elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Spoiler System
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Coming into land on 36L we were vectored for a short approach. The FO used the spoilers to help get down to cross the fixes at the appropriate altitude. At about 3000 feet I watched him retract the flight spoilers. As we continued on the approach everything looked good. He was stable at 1000 feet and there was no green spoilers deployed message. At 500 feet he was on the bug sinking 700 fpm. The power and pitch seemed to be correct for the 900. At about 250 feet we got the flight spoilers deployed caution message. I looked down and it looked like they were retracted and I had seen him retract the handle. I pushed on the lever and they had accidentally been left out one notch. After I stowed them the pitch/power remained the same to hold glide. As we were still on speed; on LOC/glide; and at an appropriate pitch/power setting; I determined it would be safer to continue and land then execute a missed that low to the ground. We landed without any issues.  The event occurred because of the use of spoilers to get down. We both thought he had completely retracted the spoilers and the angle of the lever even looked like the spoilers were at 0. It wasn't until after the message popped up that I realized they were still out.Since he was hand flying at this point; I retracted the spoilers for him so he could keep his hands on the thrust levers and yoke. No pitch/power corrections were needed and we were stable other than the spoilers so we landed.I was taught as a FO to always leave my hand on the spoilers lever when you use them to prevent you from accidentally leaving them out. This is what I try to teach because every time I have seen this technique used it has never failed. However; in this case he didn't forget to retract them. We both thought he had retracted them he just missed the 0 setting.




Synopsis: A CRJ-900 First Officer had extended the spoilers around 3;000 feet to help his descent profile. The spoiler handle appeared fully down; but at 250 feet the SPOILER DEPLOYED caution alerted. The Captain found the spoiler handle not fully in the retracted detent.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: Tower PHX
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While on a visual approach to Runway 08 at PHX approximately a 4 mile final at approximately 2500 feet MSL at our 3 o'clock position the FO reported a drone to the tower. FO gave the tower the color; altitude; and position of the drone. After arrival at the terminal we gave the same information to the PHX airport police. I never saw the drone myself and no evasive action was taken or needed. More information should be made available to the public on the hazards of flying drones in close proximity of airports.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a UAV flying near the final approach path to PHX Runway 8.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 0.25
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach; Climb
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: A319
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was conducting OJT on the SFO Finals during very low ceilings weather; RVRs were fluctuating between 1;000 and 6;500. SFO was IFR with 1/4 mile visibility so we were conducting ILS Approaches to Runway 28R. A Heavy B767 was cleared for approach and issued a speed to AXMUL. An A319 was cleared 6 plus miles behind the B767 and given the same speed. When the B767 hit AXMUL he slowed to his final and the A319 closed due to compression. Both the Supervisor and I; along with the Trainee; were watching the distance between the two aircraft closely using the PRM scopes located next to the Woodside/Foster scopes. The PRM gives a more accurate measure of distance than the Woodside/Foster scopes do. Before they closed to 5 miles the Trainee issued a Go-Around to the A319. It was later determined that the two aircraft were 4.95 miles apart when the go-around was issued and 4.93 miles apart when the A319 acknowledged the instructions. It was observed that the closest vertical separation was 1;900 FT at the time the A319 went around but 4.93 miles lateral. In my opinion there was never a safety issue with the operation. The problem I have is that we; the controllers; are being held to a standard that we can't meet as the people watching can. Our equipment does not show .05 miles separation whereas the equipment that the people watching us does. Even our PRM scopes which are set about 8 FT from our primary scope is not as accurate as the equipment that others are using to determine separation errors. If we are to be held to such fine standards we should be given the equipment necessary to achieve such standards.




Synopsis: NCT Controller described a heavy separation error detected by after the fact computer reviews noting that even the very precise PRM equipment was unable to detect the apparent 'tenths' of a mile error.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: F11.TRACON, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON F11
Second aircraft: Learjet 60
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was on an IFR flight plan performing practice instrument approaches at multiple airports in the Kape/Palm sector. Pilot was given standard missed (per LOA) from MLB airport of runway heading and maintain 2;000 feet upon completion of the ILS 9R approach. On the missed; the airplane was either not able to check in or was not recognized until 3-4 miles east of the field and leveling at 020. MLB had requested other releases prior to Aircraft X going missed; first one being Aircraft Y. Upon seeing a tag show up east of MLB I reached out to Aircraft X and instructed him to 'turn right heading 180 immediately-for traffic; and IDENT.' The pilot acknowledged and started the turn; however with the performance difference between Aircraft Y and Aircraft X I believe that separation was lost prior to Aircraft X establishing a divergent heading. Upon checking of FREQ; Aircraft Y was advised of the traffic and reported he was looking for them. A CA/CA was never generated by STARS; and both airplanes continued to their intended destinations.I feel that if I had so many airplanes on my frequency I would have been in a better position to recognize that Aircraft X may not have been able to check in with me on his missed; and I therefore would have been able to turn him out of the way of Aircraft Y. Additionally; if the Tower had recognized the difference in aircraft performance they may have been able to provide more than the 3 miles (roughly) before clearing the high performance aircraft on the same heading as the slower piston. Also; requesting a heading to provide divergence off of the runway would have also solved the issue. With as much IFR training as we do and the tendency of some of the airplanes to not check in timely on their missed approach; I feel very fortunate in this situation that something more serious did not occur.




Synopsis: F11 Controller reports of a loss of separation with faster aircraft overtaking slower aircraft.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Prior to our flight I reviewed and completed the MEL procedure for a deferral regarding the automatic pressurization system. The system test was successful. However; we received a CABIN ALT caution message climbing through FL180. We leveled out at FL190 and began to don oxygen masks when a CABIN ALT warning message appeared. The cabin altitude read 10;900 by the time we [notified ATC of urgent situation] with Center and began an [urgent] descent to 10;000 feet. The FO was the flying pilot and I completed the Immediate Action Items and QRH. We landed safely without further incident. There were three non-revenue passengers onboard but no one was hurt and the cabin oxygen masks did not deploy nor were required. Another crew had written up a similar incident the day before.The threat was a loss of cabin pressurization; which may have been caused by a faulty pressure controller. After maintenance was notified on the ground they conducted an ops check and said it was good. The cause of the malfunction was not fully determined.We acted according to procedures but in the future when dealing with an aircraft that has had issues with the pressurization system; I will pay greater attention to the cabin pressure in order to detect a possible malfunction earlier and possibly before receiving an EICAS message; thereby giving us a head start and more time to react.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 Captain reported loss of cabin pressure climbing through FL180. ATC was notified of the urgent situation and the flight returned to departure airport.
Date: 201807
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Speedbrake/Spoiler
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After finishing my assigned aircraft; lead directed me to assist 2 other mechanics in spoiler EHSV (Electro-hydraulic Servo Valve) change. One of the mechanics assigned to that aircraft was going to do the replacement the other was in the flight deck operating the spoiler and hydraulics as required. So I was assigned as ground mechanic giving clearance to the flight deck mechanic to power on/off hydraulics and spoiler. Mechanic replacing valve requested hydraulics on and spoiler deployed. I relayed the message to flight deck mechanic; when mechanic removed spoiler lock; the spoiler came down and caught mechanics arm for about 15-20 seconds then shot up and deployed releasing his arm.


Second narrative: I was directed by my lead to follow a section of Maintenance Manual that only included the replacement of the EHSV. I was removing the spoiler lock but it was wedged in there so we had cycled the spoiler. I tried to remove the lock with hydraulics off but I couldn't; so I asked the guy in the cockpit to turn hydraulics on and put the spoilers in the up position. With hydraulics on I was able to remove the spoiler lock and as soon as I removed it the Number 1 spoiler came down on my hand and began to crush it. After about 30 seconds of having my arm/hand crushed the spoiler came up and eventually released my arm. I was using AMM (aircraft Maintenance Manual) 27-XX-XX. Flaps were supposed to be down but they were locked out by avionics which led me to access the EHSV valve over the wing.


Synopsis: B757 Technicians reported that the spoiler lock was removed causing the spoiler panel to come down onto a Mechanic's hand.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Snow; 1.25
Light: Night
Aircraft: Cessna 310/T310C
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Landing was made with snow removal equipment in the arrival area of runway. Unable to communicate to snow removal personnel due to the pilot not putting the correct CTAF frequency in his radio.There were no NOTAMs obtained indicating that there was going to be snow removal equipment working at the time of arrival.The incorrect frequency of 122.8 was put in the number 2 radio; the correct frequency was 122.7. A contributing actor was the stress of a long work day due to weather.There was an airline flight inbound and made me feel rushed to get on the ground and cancel IFR so they could start the approach. After cleared for the approach I made multiple radio calls on the incorrect frequency inbound to the airport.Upon breaking out of the clouds the approach lights appeared to be on high setting and the approach was continued on visual from about a 1.25 miles out. About 0.5 miles from the runway I saw yellow vehicle beacons and headlights near the arrival end of the runway. I continued the approach to landing even though the vehicles looked like they where closer than the hold short line. I did decide to land long not knowing the how close the vehicles where to the runway and not seeing any other vehicle lights the rest of the length of runway. There was confrontation with a worker claiming that I had almost landed on them. Upon the discussion it was found that I had put the incorrect frequency in the radio.In my review of the events I am trying to make sure that CTAF frequencies are briefed properly. Also a discussion over the length of day has occurred and discussed ways to reduce the stress of a long work day due to weather.




Synopsis: A pilot landed with snow removal equipment in the landing area when unable to communicate to ground personnel due to incorrect CTAF frequency selected.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZBW
Aircraft component: Pneumatic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climb out; we entered clouds/icing conditions at about 8;000 ft. Everything was working normally when we entered the icing conditions. The anti icing system was working properly and the bleed temperatures were climbing in response to the system. As we continued to climb and while checking in with Boston Center; we received a master warning that stated 'Bleed 1 Leak'. We immediately stopped the climb and advised ATC. We then ran the QRH for 'Bleed 1 Leak' rapidly and immediately complied with the QRH by closing the number one bleed which had a 'Leak' inscription on it and by closing the cross bleed valve. Upon running the QRH; the leak warning indication extinguished. We looked at our release and found that the lowest altitude we could continue to EWR at was 11;000 ft. Boston center cleared us to the said altitude. After completing required tasks in the cockpit; we wrote Dispatch via ACARS and advised them of the event and that we had things under control and were continuing to EWR at 11;000 ft. Dispatch concurred with the decision and notified Maintenance of our mechanical problem. While enroute; we worked with ATC to avoid icing conditions and landed at EWR without incident.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported an uneventful flight to destination after completing QRH procedure for a 'Bleed 1 Leak' EICAS message which illuminated during climb.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HLN.Airport, MT
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D HLN
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were descending into HLN; anticipating on a visual approach for Runway 27. The high scattered layer should have allowed for us to get low enough for the visual. HLN Approach gave us descend to 10;000 [feet]. We were just west of the HLN VOR. We still did not have visual on the runway. Approach then told us that he was not able to vector us for the ILS; due to lack of radar. Sane wanted to descend. The GPWS sounded 'terrain' immediately tho now we are at 10;000 ft. and loaded the RNAV Z 27. We put 10;000 [feet] in at the HLN VOR for the approach; which was significantly lower than if we would continue the approach from cruise altitude. Once we went over the large mountain; the ple autopilot was disengaged and we climbed back up to 10;000 feet. The plane was to descend because it was set up to VTO to the FAP. That then caused us to be unprotected. From there we selected a new VPATH; and no other issues were detected. Observing the approach plate; we should have planned a descent segment by segment to assure to proper terrain clearance. The plane only descending around 150 feet when the GPWS alarmed us; with an immediate climb back to 10;000 feet.  We were right at the lowest altitude to start the approach since we got a descent for the visual approach. We were right at the lowest altitude to start the approach since we got a descent for the visual approach. The correct action would be to follow the approach course altitude segment by segment. Which would have been HLN at 10;000 feet until DULCA then 9;000 feet until FAVTA; then 7;200 feet until BOSCA.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported receiving a Ground Proximity Warning during initial approach into HLN airport.