elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CYVR.Airport, BC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower CYVR
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were approaching CYVR on the Grizz5 arrival landing east (8R). On downwind we called field in sight and were cleared the visual approach except maintain on or south of the 8R localizer; because another aircraft from the north side of the airport was doing the mirror image of us. The localizer signal was preprogrammed in FMS. During the base to final turn (where it was imperative to remain on or south of the localizer); the Controller pointed out our traffic. I scanned out the left window (I was Non Flying pilot in right seat) and as I found the traffic and returned to scan inside; the Controller said to us we were showing north of the center line. As I then looked forward out the window we appeared very slightly off center line; the localizer needle was less than half of its width off. During the event the pilot flying had the autopilot on and was using heading mode to capture the localizer centerline. The Collins FMS will usually automatically switch to localizer and track inbound if set up properly. This time it did not and the Pilot flying did not take the appropriate action (click off the auto pilot) to remain on the centerline. We as pilots need to stop letting the automation get in the way of flying the airplane and complying with ATC instructions.




Synopsis: HS-125-800XPC Captain reported a track deviation on approach to CYVR.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
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: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climb out passing 18000 we started getting erratic uncommanded rudder movement.  First to the right then to the left. We checked our flight control page on the EICAS and noticed everything was normal on the page with the rudder indication dead center but the rudder was still moving as the brick was moving back and forth and the aircraft was yawing back and forth.  It was not violent; but you could feel it moving. We slowed down to to 250 knots initially to avoid aggravating the situation as every rudder input you have given to the aircraft slightly aggravated the rudder. We were worried that we had a PCU that was going bad and it could possibly hardover on us.  We opted to return [to the departure airport] since it was closest with most CFR in the area and the longest runways.  We told the controllers what was happening and told them we needed to slow down and descend.  We proceeded to complete the checklists and headed back. On the descent the aircraft was still moving back and forth with the rudder still moving erratically.  We asked the controllers for wide shallow turns on to final and a slower speed which made the ride back much better for us. Throughout the remainder of the flight; the rudder indication stayed centered and normal even though the actual aircraft was still swaying from rudder movement. We had no other indication or any alerted messages.  After landing we taxied to the gate and parked without incident; shut the aircraft down and went outside to look at the rudder for any damage.  When we got outside to look at the rudder; it was still moving back and forth with the engines shut down and the hydraulic pumps still on.

Callback: The reporter has not been informed of the cause of these rudder oscillations but he believes that a PCU anomaly is the only unannunciated fault that could cause the rudder to move uncommanded.



Synopsis: CRJ700 Captain reported passing FL180 experience erratic uncommanded rudder movement. With the aircraft yawing back and forth; no movement is visible on the EICAS flight control page. The crew elects to slow down; and return to the departure airport for an uneventful landing. After parking at the gate with the engines shut down but with the hydraulic pumps on the rudder was still moving back and forth.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Non-Flight
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Not on Board
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Manuals; Human Factors; Company Policy; Aircraft
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Aircraft are being operated with known mechanical discrepancies.  It is not until the aircraft has returned to ZZZ or upon the last block in at ZZZ from multiple inter island flight segments that a mechanical discrepancy will be written up.  Aircraft that are down but needed to be operated as spares or flown back to ZZZ because a pilot has the integrity to write up a discrepancy away from ZZZ are being 'pencil whipped' to get the aircraft back to ZZZ.  Flight crews are being discouraged from writing up discrepancies when inter island away from ZZZ.  Pilots are 'reminded' by key personnel in Flight Ops Management how expensive it costs [Company] to cancel or delay a flight and the financial penalties Company faces contractually to [airline].  These same personnel in Flight Ops Management  will 'counsel' pilots on particular keywords used in a write up that would look bad in an audit.  Punitive action is threatened by Dispatch and Flight Ops Management if a pilot has legal or safety concerns about a flight.  Check out how many times a plane is written up at ZZZ versus written up inter island away from ZZZ.  A good majority of the write ups happen at the end of the crews last block in at ZZZ.




Synopsis: Captain reported that aircraft are being operated with known mechanical discrepancies to minimize delays and cancellation by direction of Company Management.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MCO.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground MCO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: With all normal checklists complete and an early departure from the gate; immediately after brake release (on pushback) the tow bar apparently became disconnected from the tug; and the tug collided with the aircraft. Two or three loud bangs were heard and felt by the crew. I very quickly asked the driver what had happened and did not receive a response. My First Officer stated that the tug was sitting to the right side of the aircraft. I opened my cockpit window and yelled down to the ground crew and asked what had happened. The tug driver told me that the tug had malfunctioned. I informed him that I was going to reset the parking brake. I then completed a parking checklist; communicated with the crew; passengers; Operations; Dispatch; and Chief Pilot on duty.


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


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported that during pushback the tug became disconnected from the tow bar; and the tug collided with the aircraft.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System Lines; Connectors; Fittings
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: When we checked in for our morning departure; we were advised the aircraft was being towed into the gate due to a maintenance issue. When the aircraft finally arrived at the gate; Maintenance advised us a line on the Green Hydraulic System had failed and it would be over five hours before the aircraft would be repaired. We finally pushed; and had a normal departure. After reaching cruise and upon performing a HEFOE (Hydraulic Electrical Fuel Oxygen Engine) check; we noticed the green system quantity was somewhat lower than normal. As we proceeded westbound; it was apparent the quantity indicator was indeed decreasing. We notified Maintenance of the condition and asked if we could turn off the green system pump thinking that maybe the suspected leak would decrease in intensity; but was told to abide by the QRH procedures. By this time we had already reviewed the QRH; and had not found any procedure for our situation. When the quantity indicator was within 1/8 inch of the amber low level line; we asked Dispatch if maybe a diversion would be appropriate. They concurred; so we told Center we were going to divert for a precautionary landing. Apparently someone declared an emergency for us as the equipment met us upon landing and followed us to the gate. Maintenance was still troubleshooting the situation when we left the airport.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reports departing late due to a maintenance required repair of the Green hydraulic system. Once in cruise the Green system quantity is found to be decreasing and the crew elects to divert.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Workload; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I saw an aircraft in my airspace with a code and an altitude that had not been handed off to me. I looked up the code in the computer and saw two flight plans. I attempted to contact the aircraft on my frequency but got no response. I called my Controller In Charge (CIC) over to tell him this was happening and then I called the last sector who would have worked this aircraft and ask them if they had any knowledge of him. While I was on the line I could hear the controller on switch this aircraft to my frequency. I asked controller what was happening with him and controller said something like 'He was lost.' Then I asked the aircraft to ident; if he was IFR; and what the last frequency was that he was on. I believe he said they forgot about him; or something like that. A bit later the controller said they checked back with several sectors to see what happened. Cleveland made a manual handoff to HNK sector and then from there I am not sure what occurred.I was surprised that this limited data block did not auto-acquire on my scope. I thought in our new system this was supposed to happen. My recommendation would be for this to happen; because this scenario could have been dangerous if I had been busy.




Synopsis: ZBW Controller discovers an untagged aircraft in his airspace. Controller tries to identify aircraft and checks on frequency for the aircraft. Controller calls possible previous sector and Controller transfers communication to the investigating Controller. Controller asks pilot what happened and pilot advised a Controller possibly forgot about them.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C SNA
ATC / advisory: Tower SNA
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
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: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft Y departed northwest bound from the airport. Aircraft X was on 2 mile final when Aircraft Y requested radar termination. I asked what his on course heading would be he responded; '070 degrees.' At this point I saw he was turning Northeast bound and instructed him to fly heading 330. Aircraft X stated he was going around responding to an RA. Aircraft Y was approximately one mile Northwest of Aircraft X flying away from them. There was never a loss of any separation.Helicopter Departure Routes. We have them for General Aviation small airplanes why not Helicopters?




Synopsis: SNA Local control questions why the facility does not have helicopter routes like they have for general aviation aircraft.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [The] run up and magneto check was good and the engine produced full RPM on takeoff. While enroute the engine started to vibrate slightly; oil pressure was normal and temps were normal. As a precaution I changed my course to deviate around any populated areas and flew over open ground in the event of an engine total failure and forced landing. [A short time later] there was a loud bang and the engine quit. I was at 1200 feet AGL and set up a glide for landing in an open field. I landed the aircraft gear up as the field is a rice field and fairly rough. I touched down at almost stall speed and slid approximately 330 feet. I secured the cockpit and left the aircraft. Upon inspection I found a cylinder had blown off the case and embedded itself in the cowl and the piston was found in the lower cowl. I am not a mechanic; but it looks like the rod broke on #4 cylinder which hit the cylinder skirt breaking off pieces and eventually blew the cylinder from the case.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported executing a forced landing in a field after the engine failed in flight.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: While tracking westbound on V100 between ELX and MUSKY; Chicago Center inquired as to our position north of course. We responded that we were showing on course; and stated we are tracking the 277 radial outbound from ELX. Center replied that we should be on the 271 radial. I input the 271 radial and intercepted the course. Upon further investigation; our Navblue Charts+ show 277 course westbound on V100; while FAA issued charts show 271. In addition; Navblue Charts+ show a change from 277 to 274 after passing YOLUR intersection. With no navaid located at YOLUR; how can the course change? We were navigating in green needles because the aircraft had 3 MELs at the time.I suggest a review of the Navblue Charts+ enroute charts to determine if accurate data is being presented to pilots using the charts.




Synopsis: Captain reported navigational course error due to published Navblue charts depicting an erroneous course westbound from ELX on V-100 airway.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Holding Pattern
Airspace: Class E ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: While working the R24 position; Miami International went into holding. I had 2 Miami landers at the time and I gave them both holding instructions. Aircraft X asked to offset his holding pattern to the SSCOT. I approved it and I even went ahead and told the Aircraft Y behind him that he could offset his holding pattern as well to the same location if he needed it. I got busy coordinating an emergency aircraft inbound to TPA that was going through a warning area and all of a sudden I hear my co-worker at Sector 05 say: 'Where the hell is that Aircraft X going? Who's working that guy?' Aircraft X went southeast bound right into another holding pattern and had traffic head on at 15;000 feet. I instructed him to fly a 270 heading immediately and that he needed to tell me if he was going to offset his holding pattern to another position. His response was: Well there's weather out here sir and we're trying to find some clear air. I told him: I understand that sir but what you did was unsafe; you went right into another holding pattern with aircraft holding in it at the same altitude. I don't know how far he went into Miami Approach's airspace when he deviated and I was too busy to brasher him correctly. Approach needed to talk to him right away so I gave him the phone number to the area so the OM could talk to him. The front desk pulled my tapes and called it a pilot deviation but they told me to do a report just in case he violated Approach's airspace. If the OM doesn't talk to him; I would really like somebody to get a hold of this pilot and explain to him that he put a lot of innocent lives in danger. The other aircraft was holding at SSCOT with no problems at all. He had a bad attitude when I tried to explain to him that what he did was wrong. This needs to be addressed.




Synopsis: ZMA Center Controller reported an aircraft in holding did not hold as instructed because of weather; but did not advise ATC.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Fuel Filter
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing to FL260; Crew Alerting System (CAS) message 'FUEL FLTR BYPASS R' illuminated. Referred to QRH; stated possible fuel contamination; land as soon as possible. [Advised ATC of the situation]; determined [a nearby airport] was best airport for emergency landing. ATC cleared direct to airport and safely landed. After landing terminated emergency.


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


Synopsis: CE-680 flight crew reported diverting to an alternate after receiving Crew Alerting System (CAS) message FUEL FLTR BYPASS R; an indication of possible fuel contamination.