elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not 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 Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: No abnormalities found on preflight. No abnormalities found on the standardized checklist items when performed and completed. Taxi for departure was uneventful. On the takeoff roll; all calls and checks were uneventful. Approximately 110 knots to 120 knots; First Officer (PF) noticed nose coming up. First Officer pushed nose forward. No change in the pitch rate when full forward pressure was applied to the yoke. I called for abort and verbally called for 'my controls'.  Positive transfer of controls were completed. First Officer completed his duties as required by a RTO.  ATC was notified; Flight Attendants were notified and the passengers were given an announcement of the issue at hand as required. All checklists were completed.We taxied to the ramp without further abnormalities. Brake temps were rising and a tow into the gate was requested and completed. We checked the bag loads and they were in compliance with the count on the weight and balance manifest. We were met at the gate by the mechanic on duty along with his colleague. Maintenance checked and verified that the exterior control surfaces were in alignment with the flight deck settings on the CG; flaps and slats. They then did a control check on the empennage and the mechanics informed us that the left elevator was stuck in the up position.  We also confirmed this finding. A logbook entry was made in the logbook. Flight crews were de-briefed and the duty pilot was contacted.

Callback: Reporter states that the rejected takeoff was initiated with the nose wheel well off the ground and continuing with the yoke full forward. Maintenance found that the elevator was jammed by an elevator actuator that had become separated from the elevator due to a missing castle nut. The nut had last been removed and installed by company maintenance during a maintenance check at company maintenance facilities. The reporter believes that had the aircraft become airborne; a serious accident would have resulted.



Synopsis: MD80 Captain reports rejecting a takeoff at 120 knots when the aircraft begins to rotate on its own. The yoke was full forward with the pitch rate increasing when the Captain assumed control and initiated the reject. Left elevator was found jammed in the full up position by Maintenance.
Date: 201904
Location: EDDM.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: Center EDMM
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After takeoff [flying] INPUD Departure 10-3F. During turn we flew through either wake turbulence or weather turbulence. The aircraft activated intermittent stick shaker.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported encountering either wake or weather turbulence departing EDDM.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Eclipse 500
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E E10
ATC / advisory: TRACON E10
Aircraft component: Electrical Distribution Busbar
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departed Las Vegas on an IFR flight plan routing as filed. This was a repositioning flight operating under part 91 rule (returning to base operations after dropping off passengers at LAS). Upon initial climb thru FL160 - autopilot; yaw damper and generator #1 went offline followed by a CAS message warning. Crew and cabin temperature reached 110F - air conditioning/climate control were also offline. Upon reaching our final cruise altitude I noticed it became more difficult to hold altitude and heading. At that time I noticed the flight trim controls went offline (followed by another CAS message warning) the stabilator trim control had 'runaway' and had locked in a split configuration or indication We started to troubleshoot the problem with the QRH and subsequently managed to reset the electric system bus in flight to later correct the situation. Thereafter; all systems came back online and fully functional. The flight terminated uneventfully. Unsure what might have caused this situation to occur. Perhaps the extreme heat in the cabin?




Synopsis: Eclipse 500 First Officer reported experiencing an electrical bus failure. Running the QRH checklist restored normal operation.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Failed to sign the flight plan release as the Captain. The First Officer and I elected to bypass the ramp office and computer terminals to comply with new COVID-19 recommendations. My normal habit pattern is to print out a hard copy of release. We elected to go totally electronic and brief the flight utilizing  our individual ipads. I failed to verify that the release was properly electronically signed prior to departure.A break in normal habit patterns and multiple distractions and interruptions in the process.Recognizing the break in habit patterns and recognizing the interruptions and their potential in committing errors.




Synopsis: Captain failed to verify that the release was properly electronically signed prior to departure.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DVT.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D DVT
ATC / advisory: Tower DVT
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was an instructor on a dual flight out of DVT. My student was cleared to land on Runway 25L. After turning final approximately 3 miles from the runway the Controller issued him an instruction to sidestep to Runway 25R and contact Tower at 118.4. After completing the maneuver we contacted the Controller in charge of the north runway. She screamed at us that we were supposed to be on the other frequency and to return to 120.2. At that moment a Cessna appeared VERY close on our right side and we initiated a go-around.I would like to report the incident as there were a lot of mistakes done that morning. We had to make 3 attempts to contact Tower before entering Class D airspace and had to complete a 360 before radio contact was established. Many instructions and subsequent corrections were issued usually consisting of correcting the aircraft call sign to which the instruction was issued.DVT is an extremely busy airport with a huge amount of training activity; and it should be attended by experienced controllers. I would like to raise some awareness about the situation at this location; there are many instructors with similar experiences. If there is anything I could do to improve the safety of flying at this airport please let me know.




Synopsis: When the student and instructor pilots of a PA-28 complied with a clearance to switch their approach from Runway 25L to 25R at DVT they experienced an NMAC with a Cessna already inbound to the right runway as well as an excited admonition from the 25R Controller to return to 25L and their previous Controller.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Speedbrake/Spoiler
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flaps 9 was selected and we were outbound (away from the airport) on the Arrival. We started receiving vectors from approach. We were intermittently getting aural warnings regarding our landing gear as a result of disabling the GPWS/EGPWS per an MEL we had accomplished at our departure airport. Turning a base; I selected Flaps 22 for the Captain (pilot flying) and when we were about 6.5 miles from the runway; we selected gear down and slowed to our flaps 45 approach speed. I performed the Before Landing checklist and we performed a stabilized landing; no issue. Upon landing; while performing my walk-around; I noticed that the outboard speed brakes were still deployed and brought it to the attention of my Captain. We then both confirmed that the speed brake was selected open. We turned the hydraulic pumps back on and closed the speed brake. While preparing to land; the gear warning aural alert began sounding off. During this time; it is possible that the Captain selected the speed brakes; but due to the loudness of the aural warning I did not hear him. While performing my before landing checklist scan I recall reading and looking at every item on the list but do not recall looking at the actual speed brake; rather trying to silence the gear warming horn so that the Captain could concentrate on landing and I could listen to the radios as simultaneous approaches were in use. I do recall checking the EICAS and did not note any abnormal messages associated with the speed brake. Because neither of us had noticed the brakes on approach and upon landing received no EICAS message for the Speed brakes; we believe that they were accidentally deployed on the ground. We can back this up further by noting that engine power and the approach profile did not differ from other approaches that day suggesting that we did not have any additional drag to compensate for. It was incredibly distracting to deal with the faulty logic of the system in a task-saturated environment. This plane had been MELed the previous day according to the logbook for the same issue. When these issues aren't actually resolved they put pilots at risk for these types of errors.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported finding the outboard speed brakes deployed during post-flight inspection.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IWA.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D IWA
ATC / advisory: Tower IWA
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I'm a flight student and I was doing a solo flight in the pattern at IWA for training purposes at night. I did already do about 4 patterns with no problems so far when they cleared me to land on Runway 30R. I answered it and about 1 minute later; I thought Tower asked me to change runways for 30C. I answered it again. They didn't correct me on my readback so I thought everything was fine and I was really cleared for 30C. When I did my next pattern they told me I made a deviation and they asked me if I could call them after my flight. I did this of course and they told me that I was not supposed to land on Runway 30C. It was kind of a surprise for me because I thought I did the right thing by answering the clearance. I decided to listen [to] everything. First of all; I heard I was cleared for Runway 30R which I answered at a decent way. Next thing that I heard was where it went wrong. I heard them saying that there was an aircraft taking off from Runway 30C and I had to be careful with wake turbulence. I understood this wrong and answered them by saying 30C cleared to land; so that was a really big mistake of me; but now comes the annoying part. The only thing I heard while listening to the tape I was saying back was the end of my callsign. Lots of times I have heard pilots say just their callsign if they acknowledge something. Even instructors do this sometimes so I think I broadcast just this part and because this is some sort of a normal way to read something back; Tower must have suspected nothing. To be really honest; I have never answered any calls by saying just the end of my callsign because we don't learn to do it that way. I'm not sure if Tower really didn't get my whole call but if they did they must have heard I gave them back the wrong clearance. On the other hand; I recognize that I was wrong by landing on the wrong runway.




Synopsis: A Student pilot landed on IWA Runway 30C after misunderstanding ATC's comment about traffic on that runway as he was approaching Runway 30R.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Fatigue
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: This pairing and the fatigue it caused started with a day-over in ZZZ1. I only slept at best 4 hours during the day which is actually better than usual for me. It's difficult to wind down enough to sleep when your body is not ready to sleep. The added pressure and stress of knowing what lies ahead later that night and the importance of trying to get some sleep adds to the difficulty in falling asleep. We flew the red eye ZZZ1-ZZZ2. I didn't feel 100% for the flight but not fatigued by definition. Landing in ZZZ2 I went to the hotel and tried not to sleep due to an early show the next morning and if I slept I likely wouldn't sleep well that night. I was too tired however and slept for about 2 hours. I got up and felt like I'd been run over by a truck - just exhausted. That night I went to bed after dinner and got decent sleep of about 8 hours. But it wasn't enough; my alarm went off at XA50 a.m. and it was very difficult to wake up. We flew to ZZZ and coped ok with it but my thought was to consider a fatigue call in ZZZ in-lieu of flying ZZZ-ZZZ3 after a 2 hour sit as scheduled. But I decided to press on instead and we agreed if the flight to ZZZ3 was delayed there would be no way we'd fly it. The 2 hour sit was really tough; more like 3 since we arrived so early. By the time we got on the plane to ZZZ3; I was fighting some drowsiness and lack of focus. We had some coffee and that helped a little. In the air; it was just difficult to keep my eyes open; I definitely missed what ATC said to us a few times which is not typical for me. The flight was otherwise uneventful but looking back I should have called in fatigued for the ZZZ3 leg.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported severe fatigue due to flight scheduling.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MMMX.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower MMMX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On final approach to 05R at approximately 800 feet AGL aircraft enveloped by exploding commercial grade fireworks. First Officer and pilot flying did an outstanding job keeping a cool head and steady hands. Explosions felt through airframe and burning fireworks raked the windscreen. This is an unacceptable hazard to aviation.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported his aircraft flew through commercial grade fireworks at 800 feet AGL on approach to MMMX.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp BOS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Taxiing in to [gate] we briefed the arrival; approach and taxi plan enroute. Taxiing in to the alleyway the 10-9 and 10-7 charts show [gate] on the left side of the alley next to [gate]. It is actually on the right side of the alley next to [gate]. Certainly the diagram gets you to the right area but the alley gets very space constrained with aircraft and construction equipment so the last minute change to the taxi plan caught us off guard.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that charts do not show the correct location of gates.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Embraer Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B BOS
ATC / advisory: Tower BOS
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: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I categorized this even under the runway incursion for tracking and organizational purposes; however; this was in no way even close to a runway incursion; in fact this report is to highlight a system; method; and equipment that was used to prevent a future runway incision. On a 5 mile final; Tower advises us that a vehicle was going to be conducting a runway inspection. It was an overcast day; still VFR; but it would have been impossible to see the vehicle on the runway unless the very bright flashing blue light on top of it. The vehicle exited the runway; and we were issued a landing clearance shortly thereafter. I have never seen such bright powerful lights on top of an ops vehicle before; and I would recommend all ops vehicles adopt this technology. It made such a difference that I called BOS Tower after we landed and gave them this same positive feedback on the phone. They said that the Port Authority recently switched to those types of lights and it helps them identity vehicles better too. Highly recommend all Ops vehicles adopt this equipment and technology at all airports to help reduce vehicle/plane incursion. It was an absolute great barrier today. I am sure it will be the same in the future. Adopt this technology.




Synopsis: Embraer aircraft's Captain reported operations vehicle with a new technology; very bright blue light; are very easy to see during limited visibility situations.  Pilot stated this was a great improvement to safety.