elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LVK.Airport, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D LVK
ATC / advisory: Tower LVK
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X was on short final and the CPC-IT looked with her binoculars and noticed that the aircraft had its gear up and notified the pilot. The pilot did not know that his landing gear was up. She did an excellent job saving a possible accident from happening. Everything worked like it should have.




Synopsis: LVK Controller reports of an aircraft on final without its gear down.  Local Control Developmental advises the pilot the gear isn't down and pilot cycles gear; lands safely.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Metro Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System Lines; Connectors; Fittings
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach the hydraulic gauge began fluctuating randomly with simultaneous MAP lights and noises in the jumpseat area. Immediately we slowed; lowered gear; and flaps in preparation for landing. Tower was notified of our status and notified of assistance needed. The left hydraulic light remained illuminated but the right light went on and off with associated fluctuations in its gauge throughout the approach; landing; and taxi to the ramp. At 500 feet full flaps were deployed and successfully set. Identification: noises; gauges; and annunciation lights made us aware of the event when it began. Cause: hydraulic leak from lines being chaffed due to insufficient vibration isolation. Response: slow down; lower gear; extend flaps; QRH (Quick Reference Handbook); notify Tower. Suggestions: maintenance action that has been learned from past experiences of the same situation and preventative actions taken to eliminate recurrence.




Synopsis: Flight crew flying an SA227AT observed fluctuating hydraulic gauge and noises. Landed without incident.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At cruise during a normal systems check the Captain noted a decreasing Green Hydraulic System fluid level. Shortly after we became aware of the decrease the situation resulted in a HYD Green System Reservoir Low Quantity ECAM. We completed the ECAM steps; referenced the Flight Manual; conferred with Dispatch and Maintenance Control and evaluated our landing performance. With their inputs included we determined the appropriate course of action was to continue to destination. Flight attendants and passengers were advised. We used the gravity gear extension procedure as per the Flight Manual and executed a normal landing. We taxied clear of runway and were towed to the gate.


Second narrative: In cruise flight; Green Hydraulic System began to lose fluid. We first noticed this during routine periodic system review and got to watch it drain before our eyes. Fluid depleted and ECAM triggered. ECAM procedure was followed; Flight Handbook procedure was reviewed; Dispatch and Maintenance Control were conferenced; and we discussed our options; deciding that proceeding to destination was the best available choice. Remainder of flight was uneventful and routine. Flight attendants were briefed; ATC and destination airport were advised; and passengers were informed. Approach and landing were normal; with consideration of unique requirements of the procedure. We landed; taxied clear of the runway; shut down the engines; and were towed to the gate by company Maintenance personnel. Flight concluded without any further occurrences.


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reports loss of Green Hydraulic System pressure at FL340 due to loss of Green System fluid. Crew elects to continue to destination and lands normally after using alternate means of landing gear extension.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I am a Flight Instructor and my Instrument Student took off late morning. We were on an instrument flight plan in VMC conditions in a Piper PA-28/G. On our second approach and 45 minutes into the flight we had engine failure. We were on the GPS 30 with my student at the controls and under the 'hood.' We were 1.5 NM from the airport on; off-center final to Runway 30. The Landing Checklist had been completed. So the fuel pump; landing light; was ON. Mixture was rich. The wind conditions reported was calm. We were on the CTAF and I declared a mayday and engine failure on this frequency. Immediately recognizing the problem as engine failure I took the controls and instructed my student to switch fuel tanks. At this point we were 400 to 500 FT AGL. I immediately banked the aircraft 90 degrees to my left and aimed for a field. I adjusted the throttle to no avail. I deployed full flaps due to airspeed and the shortness of the field. At this point we were around 88 KTS. I saw a berm in the field and wanted to miss it so we touched down just after. I brought the yolk fully aft and used max braking to avoid the telephone poles and road at the end of the field. The airplane started to skid and came to a halt 60 FT from the pole. We turned everything off before exiting the aircraft.




Synopsis: A PA-28 instructor took control of the aircraft from his hooded instrument student pilot and made a safe off airport landing after declaring an emergency because his engine quit at 800 FT.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground IAD
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were taxiing from the FBO to Runway 30 at IAD.  The airport was not very busy but we had been given several taxi and hold short clearances along the lengthy taxi.  We were southbound on Zulu taxiway and were to hold short of Echo.  We were actively looking for Echo and I had asked my partner where Echo was; his first explanation was erroneous and he quickly corrected himself but with a vague description.  Or at least my understanding was vague.  I had asked for clarification so he was looking down at the chart for the exact location again and during this time we had taxied into the intersection of Z & E.  We could then see the signs but it was too late; we were there.  About that time ground spoke up and stated the obvious and scolded us for the mistake.  He said it was ok and don't worry about it.  While we were passing through Echo we looked closely and noticed a lack of taxiway markings for Echo.  I think local ground controllers take for granted that some operators go that route a lot and are familiar with signage.  We were slightly mentally tired however we were vigilant but just missed it.  I really don't feel fatigue played too much of a role in this event.  We were looking around and couldn't find the signs for Echo until it was too late.  It would have been helpful to have a chart in front of me to read.  My captain was just as confused as I was about where Echo was.  With only a few seconds to digest the info and find it on the chart then try to locate it on the airport was definitely a challenge.  One that we failed.  My question for this is why can't Dulles improve their taxi signage?  It seems other large airports do better.  Especially where there are very large taxi apron areas.  It can be difficult to distinguish which specific taxi lanes are meant for which signs.




Synopsis: Citation First Officer as the pilot taxing the aircraft; reports a taxiway incursion at IAD due to lack of painted taxiway markings.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RSW.TRACON, FL
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E RSW
ATC / advisory: TRACON RSW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During our approach in to RSW we were being vectored by ATC for weather avoidance. We began our vectors for Runway 24 RNAV approach once we were clear of the weather. ATC gave us a clearance to proceed direct to ODERY the IAF for RNAV RWY 24. We mistook that for RODDE an IF on that same approach. To us it sounded like RODDE and standard entry and verification procedures were followed. ATC recognized that our track was off very quickly and provided vectors to the final approach course. A normal approach and landing followed.I felt it would have been very helpful if the controller had indicated that the fix was an IAF. In addition it also would have been helpful to have the fix spelled to us. I heard the controller do that for the aircraft behind us and it went better for them. It would be helpful for ATC to keep in mind that we don't go to some of these smaller airports on a regular basis like we do our hubs were we know every approach and most of the fixes by heart.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain being cleared direct to ODERY on the RNAV Runway 24 at RSW; but believing the clearance is direct RODDE on the same approach. ATC detects the error and issues a vector.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While executing a visual approach to [Runway] 1 Right backed up with the RNAV gps we saw what at first we assumed was a bird.  Once it was about to pass directly over the aircraft it was clearly a drone; we were passing through 4;100 feet MSL and descending I would estimate it was less than 100 feet above us and directly overhead.  We reported it to the Tower and continued without incident.


Second narrative: On final approach into LAS we observed an object/possible drone around 4;000 feet MSL. The object passed about 100 feet directly overhead. We reported the event to Tower and landed uneventfully.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew came within 100 feet of a drone while on final approach at LAS airport.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TIW.Airport, WA
Weather elements / visibility: SKC; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D TIW
ATC / advisory: Tower TIW
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared by TIW Tower to circle west to land on Runway 35 from our LOC 17 approach. We were also cleared for touch and go on Runway 35. During our turn to base; the Tower called us; but when we replied; they said; 'Disregard.' We continued our circling approach in compliance with the AIM when we heard Tower transmit to another aircraft on 'short final' for Runway 35 as we were turning final. When our right (high) wing was up in the turn; we saw a much faster moving aircraft approaching on a straight-in final approach. At nearly the same time; the Tower told us to go-around; which we did; immediately. Tower then further instructed us to side-step left of centerline during our go-around and offered us to return for a low approach. Our training flight required a landing from a circling approach; so I asked the Tower for another lap in the traffic pattern to accomplish a touch-and-go. The Tower refused; stating; 'Unable touch-and-go. Climb to 2000 [feet] and contact Seattle Approach.' I could sense the anger and frustration in the voice of the controller. We departed the airspace with our training mission failed.The controller failed to properly sequence arriving traffic and allowed us to turn base-to-final in front of faster moving traffic flying a long final approach causing a near midair collision. The controller then became angry and denied us further services. Thus; we felt it safer to leave the airspace than to deal with a stressed controller who had already demonstrated an inability to handle the current volume of traffic at the airport.




Synopsis: C172 flight instructor reported a near mid air collision after being cleared to land in conflict with another aircraft on short-final.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TRI.TRACON, TN
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Recip Eng
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E TRI
ATC / advisory: TRACON TRI
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; 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; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X had been issued direct to CABYA for the RNAV 6 approach into 0A9. The aircraft had been tracking direct to the fix for approximately 30 miles before I cleared the aircraft to cross CABYA at 5;300 and advised he was cleared for the approach. The aircraft was well clear of terrain at his altitude and direct to CABYA. I go on and do a couple of other position related tasks and notice Aircraft X well south of course about to enter 6;700 MVA. I issued the aircraft a turn to 360 to clear the aircraft of the MVA. The aircraft may have entered the 6;700 MVA; but was quickly clear of the MVA as I had caught it just as he was about to enter the higher MVA. Once I got the aircraft clear of the terrain I asked why he had gone off course. The aircraft told me he was just setting himself up to be straight in outside of CABYA. I advised the aircraft that if he has been cleared direct a fix that he has to navigate direct the fix and if he wants other routing he needs to let me know in advance and I can set them up to be above the MVA. The pilot acknowledged. I should have noticed the southern turn of the aircraft before I did. I had assumed the aircraft who had been tracking for 30 miles direct the fix would still be direct the fix.




Synopsis: TRI TRACON Controller reported a small transport tracked off assigned route; entering higher MVA.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Second aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was D side training on sector 25 with an R side who is lazy and incompetent (example: he doesn't believe in EFCs (Expect Further Clearance). I wasn't aware their use was optional; but to him it is). He did a traffic call; didn't use 'heavy' or 'caution wake turbulence' despite me telling the D side that it should be done that way. The controller rolled his eyes and said they were fine. About 90 seconds after crossing 1;000 feet below a Heavy on directly opposite courses; Aircraft X reported he got wake and asked if that was a Super. The R side seemed confused and said the rides were reported smooth. I tried to explain to the R side what the pilot was asking but he said 'it's all good'. I didn't report it to management as they were not in the control room but instead hanging out elsewhere (I think chatting with the Operations Manager).There was another wake event; where I was again D side training on R20. The R side trainee called traffic and did not say heavy or caution wake turbulence as an aircraft passed opposite direction; 1;000 feet below a heavy. I told the R side trainee to give him a wake turbulence advisory and he said he hadn't been taught to do that. While he protested; the pilot came back and said he 'got bounced around pretty good from the wake of whatever that was'. Then the R trainee panicked a little. The supervisor was notified but said he didn't care because nothing happened.Cover wake events in training for new hires. Cover wake events in refresher training. Tell the Supervisors to man the desk or leave a CIC (Controller In Charge). Tell the Supervisors we care about these so we can track the occurrences accurately. Hold the CPCs (Certified Professional Controller) to a minimum standard; or fire them. As a matter of interest; this CPC R side had just been talked to regarding his phraseology and had an airspace violation; both in the previous week.




Synopsis: ZMP Center Controller reported that another Controller does not follow procedures; is lazy; and incompetent.