elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft; MEL
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: Captain flying. Dispatched with Number 1 engine driven hydraulic pump inop. Flight had reached 32;000 ft cruise and approximately XA:40 we got master caution; autopilot disengaged and EICAS message HYD Press Eng 1. After reviewing HYD synoptics display and confirming loss of Number 1 HYD system. Appropriate checklist was run without regaining the Number 1 HYD system. The SAT Com was used to contact dispatch; [maintenance] and [company]. Captain made decision to return. Fuel was dumped. In preparation for landing the FO (First Officer); per checklist; selected alternate gear extension switch and it came apart in his hand. He was able to activate the switch. In the alternate mode; we noted flaps not extending equally. We got EICAS flaps drive message. Checklist run. Now limited to flaps 25 landing with high VREF speed. We requested longest runway. The aircraft had to be towed to ramp. The tug broke down halfway to [parking] on taxiway Romeo. A second tug was sent to rescue broken tug and a third sent for aircraft. From stopping on runway to block in on ramp took 1:27 minutes. The aircraft should have had HYD system fixed in [destination] where they had pulled it back into service. It is concerning that [the company] seems to be 'skimping' on maintenance and ultimately safety. Also concerning that while communicating with dispatch and [maintenance]; they were not aware that the engine driven hydraulic pump was MELed (inop).


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


Synopsis: B747 flight crew reported loss of Number 1 hydraulic system in cruise after being dispatched with Number 1 engine driven hydraulic pump on MEL. Flight crew returned to departure airport with limited flaps.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 0.1
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Weather
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: This was day 1 of a 3-day trip. We flew a 9+ hour day; with 3 legs and maintenance delays and issues; landing [past midnight] with a Cat III 600 RVR landing in ZZZ. This is a highly challenging thing to do; after commuting in (I drive 1.5 hours; but I must give myself 3.5 hours for area traffic variability). Few things that we do require the immense attention and perfection of a 600 RVR Head-up Guidance System (HGS) landing; and to think that we're doing this [after midnight] after 3 legs and a commute-in is not safe. I was flat-out; wiped-out after the landing. Additionally; for our short overnight at the hotel (in bed by one hour); which is under construction; the hotel's evacuation alarm was inadvertently activated [a few hours later] by the construction crew; lasting for 15 minutes and requiring me to dress and leave the building. For day 2; I was tired and 'dragging my baggage.'First; we should not be staying at hotels that are under construction. Second; we need to enable autoland in our fleet. I think it is highly risky that we land in 600 feet of visibility; hand-flown; especially after a long and challenging day. The planes have the equipment; yet we are making a decision to not use it. Autoland is a valuable tool; and with all the talk of 'using all available resources;' we are clearly not! This is similar to the old days of not using VNAV; yet flying airplanes that were equipped with it; with the exception; that autoland has major implications to improve safety and reduce risk. The HGS provides so much symbology in AIII mode that it is almost impossible to visually capture the runway environment while being so laser-focused on the guidance cue. If you do not get that guidance cue spot-on in the flare; who knows what will happen in the landing. A 600 RVR landing should be reserved for autoland. I also believe autoland would have enabled a 300 RVR landing (perhaps I'm wrong); and had the RVR dropped to 500 (which it had been in the last hour); we would have immediately diverted; resulting us timing-out and 100 passengers needing hotel rooms and rebooking.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported concerns that the company policy of hand-flown Cat III approaches is not as safe as autoland.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We [worked] another late night and flight across the country. During our pre-flight planning; we checked all pertinent information of the flight; including all NOTAMs at SFO.We were told to descend via the DYAMD2 arrival into SFO. They were a little late issuing this instruction; which caused a steeper than normal descent. We notified them it would be hard to cross LAANE at FL260. ATC waved the restriction at LAANE and told us to make the crossing restriction at FLOWZ. The rest of the arrival was very busy; as we were being vectored quite a bit. The deviation occurred at ARCHI. The published altitude at ARCHI was 7;000 feet on the chart; which we made.We were told by NORCAL approach that the altitude over ARCHI had been changed to 8;000 feet as indicated in a new FDC NOTAM. The aircraft after us were given formal instructions to cross ARCHI at 8;000 feet. The other pilot and I both immediately recognized our mistake. Upon landing we were given a phone number. I called and discussed the deviation with the approach control supervisor. I explained to her apologetically that we had seen the new NOTAM for the restriction at ARCHI; but had since forgotten about it due to our high workload and fatigue level due to another late night and six hour flight across the country. The supervisor understood. She told me that this was a new NOTAM. She also said we did not create a conflict with any other aircraft in the air. Overall; the conversation was positive.We could have drawn in the revised altitude at ARCHI on our Jeppesen chart after reviewing the NOTAM. That way we would not have forgotten. Also; ATC was issuing ARCHI at 8;000 feet to the pilots on the arrival after us. If this is such a new NOTAM; and the incorrect altitude is published on the Jeppesen chart; maybe ATC could be more pro-active at issuing 8;000 feet over ARCHI to every pilot on the arrival.


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


Synopsis: FDC NOTAM was not noticed by aircrew for a change in published altitude on arrival SFO. This is a common repeat item.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: [While] being refueled; the fuel truck ran into right wing. Felt aircraft shake. Truck hit wing. Looked out window. Made sure orange cone is outside of wing.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported fuel truck hit the aircraft's right wing.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: AUS.Tower, TX
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C AUS
ATC / advisory: Tower AUS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared direct to BALLD fix to intercept the localizer at or above 3000 ft. Once at BALLD we were cleared for the approach. I put in 2100 and started down not realizing that SSHOE was a missing fix and was at 2500 ft. We received a low altitude from Tower and the Captain took [the] controls and climbed to 2500 ft. Double check all fixes are in the box when cleared to outermost fixes on approaches.


Second narrative: We were cleared direct to BALLD to intercept the localizer for [Runway] 35R and maintain 3000 ft. until BALLD. Pilot Flying (PF) set in 2100 ft. in the FCU instead of 2500 ft. for the next fix (SSHOE). Pilot Flying continued down to approximately 2100 ft. prior to SSHOE before being alerted by Tower of the altitude deviation. PF did not correct the altitude deviation immediately. Captain took control of the aircraft in order to climb back up to 2500 ft. as published. Soon thereafter; Tower reported wind shear was being reported on the landing runway. Captain initiated a go-around. During the go-around procedure after the flaps were selected to 'zero' we received a momentary flap over-speed warning. After diverting to ZZZ the flaps were inspected by maintenance indicating no mechanical issues. In addition; the post flight report provided no indication of a flap over-speed ECAM.I should have been more cognitive as to what the PF was selecting in the FCU in comparison to our present trajectory on the approach path along with delegating my duties as the Pilot Monitoring. My attention had been going back and forth between configuring the aircraft for landing; monitoring the appropriate approach path; trying to confirm a safe distance from threatening weather; followed by reports from the Tower of possible wind shear on the landing runway. All of these factors made a go-around almost imminent which resulted in an unnecessary self-induced high workload and chain of events that could have been avoided all together with better planning and communication.


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported receiving a low altitude alert from AUS Tower on approach to Runway 35R.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MSY.Airport, LA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower MSY
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: We were told to cross Runway 10 and taxi via E to the gate. As we crossed 10 and transitioned to the yellow line on Taxiway E (an immediate right hand turn); we encountered dimly lit barricades and had to brake the aircraft. Had the First Officer not been alert; there is a real possibility that we may have taxied into the lights. ATIS did advise that work was being done to Taxiway E. But the combination of a dark night and the taxi line heading into the barricades created a potential problem. This morning as we taxied out; we noticed skid marks just before the barricades (not caused by us). It was clear that we were not the only crew to encounter this issue.

Callback: The reporter stated that he believes Taxiway E is closed about 50 FT to 100 FT beyond where his aircraft exited Runway 19 onto E. He remembers seeing a NOTAM about Taxiway E and the restriction for aircraft with wingspans greater than 118 FT but he does not remember a taxiway closure NOTAM in the ramp area. He believes the signs; especially night markings; should be more clear and a NOTAM advising flight crews about what they can expect to see exiting Runway 19 should be issued.



Synopsis: An air carrier Captain reported stopping immediately after exiting Runway 19 onto Taxiway E after landing at night; because confusing barricades made it appear that the Taxiway was closed 50 FT to 100 FT after exiting the runway.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MSP.Airport, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was taxiing from overflow parking ramp at [the FBO]. It was nighttime. As I was taxiing out I noticed a van coming directly towards me delivering passengers to a departing aircraft. I had all taxi and landing lights on at the time. It became obvious to me that the driver of the van did not see me. I was unable to move left or right due to parked aircraft; so I came to a complete stop. At that point the driver must have seen me from approximately 100 feet away and turned to his right and cleared my left wing by approximately 6 to 8 feet. He appeared to be driving at approximately 10mph. I then continued my taxi.




Synopsis: PC-12 pilot reported coming to a stop on the ramp to avoid a collision with a van that apparently had not seen him.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: COS.Tower, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C COS
ATC / advisory: Tower COS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While on visual approach to COS [Runway] 35L; crew both identified a very large building under construction with crane offset between 1.7 to 2 miles from the runway threshold. At approximately 1.5 miles from threshold; received EGPWS (Electronic Ground Proximity Warning) 'Obstacle; Pull Up!' warning. Aircraft was stable and on visual glide path as verified by FMS 3 degree visual glide path indicator and also visually with Runway 35L PAPI. Sink rate at time of incident was 500 ft. per minute. As the building was either directly underneath or just behind aircraft; no other obstacles were noted and aircraft was stable and on glide path; PIC (Pilot-in-Command) decided this was an erroneous warning and elected to continue flight. Landing was uneventful. During debrief; both crew members agreed that the message was erroneous and must be an anomaly caused by the new construction and a go-around at that time would be futile. If the weather was not CAVU (Ceiling and Visibility Unlimited) an immediate go-around would have been performed. There is a current NOTAM (01/037) regarding a crane at this location but the crane was offset from the flight path and at 300 ft. AGL. An issue exists with the EGPWS system and this new building construction that will trigger false warnings and may cause aircraft to go-around unnecessarily.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported receiving a Ground Proximity alert even though they were on glidepath and flying a stabilized approach to COS airport. The reporter believes the alert was due to construction of a new building underneath the final approach course.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared for the approach to fly the ILS 16R procedure. Near the MERYN intersection approach called out traffic on a dog leg to 16L. We were very busy at this point in the approach and I stated to the PM I had traffic behind us approaching 16L which was the logical but wrong assumption. A very short time later we get an immediate and simultaneous TA and RA which I responded to staying within the advisory bars and then noticed; incredulously; a 737 passing on my immediate left estimating less than 500 ft horizontally and 200 ft below us on a southeasterly heading turning towards 16L.To be honest I was shocked at not only the controller putting an aircraft underneath us to runway 16L but I cannot believe [that] Aircraft Y was in the Class B airspace at his altitude and at our position to the runway.  Further and to put it bluntly it was a foolish and unsafe maneuver by the crew [of] Aircraft Y to fly underneath us at that altitude to maneuver for 16L.  Let alone accept a clearance to do so.Finally if we were spaced the same distance to the runways; why didn't we get 16L (we were coming off the Kipper 5) with Aircraft Y coming from the west 16R?  This sequencing made zero sense.Quite frankly the potential for a collision was high confirmed by the fact getting an RA that close to the FAF.  I called the TRACON Supervisor upon arrival and explained my concern.  He took my number and promised a call back after reviewing the incident.  I did not catch Aircraft Y's flight number.




Synopsis: B787 Captain reported an NMAC approaching the final approach fix at DEN.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GAF.Airport, ND
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZMP
ATC / advisory: CTAF GAF
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On short final a crop duster was observed taxiing south on the taxiway adjacent to the runway. No radio calls were made from this aircraft. Around the time our aircraft the reached runway threshold the crop duster lifted off from the taxiway and flew south directly beside us. By the time we had fully realized that the crop duster had taken off on the taxiway we were already at his altitude and made the decision to not go around. We landed the aircraft; cleared the area and then took off. When in the pattern we cleared the area again and couldn't find the aircraft. They never made any radio calls on frequency. Another company aircraft of ours observed the incident in the pattern as well. Both us and the other company aircraft were making radio calls to the CTAF traffic as well as other aircraft that were landing or flying a short approach to Runway 35. I believe that the pilot of the crop duster was upset that the small airport was busy and that they thought they could 'get back' at us by scaring us on final. That or they were rushing themselves and didn't want to wait for our traffic and the traffic in the pattern behind us before taking off. I think the situation could have been solved by the pilot of the crop duster making radio calls throughout the situation. They could've informed us they intended to takeoff opposite direction instead of a taxiway and we could have extended our downwind for them or flown a few 360s to clear up space.




Synopsis: Student pilot at a non towered airport reported an aircraft departed opposite direction to them from a taxiway adjacent to their landing runway.