elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Normal rotation to 300 ft following commands on flight director. While hand flying the departure; I notice that the aircraft is not properly autotrimming and holding my desired flight path. The aircraft slowly but deliberately pitched upward while the stab trim added nose up trim. This increased the rate of nose up. I had to hold slight nose down pressure on the sidestick to achieve my desired flight path of following the flight director commands. Autothrust was engaged and operating normally. This condition was present with takeoff configuration flaps and in clean configuration as well. We never exceeded 250 KIAS. The captain took controls to feel what I was describing and he agreed with my assessment. The captain and I decided to return to ZZZ. We never lost control or questioned the safe outcome of the flight; but we both felt something was not right. No emergency was declared. We received vectors to a visual approach. The autopilot was never engaged. We touched down at 171;800 pounds. That put us overweight by approximately 400 pounds. We detailed our experience to 3 maintenance techs and wrote up the flight control issue and overweight landing in the logbook. In retrospect we probably should have declared an emergency with ATC due to the nature of the problem being flight control. No failure messages or obvious malfunctions were detected or observed during or after the 16 minute flight.




Synopsis: A321 First Officer reported that while hand flying the departure; the autotrim system continued to pitch the aircraft nose up. The flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach; Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Instructor; Departure; Approach
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X arrived from the south east at 110 where ZZZ has a MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude) at the highest point of 115. I do not know if ZZZ1 has the same or lower MVA in that area. Per the LOA with ZZZ1 any arrivals in this area 130 or lower; must be on an airway and verbally coordinated. There was no coordination from ZZZ1.  OJTI was being conducted at the Approach position; I was the OS in the TRACON. Due to COVID social distancing requirements the OJTI was working from the 'B' scope; the trainee was working from the 'A' scope and I was at the OS desk. There is no radar scope or secondary monitor available at the OS desk to observe traffic; so I was unable to see the altitude of the aircraft. A regional jet that was about to be switched to the Tower told approach that an aircraft was trying to call approach and at that point I was able to observe Aircraft X at the altitude below the MVA. Aircraft X eventually was able to reach approach on radio and landed without incident.-Review ZZZ1-ZZZ LOA-Add a non-certified radar display at the ZZZ TRACON OS desk-Check the MVAs to the south east of ZZZ to see if there are any discrepancies between ZZZ1 and ZZZ MVAs.


Second narrative: I am training the trainee on approach control. Three arrivals scheduled with close arrival times. Trainee accepted all three handoffs back to back well outside of our airspace boundary; further away than normal. He was not aware that Aircraft X was flying a wrong altitude for direction of flight as well as 500 feet below the MVA we have depicted on our maps until after accepting the handoff.  Neither of these two issues were coordinated between either facility. Aircraft landed without issue.We need to have matching MVA maps with ZZZ1. This could be a real issue in the future. That aircraft was 500 feet below our MVA and could not reach us on radio due to the terrain.


Synopsis: Controllers reported an aircraft that they were not talking to was on an IFR flight plan; below the MVA and NORDO.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Fatigue; Human-Machine Interface; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Cleared to descend via Ivane2 by Atlanta Center prior to MAJIC intersection. Pilot flying was First Officer. Very high task load going from a delayed Approach handoff to Atlanta Center and then being cleared to descend via Ivane 2. MAJIC intersection was crossed at 12;000 FT instead of 13;000 FT per procedure. The Ivane2 was verified in FMS on the ground; and the altitudes verified. Atlanta Center requested a call to speak to Supervisor which I complied with. This aircraft had an EFB installed. I find the EFB to be very distracting because it interferes with normal cockpit management. We have so few EFB installed on the Airbus fleet it creates a distraction. The Ivane 2 has great detail on chart and is difficult to read on the EFB. No clipboard to place the charts. First Officer was splitting off the trip in CLT due to fatigue.Either install EFB in all aircraft; or remove all EFB. They are a distraction and obsolete.




Synopsis: An A319 on the CLT IVANE 2 crossed MAJIC Intersection at 12;000 FT because the FMGC dropped the 13;000 FT constraint even though it was verified during the preflight.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Experienced electric stab trim failure on departure. Performed QRH procedures.[Advised ATC]; returned to the departure airport and made an uneventful overweight landing; at normal sink rate.  Entered in logbook; maintenance conducted overweight landing inspection.




Synopsis: A B737-800 electric stabilizer trim failed on departure. The aircraft returned to the departure airport for an uneventful overweight landing.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ORD
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We pushed back at ORD and were instructed by outbound ground control to taxi to Runway 28R via Bravo & Delta taxiways; after the RJ from the right on Bravo.  We gave way to that aircraft & I [proceeded] to slowly taxi out across Alpha taxiway heading for Bravo. One of the First Officer's cautioned that there was an RJ coming around from the left on Alpha that was going very fast.  I noticed the aircraft; turned on the taxi light to signal I was moving as instructed.  It became obvious that the RJ on Alpha was not about to give way to anything and I stopped the aircraft.  Even though our nose had crossed the hold line from the ramp to the Alpha taxiway; the RJ kept going and his wing passed under our nose. Once he had cleared I proceeded to Bravo and called ground to report the near collision.  The RJ was on inbound ground control while we were on outbound ground; but even so if you see an aircraft moving in front of you; wouldn't it be advisable to stop; especially when that aircraft is 10 times your size?




Synopsis: B747 Captain reports a near collision with a regional jet during initial taxi out from the ramp at ORD. The RJ was on inbound Ground and taxiing very fast.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RFD.TRACON, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E RFD
ATC / advisory: TRACON RFD
Second aircraft: Sail Plane
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on the FYTTE arrival into ORD; we had a near midair collision with a glider. We were at 7000 FT doing 210 KTS assigned. I looked up and spotted this black spot floating in the air at our [12-1] position. I thought it was a bunch of balloons until it made a right descending turn. I realized that it was a glider and I took evasive action. I pitched up; turned right and shoved the power up simultaneously trying to avoid the glider. I did get a brief stick shaker activation. From the time I spotted the glider until our paths crossed; it was no more than 5 seconds. We gained roughly 400 FT above our assigned altitude and speed increased to around 250 KTS. We immediately reported a near midair with a glider and our deviation. We returned to 7000 FT; slowed back to 210 KTS and rejoined the arrival inside FYTTE. We landed 9L with no other problems.


Second narrative: We never got a dot on our TCAS nor a traffic advisory and certainly not a resolution advisory. The glider just appeared out of nowhere at our 1 to 2 o'clock. Rockford handed us off to Chicago Approach where the rest of the flight was uneventful. We landed on 09L and taxied in to the gate.


Synopsis: B737NG flight crew and TRACON Controller reported a NMAC with a non-transponder-equipped glider at 7000 FT on the arrival into ORD.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Cargo Compartment Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Immediately after takeoff; we received a Master Warning for Cargo Fire Aft. We knew there was much condensation prior to the flight and used the [company advisories] to mitigate. We proceeded with the QRH items and the warning ceased. Approximately 2 minutes later we received the Master Warning and Cargo Fire Aft message again followed by a new message Fire Warning Main Deck. When we pulled up the status page there was indications of multiple Cargo Loops failed. I made the decision to return and have the fire trucks meet us. All QRH items were followed but no depressurization. Upon landing I had the fire department clear the airplane and then Maintenance proceeded to deal with the issues.[Company advisories] for this aircraft had been followed and maintenance ended up replacing 4 detectors.


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


Synopsis: During climb in a B747 cargo plane; the crew received a master warning for cargo fire.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Mooney Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Down Lock
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately 1;000 FT down the runway after a normal landing; as I started to turn off the runway at approximately 2-3 MPH; the nose gear and mains collapsed. Landing gear position was checked twice down and locked prior to landing. FAA inspector subsequently determined it to be mechanical failure.




Synopsis: The nose and main landing gear collapsed during landing rollout due to an unspecified mechanical failure.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [We were in a] heavy aircraft; high V1 and VR. [It was a] hot day. I was pilot flying. At V1 into VR experienced compressor stalls on number 1 engine; left yaw; and burning rubber smell. Called for and disconnected autothrottle. [We] delayed raising gear while considering whether tire had blown on left side; not wanting to foul the gear on retraction. [We] strongly suspected such; but aircraft performance dictated gear up. [We] declared emergency and requested left downwind for immediate return. First Officer eased left throttle back until compressor stalls ceased. [We] decided to leave engine running at reduced power setting. Set up for single engine approach in event had to secure the left engine. Had flight attendants do their review. Advised Tower we would stop on the runway and need ARRF; and to be prepared for hot brakes. After stopping secured left engine; at the time did not feel I would be taxiing the aircraft so; after starting APU also shut down right engine. Had gear chocked and fans on brakes for cooling. Because of the delay in getting tug and buses to deplane passengers; and after ground personnel; including Mechanic saying tire was missing tread; but not blown and holding air; decided to start right engine and taxi clear of the runway. Did so and shut down again on taxiway. [We] did not want to taxi to gate out of concern for blowing tire. Buses arrived and passengers deplaned through aft stairs. Performance of crew [was] outstanding.




Synopsis: MD80 Captain experiences compressor stalls on Number 1 engine; left yaw; and burning rubber smell at Vr. An emergency is declared and thrust is reduced on the malfunctioning engine. Flight returns visually with the number one engine at reduced thrust. Post flight reveals that one of the main gear tires has shed its' tread.
Date: 201308
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Fuel Storage System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We had a fuel imbalance and after starting the checklist we noticed that the checklist only assumes that there is a possible fuel leak and/or fuel imbalance. The checklist should also include possible sensor/s failure (contamination) and/or gauge error/malfunction. From previous discussions with Maintenance; water contamination effects the sensors; which give an incorrect reading. In many instances this is the cause of imbalance indication [when]; however; there is no actual imbalance. If the checklist is run as stated; a self induced imbalance would be generated.




Synopsis: While following the checklist for a possible fuel imbalance the flight crew of a B777 noted it provided only for an actual imbalance or fuel leak; ignoring possible sensor or gauge faults.  If the source of the error is a sensor/indicator fault the procedure runs the risk of a self induced actual imbalance.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Flight Director
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Software and Automation; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was pilot monitoring for the flight. It was my first leg after completing training and not flying for 1 year. We were cleared for takeoff from Runway X in ZZZ. I noticed that the Captain hesitated to add thrust. He was clicking the TOGA buttons and also clearing the flight director several times. I wasn't sure what was going on; and then happened to catch a red line through the bottom TO indication of the FMA just as the CA was clearing the FD again. He then added thrust and we took off. At first; I didn't realize that this was an issue; as we are allowed to take off raw data. However; as we lifted off; I realized that this was wrong and we should have figured out why the bottom TO annunciation was red.The issue was caused by some sort of FD problem that the Captain had noticed and tried to correct by clearing the FD and reactivating TOGA several times. He elected to takeoff anyway; and my slowness to realize what was happening contributed to us taking off.My lack of recent experience caused a delay in my realization that we should have figured out the problem before taking off. I was nervous to be back on the line after 1 year; and was focused on the upcoming takeoff and making correct call outs. The Captain repeatedly clicking the TOGA and FD buttons caught me off guard and I did not realize until it was too late that there was an issue.Both of us should have made the decision to simply pull off the runway and figure out why the TO annunciation had a red line through it. It wouldn't have taken very long. Yes; we can take off raw data but not if we know that there is a FD problem.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported the lack of recent experience caused the improper use of SOP's during a takeoff configuration irregularity.