elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After loading was complete; I was handed a signed load manifest. He advised the cockpit crew that a ground handler advised him that a lock was broken in position 5R main deck. He said that Maintenance Control and Local Maintenance were aware of the broken lock and would advise ZZZ Maintenance and it would be addressed there. That was confirmed with Local Maintenance. According to the loading sheet there was a ULD in the 5R position. After a brief discussion with the First Officer we challenged the validity of the ground crews decision; 1. To withhold information to the crew regarding a defect on the airplane. 2. Not consulting published manuals regarding the effects of a broken lock and loading procedures. 3.The collusion between Local Maintenance to not disclose the defect to the crew and make the decision to address the defect after the flight would have concluded. After reviewing the MEL/DDG and seeing there was definitely a procedure we ask Local Maintenance to call again. This time informed Local Maintenance that the lock must be deferred. With the cat out of the bag and as the realization started sinking in on just how serious the infraction was Company was brought in and made aware of the situation.  During my inquiry surrounding these events I was told that the broken lock was discovered on the inbound flight. Local maintenance was informed as was the Company Station Supervisor. I have no way to confirm this. A question in my mind; was the lock broken in ZZZ and never reported?




Synopsis: Pilot reported getting the run around from Maintenance and eventually getting the problem resolved.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Gulfstream G100/G150 (IAI 1125 Astra)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We came to land at ZZZ airport; executed ILS Runway XX to approach to it even the weather conditions where completely Visual. Everything was normal; we touched down and begun our landing roll; lowered the nose of the aircraft to the ground; deployed reverse thrust and applied brakes; suddenly master warning illuminated indicating a failure; I was not able to determine the source of the failure at that very moment; I have increased progressively the pressure on the brakes and reverse thrust; aircraft begin to decelerate rapidly and begin to veer slightly to the left side; condition I counteracted with differential braking and thrust reverse power reduction; reached for the steering wheel to continue counteracting the veering tendency and steering wheel was stiff and locked unable to move it; I mention to my First Officer we have lost steering control; continued counteracting with rudder pedal and differential braking; but rudder aerodynamic capability diminish with speed reduction; I mention again to my First Officer that we had lost steering control and felt diminish braking action; airplane slowly overrun into the grass to the left side and lost braking action; I went to and transfer to emergency braking and recover partial control of the aircraft finally stopping on the grass.Executed passenger evacuation checklist to secure aircraft; passengers and crew evacuated through main door; no injury occurred to any one onboard; airplane is in good condition; we called FSS to advise of our incident during landing.




Synopsis: G100 Captain reported on landing loss of brakes and steering resulted in runway excursion.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp EWR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: We were given direction to hold short of Taxiway RA by Gate Control. Upon contact with Ground they told us to taxi out via RB. Taxiways RA and RB at EWR are recently completed and difficult to discern with the current marking. EWR needs better label taxiway RA.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported unclear taxiway markings caused a taxiing error.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Parked; Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ; Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ; TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prior to pushback the fueler entered the flight deck and described having problems with fueling properly and needed to know limits for manually selecting fuel to position to the wing tanks. He then left and fueled the aircraft as we expected to the 28;000 lbs requested. We confirmed prior to pushback that fuel was loaded correctly and symmetrically.Just after takeoff (approximately 5000 feet); we received an ECAM (FUEL R WING TK LO LVL). We complied with the ECAM and determined there was no leak but discovered a significant imbalance. It appeared that most of the fuel in the right wing (had transferred to the center tank). This resulted in nearly a 10;000 lb fuel difference between left and right wings. It did result in a noticeable out of trim situation (Rudder) which was manageable.We were able to cross feed fuel from the Left tank and alleviate the imbalance and then burn only from the center tank to bring that down to just under 500lbs. We then switched back to a normal mode which caused the right tank to transfer back to the center tank again. We then cross-fed from the Left tank to rebalance the load and landed at our filed destination with 2760 in Left and Right tanks and 1900 in the Center tank.Upon landing I turned all the pumps back on and the Right Tank transferred 2200 lbs to the center tank between just exiting the runway and parking at the gate.After discussing this issue with Maintenance on the ground at our filed destination; we discovered that all of the switches on the refuel panel had been left in unlocked positions and sequenced so as to transfer fuel.Throughout the flight we were able to monitor the fuel system and manipulate fuel transfers so that the flight was conducted with the utmost safety.This event could have been prevented had the fueler returned the switches on the refuel panel to their correct neutral and locked positions.




Synopsis: An A319 departed after a confused fueler clarified manual fueling procedures. In flight the ECAM alerted FUEL R WING TK LO LVL and the crew had difficulty maintaining fuel balance. After landing maintenance found all fuel valve switches in the unlocked position.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 50
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While descending from FL350 to FL240 as requested by Washington Center; we received a RA from our TCAS system. The auto pilot was disengaged and the descent was stopped. We made visual contact with the other aircraft and we passed above and to the right of the conflicting aircraft. ATC never advised us of a conflict. After the event; we continued the flight with no other problematic events.


Second narrative: Descending per ATC instructions from FL350 to FL240 we heard an aircraft tell ATC that they were descending for a RA. We received a RA at that time and I saw the aircraft coming from my 9 o'clock position and I started following the RA. The Controller questioned the other aircraft. I told my Co-Captain; (pilot not flying) that I had the aircraft and was maneuvering. ATC gave us a vector to the left which would have taken us towards the other aircraft. I maneuvered in that direction keeping the other aircraft in sight till it passed us. We passed approximately 500 FT above and to the left of the other aircraft. I called ATC and advised them that we were returning to our original track on the STAR. We received no response and we advised them again and proceeded to descend to FL240.


Synopsis: Corporate flight crew experienced a TCAS RA descending on a STAR; no traffic information was provided by ATC.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cardinal 177/177RG
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The aircraft was en route westbound until I noticed he was 300 FT low and I questioned him. The pilot informed me the aircraft was experiencing an engine vibration and oil pressure problem. The pilot declared an emergency and was 20-25 miles northwest of [a nearby airport] and decided to land there. The aircraft was at 10;000 FT and I issued a clearance direct [to the airport] and pilot discretion descent to 4;000 (the airplane was spiraling down to make sure he was over the airport and didn't want to lose altitude). In the meantime there was a C177/g tracking northeast bound direct and landing [another nearby airport]. A BE35 got within 3 miles of the Cardinal but safety was not compromised because the pilot knew where the traffic was at all times due to traffic calls. To my knowledge the separation was 3 miles and 700 FT. I knew the airplanes would not hit each other; and I did not want to issue a clearance that would disturb or fluster the emergency aircraft. The pilot advised that he had the field in sight and wanted to cancel but I suggested that he at least keep VFR flight following until I lost him on RADAR. I told him to give me a call once he landed so I would know if he was OK. The pilot called me approximately 4 minutes after my last transmission and advised me he was on the ground safely. In retrospect; I should have turned the Cardinal 20 to 30 degrees right and the airplanes would have been 5 miles or greater but I wanted to get the emergency aircraft down as quickly as possible. I knew the airplanes would not get together and I made a judgment call. The pilot landed with no problems and no injuries.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described a less than authorized separation event when a emergency aircraft elected to circle the airport of intended landing to ensure a safe landing.
Date: 201204
Location: FDK.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF FDK
Second aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [I] flew towards Frederick airport for practice landings. Looked up frequency and [incorrectly] tuned in CTAF of 122.7 (it was actually 122.725). Received AWOS and then. Made radio calls 8 miles out; on 45; downwind; base; and final. Saw a plane in the pattern when maneuvering to enter the pattern; but it was a glider. We didn't hear anyone on the radio and expected it to be quiet because of the gusty wind. After a full stop; taxi back landing we stopped short of the intersecting runway; looked both ways; made a call and crossed. Ran a pre-checklist before departure; checked both finals; made call entering runway and started to takeoff.On the takeoff roll; we noticed a plane flying perpendicular to the runway at 200 FT. It looked like a Piper Arrow with the retractable gear extended. We had no idea where he came from. No beacon; landing lights; or strobe lights were on. We didn't know if he was on final and we didn't see him or he was doing a missed approach or circle to land. They were much faster than us and executed a go-around in front of us while we were on our takeoff roll. After they turned crosswind there was no more conflict. We started freaking out that the Tower; which I understood was open later might have opened early. On double checking the frequency; we realized our error. The combination of being on the wrong frequency and not seeing the airplane on final/circling contributed to the potential conflict.




Synopsis: A C172 pilot reported dialing up the wrong CTAF frequency at FDK airport and experienced a conflict on takeoff roll.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Extra 200/300 Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after takeoff engine started sputtering and running rough. I informed ATC of my need and intentions to return to the airport for landing. ATC acknowledged and cleared me on [a runway]. During the turn I asked for [a different runway]. ATC complied with my request and instructed airplanes on final to go around. I landed with no further complications and taxied back to the ramp.




Synopsis: EA300L pilot reported returning to departure airport after the engine began running rough shortly after takeoff.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Air Traffic vectoring for RWY 16L and 16R visual approaches DEN caused two Go-arounds due to TCAS RA. They were vectoring to place our aircraft wing tip to wing tip on final; instead of staggering. The RA would not allow me to descend on the Glide Slope on both RA events. Even when Clear of Conflict was announced by the TCAS system the red zone was still displayed below and the system prevented a further descent until it placed our aircraft too high for a normal descent to the runway. We broke off the approach in both cases and returned for an additional approach. The third time we were being vectored for the approach I asked that we not have any side-by partners for the approach. The third approach was successful. I called the facility on the ground; had a discussion with the supervisor on duty and then gave him my contact information as he suggested I have the same conversation with the Airspace manager. This event is due; in my opinion; to incorrect or insufficient ATC procedures at DEN approach facility for closely spaced runway operations as well as the limitations of our current TCAS software and its inherent pressure altitude sensitivity application. ATC placing aircraft in close proximity (wing tip to wing tip) is the root cause. Staggered; to the minimum amount; should be the operational process for this runway spacing. Turning the TCAS to TA only should not be an approved operation as the floor of the Class B in that area is 7000 feet and the aircraft are at approximately 8000 feet outside of any FAF or FAP. Just too much open airspace below to disregard the protections.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported that two go-arounds had to be initiated at DEN while being vectored for visual approaches to Runways 16L and 16R due to side-by-side placement of aircraft resulting in TCAS RAs.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Approaching White Sands Testing Area; ATC warned us that 'Radar Jamming' was being tested/used. While at cruise; we were 'jammed' numerous times. Warnings that would be expected with this process occurred numerous times. The Nav Accuracy was downgraded and upgraded to normal the first few times that we were jammed. Then; ECAM notified of GPS 1 failure and then went away. A few minutes later ECAM notified of GPS 2 failure and then went away. We incorrectly concluded that the GPS systems had reset themselves; but the NAV ACCURACY DOWNGRADE notice never went away (on the ND). After checking GPS condition on the FMC; it became clear that we had no GPS positions left. We advised ATC that we needed a non-RNAV arrival. They provided vectors to a visual approach.Stop jamming commercial air traffic.




Synopsis: A319 pilot reported that while approaching White Sands Testing Area in New Mexico; ATC warned of 'radar jamming' which affected GPS. Following several GPS 1 and GPS 2 ECAM alerts; all GPS position reporting was lost for the remainder of the flight.