elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201311
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise; the following mechanical issues occurred simultaneously: Pitch trim 2 off; ATS 1 off; FD 2 INOP and STBY Pitot Heat INOP. We notified Maintenance Control via ACARS and asked Operations if they wanted us to continue to our destination or divert to the destination of our next leg due to better maintenance support. They elected to divert us. No emergency was declared. Upon landing and after maintenance was performed our trip was revised to fly from to our original destination and return to the diversion airport; our original second leg destination. The Captain discussed concerns about legalities with Scheduling and the Duty Officer; who both assured him that we were legal to complete the assignment. After takeoff; however; all of the same problems from the first leg came back and operations directed us to turn back. No emergency was declared and the air turn back was uneventful.




Synopsis: After suffering multiple electrical anomalies the flight crew of an A300; Maintenance and Operations agreed to divert for maintenance assessment. Following maintenance action they departed but were promptly faced with repeats of the prior problems and returned for more comprehensive maintenance.
Date: 201909
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Work Refused; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Inside Sales Rep received a call from customer from [Company] stating they believed they had dropped off the wrong pallet for flight. [Sales Rep] contacted DG Specialist; to see if they could stop the shipment from being loaded on the aircraft. Airway bill did not indicate there were Lithium Batteries within the shipment. The concern was there were Lithium Batteries within the pallet which are not allowed onboard a passenger aircraft. Realizing this was a mistake from the shipper; [DG Specialist] immediately called the Supervisors to inform them of the potential error. The next occurred as follows:  - A call was made to the Station Control Center to verify if the flight had pushed from the gate. - It was determined the flight had just pushed back. - Alerted the Station Manager of possible Lithium batteries onboard flight. - A decision was immediately made to bring the plane back to the gate to offload the entire pallet. - The [pallet] number was XXXXX - located in position 1L and it was removed from the aircraft at approximately.  - Photographs were taken at the gate. - The [pallet] was immediately brought back to the warehouse; broken down and one of the four skids in the shipment had two lithium battery labels attached to the boxes.




Synopsis: Airline Sales Representative reported being notified by shipper that a pallet (containing Lithium Ion batteries not approved for transport on passenger aircraft) was submitted for air transport. Aircraft executed a ground gate return; DG removed.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Pressure Ratio Indicat
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During our climb out above 10000 ft we began to notice a slight split in the EPR's. As the climb progressed we began to notice the split becoming greater. The right EPR appeared to be less than the left. All other engine Parameters appeared matched and normal. The airplane began to preform sluggishly as the climb progressed. I began to run the QRH. I turned on the engine Ice as instructed; with no effect on the EPR split. At this point we were unable to sustain a normal high speed climb and asked for a level off while I contacted the company. We initially determined that the right EPR had failed. But during the discussion with Dispatch and Maintenance Control we realized that it was the left EPR that was indicating high and that the right EPR should be used to set engine thrust. After confirming with Maintenance Control that we were safe to continue with the right EPR as our guide and the flight continued with no other incidents. At no time did the engines exceed any limitations. The crew worked together very well. The [commercial radio connection] presented some challenges being difficult to hear sometimes.


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


Synopsis: During climb the crew noticed that EPR for both engines did not align. The Right engine EPR was lower and it was determined that it was correct. Aligned the left engine's N1 with the right engine.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Workload; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the pilot flying. While climbing through 14;000 FT we encountered chop. I advanced the thrust levers to MCT so as to expedite our climb through the chop. When passing through 17;000 FT we got a single chime that drew our attention to the engine gauges. The Number 1 EGT was in the red band. This was accompanied by a fuel flow that was 600 LB/hr higher than the Number 2 fuel flow. I immediately reduced thrust to the climb detent and engaged the autopilot. The EGT stabilized below the red band. The fuel flow remained higher than the other engine. The Captain began coordinating with Dispatch and advising the flight attendants of the situation. I advised ATC of our need to return to [our departure airport]. We landed uneventfully. We came to a complete stop after exiting the runway. We asked the fire trucks to observe the Number 1 Engine for anything out of the ordinary. They stated that nothing seemed abnormal so we proceeded to the gate. During taxi the Number 1 Engine still had higher EGT and fuel flow than Number 2. We deplaned the passengers; spoke to some mechanics; obtained another aircraft; and departed on an uneventful flight.


Second narrative: Further examination of engine parameters after the event showed that Number 1 Engine fuel flow was 6;000 LB/hr and Number 2 engine fuel flow was 5;400 LB/hr; Number 1 Engine EGT was 40 degrees higher than Number 2 Engine EGT and remained 40 degrees higher to include ground taxi.


Synopsis: An A320 encountered turbulence during the climb at 17;000 FT so maximum continuous thrust was set to expedite the climb which caused an EGT overtemp so after reducing thrust the flight returned to the departure airport for a precautionary landing.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft had a deferred item: 'SFCS 2 Flap Channel.'On climbout; at approximately 25;000 FT; the following warnings and cautions were observed: Warning--Auto Flt AP Off; Caution--F/CTL Flaps Locked-Wing Tip Brk On; Slat Sys 1 Fault; Auto FLT A/THR Off. The following systems were inoperative: Autopilot 1; 2; Autothrust; Flight Director; Speed Warnings; indications and flaps. ECAM and QRH actions accomplished. We declared emergency with ATC and coordinated return to our departure airport with ATC. After troubleshooting; we configured for landing with flaps selected 3; actual flap position was 0; actual slat position was 2. QRH landing speed and distance additives were applied. Landed safely on Runway X at our departure airport. Flap system failure was likely related to MEL.I suggest we should re-evaluate whether maintenance procedures for releasing aircraft with MEL 27-51-01A are adequate.  Secondly; we should train for 0-Flap landings without use of autopilot; Flight Director; or autothrust.




Synopsis: Dispatched with a deferred flap channel fault the flight crew of an A320 received multiple system fail warnings including locked flaps during the climb.  They declared an emergency and returned to their departure airport landing with zero flaps and slats at position 2.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DAB.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C DAB
ATC / advisory: Tower DAB
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I flew my PA-28 to DAB (a north to south flight path) to deliver it to my mechanic for its annual. My enroute altitude was 5;500 feet and I was in contact with ATC all the way to DAB under VFR flight following. DAB Approach Control descended me to 3;500 feet at 20 miles out then cleared me to descend for my landing at my discretion. I advised DAB Approach Control I would descend at 10 miles out; and was approved for such. At 10 miles out; I began my descent and Approach control sent me to DAB tower. The tower cleared me to land on RWY 25R; and I echoed back the clearance. RWY 25R is the one typically used for the jets and air carriers while RWY 25L is typically used for the GA fleet. I should also note that this is only the second time I have landed at DAB in 13 months; so I am not very familiar with this very busy airport (air carriers; private jets and multiple flight training businesses). As I approached the field for landing; I saw I was beginning to line up for the 'big' runway at about 3.5 miles from touch down; and thought; 'Oops; head for the small one.' As I approached the centerline for the 'small' runway (25L); I saw a C-172 slightly above me (10 -20 feet); forward of my position by about 25 feet and a horizontal distance from me of about 100 feet. I banked right to avoid him and notified the tower of the traffic conflict. Tower immediately responded that I should be lined up for 25R; not 25L. I acknowledged the correction; and I then easily maneuvered to 25R. I landed safely in the first 1500 feet of the runway; and departed 25R at TXWY N7 (tower direction). The remaining part of taxi to parking was uneventful. My lesson learned here was that if at all confused; ASK/CONFIRM the instruction I have been given.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reports being assigned a visual approach to Runway 25R at DAB; which is the longer and wider of the two. Upon lining up with Runway 25R; the clearance is momentarily forgotten and the alignment is adjusted to Runway 25L resulting in a NMAC with a C172 on approach to that runway. Evasive action is taken and the Tower advised; resulting in a restatement of the clearance for Runway 25R.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: Compass (HSI/ETC)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During LGA 4 Whitestone Climb departure it became immediately apparent that AHRS headings had both malfunctioned and were 30-45 degrees off from each other. NAV information was extremely unreliable. DG fast slave did not work on either AHRS and autopilot could not be used. Magnetic compass was only immediate heading source. When ATC cleared us on a heading it was way off due to map error. LRP and HVQ VOR's were given but again displayed info was erroneous and direct course could not be flown even with green needles. Finally at higher altitudes and in smooth air; magnetic compass settled down enough to steer a reasonably accurate heading. No TCAS alerts were received.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 had no additional information]


Synopsis: A CE-750 flight crew reported AHRS heading information was invalid on the LGA Whitestone climb. DG fast slave did not work; and all navigation information was inaccurate until the AHRS corrected itself at cruise altitude.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Upon shutdown; we were notified that the right onboard tire was blown. On post-flight inspection; it appears that the tire tread has completely shredded off the tire. The tread caused damage to the flap and wing. After-the-fact; the flight attendants notified us that they heard an unusual sound on takeoff and didn't think anything of it. Tire; wing; and flap needs repair before returning the aircraft to service.




Synopsis: CRJ 900 First Officer reported that a post flight inspection revealed a blown main gear tire and associated damage to the flaps and wing.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X overflight at 9;000 and Aircraft Y departed a satellite airport with 9;000 as his final altitude. I was working numerous aircraft doing IFR practice approaches in our airspace with weather that aircraft were starting to deviate around. I noticed these two aircraft were on converging courses about 5 miles separation between the two. I gave both aircraft heading altitudes and called traffic to try and keep separation. They got within about 2 to 2.5 miles lateral before altitude separation was established. It has been a difficult day as it's the first day being back on our bid schedule. Only having one day off after numerous months of time off between work sessions to recuperate. More positions open and not being able to maintain social distance; which is now requiring to wear a mask the entire time working. I am required to wear glasses all the time and wearing the mask is causing fogging of my glasses as my mask moves when I talk. Which is causing a distraction.[I recommend being] more vigilant of altitudes. Eliminate or limit distractions or things distracting me. Maybe ask for a split of positions since some distractions like a mask can't be eliminated at this time allowing for more time to overcome the distraction.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported an airborne conflict and cited distraction caused by having to wear a face mask.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skywagon 185
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Sea
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I flew into ZZZ for the first time in three years. I reviewed the departures for departure details to refresh myself. I got the ATIS information and then called ZZZ Tower. The west waterway was primarily being used for takeoff and landing. I was parked at the northwest corner of ZZZ water. I asked Tower if they were allowing takeoffs to the east; and he responded that they were too busy to do that. He gave me clearance to taxi to the east for a west takeoff. When I started to taxi to the slow taxi channel (north); the Tower asked if I was prepared to make a 'step turn to the east' I responded that I could and he told me to let him know when I was ready and I could do so after the next departing traffic. I let him know that I could and he told me to make a step turn to the east. I got on step; went down lake and took off towards the east. Tower contacted me and asked what my altitude was as I continued east and I responded 700 ft. and continued to climb to the 900 ft. ceiling published in the departure procedure.He asked me to report [the] overpass; which I did and shortly after he cleared me to turn south. He asked me when I would be able to write down a phone number to call ZZZ Tower when I landed; and I responded to the affirmative when I got a pen. I called Tower after I landed and found out that I had not been cleared to take off to the east; but had been cleared to do a high speed step taxi to the east for a westerly takeoff. It was my error. Having just asked Tower if I could get a takeoff to the east; I had thought the situation had changed and misunderstood the high speed taxi instructions to be an approval to takeoff. After talking to ZZZ Tower on the land phone after landing; realized that I had not heard the words 'cleared for takeoff'. After 54 years of flying without an incident; I put myself and potentially other pilots at risk by taking off into landing traffic. A lesson I'll never forget. My apologies to the Tower Operator that had to deal with my error.




Synopsis: A pilot reported taking off without a takeoff clearance from the Tower.
Date: 202007
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Other Person
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I have a suggestion to increase COVID-19 related safety. How about we install hand sanitizer dispensers at the bottom of our jetbridges. Passengers and employees could get a squirt right there before they enter the aircraft or after they get off. Obviously there's an expense involved but maybe it's a worth while expenditure.




Synopsis: Pilot suggested putting a hand sanitizing dispenser at the bottom of the jet bridges to allow people to clean their hands before getting on the aircraft.