elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Fog; Rain; 1
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Object; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I departed with 2200 pounds of fuel. I was cleared to 17;000 feet. Enroute; about 25 minutes airborne; I had the right low fuel pressure light come on. I followed the procedure to see if the light would go out. It went out and then came on dim for the remainder of the flight. All gauges were normal and no indication that the engine was affected in its performance. On our descent there was another aircraft on the approach. I talked with him on Unicom after he had landed and he reported the weather was at minimums; but OK. I elected to make the approach. Over the final approach fix at 2300 feet; I configured the aircraft for landing. We arrived at the MDA which was 800 feet. The autopilot was activated and I was monitoring outside for visual clues and scanning the instruments as well. After about 20 seconds I started seeing ground and about 3/4th of a mile forward visibility.I started a slow descent looking for the runway and that was when the aircraft apparently struck the top of what I thought to be a tree branch. I immediately executed a go-around and once I was at a safe altitude; I started to assess what had happened; what was working and my next plan. Both engines were running [so I] raised the gear. Once airspeed allowed I raise the flaps to 0. I knew that [a nearby alternate] was VFR so I did a quick calculation and determined that I had enough fuel to go [there]. My airspeed indicator was inoperative and both navigation radios and communication radios were inoperative. I climbed to 7000 feet enroute. I could see damage on the right wing. I landed with light gun signals from the tower.




Synopsis: BE90 pilot reported diverting to a VFR alternate after incurring aircraft damage when he struck a tree on an IFR approach while descending below the MDA without the runway environment in sight.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FTW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower FTW
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: First of all I would like to apologize I'm totally embarrassed; I've flown into FTW hundreds of times and I know better. I was cleared for a visual approach. Prior to landing I received ATIS info and I didn't recall them talking about mowers in the area. When I contacted tower they warned me of a helicopter between runways taking off. I was busy watching for him and noticed a tractor mowing at what I thought was end of runway. I got so distracted watching the tractor I didn't look down the runway for the runway Markings. The odd thing was the tower didn't mention the tractor at the end of the runway.  I was so distracted I didn't pay full attention I immediately knew I had goofed up. Just about 50 ft off the ground I saw there wasn't a conflict with another plane and went ahead and landed. I thought it may have been more dangerous to try and abort and go around because I was so close to the ground. Tower instructed me to call and I did. I can assure you this will never happen again. I loaded passengers and left 30 minutes later and got ATIS info and they were warning of tractors mowing.

Callback: The reporter clarified that he became distracted by a tractor mowing and landed on the parallel taxiway.



Synopsis: Single engine turboprop pilot became distracted by a tractor mowing near the runway during a visual approach to Runway 16. He did not realize until the last moment that he was lined up with Taxiway A and elected to land as the taxiway was clear.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Valve/Bleed Valve
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Workload; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon commencing our initial decent from FL400 to assigned FL340 the right BLEED TRIP OFF light illuminated and the right PAC failed. At this point we observed that the cabin altitude was increasing. I requested FL200 as we performed the QRH BLEED TRIP OFF procedure. We were cleared first to FL240 then FL200. The right BLEED TRIP OFF light reset per the QRH and the PAC was restored. About 10 seconds later the right BLEED TRIP OFF light again illuminated and the cabin altitude again began to climb. I then requested 10;000 feet and was cleared to 11;000 feet. When the right PAC switch was placed to the off position per QRH; the left PAC did not go to high flow and the cabin altitude continued to climb. As the cabin altitude reached 9;000 feet; we donned our oxygen masks; First Officer (FO) transitioned to a rapid decent (330kts; speed brakes to the flight detent) and we performed the first 4 items of the CABIN ALTITUDE WARNING or Rapid Depressurization checklist. We did momentarily receive a CABIN ALTITUDE WARNING during the decent; but the indicated cabin altitude never exceeded 10;000 feet during the evolution. I then requested 9;000 feet and was cleared to it. During the decent we never approached any of the intervening altitudes before being cleared lower.When we leveled at 9;000 feet and the power came off idle; the left PAC output increased sufficiently to return the pressurization to normal. We then proceeded to ZZZ for an uneventful landing an taxi in. The aircraft was subsequently removed from service.FO performance was excellent throughout the event and should be commended.I'm never reluctant to [state an emergency situation to ATC] inflight; however in this case due to the fact that the cabin altitude never exceeded 10;000 feet and that ATC never inhibited our decent; I didn't feel that our situation would be enhanced by doing so.




Synopsis: A B737-800 right BLEED TRIP OFF light illuminated followed by the A PACK Trip when thrust was reduced to begin a descent. Both reset but tripped again. With the cabin rising rapidly; the Rapid Depressurization Checklist was completed and the flight continued at 11;000 feet.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: While I had some success with an acknowledgment of the deficiency; no action has been taken and it is time to address this.  1.The landing data [sources] are not accurate for -800 landing distance (too conservative).  2.Our rule to not use [bracketed] autobrake settings ensures that every single -800 landing without autobrakes. At our heaviest; at the most danger of going off of the end of the runway; we turn 'off' autobrakes rather than use Max; which is a rational solution to an irrational situation.  On this flight; I was flying with a probationary Pilot with only [few] months of experience. He (as everyone does) chose 'Off' since everything but Max was bracketed.  We were able to stop and exit the runway but autobrakes would have helped immensely.  When I recently addressed this with Standards; nobody even remembered why the policy was in place to begin with; presumably because of turnover. This is a known safety issue. It makes us much less safe than the alternative but offers no advantage.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported company policy has been to not use autobrakes at airports with short runways at close to maximum landing weights.
Date: 201906
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: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was landing on a clear morning with light winds from the south (my left). My approach speed on final was about 72 KTS with two notches of flaps. I had a bounced landing and tried to recover and save it in lieu of a go-around.  The yoke was a bit 'sticky' and I began to porpoise and left the runway to the right. The aircraft taxied down a gentle side slope and slowed to 5 to 8 KTS before coming to the bottom of the slope and sticking the nose wheel in a soft muddy ditch.  The prop struck the mud and tall grass and the engine stopped. The nose gear was pushed backwards into the firewall causing two wrinkles in the lower portion of the firewall and some slight floor damage (1' push toward the rear of the aircraft) and about a 1/2 inch upward 'saddle' of the outer skin. No structural damage was done to the aircraft and none was done to the nose gear. The prop sustained a nick about 1/4 deep about 5/8 inches from one tip.We removed the plane from the ditch by manually lifting the nose gear and inserting plywood under it and we did the same with the main gear then slowly towed it forward up the slope and back onto the RWY.No damage was done to RWY lights or other airport property.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported minor damage resulted from a runway excursion following loss of directional control during landing roll.
Date: 201312
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B BOS
ATC / advisory: Tower BOS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: During my approach brief I always brief the location (right or left) side of the runway; of the location of the PAPI.  Tonight while briefing ILS 33L in BOS the chart showed the PAPI on the left side of the runway.  I also always check the Airport Diagram page and it also showed the PAPI to be on the left side of the runway which is the normal side.  On final I noticed the PAPI was on the right side of the runway and I asked the Captain to make sure I briefed it correctly.  The Captain looked and said yes; the PAPI should be on the left of the runway and made sure we were setup for the correct runway; which we were.  At this point the Captain made sure we had the correct runway; ILS; heading etc.  All were correct; just not the PAPI.  We had a brief discussion to make sure we were not heading for a taxi way; which we were not.  We then asked Tower why the PAPI was on the right and not the left and the Tower Controller said he did not know.  Again we made sure we were at the correct airport and set up on the correct runway which again we were. The information on the ILS 33L chart and the Airport Diagram needs to be updated to show the PAPI on the right side of the runway.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reports that both the government and commercial charts depict the Runway 33L PAPI at BOS to be on the left side of the runway. In fact it is on the right side of the runway.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SFO.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO; Class E SQL
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Handoff / Assist
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was on a visual approach just checking in around the SFO 127/9 DME for the visual approach to Runway 28 Left. The Local Controller cleared them to land; and shortly thereafter the MSAW/LA warning went off. The Local Controller gave them the 'Low Altitude Alert; Aircraft X check your altitude immediately.' Their altitude dropped them to 1200 feet; which placed them outside of the Bravo airspace into San Carlos (SQL) airport traffic area; while SQL Tower was closed. I suggested to the Local Controller that an aircraft on a visual approach should be given distance from touchdown and altitude so that the pilot can quickly relate their descent rate and adjust as necessary for the glide path. Additionally; we need to tell them when they have left Bravo airspace. There were no outages of the PAPI or glide slope; so it makes me wonder what the pilots were navigating off of. Maintain enough altitude to cross the San Mateo Bridge at 1800 feet as recommended on the charted visual approaches.




Synopsis: SFO Controller reported a B737-800 on a visual approach descended out of Class B and activated a Low Altitude Alert.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: APU Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During taxi out (APU was shut down after engine start) prior to takeoff; APU exhaust fire was reported by an aircraft behind us. We then found that APU fuel valve had failed to close after shutdown. We pressed APU Fire and pulled APU fuel circuit breaker per mx control to no avail. Thanks to good work by [the] fire department no evacuation was required as the fire was extinguished. We taxied safely back to gate followed by the fire trucks. We never received any ECAM or cockpit warning of the APU fuel valve disagreement. The only cockpit indication was found when we selected the fuel system page where we were able to see the APU fuel valve stuck in the open (or not closed) position with the APU shut down.I believe ECAM should have caught this; but am still researching. Should we check the fuel page before takeoff?




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported returning to the gate after shutting down the APU because of an APU exhaust fire.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SAT.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON SAT
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I was working final. I had a VFR aircraft inbound for on a wide base; and some aircraft that called APN off 5C1 for flight following. I had issued the outbound VFR traffic to the inbound VFR traffic. I had descended Aircraft X to 5000 ft and issued traffic to him. It was then I noticed the outbound traffic climbing fast. I then stopped Aircraft X at 6000 ft and had to issue a traffic alert with a right turn. The pilot [of Aircraft X] said the VFR plane came within 100 feet of him. The APN controller told me he had issued the VFR plane off 5C1 to maintain VFR at or below 3500 and to contact me. He never called me and didn't acknowledge with a shout in the blind prior to the traffic alert. This happens frequently. 5C1 tends to be a busy airport that just happens to be on San Antonio's final. Planes out of there often do not use caution and expect us to see them and avoid them. Without talking to them we do not know what they plan to do. In this case; the plane did try to call Approach. However; the plane chose to not follow instructions. We need pilots that depart and land 5C1 to be more aware of the dangers of its proximity to San Antonio and be willing to work with controllers. This is a safety issue that can't be ignored and requires cooperation in part of controllers and pilots. I am not as experienced here at San Antonio; so I don't have an airspace or procedures suggestion at this time.




Synopsis: Air Traffic Controller reported a VFR aircraft did not comply with instructions resulting in a NMAC.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Trojan (T28)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was receiving instruction to get an experimental type certificate in the T-28. I had done 4 full stop landings in the airplane without instructor intervention. After the takeoff; I turned left crosswind. I added speed brake; and the instructor then asked for control of the airplane. He replied 'I have control of the airplane.' He then added full flaps to slow the plane down. He explained that he wanted to show me a tight military type approach to land. We approached the Runway XX numbers at 750 feet. AGL; and the plane still had a lot of speed. I asked the instructor if he could see the runway; and he said yes. After still being 250 feet. AGL at the midway point of Runway XX; I said 'Go Around! Go around!.' As I reached for the throttle; we hit the runway with approximately 750 feet left until the end of the runway. The gear was not deployed. After the plane stopped its skid down the runway; I started shutting the systems down. I recognized that the gear handle was in the up locked position. There were no injuries. In my opinion; this could have been avoided. As a student; I allowed the attempted landing to continue even though I remember feeling scared and concerned that we were going to crash. My instructor was XX years old; and age was a factor. CFI's should have to have additional requirements beyond a BFR. These high performance airplanes should require some age reoccurring training as well.




Synopsis: T28 student pilot reported instructor performed an unstabilized approach and landed with the gear up.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon takeoff from ZZZ; ECAM item Hot Brakes illuminated at same time of command for gear up.  Checking brake temperature we noticed the temps were 300 and increasing.  Decision made to keep gear extended; and keep speed at 230 or less.  Even with gear extended brakes continued to increase temperature to maybe a max of 450/475 indicated on the wheel page.  Captain requested priority handing; received vectors back to airport and landed uneventful with CFR crews following us to gate.  On ground with brake fans on; temperature stayed around a max of 400/420. It turns out brake Number 2 was dragging or locking up; resulting in one of the brake disc to disintegrate.




Synopsis: A321 First Officer reported ECAM item Hot Brakes after takeoff resulting in a return to departure airport.