elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CRP.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C CRP
ATC / advisory: Tower CRP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We had to fly the VOR 18 into CRP in an older model aircraft and there are several Safety concerns that came up during the approach. The only reason we were able to find the airport and land was because of my local knowledge and familiarity of the area around the airport.1. The reported ceiling and visibility was 2000 feet and ten NM. However; inflight visibility was only about 1500 feet and five miles. 2. There are MALSR lights depicted on the chart; however they were either not working or not turned on. When we were below the clouds; all we could see were bright lights from refineries between the Derived Decision Altitude (DDA) and airport.3. There was a NOTAM that increased the minimums to 780 and two miles.4. The approach is at an angle such that you are not near the runway centerline when you reach the DDA.5. There is a 'ghost' top of descent point three miles past the FAF. We don't have anything in our procedures to address this in terms of where to start our descent from FAF to DDA.6. If you start the descent at the FAF; you reach DDA several miles short of where you expect to.7. Approach Control cleared us direct to CRP VOR and cleared us for the approach. This further complicates things as we were about 30 degrees off the final approach course while being cleared direct to the FAF. We recognized this problem and asked for vectors to intercept the course outside of CRP VOR.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported operating an older non-GPS aircraft to CRP where VOR 18 was the sole available approach in reduced ceiling and visibility conditions; which made the approach challenging.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On visual final at 700 ft AGL; WHEEL N/W STRNG (Nose Wheel Steering) FAULT ECAM (Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor) appeared. There are no ECAM actions and the lower screen had an amber Nose Wheel Steering was displayed. We executed a go-around and upon leveling off I gave the aircraft and radios to the FO who entered holding. I proceeded to the QRH (Quick Reference Handbook) follow ups and ran them. It appeared that we would not have steering and the position was of concern to us; so I called Dispatch and Maintenance. We conferred and determined that there was probably no steering on the ground and that they would alert the station to tow us off the runway. I then briefed the #1 Flight Attendant on the situation and ran the non-normal landing considerations; and made a passenger PA. I took the aircraft back and the FO [advised ATC] and tower vectored us to the approach. On touchdown; the nose wheel tended to the left and I corrected with rudder and instinctively tiller (no effect) stiff braking brought us to a stop just left of centerline. ARFF (Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting) approached the aircraft to inspect for damage and we started the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) and shutdown the engines. The company tug came and towed us to the gate. Everyone disembarked the aircraft normally. One of the mechanics who took the aircraft stated that this aircraft had prior history with steering problems.A good factor is the TEM (Threat Error Management) model we are taught in proceeding with issues. I would like to know what malfunction occurred and if this had been the other a option would a go-around retracting the wheels have been a poor choice?




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported Nose Landing Gear steering malfunction during landing.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HWD.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D HWD
ATC / advisory: Tower HWD
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft Y flying northbound on a NCT sector tag penetrated Delta airspace without coordination. Converging traffic advisories issued to Aircraft X on HWD frequency on final about Aircraft Y converging. Called NCT to tell them to turn Aircraft Y to the east to clear Delta airspace. The controller stated that he had traffic in sight but never initiated a point out to transition through Delta airspace nor bothered to call HWD to advise that his Aircraft Y had Aircraft X in sight. Familiarize NCT controllers about point outs prior to entering Delta airspace or remain completely clear of it.




Synopsis: HWD Tower Controller reported of Class Delta airspace violation.  The Controller working the Approach Control position was called by HWD Tower Controller and asked about the violating aircraft. Converging traffic was being worked by the Tower Controller. Overlying TRACON Controller never asked for a point out or advised that visual separation was being used.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 M Bravo
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing on 28R I was instructed to hold short of 28L. After slowing down and turning left on Taxiway F; I thought this would be an opportunity to test my newly acquired software with approach and taxi charts on my iPad. As I looked at it; it still was showing an approach chart and not the taxi diagram. I looked up and I was still some distance from the first set of yellow lines (solid first and then intermittent; so still in the area of 28R runway). I returned to try to display the taxi diagram on the iPad. I couldn't do it in a few seconds - I estimate around 3- so I looked out again. Just then I realized the short distance between the runways when one taxis perpendicular to it. At this time I was already over the other set of pavement markings - solid first and then intermittent- indicating I was entering the upwind threshold of 28L. I realized that braking now would stop me in the runway itself. I thought it safer to definitely cross without braking until I was completely out of the runway; since there was a Cessna on final to 28L and I would be out of the way by the time he touched down if I went through. By attempting to abruptly stop I would have stopped partially obstructing the runway itself. My essential mistake was complacency. I am familiar with [the airport] and I thought this would be an opportunity to test a GPS as an aid. But unfamiliarity with the device robbed my capacity for situational awareness and also to correctly interpret the significantly shorter time available for taxi on the less familiar perpendicular exit on F rather than on the diagonal parallel to Runway 23. I should have devoted complete attention to the tasks at hand - taxiing and confirming outside references- rather than thinking that because I am familiar with the airport I can maintain situational awareness despite distractions like the new iPad.




Synopsis: M20 pilot; distracted by trying to call up the airport diagram on his iPad; taxied onto an active runway without clearance.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RIC.Airport, VA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground RIC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After landing; Tower issued instructions; '[Taxi via] B; U; Contact Ground.' As the Captain was taxiing off the runway I observed the taxiway sign that appeared to be on the taxiway we were on. The sign had a black 'U' between two directional signs; one of which was a 'B'. I quickly looked at the airport diagram and saw that one of the two parallel taxiways was 'A' so I assumed the other was 'B'. When the Captain didn't take the hard left turn I didn't say anything because I thought Taxiway B was the outboard taxiway. I switched to Ground and made contact. Ground then informed us that we missed the left turn to Taxiway U. He then reissued instructions to get us back to Taxiway U. After getting back on the correct taxiway; I looked closer at the airport diagram; 'B' is the taxiway coming off the runway with 'U' and 'A' being the parallel taxiways. The parallel taxiways next to the runways are 'U' and 'A'. Taxiway B is the taxiway used to exit Runway 2. Additionally; Taxiway B is a very short high speed taxiway. By the time the aircraft is clear of the runway; you are almost half way through Taxiway U; and the signs you can see from that point are confusing. Include the taxi as part of the brief. Look for areas that are not hot spots but confusing as traps.




Synopsis: EMB145 First Officer reports a taxiway incursion after landing on Runway 2 at RIC. The instructions were to take Taxiways B and U; but the crew missed U; which is a hard left from the B high speed exit; and wound up on A. Ground Control corrected the mistake.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Embraer Phenom 300
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the approach for the ILS at ZZZ; at 7000 feet we were cleared direct ZZZZZ Intersection (magenta data); down to 5000 feet cleared approach and to maintain 210 knots. Upon reaching and turning to capture the localizer; the glideslope began dropping and the Pilot Flying (PF) called for manual activation of the localizer (green data). The aircraft snapped wings level; made an aural 'flight director' and continued to the right of the localizer track. The PF disengaged automation immediately and brought the aircraft back to the localizer and glide path with an increase in airspeed due to the descent to regain the glideslope. ATC queried as to whether we had the localizer and asked us to slow to 160 knots which we did immediately. The rest of the approach was normal.The Garmin 3000 has trouble capturing localizers at speeds over 150 knots. This weakness in the system should be addressed in training.


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


Synopsis: Embraer Phenom 300 flight crew reported overshooting the localizer during approach due to the trouble the Garmin 3000 has at speeds over 150 knots. The aircraft was stabilized on the approach manually and speed was reduced to 160 knots per ATC.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ABQ.Airport, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Operator: Air Taxi
Flight phase: Parked
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As I entered the non-movement area of [the FBO] ramp I stopped the aircraft in order to coordinate with an outbound [aircraft]. The [aircraft] gave way and I continued into the parking area as directed by the marshaller. The marshaller was on my left and I needed to make a sweeping turn in order to access this parking spot. Unknown to me; a black and grey helicopter was parked in an unlit area of the ramp; outside of the normal transient tie-down area; partly impeding my progress to the designated parking spot. The aircraft marshaller continued to direct me into this parking spot with no indication of conflict; stating later that he had not directed me to stop or alter my course. As I maneuvered toward the marshaller; with my attention focused primarily on him and in front of my aircraft; at the pace of a normal walking speed; my right wingtip struck the tail boom of this parked helicopter. I initially believed I had struck a parking cone and stopped the aircraft immediately; shutting down my engines. My crew and I coordinated the unloading of our [passenger] and I began the standard incident notification process. A diagram of this incident has been sent to the Chief Pilot and the Director of Safety. In the past [our company] has been granted a well-lit parking space next to our hangar. Routinely parking in this same spot would minimize this type of incident from recurring. If [the FBO] is unwilling to grant us this space; we might request to be marshalled into areas that are only well-lit.Additionally; [the FBO] building has flood lights pointed onto the ramp where I was directed to park. These lights did not illuminate the helicopter; but I was required to proceed directly into their beam in order to access the marshaller's parking space. The effect of these lights reduced my ability to see the helicopter; such as driving into someone's high-beam headlights. Again; avoiding unlit areas of [the FBO]'s ramp would reduce the likelihood of recurring incidents. Lastly; painted ramp markings designating parking spaces would be helpful for transient aircraft. This would enable them to park in areas where base customers would expect to see them; as opposed to where this helicopter was parked - not in either the transient or overnight tie-down area.




Synopsis: King Air 90 Captain reported that while under the guidance of a Marshaller his wingtip struck the tail boom of a helicopter that was parked in a dark area of the ramp.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Cirrus Aircraft Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Climbing out of PSP on the Cathedral 1; in the right turn to PSP VOR; SOCAL APP cleared us direct YUCCA intersection leaving 5000 ft. MSL which we did. We were cleared to 10000 ft. MSL with company airbus about MORON cleared to 11000 ft. MSL. Just after we were cleared to 15000 ft. MSL I noticed traffic at our 1130 position about 600 ft. above us right before SOCAL mentioned it was a Cirrus at about 9000 ft. and that it was no factor as it would pass in front of us. The FO (First Officer) was flying and I responded 'looking' to SOCAL so that we could agree on calling it in sight. The FO had just adjusted pitch while hand flying and was pulling the power back to remain under the cirrus when the TCAS issued an Resolution Advisory adjust pitch and the symbology in the HUD (Heads Up Display) was a perfect match to what the FO had already done. The traffic did pass in front of us about 400 ft. above us because of the actions taken by the FO. In the level off we exceeded 250 kts. below 10000 ft. MSL momentarily. Traffic call should have come much earlier from SOCAL APP.


Second narrative: We were climbing out of PSP. I was the PF (Pilot Flying). I was currently hand flying. ATC issued traffic at our 11 o'clock and 3 miles at 9000 ft.; climb maintain 15000 ft. you will pass behind that traffic. We continued climb as normal and prior to even getting up to pitch attitude I noticed this wasn't looking good. I immediately adjusted to level off and fly lower than that traffic. I did verbalize all of this to the Captain. As I was nearing level off we received the RA (I believe it was 'monitor V/S?' (Vertical Speed)). I was already below the pitch the TCAS wanted. We passed behind and about 500 ft. lower. Notified ATC of the RA and continued on my climb. We did exceed 250 knots below 10000 ft. because of the abrupt pitch change and just all that was going on in a very short time. I did resolve the speed rather quickly.Yes I should've gone with my gut and override the thrust levers to pull the power back quicker so as not to exceed the speed or just turned off the AT's (Auto Throttles) for the time being. Also; ATC should've been more conservative about this crossing traffic.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported NMAC during climb out.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We were being vectored for the ILS to runway 4R in Newark.  We were southwest of the airport; level at 3000'.  ATC gave us a traffic advisory for a VFR aircraft 500' below our altitude.  No more than 5 seconds after that advisory; we were given a TA from the TCAS; followed immediately by an RA to 'Climb'.  I disengaged the Autopilot and began to follow the RA guidance while the FO let ATC know we were in a TCAS climb situation.  ATC acknowledged and told us to climb no higher than 3500'; as there was other traffic above us.  As we leveled at 3500'  we received another RA to 'monitor vertical speed'.  This command was for us to just stay level at 3500.  I then saw the VFR traffic (appeared to be a Cessna model) pass directly below us at what looked to be less than 1000' lower than our current altitude.  After clearing the traffic; ATC issued us a clearance back down to 3000 and we continued towards the approach.The main threat in this situation is congested airspace; with the addition of light GA traffic on days where the weather is nice.  I am unaware if an error on the part of the VFR pilot contributed to our TCAS to generate an RA.I will continue to maintain a vigilant scan for traffic; especially in good VFR flying days.




Synopsis: First Officer reported maneuvering for a TCAS RA; while being vectored for an ILS to EWR; that resulted in a second RA with another aircraft.