he then declared an emergency. [I] asked for the SOB and if he required any assistance on the ground. He requested for someone to meet him on the ground and my Supervisor had coordinated with one of the fire coordinators that were on the ground at ZZZ to check on him; make sure he lands and to call us back upon arrival. At approximately 6;500 feet I told the aircraft that someone is standing by at the airport for them and that I would lose radar and radio coverage with them and that radar service is terminated; squawk VFR; frequency change is approved and to call us upon arrival. A few minutes later we got word from the fire coordinator that they made it safely to the ground.Everything went as smooth as it could with the help of my D-side and Supervisor who where instrumental in helping my guide this aircraft safely to the airport and get all the coordination done.




Synopsis: Center Controller reports of an aircraft that has engine trouble; changes its destination and then lands at a Fire TFR closed airport safely.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was working Sectors 15; 97 and 98 combined up. A B737 checked in at FL290 proceeding direct UKW with the aircraft having no conflictions; I proceeded to continue my scan of what was going on. Fifty miles south I observed a VFR aircraft flashing at me going to Amarillo in coast track which is common for that area if they are climbing out of Lubbock. Conflict Alert was going off with the VFR aircraft and a beacon code of XXXX which at the time was the VFR flight. So I tracked the aircraft to that code and it tracked up. I did have a notice in my ETSD for a code change for that VFR aircraft in which I did when he checked on. The B737 also had the beacon code XXXX assigned to him and briefly tracked down to the location of the VFR aircraft flight and disappeared from my scope. Several minutes passed and SPS-HI (F47) of ZFW called me asking about a Mode C intruder of a code of XXXX. I asked if they had the track or the handoff on them and they told me they didn't. So quick thinking I had to hit the track button and pick on that code with the VFR aircraft; I had and it tracked up. I had to reroute the aircraft back in my airspace and to UKW and was able to handoff the aircraft to the correct sector. In ERAM; if a target drops off it should auto populate; in this case it didn't. I am not sure what went wrong if it was a computer glitch or a bad command on my part. All in all the aircraft was safe but I ended up deviating ZFW airspace. I am curious to know what happened so I can prevent it from happening again. With the ERAM implementation going on I'm not sure what suggestion to make. I know that ZFW is still on HOST which at times can cause some bugs with ERAM. I just hope we can prevent this from happening.




Synopsis: ZAB Controller described an airspace incursion claiming an ERAM anomaly contributed to the event.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation I (C500)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Trainee; Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was the pilot in command as well as the flight instructor. The student was receiving proficiency and re-currency training. An FAA ASI examined our pilot and medical certificates; and the aircraft airworthiness and registration certificates. Weather conditions for takeoff were as follows; Daylight VFR with unrestricted visibility and no cloud ceiling; wind from 220 at 13 KTS; temperature was 30 Celsius plus. The actual takeoff weight was 10;100 LBS. The computed required takeoff field length (zero wind) was 2;930 FT. The actual runway length is 4;000 FT. During the preflight briefing with my student; we discussed multiple aborted takeoff scenarios (although none specifically addressed the possibility of bird strikes) due to the relatively short runway here. The aircraft contacted multiple large birds approximately 5 KTS prior to the calculated V1 speed of 91 KTS. The takeoff was successfully aborted and the aircraft exited the runway safely at Taxiway Echo. The left engine was shutdown after runway exit due to a lack of ITT indication. The FAA Control Tower was notified after the aircraft had exited the runway. On our advice; the runway was closed for a short period by ATC for inspection. Multiple large birds we found on the runway in various states of demise. Post flight inspection (by the crew) revealed severe damage to the left engine. The right engine and right engine pylon area had bird debris preset. The right inboard wing leading edge has multiple small dents.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: Citation crew doing training; experience multiple bird strikes just prior to V1 and rejected the takeoff. Post flight inspection revealed severe damage the left engine and bird remains in the right engine.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: I was working all RADAR positions combined in the Tower cab due to the COVID schedule.  We had a priority handling aircraft land at ZZZ1 which caused multiple aircraft to be placed in holding/kept in the RADAR pattern. While this was going on I had a heavy increase in traffic volume.  I based Aircraft X to a 240 heading after an extended downwind; about 15 miles out at 020 MSL. Shortly after basing the aircraft I received multiple calls from aircraft and became saturated with traffic and transmissions. I realized Aircraft X had gone through final and was headed towards a man-made obstruction with the obstruction height of 2;XXX feet. I issued a right turn to heading 050 to get them away from the obstruction. I started issuing a climb to Aircraft X when I realized I had a VFR aircraft receiving radar serve at 030 directly about him. This caused me to cancel the climb and stick with just the turn. I then tried to turn the VFR aircraft so I could climb Aircraft X but between my voice quality and the other aircraft on frequency he didn't understand my transmission. I believe Aircraft X came within 3 miles of the obstruction.I believe working on the TDW (Tower Display Workstation) display which is smaller than our normal stars displayed caused a higher complexity of traffic. I'm not really sure what could have prevented this event other than going back to normal staffing levels and working back in the RAPCON.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported an aircraft missed a turn and came within less than the required separation from a tall obstruction.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower BOS
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Aircraft X landed on Runway 27. I issued exiting instructions: 'Aircraft X; turn right on [taxiway] K then turn right on [taxiway] M.' They were read back correctly. I looked away for something else; then looked back and Aircraft X had missed the right turn on M and was continuing straight ahead on K; which then crosses the active departure runway. I was able to stop the aircraft to avoid a runway incursion; but only because I had looked back in that direction in time.I am submitting this to add to the database of potential runway incursions. There is nothing else that can be done. Unfortunately; here at Boston; the airport and runway layout is so complex that it is not conducive to mitigating runway incursions. In every configuration; active runway crossings with a majority of the traffic are necessary and more incursions are avoided only because of the vigilance of the controllers.




Synopsis: An aircraft taxiing to parking missed a turn and was proceeding toward an active runway. ATC noticed the deviation and corrected the pilot. The aircraft had been issued correct instructions and read the instructions back correctly.
Date: 201808
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During training of a new move team member we were asked to take Aircraft X from [the] gate to remote parking area. We had just finished turning the APU off; released the brakes and closed the cabin door. The trainee went to the move tug which he had already captured the aircraft; but needed to raise the front nose gear off the ground. While the trainee was in the tug I removed the chokes from the right side main gear; place it outside the envelope and proceeded to the left main gear. I pulled the chokes from the left main gear; as I was walking to the left main gear I heard the tug beeping as it does when you close the gate and raise the nose gear. As I was placing those chokes on the ground outside the envelope I turned and noticed the nose gear was not in the raised position; at that point I took a step towards the tug to see what the issue was; at that point the trainee opened the gates of the tug. With the aircrafts brakes released the aircraft started to roll; I then ran to the chokes picked 1 up and ran to the main gear and put it behind the wheel; as I was doing that there were 3 maintenance employees standing near the front of the aircraft they also took chokes and put them behind the nose gear wheels. The aircraft rolled about 10 feet backwards before we stopped it. They then checked the nose gear for any damaged and said it was good to move. We then recaptured the nose gear with tug and towed it to [the parking area].




Synopsis: A Ramp Person reported that when preparing to tow a B787; the gates of the tug were inadvertently opened; allowing the aircraft to roll freely.
Date: 202001
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: This is a recurring problem here on day shift and afternoon shift. There are two techs; one with just a Powerplant license and the other with NO licenses at all being counted as manpower and the company expecting and looking the other way when these two technicians have to be assigned to perform maintenance on the 757; 767; 777 and 787 fleet type aircraft. The practice has continued and will continue until intervention by proper authorities. These two technicians; nice gentlemen; are assigned workload and/or expected to perform daily maintenance tasks when an aircraft arrives and are also expected to address pilot reports/calls on their assigned outbound flights. When the need to sign off items; they either sign the item off themselves or ask someone to sign off the items for them. When it comes to getting an MEL; as the IT system will not allow them to request an deferral; they ask a lead or another technician for assistance. Per GMM (General Maintenance Manual); these technicians do not hold the proper qualifications to perform the work they are assigned unless the procedures are followed and adhered to with a supervisor. This I will say; is not feasible under the current conditions of short/minimum manpower allocations on both shifts. At times when manpower is sufficient; these technicians are paired up with another technician to oversee the assigned aircraft's arrival and departure and workload. However; it has become a problem and many technicians are expressing disdain for this procedure used by the leads. Also; other technicians are simply requesting not to be either assigned with these two technicians or sent out to help them because they understand that the full responsibility will then fall on them once they get involved with the respective technician's work.Assign these two technicians into work areas for which they are qualified for. Stop the blatant disregard of proper adherence to GMM policy and stop placing the burden on other employees.




Synopsis: Technician reported that unqualified technicians are performing maintenance tasks in violation of the company GMM.