elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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 ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aileron Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: About 20 miles from our destination [an] AP TRIM IS LWD caution message was posted. In accordance with the QRH the First Officer/pilot flying disconnected the autopilot and noted that roll control was very difficult. The aileron trim was found to be not working. I was in the QRH when I heard a loud snap and the aircraft rolled to the right. The autopilot was not engaged and the First Officer was able to stop the roll. We declared an emergency and headed straight to [Runway] 30L. Aircraft control was a bit better after the 'snap' but still very difficult. Although control was difficult we were still flying and there would be no 'troubleshooting.' We landed safely.




Synopsis: A CRJ-200 CAS alerted AP TRIM IS LWD and while complying with the QRH the Aileron Trim was found inoperative. Following a loud snap the aircraft rolled right but was then recovered so an emergency was declared and with a binding aileron flown to the destination.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Trim System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Line up check was completed. The 'takeoff configuration ok' advisory message was confirmed. Takeoff clearance was received and the takeoff roll began. At around 60 KTS a takeoff configuration warning was received. The takeoff was aborted. Tower and flight attendants were advised. Upon clearing the runway the First Officer advised me that his cell phone had been inadvertently left on the center console between the thrust levers and the flap selector. As the takeoff was initiated; the phone slid off the console. The improperly stowed phone struck; and then rested on; the rudder trim switch; causing rudder deflection. The rudder deflection caused the configuration warning. After a brake cooling time was observed and checklists completed a second uneventful takeoff was initiated.




Synopsis: CRJ-70 Captain reported they rejected takeoff in response to a takeoff warning horn. First Officer had inadvertantly left his cell phone on the center console; and it fell against the rudder trim; causing an out of limits deflection.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown; Workload; Situational Awareness
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
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A family boarded with the 2 year old child not wearing a mask. After boarding was almost done; Flight Attendant (FA) D advised me that the child in row X is not wearing a mask.  I walked to their row and asked the parents if the child had a mask or would they like one of ours.  Both parents quickly stated; 'He's 2 and he won't wear a mask.  Good luck if you want to try.'  'We were told 2 is okay for no mask.'  'He won't wear a mask.'I decided to disengage and have the Customer Service Agent (CSA) contacted. I advised them that a CSA would be down to have a conversation with them. The Captain was advised and I asked for a CSA to come down to the aircraft. The boarding agent talked to the party and advised me that the parents were attempting to put a mask on the child.A second CSA came down and asked me about the age and our mask policy. She advised me they had a conversation with the party prior to boarding and wrongly advised the parents of the age requirement for wearing a mask. I advised the CSA it clearly states on policy that age 2 and up must wear a mask; no exceptions. The ZZZ Station needs to retrain or re-examine the Mask Policy because it is very clear on all guest facing touch points that our policy is stated age 2 and up. Our ZZZ Station CSA's are advising guests incorrect age requirements for our mask policy. I advised both CSA's that due to the statements made by the parents that their child would not wear a mask that the FA crew wanted them removed from the flight.As the family deplaned they yelled and blamed me for getting them kicked off this flight. I apologized but I reiterated our mask policy as they were deplaning.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a family with child were removed from the flight because of non-compliance regarding face mask policy. The family was incorrectly told by station agents; a mask was not required for the 2 year old.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: E38.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G E38
ATC / advisory: UNICOM E38
Second aircraft: Cessna 310/T310C
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Reporter experienced near miss with Aircraft 2 while landing at E38. [I] cancelled IFR flight plan 15 miles out; repeatedly reported via Unicom and sequenced arrival after one other reporting aircraft which landed E38 Rwy 23 shortly prior to our arrival. On short final to Rwy 23; again announced at 1 mile; saw Aircraft 2 in takeoff roll opposite direction Rwy23 (Rwy 5). [I] immediately executed missed approach; diverting to right. Aircraft 2 diverted to right as well and continued takeoff. Aircraft 2 was departing downwind in opposite direction of runway in use. Density altitude was 6500 ft. Aircraft 2 made no Unicom announcement. [My] Unicom announcements confirmed heard by several other aircraft; as well as airport attendant/manager. Shortly after near miss Aircraft 2 came on Unicom and asserted he had made calls. Airport attendant/manager and another aircraft preparing to depart E38 confirmed no calls by Aircraft 2. Reporter suspects Aircraft 2 pilot either failed to make calls on Unicom or had radio on wrong frequency. No idea why Aircraft 2 would use downwind orientation for takeoff; slope of Rwy is minimal and obstructions not determinative issue. Especially in light of other landing and departing aircraft on the field at time of Aircraft 2 taking the runway.




Synopsis: Despite multiple routine CTAF position reports while inbound the pilot of a DA-40 suffered an NMAC with a C-310 departing opposite direction from the airport's single runway. Post event alleged CTAF transmissions by the other pilot were not heard by the reporter or others monitoring the CTAF frequency.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Fog
Light: Night
Aircraft: Golden Eagle 421
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent; Final Approach; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was getting off my shift and was asked to reposition an airplane...to swap with another. [Operations] started texting me telling me to hurry home. I went ahead and got a very quick check of the weather and filed...; expecting approximately 2 miles and 400 FT. As I got closer it deteriorated to 200 FT and less than half a mile. I shot the approach; went missed and diverted to [alternate]. [Alternate] was reporting 300 FT and 1 or 2 miles with freezing rain. I should have declared an emergency but did not. The first approach I missed due to full deflection but the second one was fine and I landed. Rushing and the pressure set by management to hurry home; set up a chain of events that could have had tragic consequences. I allowed myself to be influenced by the pressure of the [company] to hurry back and had to violate some rules as a result.




Synopsis: C421 pilot; under pressure from the company to reposition an aircraft; had a missed approach at the destination due to weather and then proceeded to an alternate where the second approach was successful.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Upon arrival in ZZZZ; we experienced some health and safety concerns.  Everyone that interacted with us was in full PPE but the most concerning part was we were followed by a guy that sprayed some chemical into the air around us.   Some type of fogging machine - no idea what the chemicals were.   They even had another person spray a liquid chemical onto the floor after we walked through customs.  (That was the only point where we were actually inside a building).   They transported us in an airport bus that also had a strong chlorine smell to it.Arrival at the hotel was like a scene from the movie Outbreak.   The entire inside of the hotel is drenched in a white powder substance (probably from fogging) and carpets/floors haven't been cleaned or vacuumed in weeks.  Room floors were covered in dust; lint; and other crumbs. Trash bags were all over the hotel hallways.  To add to the chemical list; we were even given chlorine tablets to drop in the toilet prior to defecation.Food was delivered to the room as you were not allowed to leave your room during the entire stay.  Although we were supposed to have set times for food drop-off; it was never consistent.   Coordinating your international sleep around their food delivery was impossible.   Some people like to sleep upon arrival at XA:00 pm to catch some of your previous WOCL - in that case your dinner sits outside and potentially spoils.I'm writing this report a couple days later as I still have a slight sore throat that developed during the layover.   The Captain has had similar symptoms along with congestion.   It's unlikely we contracted COVID as we all tested negative the morning of that trip but do think it could be related to all the chemical/cleaning agents they used around us.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported multiple concerns with the COVID-19 sanitizing protocols used at the layover airport and hotel in a foreign country.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Aircraft: DC-9 50
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While holding for DTW at the POLAR Intersection; I had three aircraft issued holding instructions. While issuing holding instructions; I briefly noticed a VFR limited Data Block near the holding pattern that only registered for one or two apparent hits that seemed level at 115. When issuing lower to a DC95; I cleared the aircraft to 130; but then noticed the target again apparently level at 130. I told the DC95 to maintain 140 then called the traffic. Again; the limited Data Block information disappeared and I began issuing known and relevant traffic information to the DC95. When the target appeared again; the aircraft was now at 138 as was the DC95. I re-issued the cleared altitude of 140 to the DC95 and began calling traffic which appeared 1-2 miles from the DC95. I then noticed the limited Data Block appeared to be climbing into the DC95's altitude and told the DC95 immediately. At this time the DC95 said they were getting an RA and I allowed the DC95 to perform maneuvers while also telling them of additional traffic in the pattern. When they completed the maneuver; I cleared them to 130 which was now available. I informed management early on that I had what appeared to be a VFR aircraft in the holding with a faulty or misused transponder before the RA; also because of the nearby TFR. The unknown aircraft continued giving different transponder readings; switching from VFR; to primary only; to discreet code until they left my airspace near PHN airport. I don't know if the unknown aircraft did anything 'illegal' but this was a very dangerous event and the DC95 pilot informed me that if they had not followed the RA they would have been co located at the same altitude. There have been several less dangerous situations over the years I have been here involving VFR aircraft and a loss of separation. I'm not sure what can be done to make GA pilots more aware of peak traffic areas that they should take into consideration and avoid; but clearly; I believe this could have resulted in a loss of life if not for the TCAS advisory.




Synopsis: ZOB Controller described a TCAS RA event during holding operations at POLAR Intersection; apparently activated by an unknown VFR aircraft maneuvering in and/or near the holding pattern airspace.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While descending...we were talking to Approach. They descended us to 3;000 on a downwind leg 5 miles from ZZZ. They gave us a heading of 340 to pick up the visual. The frequency was very congested. After being on the 340 heading past the airport approximately 6 miles; ATC told us to turn heading 160 to the airport and this is where I thought I heard him say cleared for visual. I proceeded to configure the aircraft for landing and started my descent for the visual approach since we had the airport in sight. I proceeded to intercept the RNAV final and was following the VGP info; when ATC told us to check altitude and that we were assigned 3;000 feet. The non-flying pilot stated that we had the airport in sight and wanted to cancel IFR. ATC told us to squawk 1200 and switch to Unicom.I believe the congested frequency had to do with the confusion of our clearance. I should have asked for vectors to the RNAV approach.


Second narrative: I called ATC to notify them we now had the field in sight; but it took a few moments to get through due to the frequency congestion. ATC issued a 'Low Altitude Alert' and stated that our cleared altitude was 3;000 feet. I responded with; 'Field in sight' at which time ATC stated; 'Cleared for the visual approach.' Altitude deviation was approximately 300 feet.


Synopsis: After ATC issued a turn toward the airport; a C750 flight crew descended from assigned altitude thinking they were cleared for a visual approach.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ANE.Airport, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E M98
ATC / advisory: CTAF 25D
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were about 10 mile NE of ANE under the Mode C for MSP and on the CTAF for 25D monitoring for parachute activity in the area. I was cruising at 3300 feet MSL at a heading of 160. I'm not sure how I missed the other traffic. The Cessna was on an approximate heading of 270 at 3500 MSL. I do have ADS-B in and out with traffic showing on an iPad; and the Garmin 650 in the panel. The other aircraft did not show up at all nor did a collision avoidance activate. I took evasive action by descending quickly to 3000 feet. I'm not sure if the other pilot was aware I was there or not. I'm also not sure why the other pilot wasn't flying at 2500 or 4500 feet MSL on their westerly course.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot reported observing conflicting traffic and executed rapid evasive maneuver to avoid a midair collision that was not displayed on TIS.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CYYZ.Airport, ON
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower CYYZ
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were on the YWT4 RNAV arrival to Runway 23 at CYYZ. It was our first time with this arrival/runway combination. This was one of those OPD arrivals; which is complicated by itself; and we were given a late runway change to 23; which is an unusual runway for us. We also were dealing with low bleed air temperature while in moderate ice; having to slow down for an ATC speed assignment requiring speed brakes; all while complying with turns as assigned by ATC and changes to the aircraft configuration. We had to quickly re-brief the approach while trying to get the speed under control. We were descending when the Captain selected 'SPEED HOLD' too close to our cleared altitude of 4;000 FT MSL and the Autopilot blew through it and continued descending. We caught it too late (3;600 FT or so) and started climbing back up to 4;000 FT. ATC asked about our altitude and we said 'climbing back to 4;000 FT.' No further deviations occurred and we landed normally.We need to be careful using speed mode or when changing modes close to assigned altitude. Also; we needed better monitoring and crosschecking. The Captain said he was changing the mode; which was good CRM; but I did not confirm what he did; and that was poor monitor/crosscheck. I will be more vigilant from now on; even with a familiar crew.




Synopsis: While descending on the WATERLOO RNAV STAR TO CYYZ AN E145 flight crew; distracted by other duties and; perhaps failing to insure altitude capture was active; failed to level at 4;000 FT as cleared.