elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: OAK.Tower, CA
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B OAK
ATC / advisory: Tower OAK
Aircraft component: Squat Switch
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: 4 mile final approach and cleared to land Runway 28R in full landing configuration; message displayed a LG AIR/GND FAIL message. QRH indicated possible loss or degradation of multiple systems including braking; nose steering; and thrust rev. We were in a safe position and altitude to request an immediate right base for Runway 30. We executed a left turn for the right base while still in landing configuration-gear down flaps 45. ATC cleared us to land 30. Upon landing; all systems functioned normally and the message extinguished.Not my area of expertise but presumably a faulty air/ground sensor(s).Improved maintenance procedures could help prevent such events. Maintenance department should trouble shoot malfunctions beyond; 'could not duplicate.'




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported receiving an alert for the air/ground switch on final approach to OAK.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During final approach; while tracking inbound on the GPS XXR approach course; the landing gear failed to extend. I requested to return to the practice area to troubleshoot the problem. The emergency gear extension checklist was used to verify all of the simple causes of no gear extension and no indications that the landing gear was extended. No breakers were blown; and the navigation light rheostat was checked to determine the gear lights were not dimmed for night operations.The emergency gear extension handle was activated; and from the sound and reduction in airspeed; it was evident that the gear extended. However; there were no gear lights to verify this. These should have come on as per the checklist. We informed Approach Control of no gear down indication and requested a flyby of Tower; to verify the landing gear position. An option for XXR was requested with a plan of using a soft field technique to verify the position of the gear with the option of a go-around if the gear gave any indication of weakness with a light touch down. The mains touched lightly and were firm; the nose was let down softly and held. It was my plan to declare an emergency if the gear gave any indication of an unlocked condition in the event I made a go-around which was not necessary.We were cleared to taxi to our FBO after touch down which we did without incident. In retrospect it may have been better to declare an emergency earlier in the event the gear had not been down and locked which was an inaction based on my assessment of the situation at the time. Aside from this inaction; I believe everything possible was done to inform ATC of the situation; and deal with it in an appropriate manner. Maintenance later determined the cause of the event was an inoperative landing gear selector switch which was not allowing power to the landing gear system.




Synopsis: PA28 instructor reported encountering a landing gear extension anomaly during final approach.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ONT.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We were operating to ONT. And filed and cleared for the KARLB2 arrival into ONT. At cruise altitude and prior to descent; Center issued a clearance to proceed direct to COAZT and to cross COAZT at 16;000 feet. As Pilot Monitoring; I read back the clearance fully; to proceed direct to COAZT and cross COAZT at 16;000 feet. We started the descent a bit early due to some turbulence and in the descent Center asked if we were going to be able to make our altitude restriction at 16;000 feet. I responded that we would be able to make COAZT at 16;000 feet and he told us that we had been cleared to cross GOATZ at 16;000 feet; not COAZT. My First Officer and I believed we both heard 'cleared to COAZT; and cross COAZT at 16;000 feet' and after initially reading that back we were not queried by ATC. So I assume that ATC thought we said GOATZ. We were then given a new clearance to proceed direct to POXKU and descend to 7;000 feet. The rest of the flight was uneventful. I believe this deviation was due in part to having two fixes on the same arrival being so similarly named. Even with our noise reducing headsets it was very difficult to tell the difference between GOATZ and COAZT. I would strongly urge one of these fixes to be renamed to prevent further miscommunication and deviation like ours.


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


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reported navigating to the wrong fix due to similar sounding fixes (GOATZ and COAZT) on the same RNAV STAR.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: FA's (Flight Attendants) initially advised of unresponsive passenger with the implication that she was not breathing and potential divert. More details to follow. Called back in 5 mins; pax responsive now with paramedic and doctor attending. Sent [request for land-based physician to call me]. FA called back about the same time as [Dispatch] and juggled the two calls. FA provided info from Medical form and indicated neither medical personnel had credentials with them; but wanted to start an IV. [Ground-based medical resource] was very concerned with BP (Blood Pressure) and HR (Heart Rate). Finally was able to provide that info after about 10 more minutes. FA's also advised pax was on O2 and IV. Initially asked for Priority Handling as pax was improving and did not feel [a more urgent flight status] was necessary. ATC wanted to know the nature of the [adverse situation] and seemed reluctant to provide priority handling. Provided the info to them and they seemed less than cooperative. Eventually after discussing with FO (First Officer) and FA's we elected to declare [an urgent medical situation] after Center and approach denied our request to land opposite direction. Our thoughts were; we had previously had a pax who was unresponsive and was now on O2 and had an IV in. Figured it was better to [an urgent situation] and later learn it was not necessary/required than the opposite (and then learn we needed the priority it affords us). Paramedic was very helpful and FA's did a fantastic job as did the Dispatcher. [Ground physician link] also very responsive and helpful. Landed uneventfully and taxied to gate and deplaned pax. Only real issue was that we told station personnel that we would plan a normal deplane as the passenger had improved significantly. Upon arrival at the gate the EMT's wanted to immediately come onboard and get [ill passenger] off the aircraft; so that was a bit confusing. Otherwise it was textbook abnormal event.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported receiving less than he felt was appropriate cooperation from ATC during a passenger illness event.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ORD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: While taxiing outbound a tug vehicle crossed our taxiway and failed to yield. We had discussed this as a threat and common area for vehicles to do this. This vehicle tug had plenty of time to stop and ran the stop sign to cross in front of us on Taxiway A. I had to brake hard to avoid collision with the vehicle and the aircraft stopped approximately 10 feet from the roadway crossing with the tug directly off the nose. I notified Ground of the incident.Vehicle drivers operating recklessly and failing to yield right of way to aircraft on taxiways. Install cameras and enforce violations of vehicle operators who risk the safety of aircraft while taxiing.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported tug failed to yield while taxiing; resulted in hard braking to avoid collision at ORD airport.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HND.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 40
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Tower HND
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was circumnavigating the Las Vegas Class B airspace after departing ZZZ and flew to the west side of the Class B at 3900 feet. The floor in this area is 4000 feet. My destination was HND. I contacted the HND Tower and was given instructions to enter a midfield downwind for 17 Right. Tower called out a 737 at my 12 o'clock and 500 feet above that was landing at LAS Runway 1. I had that airplane in sight. I was concerned that I would encounter wake turbulence from the jet as I crossed his flight path at only 500 to 600 feet below. I adjusted my crossing angle by approximately 10 degrees to the left to lessen the chance of an aircraft upset. I may have inadvertently brushed the edge of the inner ring of the Class B airspace as I was flying parallel to it. My eyes were on the jet not the moving map. There were no other airplanes in close proximity to my position at that time. The terrain around the Las Vegas Class B is mountainous with little vertical room to maneuver. My actions were based on my [many] years of experience and my desire to fly in a safe and proficient manor. I did encounter the wake turbulence; but it was an up and down series of jolts and not a dreaded wing roll; because of my actions. I believe that the best way to prevent the chance of an encroachment would be to fly a greater distance from the Class B inner ring.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot reported a possible Class B incursion after altering course to avoid a wake turbulence encounter with a B737.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At 80 KTS Captain called '80 KTS.' On crosscheck; First Officer's side airspeed indicator read 0 with an AS flag. I replied negative; Captain called for reject; assumed control of aircraft. Reject was announced over radio. Aircraft was cleared off runway and returned to ramp for maintenance. Maximum observed ground speed was reported by jumpseater to be 110 KTS.


Second narrative: Aborted takeoff due to First Officer having no airspeed indication. [We] aborted at 110 KTS. Tower was notified and taxied back to gate. Maintenance found faulty Mach airspeed indicator on First Officer's side. Brake cooling chart was used. Instrument was removed and replaced; new instrument was tested and found to be airworthy. Logbook filled out and signed off; taxi out and takeoff was uneventful.


Synopsis: B757 flight crew experiences a failure of the First Officer's airspeed indicator during takeoff and the takeoff is rejected by the Captain. Mach airspeed indicator was found to be defective and was replaced by Maintenance.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RHV.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight planned SJC VINCO V107 PXN ... During IMC climb transition to level at 6;000 MSL; TRACON assigned a heading which was essentially direct VINCO Intersection. Nearing the intersection; I was cleared pilot navigation to join V107. I (too) quickly noted position on moving map display; and then engaged GPSS and alt hold. As the aircraft began its turn; I turned to check the wings and tail for icing; as the aircraft was in cloud tops and temperature was slightly above freezing. A few moments later; I noted that the turn was continuing well beyond the expected heading; and immediately disengaged the autopilot while beginning a turn back toward the V107 course. Simultaneously; NCT TRACON called to ask heading. I confirmed the turn on course and the Controller noted that the heading had been almost the reciprocal of the expected heading. At this point; I recognized the problem. When I engaged GPSS; the GPS had not yet sequenced from the SJC-VINCO leg to the VINCO-PXN (V107) leg. The GPS was attempting to reestablish itself on the first leg inbound to VINCO; and GPSS had commanded a near-360 turn. The correction is simple: before engaging the automation; ensure you know the state of the automation.




Synopsis: BE35 pilot reports engaging the autopilot and GPS without verifying the waypoint after being cleared to join V107. The aircraft attempts to turn back to the previous fix (VOR) before it is detected by both ATC and the reporter.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm; 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Cleared for position and hold [on the runway]. While taxiing into position; aircraft started to skid to right side of runway. Used differential power on left engine to bring aircraft around into position. Aircraft went past centerline; takeoff clearance cancelled; exited runway and positioned short of the hold short line. Subsequently cleared for position and hold and then take-off.




Synopsis: A general aviation pilot reported that strong winds from surrounding weather caused the aircraft to drift off the centerline on a wet runway while lining up for takeoff. The pilot cancelled the takeoff request and re-attempted the departure successfully.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Wheel Assemblies
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other during maintenance
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: While removing and replacing the #2 Main Wheel Assembly (MWA); [two maintenance technicians] were notified that there was no nitrogen available on the field. It was later discovered that a NOTAM was put out on this situation but no one was notified. While searching for nitrogen; the Ground Handler found some across the field. When he brought it to the airplane; [the maintenance technicians] found that the adapter was not set up for our tooling. While attempting to remove the adapter that was excessively tight; the wrench slipped off the nut and impacted [one of the technician's] finger causing a laceration. He then applied First Aid; finished the MWA replacement. Went back into the airplane to change the bandage at which point he was directed to go to the doctor to get further care which resulted in 3 stitches; a tetanus shot; and anti-biotic. He then remained in ZZZ while [the other technician] continued the trips until the aircraft returned. [The injured technician] then finished the mission and returned home.




Synopsis: A Maintenance Supervisor reported that during a tire change on a Boeing 757; a Technician lacerated his finger when attempting to change a fitting on a nitrogen cart.