elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ADS.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Windshear; Crosswind
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Other Part 141 Flight School
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ADS
ATC / advisory: Tower ADS
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The landing gear failed to fully extend while configuring for a power off stall. A positive 'gear down' light was not obtained and the 'Emergency Gear Extension Checklist' was completed. A positive gear down indication was not obtained. Sitting in the right seat; I could visually confirm that the right main landing gear was not completely down and locked. We (student and I) troubleshot the problem and completed all appropriate checklists prior to requesting flight following with Approach Control. Through Approach; we declared an emergency and requested a low approach to verify the gear position. The Tower Controller said the 'right main landing gear appeared to NOT be fully down and locked.' The 'Landing without Positive Gear down Indication Checklist' was completed; and a landing was requested. We landed on the right main first to 'seat' the gear and contend with the right crosswind. We also pulled the mixture (stopping the engine) after both mains had touched (in case the nosewheel was not down and locked). A positive gear down indication was received upon touching down. After rolling to a stop; the plane was restarted and taxied to parking. No visible damage to the aircraft/landing gear was observed. I was pleased with the CRM utilized in this situation. Both I and the student brainstormed possible ideas to get the right main down and locked; and worked to back each other up with the checklists/radio communications. A preflight inspection and accompanying checklist was completed prior to the flight and several gear extensions were successfully executed before the malfunction. However; a more diligent inspection of the landing gear system during preflight could have possibly revealed the (still yet unknown) mechanical issue that led to the incident.




Synopsis: A flight instructor and student pilot encountered a right main landing gear downlock problem in a C172RG while practicing maneuvers. They worked the appropriate checklist; but could not resolve the problem. The Instructor was able to visually confirm that the gear was not in the full down position. They were able to set down on the right gear during landing which fully extended and locked the gear leg.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-6
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After received my landing clearance; I came in for landing. After I touched down on my mains for a wheel landing; during roll out; I was hit by helicopter rotor wash. My tail swung to the right with great force and I could not recover resulting in ground loop. I did not roll over; but my main gears folded back and prop tips sheared off. After reviewing the tower communication; it appears helicopter was hover-taxiing on [a nearby] taxiway and/or holding short on [my landing] runway. The helicopter was given clearance to taxi and hold short when I was on left base for landing.




Synopsis: RV-6 pilot reported some aircraft damage resulted after losing directional control on landing roll when he was hit by helicopter prop wash.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ASE.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ASE
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were flying to ASE and I was the Pilot Monitoring. As we approached Aspen; we were given vectors to intercept LOC E into ASE. We accepted clearance to maintain 13;000 ft until established and clearance to execute LOC E approach. As we were intercepting LOC we picked up visual with the airport and commenced descent towards it while having visual reference with the airport and all the terrain around. In the midst of all things happening quickly and the excitement of having visual with the airport; I failed to communicate to ATC my intention of executing visual approach. At some point we lost the visual with the airport due to a cloud layer just ahead of us; but not the terrain. At the same time ATC issued an altitude alert to us due to us being lower than what LOC approach altitudes called for. I advised that we had terrain in sight but lost the visual with the airport and said that we would be going missed and starting a climb. We got another altitude alert from ATC. We advised we are in a climb and asked vectors; until we decide what to do. We proceeded to ZZZ airport afterwards.  At no time we were in IMC conditions and maintained visual clearance from all the terrain. My mistake in this case was deviating from ATC clearance and going visual without communicating that to ATC. And also; not staying on a LOC due to a cloud layer over the airport. At no time was the aircraft in IMC conditions and we were maintaining clearance with terrain at all times. By all means the aircraft was never put in any unsafe condition.  I did learn from this experience to clearly and concisely communicate any and all of my intentions with ATC; so there is no misunderstanding at any point of the flight.




Synopsis: Corporate jet non-flying Captain reported diverting to an alternate airport after receiving a low altitude alert from ATC on approach to ASE airport.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 60
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ; Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The plan was to depart on an IFR flight plan; conduct a test flight East of the airport and then return. I was the PIC and the Pilot Flying; I conducted the takeoff and test flight and then asked the copilot if he would like the landing. He said he would so we transitioned control of the aircraft to him and I took the radios. ATC vectored us back for the GPS 06 approach. After descending through the clouds (~4000 ft) and in VMC conditions; the copilot told me to tell ATC that he visually had the airport. I reported this to ATC and they cleared us for the visual approach and told us we could cancel on the ground via telephone. I asked the copilot if he would like to cancel IFR now over the radio. He did so I cancelled the IFR clearance and switched to the CTAF frequency. We proceeded visually to the 'airport' and landed however the airport that we landed at was an Air Force Base; 10 miles West of the airport we intended to land and a runway with a similar heading.I made the incorrect assumption that he saw the correct airport. This was the first time I had met or flown with this copilot; and I spent a more than normal amount of time monitoring his flying which reduced my situational awareness; I am not familiar with this area; have not flow here recently and have only flown around that area a few times in the distant past. I did not discover that we had landed at the wrong airport until sometime on the landing rollout. If I had not offered the landing to the copilot and would have maintained control of the aircraft; I believe my situational awareness would have been greater.




Synopsis: Learjet 60 Captain reported inadvertently landing at a Military Air Base 10 miles west of the intended airport.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767-400 and 400 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [We had a] normal landing on normal reverser use as well as normal braking. We exited and Tower said make a left on EX Taxiway. We were in a normal position to make the left 90 degree turn to EX and accomplished it without a problem. We taxied; held short for two landing aircraft then onto Lima and entered the ramp. We parked at the gate and accomplished a normal shutdown and checklist. We looked up and saw two of the brake temperatures on the left side were reading 5 and; as I was sitting back down in my seat to call the ramp frequency to tell them to make sure the wheels were chocked so that we could release the brakes; we got a call from the ground and he told us that we had a brake fire of some sort going on the left main. We asked him if the wheels were chocked--to which he replied 'yes'-- then asked him if he wanted us to release the brakes. He did not know so we left the brakes set. Immediately; we went outside to talk with the mechanics. We went to the ramp and it appeared that some type of fluid was leaking down onto ramp from the right rear of the main gear and was smoking when it hit the ramp. I did not see any flames but was told that someone had already sprayed the area and it looked like the fire had already been extinguished.


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


Synopsis: After parking at the gate after a normal landing a B767-400ER developed a small fire on the left main gear brakes; apparently fueled by a fluid leak onto the hot brakes. The fire was extinguished by the time the flight crew exited the aircraft to inspect the problem.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MYR.Airport, SC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C MYR
ATC / advisory: Tower MYR
Aircraft component: Emergency Exit
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After gear retraction; at about 1;300 FT got Aural Warning and ECAM that the left overwing emergency exit was open. First Officer silenced bell; performed ECAM action and than we completed After Takeoff Checklist. ECAM limited to 10;000 FT MSL. Requested turn to return to the departure airport while First Officer reviewed COM2 info. Completed Approach and Landing checklists; called Stations Operations to inform them of return; did radio communication with Approach Control and Tower and landed. Take-off to landing 9 minutes. Very busy. Flight Attendant was asked before we requested return if door showed open on their panel. It did. They prepared the cabin for landing (easy since everyone was still buckled in from the take-off a minute before. They could resurface the runway so it doesn't knock out your fillings; but all the funding must be in the new terminal. Had this occurred later in the flight; I might have continued and monitored; but 45 seconds after take-off from an airport with gates and company maintenance it felt better to return than fly 1.5 hours to an airport with no spare gates and no company maintenance.




Synopsis: An Airbus A320 Series ECAM alerted left overwing emergency open after takeoff so the flight immediately returned to land at the departure airport.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Aircraft component: Fuel Tank
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; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: #4 fuel spar valve status message appeared on taxi out.  At cruise stab fuel transfer was initiated on schedule.  Approximately 5 minutes later EICAS annunciated 'FUEL IMBALANCE 1-4'.  Stab fuel quantity was 17.0 - fuel synoptic showed #4 tank 3;000 pounds less than #1 with #4 decreasing at a rate of 300-400 pounds / min. The irregular checklist for fuel imbalance did not seem to address our situation.Contacted [Maintenance Control] thru [Dispatch] for assistance. Aircraft seemed to be in trim when hand flown.  I elected to transfer the remaining stab fuel to the center tank since landing with stab fuel is problematic.  #4 fuel quantity continued to decrease during stab transfer and at completion was greater than 7;000 pound imbalance.  After consulting with [Maintenance Control] and [Dispatch] I decided a divert would be most prudent and have maintenance check the issue.  Fuel was dumped enroute in hopes of reaching landing weight at touchdown; however with an unknown quantity of fuel in #4 tank; landing weight was later found to be 632.0.  Maintenance drip sticked fuel on arrival and confirmed #4 fuel quantity was indicating correctly.




Synopsis: A B-747 Air Crew experienced an EICAS message warning of a fuel imbalance between tanks 1 and 4. They consulted with maintenance; dumped fuel; and diverted.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X; on approach to ZZZ had following PIREP: on approach the rudder travel unrestricted light did not illuminate until 140 kts. Per MM 27-20-00 Page block 101. Rudder and Tab-Troubleshooting. 1. Troubleshooting A.F.Steps 1-5. The Rudder Travel Unrestricted Warning Light should have come ON at or before 191 kts. It did not illuminate until 140 kts. The Contract Maintenance Employee only accomplished step 3 in the troubleshooting guide. Contract Employee's signoff: Accomplished bite check of both rudder proximity switches...inspected rudder throw limiter proximity sensor brackets...cleaned debris from sensors. This contract employee's actions are covered under step 3 in the troubleshooting guide; and all was found to be OK. Employee DID NOT DO ANY MORE TROUBLESHOOTING to determine why the rudder travel did not become unrestricted until 140 knots. If the Pilot Flying had to execute an evasive maneuver; i.e. possible bird strike; windshear; go-around; auto-pilot disconnect; weather event; evasive action to prevent mid-air collision; etc.... The aircraft's rudder movement was limited; thereby restricting its movement and the subsequent full-authority control of the aircraft. The ZZZ employee should have done more troubleshooting to determine why the discrepancy occurred. Rudder not rigged properly. Rudder Limiter System; Excessive Friction. Pitot tube sump clogged. Throw-Limiter actuator and linkage out of adjustment. The employee only accomplished a sensor check - Step 3- and returned the aircraft to service. The problem repeated on another flight. Cause: Inadequate experience level; troubleshooting skills; MD-80 familiarity; unfamiliar with Maintenance Manuals. Suggestions: Follow Maintenance Manual Procedures as defined by company policy and CFR's.




Synopsis: MD-80 Maintenance Technician reported that Contract Maintenance did not complete the Rudder Travel Unrestricted Warning Light troubleshooting procedure.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: VUO.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G VUO
ATC / advisory: UNICOM VUO
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The airport was encountering heavy traffic. My student and I were remaining in a closed traffic pattern practicing landings. Multiple aircraft were reporting inbound to land on Runway 08. Having most of my experience flying at VUO; I was able to determine with the multiple calls made that there was enough distance for my student and I to continue as normal on the downwind and proceed to the base leg of the pattern without disruption. I had two inbound aircraft in sight to the north of the airport and felt a safe distance from them. However with the 5-7 close by/inbound aircraft; the CTAF frequency was congested and it was difficult for anyone to make position calls. When we turned a left base for Runway 08; Pearson Advisory called us and advised to use caution because there was another aircraft just left of us near the same altitude. The 430-GPS indicated it was to the right. I then had another aircraft in sight on base to final to the right about 500 feet horizontal and 100 feet vertical. I took the controls of the aircraft and sharply turned final for 08; began a quick descent; then made a traffic pattern call that we were on final. The other aircraft performed a go-around maneuver. From my perspective in the fast moving situation; I believe we were at the lower altitude which is why I chose to continue on final. I was unable to get the tail number of the other aircraft. I landed the plane without issue and taxied to the parking spots. No further action took place; I did not speak to the other pilot.




Synopsis: GA flight instructor with student reported an NMAC during approach to VUO non-towered airport requiring evasive action.  Reporter stated frequency congestion contributed to the event as it prevented pilots from making position calls.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp EWR
Aircraft component: Parking Brake
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At the same time we were cleared to push; we received a message for inaccurate weights (third occurrence). I told the push crew that we needed to get new weights before we pushed. We got new weights; and loaded them into the FMC. When cleared to push; I released the brakes and said 'braked released cleared to push disconnect abeam gate XX.' We started moving; but no verbal response was heard from the push crew. After trying to contact on the headset; the aircraft stopped. I still thought we had a communication problem. One of the wing walkers got on the headset and told us there was no one in the tug.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported receiving three messages for inaccurate weights with the push back crew standing by for push. After the weights were entered into the FMC; the Captain stated to the tug driver 'Brakes are released; cleared to push'. No response was received; but the aircraft started to move. Further attempts at communication were unsuccessful then the aircraft stopped. A wing walker came on the intercom and informed the flight crew that no one was in the tug when the aircraft started to move.