elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: TRACON M03
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [We were planning the] FNCHR 1 RNAV STAR; north transition. The charted speed restriction at JESTI; 250 KTS; was not in the FMS thus we programmed JESTI at 250 KTS to comply. Before beginning the FNCHR arrival; ATC assigned us 270 KTS until advised. The pilot flying speed intervened to 270 KTS. Approximately at FNCHR; ATC advised normal speed and the pilot flying closed speed intervene and went back to VNAV which commanded 290 KTS; the aircraft began to accelerate; and the pitch FMA went to VNAV speed. I (pilot not flying) believed the FMS would shortly change the command speed to 250 KTS for the JESTI restriction which was about 10 miles ahead. About that time a radio transmission on Guard was loud and annoying. I was turning down the volume but got the wrong knob initially. Thus; it took me a moment to sort out the knobology. When I checked on the flight progress; I saw we were 3 miles from JESTI at 290 KTS; the command speed bug was still at 290; and the pitch FMA was VNAV SPD. I instructed the pilot flying to slow to 250 KTS and he aggressively slowed the aircraft. However; we were still more than 10 KTS fast crossing JESTI.




Synopsis: When cleared for the FNCHR RNAV STAR to MEM and directed to maintain 270 KTS by ATC the FMS failed to comply with the 250 KTS restriction at JESTI despite ATC's subsequent clearance removing the assigned speed.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On walk around First Officer Found horizontal stabilizer hinge cover installed backwards. This is the second time in two days; on two different aircraft. The stabilizer hinge had torn through the cover. The first day flight (flight) ZZZ-ZZZ1 plane went to the hangar. Two days later flight (flight) ZZZ2-ZZZ3 four-hour delay for new cover to come in. Two times in three day!! First time by maintenance second time by the First Officer. A little disconcerting! Check every aircraft we have.




Synopsis: Captain reported multiple aircraft with a stabilizer hinge cover installed backwards; causing flight delays and cancelations.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: J3 Cub
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Large helicopter proceeding to helipad. I had a clearance on taxiway hotel. When I saw the helicopter I stopped and set my brakes; and announced that fact on ground control. The rotor wash was strong enough to move my aircraft with the brakes set. I wear four point harnesses. When a helicopter blows me over; it will be with my brakes set. I will probably not get hurt.My aircraft weighs 743 pounds empty. Someday we will have to regulate helicopters in the same way we regulate fixed wing aircraft.




Synopsis: While taxiing in a J3 Piper Cub; a large helicopter was passing over so the Pilot of the J3 Cub stopped and set his brakes. The rotor wash was strong wash enough to move the airplane.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Aeronca Champion
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Lancair Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was practicing takeoffs and landings at a local uncontrolled airstrip.  I recently got my tailwheel endorsement but I was with my instructor to keep practicing tailwheel until I felt more confident. I was flying an Aeronca Champ. Weather conditions were clear; with a slight haze but 10 SM+ visibility. I started my turn to base a bit early as I was practicing landings without power. This was my second trip through the pattern; I was aware that there was a parachute aircraft high above the airport that just let some jumpers go; and a Cessna in the pattern with me. The aircraft I was flying does not have a radio. I was doing 60 MPH on final and approaching fairly steeply due to the power off landing. I'd guess I was 300 feet AGL when a small aircraft (I think a Lancair) flew right under me; moving much faster than me. I'd say he was 50-100 feet below me. I turned to the left and started climbing because he was slightly on my right. I performed a 360 to the left and landed. We taxied behind the aircraft that passed under us and he seemed oblivious. We wanted to talk to him but he just taxied back and took off again. I went back home and listened to a recording I had of the CTAF from liveatc.net; and I can't hear anything from him to indicate the other aircraft knew what happened. I also noticed the other aircraft was calling out a 1 mile final in his pattern. I believe this was a failure on the part of both aircraft to see the other (me when turning base and him when over (under) taking me on final). I think that if I had a radio this would have not happened (I plan to use a handheld in the future when possible). I think the short base I took coupled with the long base the other aircraft was on contributed.  Ultimately while I think both parties were responsible for seeing each other; I feel the other aircraft had a greater responsibility as he was moving faster than me from behind. The other aircraft was a low wing; so it should have had excellent visibility of our aircraft from below.




Synopsis: Aeronca Champ pilot experiences a NMAC with a Lancair who flew under him on short final to an uncontrolled airport. The Champ pilot was making power off landings which resulted in steep approaches and had no radio.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb at 15;000 FT MSL we received a HYD 1 LO PRESS master caution message. We looked at the HYD system synoptic that showed Hydraulic System 1 with zero quantity and zero pressure. I was PF and took over the radios while the Captain complied with the QRH and declared an emergency. He then tried unsuccessfully to contact company flight control on VHF and ACARS. The Captain; using emergency authority; decided to divert to a nearby airport. Just past the FAF we received a FLT SPLRS caution message. The Captain complied with QRH and also tried disarming spoilers with no success. Together we decided the best course of action was to get the aircraft on the ground. ACARS said we would be OK for landing weight. After verifying our weight on the ground we realized we had landed overweight. The Captain notified Dispatch and Maintenance of our problems and our reasoning for diverting.Our concerns were systems loss when HYD 1 lost pressure. Also; the QRH indicated some spoilers would be lost; but not that they might pop up sometime during the flight. Also; trying to contact the company on other frequencies may have been more successful. We; however; felt complying with the QRH was more important for the safety of the flight. We did not want to lose another hydraulic system. Also; having the Flight Spoilers popping out earlier or later right above touchdown could have made the landing much worse.Updating the QRH about the chance of the spoilers popping up should be added if it is associated with this HYD 1 LO PRESS master caution.




Synopsis: A CRJ-200 flight crew opted to divert and landed overweight at a nearby airport when they lost the Number 1 Hydraulic system and were concerned about subsequent system failures. They were unable to contact Dispatch or Maintenance for support despite efforts on VHF and ACARS.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ALW.Airport, WA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ALW
Aircraft component: Flight Dynamics Navigation and Safety
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: There is a fairly significant discrepancy between published runway heading and actual runway heading for ALW. On the ILS Z 20 and Jeppesen airport diagram it lists the runway heading and Loc course as 196. That is approximately 5 degrees off. The FAA airport diagram actually shows the proper runway heading as 201 but the FAA ILS Z chart still shows 196.This difference causes a noticeable issue with localizer capture; MFD course display and symbology. The autopilot and flight director struggle to initially capture and track the localizer because it is using 196 as a baseline; but that baseline should be 201. After a few minutes it will figure it out and not chase the localizer. This also causes an issue with the MFD course display because the displayed lateral guidance is actually at an angle to the displayed runway. In the FMS; it actually displays the proper course from CFFNW and RIRRO; but then defaults to the published 196 course. Finally; and my biggest concern; this causes the guidance cue to be shifted left of reality. It could be light winds and dead on the localizer and glide slope; but the flight path cue shows you pointed at the grass left and short of the runway.I'll note the RNAV approaches also show 196. I haven't flown that; so don't know how much of an issue it is there; but I imagine it could be there as well.Get the FAA to update the charting data! Kinda insane how their airport diagram shows the right heading; but nothing else does.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a discrepancy between published runway headings and actual headings that resulted in problems with localizer capture at ALW airport.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: I was flying an unmanned aircraft which has an autopilot which was programmed to fly a grid pattern nearby within Visual Line of Site (VLOS). I was monitoring the flight when a helicopter appeared in the area. I took action by triggering the autopilot's RTL (Return to Launch location). The aircraft automatically flew back to above where I launched it from and circled once; still at it's cruise altitude. It then began its landing sequence which consists of flying out while maintaining cruise altitude then turning around and starting a 10 degree pitch approach. The landing is automatic. Meanwhile the helicopter tracked my aircraft during this process and followed it to the ground where the helicopter then landed. The helicopter pilots then exited their aircraft and approached me; turns out they were Sheriffs! They claimed I flew over them by 20 feet and that they estimated my altitude to be 550 AGL.Altitude information between unmanned aircraft and manned aircraft are different. Unmanned aircraft reference the ground where manned aircraft reference a barometric pressure and set to calibrated to MSL. Disparity in altitudes are bound to occur using different reference points. Judging spatial distance between two objects from a d=ground observer's perspective is very difficult and inaccurate at best. Abundance of altitude buffer should be practiced by all. I'm surprised that with the abundance of drones in today's society that the helicopter pilot would be flying anywhere this low for his own safety's sake.




Synopsis: An Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) pilot reported his aircraft and a law enforcement helicopter had a near miss at 550 feet even though his UAS computerized flight plan's altitude restriction was 400 feet. The QNH was 30.40 at the time.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; Turbulence; Fog; 5
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After crossing the FAF on the [Runway] XXL approach into ZZZ in turbulent IMC conditions; scan was being done by both pilots on board to make sure the course wasn't blown through the localizer. Both pilots failed to scan the glideslope and blew through the glideslope indicating to Tower a low altitude alert. Both pilots quickly recovered and got back on glide path and finally popped out of IMC conditions about 700 feet AGL and landed safely.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot reported descending below the glideslope until low altitude alert issued by ATC.
Date: 202111
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Cessna 337 Super Skymaster
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Student Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: About 20 mins before we landed both of the Alternator lights lit up indicating that we were then running on battery power. We turned off all equipment that we could.  Our GPS and primary radio turned off on their own.  We used an iPad and a hand-held radio to communicate. Although it was night; we were both familiar enough with the area to get to the airport without any navigation device. It was at night and all our external lights were not on.  We were able to talk to a plane on the taxiway and confirmed that the runway was available and clear of any other aircraft.Without power we could not operate the flaps. We were able to activate our landing gear with it's switch; and were able to get enough power to see the landing gear down light activate for a moment. We were prepared to manually deploy the gear but we were confident that it was down on its own.Thanks to a strong headwind; and the long runway we were able to land safely on the ground.




Synopsis: C-337 student pilot reported a dual Alternator failure inflight. Aircraft landed without incident.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MCI.Airport, MO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B MCI
ATC / advisory: Tower MCI
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Prior to taking position I had a brief conversation with my FLM stating that a few airplanes might go through final as I haven't worked with this equipment on arrival. I was told that I wouldn't be the first one today jokingly; I began my monitoring and eventually took the position. I had the opportunity to work a couple of approaches before I observed my tab list filling up and I recognized I was going to be busy. I set up my MULT R; my history trails and my presentation to ease in my IFR turn-ons that I haven't worked in a while and began working the scenario. After my first few turn-ons I recognized that everybody was going through final; but I was comfortable because I had altitude. Naturally started slowing other aircraft and implementing tools that I figured would help me as I had several more airplanes coming fast. I ended up breaking off a couple of aircraft on final; so I could get everyone under control and execute a safer plan that would get everyone down. It was not pretty at all; I was at this time not at all comfortable with the presentation of FUSION; but was scared to try and switch back to Site 1 though I do recall one aircraft I believe at four thousand west of final at the same altitude and I had to make an adjustment vector to ensure separation. The problems in this scenario happened because I was not able to interpret the display correctly versus real time in STARS. My FLM was doing administrative duties I believe until he heard the change in my voice. He came over and monitored as I struggled to get everyone in good position and on the ground. I had not at all been notified by anyone that worked in the operation or on the second floor that I had a loss or any type of deviation. I did not recall any errors or losses so I figured it was a major learning experience. The following day on my way home I was made aware of an investigation by the ATM. I came home filed for an extension and here it is. Recommendation; training in a timely manner; that is consistent with what to expect; and not just checking a box stating that training was given; or lumping it with some other training. The extreme difference in presentation of FUSION versus real time presentation of STARS should be explained in training.




Synopsis: MCI Controller described his/her first session with FUSION RADAR and noted the difficulty and unfamiliarity with the characteristics especially reference turn on vector assignments.  Reporter suggested additional training be provided.