elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 6
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DCA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: While I was flying the river visual to runway 19 into DCA I received an alert from the aircraft; 'Caution Obstacle.' At this time the autopilot was off and I was hand flying the approach making turns and following the river. It was raining which reduced my depth perception. I believed that I was a bit high and made an adjustment as I continued to descend along the river. I believe that I was pointed at the buildings for too long which caused the alert. When I received the alert I was just beginning a left turn to continue following the river and now realize that I am now low on the approach; I estimated about 200 to 250 feet low. I corrected for the deviation from the approach path and the alerts stopped. Having electronic flight path guidance as a backup for this approach will help prevent the deviation in the first place. If a deviation does occur; a faster and more aggressive correction will help.


Second narrative: While flying the river visual runway 19 approach into DCA we got a caution obstacle aural alert between 4 and 3 DME of DCA. The caution was for the buildings on the south side of the river around the 3 DME point. We were just about to start the left turn over the river and had the buildings insight. The FO (First Officer) corrected by turning left over the river and stopping the descent. After we were already correcting ATC advised us of a low altitude alert. I'm think we were about 200 ft lower than we should have been for about a half mile.


Synopsis: A flight crew flying a river visual approach in light rain received a 'Caution Obstacle' warning from their EGPWS. They corrected by turning away from the buildings they had in sight. Then ATC issued a low altitude alert. The First Officer corrected and the alerts stopped.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ORD.Tower, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport; Weather; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Assigned and flew ILS PRM Y 10R to ORD.  Wind approx 050 at 25G35.  Broke out about 1000 feet. In transition to lining up the runway got a glide slope warning which was corrected and the landing  was completed without incident. During debrief; we both agreed that a contributing factor was lack of adequate vertical guidance outside the aircraft. Given the weather; wind; and turbulence;  lack of a PAPI (Precision Approach Path Indicator) on this runway can compromise the safety margin when you are having to reference outside resources for lateral guidance and inside resources for vertical guidance.


Second narrative: While descending on the ORD ILS PRM Y 10R Approach; Glideslope Warning annunciation at approximately 700 to 650 feet  in visual conditions. Weather was 1000 to 800 Overcast; good visibility below ceiling; 25 to 30 knot gusty left crosswind; moderate rain. Corrected immediately and back on glideslope in short order. Close enough to 500 feet where a go-around would have been the most conservative course of action; however at and below 500 feet balance of the approach was stable; thus continued to landing.This particular approach is offset; thus a visual maneuver is necessary to line up with the runway. This is exactly when the glideslope deviation occurred. A PAPI (Precision Approach Path Indicator) would greatly enhance the safety of this approach. Event was thoroughly debriefed at the gate.Request consideration for installation of a PAPI ORD Runway 10R.


Synopsis: Flight crew conducting an ILS PRM Y 10R Approach to ORD reported they received a Ground Proximity Alert while transitioning to the visual portion of the approach partially due to no Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) system available for this runway.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We had a hydraulic failure in system one. Because of this failure our Minimum Control Speed was computed at 160 which was 10 knots faster than our approach speed. We were unable to get to our desired landing flap setting of 35 until we were able to slow down just prior to landing. Even with the GPWS flap override selected; we still got GPWS WARNING calls. We were stable on the ILS and VASI and we knew why we were getting the GPWS calls which were not due to terrain. I continued the approach to an uneventful landing.


Second narrative: We had a level one 'hyd 1 off' light illuminate. We ran the QRH checklist and discussed our options. Weather at destination was good; clear and winds 180 at 10 knots gust to 15 knots. According to the QRH; there was a possibility of a level 2 HYD 1 fail during configuration which we discussed and planned for. We received the level 2 HYD 1 fail at slat extension and we had already familiarized ourselves with the level two 'hyd 1 fail' from the QRH while enroute and knew that the only consequence would be no auto-brakes upon landing and that landing flaps may not be achieved until speed was reduced. We reviewed the Hydraulic synoptic consequence page which notified us that the upper rudder was inop and Minimum Control Speed would be 160 knots. We adjusted our approach speed from 150 to 160 knots. When selecting flaps 35 for landing; it took longer than usual for the flaps to move to selected position so we began configuring about 25 miles out. The Captain requested that I move the flap override to override so we wouldn't get any distractions. I then turned over control to the Captain who landed without incident. The flaps eventually got down to 35 degrees prior to an uneventful landing.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported receiving a GPWS warning due to flap settings and high final approach speed required by the loss of Hydraulic Pressure in one system.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; Fog
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was piloting a Cessna Citation in the south part of ZZZ1 Class B airspace.  I was on an IFR flight plan and was in communication with Approach Control. From somewhere a few miles west of ZZZ2; I was told to turn to a heading of north and descend to 2;500'. After a short amount of time; I started to look at my charts thinking that was too low for my position. I recall the controller being busy; trying to reach an aircraft that did not respond; and was awaiting an opportunity to confirm my altitude; when the controller called my tail number and told me to immediately climb to 3500' as I was in the middle of antennas. I later listened to the tape; and ATC assigned us to 3;500'; but I understood 2;500'; and repeated back 2;500' twice.  Despite saying 2;500' twice; the controller did not catch it.




Synopsis: CE560 pilot reported receiving a low altitude alert from ATC when he misunderstood a clearance and descended 1000' lower than cleared.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TJSJ.Airport, PR
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower TJSJ
Aircraft component: Wheels/Tires/Brakes
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Tower instructed me to do a short approach because there is another airplane on four mile final. During the landing roll out; I used maximum braking in an attempt exit the runway at H3. I realized that the airplane was skidding; so I released the brake. The left main tire went flat. I informed the Tower of my situation and waited for the emergency personal and [FBO] air ramp personal. After they arrived all the passengers got off the plane and off of the runway and drove back to the gate. I waited for the maintenance and then they changed the left main tire; we taxi out of the Runway 10 to the [FBO] air hangar for the inspection.




Synopsis: C402 Pilot reported blown tire on landing rollout.
Date: 201902
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: Prior to the removal of [one of the] flight attendants; we had both galleys covered with a galley attendant. So the forward galley attendant basically stayed in the forward section/zone a.Now with the removal of the mid galley flight attendant; the forward galley flight attendant spends a lot of time in the mid galley setting up carts; coordinating the service and general service duties.Prior to this change there was always an emphasis placed on cockpit security and that the forwards area/ zone A should always have a flight attendant there to observe cockpit activity etc. Now that the forward galley attendant spends a lot of time in the mid galley there is no coverage in zone A or the cockpit area. No one to observe suspicious activity; etc. Isn't this a safety concern that the company is overlooking with the removal of the mid galley attendant. We now have the cockpit area/zone A completely uncovered.




Synopsis: Air carrier Flight Attendant reported concern with new Flight Attendant staffing not providing adequate cabin security coverage.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Altitude Hold/Capture
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The flight went smoothly until the approach phase. For this leg; the Captain was the Pilot Flying. The weather at ZZZ was 4 miles visibility; Rain with 4300 ft. overcast. We were told by Approach to descend to 3;000 feet and told to join the Localizer. We descended to 3;000 feet on the autopilot; and; shortly thereafter; had captured the Localizer but not the glideslope.  The controller then cleared us for the ILS 17 Approach. Shortly after being 'cleared for the approach'; I felt the airplane pitch up sharply and noticed that our pitch had indeed increased; the airspeed was decreasing and the altimeter was showing a fast climb. I said 'Airspeed' and glanced over to see what the captain was going to do about it. He ended up disconnecting the autopilot and returned the airplane to straight and level at 4;200 feet we then started to descend back down to 3;000 feet.. We continued the approach while hand flying and landed without further incident. After Landing; we discussed the 'event' and I was told that the autopilot had attempted to climb up to and capture a false Glideslope instead of holding the assigned altitude of 3;000 feet; and capturing it from below.I think that the autopilot tried to climb up to and capture a false Glideslope but also did not hold the altitude that we dialed in.




Synopsis: A CRJ-700 air crew after being 'cleared for the approach' felt the airplane pitch up sharply. The Captain disconnected the autopilot and continued the approach while hand flying and landed without further incident. The crew was told that the autopilot had attempted to climb up to and capture a false Glideslope.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SAV.TRACON, GA
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower SAV
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: A aircraft departed SAV Runway 19 on an IFR flight plan.  He departed and ARTS auto acquired normally.  Departure control identified him and turned him to the northwest to climb.  When the aircraft was approximately 5 miles west of SAV climbing through approximately 3;000 feet the ARTS data block disappeared.  The aircraft was still 'somewhere' in ARTS as it would display when queried.  It was also still in the NAS; but would not re-ARTS force; etc… THIS IS AN ONGOING ISSUE AT SAV!!!   Normal IFR data blocks are falling off our radar screens without explanation...This will easily end with an airspace violation or loss of separation; as in this case the vector/climb was across the SAV Runway 10 final approach course. While SAV Tech Ops is reviewing these 'issues' and the ATC management 'collects data' and 'makes log entries'  NO one is actually DOING anything to ensure the safety of the aircraft or protect the controllers from one 'getting away'.  SAV is surrounded by Special Use Airspace and the potential for a major incident involving the DOD systems is very likely!




Synopsis: SAV Controller voiced concern regarding an on-going issue with dropped ARTS targets on departure; noting the increase in airspace incursion potential resulting from the anomaly.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: While looking at some equipment before I used it for an oil service I noticed leaks and damage to the equipment from long time use. This was the oil bowser on Tug XX. It had not had a PM (Preventive Maintenance) since [Date]. The PM are to be done every 6 months and the tanks cleaned yearly. This equipment has been used the past several years serving every plane type in the fleet including ETOPS. In the past I had brought this up and it seem to be no change. I have included photos of the oil service bowser and you can clearly see that somehow it has not been looked at in quite some time. There was a safety concern filed on this too several months ago. Not sure if the PM on the vehicle does not include the oil bowser. Inspect all the oil bowsers; there are others that have not been looked at in years.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Maintenance Technician reports that Ground Service Equipment is not being properly maintained.
Date: 202108
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear Indicating System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting; Workload
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was First Officer (FO) on Aircraft X operating to ZZZ. We were conducting the ILS XXR circle to XY approach when we received an abnormal landing gear indication. When I lowered the landing gear; the annunciator panel showed 3 red lights along with 3 green lights. The overhead panel showed 3 green as well. We briefly discussed continuing the landing as there was some confidence the gear was down. The discussion continued until around 500 ft. and I felt strongly that we shouldn't be making such consequential decisions that close to the ground without running a checklist. We performed a go-around; ran the checklist; got the gear down without the red lights; and landed successfully.


Second narrative: ILS XXR circle XY at ZZZ. Lowered gear just prior to FAF (Final Approach Fix). 3 red; 3 green illuminated. After evaluating with First Officer (FO); executed go-around on XY due to gear disagree. Standard missed. Ran checklists. Vectored for longest runway... ILS XXR. Extended gear on 10-mile base. All indications normal. Executed normal landing. Taxi to gate to find puddle [of] hydraulic fluid at left main. Possibly unrelated.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported an issue with the landing gear indications.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 15
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Flying Fortress (B17)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Exhaust Pipe
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I departed in a B-17 for a local 15 minute media flight accompanied by my co-pilot. Charts and equipment on board and in use included a Garmin 430; and 396; current Sectional Chart and a local area TCA Chart. As the airplane climbed on runway heading; I executed a climbing turn to the North. Just then I then detected a change in sound in a power plant and rolled the airplane wings level. While scanning the instrument panel for abnormal indications I asked the co-pilot if he had heard any unusual noise. The co-pilot said no; so I again rolled right and continued my turn to the East. It was then the Tower advised us that we clipped the edge of the adjacent Class B although I didn't believe my momentary northerly heading placed me that far out and that I was still below the 1;800 foot shelf; at 1;500 feet. I did not declare an emergency but continued monitoring the engines and instruments. We were back on the ground in 15 minutes as planned; and the awaiting Crew Chief advised me to shut down. It was then discovered we had completely lost the exhaust stack on the Number 3 cylinder of Number 4 engine; and the cowl flap was burned.




Synopsis: A B-17 Flying Fortress flight crew on a media flight may have briefly entered the local area Class B while investigating an aurally perceived power plant anomaly. After landing they determined an exhaust stack from the Number 4 engine had departed the airframe.