elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ALB.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ALB
ATC / advisory: TRACON ALB
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were entering the terminal area with given heading descending from 11;000 feet down to 4;000 feet from the South west of the airport for RNAV 28. Passing through 5;000 feet we called the 'airport insight' and received the clearance for the visual approach for Runway 28. By the time we were abeam the airport flap 1 was down and altitude was 2;400 feet descending to 2;200 feet which was final approach segment altitude. Even though I was fully aware of the presence of obstacle (1;687 feet) on the path of our downwind I was confident that 500 feet margin and few thousand feet right of the course would give us good margin for safety. As we were getting close to the tower crane 'terrain' aural message came and after 2-3 second later 'terrain! pull up!' message came. I applied immediate max power and established pitch between 15-20. The message lasted few seconds and we climbed about 2;700 feet. After the conflict was resolved I intercepted the final course and follow the PAPI to the runway as normal operation.When we have received the visual clearance about 20 miles away I bugged the altitude down to 2;200 feet assuming within the 10 mile radius to the airport there cannot be anything that can pose threat to our path. Even though I was aware of the Tower; I didn't mention it during my briefing and considered it a big threat. When the Captain brought me an attention about the Tower once we were getting closer to it and asking me to turn inside the final approach point I delayed his suggestion wanting to intercept the final course outside the FAP. I could have been clear to ask him his intention or worries as we are nearing the obstacle and get the concurrence from both of us that 500 feet is enough or not.1. Better understanding of EGPWS logic could have given me the conservative altitude margins. 2. Detailed briefing; I could have planned better plan by flying higher or going around the tower instead of over flying it. 3. Rushing; I could have gone further out and fly higher to intercept instead of tightening my base turn to join right at the FAP.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported an obstacle related CFTT event requiring a pull up maneuver during approach to ALB airport.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SBA.TRACON, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Special Use W532
ATC / advisory: TRACON SBA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was training a CPC IT who I thought was further ahead than he really is. Air carrier departed SBA heading 140 climbing to 8;000 FT. After many other automation issues; the trainee finally initiated an automated handoff of air carrier to ZLA. We did not end up shipping air carrier until he was leaving 6;800 FT. At the same time we were dealing with a few other coordinations and must have missed the read back of the frequency. I had to prompt the trainee to get a point out with NTD Approach because we were going to violate their airspace as the air carrier was level at 8;000 FT. We accomplished the point out but there were no red flags in my mind because when we are late giving a handoff and or frequency change; it is not uncommon to see aircraft fly level for a little while. ZLA called down and asked for communication with the aircraft and to put him on a 020 heading. He reached out to the aircraft several times with no reply. Finally after the air carrier violated W532 which was hot during a live fire exercise (suspended prior to the violation). The aircraft called us for a turn. The trainee just shipped aircarft to Center and we failed to issue the heading. I should have been more assertive and not let the trainee go as far as he did.




Synopsis: Developmental did not issue heading as instructed by ARTCC to avoid penetration of Warning Area.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Wheels/Tires/Brakes
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was making a visual approach into Runway XX at ZZZ; at roll out and approximately 20 kts. or less I applied both brakes and noticed then that my right brake had failed and the nose swerved to the left. I got off of both brakes and applied emergency brake; and Aircraft X departed the runway to the left coming to rest about 6-10 feet off of runway edge. No one was injured and no damage was done to Aircraft X.




Synopsis: C-525 Captain reported a runway excursion during landing rollout due to right brake failure.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon arrival into ZZZ; we had been vectored on; and cleared for; the ILS XXR. We were told to maintain 170kts until ZZZZZ. There was also a corporate jet in front of us on the approach to XXR as well; and was given the same 170kt until ZZZZZ instructions. They slowed down way prior to this point; and I could see we were gaining on them on the TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System). About the same time; and still prior to ZZZZZ; Tower noticed as well; and informed us of our 50kt overtake and asked us to slow to our final speed. Tower also allowed us to do some S-turns; but in the end it was still too close and Tower instructed us to go around. Corporate pilots did not follow ATC (Air Traffic Control) instruction and caused a spacing issue between them and us.Executed a successful go-around; got vectored back around; and landed safely.Corporate pilots need to pay attention and follow ATC instructions.




Synopsis: Light transport flight crew on approach was instructed to go-around due to conflict with a corporate jet.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: Was reported to the supervisor and made aware of issue. While performing work on Aircraft X; and performing [maintenance procedure]; removal of electronic module of rudder travel limitation unit; a safety rail was dropped from the lift. The lift has a safety rail that is used while extending platforms from the main lift platform; keeping the mechanic from falling. The rail fell off from the attaching holes and struck the rear fuselage part of the aircraft; leaving a 1 inch in length by 1/8 inch in width gash. Event occurred because of the windy conditions up on the lift during the night. The safety rails have no way to keep themselves from falling all the way off the lift. All lifts that have removable safety rails should have a way of attaching safety rails to the main platform. This way if they come out of the holes where they attach to the moving platforms; they won't fall onto aircraft or personnel under lift.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Maintenance Technician reported a personnel lift safety rail failure caused damage to aircraft.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: The First Officer for [Aircraft X] ZZZ-ZZZZ. The Second first officer was stuck commuting. Was asked by scheduling to fly as 2 pilot crew with bad weather and late departure. I told scheduling I was not extending because of weather and late departure. I was asked by station personnel if we would extend. I was then asked by the Chief Pilot if we would extend. After a refusal to extend; I was asked by the Chief Pilot if we'd extend for extra money. An 'incentive' he called it. I refused again to extend; refused the offer for extra pay; refused to go without 3rd Pilot. The flight was cancelled. All actions took place in the flight deck during pre-flight duties. FB was stuck commuting. Company wanted the flight to go with 2 pilots. We said no. Company should staff properly. Stop scheduling to violate contract.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier pilot reported their Company tried to force them to fly with two pilots instead of three in violation of their contract.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Engineer / Second Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Enroute to ZZZ; just prior to descent; three caution messages appeared: HYD Press Low; flap fail; [and] something else related to hydraulics - resolved before QRHed. Multiple status messages appeared as well; mostly related to TRUs (Transformer Rectifier Units). After running the QRH for the hydraulic pressure; the only caution message remaining was for flap fail and the electric status messages. The status messages were run according to the QRH and non-messages" were referenced. All synoptic pages were consulted and the only noticeable anomaly was the loss of generator attached to Engine 2; RH. No caution messages of a generator failure appeared.Per procedure; the flap fail QRH was run and plans for a flaps up landing; no slat failure were made; including [requesting priority handling] with ATC. ACARS was not operational. Out of an abundance of caution; the APU was started during descent. After the APU generator was engaged; the flap fail message disappeared. The electrics synoptic page did not visually show a power transfer except for the KVA load; which indicated some use of the APU generator. Flaps were then able to be deployed for landing; but the [priority handling] status was maintained for safety. The aircraft was dispatched with a "flap half speed" MEL for the flight and multiple previous others. Flight attendants were not asked to brace; landing was otherwise normal; and aircraft taxied to gate under own power."




Synopsis: CRJ-700 First Officer reported that a #2 IDG failure caused a flap malfunction due to load shedding. After the APU generator came back online; the flaps operated normally and the flight crew continued to the destination airport and made a precautionary landing.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MIA.TRACON, FL
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ATC was vectoring us for a visual approach to 8L in MIA. He asked us to report it as soon as possible as we were fairly close to the field. The Captain soon after reported the field in sight. I was pilot flying and did not have the field in sight. However; I did have the RNAV approach set up. The controller cleared us for the visual; [and] then gave us a heading momentarily; recleared us for the approach and asked if we wanted 8R. The Captain accepted. I still did not have the airport in sight as the sun was in our eyes and it was extremely hazy. The Captain went heads down to set up the approach for the right side. As he did that I lost course guidance. A runway was coming into view in front of me; so I went visual. As we got closer I saw the tower to my left and the runway was not 8R/8L; but 9 and a taxiway. I alerted the Captain and we subsequently executed a go around and landed uneventfully.I really wish; especially when I'm flying; that the Captains not report the field in sight until I have it in sight. In the future; I will ask the Captain in the approach briefing to not to report the field until I have it in sight. I will also be more assertive in declining a visual approach if conditions become questionable.




Synopsis: A B737-800 First Officer related the loss of situational awareness that occurred when his Captain; the pilot not flying; advised Tower the field was in sight when he the pilot flying (PF) did not. A subsequent runway change with the field still not in sight by the PF resulted in a go-around.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: F11.TRACON, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B MCO
ATC / advisory: TRACON F11
Second aircraft: Small Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: This is an automation issue. Both of these aircraft tagged up on the wrong scope. They tagged up on an 'E' tag which is radar departure East (high sector) instead of a 'D' tag which is satellite Disney (low sector). The clearance delivery specialist check and modified both aircraft to the 'D' tab list but they both still tagged up on the wrong scope. Low level aircraft automating to the wrong scope has been an ongoing issue for many years at MCO and has been on the backs of the controller workforce to fix. Fix the automation so aircraft tag up on the correct scope.




Synopsis: F11 Controller reports of an automation problem with aircraft tagging up on the wrong scopes; even after clearance delivery modified both aircraft to the correct tab list.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: VRB.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu Meridian
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Nose gear collapsed on landing. Pulled off runway on taxiway. Shut down engine; radios and battery; and exited aircraft.




Synopsis: PA-46 Single Pilot reported nose landing gear collapse on landing.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Coalescer Bag
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were on the approach phase of flight; less than 10 minutes from landing in ZZZZ when we received a call from the cabin advising us that the two aft inflight crew members experienced a smell they described as dirty socks and that their eyes were slightly burning; I then asked if they needed immediate assistance; offering to have medical assistance at the gate upon arrival since we were already about to land. They initially declined and just said that they will call Medlink upon arriving at the gate as per their manual instructions. In the cockpit we never smelled anything unusual; unless informed by inflight we would have never known of the incident; also; as far as we know customers were not involved in the incident either. After landing we informed Operations of the situation. Once at the gate medical personnel ended up providing assistance to the two involved inflight crew members. I filled out the Logbook entry in accordance to FOM and also filled out a Cabin odor sheet which was provided and requested by maintenance personnel.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported Aft Flight Attendant notified flight deck of 'dirty socks' odor during approach. Two aft cabin FA's who experienced physiological symptoms received medical assistance upon gate arrival.