elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During approach; after selecting gear down; we received a Gear Disagree message and noticed that the nose gear indicator was not green. At approximately 1200-1500 ft; we executed a normal go-around; retracting the gear as per the normal procedure. After cleaning up the airplane; leveling off and getting vectors from Departure; we attempted to lower the landing gear and again received the Gear Disagree message. The Captain pulled out the QRH and began reading the steps. Before he could get to step 2 (Landing gear lever...Off); I noticed a change in wind noise and asked the Captain to pause the checklist a moment because I suspected the nose gear was starting to come down on its own. After about 15 seconds; we observed the green nose gear light and the Gear Disagree message extinguished. Our flight continued without incident and we were vectored back to runway XXR for a successful landing.This was the second consecutive flight for this airplane in which the nose gear did not extend causing a go-around.




Synopsis: B757 First Officer reported executing a go-around after the nose landing gear failed to extend. The nose gear later extended normally.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RSW.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Our flight plan had us at 40;000 feet for almost the entire flight.  The STAR that was filed has published altitudes much lower than what was flight planned by Dispatch greatly increasing our fuel burns. Our new fuel policy already puts us into a tight spot with regard to arrival fuel; but an inaccurate flight plan with expected altitudes puts even greater pressure on our arrival fuel.The new fuel policy needs to have a larger window for error so that we aren't put into a critical fuel situation with any abnormal issues.  Our flight plans should also have more accurate altitudes so that they can be trusted more for the information they are providing.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer laments his company's new fuel policy that is exacerbated by flight plans with unrealistic altitude assumptions; resulting in low arrival fuel.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZLA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: On descent from HITOP to NITEY we experienced severe turbulence. Uncommanded roll and pitch encountered. Aircraft behind us reported the same.


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


Synopsis: Flight crew reported severe turbulence on initial descent.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I have been curious why we have so many alpha characters behind call signs. I know many times it's due to same airline flights overlapping for various reasons. Yesterday; trying to satisfy my curiosity; I queried ACARS to see if we were indeed overlapping. Turns out we were only [flight number] 'XXX'. I then queried Dispatch as to why we were XXXC vs. XXX. My Dispatcher could not provide a reason for the extra character. After a few minutes; I queried our current ATC facility; if they knew why we were XXXC and why we couldn't be just XXX. After a time; the Controller called back and told us we were from that point forward. I informed Dispatch of the ATC change. My Dispatcher then informed me she was filing a report for the change as she was worried about loss of separation. We proceeded to our destination without incident. Upon arrival; after turning on my cell phone; I had a message to contact our duty manager. I did and he encouraged me to file a report for this event and told me I could face some FAA sanctions. I offered my side of the event and he reviewed the transcripts of the ACARS dialogue and softened his view but still thought it was wise to file this report. While driving home; I contacted the Dispatch manager to find out the impetus for filing FAA documentation. He said that sometimes ATC directs these alpha characters to differentiate like call signs with other carriers; not necessarily same; just like to help avoid confusion and reduce the likelihood of someone accepting someone else's clearance. I learned something from this event. I don't think this is a major event like an altitude deviation or actual loss of separation between aircraft but am aware that it is not always about just our carrier related to call signs.


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


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew expressed bewilderment as why an alpha character was attached to their flight number (call sign).
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X handed off on a 110 heading. I assumed he was climbing high and climbed him to 140; pilot corrected me and said he was landing at ZZZ. My heading for ZZZ approaches for sector is 140 for a downwind leg so I automatically issued the pilot a 140 heading. This heading took him into (on my map- as I pulled the map up in front of my supervisor) 5;700 foot MVA. I instantly turned the aircraft to lower terrain. The frequency congestion and having to say to things twice had me frustrated.




Synopsis: Tracon Controller reported issuing a vector into a higher MVA.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ATL.Tower, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing on runway 8L; we were exiting the runway at intersection B11.  As we were preparing to exit the runway; the monitoring pilot was completing his callouts and the flying pilot called for flaps 18 and after landing checklist.  At that very moment; the tower controller issued a clearance to cross runway 8R.  He asked us to quickly to cross runway 8R at some Jet Base (not defined on the airport diagram as such).  Both pilots were not clear what he meant and asked the controller to clarify.  The controller then rudely and with an attitude stated cross runway 8R at the Jet Base.  I then figured the controller meant straight ahead at B10.  So we crossed runway 8R at B10 and contacted ground control.  No further confusion occurred and we taxed into the gate normally without incident. This was poor runway crossing instructions by this air traffic controller.  We as pilots are prepared to cross runways when given a intersection or runway.  However; we were unfamiliar with the Jet Base phraseology the controller was using.  If you are going to give runway crossing instructions; it should be at the appropriate intersection and not abeam some building we may or may not be familiar with that is not labeled such on the airport diagram.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reports non standard terminology by the ATL Tower when issuing runway crossing instructions at 'the jet base'.  The crew is confused and the Tower is not helpful.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Airliner 99
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [After takeoff] I selected gear up. Shortly after I heard and felt a large thud as of the gear was having trouble retracting. I looked at gear lights in cockpit to discover the gear handle illuminated indicating gear unsafe and my left main gear light still green indicating that it was down and locked. After climbing to safe altitude of 5000 MSL I pulled out emergency gear extension checklist and followed the procedures. Procedures call for the landing gear relay circuit breaker to be pulled so gear motor would stop running. I then started to pump the emergency gear extension handle rapidly in an attempt to manually lower gear. As I was doing this I navigated the plane to my next intended destination in the hopes I could manually extend it and then land. I radioed [the] FBO to see if they could come out to runway and take a look at my gear as I flew 500 ft above the runway. They indicated my nose gear was 'in trail' and my mains appeared to be down. In addition to [the] FBO I was also in contact with my company trying to decide what the best course of action for me.It was decided it was best for me to fly back to [departure airport] due to the availability of emergency crews and also that is where our company is based out of. I had plenty of fuel to get there. During the roughly 1.5 hour flight back I would occasionally keep pumping emergency extension handle in the hopes I would get a green light on nose wheel. The gear extension handle did not seem to get any more resistant indicating that it was working. No light for the nose wheel illuminated either. I did a tower requested flyby and then lined back up for runway and successfully completed a no nose wheel landing. Upon touchdown my right main gear collapsed. The lights in the cockpit indicated the right main was down and locked. Most likely I was getting a false indication. After my right gear collapsed I slid on the runway for about 1000 feet before coming to a complete stop. After which I closed the fuel valve handles and turned off master/ battery and exited the plane to the rear. Very minimal damage to the plane occurred. I; the sole occupant; was uninjured.




Synopsis: Beech 99 pilot reported noting abnormal landing gear indications upon gear retraction after takeoff. The right main gear collapsed on landing resulting in minimal damage.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was flying three passengers on a scenic flight. While flying south of downtown; and monitoring the local CTAF frequency; I encountered restricted visibility from haze and smoke. I descended temporarily for better visibility. Shortly after; I encountered a bright white light inside the cockpit. The light was being projected by a powerful spotlight from a police helicopter. The light was almost completely blinding. I could not determine the proximity of the aircraft except to estimate that it was flying at my 5 o'clock. One of the rear passengers estimated that the aircraft was 250 to 500 feet away. I took immediate evasive action and descended while turning to the left to put the light behind me. For several seconds; I could not see where I was flying. The aircraft continued to chase us; shining the projector directly into the cockpit as we were descending at full power. We did not know what was happening and we all thought we were being attacked. The nearest airport was ZZZ. I contacted them and advised them that we were being chased by another aircraft. They provided me with a transponder code and I continued towards ZZZ for an immediate landing. The other aircraft also contacted ZZZ Tower and identified themselves as [the] Police Department. This was one of the most dangerous flying incidents I've encountered in my 22 years of flying. It's extremely important that the crew be advised about the potential of blinding other pilots with these projector searchlights.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported a NMAC with a police helicopter that aggressively blinded the pilot with a search light.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A310
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Descending out of FL310 we encountered an ECAM warn for an OIL CLOG on Eng Number 1.  We complied with ECAM protocols and QRH procedures.  Number 1 engine was subsequently shut down and an emergency was declared.  All relevant checklists were completed and I took control of the aircraft on final and landed uneventfully.




Synopsis: A310 Captain reported receiving an ECAM for OIL CLOG on Number 1 engine.  Engine was shut down after appropriate procedures and uneventful landing ensued.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We departed Runway 18C shortly after an A320. Immediately after rotation we ran into wake turbulence. The stick shaker activated for a second or two and then cleared. I was in the process of raising the landing gear and selecting speed mode on the FCP and was aware of the stick shaker motor sound. I asked the First Officer about it later and he said that the stick shaker had activated but the speed was nowhere near the barber pole and the plane had not exhibited any dangerous flying characteristics. By the time I got a look at the airspeed...when confirming 'CLB' on the PFD it was about half was between V2 and VT (about 170 KIAS). We climbed out uneventfully. It was a warm evening with calm winds...just the sort of conditions to keep the wake vortices over the runway where we ran into them. The stick shaker activates based on angle of attack and change in angle of attack. The way the vortex hit the aircraft must have activated the logic to give a brief stick shaker.




Synopsis: CRJ Captain reported encountering wake vortex following an A320 on takeoff from CLT; resulting in a brief stick shaker.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Weather 230-08 knots which then changed to 230-08 knots gusting 15 knots became very turbulent and gusty.On landing; in ground effect at the flare; powered out and the nose rose and aircraft ballooned and on coming back down made very hard contact with the runway at which point it bounced. At this point I selected full power for the go around. While doing this the aircraft returned down to the runway again hitting it hard once more. Full power then took effect and I then continued the go around procedure. After deciding to stop touch and goes and land as it no longer felt safe to be in the pattern I made a full stop and taxied to parking. On tying down the aircraft I noticed that two of the three props had struck the ground. (Only lightly; so light that I was unaware at the time so I can only assume that this was the incident that caused it.)




Synopsis: A student pilot reported a propeller strike on a DA40 after a bounced landing in gusty conditions.