elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RNO.Tower, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C RNO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At approximately XA30 Pacific Standard Time; an Airbus crew flying to RNO encountered an unstable approach to landing. During this event; the Airbus was occupied by two cockpit jump seaters as well as a full cabin of passengers and cabin crewmembers.At the time of this incident; RNO was arriving traffic to the North and the crew were reassigned the 'Rusme 2' Arrival which provides a terminating fix/approach transition over the 'Spoon' intersection to the KRNO ILS 34L. Winds aloft; during descent and arrival; presented a tailwind scenario for the crew.With little success in slowing and/or configuring the aircraft for a stabilized approach and landing; this flight crew crossed 1;000 feet RA at 181 knots with ONLY Flaps 2 and Gear Down. Further; the aircraft was not on Glideslope and the Pilot Flying attempted to complete S-turns (night ops in a terrain-ridden environment) to induce drag and recover a failed approach.As an observer in the center jump seat; I decided to give the crew the 'benefit of the doubt' regarding the decision to call a Go-Around at and after 1;000 feet RA. Astonished that neither crewmember called a Go-Around despite an insufficient landing configuration AND an approach speed in excess of 50 knots; I stated; 'Guys this doesn't look good; come on; Go-Around' at approximately 800 feet RA.At this point; the First Officer agreed with my assessment; the Captain; however; continued to 'fight-the-approach' until the First Officer stated; 'Go-Around.' At approximately 700 feet RA; the Captain enacted the Go-Around procedure.The Captain was the Pilot Flying. My judgement/opinion suggests that the resulting unstabilized approach was the direct result of (1) the Captain's decision to disregard the recommended '210 knots' speed limitation at 'Spoon' (crossed this fix at 250 knots); (2) the Captain's decision to delay gear extension despite being high on the glideslope and unable to slow due to the prevailing winds aloft; (3) the Captain's decision to stow the speed brakes after establishing 'Flaps 2' (without gear down); and (4) the Captain's and/or First Officer's limited understanding or lack of respect for the 'stabilized approach' criteria. This data/recount is provided to the best of my knowledge despite being almost [a few] days old.




Synopsis: During approach; a cockpit observer suggested to the flight crew that a Go-Around was warranted during to an unstable approach condition. Flight crew executed a Go-Around.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beech F90
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; 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 Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in cruise flight; I began to notice undesirable engine trends and indications of an impending failure or forced shutdown. I adjusted my destination from ZZZ to ZZZ1 with ATC. Upon further evaluation and worsening engine indications; a change of destination from ZZZ1 to ZZZ2 was requested with ATC and approved.As I turned toward ZZZ2; I was forced to shut down the ride engine and requested priority handling with ATC. An approach to land was made on Runway 13 with no event and no injuries to passengers or crew. We then exited the runway and parked at the FBO as if it was a normal flight. I then contacted WX Brief and asked them to contact Center; relay my phone number; and confirm I was safe on the ground. Center Controller then contacted me to verbally verify we were safe on the ground in ZZZ2. I would like to thank the professional and extremely helpful Center Controller. It helped in a truly troubling situation.




Synopsis: Beech F90 Captain reported diverting due to deteriorating engine parameters which caused an in-flight shut down of the right engine.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: BHM.Airport, AL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C BHM
ATC / advisory: Tower BHM
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Malfunctioning; Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On short final to Runway 18; we received a GPWS 'Too Low Terrain' Alert. The pilot flying initiated a go-around. Aircraft was on glide slope and airspeed. The visual was backed up by the RNAV glide slope. The PAPI was showing two red over two white.[This] could be an anomaly with the GPWS. There was a NOTAM on the RNAV for Runway 36 approach; noting terrain warnings and that the approach was no longer authorized.




Synopsis: The flight crew of a B737 received a GPWS Terrain warning for no apparent reason on short final to Runway 18 at BHM. They appropriately executed a go around.
Date: 201303
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying the airplane on final approach; and Approach Control told us to maintain 180 knots to 5 DME and contact Tower.  As soon as we contacted the Tower; we were asked our airspeed; and replied 180 knots.  Then Tower asked the airplane ahead for their airspeed; which was 140 knots; and at that point the Tower told us to slow to approach speed.  I looked on TCAS and noticed the airplane ahead to be fairly close; and I knew that we had to slow quickly.   I disconnected the autothrottles and pulled power to idle; and as we slowed final flaps were set at 30 degrees. The auto-pilot was engaged on the localizer and glide slope.  I had forgotten that I had disconnected the autothrottles; and then noticed that the airspeed indicator was flashing because the airspeed was too slow.  I pushed the power up and the stick shaker burbled momentarily; and the speed recovered quickly.  What a disappointment to me that I allowed this to happen.  One thing that I pride myself for is my respect for airspeed; and I have always paid particular attention to the airspeed on approach and landing.   What I did wrong is that I may not have mentioned to the other pilots that I had disconnected the auto-throttles.   What I also did wrong is that I left my normal pattern of flying an approach: I never disconnect the autothrottles before I disconnect the auto-pilot; but I did this time. By leaving an established habit pattern caused me to forget what I had done. I will remember this.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: During approach; the pilot flying disconnected the autothrottles to expedite speed reduction; and aircraft slowed undetected to below reference speed.
Date: 202201
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN; Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: After checking in with Denver Approach;  we were given a descend from 13;000 to 11;000 feet.  As we began the descent;  we received a GPS Primary Lost message on the navigation display and the GPS accuracy went from HIGH to LOW.  We also received the alert message NAV ADS-B RPTG 1 (and 2) FAULT.  Turning onto the final approach course;  the GPS accuracy returned to HIGH; but the ADS-B Fault periodically returned.  We landed the aircraft without any other issues.  Denver stated that it may have something to do with the 5G network.


Second narrative: On descent via the TBARR3 arrival into Denver we experienced dual GPS failure and dual NAV ADS-B RPTG 1 and 2 FAULTS.We checked in with Denver approach and we were given a heading 070 degrees and clearance to descend from 13;000 to 11;000 ft.  Approach advised that several aircraft were reporting 5G navigation interference on arrival into DEN.  We then experienced DUAL GPS failure and dual NAV ADS-B RPTG FAULTS in systems 1 and 2.  It was an intermittent failure about every 30 seconds for about 2 minutes until it finally failed.  We were approximately 30 miles southwest of DEN at this time. We subsequently heard several other aircraft report the same anomalies.The aircraft was on autopilot and continued to descend and level at 11;000 feet normally. The weather was 3;000 broken; 500 scattered and 1 3/4 miles visibility. We planned to fly the CAT I ILS 35L.  I discussed the issue with the First Officer and decided to continue with our plan to fly the ILS approach.  We received vectors to final and flew an uneventful approach and landing.I'm reporting this because I'm not sure if it was related to the 5G bulletins we have received over the last week.There were no NOTAMs that indicated that 5G would be an issue.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported loss of GPS signal while in descent to Denver airport.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BCT.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 6
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Other Mapping
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D BCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PBI
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Returning from aerial mapping mission to base; ATC instructed us to proceed direct to our destination (FXE) from our current location which was just south of PBI at an assigned altitude of 2000 ft MSL. After entering Boca airport's Class D; ATC advised us that 'radar service is terminated; squawk VFR; frequency change.' After switching and realizing we were still on the edge of Class D without establishing communications with tower; we turned southwest to clear the airspace expeditiously. We then contacted the tower at our destination airport prior to entering their airspace. Having just flown through PBI's Class D per approach instructions; we assumed they were coordinating with the other towers along our route. It was unclear why ATC terminated our service after their instructions sent us into controlled airspace.




Synopsis: C206 pilot questioned why PBI TRACON terminated radar services as they were still in BCT Delta airspace.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PGD.Airport, FL
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu Meridian
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E RSW
ATC / advisory: TRACON RSW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; 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 Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Final radar when the PA46 checked in on course to PGD. The pilot requested the RNAV Runway 33 Approach at PGD. I coordinated with the Tower and they approved the approach. I gave the aircraft a 160 heading in order to comply with his request. The pilot followed my instructions and flew the 160 heading. The pilot then asked for lower; and I descended him to 2;500 from his original 3;000. A couple miles later he asked me for lower again. I advised that I was unable to descend him any lower because of the antennas [in the vicinity] and that was the [initial] altitude of the approach he was requesting. When the pilot got abeam the final approach fix; I cleared him to '...turn right direct PETSE; four miles from PETSE; cross PETSE at 2;500; cleared RNAV Runway 33 Approach'. The pilot read back; 'Turn direct PETSE; cleared approach'. I didn't see anything wrong with that because the altitude is published on the approach plate. After a couple of sweeps on the radar scope; the pilot descended from 2;500 to 1;500 MSL less than half a mile from the antennas at SERFS. When I noticed it; I told the pilot that he was supposed to cross PETSE at 2;500 and that was why I could not descend him any lower. His response was; 'OH'. I notified my CICR regarding this issue and he called PGD Tower to notify the pilot to call our facility; which he didn't do.




Synopsis: Despite repeated attempts by the TRACON Controller to make him aware; the pilot of a PA46 failed to comply with the altitude constraints associated with the RNAV (GPS) Runway 33 approach to PGD. The pilot also failed to contact the facility to review the incident as requested.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ROA.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ROA
ATC / advisory: Tower ROA
Second aircraft: Beechcraft / Beech Aircraft Corp Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Captain was hand-flying visual to runway 24; right-hand traffic; using 'Snowflake' guidance from the FMS because there was not any other electronic guidance available. There were several GA aircraft in the pattern. We were told that we would be number two following a Citation. We had visual contact and separation from the Citation and we were cleared to land on runway 24. There were at least GA aircraft making left-traffic and a Caravan behind us. A Beechcraft; was making left-hand traffic and told to extend his downwind to follow the RJ. Apparently; he told the controller that he thought the Citation was the RJ. He quickly turned base and final. This put him on a collision course with us. On TCAS; we observed the Beechcraft on downwind and expected him to comply with ATC's instructions. We were in the final stages of the visual approach below 1000 ft AGL when we received a TCAS warning; promptly followed with a 'Don't Descend' RA. When we received the warning; I stretched to look over the nose for traffic and saw the [Beechcraft] just below our nose and intercepting the final approach course. I noted his position and the Captain called for a go-around. The go-around call was coincident with the 'Don't Descend' RA. We executed a successful go-around and returned for a safe landing. After landing; the tower began to ask us questions about the incident. He said that he was also going to file a report.


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


Synopsis: CRJ flight crew reported a General Aviation aircraft turned early; resulting in a TCAS RA and subsequent go-around.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CYYZ.Airport, ON
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON CYYZ
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Approach called out traffic for us to follow; however at no time did we receive a caution for wake turbulence. I thought I saw the aircraft to follow and it looked like a heavy aircraft. As we turned to final we encountered wake turbulence which was very abrupt and rolled the aircraft about 15-20 degrees and gave us a good shudder. We were assigned a speed and I told the pilot not flying to tell Approach that we were slowing because of a wake turbulence encounter. Approach acknowledged and we also asked the type of the aircraft and we were told that it was an A320. A short time later we were told to increase our airspeed to 170 KTS until the FAF. I told the pilot not flying to tell ATC I wouldn't increase speed because of the wake from the previous aircraft. We were told to discontinue the approach and given a turn off the final and climb instructions.




Synopsis: A Citation Excel encountered wake vortices from an A320 on approach into CYYZ.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; Rain; 2
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: ILS/VOR
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: My plane developed navigation system problems while enroute IFR to SNA. ATC provided vectors. Upon intercepting the localizer the glide slope receiver failed converting the approach to localizer only. Along the approach Nav #1 (glide slope) then failed completely. Fortunately I was able to continue with Nav #2; DME and visual cues. During the last moments of the approach Tower advised I check altitude as they showed me at 500 FT. Inside DYERS with DME the minimum is 440 FT. I think I was okay however while somewhat distracted by equipment failure and concerned about the health of my remaining navigation receiver I might have lost some altitude while maintaining visibility and may have broken minimums.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Piper PA28 experienced navigation radio problems while on an IFR flight plan. ATC provided assistance and altitude monitoring during his approach and landing.