elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201703
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: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: On approach to Runway XXR. The Captain had a high crosswind landing. The winds were reported as coming from 70 degrees to our left at 26 knots by the tower. The aircraft was stabilized and in the landing flare the Captain began to reduce to idle thrust and attempted to land. Below 50 ft AGL the crosswind increased significantly and the Captain used full deflection of the rudder to counteract the forces. At that point he initiated a go-around and advanced the thrust levers to max power. As the go-around was started the aircraft settled over the runway and briefly touched the right main landing gear on the ground. We then became airborne and continued drifting to the right of centerline. The stick shaker went off and the Captain lowered the nose to level off and increase speed and the stick shaker then activated again. The Captain briefly looked at the thrust to see if the engines were spooling. It took approximately 7 seconds for the engine to spool up past 50%. On the go-around the right engine had oversped and exceeded its max temperature on the go-around. We were vectored for a right downwind to a runway only 20 degrees off the wind heading and landed safely.It would be nice to see an aborted landing with thrust levers at idle in the simulator during recurrent training instead of seeing it the first time on the line.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported a go-around during a high crosswind landing which resulted in an overspeed and overtemp on the right engine.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: P50.TRACON, AZ
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E P50
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Once again prearranged coordination procedures were not complied with and an operational error may have occurred. I had just walked into the TRACON after a break and was signing back on position when I heard Apache yell at Navajo 'way to go Navajo; what the hell.' B737 was descending via the EAGUL RNAV STAR and another B737 was climbing to FL210; on vectors for the CHILY1 departure. When I heard him yell; I looked and the two aircraft were less than 1;000 FT and three miles apart. I assume that visual separation; if in use; was not coordinated with Apache by Navajo; which is a requirement by the .65 and P50 SOP. There was a relief briefing overlap in progress at Navajo; and this still occurred. The facility needs to address the use of prearranged coordination procedures. These procedures are violated all the time; especially the use of visual separation. The Departure Controller is required to advise the Arrival Controller of its use; so the other aircraft can be advised; but it never occurs. Brief; retrain; redesign or abandon these procedures if they are not going to be used properly.




Synopsis: A P50 Controller described a loss of separation event noting the facility pre-arranged coordination procedures are not being completed as required.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SAN
ATC / advisory: Tower SAN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was handed off to SAN approach. The crew and I had discussed that landing minimums in SAN did not meet requirements for RWY27 but we discussed that RWY09 would soon be active and we agreed to continue. It was understood that the previous Dispatcher had advised the crew of the NOTAM closure of the runway so I did not want to overload the crew with further ACARS. The Approach Controller was clearly making an effort to get everyone in and was turning flights on tight finals for RWY09. [The flight I was working] executed a missed approach due to an unstable approach; which may have been the result of a tight and fast final intercept. The flight climbed and re-entered downwind for RWY09. They checked in with Tower inside GATTO and Tower told them they had 45 seconds to get on the ground before the runway closed. [The flight] said that they were about 2.5 miles out and about a minute and a half away. Pilot Monitoring asked if that meant they were not able to continue and Tower faltered and the Pilot Flying clicked in and asked again; which the Tower confirmed. At 1700 ft I observed [the flight] execute their second missed approach and divert to ZZZ.This was absolutely a ridiculous move by ATC and airport operations management that put a flight in a potentially dangerous situation. At every other airport with hard runway closures; if a flight is checked in and configured inside the final marker; ATC allows the flight to continue and closes the runway behind them. In a standard situation; unless it was an emergency; ATC would never intervene at that point in the approach. The Local Controller had every right to keep ops trucks holding short of the runway to allow a plane on short final to land; especially after already pressuring the flight into an unstable approach that resulted in a missed approach just prior. If SAN wants a hard closure at [a certain time]; stop clearing flights on the approach [just before that time]; period. The time for airport ops to flex their muscles is not with a flight that is below 2;000 feet.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Dispatcher reported a flight the Dispatcher was working was denied landing clearance while on final approach because of curfew closure.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
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
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the crew brief we discussed the departure procedure and I selected LNAV on and confirmed it was armed via the PFD. After a maintenance issue at the gate and a rushed before takeoff checklist during a short taxi we took off. Shortly after takeoff; ZZZ tower asked why we didn't turn. Confused I looked at the PFD and LNAV was not operating. I told the Captain to turn in the correct direction and moved the heading bug to the correct heading. We don't know how or why LNAV disengaged after we both confirmed it was armed in the brief.Rushing the before takeoff checklist caused us not to verify everything in the MCP/ND check so we don't know if LNAV was still armed at takeoff. Other than training in the aircraft type simulator; I have not flown since early November. The Captain only has X00 hours in the aircraft.Suggestion - Don't rush the before takeoff checklist.




Synopsis: First Officer reported LNAV was not engaged during departure resulting in a track heading deviation.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PMP.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local; Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: PMP airport paved a new taxiway just east of Taxiway Delta between Taxiways Lima and Kilo and west of Runway 33. The new taxiway is now open. It is not named; marked or depicted. The new taxiway ends at Taxiway Kilo. Aircraft are instructed to taxi to Runway 33 via Taxiway Lima (full length Runway 33 departure). They now turn on the new taxiway as there is a sign next to it stating Runway 33. This new taxiway takes them to a Runway 33 intersection departure at Taxiway Kilo. They did not receive taxi instructions for an intersection departure which violates 7110.65. Since the new taxiway is not named or marked; aircraft cannot be instructed not to turn on it. This new taxiway is an unnamed and unmarked movement area. The taxiway needs to be marked; named and depicted on charts or barricaded closed.




Synopsis: PMP Controller voiced concern regarding a new taxiway that is not properly marked and/or lighted; resulting in intersection takeoff contrary to ATC procedures.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
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: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight attendants said passengers in seats XX 1 and 2 would not keep their masks on.  We called customer service.  After a discussion; the flight attendants and customer service said they were OK to leave the passengers on board and closed the cabin door.  Once the door was closed; the passengers insulted one of the flight attendants.  The flight attendants said they wanted the 2 passengers removed.  Customer service came on board again and the passengers deplaned peacefully.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported two passenger were removed from flight due to non-compliance with face mask policy and insulting a flight attendant.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
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: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Everything was routine as far as boarding and the Pre-Departure Checklist. Once everything was done; we pulled the bridge; closed the door and ran the Engine Start Check. I had made the comment to the Captain that it might be a while before we push back due to the congestion in the alley by mainline 737s. I could see a few 737s in the line behind us. When I called for pushback once the alley cleared out; the Captain had confirmed the ground crew was ready. Ramp Control acknowledged us and told us to stand by for push. She said she would call us back in a few minutes. After approximately five minutes; she called back 'Aircraft X cleared to push.' I read back the exact instructions and the Captain repeated: 'We are cleared to push.' We got about halfway back from the gate when we hit the aircraft that was in line to taxi out directly behind us. We were not sure if we actually hit the aircraft or exactly what had happened behind us. There was a bit of confusion with the ground crew. A person; I believe to be the right wing walker; had approached the tug operator; and they were discussing something. We asked them to pull us back into the gate so we could open the door to get a better understanding of what happened and examine the extent of the damage. This is the point where the ground crew confirmed that we hit the aircraft behind us. At the same time; we hear another aircraft on Ramp Control telling Control that the aircraft that just pulled out of the Alley had sustained damage. The crew on the aircraft we had hit must have not yet figured out what happened. After we are pulled back to the gate; we opened the door and saw the extent of the damage. At that point; calls were placed to Maintenance; the Manager On Duty; and the Chief Pilot to find the proper course of action.Most of the factors are to do with the ground crew. I am unable to speak to them.I think more situational training [is needed for] the ground crew.




Synopsis: Flight crew reported that after receiving clearance for pushback; the ground crew pushed their aircraft into another aircraft on the ramp.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: APU Pneumatic System & Ducting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff at approximately 16;000 FT the 'Tail Compt Temp High' light illuminated. We accomplished the memory items; requested a return to land with ATC; completed the 'Tail Compt Temp High' checklist; overweight landing checklist; reviewed the RLW and CLW; advised the flight attendants; completed all normal checklists and landed uneventfully.We were back on the ground about 11 minutes after first encountering the warning light. The warning light extinguished after about 2 minutes following the checklist procedures. When I switched to Tower; I confirmed that we wanted to declare an emergency; requested the fire trucks; and advised that the light had extinguished and the trucks were a precaution. There was some difficulty with the language which was outside the normal day-to-day ATC communications. After landing we parked and shutdown all engines. I requested that the aft stairs be dropped and the fire crew to inspect the area with company personnel. We deplaned the passengers via the forward door onto buses. The airport authorities expressed concern that they would have liked to know more about the emergency and our needs prior to landing. Again; it took approximately 11 minutes from warning light to touchdown. My First Officer and flight attendants did an excellent job.




Synopsis: After takeoff MD83 flight crew returned to the departure airport after receiving a critical emergency warning indication.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Beechcraft / Beech Aircraft Corp Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was flying with my instructor; about to turn towards the airport and land; when a Beechcraft passed us from above and to the right with less than 100 feet of clearance. [My instructor] grabbed the controls and took evasive action immediately after another aircraft radioed us to warn of our proximity to the Beechcraft. After landing; the pilot who acted with negligence was identified...however I was told not to 'make a big deal about it' because [the pilot] was an official of some sort.




Synopsis: PA-28 Student Pilot reported a NMAC with a Beechcraft in the vicinity of a non-towered airport.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: A90.TRACON, NH
Aircraft: Small Transport
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D BED
ATC / advisory: Tower BED
Second aircraft: Beechcraft King Air Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was instructed to enter right traffic following [another aircraft] on short final. BED tower wanted to get a departure out prior to Aircraft X's arrival; so they turned Aircraft X to a back course heading making them ODO (Opposite Direction Operations) with Aircraft Y who was on a modified base for sequence to the airport. I was able to turn Aircraft Y away from Aircraft X but had 2.81NM separation at the same altitude.BED tower has repeatedly turned IFR aircraft away from the airport to accommodate their VFR/Departure requirements. Not 20 minutes after my incident; BED tower turned another IFR aircraft away from the airport to modify the sequence. This is very dangerous and some action must happen.




Synopsis: A90 Approach Controller reported a Tower Controller did not coordinate correctly leading to an airborne conflict.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: SA-227 AC Metro III
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departing under IFR; I experienced a generator failure during climbout.  I attempted to reset the generator and get it back online with no success.  While troubleshooting my first generator; I received a failure annunciation for my second generator.  I was unable to get either generator back online; so I decided to divert to the nearest suitable airport on battery power.  A normal landing followed with no other abnormalities.




Synopsis: An SA227 pilot diverted to the nearest suitable airport on battery power after suffering the failure of both AC generators.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B BWI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The BWI 10-7 page shows that ACARS reception is a known problem at certain gates. GPS is not mentioned. We brought the aircraft into BWI gate and were getting it ready to quick-turn. After turning the IRS switches to NAV; the First Officer and I noted that there was no GPS reception. The amber GPS light illuminated on the overhead panel. We referenced the QRH; and I called Maintenance Control. I didn't write it up since I suspected that this was a reception problem due to the gate and not an aircraft problem. Maintenance Control said that GPS signal reception was a known issue at BWI and suggested cycling the MMR circuit breakers which we did just to see if that would help. I made a log entry on cycling the breakers but it didn't resolve the issue. We followed the Flight Manual guidance on initializing the FMC using airport reference data and agreed with Maintenance Control that this was an airport gate anomaly and not an aircraft malfunction. The First Officer and I programmed the FMC and conferred on a plan to taxi to the deice pad to acquire GPS signal and regain our capabilities. If we were unable to get GPS signal; we would taxi back to the gate. We had high confidence this plan was safe without compromising safety. We taxied to the deice pad off the end of RWY 15R; and it took about 5 minutes to get both GPS's back online. Once they were operational; we accomplished all pre-departure checklists and took off uneventfully. I'm uneasy because there is nothing solid in the FM or FOM that deals with 'known ground anomalies' (even if a station advertised them) and repositioning the aircraft to resolve it. In hindsight I should have called dispatch and the maintenance supervisor for clarification on accomplishing this 'fix'.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported during preflight at the gate; they experienced a lack of GPS signal reception in an area of known radio signal reception degradation.