elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MYEF.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: CTAF MYEF
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: This is an accident waiting to happen! The problem is MYEF - GGT Exuma International Airport AFIS 118.0; UNICOM 122.8 frequencies are listed on practically every chart there is; however more or less ALL airlines as well as the [Law Enforcement] Helicopter and practically ALL Jet Operators call Exuma on 122.8 - UNICOM; but everyone else uses (correctly) 118.0. I had a near miss with a Corporate jet; flying out on Runway 30 while they were talking on 122.8; straight in to Runway 12. Listening on 122.8 (ground based scanner); I corrected at least 15 aircraft all day long. Having spoken to some [Airline] Pilots; the answer was that 118.0 is NOT on the Jeppesen Chart. I pointed out that it was (3rd column- 'AFIS') but they said that they don't know what AFIS is. Apparently this is the case with the Briefing/Dispatch services used by the corporate jet operators as well as the Airline dispatchers.I need not point out the looming danger of medium size Jets flying into a relatively busy airport on the wrong frequency while half of the other airplanes are on another frequency. It is a disaster waiting to happen. I consider it life threatening as I had a pretty close encounter with the jet head-on (worst case of course due to minimum visible area). If I could; I would issue an emergency NOTAM for Exuma outlining the frequency for the 'advisory control tower' which is 118.0 and that this is the frequency everybody needs to be on.

Callback: Reporter stated that commercial aircraft; particularly air carriers; are using the wrong frequency every day. Reported said that in talking with an airline pilot; the pilot stated; 'We fly on IFR flight plans. We don't know what AFIS is.' Reporter stated that his encounter with a corporate jet on the wrong frequency at MYEF was not a NMAC; but it was very disturbing and something worse will happen if this problem isn't addressed soon.



Synopsis: GA pilot reported that most commercial operators flying to MYEF use the wrong frequency for traffic advisories on UNICOM versus the correct AFIS frequency.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream G200 (IAI 1126 Galaxy)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During preflight of aircraft that was coming out of a dual engine change it was noticed that APU access door was partially closed/locked. This is perhaps a similar event that occurred on another aircraft during preflight on similar event.  On this date and upon closer inspection of APU access door it was noted that the door was indeed locked; but it seemed not correct. Upon use of ladder and closer inspection is determined that outer door latches were place in locked position BEFORE door was closed.  The separate key lock for the door was in proper position and lower push button type locks were in down/locked position. Those were correct; but the push buttons on the 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock were already in down position when door was opened. Door was then properly secured and flight was normal and uneventful. This may or may not have been a similar situation that occurred on subsequent event on the other aircraft when APU access door opened in flight that required FAA/NTSB investigation. Photos of the door were forwarded to the Company during preflight and was asked to file a report.Particular attention should be taken during preflight inspection and determine that the APU access door is indeed secured properly. It may require opening the door and determine that all latches are properly positioned and in proper location.




Synopsis: A G-200 APU Access Door was closed and locked by key before the outer door latches were closed which could allow the door to open in flight.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This was a nose wheel up landing. [At an enroute stop] I used the tow bar to park the plane and did a quick ground check while awaiting TFR cancellation. I used the rest room and upon cancellation; I started the engine and taxied for takeoff on the short 20 nm flight. No indication of problem and I remember the gear up light lit. I contacted Tower and was issued a straight in. Upon clearance to land I lowered the landing gear but no green light. I [notified Tower of the] issue and was advised to make a low pass to check gear down. The mains were down but the nose wheel was not.I went around about 3 more times; cycling the gear and working with the Tower. The results were the same. Deciding not to make a bad situation worse; I departed the immediate pattern under Tower control to try some sharp maneuvers to get the nose gear down. After another low approach with the nose gear still not down; I [tried for] a landing attempt. The Tower had the crash vehicle on site and I was cleared for the approach. I landed with 40 Flaps; 60kts and gear down. I stopped the engine and cut off the electrical but with time short I never got to the gas (better to land under control than be reaching and looking down at the last minute). Landed centerline; held nose off until very slow and slid 15-20 feet. No fuel; no fire; no injury; minimal aircraft damage.After landing; discovered that the tow bar was lodged in the nose wheel well. Upon raising the nose with a hydraulic lift; I helped dislodge the tow bar and the nose gear deployed. I then put the electric power on; the green gear down light illuminated and I taxied the aircraft to the repair facility.




Synopsis: C182RG pilot reported landing with nose gear up due to the towbar not being removed before takeoff.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Seconds after takeoff from ZZZ we smelled a burning-rubber like odor. It was strong and acrid within seconds. Passing through 2;400 ft. we made the decision to level off at 3;000 ft. and put our O2 mask on. I instructed the jumpseater to don his mask as well. I advised ATC as the First Officer was pilot flying. I coordinated an air return to the same runway we took off from and asked the tower to call our dispatch to notify of the diversion. Approach and landing was normal. I had Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting approach and inspect the plane before taxiing back to the ramp. Our mask were on until that point; but the fumes had subsided. The First Officer; did an amazing job; and I am grateful to have had such a professional with me at the time. We were only airborne for a total of 8 minutes. For hours after the event; I was short of breath and felt chest discomfort; a slight headache and inability to process thought. I elected to get checked out at the company provided medical center close by; escorted by Assistant Chief Pilot and was released. I am still not feeling 'normal' but hope to be by tomorrow. I feel as though I definitely took in some of the fumes; although it also seems that it was not for very long as I got my O2 mask on so quickly.


Second narrative: After takeoff we had a strong burning smell. We advised ATC; leveled off at 3;000 ft. Donned O2 masks.   Remained VMC. Vectors for Runway XX. Same as departing runway.   Landing uneventful.


Synopsis: MD-11 flight crew reported smelling a 'burning-rubber' like odor immediately after takeoff resulting in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RJAA.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON RJAA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: ATC asked us why we were left of course in the initial climbing turn after departing on 34L. The pilot flying flew the departure as published; however I did notice he was slightly left of course. It did not seem significant and we were in continuous wake turbulence from the preceding aircraft. Also; we were heavy and I believe he was limiting the bank angle somewhat due to weight and turbulence. I saw nothing alarming or concerning. I have been flying in and out of RJAA for 23 years and contribute this to an over zealous controller!


Second narrative: Departed RJAA following the CUPID ONE Departure procedure. Climbed direct to ARIES; accelerated and retracted the flaps. Approaching AD4L1; initiated a turn utilizing the flight director. Following the flight director bank bar; we continued the turn to AD4L2 and AD4L3 and leveled off at 7000 feet. About halfway through the turn the Air Traffic Controller said that we were left of course and directed us to turn to a heading of about 170. He then asked why we were left of course. Our reply was that we were turning using a standard rate and our high gross weight and airspeed caused a wide turn.


Synopsis: B747 flight crew reported ATC questioned their track departing RJAA when they deviated slightly while in continuous wake turbulence.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Chancellor 414A / C414
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing Roll
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During landing rollout; experienced sudden brake failure on the starboard side. Aircraft rolled off of the runway.




Synopsis: A C414 right brake suddenly failed during the landing roll so the aircraft rolled off the runway.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
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: Check Pilot; Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approaching our top of descent point during cruise; flight attendants reported electrical/burning oil smell in the cabin; especially in rows 10 through 17. Passengers and a commuting pilot voiced similar concerns to them and to us upon landing. We did not smell anything in the cockpit; and the smell was reported to dissipate after about 5-7 minutes; during the descent. Appropriate logbook entry; fumes report and contact with the [Chief Pilot] were accomplished.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported being informed by Flight Attendant of electrical/burning oil smell in passenger cabin.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: D74.Airport, DE
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G D74
ATC / advisory: CTAF D74
Second aircraft: Rockwell Aero Commander Single-Engine Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; 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: My instructor and I were doing pattern work and while flaring [for landing]; we saw an aircraft flying a non standard right hand traffic pattern for [the opposite direction runway]. We executed a go-around; sidestepped; and made a radio call. The other aircraft proceeded to land on [the opposite direction runway] and did not make any calls whatsoever. We passed each other as [the other aircraft] was landing and as we were climbing out. We did another trip around the pattern and landed without further incident. The other aircraft was a crop duster; so I realized he may not have had a radio; but he was still flying a non standard pattern at an airport where right traffic was not published for either runway. I realize he may not have broken any FARs; but the unusual pattern made it hard for us to spot him. I was focusing on the landing; and I was fortunate to have an instructor on board who spotted the other airplane. I suspect the other pilot was solo and was focusing on his landing too so this could easily have become a runway incursion or worse had my instructor not seen him.




Synopsis: A pilot and instructor were in the flare for landing when they spotted another aircraft on approach to the opposite direction runway. They took evasive action and the other aircraft landed normally. They also landed normally after a circuit around the pattern.
Date: 201308
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Aircraft component: Pressurization Outflow Valve
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: First Officer; Relief Pilot
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Climbing through 3;000 FT; we received an Outflow Valve L EICAS message. This had been written up several times in the past; and it appeared to be a nuisance message because the pressurization was operating normally when we looked at it. Because of this fact and the high workload after departure; I elected to delay running the procedure for a few minutes. Immediately after climbing through 10;000 FT; we received a Cabin Altitude warning. We immediately requested and were given clearance to 8;000 FT. We ran the appropriate checklist and were unable to regain control of either outflow valve in Auto. Manual worked as expected. The cabin altitude did not exceed 11;300 FT. We returned to [the departure airport] for repair after dumping approximately 120;000 pounds of fuel.


Second narrative: No additional information


Synopsis: The pilots of a B747 observed an outflow valve fault during climb; but elected to continue the climb due to workload and considering the previous maintenance history. When they received a cabin altitude warning; they requested a lower altitude and attempted to remedy the issue per the flight manual. This was unsuccessful; so they dumped fuel and returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During rotation for takeoff; just as the nose gear was leaving the ground; the aircraft experienced a vibration/shudder. Once airborne; the gear was raised as all engine indications and aircraft feel were normal. Gear retraction was normal. During the departure; ATC informed us that Tower called stating we had a possible tire issue on takeoff as rubber was found on the runway. We coordinated with Dispatch/ATC and returned back to the airport. We configured [for landing] slowly; checking for control/gear issues and none were noted.We performed a tower fly by with gear and 40 flaps and Tower advised the Number 1 tire looked damaged. We then left the configuration the same as I flew around the pattern to a Visual Approach to 13R. Landing was uneventful with little issue of directional control. We stopped on the runway and had the aircraft inspected. Both Number 1 and Number 2 tires were damaged as well as a hydraulic line on left strut. 'A' system hydraulic pressure was lost on the runway. Maintenance replaced both tires and aircraft was towed to the gate with passengers on board.


Second narrative: We determined we could not continue to the gate and it was best for Maintenance to change both left main tires. The hydraulic system A line was ruptured from the debris on landing and we determined this didn't present a safety issue at the time.


Synopsis: Following abnormal vibration during landing gear retraction and a report of rubber on their departure runway the flight crew of a B737-700 returned to their departure airport; did a tower fly by and landed with two damaged left main gear tires and a broken and leaking hydraulic 'A' system line on the gear strut.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SLC.Tower, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
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 SLC
ATC / advisory: Tower SLC
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Weather; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was working Local Control. There were strong crosswinds. I had 2 aircraft on final and a departure from the east side westbound. Second arrival declared a go-around. I instructed them to climb to 9000 feet and track the Localizer. Then the first arrival declares a go-around; less than 3 miles ahead of the 2nd aircraft. I climbed the first aircraft to 6000 feet because the second one is at 6400 feet and 200 knots faster. Local East coordinates with me that he'll issue his aircraft a 280 heading behind my 2 on a 260 heading once I get them separated.I give the second aircraft a turn to the west heading 270 to get it started trying to stay away from the higher MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude). I had separation but never climbed the first go-around aircraft and gave them a turn to the west heading 260. Then the supervisor tells me the second aircraft is going to Departure Control at 9000 feet heading 260 and the first aircraft is approved heading 280 to Departure Control at 9000 feet. Trying to figure out where the west bound turn from the East side is going the first go around entered an MVA of 7000 feet at 6000 feet with instructions to climb to 9000 feet. I asked if he could maintain his own terrain clearance he replied yes prior to entering the MVA.There should be more TRACON training to give adequate speed and spacing especially in nasty weather. There should have been less supervisor coordination when controllers have already worked things out. No one is ever on the same page.




Synopsis: SLC Local Controller reported sudden wind shifts to a crosswind caused simultaneous go-arounds and one aircraft below the MVA.