elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Citation II S2/Bravo (C550)
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared for takeoff Runway 34 by Tower. As we took the runway we saw a shadow move across us from a Citation that was on short final and was forced to do a go around.


Second narrative: The aircraft I was in was approaching ZZZ and upon initial contact with the Tower I was prompted to cancel the IFR flight plan; which I did and was then immediately cleared to land. The Captain then commenced a visual approach to the runway. At approximately 200 FT AGL and about 1 mile or less from the airport; we both noticed a high-wing single engine aircraft taxi onto the runway and we briefed each other on the event; waiting for about 4 or 5 seconds to see if the aircraft was just crossing the runway but then the aircraft lined up on the runway as if getting ready to takeoff. We initiated a go-around. After we set the appropriate flap setting; started to climb and retracted the landing gear we were approximately midfield and I advised the Control Tower that we had gone around; assuming they already were aware of that and that we were just doing the appropriate action to announce that. The Tower's response was; 'Ok; is there a problem?' My response was. 'No; we don't have a problem just the plane that taxied in front of us just before we were about to land.' Their response was; 'Ok; make right traffic and cleared to land.' The Captain called the Tower on the phone after we were at the FBO and the passengers were situated and was told by the Controller that they had cleared the plane to takeoff and they thought that he was gone. I think that if the Tower had watched the other aircraft leave the runway before they focused their attention elsewhere; the incident could not have happened.


Synopsis: A Citation First Officer and a C172 Instructor describe an incident resulting in a go around for the Citation when the C172 taxis onto the runway for takeoff. The C172 had been cleared for takeoff; but apparently took some time to do so.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CRW.Airport, WV
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C CRW
ATC / advisory: Tower CRW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure; Distraction; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: The Captain and I made a go around on our second attempt to landing. The first approach was discontinued due to RVR being reported below the minimums for the approach outside the final approach fix. Due to a glideslope anomaly on Runway 23. The glideslope a few hundred feet from reaching minimums made a quick movement towards half scale deflection down. The aircraft was on a constant rate of descent; airspeed and proper configuration; hand flown below 1700 feet per approach plate. At the point that I called runway in sight the Captain and I noticed that the aircraft was not going to touch down in the prescribed TDZ and accomplished the go around procedure. While being vectored for a 3rd attempt at landing; the Captain and I briefed that if the anomaly happened again; we would accomplished another go around. Before the 3rd approach; another flight was able to land on their first attempt. After requesting a PIREP from the crew; they said they were able to see the runway right at minimums. We were able to obtain visual reference with the runway right at minimums and complete a successful landing. In the hotel van with the other crew we asked them if they had issues with the glideslope and mentioned they did. They said it acted very similarly to our situation. It seems that this has been a recurring theme at CRW in the past as well. The cause of the second go-around was due to an inaccurate indication of the glideslope that put the crew in a situation where a landing would have been made outside of the TDZ. I think the FAA needs to take a deeper dive in what is causing glideslope anomalies for the ILS 23 into CRW. Especially coming into the winter months in mountainous areas where weather can deteriorate rapidly.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier First Officer reported having to initiate a go around on their second approach attempt due to the glideslope fluctuating. The pilot reports this is a recurring issue on this approach and other crews also reported the glideslope fluctuating.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MHT.TRACON, NH
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C MHT
ATC / advisory: TRACON MHT
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The GPS lost satellites at 6;000 feet about 10 miles from MHT.




Synopsis: Captain reported the loss of satellite signal during cruise.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Sea; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After landing the left gear mechanism broke causing the left gear to raise; the hull skidded on the runway; and the aircraft made a left 90 uncontrolled turn exiting the runway to the adjacent grass. Aircraft came to rest upright.There were no injuries; no fire; no fuel leakage and no structural damage done to the aircraft; no airport facilities (lights; markers) were struck nor damaged.First responders contacted maintenance personnel; and thru manual lifting; we lifted the aircraft; supported with wooden blocks; lowered the left gear; and secured in place with wooden blocks. This rendered the aircraft towable. (In fact; the aircraft could have been safely flown under this condition except for activating the electric gear reposition mechanism.)I speculate that the collapse of the gear mechanism was caused by normal 'wear and tear' from typical runway landing loads over the past two years; which lead to an undiscovered bowing of the actuator clevis (U Channel Part) and it's mounting bar which in turn lead to a deformity which prevented the gear; when lowered for runway landing; to be secured in the designed over-center and locked position. I would recommend this mechanism (behind both seats) to be visually inspected at least after every 20 runway (land) landings.




Synopsis: The pilot of an experimental amphibian aircraft described the failure of a landing gear mechanism that resulted in a left main landing gear collapse and subsequent runway excursion. He speculated the cause and suggested repetitive inspections of the mechanism.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BJC.Airport, CO
Weather elements / visibility: CAVU
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: Tower BJC
Second aircraft: Mooney Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During a training flight for the purpose of NAVAID training; my post solo private pilot student; myself; a CFI; and a backseat observing Private Pilot License student were east of LMO at 7;100 feet. I had made two position reports on CTAF when the student pilot noticed a Canadian registered Mooney immediately ahead and to our left. I prompted the student to make an easterly descending turn as the plane overflew us by less than one wingspan width; and with our wingtips overlapping at approximately five knots over our airspeed (which is significantly slower than a Mooney's normal cruising speed.) Mid air impact was never imminent; but it was truly a 'near miss.' It was never apparent the [pilot of the] other aircraft saw our C172. The Mooney continued northbound.




Synopsis: A C172 with an instructor; student and a back seat student observer aboard suffered an NMAC with a Mooney traveling in the same general direction but closing slightly right to left as it passed over them and continued on its way.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MIA.TRACON, FL
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C FLL
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Working the FLL Final; Aircraft X was at 5;000 feet tracking inbound the ILS for [Runway] 10R. A VFR target was observed coming off of the OPF/HWO area VFR climbing to the northwest; through both FLL finals. Aircraft X was issued the traffic and could not descend on the approach because the VFR was climbing unrestricted and uncontrolled. Aircraft X was then very high and unstable on the approach; creating an unsafe situation.FLL airport is the 19th busiest airport in the USA; and one of the top 3 fastest growing; averaging 8% growth each of the last 5 years. FLL has a basic Class C airspace surrounding it that is beyond out of date and unable to aid in the safety of its aircraft on the finals. Planes inbound to each of their parallel runways are not offered any sort of protection until within 5 miles of the field. [This] allows several dozen VFRs each day to climb; descend; and transition across each final; without ATC advisories creating a very dangerous; unsafe; and hazardous situation in the skies above. The FLL Class C is inadequate; and out of date; and needs a major airspace change around it; whether a bigger Charlie; or a full blown Class B before it's too late.




Synopsis: MIA TRACON Controller reported an airborne conflict with an IFR arrival to FLL and a VFR aircraft.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff; the First Officer called for gear up and I selected the gear handle to the up position. 6-10 seconds later; we received a Gear Disagree master warning with the other associated indications. We declared an emergency with Tower and switched over to Departure who gave us a level off altitude of 3;000 when we were already at 3;200 FT. We started to return to 3;000 when he cleared us up to 5;000. At 4;000; Departure told us to maintain 4;000 and the First Officer had to hit the ALT button; but captured the altitude. After running the QRH checklist; we received three green gear down indications and received vectors back towards the airport. I contacted Dispatch via ACARS; talked to the Flight Attendant and made a PA informing the passengers of our return. We made a normal approach and landing back at the airport. The aircraft's landing gear failed to fully retract resulting in the Gear Disagree warning and the resulting need to return to our departure airport. Also; we received several altitude assignments very close to the altitude we were already at.This is the second Gear Disagree failure I have had in less than a week. Both times I was asked by Maintenance if I cycled the gear at all before completing the QRH. I don't know if cycling the gear would have corrected the problem and while there is a step for cycling the gear if the Gear Disagree occurs with the handle in the down position; there is no such step in the QRH procedure for the Gear Disagree with the handle up. If cycling the gear could possibly correct the malfunction; then that step needs to be added to the QRH as our training clearly tells us to follow the QRH and not add our own procedures.


Second narrative: The threats experienced this afternoon were the combination of running an emergency procedure while being given instructions from ATC that required immediate action or immediate corrections.


Synopsis: A CRJ200's GEAR DISAGREE alerted after takeoff; so the Gear Disagree Checklist was completed; an emergency declared and the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-88
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician; Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While working with contract maintenance in ZZZ on a MEL deferral of the right engine fuel heat valve. All MEL procedures were complied with except for wiring the position indicator into place to secure the valve. On climb out; crew had high fuel and oil temperature. Crew was unable to control oil temperature and shut the right engine down. Aircraft off landed in ZZZ1. Landing was uneventful.


Second narrative: October 2014. I was called by Air Carrier X for contract maintenance on field at ZZZ. Discrepancy was listed as Right-Hand (R/H) fuel heat valve light stays illuminated. I spoke with Air Carrier X Maintenance Control Operations and was instructed to open the front lower cowling. Upon opening I could hear the fuel heat valve motor running continuously. I pulled the breakers for the motor and indicator. The motor stopped running and the indicator light went out. I positioned the valve to the closed position; all under specific instruction by the Maintenance Controller for Air Carrier X. I specifically asked if there were any further 'M' procedures for mel compliance and was told there were not. Apparently both the controller and myself missed the step of safety wiring or manually fixing the valve to the closed position. I closed the cowling; collared the effected Circuit Breakers (C/Bs) and filled out the log book and mel placard; again under direct instruction of Air Carrier X Maintenance Controller. The aircraft was dispatched and developed oil overheat problems as the fuel/oil heat valve vibrated to the open position. The aircraft diverted to ZZZ1 and landed safely. There was no damage to the aircraft or engine. There were no injuries.


Synopsis: Two Aircraft Maintenance Technicians (AMTs) were informed that an MD-88 aircraft they had just performed an 'M' procedure for an MEL deferral of the Right Engine Fuel/Oil Heat Valve; had developed uncontrollable high fuel and oil temperatures on climbout; requiring an inflight engine shutdown. Valve had been physically positioned to the 'closed' position; but not safety wired and vibrated to the 'open' position after engine start-up.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/General
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: This is in relation to a crew bulletin. During taxi-out I realized both aft galley supplemental O2 drop mask doors were sealed shut with security tape. Having experience with this known safety issue I immediately contacted the Flight Attendant and Captain. We all three agreed I (Flight Attendant C) would simply break the security tape freeing both O2 door compartments so they would deploy if needed. Although I received full permission from the crew; this action is technically a maintenance procedure hence this report. Not having a procedure to verify active O2 compartments are in working order. Because we do not check this during preflight if there is something wrong it is either not discovered or found after we have departed the gate. I suggest we ensure Maintenance is NOT sealing these doors shut. Also; add a visual inspection of active O2 masks compartments to the list of flight attendant preflight checks. This would be a cross-check of Maintenance and would catch the issue before departure.




Synopsis: A B737 Flight Attendant discovered an aft galley supplemental oxygen mask panel locked with security tape during taxi and with the Captain's permission cut the tape before takeoff. No preflight procedure in place to check oxygen panel conditions.