elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BFI.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 605
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D BFI
ATC / advisory: Tower BFI
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approaching runway 31L at BFI inside the OM tower advised us of helicopter traffic departing southeast bound and that the helicopter would 'remain southeast' of the final.  Watching diligently for the rotorcraft I asked for flaps 45 and final landing items. Checklist was complete and I Pilot Flying (PF) and the Pilot Monitoring (PM) observed the helicopter on TCAS but did not have visual. Getting closer it was evident the helicopter's [track] was NOT remaining Southeast of the final and instead was veering into the final. I began to verbalize my intentions to the PM that we would be prepared to level; or potentially execute at TCAS climb and go-around as available airspace to conduct an RA maneuver and transition back to a stabilized approach was rapidly diminishing. The traffic continued on its near collision course with us edging even closer to centerline. I had already disengaged the autopilot and noted the helicopter was showing 400 feet below our altitude. The PM called visual with the traffic - and I spotted it as well. I advised I was leveling at the same time the TCAS resolution advisory issued a climb followed by a softening command (I don't remember what it was). Ultimately I climbed only a little bit before hearing clear of conflict. As I had barely climbed more than a dot high I determined I could successfully return to the glidepath and maintain stabilized approach criteria. Glideslope was maintained and landing occurred at the 1500 foot point. The traffic passed 400 feet below our altitude and nearly right below our flight path (i.e. nearly on centerline). This was absurdly dangerous on the part of the rotorcraft pilot and highly nonsensical.




Synopsis: A CL-605 pilot reported an NMAC with a helicopter on approach to BFI.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LIH.Airport, HI
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: On arrival at gate X in LIH the agent pointed out a gap from the jetway to the aircraft that posed a problem especially for children deplaning. On departure the gap was apparent again. This has been reported by station personnel several times with no action taken. It appears the lines for parking the aircraft are too close to the gate for proper gate alignment. Someone will eventually get hurt by this.




Synopsis: An air carrier Captain reported that the parking alignment at the gate in LIH fails to place the aircraft boarding door appropriately for passenger safety while boarding or deplaning.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MCI.TRACON, MO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZKC
ATC / advisory: TRACON MCI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; 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: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was Captain and the Pilot Flying on descent into MCI in IMC conditions. From 16;000 ft. to 12;000 ft.; we received 2 TAPS (Turbulence Auto Pirep system) event of severe turbulence. [Report] stated max flag threshold not exceeded. Peak loads plus 1.56g and minus 0.254g. However the actual aircraft never experienced anything greater than moderate turbulence.Cause was turbulence associated with a cold front passing to our east. The TAPS system did not correctly reflect the actual aircraft conditions.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported two erroneous severe turbulence alerts during initial descent when the actual turbulence was no greater than moderate.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Seaplane or Amphibian
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System Pump
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Loss of Hydraulic System.  Controls; Flaps; and Landing Gear.  Was unable to resolve and as result landed amphibious flying boat in grass with assistance of Tower staff.  Minor damage to right wing float.  No injuries. Pilot and Co-pilot/AP/IA in aircraft.  Departed uneventfully.  Returned to the departure airport to retrieve forgotten cell phone.  Put gear down; uneventful landing.  Returned to runway and departed.  Attempted to place gear into up position and gear would not retract.  Departed pattern to work on malfunction.  Rechecked for hydraulic level and found appropriate amount of 5606.  Attempted use of hand pump with no positive results.  Isolated flaps from gear system with no positive results.  Determined that gear was not going to move from trailing position.  Co-Pilot/AP/IA accessed the hull and attempted to ascertain what malfunction occurred.  Fluid was found in compartment and it appeared that the main hydraulic actuator had lost/blown an O-ring.  An attempt to push the gear forward manually commenced with no positive result.  Tailwheel was down and unmoving.  As per standard protocols; for this aircraft; decided that the best course of action was to land aircraft on suitable grass area to mitigate damage.  This airport was selected as it has ample grass areas and maintenance facility.  Landed aircraft with assistance of Tower and staff.  Landing was uneventful.  Aircraft was undamaged with the exception of damage to the right wing float and paint removal at the keel area of the hull.




Synopsis: An amphibian aircraft; experienced a hydraulic pump failure after takeoff and with partially retracted landing gear; the pilot successfully landed on grass at the departure airport resulting in minor damage.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was flying with VFR flight following. I had been cleared by Departure to descend at pilot's discretion (from 2;500 feet) and contact Tower. I contacted Tower and was cleared to land. I completed my pre-landing checklist. As I descended to enter a right base; I was at about 800 feet when I reduced power to continue the descent and set up my turn to final. The engine sputtered. At that point I did not have any power. The prop was still turning. I moved the throttle in and out which confirmed no power. I contacted Tower to let them know and then went to performing emergency procedures. At this point I was still descending and I chose to land on the road as it was close and appeared to be clear (I noticed traffic was held up at a stop light and there were no visible wires crossing the road.) I did not see another suitable landing area. I made my approach and landing and was able to use full flaps to slow my airspeed before touch-down. I slowed the aircraft down on the ground and then used the last bit of inertia to taxi off of the roadway. When I stopped; the engine was not running. I contacted Tower to let them know where I had landed; they said they would send emergency response teams. I then shut off the fuel tanks; put the flaps up; turned off the master and ignition switches and got out of the aircraft and waited for emergency response to arrive.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported loss of power in the pattern; resulting in a forced landing on a nearby road.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were delayed and were trying our best to make up time and get out as close to on time as possible. Cause - Delayed; passenger mask issue; bad headset.Suggestions - Finish a checklist or task before moving onto the subsequent item on a to do list. Before Start Checklist below the line was called for but right at that moment; we were simultaneously distracted by both Ramp Agent and the Flight Attendant with a passenger issue. We diverted out attention to the two external factors and did not finish the checklist. Had we appropriately created a boundary between what was most important at the moment; we would've not missed the checklist prior to push back. It wasn't until after push back commenced that we realized we had no completed the checklist.


Second narrative: We were delayed significantly due to weather in ZZZ; there were distractions due to ramp headset squeals and a passenger issue regarding a mask. We forgot to complete the before start checklist below the line checklist before pushing back.Cause - Passenger issues; ramp headset issues.Suggestions - Due to being late; I identified mistakes due to rushing was a threat. The mitigation strategy was to continue our efficiencies until push back time. The distractions caused us to miss the completion of the before start checklist below the line until after push back started. We will be more careful next time.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported deviations from standard practices due to distractions in the cabin; causing check list omissions.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During emergency descent (loss of pressurization) the aircraft exceeded max speed by approximately 5 KTS. Logbook entry was made. No damage noted by mechanic and log book signed off the same.




Synopsis: MD-82 First Officer reported a 5 KT overspeed during an emergency descent for loss of pressurization.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While at cruise Dispatch notified us via ACARS that we had HAZMAT (a battery) onboard; which we were not made aware of nor given paperwork prior to departure.


Second narrative: On Date; on Aircraft X from ZZZ to ZZZ1; about halfway through the flight; we received an ACARS message from Dispatch that we were carrying HAZMAT. The Captain and I were unaware of that; and this was our first notification. Apparently; we were carrying a battery that was considered HAZMAT; but we were not told or given any paperwork prior to departure from ZZZ.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reported airborne notification of undeclared Hazmat.  Hazmat cargo loaded on aircraft without providing flight crew the required Hazmat documentation or flight crew notification.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
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 B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight was level at 3;000 MSL on vectors to a visual approach to 17L at DFW. While approaching the DRAAK waypoint heading westbound ATC called small aircraft traffic level at 2;500 MSL; 12 O'clock; opposite direction. The crew was unable to visually acquire the small aircraft and as it passed under the aircraft a TCAS RA was received. The PF (Pilot Flying) executed the avoidance maneuver by climbing to 3;500 MSL. ATC was notified; the flight completed the visual approach and landed without further incident.Traffic passed under aircraft with 500 feet of vertical separation.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported an NMAC with GA aircraft on approach to DFW airport.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; 1/4
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
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); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach to RWY XR at ZZZ; extended landing gear and got unsafe indication-Right Main light out. Recycled and same thing so initiated missed approach to go up and troubleshoot. Changed light bulbs per the QRH (Quick Reference Handbook) to see if that was it but was not. Then went through the gear will not extend hydraulically procedure; got a diversion to ZZZ1. Did the Nitro blow-down and still no light. [Notified ATC]. Halfway to ZZZ1; the right gear light finally illuminated. Proceeded to land at ZZZ1 without further incident-the trucks were rolled. Stopped on the runway and shut down; Airport Ops bussed passenger to the gate. Mx (Maintenance) came to tow aircraft to the hangar and the Mx staff determined that there was a loose ground wire on the strut.




Synopsis: Pilot flying C-402 encountered landing gear unsafe indication on approach.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Altitude Hold/Capture
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Workload; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While on a vector at 2;000 FT MSL to intercept the localizer for the ILS 6; I engaged APPROACH mode on the autopilot. Several seconds after engaging APPROACH mode the airplane initiated an uncommanded GA (go around) mode and pitched up violently. Having never experienced this autopilot behavior before it caught me off guard. I immediately disconnected the autopilot and pitched forward aggressively. I wrestled the aircraft back under control but not before descending approximately 400-500 FT below the assigned altitude. ATC advised me I was below altitude and asked if I was having trouble maintaining altitude. I told ATC that I had a problem but eventually regained control. ATC asked if I was going to be able to shoot another approach (ILS) to which I responded yes. ATC vectored me again to intercept the Localizer for the ILS 6. I again engaged the approach mode on the autopilot. The autopilot captured the localizer and GS without issue. This second approach and subsequent landing were without issue.




Synopsis: A PA31T autopilot pitched up uncommanded when the APPROACH mode was selected for an ILS; so the pilot disconnected the autopilot; regained aircraft control but descended below the inbound altitude before finally stabilizing and completing the approach.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: We were using the backup RADAR; as the primary was released to maintenance. An A320 was on final for Runway 19R; and a B737 was LUAW on Runway 25R. I cleared the B737 for take off when the A320 was 3 miles out; which is a normal operation. The A320 was at 190 KTS indicated on the display; and appeared to be OK for landing. The B737 started rolling; and then I noticed that the A320 disappeared from the RADAR; both primary and beacon slash. The next update had a beacon slash a mile and a half closer than the previous hit; only 10 seconds earlier. I looked at the B737; who was nose wheel up; and then at the A320; who announced that he was going around. I issued traffic to the A320; who did not see him; then turned the A320 30 degrees left to avoid B737. I then went to the B737 to issue traffic; and he reported him in sight; while saying 'That was nice'. I was not looking at the arrival when he actually initiated the go around; so am not sure at what exact point he started. I am wondering; however; if the back up RADAR is not as accurate; and the three mile line that I used to judge a safe distance was not good enough. Maybe the A320 was closed than the RADAR indicated; and that is why; on the go around; the A320 ended up much closer than I would have liked to the Runway 25 departure. Give refresher training on the use of the backup RADARs. This is probably the first time I have used it in over a decade; and did not realize that the normal spacing used for judgments may not be sufficient; due to a less accurate display.




Synopsis: LAS Controller described a go around event while utilizing a back up RADAR system; claiming that the lack of familiarity and training deficiencies were both casual factors.