elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: AUS.Airport, TX
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground AUS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Our taxi clearance to Runway 17R was C1 to C to 17R.  We didn't see C1 on the airport diagram and had to request progressive taxi.  Approaching the taxiway we finally saw it painted on the pavement; but no taxi signs.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported AUS taxiway C1 is marked with paint on the pavement; but does not have a sign.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90; Tower EWR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Weather
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I am writing not only in reference to the incident which occurred today; but also to call attention to what I have observed to be a consistent and recurring problem which I feel is a considerable safety threat. I feel very strongly that further investigation is warranted. The matter at hand is that there seems to be ongoing issues with localizer reception especially during IMC and rain. Today we came very close to executing a go around/missed approach on account of this issue; as has happened on multiple occasions. We received vectors to the final approach course; however we were completely unable to receive the localizer signal whatsoever until we were within about 3 miles of the FAF. We used RNAV guidance on the monitoring pilot's side and followed the vectors as long as we could. However; as we are unable to use RNAV beyond the FAF; we discussed and both agreed that if the signal hadn't been received and identified by 1NM to the FAF; that we would execute a go around. Fortunately the signal came in just in time; and we were able to continue. I have noticed that this a consistent issue which if anything is getting worse. I'm not sure whether the issue lies with the airplane itself or with the ground equipment; but I can say that other airplane types typical don't seem to report similar issues. I know that the aircraft tends to experience large amounts of radio/com static during precipitation; so perhaps this is a related problem. However I really only see it in this airport. Just to make sure; I wrote up the airplane in question; but as I've said this happens all the time. Although nothing bad happened; this is an ongoing issue. To me; the big threat here is that crews have come to accept this condition and 'push' approaches farther than they should. We're all guilty of it. This is one of my main motivations for writing this report to call attention to this matter.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported they did not receive localizer signal until 3 miles from the FAF. Reporter stated this was a common occurrence on this approach at EWR.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CZUL.ARTCC, PQ
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Snow; Icing
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower CYUL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Software and Automation; Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: 3;000 feet cleared approach ILS 24R. Set FAF/GS (glideslope) altitude and initiated descent.  Approaching level and prior to GS capture; ATC called and asked us to confirm altitude and altimeter and on GS.  Responded with information and leveling at GS intercept altitude; below GS. Rest of approach landing uneventful. Spoke to Approach Control Supervisor following event. He wanted to explain that specifically for that approach in VMC there is a VFR corridor below the approach course; and that while today wasn't a big deal due to IMC conditions; it could create a safety conflict. The OMEKI approach fix does not appear in the MCDU (Multi Function Control Display Unit) with ILS 24R selected. Consider including OMEKI as part of database for ILS24R.


Second narrative: We're given 3;000 feet until established; then descended to platform altitude to intercept glideslope. Missed an altitude between FAF and IAF of 2;500 ft. but the FMS doesn't have the fix in between in data base.  ATC then called to verify our altitude thinking we're descending on the glideslope For Runway 24R in CYUL when we were just descending to platform altitude. If the database had the altitude restrictions for OMEKI like it does on the approach plate then issue maybe have been resolved. Everything else outside the approach was uneventful. But I believe it's something that should be brought up for safety Concerns. The OMEKI is used for VFR corridor; but it was IFR day. Consider putting OMEKI for data base in for ILS 24R.


Synopsis: An Air Carrier flight crew conducting a Visual Approach into Montreal (YUL) reported they descended below flight path and received a low altitude alert from ATC. The fix OMEKI which has an appropriate crossing altitude is not displayed from the database on their FMC.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fan Reverser
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My partner and I were assigned to install the left thrust reverser (TR) Control Display Unit (CDU) on an Airbus A300; number 1 engine. The previous shift had removed the old one. This aircraft (AC) had been on the ground for days but there was no available staffing to complete this task. The AC was now on the schedule for a flight so we were in a stressful situation. Neither one of us had performed this task before. We installed the CDU referencing [the] Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) using [a tablet]. We measured the appropriate gaps after my partner ran the TR opened and closed by hand twice to check for binding etc.  At this point we were approached by the lead around 2 am to stop work and go see the manager because we were going to be held over for mandatory OT. (By this time; the outbound flight had been swapped.) My partner was pretty upset because he is a single parent and has nannies watching his two girls and he really needed to get home.  We used the MEL to ensure the AC was in proper configuration. We both inspected the motor for proper installation; FOD; and tooling. I performed the ops check with APU air because my partner wasn't engine run qualified. Afterward; we rechecked the gap measurements once again. When I reviewed the [manual] references for compliance; I breezed right over the Full Authority Engine Control (FADEC) rig. The AC was put on the schedule for the next night. At departure; the number 1 engine would throttle would not advance beyond idle because I missed the FADEC rig. It returned to the gate for repair. I can only say that the responsibility was mine. I've been working in the industry too long to make any excuses.


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


Synopsis: The Number 1 Engine Throttle on an A300 was unable to advance beyond idle because Maintenance neglected to accomplish the FADEC rig after installing the CDU for Number 1 Engine Reverser.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fire Extinguishing
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight was running approximately 30 minutes late. I was proceeding through my first flight flow for the aircraft. I was at the stall protection test and just reaching for the guarded switch light when the number 2 Flight Attendant entered the cockpit and requested conditioned air for the cabin.I was looking over my shoulder at her as I pressed what I thought was the stall test switch light. Then I immediately went to the overhead panel and started the APU. As my hand was dropping from the overhead panel a 'green' switch light illuminated on the glare shield. Instinctively; I reached toward it to press and extinguish said light. Having never seeing the Bottle Armed/Press to discharge light 'on' during line operations; I reacted as if the 'green' roll switch light was illuminated. I realized as I was pressing the switch light; just what was happening. I inadvertently discharged the left (#1) engine fire bottle.Rushing to complete my First Flight flow I allowed myself to get distracted. I got out of my expected flow movement. Didn't realize I 'missed' my intended switch and reacted out of instinct.


Second narrative: Captain inadvertently discharged engine number 1 fire bottle during his first flight of the day checks.I was in the process of doing my preflight items and loading of the FMS while the Captain was doing his first flight of the day checks. While loading the FMS I heard the caution chime and the captain say that he had just inadvertently discharged the engine number 1 fire bottle. We then notified maintenance; the rest of the crew and operations of what happened. I then made an announcement that the aircraft had a maintenance issue and that we would have to deplane. We then deplaned the passengers and maintenance took the aircraft.Possibilities of what may have caused the event are:-Rushing to get the flight out on time because it was late to the gate.-Interruption from the flight attendant during first flight of the day checks.


Synopsis: CRJ-700 flight crew reported the Captain inadvertently discharged the #1 engine fire bottle during preflight.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: N07.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 340/340A
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: IFR flight plan with amended clearance. Take off from Lincoln Park Airport; which is close to Newark; was uneventful and initial climb was normal. At about 1;000 FT autopilot began to malfunction; made a number of abrupt uncommanded turns which caused a course deviation. [I] had some directional control issues as a result of autopilot problems. This continued for a short period of time; between 1;000 FT and 2;500 FT during climb. Shut down autopilot; still malfunctioned; and then pulled circuit breaker which resulted in complete deactivation of autopilot. By this point aircraft was off course and; as a result of autopilot problems; badly out of trim. [I] had to throw myself on the mercy of ATC and advise concerning problems. Was given a series of vectors to re-establish aircraft on proper course and [had] to adjust for proper altitude. After re-establishing control of the aircraft; resumed course set forth in flight plan and completed rest of trip without incident.




Synopsis: A Cessna 340 pilot suffered abrupt and uncommanded turns shortly after takeoff due to a malfunctioning autopilot on an IFR flight. A complete electrical shutdown of the autopilot allowed control to be regained manually and the flight was completed as planned.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Rain; Windshear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ; Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
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: Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Went out for practice approaches. Wind was calm on departure and enroute; cold front came in on the way back and encountered severe turbulence; severe downdrafts and heavy precipitation in IMC after I was cleared for the GPS RNAV 1L approach. Lost about 2300 ft. causing me to go below IFR minimum altitude in the approach. Could not control the aircraft because of downdrafts and turbulence. Ended up breaking the clouds at about 1200 ft.; no downdrafts at this point but still encountered severe turbulence because of the gusty winds at low level. I was cleared for the visual. Landed safely and no injuries for both pilots on board. Aircraft got inspected by maintenance and there is no damage.




Synopsis: PA28 Instructor reported loss of control in IMC in approach due to downdrafts and turbulence.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Switch
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Trying to turn panel lighting off when smoke erupted from knob that was being turned. Light smoke with electrical smell was visible about 1 minute after occurrence and elected to proceed back to the ramp. No other smoke was indicated on the 3 minute taxi back to the ramp. Aircraft engine was shut down and aircraft parked with no fire or burnt wire being noted. Fire trucks were standing by. What caused the problem I believe was the knob not being used in years and the switch being overworked. To prevent a recurrence would be to not move the knob as well as having the knob and electrical wiring repaired and to working order. Also; to use the checklist and to evacuate if the need arises.




Synopsis: A C150 panel light knob emitted smoke as it was turned so an emergency was declared; the pilot returned to parking and secured the aircraft.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGB.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D LGB
ATC / advisory: Tower LGB
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Was on the VOR 30 practice approach (still under IFR clearance) with student; tower issued missed instructions to go missed at the approach end. They then issued more to stay below 1000 feet to avoid traffic in the pattern. 3/4 mile out; tower issued traffic alerts for two separate aircraft to call in sight; I had already had one in sight in a downwind leg and the other came out from under the glare we had with the sun hitting us. At which point I took controls from the student and proceeded with a sharp turn away from the airport and southeast bound (almost a full 180). As I started that turn; tower told us to go missed immediately and asked what our altitude was. I responded with '800 and flying below the traffic.' Tower then said; 'If you turned when I had told you wouldn't of had a traffic alert. Contact SoCal approach.' 'Heading out; over to approach.'At the time I took control we were opposite direction; 200 feet below in the middle of cleaning our aircraft up from the approach. We had only been given up to the approach end to complete our missed; and once we got there we had on coming traffic. I had to take control from the student; still operating under IFR my student did not know what was going on and had she continued with normal missed procedures would have turned us into the oncoming and may have caused a collision. Tower none the less acted as if it was our fault when they had not routed all traffic under their airspace correctly.




Synopsis: A flight instructor and student flying a practice VOR RWY 30 approach at LGB suffered an NMAC with pattern traffic when the transmission and receipt/execution of a go-around clearance from ATC was not accomplished in a timely fashion.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Wind
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aileron
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At 800 feet AGL; clicked autopilot off for a visual landing. At 500 ft.; FO called 'Stable; cleared to land Runway XX Center.' I replied 'Landing.' Between 500 and 400 feet AGL tried to make small lateral correction with aileron but aileron movement was limited. Used a touch of rudder for correction. Clicked autopilot button again and crossed checked then confirmed that 'Flight Director' was displayed in PFD. Landed uneventfully but elevator movement was very heavy in flare. After landing at taxi speed; I tried to move the yoke left and right and there was very limited movement. The First Officer tried as well with the same result. We checked the Flight Control and Hydraulic Displays and both were normal.I considered a go-around but quickly [determined] a go around would be extremely difficult with big power changes and limited flight control capability. The flight path was set up to touch down in the landing zone on speed so I elected to land.Unsure what caused the flight controls to be limited. After landing; I debriefed Maintenance in the cockpit and put a detailed write up in the logbook.




Synopsis: B777-200 Captain reported aileron flight control stiff during landing and limited movement after landing.