elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: SF 340B
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Altitude Hold/Capture
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On our descent I attempted to select a lower altitude into the APA (Altitude Pre-selector). The rotary dial would not allow me to select a lower altitude; so as a crew we deemed it INOP. My First Officer and I agreed that it would be safer to hand-fly the rest of the flight so that we would not be distracted by the aircrafts' automation. We landed safely without incident. Once the aircraft was parked; and passengers deplaned; I wrote the discrepancy up in the logbook: 'APA IS INOP.' I called my Dispatcher and notified them; and was then forwarded to Maintenance Control. I was instructed by Maintenance Control to not write up the APA and to MEL the Autopilot System. Without checking the MEL book; I agreed to the MEL; gathered the necessary data for the write-up; and hung up. I then reviewed the MEL procedure to ensure that I was in compliance and discovered that the autopilot could not be MEL'd with an INOP APA. I then called my Dispatcher to query them as to why they made me MEL a different system. We reviewed the MEL procedures together and he agreed with me that Maintenance was in the wrong. I was then forwarded to Maintenance Control. I challenged Maintenance Control for their reasoning on wanting to MEL the autopilot rather then the APA. They told me that to comply with the APA MEL; they would need to send a maintenance team out; or call Contract Maintenance. However; since we are in bankruptcy; Contract Maintenance refuses to work on our airplanes. Therefore; they wanted me to MEL the autopilot so the aircraft could be returned to base to be fixed in the morning. I then asked to speak to the Duty Manager; and they informed me that 'They went home for the night' (which puzzled me). The Maintenance Controller assured me that nothing will come back on me and told me to MEL the Autopilot. I hung up; and self-deferred the Autopilot System; and left the aircraft. I was pressured by Maintenance Control to keep the aircraft in service to have it be returned to a Maintenance Base.




Synopsis: SF340 Captain discovers the altitude preselect (APA) is inoperative during approach and contacts Maintenance Control after landing. The Captain is instructed to write up and MEL the autopilot because Contract Maintenance is not available to properly sign off the APA and allow the aircraft to return to base.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Clearance was UGAAA6 AHN transition. Push clearance was tail north; indicating a 9L departure. The FMS was programmed for 8R and was not changed. The taxi check was completed and the brief was UGAAA6; 10;000; RONII was called as the first fix; I did not catch this. We were issued to line up and wait; followed by a takeoff clearance; RNAV to LIDAS. We took off with the wrong runway programmed in the FMS and when the navigation was selected at 400 feet we were tracking the wrong course. We received an RA; complied with it; and were then issued a heading to fly to get us back on our appropriate course. We continued without having further incidences.When we were issued the push clearance indicating a 9L departure; I should have reverified the FMS. It was a busy taxi; yet in retrospect I should have set the brake and visually confirmed the FMS and the first fix. Upon accepting the line up and wait clearance I should have verified the runway on the flight plan page. The extra seconds to do these actions would have prevented this loss of separation.


Second narrative: This was a simple mistake that was missed by the distraction of busy ground operations; a fast taxi; and concerning weather in the area. The Captain was busy with taxiing; following traffic; and watching other aircraft; therefore this was clearly my duty as the FO to re-input the departure runway and double check the route.


Synopsis: ERJ-170 flight crew reported a track deviation and an airborne conflict shortly after takeoff from ATL when they failed to reprogram the FMS following a late runway change on taxi out.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RDU.Airport, NC
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E RDU
ATC / advisory: TRACON RDU
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Descending for landing at RDU; ATC cleared us to descend via the ALDAN1 arrival. We stepped down to each lower altitude at each waypoint on the arrival with the exception of the final waypoint BUTTS which we crossed at 8;000 feet instead of the charted 6;000 feet. ATC was concerned that we might be too high for the quickly approaching turn on for the runway 23R ILS and asked if we could make it down from our present position. We informed ATC that we could make the descent without difficulty and they then cleared us for the 23R ILS approach and landing which was uneventful. The short distance between HARSH and BUTTS waypoints and ATC radar vectors to the 23R ILS course does not allow for much time to get the airplane set up for the ILS approach and to properly switch pages in the [Electronic Flight Bag] and tune and identify the localizer. During high workload times such as this the [Electronic Flight Bag] units we are forced to use are primarily responsible for the problem as they only display a single page on the screen at one time. With the previous professional grade paper charts we would have had all applicable pages out in front of us at the same time and would be able to cross check the needed information from all plates simultaneously with ease. Professional grade [paper] plates being re-issued to crews would prevent these types of events from occurring on a regular basis.




Synopsis: The crew was cleared to descend via the ALDAN1 ILS 23R RDU but was high at BUTTS. The reporter misread the crossing restriction due to workload and referencing the Electronic Flight Bag (EFB).
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: Tower TEB
Aircraft component: Flight Dynamics Navigation and Safety
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; 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 Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were issued the infamous RUUDY 6 Departure from TEB. We briefed the procedure in detail and both of us had recent experience flying it. However; the PF [pilot Flying] is relatively new to the airplane and is wary of using the automation. He was a little timid in making the initial level-off at 1;500 at the WENTZ intersection. I believe the FMS calculated that we would not arrive at WENTZ by the required 1;500 feet and commanded the flight director to initiate a left 360 degree turn in order to cross WENTZ at the required altitude. The PF started to fly the flight director. I noticed that he was starting a left turn while the CDI was showing the correct track to WENTZ off the right. I said 'fly the course' and he thought I was saying 'fly the guidance.' We were approximately 0.5 miles left of course (1/2 scale deflection on an RNAV 1 procedure) by the time he realized what was happening and made the proper correction to get back on course. At that time Teterboro Tower also commanded a right turn and handed us off to New York Departure. We were then assigned a heading of 270 degrees and broken-off of the RUUDY 6 SID. The problem we encountered is well known with the Honeywell Epic FMS. They published a 'PIREP' in April of 2019 to explain the issue in detail. We even discussed the possibility during the pre-departure briefing. However; the PF was still blindly following the incorrect FMS guidance instead of looking at the correct CDI indication to stay on the correct course. There was a lot happening on the SID due to the low altitude level-off and the potential for inaccurate FMS guidance. We will be using the automation in the future to relieve some of the workload and allow both pilots to monitor the aircraft path/track.




Synopsis: Light Transport Captain reported continuing navigational problems with this avionics package during this departure.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon landing; the left main gear failed causing plane to skid off the side of the runway. No fuselage damage outside the main gear. It is unclear what caused the gear failure. When the plane skidded into the grass; the right gear also broke. There was no prior indication of a problem with the gear. The landing was in a light wind condition. There was nothing unusual about the landing and I don't know what could have been done differently.




Synopsis: Experimental aircraft pilot experiences a left main gear failure upon landing. As the aircraft departs the runway the right gear fails.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Take off Roll
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Wheels/Tires/Brakes
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During takeoff; I called airspeed alive; APR armed; and time started. Through about 50 knots; Captain started struggling with directional control and called for an abort. I moved the flaps to 45 degrees and deployed the lift dump. Captain called for reverse thrust as he was struggling with the tiller and I deployed them. Captain continued to struggle with directional control while the aircraft slowed. We exited runway and stopped on taxiway. We verified the passengers were ok and did not require assistance. We shut down Engine 1 and Captain exited the aircraft to inspect for damage. Upon inspection; he discovered the right nose wheel tire had come off its bead. Engine 2 was subsequently shut down and airport operations took the passengers inside the FBO. Maintenance advised the crew not to taxi the aircraft; so it was left on the taxiway. Airport ops cordoned the aircraft.


Second narrative: On takeoff roll; we had a loss of control of the aircraft. The takeoff roll was normal. All normal callouts were made. The copilot called airspeed alive and I; the pilot flying; felt a slight vibration in the tiller. At about 60 knots I felt a hard pull to the right and called for the abort. There was ample runway available so aerodynamic braking with lift dump and thrust reverse only was used to slow the aircraft. As the aircraft slowed I exited the runway and brought it to a complete stop and called company. Maintenance advised us to have the aircraft towed. The aircraft was secured and flagged off by airport personnel and left on the taxiway.


Synopsis: Hawker 850 flight crew describes a rejected takeoff that results after the Captain begins having directional control issues at 60 knots. Post flight revealed that the right nose tire had come off its bead.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: Rolled up to the end of the grass strip with flaps down and set up for a short soft field takeoff. Nose wheel came up at 45 knots but speed was not increasing; so I made the decision to reject takeoff halfway down the runway seeing 85-ft tall trees that we would not have cleared had we attempted to take-off. I immediately pulled power and mixture and applied brakes. However; we did not stop in time before hitting the chain link fence at the end of the strip due to hitting a hump in the middle of the strip. We were only going 10-15kt when we struck the fence. Had there been 15-20 feet more room; we would have stopped before the fence. End of the prop became twisted; there was a dent in the left aileron; and the nosecone had some paint damage; but otherwise the aircraft structure was fine. I was able to restart the engine and taxi the airplane back to the grass tie-downs where it is currently sitting. Weather was clear and wind was calm. Used the grass strip due to other traffic on the concrete runway.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported a rejected take-off resulted in a runway excursion and contact with a perimeter fence.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: While working STAR sectors we identified about a 1/2 dozen or more targets jump around while on an established approach. All incidents were verified with the pilots that they didn't deviate. We have filed literally hundreds of these incidents of targets jumping due to the STARS software. After several adaptation drops (software updates) to fix we are still seeing this problem. We had one controller go out on continuation-of-pay for several days after one of these with targets merging. Controllers are losing faith in the equipment and not issuing traffic because they know its STARS just screwing up. Most of these incidents replayed on carts (automated radar terminal systems software) system are not showing any jumping. These events are scary to watch forcing controllers to work under NATCA/FAA contract Article 65. I hate to say it; but fall back to carts until the STARS tracker is fixed.




Synopsis: SCT Controller reports that hundreds of incidents of radar targets jumping away from the aircraft's actual position on the radar display have occurred since the installation of new STARS ATC processing software. Other facilities using this software have also reported the same problem.
Date: 201203
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Shortly after leveling at cruise we received an ACARS message from load planning requesting a passenger count. Subsequent to providing it; we received a new final weight manifest with a Zero Fuel Weight of 2;151 LBS greater than the final weights we received before departure.Besides the obvious takeoff safety concerns; this would normally also have triggered contact with dispatch to recalculate enroute fuel consumption. Since we had additional fuel on board; this was not a significant issue. We continued to destination without incident. This is just one more incident demonstrating management's failure to understand safety issues being generated by a very complicated merger.




Synopsis: After reaching cruise altitude; a B767-300 flight crew received revised takeoff weights. Reporter expressed his belief that management's incompetence is/was responsible.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Number 2 main tire lost tread on takeoff. Aircraft sustained trailing edge flap dents behind the tire. Hydraulic lines in the wheel well were damaged and the A system fluid was depleted. Leak was very slow and landing gear partially extended on approach into ZZZ. A system would not lower the left main gear and appropriate checklists were used. Landing was uneventful and emergency Crews inspected the gear and wheel well. Aircraft was towed to the gate and Passengers were deplaned.




Synopsis: The flight crew of a B737 complied with the associated checklists to extend the landing gear and land safely after a main gear tire failed during the takeoff roll and debris damaged hydraulic lines; ultimately depleting the A hydraulic system.
Date: 201510
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cargo Restraint/Tie Down
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise flight; Flight Attendant called and asked about the 'bang' sound during take-off.  Both pilots were unaware of the sound.  Approx. 1 hour later; she called and said she heard it again under the floor; mid galley.  We contacted dispatch with this info and were told they believe it's a cargo pallet.  The called on Sat Phone and we discussed the problem.  They advised.  We told ZZZ to give us the longest Runway.  Upon landing; I used very little breaking to slow down (so the pallet would not shift further) and exited the Runway at the very end.  Landing was uneventful.After parking at the gate; a ramp personnel came to the cockpit and told me that not only was the pallet not tied-down; it also was not locked into place.  He said it was moving around freely.




Synopsis: A 777 flight crew was alerted by the flight attendants of unusual noises heard emanating from the cargo area. A loose pallet was suspected and a successful precautionary landing was made using minimal braking.