elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201901
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Airport; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: During preflight planning we uploaded and reviewed the plan for this flight. Weather for departure; enroute; and arrival phases of flight were relatively benign; although METARS indicated trending marginal VFR conditions with ceilings of 20 TCU (Towering Cumulus); and TAF for arrival indicating VFR with PROB40 for light rain. Nearby had a TEMPO for thunderstorms. Dispatcher remarks further indicated no arrival delays. The Dispatcher planned [remaining] fuel of 1:01/4900lbs. Fuel load was legal but I felt surprised that more extra fuel [had not] been planned relative to the operational contingencies that can easily occur in the MMMX operation even under a situation with no delays. The flight was to be flown at night to an airport that has a challenging approach procedure; along with high terrain in most quadrants. Having flown this route segment many times; I am fairly aware of the procedures and challenges to this operation. Often on approach; ATC will give headings off the STAR to intercept radials inbound to the IAF to accommodate spacing with other aircraft. I have seen this happen very spontaneously even if the airport is not busy. The approach procedure (ILS-2 05R) is rather challenging; but not insurmountable to an experienced crew. If a go around were to be executed; the MAP is not an easy boxed pattern back to the field. It would most likely require vectors well to the north and back onto the long approach path required to this runway due to terrain. Runways at MMMX are non-grooved; and pose operational challenges when wet. If an incident occurred with an inbound airplane; it could cause unforeseen delays. The MMMX briefing guide from the Airbus fleet spells out numerous other contingencies that can occur flying to this airport. 	I called the Dispatcher to discuss the planning of this flight; and shared my thoughts about the fuel load. He asked me how much fuel I wanted; and he gave me my request without incident. I added ZZZ1 as a precautionary alternate relative to the trends on the current METARS and nearby TAF. The flight operated uneventfully.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported concern with the fuel planned for the flight to MMMX and requested an increase.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were arriving Runway 16R at DEN. ATIS winds were 230 at 13 gusting to 22. We were configured and stabilized for a flaps 22 approach with 5 KTS added as a gust factor. We checked in with Tower just as the flight landing 16L was going around. Tower was busy coordinating. As we got closer we queried the Tower to make sure we were cleared to land. Tower cleared us to land and then told us the winds. We made a normal approach and landed. When we heard another aircraft going around behind us we thought it was kind of odd; and then we heard the Tower give the current winds as 350 at 17. We hadn't picked up on the fact that we landed with a 17 KT tailwind. We planned and executed the approach based on the ATIS winds; and didn't think to wonder why the aircraft beside us broke off their approach; nor did we really process what the winds were when ATC cleared us to land. I think that so often we don't really care what the winds are since they don't really limit performance in this aircraft (especially on a 16;000 FT runway); so it makes it easy to just tune out what ATC says. I know we did in this case and didn't realize that we had busted a limitation until other aircraft behind us started going around as well. The fact that Denver was using a runway configuration with an 18 KT tailwind was certainly a massive threat; especially since we as a pilot group tend to go along with ATC in an attempt to make things run smoothly. We definitely need to listen to reported winds. In this case they had changed 120 degrees from a relatively recent ATIS; which also indicates that there might be other weather hazards in the area. Approach and Tower need to do a better job of turning the airport around when realizing that multiple aircraft are breaking off approaches because of unsuitable wind conditions. And of course as a pilot group we can all do better at removing the stigma of go-arounds.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reports learning after landing that a tail wind of 17 KTS existed at the time of touchdown.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MYF.Airport, CA
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 9
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower MYF
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was cleared for taxi to Runway 28R at MYF. The clearance was; 'Taxi H; A; 28R' I taxied straight ahead for Hotel taxi way and accidentally continued onto Delta and onto Runway 28L. The Controller informed me of my mistake and I immediately exited runway 28L. There were no other aircraft in the pattern and this mistake did not impede traffic flow for another aircraft.The Controller did not seem concerned and did not ask me to copy a phone number.This was an early morning flight with the sun just coming up. As I taxied out; the sun was in my eyes and with 28L being such a narrow runway; I did not notice that I had crossed onto a runway.Although I am in no way placing blame; I do feel it would be helpful for ground control to remind pilots to take an immediate RIGHT onto taxi way Hotel. I feel this would been a great help to me and would also help other pilots in the future.

Callback: Reporter said that the morning sun reflected off the windows of a building and interfered with ability to see. Reporter suggested that the location of the building relative to the taxiway may have contributed to the issue.



Synopsis: Pilot reported that during taxi-out; the morning sun interfered with being able to see and they inadvertently taxied onto a runway at MYF airport.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Other Flight School
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Trainee; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This was the third landing of the morning. My student and I did a 20 degree flap landing at 70 knots. The landing was nice and smooth. My student verbalized that the aircraft was stable on center line after landing. He then verbalized flaps up and cleaned up the flaps. He then verbalized carb heat in; it was at this point that my student retracted the landing gear. The nose gear instantly folded up and the nose collapsed. We then responded to Tower's request if anyone was hurt; we weren't. I then shut down the aircraft and we exited.


Second narrative: The second that I touched the lever I realized what I had done but by that time it was too late to reengage the gear. There was no time for either the flight instructor or myself to react. I was moving too quickly and should have been taking my time going slower through the steps required.


Synopsis: While practicing landings in a C-182RG the student pilot inadvertently retracted the landing gear instead of closing the carburetor heat. The instructor was unable to restrain the action in time to prevent a collapse.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Coalescer Bag
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge; Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout; smelled musty smell.   Was concerned how my mask hindered my ability to smell and clearly communicate with my coworker.




Synopsis: B737-800 Flight Attendant reported a fumes event described as a musty odor during initial climbout. Reporter stated face masks hindered the crew communication and ability to smell.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 1
Light: Night
Aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a Medevac flight to ZZZ1 from ZZZ I initiated an approach with less than the required RVR to do so. Our return flight had been delayed by 4 hours because the patient was very difficult to stabilize. I had checked the weather before departing ZZZ and it was above the minimums that were required for the approach. While enroute to ZZZ1; I acquired the ATIS and found that visibility had decreased to 1/8 mile. The situation at the two nearest options that would allow me to get the hospital was the same. I chose to go to ZZZ2 because it was near enough that we could get the patient to ZZZ1 and the automated weather was well above minimums for the approach. After two attempts at landing in ZZZ2; I realized that the weather was worse than reported there. While I had been maneuvering I was monitoring the conditions at ZZZ1 and they seemed to vary minute by minute. I decided to divert to ZZZ3 since the medic told me we had no time to waste with another approach as he was running low on medication for the patient. When I requested the change to ZZZ3; the controller asked me if I wanted to attempt an approach to ZZZ1. After two go around and working on my fifth backup plan; I was desperate to get the plane on the ground and the patient to the hospital. I accepted the clearance and started the approach. I saw the runway lights at 400 ft AGL and the runway at 200 ft AGL. I decided to land. As I was rolling out I noticed that ground visibility was very low and I realized I had landed with less than the required 2400 RVR that I was supposed to have. Contributing factors: I had the weather and forecast from when I left ZZZ1 6 hours prior printed out. I should have reviewed the forecast more thoroughly rather than just checking present conditions before returning to ZZZ1. I did not realize that night that I was getting sick. During the climb out I was queasy and I attributed this to a lack of horizon at night. The next day I had full flu like symptoms that precluded me from working. What I would do differently: I should have asked the medical team where they wanted to go if ZZZ1 did not work out. If I had that we could have all been prepared to go to a different hospital if the ZZZ1 airport did not work.




Synopsis: Captain flying a C90 aircraft reported landing below minimums.
Date: 202112
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Software and Automation
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Departure delayed 5 + hrs. In vicinity of ABQ at cruise we got a ATC EICAS. Consulted checklist and inquired to ATC if they still had our transponder. The replied yes and that there was GPS jamming testing being done in the area. This happened to at least one other aircraft in area from listening to radio communications. We then got a GPS advisory EICAS. Again consulted checklist. This has happened in the past and aircraft quickly recovers all systems when you leave area. This time we had ATC and GPS advisory's for the rest of the flight. IRU DME/DME nav only. No safety was compromised and all checklists were referenced. We wrote it up on arrival. I believe aircraft navigation was degraded due to an external source.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Captain reported GPS jamming.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Visual Approach to SFO Runway 28R.  Following a 757; Wake avoidance procedures were followed (Wind was quartering; risk of wake was high.)  Normal touchdown; tower instructed to exit at Taxiway D.  Upon reaching D; we found D to be blocked by 3 barricades.  Taxiway D was NOT NOTAM'd closed.  Next Taxiway K was blocked by a 747 in tow.  Radio frequemcy extremely congested.  Multiple attempts made to contact tower.  A 737 was on a very short final behind us (Less than 200 ft.)  There was no time to get down to the next open taxiway.  I elected to taxi over the green (grass) painted area of airport surface to avoid the barricades and get off the runway.  No further incident or communication made with Tower or Ground.




Synopsis: CE525 Captain is cleared to exit Runway 28R at Taxiway D and discovered it to be barricaded and the next taxiway is blocked by another aircraft under tow.  With landing traffic on short final; the Captain elects to depart the runway between taxiways which is paved but painted green.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BDN.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: CTAF BDN
Second aircraft: Cessna Citation Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On downwind leg and at my abeam point of Runway 16. I heard a Citation call to FBO he was dropping off passengers and would need a spot to park. This was the first call I heard from the Citation. I called my base turn when I heard the Citation announce he was on a 2 mile final. I was unaware of the Citation's speed or location up to this point. I conducted a final check and could not see the Citation and was already at my point to turn final within 1/2 mile approximately 500 AGL. There were two helicopters behind and to my left on downwind legs to land on taxiway Bravo. I called and completed my turn to final; when I saw the Citation approximately 200 feet above and 500 feet to my right. I did not feel I could make a turn back to the base with the Helo traffic; luckily at this point the Citation called and conducted a go-around.I either missed the call the Citation was on a straight in final or he didn't make one. Either way; I had been in a left pattern conducting multiple touch and goes as the only fixed wing aircraft and didn't realize there was other traffic for runway 16. I unintentionally cut in on the Citation's final due to my lack of understanding the Citation location due to abnormal communication and my lack of understanding how fast the Citation could cover 2 miles.




Synopsis: C172 student pilot reported an airborne conflict with a Citation in the pattern at BDN.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TUS.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C TUS
ATC / advisory: Tower TUS
Second aircraft: Military
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Manuals; Human Factors; Company Policy; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Local Control when the Arrival Controller called over and said that we are hold for release; because they were bringing in Aircraft Y for Runway 11L circle to Runway 29R. I called the Arrival Controller and stated that I was already talking to Aircraft X and asked if they wanted Aircraft X to continue inbound. The arrival controller said yes. I questioned the Arrival Controller because I thought we needed 10 miles between opposite direction arrivals. The Arrival Controller stated that we didn't need 10 miles between arrivals because Aircraft Y wasn't opposite direction because they were circling to the same runway.Our relationship with the TRACON has been really bad lately and we have had many issues with opposite direction rules and sequencing/separation. Usually when Tucson Tower does something to prevent a loss of separation due to opposite direction rules etc. the TRACON reads into the opposite direction guidance and says that we are misapplying the rules. Because of this I personally believe that the required separation is 10 miles however I could be wrong. Even if the rules say that this is legal it is not a safe practice.Opposite direction training is needed at both facilities. Sequencing has been an issue for a long time with Tucson TRACON and the culture here at Tucson Tower/TRACON is reactive rather than proactive. Separation and sequencing issues with arrivals have been brought up many times against Tucson TRACON and it always seems that the Tower controllers are looked upon as being weak and lazy.




Synopsis: ATC Tower Controller reported TRACON confusion on Opposite Direction Operations.