elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Aircraft component: Escape Slide
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Inspector; Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Aircraft; Manuals
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On Date Mechanic Name requested me to witness the removal and storage of the over wing slide bottle pins of the left and right wing slide bottles. The corrected action block of the non routine stated as such and that is what I witnessed and signed off as RII (Required Inspection Item).I saw nothing at the time directing the arming of the left and right over wing doors.I'm not sure why the disarming of the left and right over wing doors was written up on a non routine. There should be a Task Card for storing an aircraft and specific items called out to prepare the aircraft for storage; and to put the aircraft back into service.




Synopsis: Technician reported confusion in signing off items when returning an aircraft to service after storage.
Date: 201503
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Arrived to the flight planning area and downloaded [flight plan]; for flight [to] SNA; for the second time; and noticed RLS #2 was because of an aircraft change. The TCAS was MEL'd on our new aircraft. I conferred with the First Officer (FO) and I decided that I would refuse [the aircraft]; as I feel that operating the flight with the TCAS inoperative was unsafe. The 10-7 for SNA also states; 'VFR traffic; Use caution for extensive general aviation traffic in the area'. I called and spoke to Dispatch and stated that I am refusing the aircraft. I expected to get some type of pushback or an excuse as why we need to take the aircraft to SNA; but to my pleasure he took my refusal well and I then gave him my number and asked to please call me when they had another aircraft. We were then notified that we had another aircraft change AGAIN (second time) and then it hit me. The reason WE had the original aircraft change in the first place; was that the crew before us also refused this aircraft; and they tried to assign this aircraft to us to take it. We were notified [of] our second new gate.[I then learned that] Dispatch switched the aircraft AGAIN (third time) so they tried to get a THIRD crew to take [the] aircraft with the TCAS on MEL! I met the Captain leaving the flight planning area; explained what happened and he also refused this aircraft!




Synopsis: A B737 Captain reported that when he refused to fly an aircraft to SNA because of heavy light aircraft traffic and an inoperative TCAS his company 'shopped' the aircraft to other flight crews hoping someone would take it.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CYMX.Airport, PQ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: DC-10 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON CYUL
Aircraft component: Spoiler System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While descending through approximately 14;000 MSL; to ensure that the aircraft remained on the proper descent profile; the pilot flying extended the speedbrakes. Immediately after extending the speedbrakes; the aircraft went into an uncommanded right turn at approximately a 45 degree bank angle causing the aircraft to depart our cleared track by approximately one half mile. The Captain immediately disconnected the autopilot and had to apply full left aileron to maintain wings level. He then attempted to retract the speedbrake handle; but due to the friction on the handle; was unable to do so. He then directed me to retract the speedbrakes while he flew the aircraft. I was able to retract the speed brakes; and the pilot flying was immediately able to regain full control of the aircraft. Montreal Control noticed our heading deviate from course; and asked us to confirm that we were proceeding as previously cleared. I advised that the autopilot made an uncommanded input and that we were correcting back to course. After confirming that full aircraft control was maintained; we attempted to analyze the malfunction. We concluded that there was binding in the spoiler handle and that extension of the speedbrakes was the cause of the asymmetric flight control malfunction. After a full analysis of the malfunction; the landing runway; landing data; and possible solutions we decided to perform an ILS approach to Runway 24 using flaps 50; and no spoilers. After an uneventful landing; we taxied to parking; made the appropriate write-up in the logbook; and debriefed the aircraft mechanic as to the details of the malfunction.




Synopsis: When a DC10 flight crew extended spoilers to assist compliance with their planned descent profile the aircraft abruptly banked 45 degrees and deviated from their cleared track. The pilot flying was unable to retract the spoilers while resisting the bank and directed the First Officer to do so. Normal flight was recovered and the landing was made without deploying spoilers as a precaution.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DCA.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On initial climb out from DCA Runway 1; First Officer made initial turn to follow the river. Engaged the autopilot to intercept the DOCTR2 RNAV course from the West. AP turned sharply to intercept and did not capture. Immediately disengaged AP and turned back towards the northwest. East bank of the river remained in view the whole time and we do not believe we crossed it. Winds at the time were approximately 330/11G19. FO hand flew plane until AP was transferred to CA side and recaptured course. FMS 2 was deferred; but 900 MEL does not preclude RNAV procedures as the 200 MEL does. CA was in white needles with FO in yellow (cross-side data) with MFD map data available and FMS 1 on the annunciator.Add an operational note to 900 MEL 34-61-1A that AP should only be coupled to non-deferred FMS side. Also; DCA DOCTR2 RNAV should be assigned cautiously with a strong west winds because of equipment limitations.


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


Synopsis: CRJ-900 flight crew reported they deviated from their assigned RNAV departure when the aircraft failed to track the course.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Second aircraft: Widebody Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were cleared the Visual Approach to Runway 36L following a heavy widebody aircraft; who was approximately 3 NM in front of us. I briefed the First Officer that I would ride the glideslope slightly high to avoid wake turbulence. Winds on final were a left quartering tailwind of about eight knots and shifting left quartering headwind around 500' AGL. At around 300' AGL; we encountered wake turbulence with a significant right roll to at least 35 degrees of bank. I countered with left aileron and elected to go around; asserting that the deviation had resulted in an unstable approach on short final. The go-around and subsequent landing to 36L were uneventful.With the shifting winds; at least five mile spacing behind the heavy widebody aircraft would have probably prevented the event. In fact; the subsequent approach was behind another heavy widebody aircraft and I assured 5 NM spacing resulting in a successful approach and landing with no wake turbulence.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence on approach to MEM in trail of a heavy widebody aircraft.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SBGR.TRACON, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON SBGR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During climbout from SBGR (Sao Paulo) on the CGO 1 (Congonhas One Departure) SCB transition; the Captain; First Officer; and Relief Pilot observed a large rectangular balloon; or kite approximately 100 feet in size directly in our flight path at exactly 10;000 feet. The object had a thick line or cable attached to it and descended downward from the object as far as the eye could see. The location of the object was directly in our path located over the Congonhas VOR on the departure. While executing the turn on the SID over CGO; all pilots saw the object and I proceeded to take evasive action to prevent hitting the object. The aircraft missed the object by approximately 200 feet. Captain reported the objects location and altitude to Departure Control. The SBGR ATIS did have warnings of possible balloon activity in the airport area. But; one never expects to see it at 10;000 feet with a large cable attached to it. Please notify the Brazilian Government on the seriousness of allowing this type of activity to continue. They make announcements on the ATIS; and know they are there; but seem to do little to correct this problem.


Second narrative: [Narrative contained no additional information].


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reports encountering a tethered balloon at 10;000 feet over CGO on the CGO 1 departure from SBGR. The SID crossing restriction at CGO is between FL100 and FL150.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Distribution
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight was cleared for takeoff on Runway 08. As the throttles were raises to set takeoff power the crew received a level two alert 'ELEC Alerts'. After a brief moment on Runway 08 with ATC approval the crew decided to exit the runway to investigate the level two alert. Referring to the QRH the crew was instructed to contact aircraft Maintenance. After discussing the malfunction with aircraft Maintenance it was determined that we had a bad Electrical System Controller. Aircraft Maintenance instructed the crew to contact Maintenance Control to get a control number. After contacting Maintenance Control the crew received a control number for the inoperative Electrical System Controller. As the crew prepared to taxi for takeoff the level two alert 'ELEC Alerts' returned. After some troubling shooting with aircraft Maintenance it was determined that the number one IDG was bad. As directed by MEL 24-21-01 Integrated Drive Generators (IDG) inoperative; the number one IDG was disconnected. The MEL directed the crew to operative the electrical system in manual and the crew contacted Maintenance Control for control number. Flight departed with a deferred Electrical System Controller inoperative and the number one IDG deferred (disconnected) and arrived at our filed destination with no further incident or system malfunctions.




Synopsis: An MD-11 developed two separate electrical system malfunctions while taxiing for takeoff. On the first takeoff attempt the Electrical System Controller failed; on the second attempt an IDG failed.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AVL.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C AVL
ATC / advisory: Tower AVL
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Manuals; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: When configuring for a visual approach at AVL we received a 'Flaps Fail' amber message when selecting flaps from 8 to 20. (IAS was approximately 180 KIAS). We asked Tower to give us holding instructions. We entered the holding pattern and ran the Flaps Fail QRH. We determined that 8;000 FT was plenty of runway for the conditions; so we elected to land at our destination and to not declare an emergency. This was a 'no-alternate' fuel plan and we felt that returning to our departure airport while the flaps were stuck at 17 would burn significantly more fuel.Once at the gate; Maintenance was able to talk us through resetting the flap indicator system IAW guidance found in the appropriate MEL Chapter. The outbound flight was slightly delayed; but able to its scheduled flights.Here are some thoughts as to my decision making. According to the most conservative numbers we could derive from the QRH; no more than 6;000 FT of runway would be required; we had 8;000 FT. Flap failures with plenty of runway available are routinely practiced in the simulator and under more demanding conditions. As a result we decided NOT to declare an emergency. We also decided not to have the passengers brace because we believed we had plenty of runway available. When I stopped the airplane on the runway; however; we were at the 2;000 FT marker. After landing; 3 out of 4 BTMS (Brake Temperature Monitoring System) indicators went white due to the maximum-effort braking on rollout. None of the indicators went red. My advice to other crews would be to take the flaps 45 landing distance in the AOM and double it. The 55% additive factor is wishful thinking; in my humble opinion. It is also good that when we practice this event in the simulator; we do it with no vertical guidance whatsoever. That way; when you do it backed up with a glide slope; it doesn't feel out of the ordinary at all.




Synopsis: A commuter jet flight crew experienced the failure of the flaps to extend to a normal landing setting. They opted to land on their destination airport's 8;000 FT runway as their AOM indicated they would need only 6;000 FT of runway to come to a stop based on the setting at which the flaps had failed. After coming to a stop using maximum effort braking they had 2;000 FT of runway remaining.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: C90.TRACON, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Albatros (L39)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was lead aircraft (L-39) with a wingman (BAE-AV-8) in a ferry flight to GYY. We were both flying experimental aircraft and are required to file VFR. The weather was VMC and because of the crowded Chicago airspace; we flew at 11;500 feet direct to GYY and asked for radar flight following to stay clear of controlled airspace. After climbing to cruising altitude; Milwaukee Departure told us that our radar service was terminated and frequency change approved. I went to Gary/Chicago Intl Tower and did a straight in to Runway 12. Ground Control told me to call Chicago TRACON. I was then informed that I had entered Class B airspace without permission. In retrospect; I should have continued to pursue radar flight following and assistance in an area with which I am not familiar. I am unsure as to how it was determined that I had violated airspace restrictions as both my wingman and I were monitoring our GPS and I showed descending beyond Chicago airspace.




Synopsis: L39 pilot is informed after landing at GYY that he and his wingman may have violated the ORD Class B airspace during their arrival from the north.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: Jet/Long Ranger/206
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: The airport was consistently reporting a marginal VFR ceiling of OVC010. A B206; a helicopter called about 25 miles west of the airport; inbound with the ATIS. I vectored him a little bit for sequence and issued traffic at 2;000 that he was going to follow in to the airport. He replied that he was looking for the traffic. Once the preceding traffic was no longer a factor; a jet; I told him to resume his own navigation to the airport. Then I called him three times; giving him the location of the airport. He did not answer until the third call and he said that he couldn't see the airport because there were some clouds between him and the airport. I told him to maintain VFR and contact the Tower. A couple of minutes later; the Tower called me and advised that the aircraft was an emergency with low fuel and unable to get down. I checked with three other aircraft in my airspace looking for a hole in the clouds; none were found. The crash crew responded and other traffic was broken off of the approach behind him as he maneuvered down through the clouds. I worked the helicopter for about 25 miles. He said that he had the ATIS with the reported overcast layer. He accepted traffic calls and said he was looking for traffic. At no point did he indicate any fuel criticality nor did he mention that he might have any issue descending. Only once did he mention clouds between him and the airport. I assumed this was a small scud deck that he expected not to be an issue. The pilot should have mentioned his concern with the weather much earlier. It goes without saying that the pilot should have checked the weather before getting airborne and had sufficient fuel.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described an emergency event when an inbound helicopter encountered weather and fuel issues but failed to provide ATC with critical information regarding same.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Troubleshooting
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: We took off Runway XX to practice some night takeoffs and landings. Upon the second takeoff somewhere around 600-700 ft the rpm dropped drastically then the engine power dropped and we could not climb. Almost simultaneously I took control from my student because I could hear stall warning and the airplane was getting uncontrollable [quickly] so I pitched down [advised ATC] and landed on Runway YY (opposite direction of the runway we took off from) with a tailwind. Just about 15 ft I could hear the engine rev up again.




Synopsis: C-152 instructor pilot reported power loss during initial climb that resulted in a return to the departure airport.