elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was cleared for takeoff with a right hand turn to the east. After turning east and climbing to an altitude of approximately 800 AGL the aircraft experienced a loss of power. I quickly turned back towards the airport [and advised ATC] with the intention of landing on [the] runway. At this time it was apparent that I could not glide to the runway. I saw an airport service road and executed an emergency landing.




Synopsis: BE36 pilot reported a loss of engine power on climbout. The aircraft landed on an airport service road.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu Meridian
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: P180 Avanti
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Well; the new 'Fusion' radar was up and supposedly running. The main radar sensor for my sector was out of service. I was having a hard time trusting the radar as targets kept jumping around and some tags were switching targets. I didn't believe the P180 was turning as slowly as he was. By the time I figured out the turn rate wasn't what I expected; it was too late to save 3 miles lateral. Fusion needs improved before it is reliable to use.




Synopsis: A TRACON Controller reported a loss of separation between two aircraft. A contributing factor was the erratic display on his newly introduced 'Fusion' radar and his lack of familiarity with its capabilities.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After positive rate of climb and 300 feet AGL landing gear handle up. Both main landing gear retracted; nose gear did not. Nose gear down and locked green light remained illuminated and no red light. Completed after take off checklist and at 1000 feet located appropriate abnormal checklist for the nose gear problem. Thoroughly completed that checklist with no help. Returned to ZZZ with 3 green down and locked indications and no red unlocked light. On final retarded thrust levers and no gear warning horn. Landed without incident.




Synopsis: Citation Captain reported the nose gear would not retract after gear handle was raised; returned to departure airport.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Clear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Ground crew lack of coordination. Lead Marshaller was not properly monitoring his wing walkers; ground crew failed to notice there was a cart a few inches in the path of aircraft just prior to stopping point.Upon approaching Gate XX at ZZZ terminal; as per SOP and as customary; FO (First Officer) called 'Right clear'; my response: 'Left clear; brakes if you need them'. The state of the aircraft was single engine; idle power slow crawl forward. The Ground Crew Lead was indicating to move forward and slightly correcting for position of nose wheel. Very slowly approaching and being ready for smooth final stop of aircraft we felt a 'thud'. I immediately applied full brakes and all movement halted. The Lead was still instructing us to keep moving forward; so I mentioned to the FO 'they must have left a wheel chock in the way'.  The Ground Crew Lead continued to instruct us to move forward; we were short of the stop line. I started to gently apply power to try to move the aircraft as instructed. As engine was revving up the Lead instructed urgently to stop. The aircraft wasn't moving. After parking aircraft I realized that the 'Thud' we felt before had been the aircraft wingtip striking a parked start cart. The ground crew and or Wing Walker hadn't noticed such intrusion in the box. From our vantage point in the cockpit; and given the relative distance of the aircraft/cart/box; it was impossible for us (flight crew) to know/see that the cart was a few inches inside the parking box and would present a danger to the aircraft. After said incident I proceeded to contact Dispatch/Maintenance and wrote up the aircraft log with the event.Better training for Wing Walkers; more stringent requirements for ground personnel that have the responsibility for parking the aircraft.




Synopsis: CRJ 700 Captain reported that marshalling crew did not realize that a start cart was within the safety area at gate and marshalled aircraft into collision with it.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: S56.TRACON, UT
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Snow; Rain; Icing; Fog; 2
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SLC
ATC / advisory: TRACON S56
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: An apparent longstanding issue with restricted airspace under the final approach fix for approaches to RWY 34 at U42. I was incredulous when the controller issued the restriction to maintain at or above 8000 ft until LODME; cleared for the approach. I asked whether I could just fly the approach as depicted and he said 'no'. Thus; in mountainous terrain; in rain/snow and poor visibility; and to an airport with no approach lighting; I had to ignore an LNAV generated glideslope and to convert to a 'dive and drive' approach. I am pretty sure but not certain that I disconnected the autopilot zoomed up over the FAF as the airplane was being guided by the glideslope BELOW 8000 feet at LODME. Had to hand fly the approach without a glideslope in challenging conditions and single pilot. I realize that NSA and other important national assets are located under the FAF but aviation safety is being sacrificed by turning a precision approach with a glide slope into a step down approach indeed with 2000 feet to lose in 4.8 miles between LODME and ACIPO.  Change the glideslope and approach to allow a controlled/precision descent and to protect the underlying restricted area. Or if this is not possible; a clear marking on the approach plate that glide slope is 'unusable' when restricted area is active.




Synopsis: General Aviation Pilot on RNAV(GPS)Y Runway 34 approach to South Valley Regional Airport; Utah (U42) not allowed by Approach Controller to fly LNAV profile due to restricted airspace underlying the approach course.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While descending out of 17;000 FT the Captain turned the airfoil and engine anti-ice on with the throttles at approximately 1.1 EPR. During the descent; the 'pressurization flow' light illuminated. He deployed the speed brake; so he could increase the power thus increasing the air flow. We leveled at 12;000 FT and the cabin continued to climb at a rate of 300-500 FPM. We verified the outflow valve was closed. The Captain secured the anti-ice and the cabin rate slowed but did not stop. I pulled the QRH and completed all tasks and checklists for the 'pressurization flow' procedure. We requested and received a lower altitude of 7;000 FT. At this altitude the cabin fully depressurized and my sliding window became quite loud; but the Captain and I could still communicate effectively. No emergency was declared because we were already below 10;000 FT. Shortly we were cleared for the visual and landed without incident.


Second narrative: While descending out of 17;000 FT I turned the airfoil and engine anti ice on with the throttles at approximately 1.1 EPR. During descent the pressurization flow light illuminated. I deployed the speed brake so I could increase the power to try and increase the airflow. We leveled off at 12;000 FT and the cabin continued to climb at a rate of 300-500 fpm. We verified the outflow valve was fully closed. I secured the anti-ice. The rate of cabin climb slowed but did not stop. We went through and verified our actions in the QRH Pressurization Flow procedure. I requested and received lower altitude. While level at 7;000 FT the cabin differential decreased to zero and we became fully depressurized. Wind noise from the cockpit window(s) became quite loud; but did not interfere with cockpit communication. No emergency was declared. I saw no need because we were already below 10;000 FT and shortly after depressurization we were cleared for a visual approach. Paramedics met the airplane because of a separate passenger issue that had been coordinated with Dispatch.


Synopsis: MD80 flight crew experiences a pressurization flow light during descent with wing and engine anti-ice on and the cabin altitude climbing. Attempts to restore sufficient flow are not successful and the cabin is completely depressurized at 7;000 FT.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: B737-800
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: ILS/VOR
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climb out; we had a left elevator probe light illuminate and it was determined that it was safe to continue the flight. On the ZZZ ILS XXL approach in IMC conditions with the glide slope and localizer captured and after passing the final approach fix the localizer rapidly went full scale deflection. I disconnected the autopilot and we immediately went missed approach. On the missed trying to regain control of heading and altitude; the caution bank angle sounded and I immediately corrected. Once stabilized on the missed and being vectored we double checked everything. We couldn't find anything abnormal and decided to try another approach to Runway XXL. On the second approach I coupled the second autopilot as the ceilings were lowering. Basically the same thing happened again. We entered a hold this time and again nothing was found to be wrong. We attempted to talk to Maintenance and Dispatch but the conversation was broken and couldn't be completed. Meanwhile our fuel was getting to the reserve quantity and the weather had deteriorated tremendously with thunderstorms over the field and low ceilings. It was then decided for safety to go to our alternate. The rest of the flight was uneventful ending with a normal ILS in ZZZ1. The return flight later in the day back to ZZZ was also uneventful with a normal ILS Runway XXL approach.We weren't able to determine what caused the localizer malfunction. The First Officer said he did see the elevator feel light flickering. In hindsight we probably should have gone to the alternate for better weather after the first go around.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported a navigation error that resulted in a missed approach.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ANC.Tower, AK
Aircraft: Q400
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Aircraft component: Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On arrival into ANC; cleared to 3;000 feet. Descending through 3;500; First Officer (FO) and I both notice TCAS traffic at 2;500 inside 10 miles opposite direction. FO asked ATC about the traffic and the controller casually replied that he was 5 miles and 2;500 feet. Now inside 5 miles; still converging and indicating a climb as we level at 3;000 feet. As the traffic turned yellow on the TCAS; we grew more alarmed as it seemed to be closing rapidly. As the TCAS alerted 'TRAFFIC TRAFFIC' I disconnected the autopilot and pondered my best escape route. It turned red and indicated -300 and still climbing and I initiated a right climbing turn. Then TCAS said 'MONITOR VERTICAL SPEED.' FO told ATC we were responding to a TCAS RA. We climbed to approximately 4;000 feet before the traffic was behind us and the alert returned to yellow. We descended back to 3;000 feet on ATC assigned heading. We were IMC the entire time and never had the traffic in sight visually.More disturbing than the actual traffic proximity was the failure of all preventive measures. While the TCAS did alert the traffic and ultimately give an RA; it seemed slow to do so. Both FO and I felt that if we had waited for the RA to take action; it would have been too late.Not only did ATC fail to point out the traffic; when queried; seemed overly casual and unconcerned. They didn't seem to notice that we were closing in on each other. Once on the ground; I called the TRACON and spoke with the supervisor on duty about the incident.The only thing keeping all the Swiss cheese holes from aligning was crew observation and preemptive action. I saw it; too; but my FO pointed it out early on; closely monitored its proximity; and queried ATC without being prompted to do so. I took action without RA instructions because it seemed more than prudent to do so.




Synopsis: Q400 Captain on arrival into ANC reported taking evasive action to avoid an airborne conflict; stating the TCAS seemed slow to issue an RA. and ATC seemed less than concerned.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Escape Slide
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Other / Unknown; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At departure time #1 Flight Attendant (FA) called on intercom advising door Right Aft failed to 'Arm'. I asked 'what was problem?' FA1 stated door handle was not going into full down position thus not 'Arming'. Since #1 was a male FA (strength) I asked FA1 to cycle door and re-attempt Arming. With door disarmed; during attempted cycling of handle; door 'jammed' and FA states he heard 'hissing' and two fabricated metal hinges fell off the bottom of the door. When Maintenance arrived the AMTs stated door 'must' be rigged improperly because bottle was blown and door & evacuation slide both failed to operate. I don't believe the FA blew the bottle. I believe the door failed to Arm because the door has a mechanism to stop disarming if the door is unable to function. How the door got into this state is unknown. My guess is repeated use from catering cycling the door 4 to 5 times daily caused an internal fatigue failure.The #1FA is NOT culpable for any of this failure; FA1 was acting on my orders. If any blame must be levied it is solely mine. Ops found new aircraft and flight continued late with no further events. I don't believe the aircraft could have stayed in Service. In hindsight; if I had called maintenance to look at door first; the AMTs may have cycled door without damaging it - but unlikely.


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


Synopsis: B757 pilots and a Flight Attendant reported that the aft cabin door would not arm before departure. The door assist bottle was triggered while attempting to cycle the door handle.
Date: 201302
Location: SBGR.Airport, FO
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Tower SBGR
Aircraft component: Other Documentation
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: We have been told that shortened runways (such as 9R at GRU) are taken into consideration in the RWY DATA when received via ACARS. There is also a NOTAM stating this. However; there is no way for the pilots to know positively that the correction to runway length has been taken into account. THE RUNWAY DATA SHOULD INDICATE THAT THE RUNWAY LENGTH HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. It is very wrong not to have this information on the ACARS RWY DATA printout. I have seen runways in South America displace over 4;000 meters. Runway length is critical; especially when wet as in today's flight. We need to know that the numbers are based on a limitation; just as ACARS provides MEL restrictions on a RWY DATA printout.




Synopsis: A pilot reported that pre-takeoff performance data for SGBR's shortened Runway 9R did not specifically state that the construction runway length was taken into account.
Date: 202007
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Advised in cruise by flight attendant; that the passengers seated in XX A&B became abusive to flight attendants after they were advised to comply with face mask requirements. Upon arrival 3 CSR supervisors met aircraft.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported two passengers were abusive to flight attendants after they were reminded of mask requirements.