elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Latitude (C680A)
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear Indicating System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Landed hoping gear was down and locked after completing all possible checklists.Sign off [said] maintenance cleaned cannon plug. Cannon plugs on an aircraft less than one year old should not be causing this many issues. Are there moisture seals inside all of these cannon plugs?




Synopsis: C680A First Officer reported the aircraft landed with a left main gear disagree indication. Post flight maintenance sign off showed they cleaned cannon plugs.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: TBM 700/TBM 850
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had a gear up landing in [a TBM700]. I was flying with my son; and the good news is that we are both fine; but the airplane does not look too good. I'm embarrassed that this happened and a little unsure of what occurred. I did a go-around on our first attempt because a couple of coyotes were crossing the runway. I must have retracted the gear on the go-around and then not realized that the gear was up on the second approach. Usually I put the gear down to slow the airplane; but since we were already slow; I thought it was already down. The gear warning horn did not sound because I had only 10 degrees of flaps in.




Synopsis: A TBM-700 pilot landed gear up when he did not remember raising the landing gear following a go-around because of animals on the runway.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DLH.Airport, MN
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower DLH
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: It was the first flight of the morning and also the first flight of the trip for me. I just met the crew; me and the FO [First Officer] never flew with each other as well as being new. Also; we never had been to this airport before. Everything was normal as far as boarding; we started both engines at the gate because the end of the runway was very close to the ramp. The FO called for taxi and ATC says taxi to Runway 27. While taxing I was telling the FO about the hydraulic procedure and asking him when he turned the hydraulic switches from on to auto. During that brief conversation I passed [Taxiway] A5 and was told by ATC to stop and do a 180 back to [Taxiway] A5. (Which is the beginning of the runway) and given the Tower number. I called them when we landed in ZZZ1 and he said it was common (it happens about once a week) and they will soon be posting that area as a hotspot. The rest of the flight was normal ops.Causal factors: It was the first flight of the morning and it always seems rushed; combined with the new weight and balance and a new crew; it felt like I was trying to catch up. Also; it was a new unfamiliar airport with the runway about 100 yards away; combined with a somewhat vague restricted area on the other side of the field. I believe this was the subtle chain of events along with a brief disruption in my situational awareness that was the direct cause.I believe I should have looked a lot closer (zoomed in) at the airport diagram; and should have briefed the FO exactly where the runway entrance was at [Taxiway] A5 and where the restricted area boundaries were. Also; as I mentioned before; and ATC also told me; they need to revise this chart and put that area as a hotspot because it's so easy to pass if you're not completely focused. Also; I should have waited to ask the FO about the hydraulic procedure till later. Also; as far as the chart goes; not only should this area be a hotspot but it should be magnified in the corner of the chart as well as having a description on the 10-7 pages that covers both sides of the airport where the boundary is.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported missing a turn at Taxiway A5 in DLH airport. Captain stated ATC mentioned it was a common occurrence at the location in the airport.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: FFZ.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D FFZ
ATC / advisory: Tower FFZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was working with a student pilot in the traffic pattern at FFZ. We were conducting multiple touch and goes on runway 4L. On downwind; Falcon Tower announced to us 'number two 4L cleared touch and go 4L; follow the citabria on base'; we responded that we had the traffic in sight and continued the traffic pattern. The tower told the aircraft behind us to follow our aircraft and they were also cleared touch and go (or land) 4L. Once on final approach to runway 4L; I noticed the aircraft that was supposed to follow us was around 10-20 ft above us and our wingtips were 10-20 feet apart. I don't believe the low-wing aircraft was able to see us; and I was unable to maneuver the aircraft out of the possible collision course much because of low altitude and parallel runway in use. I announced to tower that there was an aircraft parallel to ours. Once I made the radio call; the pilot of the aircraft said 'go-around'. The tower acknowledged the other aircraft's go-around; and had told them that they were supposed to follow our aircraft. There was some haze so it could have been that the traffic behind us had never seen us due to the fact our aircraft is white; or that they were following the citabria instead of our aircraft. Tower never advised the other aircraft that they had turned too early.




Synopsis: DA40 instructor pilot reported a NMAC with another aircraft on final approach. The other aircraft had been instructed to follow the reporter; but apparently followed the aircraft ahead.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was final monitor and was the first to notice Aircraft X on the RNAV 17C Approach. It has previously been identified that you cannot run an RNAV approach during simultaneous instrument approaches with the displaced threshold that we currently have to 17C. The aircraft landed without incident but this was an illegal approach. It has been deemed illegal to run the RNAV approach to 17C due to lack of vertical guidance. What makes this interesting is the legal approach is the LOC 17C which also doesn't have vertical guidance.




Synopsis: Dallas TRACON Controller reported not being able to run an RNAV approach while running simultaneous ILS approaches.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TNCA.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After spending 15 to 20 minutes coordinating with Dispatch for an MEL and performance data computations; ATC was eager to move us off the gate. Startup flows and sequence was initiated; and one (#2) engine was started. Immediately after the Ground Crew disconnected and drove off; Ramp pushed us to Tower 'for clearance.'  First Officer switched the radio frequency and Tower quickly instructed us for an immediate taxi. Upon releasing the parking brake to begin taxi; I noticed the flaps at zero and the 'A' pumps were off. I immediately stopped the aircraft. (We moved approximately two to three feet.) I set the parking brake and the First Officer requested a short delay for taxi. We then started the #1 engine; set the flaps to 1; and completed the Before Taxi Checklist. Subsequent operations were normal.  Our delay with Dispatch to coordinate the MEL and associated communication must have pressured Aruba/Beatrix ramp to get us off the gate and Tower to get us moving. As a Crew; we were already 'in the Orange' after working to push off and get the engine started and; when switched to Tower and told to begin taxi; we fell into the trap of focusing our attention on the radios and taxi operation without first ensuring we were ready to do so. Tower was in a hurry to get us moving The procedure for giving Aircrews clearance over the already congested and busy Tower frequency in conjunction with taxi is full of pitfalls. It would be much easier if Ramp could give us our clearance and then we could briefly confirm it with Tower before taxi.  Lots of moving parts in a short duration.




Synopsis: Crew began taxi before completion of the engine start sequence and post-start checklist. As a result; the aircraft was not properly configured and all hydraulic systems were not turned on.  Crew faulted the urgency from Tower to move the aircraft and recommended that local procedures be changed so that flight clearances are not broadcast to crews over the busy tower frequency.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were being vectored for a visual at ZZZ following a go-around. ATC instructed us to descend to 4;000 [feet]. I started a V/S descent; at about 4;600 feet; ATC advised 'Stop descent; traffic alert 11 o'clock; 1 mile altitude indicates 3;700 [feet]' I clicked off the autopilot and leveled off at 4;500 feet. About the same time; TCAS issued a 'traffic traffic' call. We sighted the VFR aircraft; which appeared to be close off our left; and maintained visual separation as instructed by ATC.  Our recommended procedure of selecting TA on simultaneous parallel approaches (ZZZ 10-7) sets us up for not having TCAS RAs available following a go-around. We aren't trained; nor did I ever think about; going back to TA/RA after our Tower instructed go-around. It wasn't until we heard 'traffic traffic' that I remembered we were still in TA.  This incident followed a go-around; and we were extremely busy setting up for a new approach to a different runway.  We were never closer than 500 feet from the VFR aircraft to the best of my recollection but was still surprised by the proximity of the VFR aircraft.  Shortly after ATC advised us to descend to 4;000 feet. then cleared us for the visual approach [Runway] XXL.  I contacted the [Chief Pilot] to report the incident shortly after we landed.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported after an ATC requested go-around; they encountered TA while on the return visual approach.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 350
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Before entering Runway XX I announced my intentions to depart and leave the area on a southeast heading. After my rollout about 400 feet down the runway I heard a helicopter pilot report his departure from the field left of Runway XX. He would be heading south. When I was airborne and climbing out I looked to my left and saw said helicopter about 100-150 feet off my left wing. I performed a hard climb and continued on runway heading until clear of the other aircraft.




Synopsis: Cessna 350 pilot reported taking evasive action after takeoff due to a helicopter executing a simultaneous takeoff from the opposite end of the runway.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LIT.Airport, AR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 6
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E LIT
ATC / advisory: TRACON LIT
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I arrived [on an IFR flight] and received fuel and added 2 qt of oil and filed a IFR plan for the return. I departed and received radar vectors from the tower and departure. At around 6;000 feet I had a very sudden and large power loss. I contacted departure and [requested a return to the field] with a subsequent safe landing. The shop that looked at it found the number 5 air intake line had come loose. They advised and repaired with normal performance restored.




Synopsis: The pilot of a C206 reported a power loss during climb out with a subsequent return to the departure airport. Maintenance personnel identified that an air intake line had come loose.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Duchess 76
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Trainee
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon completing landing for a touch and go; I (the instructor); called out to the student that I was bringing the flaps up and was about to tell him to go full power. The student reached over and put the gear handle into the 'up' position. This caused the nose gear to collapse and the airplane to skid on its nose. The props also struck the ground; due to not having enough clearance now that the nose gear was up.


Second narrative: After landing for a touch and go; I tried to pull the flaps up but instead grabbed the gear handle and put it in the up position. This caused the nose gear to collapse and the nose of the airplane to drop. The props struck the ground because of no clearance and the nose skin was damaged.


Synopsis: The pilot and instructor of a BE-76 reported a landing gear collapse during a touch-and-go when the pilot in training manipulated the landing gear control rather than the flap control.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: F/A 18 Hornet/Super Hornet
Operator: Military
Operating under: Other Military
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Second aircraft: A319
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; 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; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: A military fighter jet at 39000 feet; had an equipment suffix of /W; which made it RVSM capable. A different military fighter jet 60-70 miles behind the first one; checked on frequency. It was showing NON-RVSM capable at 41000 feet. Instinct caused us to question the first one. The pilot stated they were; in fact; NON-RVSM capable. We notified the supervisor and changed the aircraft's equipment suffix to /I. We were notified that separation had been lost with an aircraft at 38000 feet and an aircraft at 40000 feet.




Synopsis: An F/A18 filed a flight plan with an equipment suffix indicating they were RVSM capable which permits ATC to use 1;000 feet vertical separation above 29;000 feet instead of 2;000 feet. The Controller asked the pilot to verify its equipment suffix type. The pilot responded with slant India which is not RVSM capable. The aircraft had passed two other aircraft with 1;000 feet of vertical separation prior to the Controller finding out the wrong suffix was filed.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was demonstrating how to perform the Turns-around-a-point maneuver to both of my Students. We had completed our pre-maneuver flow and made a radio call announcing our intention to perform Ground Reference Maneuvers within the vicinity of [two] practice area checkpoints. I then proceeded to descend from 1;700 AGL to 1;000 AGL and began demonstrating Turns-around-a-point. As half the maneuver was completed; my backseat student called out a Cessna to our 7-8 o'clock approaching us from below. I aborted the maneuver and proceeded to climb; the conflicting traffic was then at our 9 o'clock; and at an approximate altitude of 500-600 AGL; passing right below us.I heard no other radio calls indicative of someone operating within the same area; or heading towards the area I was operating. A company aircraft made a radio call immediately after the event; stating a position and direction that seemed coincident with where the conflicting traffic would be after the event had occurred. I was unable to verify if they were the encountered traffic; as they had not stated their altitude. No one else had mentioned the occurrence over the practice area frequency. I believe that a lapse in communication contributed to this event.




Synopsis: C172 flight instructor reported an NMAC while conducting ground reference maneuvers.