elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BOW.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF BOW
Second aircraft: SR22
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: BOW; normally a Class D; was operating as a Class G. I was returning to the airport after a recreational flight and switched to the BOW CTAF; 121.2; but could hear nothing. I turned on the AWOS but had difficulty understanding the voice and could not ascertain the landing runway. After performing a pre-landing checklist; I transmitted my locations on the CTAF; and proceeded to land on runway 9L. My passenger and I both scanned and confirmed that there was no traffic in the pattern; and proceeded with the landing. Upon touch down; a Cirrus SR-22 landing in the opposite direction made an evasive maneuver and a go around. I noticed I had landed downwind. I could not see the windsock from the air at all. I did not see the Cirrus in the pattern at all.Contributing factors: Lack of recent experience at untowered airports; difficulty seeing the windsock to confirm wind direction; unsatisfactory scan for traffic during pattern entry. Also; I usually wear a large set of sunglasses on top of my regular corrective lenses; but I did not wear the sunglasses that day; which may have contributed to a poor scan due to glare and light sensitivity.Corrective actions: Extensive and thorough re-training both on the ground and in flight with a qualified CFI at both towered and non-towered airports to refresh situational awareness; communications skills; and pattern procedures.Human performance considerations:Did not scan the pattern visually thoroughly enough before entering. Did not get a good look at the wind sock. Poor decision to not wear the sunglasses. Classic example of a lack of situational awareness. I will go through thorough re-training to prevent this from happening again.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported encountering an SR22 landing opposite direction at BOW. The other aircraft executed a go-around.
Date: 201706
Location: RJAA.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center RJJJ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Captain signed for flight plan with landing fuel of 18;100 lbs. No significant weather planned departure; enroute or destination. No significant maintenance issues. Flight was flown as planned with the exception of 2 deviations for unforcasted convective areas and a vector around military airspace in PAZA.Flight arrived at top of descent with a negative fuel score of 2.0. After normal early descent (ELGAR arrival via MELON) and vectoring off arrival; several flights ahead on arrival received holding instructions and were informed RJAA was changing runways. The flights were given expected clearance times which; if similar for our flight; would result in landing with emergency fuel. When our flight was given holding instructions we informed ATC we were unable to accept holding for fuel. After ATC again gave holding instructions we informed them we needed to divert for fuel. We were given a vector for ZZZZ and proceeded to plan for diversion. Dispatcher was notified but not consulted due to time constraints. ATC subsequently informed us that there would be holding for arrival into ZZZZ due to coordination. We requested clearance for landing at RJAA or ZZZZ whichever could be coordinated soonest. Uneventful approach and landing were made at RJAA. Landing fuel was 13;000 lbs.




Synopsis: B777 First Officer reported multiple deviations and delays in flight resulted in the aircraft landing with emergency fuel.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During arrival into ZZZ we received 4 runway changes in about 5 minutes time. We were then broken off the arrival and vectored around for a visual approach to XXL. Reaching the ZZZZZ fix we received a fuel imbalance caution message. We then switched the fuel selector to the correct side to balance fuel and landed within limitations for a fuel imbalance. We felt rushed and focused on flying the visual correctly. Upon receiving the caution; we felt like going around was a more unsafe decision than continuing on the approach; due to the distraction and complexity that were that we were experiencing. Always go around whenever a caution message appears. Run the QRH as directed.


Second narrative: After a rushed departure due to company operations. The aircraft was initially over fueled (may have played a role). Descending on the ZZZZZ arrival we were assigned multiple runway changes and arrival transition changes in sterile. This caused task saturation. Finally we were assigned RNAV visual for [Runway] XXR. On the approach we received a fuel imbalance message turning onto final at ZZZZZ1. We were able to promptly balanced and corrected the issue. We landed with the selector off and a imbalance within limitations. Cause was gusty wind condition; multiple runway/transition changes; rushing because we were 'leading the pack'; and no clear reason why the fuel imbalance was caused (pilot error; mechanical; etc.) I feel we should have considered a go-around. I was behind the airplane and task saturated. I should have verbalized this to the captain. We could have requested delay vectors and potentially broke of the approach to fix and trouble shoot the issue.


Synopsis: ERJ-175 flight crew reported electing to land with a fuel imbalance rather than complete the QRH procedure.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport; Aircraft
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: FO Flying / AP on in Nav mode. Just as we were making our turn to transition from the arrival to the approach. FO selected APP mode on FCU the LOC & GS  captured simultaneously . Initially the GS indicated below us but as soon as the aircraft went to capture mode the GS indication jumped above the 1/2 scale deflection up. The aircraft followed the GS as it moved up to 1/2 scale high until the aircraft pitch was approximately 20 degrees nose up. Thrust had been at idle so the speed vector showed a negative trend while the engines were trying to accelerate.  The power finally caught up and the nose came back down . We were able to continue the approach and land. I talked to the crew from the day before and they had a similar thing happen to them.  There is an airport very close to this intersection. I wonder if there maybe some interference from the [other] airport. If there is some interference we need to add a note to the 10-7 pages to warn the crews this situation could occur.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported strong possibility of signal interference which resulted in erratic maneuvering of aircraft to autopilot.
Date: 201504
Location: IND.Airport, IN
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked; Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: On gates A24 - A23 - A21 - A17 in IND the paint for the lead in lines has worn off to the point they are no longer discernible (ESPECIALLY at NIGHT).  The aircraft stop marks are non-existent because of paint wear off. We've had multiple incidents where aircraft inadvertently parked wrong and had to hook up push back tractor and tow them to correct spot because employees were unable to see correct stop marks.




Synopsis: An IND aircraft marshaller reported the lead-in lines and stop marks at Gates A17; A21; A23 and A24 have faded to non-detectability resulting in aircraft being stopped at incorrect locations and then being pushed to accessible locations.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: INS / IRS / IRU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff Roll
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff roll at approximately 100 KTS; the First Officer lost airspeed indications. Numerous dings/ECAMs and autothrottles went off. Captain called to abort takeoff at approximately 125 KTS. Fire trucks called as precautionary. Brake temperatures reached 725 degrees. Taxied back to gate.


Second narrative: Previous crew refused aircraft. Aircraft had deferrals for ADRU 2 bad and other issues. Flew to current airport with no issues. On takeoff roll at estimate 100 KTS; First Officer lost airspeed indication and numerous dings and ECAMS.


Synopsis: An A320 First Officer's airspeed indication failed with numerous ECAM and aural alerts so the Captain rejected the takeoff and returned to the gate. The Aircraft previously had an ADRU 2 deferral.
Date: 201308
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Oil Filter
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight Crew reported the Oil Filter Bypass Light illuminated. The light would not go out at reduced thrust as per the QRH. They performed Number 1 engine shutdown and diverted to nearest suitable airport.




Synopsis: A B737NG flight crew shut down the left engine and diverted to the nearest suitable airport in response to an illuminated oil filter bypass light.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Second aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
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: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After being cleared for the visual; runway 36R approach into Charlotte; I continued to descend on final for the runway as normal. While continuing the approach; another aircraft was cleared for takeoff on runway 36R. Initially; it appeared as though we had ample spacing to continue our approach to land so we continued. However; the aircraft on the runway took longer than expected to lift off. After descending through 200 ft. AFE; my Captain and I vocalized our concerns about spacing. Before descending through 100 ft. AFE; we noticed the aircraft on the runway still had not lifted off so we executed a go-around. We came back around for another attempt and landed without incident.


Second narrative: Approaching 36R in visual conditions; I noticed an airplane was cleared for takeoff when we were on a relatively short final.  I told my student I didn't know if (the spacing) would work; and prepare for a go-around. As we descended below 200 ft. AFE; the airplane on the runway didn't appear to be very far down the runway and the nose was still on the ground; so we executed a normal go-around. We came back and landed quickly without incident.I don't recall if the takeoff clearance came at an unusual time; but I do remember thinking that the airplane on the runway was taxiing very slowly and was really slow initiating the takeoff roll. I believe it was an Airbus. I think we should try to emphasize spending as little time on an active runway as possible when cleared for takeoff.


Synopsis: CRJ700 flight crew reported going around due to prior departure still on runway.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff/Launch
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff roll a garlic/acrid smell was present and on climb out. The smell transitioned to a more faint odor quickly. The packs were extremely loud and [we] discussed that maybe one or the other was producing more pressure than the other. We cycled one pack off at a time simply for crew communication as both packs on was extremely loud. Notified maintenance on arrival and entered discrepancy in [aircraft logbook].Cause was not identified by us; only reported to maintenance.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported a fume event during takeoff roll and climbout. Flight crew overcame the equipment problem and reported the issue to maintenance upon destination arrival.
Date: 201504
Location: MMSD.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Charts for MMSD; especially VOR DME-2 16 and VOR DME-2 34; are misleading and could lead to altitude excursion.  MARUX is 47 DME from SJD.  It shows at the top of the Approach plate just above a notation for 25 DME which is the 003Y fix.  After two months of flying there; I have yet to see anyone realize that the chart indicates the 003 comes FROM MARUX to the 25 DME fix rather than MARUX being AT 25 DME.  There is an 8000 feet restriction between these two fixes and a descent to 6000 feet afterwards.  It is very easy to miss this and descend prematurely to 6000 feet.




Synopsis: A pilot reported the SJD VOR DME-2 for both Runways 16 and 34 appear to indicate MARUX intersection is located on SJD 003R at 25DME but in fact its location is 47DME.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [We] aborted takeoff between 40 and 50 KTS for a Bleed 2 Fail EICAS Message. First Officer called out the EICAS message; I aborted the takeoff and safely exited the runway. We pulled off onto the taxiway; ran the Aborted Takeoff Checklist; and then ran the Bleed 2 Fail Checklist. (I asked for the Bleed 2 Failure Checklist first but the First Officer politely asked if I wanted the aborted takeoff first: First Officer; thanks for the help) the message cleared and we prepared for takeoff again and upon resetting the aircraft for takeoff we got a Pack 1 Failure message. We ran the checklist; the message did not go away so we called Maintenance Control and after talking with them for several minutes the best course of action was to return to the gate and allow Maintenance to look at the aircraft. Upon inspection the mechanics decided the aircraft needed more work so we received an aircraft swap. Aborted takeoff; to be honest everything ran smoothly and like clock work. Thanks to the First Officer for catching my checklist call out; he pulled the Abort Takeoff Checklist as I set the parking brake and asked if I wanted to do it first before the Bleed 2 Failure Checklist. The night prior had been a very short overnight with an almost 2 hour delay at 5:00 am in the morning due to the Flight Attendant showing up late and the First Officer never showing up for the flight at all. The flight was a totally different crew than the morning flight.




Synopsis: The crew of a EMB-145 responded to a 'Bleed 2 Fail' EICAS message by aborting the takeoff between 40 and 50 KTS and exiting the runway. The Captain called for the 'Bleed 2 Fail' checklist; the First Officer offered that the 'Aborted TakeOff' checklist was perhaps sequentially preferable; and the checklists were accomplished in the appropriate order.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BIS.Airport, ND
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 5
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: M-20 K (231) / Encore
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D BIS
ATC / advisory: Tower BIS
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: First approach attempt was to Mandan (Y19). Reported weather was 300 ft ceiling with 2.5 Miles Visibility. I was established on the approach (RNAV 31) and shortly after the FAF; the approach downgraded to LNAV. The weather was below minimums for the LNAV; so I declared a missed approach and requested the RNAV 31 into BIS. After the IAF; approximately at the FAF; the approach downgraded to an LNAV approach. I was high on final and declared missed approach. By this time; I was lower on fuel than I expected and advised ATC of the situation. ATC advised they would provide ILS 13 to save time. The receiver did not provide accurate glide slope; but ATC advised altitudes at the fixes and landing was made without incident.After landing; two other pilots indicated they had experienced similar problems with RNAV approaches degrading at the same airports at approximately the same time frame. One pilot also reported he had been advised of difficulties with the localizer; but it may have been an incorrect configuration in the G530W on my part. I intend to practice more ILS approaches and also LNAV approaches. Overconfidence due to a [previous] near flawless approach may have led to being unprepared to fly the LNAV GPS approach to low minimums.




Synopsis: Mooney K pilot reported difficulty with RNAV approaches degrading to LNAV on approaches to Y19 and BIS.