elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on short final at a CTAF airport in a C182 at approximately 300 AGL in Class G airspace.  I called my positions during the left traffic pattern; but I was inadvertently using the incorrect CTAF frequency.  There was another aircraft in the pattern.  Thus; the other aircraft in the left traffic pattern did not hear me and he did not know I was flying in the same traffic pattern with him.  While I was on short final at approximately 250-300 feet above the ground; the other aircraft; which was flying a tighter pattern than me; turned onto left base above me in preparation for turning final at the same time I was on final.  I did not see the other aircraft above me and never knew he was attempting to turn to final around the same time as me.  The other aircraft saw me below him and did not turn onto final until after I landed.  The pilot of the other aircraft informed me that he did not know I was there until seeing me on final below him and he believed that his pattern was a tighter traffic pattern than my traffic pattern because he was flying a smaller Light Sport aircraft; while I was flying a C182.  I then realized that I was using XXX.8 as CTAF; instead of the correct frequency of XXX.9.  The other aircraft did not need to take evasive action and he informed me that it was not 'that close;' but we discussed the situation and I thanked him for seeing me below him; so that the situation did not become any closer.  I fly a high-wing Cessna and his location above me in the pattern was obscured by my high-wing.




Synopsis: A C182 pilot in a CTAF landing pattern used the incorrect CTAF frequency for the proper position reports; but a Light Sport Aircraft pilot aborted his landing during a near miss after seeing the C182 ahead and below.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: FNL.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 100
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: Tower FNL
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Trainee; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: 8 miles south of FNL we contacted the FNL Tower to request a touch and go then a departure to the east after the touch and go. The Tower requested that we contact them for a right downwind for Runway 15 when 4 miles south of the airfield. At the 4 mile mark we were unable to contact the Tower due to the fact the frequency was so busy that each time we tried to contact them we were stepped on. We were midfield right downwind by the time we were able to talk to the Tower. They were very upset yet there was nothing we could have done. We were cleared for the touch and go on Runway 15 then an east departure after that.The Tower requested we let them know when we were 4 miles east of the airport on our departure leg. At the 4 mile mark we contacted the Tower to let the Controller know. At the exact same time there was a helicopter that flew over us at less than 300 feet. We told the Tower we had the traffic insight. We had the helicopter in sight yet the Tower did not inform us about this traffic.FNL is a remote Tower and ATC (Tower) has limited visibility around the airport. My experience with this remote Tower is they do not have the same situational awareness that a full manned Tower would have.


Second narrative: Congested airspace at FNL. Verbal traffic overwhelmed controller and was unable to get word in edgewise. Our comms were being stepped on constantly. Flying with a CFI we were unable to announce our 4 mile location until actually in a 3 mile downwind for Runway 15. Controller was verbally upset; but was still able to sequence us for arrival to complete a touch and go and make an east departure.


Synopsis: Instructor and trainee pilots reported an NMAC during approach to FNL airport. The instructor stated FNL has a remote Tower which reportedly contributed to the event.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the descent we had a L HYD ENG PUMP EICAS message. I proceeded to complete the QRH procedures. Then; after cleared to intercept the localizer for runway 36L and cleared for the visual the FO; the PF; called for flaps 1. Once I put the flaps down a L HYD QTY EICAS message illuminated. Again; I proceeded to complete the QRH; and verified the quantity even though the QRH does not direct you to verify or look into the STATUS page for quantity verification. So; now we had no pressure and low quantity. Since; we had low quantity and no pressure; we decided to configure early. We were about 2000 feet and clear for the visual. The gear was down; and flaps were selected to 30; but the flaps remained at 25; and the TE FLAP ASYM EICAS then illuminated. At that time; I was doing the RUDDER RATIO EICAS QRH procedures since we had that EICAS illuminated. I finished the rudder ratio procedures; and the continue into the TE FLAP ASYM QRH procedures. I told the FO that we were not going around; with no hydraulics to raise the gear or flaps. I had enough time to finished the checklist; before 500 feet; all checklist was completed and we were stable; and proceeded to land. The only mistake I made was that I forgot the FLAP OVERRIDE switch. I was concentrated on the speed needed to safely land. I thought I did activated the switch but obviously I did not; due to the Flap to low warning. Then; after touchdown; we did not have nose wheel steering which was to me an indication that the power transfer unit was not working. I took control of the airplane around 40 its and by using differential power and braking I was able to taxi out of the runway and into the taxiway away from other traffic; into taxiway M. ATC was notified that we were unable to taxi and needed to be towed into the gate. Company Maintenance towed the airplane to the gate.




Synopsis: An A300 flight crew conducted appropriate checklists and landed safely following a left hydraulic system failure.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was Captain [on] Flight ABC ZZZ to ZZZ1.  We flew the inbound in the same aircraft from ZZZ1; both flights were completely full.  In between the flights; I did my setup for departure; and then went to walk the terminal for a moment. What I saw as I left the jetway into ZZZ terminal was a little shocking in today's safety and COVID environment.  The end of the terminal had about four flights all trying to load or unload at the same time. The area isn't large but there was at least 1;000 people crammed into the jet way area. No one had room to social distance. Everyone did have a mask on; but it was very uncomfortable. I navigated as well as I could past the crowd as quickly as I could and went much further into the terminal to find an open area. I kept an eye on the loading area from afar but it took a long time to empty the crowd as they boarded. I didn't go back near the gate until about 10 minutes to departure. It was still crowded on my flight and the other boarding planes had crowds around. The jet bridge backed up and our airplane didn't get loaded until just before departure time. I know the agents were trying as best they could; but when that many planes are set to depart at the same time it was difficult. I asked about it and was told that also [another aircraft] had a mechanical and had to de-board all of its passengers into the same crowd as it was awaiting parts.An agent asked our passengers who were at a standstill on the jetway to please get seated quickly; so we didn't have to delay the flight. One passenger said there isn't anywhere to go as the line was just stopped. I feel the management of this boarding process was not well thought out.  If flights are departing that close in time they should be spaced in gates down the concourse apart from each other. If this is the operation each day of the week; it should be looked at to see if there is a better way.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that a large number of passengers waiting to board at several adjacent gates were standing so close together that social distancing was not possible. The Captain suggested that the gates in use be spaced out.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While preparing for departure we were interrupted in the middle of our pre-departure brief several times as a result of not having enough time to complete all required checks to be ready for all other work groups checking in before departure. Scheduled hotel pick up time put us at the airport right at 45 minutes. However; because of the requirement to accomplish COVID temperature check; and health screening; we arrived at aircraft with not enough time to complete all the International/Oceanic checks before the different team members that need to check with us to be ready to depart (i.e.: gate agent; ramp; flight attendants etc.) began to check in.  Especially; when all other work groups were ready to depart 10 minutes before departure time and we were trying to catch up with our checks.This time constraint created a significant threat as every time we got interrupted there was the possibility of missing something in addition to the extra mind workload of having to shift attention and re-focus.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported numerous interruptions caused distractions during pre-departure checks and caused concern over following published procedures.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B BOS
ATC / advisory: Tower BOS
Aircraft component: Safety Instrumentation & Information
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [We] received windshear warning at about 500 FT on approach to Runway 27 at BOS. Weather was clear with steady wind from the west. We could easily see the waves on the water; which was approximately ten knots and steady. No turbulence had been encountered before the windshear warning. We advised Tower that we had received a windshear warning. Tower responded that there were no windshear reports at the airport or from other aircraft. We continued and landed without incident.




Synopsis: B737-300 Captain experiences a false windshear warning at 500 FT during a visual approach to Runway 27 at BOS. The approach is continued to landing and no windshear is encuntered.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On a visual approach to UNV descending through 6500 ft. MSL on a 15 mile left base for runway 24 EGPWS activated over south ridge.EGPWS activated aural alert for Terrain pull up.[Caused by] passing over rising terrain while descending to approach altitude.[Executed a] max power climb at 15 degrees nose up until certain of accurate situational awareness; ridge passage; and terrain clearance.[We should] reduce rate of descent when crossing the ridge approaching UNV valley.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported EGPWS due to terrain on approach.
Date: 201309
Location: MEM.Tower, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Local Control. I had one arrival to Runway 36L; a heavy; and one arrival to Runway 9; another heavy. Both aircraft had been cleared to land. At about midfield; the Runway 36L arrival reported he was on the go. At this time; the aircraft was about a 2 mile final to Runway 9. The unplanned go-around placed the go around in too close proximity to wake turbulence. I recommend that a procedure be developed allowing adequate spacing between Runway 36L arrivals and Runway 9 arrivals to protect for unplanned go-around situations.


Second narrative: Flew visual approach to Runway 36L; crossed threshold slightly below glideslope; over-corrected with power; and then floated to end of landing zone; resulting in a go-around. Announced go-around to Tower; who in turn directed crew to climb to 3;000 FT (MSL). During climb out Tower asked us for reason for go-around; responded; 'Long Landing.' Tower then commanded an immediate right turn to 090 and climb to 3;000 FT (MSL). Tower directed us to contact Memphis Approach Control. The Approach Controller informed us the Tower Supervisor wanted us to call him after we were on the ground and gave us his phone number. Tower Supervisor; was polite and cordial and quick to say we did nothing wrong; he just wanted clarification for why we went around. I explained we were going to land long and decided to go-around. He acknowledged we appeared to be well down the runway. He then explained he wanted to include my clarification in a mandated go-around report for events at airports conducting converging approaches. He told me the Tower Controller turned us to 090 degrees to try to minimize wake turbulence for another aircraft that was on approach to Runway 09. He said the other aircraft was advised of the potential for wake turbulence; continued with the approach; and landed safely.


Synopsis: MEM Tower described an unexpected go around event that caused concern regarding a possible loss of wake turbulence separation with a converging arrival aircraft.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During patient transport; hospital staff advised crew that patient had been burned in a butane explosion and was possibly cooking methamphetamine. I was advised by the medical crew that the patient was decontaminated by hospital staff. After flight; aircraft; equipment and personnel were further decontaminated. At no time did the crew smell or believe contaminant was still present. The decontamination after the flight was done out of an exercise of caution and not [because] of any chemical discovery. After the flight; during a clinical review of the medical patient record; the Medical Director further interviewed the crew and determined that a complete decontamination was most likely not completed. This leads me to believe that there is a possibility that Hazardous Material may have been on the patient during transport.




Synopsis: Air ambulance helicopter pilot reported that a patient; possibly injured while cooking methamphetamine; may not have been properly decontaminated prior to transport.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Aircraft: A310
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb out around 18;000 feet we heard a large bang that shook the aircraft.  We had no other abnormal indications but this was not normal and very concerning.  We were not experiencing any turbulence and the bang was too large for something falling like a coffee pot.  Within a few minutes we had a fire indication on the ECAM and overhead [indication] of a Min Equipment Bay Fire. I declared an emergency and immediately requested a lower altitude and a vector to the airport.  We complied with the ECAM and did not notice any actual smoke.  One in the descent the warning went out. We made a normal landing. The equipment and Tower said they saw no fire indication from the aircraft so we continued the taxi to the ramp with the equipment with us. After block in all fire indications returned and did not go out. But again there appeared to be no actual fire on the aircraft and we have no idea what the bang and vibration was but due to concern about structural integrity we made a normal non aggressive approach and landing but returned immediately.




Synopsis: A310 Captain reports a loud bang climbing through FL180 followed by an ECAM and overhead of a Min Equipment Bay Fire. ECAM is complied with and flight returns to departure airport. During descent the warning goes out but after landing and parking the warning returns. No real fire is detected.