elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were climbing out on initial heading and; when we attempted to raise the gear; it would not retract. We 'cleaned up' the aircraft; leveled at 5;000 MSL and followed the ECAM procedures for L/G retraction fault. We then calculated the increased fuel consumption to destination which required us to return to our departure airport. We explained our landing gear problem to departure control and got vectors back to an ILS. Enroute we reviewed ECAM procedures; informed Dispatch and Maintenance Control; completed all checklists and approach briefings and then completed an uneventful landing and taxi back to the ramp.


Second narrative: Once we were on the ground; there was some question from Maintenance as to why we did not switch to the opposite gear system. I explained that this procedure was in another checklist that we were not alerted to by ECAM. We ran the procedure that was presented by the aircraft. The 'L/G Lever Interlock' procedure calls for switching the L/G Position Det System switch to opposite system. That will work if the gear is all aligned and centered for retraction. In our case; the system had determined there was a problem with gear positioning for retraction and gave us a different ECAM procedure.


Synopsis: An A300 flight crew elected to return to their departure airport for maintenance when the landing gear failed to retract after takeoff and the increased fuel burn to destination precluded continuing.
Date: 201210
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After experiencing wake turbulence from B757 ahead; landing LAX; we went above glide slope and slightly left of course (VMC visual). Ended up high on final and out of position for proper landing. Went around. Was vectored 6 miles behind B747. Experienced wake turbulence again. Landed.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported encountering wake vortex on arrival to LAX; resulting in an unstable approach followed by a go around. Flight encountered wake turbulence on the next approach also but a normal landing was made.
Date: 202102
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Physiological - Other; Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Once the aircraft door was opened and only a few passengers from first class deplaned; the cleaners were trying to come on. We asked them to wait just a bit; as we had 4 wheelchairs; and our first-class cabin was still getting off. The cleaners told us they are instructed to get on right away. The Captain said No; they needed to wait till most of the aircraft had deplaned. A few of the cleaners were still trying to argue with us; even after the Captain had said they had to wait. There are no quick turns; as our cleaning procedures during this pandemic are totally opposite of the term quick turn. This also is dangerous for the passengers and crew. There is no room for cleaners in the galleys or in the aisle as we safety try to deplaned using the company's policy of social distance; and deplaning a few rows at a time.In addition; the cleaners are getting in the way of the flight crew full filing our FARs responsibilities and safety obligations; post cabin sweeps. This is a safety hazard and needs to be addressed immediately.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported; after gate arrival; the oncoming cleaning crew was interfering with passenger deplaning and social distance policy.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Exhaust Manifold
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; 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: An exhaust manifold of PA28-180 broke off over open water causing me to declare an emergency. I took off for a cross country flight. When I was 50 NM from my destination airport I noticed a loss of RPM so I started switching tanks; leaning and enriching the mixture. Turning on the fuel pump and turning on carburetor heat. Etc. the plane sounded like it was coming apart. It was backfiring and sputtering like crazy and any change in throttle or mixture made it worse. I immediately declared an emergency and set transponder to 7700 as I was not in glide range of an airport and was loosing power and altitude. I was over water and swamp with nothing to land on. I declared to ATC that I was flying through a cloud as I was holding the altitude I had while engine was still running. They advised me against it but I was at the cloud already it was really a non issue as once I got to it I skipped right under it so it all worked out. When my A&P came to see what happened he said the cylinder was running overly lean from the exhaust leek and also it was blowing all the exhaust gas right in the carburetor which is probably what caused all the backfire. In hindsight I guess the engine wasn't totally stopped maybe I shouldn't have declared an emergency as I made it to the airport but I was loosing altitude and the engine could have stopped at any time so if I had to do it again I would have probably done the same thing.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reports a very noisy and rough running engine with reduced power during a cross country flight. Reporter is able to return to the departure airport safely.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Both on this flight and on a previous flight; I noticed that the summary form no longer has 'Hazmat' on it; did the form change and no one told us; or did the procedure change and no one told us? This a good way for the pilots to know to keep an eye out for Hazmat paperwork; as opposed to the ramp forgetting to bring it up and us not even knowing it is on board.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported the flight crew preflight summary form has discontinued listing Hazmat information.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Robinson R44
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Enroute heading 050 and climbing to get reception for flight following from Center while VFR I was in the right seat of a Robinson R44 when I saw a light fixed wing aircraft that appeared to be a Blue and White Bonanza or Cirrus out of the lower left window next to the console begin to turn away on a westerly heading. Left seat had controls and turned slightly to the right and then returned to our previous heading as the other aircraft had already passed us and was no longer a factor. The fixed wing aircraft appeared to be approximately 50 feet below and approximately 100-150 feet to the left of our aircraft. The flight went on and completed with no issue. Had we already been on with Center before; this event may have been avoided.




Synopsis: R-44 pilot reported a NMAC with a fixed wing aircraft.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RSW.TRACON, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON RSW; Tower APF
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
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 Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was at 3;000 feet on a vector 3 miles northeast of APF. There was an aircraft that departed APF squawking 1200. I observed the aircraft climbing and saw the aircraft go above 2;500 feet. I immediately called APF Tower and told them to stop the VFR aircraft for traffic. These aircraft were min separation was 0.12 on my scope when I observed the VFR departure climb thru 2;500 feet. This is now the 4th incident with the same controller at APF. I have had a VFR aircraft climb through my downwind at 3;000 feet. When I called over; I was told that 'The aircraft is VFR;' in a real condescending fashion. I tried to explain that regardless of the type of flight; we have an obligation to separate aircraft. I have also had 2 subsequent departures with the Controller where a jet has been turned through a VFR aircraft's flight path. In fact; one happened last week and they were .4 miles apart and climbing through the aircraft's altitude. Both aircraft were on me; so visual separation was not being provided. There is a history with issue with APF Tower. It is dangerous and needs to be addressed.There needs to be intervention from the FAA to address the safety issues at APF Tower. Although they have made improvements in the recent past; there still appears to be a lack of safety culture especially with VFR aircraft. There needs to be remedial training given on separation responsibilities. Although VFR aircraft are required minimal separation; the idea that they are VFR and subsequently not subject to any separation is a falsehood.




Synopsis: A TRACON Controller reported the Tower allowed a VFR aircraft to climb into confliction with traffic TRACON was vectoring on downwind.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Emergency Exit
Component problem: Failed
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: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While flying VFR in cruise flight; the Emergency Exit door in Row 2 opened as we were approaching the south shore of the island. I told Approach that I needed to divert to the [nearby] airport. They handed me over to Tower. Not knowing what; if any; damage was done to the aircraft; or if any passengers were injured; I declared an emergency with the Tower. Once established inbound I checked on the passengers; who were all fine. We landed with no further incident.




Synopsis: When an air taxi CE-402 lost the emergency exit door in flight the Captain declared an emergency and diverted to a nearby airport.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MSP.Airport, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B MSP
ATC / advisory: Tower MSP
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Departing ZZZ; heavy slush and temperatures were at 32 degrees. We discussed possible brake freeze and took precautionary measures. We dragged the brakes during taxi; left the flaps up until ready for take-off and left the gear down until 200 knots. During the approach brief to MSP; we again discussed brake freeze prior to landing. When we touched down; it became apparent that the brakes were locked. We kept the plane near centerline and came to a stop. We contacted tower; informing them of our situation; requested a tow and asked for rescue trucks. There were no injuries and damage was limited to the main gear. Passengers were transferred to FBO van and the Fire Commander took charge of having the airplane towed from the runway.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information]


Synopsis: A CE-680 flight crew reported that even though they followed all proper procedures; they found the brakes were frozen solid upon landing from slush and ice.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: Tower TEB
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: My flight was from TEB. The route clearance started with TEB 8 SBJ V6 etc. 3;000; 8;000 in ten minutes. After a LUAW instruction from Teterboro Tower; I was cleared for takeoff from Runway 1 at TEB. The Tower instruction was 'Runway 1 cleared for takeoff'. I neither heard nor read back any initial heading or altitude assignment. The airport and airspace was very busy. After departure; I did not hear a contact Departure instruction as expected. After several minutes; I called Teterboro Tower to ask if I had missed the call. The Tower Controller then instructed me to contact Departure. By the time I made my initial call to New York Departure; I had flown the required northeast portion of the departure procedure and was southwest of TEB at 3;000 FT on the way to SBJ. The flight conditions were clear VMC but the delay in the hand off was not a good situation. I am not sure if I missed the call or if it was not made but either way the situation should not have happened. An earlier call by myself to TEB to inquire about the hand off would have made the situation better. Also; it sounded as if the Tower Controller was assisting the Ground Controller adding to his already heavy work load.




Synopsis: An pilot departed on the TEB 8 and transitioned direct SBJ before contacting the TRACON because TEB Tower had not directed a frequency change after takeoff.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-6
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; 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: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During climb I called ATC approach and requested flight following. My #1 comm radio quit working earlier in the day so I was using a handheld. During the cruise portion; my communication with ATC was not consistent and I was having to move my antennae around for reception. As I was getting near [destination area] I could not get ATC to let them know I was going to start my decent. I called several times and ATC was not receiving my transmissions. I then squaked 7600 for lost communications and landed at [planned private destination airport]. Normally I tell ATC on initial call that I am going to [a nearby public airport] because [the private airport] is not in their system and as I get closer I tell them I am going to [the private airport] 10 miles north; which I did. I had also told ATC during the cruise that I had radio problems and I was in fact using a hand held. Later that night the local sheriff came to my house looking for the airplane and I let him in the hangar to verify.After the sheriff left; I called flight service to discuss and let them know what happened.A few minutes later I got a call from ATC and we discussed what happened and he told me they sent out a search. I told him that I thought squawking 7600 would have alerted them that I lost communication and I did not think I needed to take any other action. He told me I should have called flight service after I landed; but he did not think I did anything wrong. I was disappointed that I wasted resources looking for me and learned that I should have called them.




Synopsis: The pilot of a small airplane reported the loss of communication with ATC while enroute to a private airport that had not been shared with ATC. Later; law enforcement located the pilot to confirm a safe arrival.