elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This report is in regards to a Too Low Flaps Warning on final approach into LAX. LAX was shooting ILS approaches to [Runway] 25L; though we had visual contact with the runway at least 3 miles out. The approach to landing phase is always a high workload time at LAX. As we were configuring for the approach there were calls to spot traffic landing on [Runway] 24R; landing clearance from Tower; and focus on the proceeding landing traffic to confirm it was cleared of the runway. Though definitely a high workload phase; these are all normal distractions.  The Captain was Flying Pilot; and configured the aircraft on profile till we reached flaps 25.  At this point we waited for the aircraft to slow to the flaps 25 speed. Flaps 30 was not called for; and we continued our descent on the approach.  We were both focusing on the runway and the proceeding aircraft; and forgot to configure flaps 30 for landing. At approximately 400 ft. we received the Too Low Flaps Warning. The aircraft was on speed; glide path; and in VMC conditions. The decision was made to extend the flaps to 30 degrees; and the landing was made normally. After arriving at the gate; we debriefed the situation; and both agreed that we should have done a missed approach; as is SOP for a configuration warning at that phase of flight.Contributing factors to this event were normal distractions in a high workload part of flight. A mind set of getting the plane on the ground when you see the runway right in front of you; and you are on profile with path and speed.  Lastly for myself; complacency. I land visually; daily in LAX.  As the Monitoring Pilot; I should have been more focused; and caught the we were not at our designated landing flap setting. In the future I'll be more vigilant; and call for a go around if I find myself not configured for the approach correctly under 1;000 ft.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported not being properly configured for approach to LAX under 1;000 ft.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E D01
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Fatigue
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This occurred on the second day of a three-day am trip. Both of the two mornings were about (time removed) reports and I hadn't slept a full night before either day. I recall that both the First Officer and I were fighting to keep alert on this leg as we began the arrival. The FRNCH3 Arrival was briefed as normal; but not very far into the arrival; we were vectored off and given multiple vectors and descents which I complied with using Heading Select and Level Change. Finally; we were cleared direct to BABAA intersection to rejoin the arrival and to descend via the remainder of the FRNCH3. LNAV was engaged direct to BABAA and we set 11;000 feet in the MCP altitude window; as this was the lowest altitude on arrival. However; I failed to reselect VNAV mode; and with the aircraft still in Level Change; we descended through the BABAA restriction of 13;000 feet prior to BABAA. At about 12;500 feet and nearly to BABAA; Approach queried us by asking if we were going to cross BABAA at 13;000 feet. I quickly climbed back to up to 13;000 feet but crossed BABAA at 12;500 feet; and promptly got the aircraft back into VNAV for the rest of the uneventful arrival and flight.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported not making a crossing restriction on the FRNCH3 STAR to DEN.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
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 Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft was a full 737-800. We parked with approximately 7200 pounds of fuel. Parking brake was set. About ten minutes into deboarding the nose wheel of the aircraft lifted up off the ground. I was standing in the jetway when this occurred. The Agent alertly handled control of the jetway. Deboarding was stopped. Shortly after; two aircraft mechanics came up from the ramp and stated they were driving by and saw the nose of the aircraft off the ground by about 12 to 18 inches. They also stated that the attached tug had probably kept the nose wheel from going higher. Nose came back down. Provisioning trucks were in position front and aft. There were approximately 50 people left to deboard at the time of the incident. I think the forward cargo bin had been unloaded first after going down to the ramp and looking at the aircraft shortly after the incident. The incident was entered in the logbook. Incoming Captain was briefed on the incident as well as Maintenance. Flight Manager was briefed as well.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported after parking at the gate he observed the nose of the aircraft rising into the air when the proper unloading sequence was apparently not followed.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LEX.Airport, KY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C LEX
ATC / advisory: Tower LEX
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi; In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was on the Local Position with a Cessna in the pattern and Aircraft X cleared to land RWY 22 on a visual approach.  A departing Aircraft Y pulled up the runway and reported ready for takeoff.  Aircraft X was the next aircraft cleared to land and was 3 1/2 miles from the runway when I cleared Aircraft Y for takeoff; giving him the position of Aircraft X.  This normally would have worked without any problems; however; Aircraft Y took an unexpected lengthy time to begin his takeoff roll.  To add to the issue; the arriving Aircraft X was going faster than expected.  I told Aircraft Y no delay and he seemed to still take longer than normal to begin rolling.  When Aircraft X crossed the runway threshold; Aircraft Y was airborne approximately 5;000 feet down the runway.  About 1;000 feet short of the 6;000 feet same runway separation requirement.  I did not send Aircraft X around because I felt a safer situation would result if I allowed the Aircraft X to continue his landing instead of having two aircraft departing the same direction in close proximity to one another.  Aircraft X landed with no problems and Aircraft Y was switched to Departure.I could have asked Aircraft Y's pilot if he would be able to accept and immediate take off; however that would have required even more time for his decision and response.




Synopsis: LEX Local Controller reports of an operational error due to lack of runway distance between an arrival and a departure.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Manuals; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Aircraft was backed into the hangar for a L/H MLG strut repack; and the Aircraft X's jacking had began. Halfway through the shift; Aircraft Y had an [priority] landing with an engine issue. Local management wanted Aircraft X towed out; Aircraft Y towed in first; then Aircraft X back in. [The following day]; Aircraft Y was ready to come out of the hangar; but it was trapped because Aircraft X's L/H MLG lower leg was removed.Management elected to direct the winglet to be removed from Aircraft Y; fill the wing with fuel; to make it heavier; and Aircraft Y was towed out; wing under Aircraft X wing; with 3 inch space between wing surfaces. If Aircraft Y would of shifted; and wing raising up; it could of caused Aircraft X to be knocked off jacks; and jacks puncturing wing fuel tanks; possible fire; personnel being hurt or even killed.If this would have happened; local management wouldn't have taken responsibility!Poor decision by Management. When a lower leg is removed from a strut; you take a chance of having corrosion issues. Why would an aircraft with an engine change be placed in the hangar before a strut repack?This violates every practice we've been preached. Never; never jeopardize damage to personnel or equipment.




Synopsis: Air carrier maintenance technician reported an aircraft was removed from the hanger using non-standard maintenance procedures and practices.
Date: 202201
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 35
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the climb out phase while passing through 16;000 ft. conducting the climb checklist we realized our cabin was not pressurized. I immediately asked for a descent to 10;000 ft. ATC told me it would be a moment so I requested priority handling; squawked 7700 and initiated my immediate descent procedures in accordance with the airplane flight manual. We got down to 10;000 ft. safely and then landed without incident.




Synopsis: Captain reported cabin did not pressurize on climb and performed an air turn back and precautionary landing.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Initial takeoff out of ZZZ. Reviewed weather and noted that ZZZ1 was designated as takeoff alternate. Briefed both FO and Lead of the takeoff alternate. ATIS stated that RVR was 500 but continuously being updated. Tower was calling RVR of 1200 due to ground fog. FO and I briefed both his minimums for takeoff as well as reviewed the back of the Airport Diagram page. Airport Diagram page stated with adequate visual reference we needed 1600 or 1/4 mile. Taxiing out watched other aircraft depart as the ground fog was quickly burning off. As we approached number one Tower stated 'RVR is 1400 v 3500'. They did not provide a base RVR and I did not ask. We informed Tower we were ready when they were. Tower cleared us for takeoff and I stated to the FO that visibility was good and that I could see the departure end of the 9000 ft. [Runway]. My estimate was visibility was greater than 2 miles. We took off uneventfully and shortly thereafter atis stated visibility was 3 miles. On climb out; FO and I discussed weather and reports. Upon inquiry into the FOM; it seems that we should have either queried Tower for specific RVR or delayed takeoff until all numbers were above 1600. Also; I was lulled into a VFR mindset because in hindsight what I was physically seeing did not match the min RVR Tower stated.


Second narrative: During preparation for takeoff; morning fog was burning off at a rapid pace. Airport Diagram page showed take off minimums for runways in ZZZ to be 1600 RVR. ATIS was updating to RVR 500 however we clearly could see the runway all the way to the end which is over 9;000 ft. long. Airport conditions were over 2 mile visibility without restrictions. Tower confirmed [a] new report of 1400 RVR variable to 3500 RVR. We told Tower that we were ready for takeoff whenever they could clear us. We were cleared for take off shortly after. The doubt we had was lack of clarity on [the] actual RVR report even though we were VMC at this point and had no problem seeing all of the runway environment. Shortly after rotation ATIS updated again to 3 SM visibility. 3 flights prior to us departed which added to the confusion of required RVR. Conditions did not match RVR reports.


Synopsis: Flight Crew reported departing with RVR under minimums.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Widebody Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [We experienced a] light wake encounter from a preceding heavy aircraft on the same arrival that we were on going in LAX. It was a light encounter in which we just got a single roll of 15 degrees or less.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported an encounter with light wake turbulence on arrival into LAX in trail of a heavy aircraft.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: GKY.Airport, TX
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Aerobatic
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing; Descent
Airspace: Class D GKY; TFR SPORTING EVENT
ATC / advisory: Tower GKY
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: VFR flight contacted GKY 3 miles north of Lake Arlington and received approval to transition at 1;800 FT MSL. Shortly after clearance; GKY informed me of a ballpark TFR. In this point in the flight I believe I was 4 miles southwest of ballpark (outside 3 NM radius). I changed heading to 180 to further distance from the ballpark TFR and checked my GPS (XM satellite) and found no TFR displayed even though TFR data was current (no more than 1 minute since last download). [I] turned east to GPM just past GPM midfield. GKY approved frequency change just past GKY center line. Contacted GPM; cleared for a 35 base leg and GPM informed me of the ballpark TFR. At this point I believe I was still outside the 3 mile radius. Potential VFR entry into the stadium TFR could be prevented if the dynamic activation (based upon irregular baseball schedules or other stadium events) would be made available through XM GPS information like other standard TFR's with specific dates/times. Also; publishing the stadium type TFR's on maps to know exact location radius would be helpful.




Synopsis: Pitts pilot is informed enroute by GKY Tower of a TFR to the north of the field and deviates to the south and west. The onboard GPS with XM gave no indication of a TFR in the area.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While on Final Approach to runway; we received a Gear Disagree EICAS message. We were cleared for a right turn away from the Localizer at 2000 feet. Performed QRH procedure which included alternate gear extension. After all gear were down and locked we returned for a normal landing. Post flight inspection revealed damage to the left wing gear door with part of it missing.


Second narrative: During approach to land we received vectors to final approach and intercepted the localizer. On profile at glide slope alive I called 'gear down; flaps 20'. The captain selected gear down and flaps to 20 and we continued to glide slope intercept. I then called 'flaps 25; landing checklist' and no sooner than when I made that call we got two EICAS messages. The EICAS messages were 'Gear Disagree' and 'Gear Door' in addition to the messages we had an indication that our left wing gear was not down. We elected to leave the flaps at 20 and hold the landing checklist until our non-normal checklist was complete; at the same time maintained our current altitude and received clearance from tower for a right 360. I continued to fly the airplane while the captain and IROs ran the QRH procedure for 'Gear Disagree'. They followed the appropriate course of action in the QRH and got the left main landing gear down using alternate gear extension. At the end of the procedure the QRH called for a normal landing. We re-intercepted the localizer and I appropriately called 'flaps 25; landing checklist'. We landed uneventfully. During taxi; ground controlled called and asked if we had known if anything had fallen off the airplane they indicated that the local police was on the phone and a citizen had reported that something fell off the plane. We had no idea and continued to parking to find a portion of the landing gear door missing on the post flight walk around. The captain wrote up the maintenance discrepancies. At this point we do not have an exact idea of what mechanically caused the portion of the gear door to depart the aircraft.


Synopsis: B747 flight crew reported a 'Gear Disagree' EICAS message when the gear was selected down during approach and went around. The QRH was used to manually extend the left main gear. Post flight inspection revealed damage to the left main gear door.