elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Down Lock
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X was uneventful leading up to the approach at ZZZ. We had been cleared for the approach to Runway XX and were established on the localizer and glideslope. The autopilot and autothrust had been disengaged earlier in the approach and the aircraft had been configured to Flaps 3 when Gear Down was requested. When the gear lever was selected down the three indicators on the landing gear panel indicated red UNLK (UNLOCKED); no noise from the landing gear doors opening was heard. Captain [Name] and I communicated and confirmed on the Landing Gear Systems page that the landing gear had not extended. We decided to level out at 6;000 feet MSL while we confirmed the situation and attempted to cycle the gear. We communicated to the tower we would be going around for a landing gear failure approximately 3mi prior to the runway. Tower provided vectors and a climb to 9;000 feet; we initiated a go around over the threshold per ATC instructions and cleaned up the aircraft per SOP. The autoflight was re-engaged after the go around. During this time after the failure of subsequent attempts to cycle the gear and with the lever still down; we eventually got the L/G GEAR NOT DOWNLOCKED ECAM. The ECAM was run according to SOP by Captain [Name] while I flew the aircraft and handled radio calls. We [received priority]; stated our intention to return to land on Runway XYR and requested CFR (Crash Fire Rescue Equipment). Gravity extension was successful and we were vectored to the approach. Approach and landing were normal with the exception of the gear doors remaining open. We landed with 8000 lbs. of fuel. We stopped on the runway and Operations was standing by to tow the aircraft back to the gate.




Synopsis: First Officer reported a Go Around and precautionary  landing after landing gear lock problems.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
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: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was pilot flying; and the Captain made the 100 knots call and noticed my airspeed indicator was lagging significantly. We confirmed the airspeed with the standby instruments and determined the Captains airspeed indicator was reliable. After rotation and gear retraction I transferred aircraft control to the captain and he continued the takeoff and we cleaned up the aircraft. FO airspeed indicator was 20-30 knots slower than the captains. The captain continued flying and the IRO and I ran the Airspeed Unreliable checklist and we returned to ZZZ and the captain made an overweight landing. We had the fire trucks check the brakes and they applied fans to cool them. We were towed to the gate.


Second narrative: During takeoff roll (first officers leg); First Officer's airspeed indicator lagged Captain's and standby airspeed indicators by up to 30 knots. By 10;000 feet; the airspeed difference was about 20 knots. EICAS indicated Airpspeed Disagree during climbout. Airpeed Disagree checklist led to the Airspeed Unreliable checklist; which was accomplished and we planned for an air return. Overweight Landing Checklist was accomplished and landing weight as reported by ACARS is 226560. Landing was uneventful; yet heroic nonetheless. Other indications during flight were Elev Asym; Rudder Ratio; and Mach Spd Trim.


Synopsis: During the takeoff roll the First Officer's airspeed lagged behind the Captain's so the flight returned to the departure airport. The aircraft had been washed; the pitot system inspected by the IRO; but yellow tape was found inside the First Officer's pitot tube upon inspection after landing.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Fuel System
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification; Time Pressure; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Cruising level at 3000 FT MSL (2400 FT AGL); noted four gallons (48 minutes of fuel) in the left tank; and nine gallons (1:48 in the right tank); when the engine started sputtering and stopped. Twice cranked engine to restart. Energized electric boost pump and then focused on safe landing completed farm field landing with no damage or personal injury. In the future I will understand that the fuel pickup can un-port and that light sport fuel gauges are not accurate. I will cruise at a higher altitude to allow more time to trouble shoot fuel starvation issues.

Callback: The Reporter stated that in fact the left fuel tank was empty even though it indicated four gallons. The right tank had some fuel but because of the low altitude there was not enough time after the initial start attempt using the empty tank to switch tanks and attempt another start. The Report's concentration shifted to making a safe landing. The aircraft sustained no damage and was trucked to a nearby airport.



Synopsis: A Czech Aero Works pilot made a successful off airport landing after the engine quit because of fuel starvation at a low altitude with the selected fuel tank indicating four gallons when it was actually empty.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I landed at ZZZ; an unfamiliar airport; to attend a meeting of a flight organization. Upon landing I was directed to transient parking on the east side of the runway on which I had arrived. My destination was a building located on the west side of the runway. I went (walking) to the approach end [(opposite end)] of the runway and noted no traffic taxiing in; in the pattern; approaching or landing. I crossed the end of the runway and subsequently met airport personnel. I was requested to give salient information.The only controlled airports to which I fly all direct me to an FBO for parking near my destination. I did not specifically state my destination; which in retrospect was my error. In the future I will be sure to limit my parking to areas so designated.




Synopsis: After parking; private pilot walked across approach end of active runway and was met by airport personnel.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Military Transport
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C OAK
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X on a VFR route requested to be routed to the east enroute to [their destination]. I advised Aircraft X to pass north of the Bridge Toll Plaza and remain north of Class C airspace and the pilot acknowledged. A few moments later; Aircraft X turn southeast bound and began descending; then asked if he could transition over the airspace in Class C. I approved the transition while instructing Aircraft X to climb to 2;500 feet for traffic; and then quoted the opposite direction traffic. Aircraft X acknowledged and said he was looking for the traffic. I wasn't satisfied with the climb rate of Aircraft X; so I vectored the aircraft southbound; and asked my coordinator to advise Tower; who had the handoff at this point; what I was doing. After some coordination; the coordinator told me Tower wanted me to stop Aircraft X's climb at 1;500 feet; which I promptly did. Aircraft X was leaving a MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude) area of 3;000 feet into 1;700 feet followed shortly by 2;800 feet. Between the last 2 transmissions; I had Aircraft X on a vector below the MVA and an assigned altitude below the MVA.My plan to vector Aircraft X and leave him climbing was a good plan. Once past the traffic; resuming own navigation I mistakenly heeded the advice of Tower to stop the climb of Aircraft X at an altitude below the MVA; while still on a vector. I take responsibility for this action; and will have more confidence in my plan in the future. Additionally; because of the speed of Aircraft X and his proximity to Class C; I should have disapproved his request due to traffic in the area.




Synopsis: NCT TRACON Controller reported assigning a vector and heading to a VFR aircraft below the MVA.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 140 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were parked at the gate with the parking brake set and the main cabin door open. Passengers were boarding and we were waiting for final paperwork.  The aircraft had been fueled and the flight attendant was doing her final count.  The ramper drove the tug into the right wing tearing gash in the leading edge of the right wing; and damaging the outer tip of the wing as well. We deplaned the passengers because after the event; fuel was leaking out of the tug onto the ramp.  Because the guy driving the tug appeared to be driving too fast; and not paying attention to his surroundings.Better training for the station ground personnel.  There was nothing more we could have done to avoid this situation. We were parked where we were supposed to; how we were supposed to. A couple of our passengers mentioned it appeared to them they he was driving too fast and wasn't paying attention where he was going.  That seemed to be evident as he drove into our wing while we were parked.




Synopsis: An EMB-140 First Officer; while parked at the gate; observed a '...ramper drove the tug into the right wing tearing gash in the leading edge of the right wing; and damaging the outer tip of the wing as well.'
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: XNA.Airport, AR
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E FSM
ATC / advisory: TRACON FSM
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: On arrival into XNA; Razorback Approach gave us a heading to intercept the ILS 34; and cleared us for the approach. When we were unable to tune the LOC frequency (110.55); and notified Approach. The controller told us to use 111.55; which tuned properly. Approach queried if we were able to be established on the localizer. We confirmed that we could; continued the approach and landing uneventfully.After landing; we reviewed NOTAMs for XNA. One new one popped up; saying the ILS 34 AMEND 3 was NA. We had referenced both AMEND 3 (current) and the previous version in Jeppesen Flight Deck Pro on our iPads. Both show 110.55 as the correct ILS frequency. There was no mention in any NOTAMs of a correction to the frequency. My FO looked at the plate on Airnav. It showed 111.55. He also looked at Foreflight on his personal iPad; which also showed 111.55. It looks like our Jeppesen approaches were incorrect. We later heard an [air carrier] inbound to XNA having the same problem. Approach once again issued 111.55 as the correct frequency. The pilot reported that his documentation showed a different frequency.




Synopsis: Fractional Captain reported the ILS frequency for Runway 34 at XNA; as published by Jeppesen chart 21-2 (110.55); was incorrect. ATC provided the correct frequency of 111.55 and the approach was completed uneventfully.
Date: 202203
Location: OMN.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class D OMN
ATC / advisory: Ground OMN
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Recently started to fly out of OMN as a flight instructor (Ormond Beach; FL). As I started to look at the airport facility directory I noticed there are no clear distinctions between the movement/non-movement areas. I queried the Ground Controller about this and was told 'most people just call us when there are headed out of the ramp area'. Almost all of the surface markings are either missing or severely faded and there are no 'movement area' (non-movement area boundary marking) markings at all. There are areas of the ramp where resurfacing has taken place but no markings have been replaced. It's a real mess and as an experienced ATP I had a bit of a challenge sorting it out.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported airport ground markings for taxi are either missing or faded at the OMN airport.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Caravan 208B
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Landed XX back taxied on XX; right turn onto runway XY/XZ. Airport maintenance advised via CTAF to back taxi XY/XZ with a left turn due to snow drifts that had developed very quickly. While back taxiing on runway XY/XZ due to lack of tire traction and rudder effectiveness because of runway ice and wind were unable to make the turn onto [the] taxiway. The aircraft would not turn and the wind was causing it to slide to the left due to the crosswind component. In response; the safest course of action was to shut down the engine to eliminate the pulling thrust vector to stop the aircraft and let it weathervane into the wind. This successfully brought the aircraft to a controlled stop. We contacted airport maintenance on Unicom stating that we require a tug to the hanger. At this point airport maintenance informed us that they were placing a NOTAM that runways were closed. Passengers were picked up and taken to the terminal in a crew car. We secured the aircraft for tow while waiting for a suitable tug to tow the aircraft. Airport maintenance had informed us that they intended on closing the runways before we arrived but were distracted with task of snow plowing. The aircraft was tugged back to the terminal and stowed safely in the hangar.The combination of wind and ice on the airport surface compromised the ability to safely taxi the aircraft on the surface under its own power; requiring a tug.The only way to stop the aircraft due to nil braking action was to shut off the engine because even at idle the aircraft produced enough thrust to slide forward with brakes applied. This allowed the aircraft to weather vane and come to a complete stop over the runway.Airport maintenance [should] be more prompt with runway and taxiway closures.


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


Synopsis: C208 flight crew reported loss of directional control during taxi.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream G200 (IAI 1126 Galaxy)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization Control System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We had one passenger on the airplane conducting a Part 135 trip. We took off and at approximately 500-600 FT AGL upon landing gear retraction we received an amber 'Cabin Door' CAS message. We were handed off to Departure Control and continued our climb to 3;000 FT as assigned in our initial clearance. We informed Departure that we needed to return due to a pressurization issue. We also informed them that we were approximately 500 LBS above our maximum landing weight and would require vectors to burn fuel prior to accepting the ILS. At that point the flying pilot took control of the radios and flew the aircraft while I contact a G200 ACP on the flight phone to inform him of our situation. Once we burned off enough fuel to get below maximum landing weight we accepted and flew the ILS. The approach was uneventful. Upon landing and consultation with Maintenance; we were told to MEL the auto-pressurization system using MEL 52-6. We also added more fuel to the aircraft and were re-released by dispatch. Approximately 50 minutes later we taxied out for takeoff again. The flight was then conducted uneventfully to our destination. We did have to operate the pressurization system in the manual mode due to the MEL.I don't believe we could have done anything different to prevent this; but I will say that this MEL allowing the aircraft to be flown in the manual pressurization mode creates an extremely high workload environment for the crew. It basically requires the undivided attention of the pilot operating it; which leaves the flying pilot essentially as a single pilot. It creates an unsafe environment; especially if you are dealing with weather and having to fly an instrument approach on the descent at your destination.




Synopsis: G200 First Officer experiences a Cabin Door CAS message shortly after takeoff and the crew elects to return to the departure airport. The problem is diagnosed as a faulty pressurization controller which is deferred requiring the crew to manually control the pressurization.