elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PHL.TRACON, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: TRACON PHL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While being vectored on downwind for PHL; Approach Control notified all aircraft that the airport was closed due to an aircraft incident on Runway 27L and that holding would be necessary. The airport would be closed for an indeterminate time. We checked our fuel and it was 24.1K and a divert was a real possibility. We checked weather at EWR and BWI. No alternate was listed on our flight plan with no planned ALT fuel. We notified Dispatch of our probable divert to get their input. EWR weather was clear; winds 300/30G42 and BWI was CAVOK; winds 300/25. BWI seemed the best option. Dispatch responded; after a moderate delay; of using IAD as the divert. We determined IAD was suitable; but further than BWI. We immediately departed with vectors for IAD. Most other aircraft were headed to BWI. While being vectored for final at IAD we declared 'MIN FUEL' and approach shortened our arrival. We landed uneventfully and blocked in with 11.3 FOB. While the airport closure was beyond anyone's control; the policy of minimum FOD was a contributing factor. The company policy of minimum FOD for financial reasons is unsafe. In this case a divert for unforeseen events was was uneventful. While an alternate airport for weather may not be required by FAA regulations; minimum fuel policy is a company policy which should be changed. Arriving at major airports like PHL; EWR; JFK; LAX and many others with minimum fuel is not safe. Most captains I know add extra fuel to every flight for safety; but why should we have to call every time? Because we had an extra 2.4K pounds of fuel on the aircraft on arrival for preflight; we were able to land at just above 'Emergency Fuel'. Now I know we could have landed at BWI or other military fields closer than IAD; wouldn't a little extra fuel every time prevent events like this?




Synopsis: An air carrier Captain reported declaring minimum fuel after PHL unexpectedly closed which required they divert to IAD having uploaded dispatch fuel plus 2;400 pounds extra.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Second aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: DescriptionGO-AROUND DUE TO WAKE TURBULENCE.LAX had an unusual configuration due to the temporary closure of runway 25R that morning. Visual approaches were conducted to runway 24R; 24L and 25L to improve acceptance rate.After the SADDE6 arrival we were vectored for a standard visual to 24R. While on downwind and in an appropriate position to begin a base turn; ATC asked if we had a B787 in sight on straight-in approach to 24L (closely spaced parallel). We both had the B787 in sight and said 'affirmative'. ATC then instructed us to turn right heading 160; maintain visual separation with B787; caution wake turbulence; cleared visual approach 24R'. I erroneously assumed that ATC had built-in the required wake turbulence separation (heavy-large; parallel runways separated by less than 2;500ft). Once lined up on final; we were in trail of the B787 by approximately 2 miles. With a 10kt crosswind from our left; the B787 wake turbulence kept drifting into our path.  We felt it a couple of times between 2000 AGL and 1000 AGL with significant aileron input required to counter the effect. We adjusted our path above the Glide Slope and agreed that if it happened again below 500 AGL; we would initiate a Go-Around.  The turbulence was felt again at 200ft and I initiated an uneventful Go-Around.CauseI feel that this could've been avoided by ATC at the outset.  We were 'forced' onto the base leg immediately after reporting the B787 in sight.  I assumed that ATC had factored in our respective speeds to achieve wake-turbulence separation. They apparently had not and we found ourselves 'boxed-in' by their vector.  I realize that on a visual approach; it is the pilot's responsibility to ensure wake turbulence separation.  However; for that to be possible; the pilot must be given the latitude to maneuver as necessary early enough in the process.I certainly could've not accepted the ATC clearance. However; I assumed that the controller had enough information about our respective tracks and speeds to make a good decision (most of the time they do).

Callback: Reporter stated he and FO noticed the wake from the B787 actually seemed to rise rather than sink as wake normally does; and wonders if the B787 wing produces a unique wake signature.



Synopsis: B737 reported encountering wake turbulence in trail of a B787 on visual approach to LAX.
Date: 201808
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The Lead working [the] departure was tasked with loading a 'Quick Pack Delivery' of human blood. The package originally was not identified as HAZMAT until flight closeout at departure time. The flight was closed out and that is when the HAZMAT was identified. The package and load was adjusted as needed to make it right.The Lead was tasked with another flight for arrival at the same time. She received and parked [the] flight. The Lead then called over the radio to the Board Lead to correct and close out the flight for her. It was assumed closed out; but not completed properly. The assigned Lead then proceeded to the office to close out the flight manually on a computer terminal. This time as identified in the report; it was correct.Employee is [Load Plan] qualified to close out the flight and very experienced; however; she is not in the system to close out on the handheld scanner planeside. She must go into the office and close out on the computer all flights. The Trainer must enroll her into the system; and is on vacation.




Synopsis: Load Control Agent reported Ramp Lead corrected misidentified HAZMAT shipment.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MHT.Airport, NH
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C MHT
ATC / advisory: Tower MHT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared for a visual approach to Runway 24 at MHT. While on the right base leg; Approach Control notified us of a low altitude alert. Our position at the time was level flight and approximately 1;900 FT MSL and two miles northeast of the RNAV GPS FAF (FAF altitude was 1800A). Aircraft was configured with gear and flaps 15. We were backing up the visual with the GPS approach. There were no GPWS alerts/warnings. We acknowledged Approach's call; cleared terrain and obstacles; finished configuring; and continued to landing.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reports being issued a low altitude alert by MHT Tower while on right base for Runway 24 at 1;900 FT. The approach is continued to a normal landing.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: When selecting Flaps 1 on approach to ZZZ the LE SLAT DISAGREE message appeared. The flap indicator showed less than Flaps 1. We asked Approach Control for delaying vectors or a hold; so that we could do the checklists. We followed the QRH procedures which led us to a Flap 20 landing with a VREF of VREF 30 + 30 KTS. Due to this high speed landing I declared an emergency. We finished the LE SLAR ASYM checklist and the non-normal landing procedures and continued the approach. Landing was normal and passengers were debriefed as to the delay and the emergency vehicles. There had been two previous write-ups in the logbook for this aircraft for the same issue. The aircraft had been flown about 8 flights since the last repair for this issue; with no problems.


Second narrative: Upon approach into ZZZ; at 3;000 FT; and 210 KTS; [I] called for Flaps 1. Flap position indicator stopped prior to Flaps 1 and EICAS message 'LE Slat Disagree' annunciated. We went into a holding pattern; accomplished QRH procedures; declared an emergency and landed with Flaps 20 VREF 30 + 52030. Uneventful landing.


Synopsis: The pilots of a B757 experienced a Lead Edge Slat Disagree problem on approach. After performing the associated checklist; they completed a successful landing.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff on climbout; I noticed the right alternator was now indicating 0 Amps. Tested the functionality by switching on windshield de-ice and noted a 25 amp increase on the Left Alt; and the Right alt was still indicating 0 Amps. Returned to land ZZZ without issue.




Synopsis: Cessna 402 Captain reported an air turnback after failure of the right hand alternator.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach to south runway; at gear extension; the right main gear did not extend and gave an unsafe gear indication. The unsafe gear indication was confirmed on the over head panel. The ECAM advisory directed us to the Manual Gear Extension checklist. We broke off the approach; declared an emergency and were vectored around for a second approach. We accomplished the Manual Gear Extension checklist. On our second approach; a thunderstorm approaching from the west caused the winds to shift out of limits for the south runways. We then entered a downwind for the west runway and landed. We stopped on the runway due to no nose wheel steering. Crash/Rescue met the aircraft and followed us to parking. Maintenance towed us to the ramp. The Tower was excellent in aiding our recovery. The First Officer did an outstanding job of checklist management and situational awareness.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: A300 flight crew reports failure of the right main gear to extend during approach. A go around is initiated and the manual gear extension checklist is used to obtain a safe indication. A wind shift requires a runway change prior to landing and Maintenance tows the aircraft to the ramp due to inoperative nose wheel steering.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Air Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: MEL; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft was dispatched with MEL XX #2 ENGINE COWL A/I VLV pos MNTR SYS-ENG 2 VLV-A/I MANF FAIL (DUCT BRST DET) -VLV OPEN.    During climb out from ZZZ received a level 3 ENG 2 A-ICE alert. Retarding throttle to idle cleared alert. The climb was stopped at FL230. QRH checklist; consultation with dispatch and Maintenance resulted in an engine shutdown; [advising ATC] and air turn back to ZZZ. The return and landing at ZZZ were uneventful.  My suspicion is that we probably did not have a bleed air leak in the Eng 2 ice duct; but rather a higher than normal temp in the area around the duct due to the anti-ice valve being secured open due to the MEL and high power settings during the climb in relatively high ambient temperatures. Although we did follow the QRH and shut down the engine as if it were a duct leak. I am sure I will receive feedback from my event report on whether or not that is correct after Maintenance has had time to inspect the aircraft.




Synopsis: MD-11 Captain reported an in-flight shut down of the number two engine and an air turn back to a successful precautionary landing.
Date: 201603
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: The self-park has had four occurrences where the arriving flight has stopped short of the stop mark. Because of stopping short the aircraft now has to hooked up to a tug and be repositioned to the proper stop mark. By having to reposition the aircraft it's a huge inconvenience for the passengers possibly missing their connecting flights as well as runners trying to connect bags to other flights.




Synopsis: IAH Ramp Agent reported there have been numerous aircraft stopping short of the stop mark while using the self-park at the gate.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G ZZZ1
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Student pilot departed ZZZ to the North and during initial climb; initiated a descent due to numerous birds in the aircraft flight path. Aircraft leveled off at 1;200 feet toward rising terrain. Aircraft may have descended below 500 feet before instructor intervention and clear of conflict and climb initiated.




Synopsis: An Instructor pilot reported their student descended; to avoid birds; towards rising terrain; and below 500 feet above ground before instructor to controls of aircraft.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight phase: Final Approach
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I took over the Local Control (LC) position. Airport Operations (Ops) X plus 1 had just been put on the runway to repair lights. The RID [Runway Incursion Device] was activated. A few minutes later Ops moved farther down the runway and asked when the next arrival was. I looked at my strips and told him 20 plus minutes. He said that was plenty of time for him to finish up. I'm estimating maybe 10 minutes later; I noticed Aircraft X on a wide left downwind for ZZZ. I realized I did not have his strip for some reason and started looking for it in the recycle bin. I found it; and a few moments later Aircraft X checked on and I cleared him to land; I had completely forgotten about Ops on the runway.On about a 2.5 mile final; Aircraft X said he saw someone on the runway. I sent him around and Ops said they were exiting. I switched the Aircraft X to the crossing runway and he landed safely. I checked the RID and saw the volume was turned all the way down; I should have noticed that the first time I talked to Ops. I'm sure I scanned the runway but at this point; I don't know how I could have missed the vehicles. The sun was going down and the shades were still pulled down; we also have very large posts that can obstruct our view and we need to move to see around them sometimes. I'm not sure if any of that was a factor or not in forgetting about them. I do remember thinking that the Ops should be no factor for anyone when I thought the next arrival was proposed for more than 20 minutes out; I must have let my guard down. I usually write out a strip or a reminder of vehicles and put it in front of me or on top of my proposal strips but today for some reason I did not do that. This situation was completely my fault and I can't think of any recommendations for the position; just for myself. Even though there is no specific volume requirement; I plan on checking the RID and turning it up very loud when I activate it from now on. I do think it is a very useful tool; I use it often; and I have never forgotten about a vehicle before. I need to continue working on and improving my scan; write out a strip or a reminder of the Ops vehicle. I also think I will ask the Ops to advise when they are moving from light to light. If I had done that; I would have talked to the Ops vehicle a few more times and maybe would not have forgotten about them.




Synopsis: Local Controller reported forgetting about vehicles on a runway when the arrival aircraft alerted Controller to the fact there were vehicles on the runway.