elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Aircraft component: Parking Brake
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During descent into LAS on the SUNST4 arrival and passing through 14000 feet;we received a MASTER CAUTION with the associated EICAS message of PKNG BRK NOT RELEASED. We requested a hold and were given point IPUMY at 12000 ft. We ran the associated checklist; resetting the parking brake. The light remained on and we elected to land at LAS with emergency response on standby. We attempted to contact Dispatch and Maintenance via Operations Frequency (they were unable to transfer our calls) and via AIRNC (no response on frequency). We finally sent an ACARS message informing Dispatch of our plan. We notified the FAs (Flight Attendants) of our plan and we were not anticipating an evacuation on the ground. I made a PA to let the passengers know of the issue. I also cycled the parking brake one final time to try to reset the light. We notified ATC that we were [requesting priority handling] and requested emergency response in case of blown tires.During the descent; the MASTER CAUTION went out. We elected to maintain [priority handling] since did not know the issue with the brakes. I also verbalized I did not intend to use reverse thrust to prevent adverse thrust and FOD ingestion.On landing; we did have a slight drag on the right side of the aircraft; but was notified by the ground responders that all four tires were intact. We taxied to the gate with the trucks following and deplaned as normal.The following flight was canceled due to this brake issue becoming a trend (previously noted on an earlier flight but the light reset prior to checklist usage per an AML (Aircraft Maintenance Logbook) entry.




Synopsis: Captain reported Parking Brake EICAS warning annunciation during landing approach.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight was a functional flight check to investigate vibrations reported by multiple crews on [the aircraft]. Maintenance had accomplished multiple maintenance repairs. They showed me all their documentation as well as a balanced AML and the spotting message. The IOC Duty Chief Pilot walked me through FM; and Dispatch and [Maintenance Control] briefed me on the spotting message. [The] Maintainer gave us a thorough walk around and briefing on what we would be looking and listening for. We then could not sign in on CCI due to our location at CLT. My sharp copilot FO (First Officer); called IOC and had them talk us through signing in through our smart phones.We finally taxied about 38 minutes late. Climbout was normal but busy as my FO was Pilot Flying; and I was coordinating with ATC for an altitude and route that would allow us to run the tests. The filed route by Dispatch would not work. We were both coordinating with the Technician on the jump seat as we investigated the vibrations. Just about top of climb; FL300; I noticed a printer message. Much to my surprise; it was a reassignment from tracking; or additional flying as it is now called. [The FO] and I ignored it and almost on cue the vibrations and noises started as we were leveling off. We flew the rest of the [Flight Check]; compiling with ATC and [the Maintainer's] requests; and landed uneventfully. I realize that IOC Scheduling is in crisis mode most of the time. However; tracking MUST NOT ever reschedule or add flying to pilots on a functional check flight. These flights are NOT the norm for line and reserve pilots and can be very busy and even stressful. I was behind due to multiple delays as mentioned above. Before we even started engines; I told [the FO] and [the Maintainer] we would NOT rush. DO NOT RESCHEDULE OR ADD FLYING TO [FLIGHT CHECK] CREWS.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported aircraft vibration and noise due to unknown cause during a flight check following a difficulty in signing in for duty and an attempt by Scheduling for additional flying.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cabin Furnishing
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 Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Passenger; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was the captain and the pilot flying. On our descent passing through 18;000 ft; we made our initial PA announcement to have all of the passengers seated for our arrival and turned the seatbelt sign on. There was a layer of scattered white puffy clouds with tops at 13;500 and bases at 11;000 feet. There was not any convective activity in the area and nothing in the ATIS about severe turbulence. When we reached the cloud layer; we encountered severe turbulence sending one of the aft flight attendants into the ceiling. Two of the passengers also hit the plastic panels above their seats because apparently they were not wearing their seat belts contrary to the illuminated seatbelt sign being on and the announcement from the flight crew members that was previously made. We then called and talked to the Lead Flight Attendant to check everyone out and she then had called us back to tell us that one of the aft flight attendants was hurt. We then called ops and requested an ambulance. We then told ATC about the severe turbulence we had just encountered and also asked for an ambulance and then asked them for a short base turn to get the aircraft on the ground. We then landed the aircraft and taxied to gate. The paramedics met the aircraft to check out the injured flight attendant and determined that she needed to go to the hospital. The two passengers walked off the aircraft and never asked for any medical attention from us.With that being said; I made four entries in the aircraft log book:1.)The aircraft encountering severe turbulence and speed between 280-340 and lasted 6-8 sec straight and level flight. 2.)O2 panel was damaged in row XX ABC.3.)Side panel damage in XX ABC 4.)The tray table was damaged in Row XY seat E.




Synopsis: A320 Captain experiences severe turbulence during descent; upon entering scattered white puffy clouds with tops at 13;500 feet; at a speed of 340 to 280 knots. Two passengers and a Flight Attendant are tossed into the overhead; with the Flight Attendant requiring medical attention.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SNA.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C SNA
ATC / advisory: Tower SNA
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A near midair collision occurred while in the traffic pattern. I was cleared to take off after [a] Cessna and was told to follow traffic. I took off and turned to John Wayne's standard 15 degree offset heading while climbing to TPA. Around 500 feet AGL I realized I no longer had traffic to follow in sight. I heard the Cessna request a short approach and ATC approved [him] for a short approach and clearance to land [Runway] 20L; after this I assumed that the traffic to follow was downwind and that I would have visual contact if I turned towards crosswind and downwind. As I was in the turn ATC asked me if I had traffic to follow in sight still. I reported back that I no longer had traffic in sight. ATC then told me to just fly a wide downwind for spacing. At this point the Cessna reported that [they] needed to make a right turn to avoid me. This whole time the Cessna was not in my visual; so they must have been beneath us and out of line-of-sight. I can only speculate on how exactly we converged as I had zero visual reference at this point with the Cessna. The Cessna and I continued flying the pattern together with no further incident but I did notice this Cessna was not flying the standard 15 degree offset on upwind and seemingly a little lower than TPA. I am unsure if this was an attributing factor to the loss of separation we encountered.




Synopsis: PA28 Instructor Pilot reported an NMAC in the traffic pattern at SNA airport.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-82
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: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Workload; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At cruise enroute; we noted the fuel slowly feeding from the main (wing) tanks with the center fuel pumps ON. During a 16 minute period; we burned a total of 1;900 LBS of fuel. All should have come from the center tank. In fact only 1;200 fed from the center tank and 700 LBS fed from the wings (mains). We ran the QRH procedure 'fuel not feeding from center tank'. Using the checklist; we discovered that leaving the left main (wing) tank pumps OFF while leaving the center tank and right main (wing) tanks ON allowed us to use center tank fuel and maintain fuel balance between wing (main) tanks. We calculated that we could make our destination with reserve fuel and alternate fuel even if the center tank fuel became unusable. We continued to the filed destination. We contacted Dispatch and Maintenance via radio. Dispatch calculated we would be within both Center of Gravity (CG) and Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW) limits with arrival fuel of approximately 3;500 LBS in center tank and 7;000 LBS in each wing tank. We declared an emergency since we had a problem with the fuel system even though we expected a normal landing. We briefed the Flight Attendants. I briefed the passengers on the PA to assure them in case they noticed emergency vehicles near the aircraft following our arrival. We made a normal approach and landing. We terminated the emergency following landing and made a normal taxi to the gate.




Synopsis: A MD82's fuel transfer system did not properly pump fuel from the center tank to the engines until the wing tank boost pumps were turned OFF. Because of the fuel and CG imbalance an emergency was declared for landing.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The event I am reporting actually occurred after I left the D-side position; but I made other controllers aware of the aircrafts involved about 10-15 minutes prior to the event. There were two aircraft; one VFR and one OTP that were operating en route at the same altitude; 085. I told the Controller I briefed that I was watching the aircraft because they were about 10 miles apart and same altitude and the back aircraft was a little bit faster (about 20 KTS or less). The Radar Controller ran a route line to illustrate where the aircraft were going. About 10 minutes later; the Radar Controller was relieved by the Controller that relieved me on the D-side; combining the two positions since traffic had started to die down and the R-side had been in for about an hour and 30 minutes. At about that time; a little after; the two aircraft got within a mile at the same altitude while they were in Sector 42's airspace; but talking to Seattle Center Controller. No traffic calls were made by either of the R-side controllers and the VFR aircraft said that he was going to file a 'near mid-air collision report.' The session leading up to this event was characterized by heavy traffic; VFR and IFR; multiple approached being made; and a newly certified R-side Controller. I am a CPC-IT here at ZOA; I am certified at both the D-side and R-side positions of this sector. The sector is characterized by mountainous terrain; lots of military use airspace; and a mix of IFR inbound/outbound from the Bay Area; as well as numerous VFR's maneuvering and flying through. This sector is complex; because the VFR's become a huge responsibility; along with all the other things going on for IFR aircraft. Also; a lot of aircraft will opt to go VFR on top (OTP) to avoid re-routes and altitude changes for the terrain. I think that this sector and Sector 40 both are very different from other low airspace that I have worked; due to the VFR complexity; and there need to be specific outlines for responsibilities concerning VFR and OTP aircraft communicated to controllers.




Synopsis: ZOA Controller describes situation where two aircraft come close to each other and one of the pilots declares a NMAC.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During preflight departure checks. Flight attendant informed the Captain that a passenger's cell phone was accidentally dropped in the sidewall next to a window seat. Maintenance was unable to retrieve the dropped cell phone. According to the maintenance MEL the item/issue could be deferred. However; most cell phones contain some type of lithium ion batteries which have been known to cause a fire hazard in certain atmospheric conditions/environments. Operating a Class II NAV/ETOPS flight with no immediate diversion options should a fire situation arise presented a situation the Captain was not comfortable with. Therefore; the decision to declare 'Unable to Operate' was made; and I as the First Officer fully supported.




Synopsis: B757 First Officer reported passenger Lithium Ion Battery powered cell phone dropped in sidewall of passenger cabin.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: NHK.TRACON, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: SVFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E NHK
ATC / advisory: TRACON NHK
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departed W41 (Crisfield; MD) planning to [a nearby airport] VFR. Shortly after departure I contacted Patuxent Control Tower and asked if R4005 was hot. Tower said 'not hot.' I acknowledged that transmission and proceeded direct to WHINO intersection; my filed SFRA Flight Plan entry point into the SFRA airspace. I climbed to 6;500 feet crossing the Chesapeake Bay. About 8 miles southeast of WHINO; Potomac Approach Control gave me approval to proceed direct [destination]. Shortly thereafter; Potomac Approach Control told me [I have a phone number] to call upon landing pertaining to a possible airspace violation. After landing; I called and talked to a controller at Patuxent Approach Control. He asked me if I was familiar with the restricted airspace in the Patuxent area; in particular R4005. I advised him yes and that I had called the Control Tower and they told me that R4005 was 'not hot' and I proceeded direct to WHINO. He advised me that the R4005 was active above 3;500 MSL (it is usually surface to but not including FL250). He told me there was no issue and no action would be taken. He was not aware of my radio call to the Tower. Upon reflection; contacting the Approach Control would have been appropriate as; apparently; the Tower Controller was not aware of the status of the restricted area. It would have been helpful if the tower controller had directed me to contact approach or verified the status of R4005 with approach before responding. If R4005 was cold Approach Control most likely would have given me flight following across the Bay; which would have also been a good idea.




Synopsis: Pilot reported of violating a restricted area. Pilot called Tower near restricted area; ATC advised Restricted area was not hot. Pilot continued on course. Pilot then was advised after landing by approach control that he had violated restricted area in question.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Landing
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: Center ZME; TRACON M03
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Came in for landing with Memphis center. Was given bad vectors inside of the FAF (this wasn't the first time Memphis has done this late at night with [a lot of traffic] coming in) to within 3 miles of heavy aircraft in front of us and told to do a rapid descent to 3;000 and then a few seconds later told to also slow down to 170 knots and then cleared for a visual approach without being asked if we had the airport or aircraft in sight. I was so upset and looking for aircraft outside and in at the TCAS that I flew past the center line and I think even past the parallel runway centerline before correcting back.Although we had the airport in sight. I wish I had refused the visual and made ATC give us better vectors even if it meant coming back around for a stable approach.Most centers won't vector you in that close to aircraft or past FAF like Memphis approach does and I consider it poor ATC of aircraft assuming that everyone will be visual and vectoring an IFR aircraft inside of the FAF or too close to other aircraft.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reports being vectored to a visual approach inside the FAF and too close to a heavy jet during a night approach to MEM.