elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Operator: Air Taxi
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The temperature was a cold -20 degrees F in the morning at [my departure airport; and] the plane frosted up as soon as it left the hangar. Due to a faulty de-ice machine; as well as the need for an External Power Unit engine start; the departure was delayed by over two hours. When taking off; I brought the landing gear handle into the UP position. All indications were normal; except that the green Nose Gear Down and Locked light remained illuminated. I waited a little bit to see if it would extinguish all by itself; climbing to a safe cruising altitude. As there was no change while at cruising altitude; I proceeded to consult the appropriate abnormal procedure checklist in the Quick Reference Handbook. After reviewing the checklist items and notes; I assessed the situation-first; I came to the conclusion that the position of the nose gear was unknown due to the abnormal indication. Secondly; judging by the sound of the airflow around the aircraft; and the feel of the gear rising when I initiated the gear retraction; as well as factoring in the VMC (neg. ice) weather and plenty of fuel reserves; I made the decision to continue to my destination airport. So when I got much closer to [destination]; in order that I would be certain that the landing gear was in fact down before arriving; I declared an emergency as a precaution and ran the appropriate checklist. Following the checklist instructions; I blew the gear down using the Emergency Nitrogen Bottle; and landed uneventfully.




Synopsis: Cessna 402 pilot reported continuing to destination after experiencing a nose gear anomaly following a cold weather takeoff. Pilot used the emergency nitrogen bottle for gear deployment at destination.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cardinal 177/177RG
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Dual departure from Runway XXL and XXR; PA-28 was below and behind us. [It] was cleared to make a northwestern turn out; causing us to cross their flight path on takeoff. Was given traffic advisory for another aircraft that was not a factor for us; and we didn't see the PA-28 until it maneuvered to avoid us.




Synopsis: GA flight instructor reported a near mid-air collision with an aircraft departing the parallel runway.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Light: Night
Aircraft: Embraer Phenom 300
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: Tower TEB
Second aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; 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
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Approach (MUGZY/N90) brought two aircraft onto the ILS for Runway 19 at TEB.  Aircraft X (Phenom 300) was number 1 and Aircraft Y (G-V) was number 2.  At the time of their transfer to my position (local control) the aircraft were less than 3 miles apart (2.5; estimated) and Aircraft Y at the time did not have Aircraft X in sight when asked.  Aircraft X was cleared to land; and I considered sending Aircraft Y around as there was loss of separation before I could apply tower visual.  Before I could call approach for instructions on how to take Aircraft Y off the approach; Aircraft Y reported Aircraft X in sight and I cleared Aircraft Y to land.  At this time I had both aircraft in sight from the tower and deemed there was sufficient distance between them to allow safe landing.  Both aircraft landed without incident.  Approach needs to better sequence arriving aircraft; especially with the new wake turbulence recategorization that TEB and N90 are participating in.




Synopsis: A Local Controller at TEB reports a loss of separation given to him at Local; he then tries to use visual separation but cannot. Finally sees both aircraft and lets the second aircraft land instead of sending it around.
Date: 201909
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: Parked
Aircraft component: Emergency Equipment
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: All [Company] policies and procedures were followed correctly. Before boarding began; after the cabin lights were on the bright setting well over an hour; I turned [the] cabin lights off to evaluate the photo strips. They were not sufficiently bright enough to aid in the event of an evacuation especially if smoke or fire were involved. This is an ongoing problem with many; though not all; of our airplanes and has not been adequately addressed.




Synopsis: B737NG Flight Attendant reported the photo strips for emergency evacuation are not bright enough with the cabin lighting off.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial 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)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Arriving from the north; right base Visual Approach to Runway 31R; were cleared direct to Final Approach Fix; Visual Approach. MCP set to 2200 feet for FAF; autopilot engaged; LNAV engaged; speed 170 knots. Aircraft overshot on runway intercept to between runways and then started correction back to centerline. I was PF and set MCP to zero to keep coming down on GS. Tower saw overshoot and cleared us to land Runway 31L. Lefht correction to line up 31L and got a GPWS call. Tower made an altitude call. Leveled off and re-intercepted GS visual 31L. Normal landing and rollout.


Second narrative: Zeros were set on the MCP; so without joining a course and glideslope; the aircraft kept descending to altitude unknown. ATC saw the overshoot and cleared us to land on 31L. About that same time we got a Caution Too Low Obstacle warning and ATC came on the radio saying they had altitude warning for us because of obstacle clearance altitude. We could see all obstacles because of daylight VMC conditions and promptly corrected altitude and landed Runway 31L without further incident.


Synopsis: A B737-700 was cleared for a visual approach with LNAV engaged to the FAF but after overshooting; zero was set in the MCP Altitude Alert. ATC called low altitude while the EGPWS alerted Caution Too Low Obstacle.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: VRB.Tower, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D VRB
ATC / advisory: Tower VRB
Second aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot; Ramp
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Tower asked if we had a King Air in sight on approach to Runway 4. Apparently tower thought that the King Air was in front of us. We were asked to do a 360 for spacing and then a second 360 for spacing. On completion of the second 360 we noted the King Air passed just underneath us. Apparently tower had confused our two aircraft on radar. The King Air pilot said nothing though he must have noticed our aircraft in front and just above the King Air. Tower apologized for the error which might well have been fatal to both aircraft. I can understand the first confusion but we should have been properly identified once we completed the first 360. At no time did the tower warn the aircraft as they converged. I am in the process of equipping my aircraft with ABS-B.




Synopsis: The pilot of a small experimental aircraft reported a near-mid-air-collision with a King Air on approach to Vero Beach Airport; reportedly due to aircraft misidentification from ATC.
Date: 202111
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B787-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Jet bridge Operations
Aircraft component: Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Gate Agent / CSR
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was meeting Aircraft X; ZZZ to ZZZ1; a 787-8; at gate XX.   Operation of the jet bridge was normal; but when I went to do the safety check - knock on the door - I  noticed the window was blacked out.  I could not see the indicator light.  I knocked several times; and while doing so I contacted Zone 1; by phone; but no answer.  I finally reached Zone 2 and spoke to the Supervisor.   Finally; a Flight Attendant shown a flashlight into the window giving me the indication that I could open the door.   After opening the door; the Flight Attendant  informed me that all the door windows were blacked out.  The window remained dark; and towards the end of the deplaning; the window finally turned to a lighter color.  The Flight Attendant was the hero; using her flashlight to communicate with me that the door was safe to open.   I did ask the Purser about the situation and she said that the windows were in the landing mode and they were not in the nighttime mode.  I reported the situation to Supervisor and to Ops.




Synopsis: Gate Agent reported B787 door window remained dark; requiring the Flight Attendant to use a flashlight to improve visibility and allow the passenger door to be opened.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CEC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; 0
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While enroute to CEC along V27 at 11000 MSL; the engine began to run rough.  The flight was in solid IMC and there was intermittent icy precipitation. Various combinations of carburetor heat and mixture provided only temporary relief; and as time progressed the roughness worsened.  Suspected cause was ice buildup in the engine intake.  Pilot requested a descent and was granted permission to descend to 7000 (MEA was 6400). Engine began to run more smoothly; but the need was apparent to descend to warmer conditions as soon as possible to allow suspected intake ice to melt.Shortly thereafter; ATC cleared the aircraft for the CEC RNAV (GPS) RWY 11 approach.  The WIPOG feeder route for the IAF shows 4000 MSL; but the descent was started immediately instead of waiting for WIPOG. ATC noticed the early descent and issued a terrain warning with instructions to immediately climb to 6400. Contributing factors were (1) Flight in near icing conditions; (2) Poorly designed engine intake; (3) Fear of worsening engine problems; (4) Lack of experience in the IFR system (pilot's first IMC flight after adding the instrument rating).




Synopsis: C172 pilot experiences a rough running engine at 11;000 feet; which is believed to be caused by intake icing. A descent to 7;000 feet is requested and granted which lead to improved power but still rough. A clearance is issued for the RNAV RWY 11 Approach at CEC; but descent is initiated prior to WIPOG resulting in ATC issuing a terrain warning. The reporter is able to climb back to 6;400 feet until WIPOG and complete the approach.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: GGG.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D GGG
ATC / advisory: Tower GGG
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was doing an ODO [Opposite Direction Operation] ILS13 while Aircraft Y was on the RNAV 31; the cutoff point it was not met by about 0.5 miles for Aircraft X.Make the ODO cutoff points closer to the airport because these two aircraft were never closer than 12 miles to each other.

Callback: Controller was contacted and described what happened as the report states.  A procedural error due to one of the aircraft being less than 10 miles away from each other.



Synopsis: GGG Tower Controller reports of having a procedural error due to an opposite direction arrival being less than 10 miles from the airport; [9.5] while another aircraft was approaching the other runway. Aircraft were never closer than 12 miles from each other according to the reporter.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commander 200
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 Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On downwind; lowered gear and saw transition light; then green lights; indicating that the gear was down and locked.  On base; rechecked and saw three greens under high glare in the cockpit.  Glare may have been an contributing factor.  All observed indications during the approach to landing indicated that the gear was down and locked. On landing; after settling on mains; as nose settled; it stopped for a moment; as though on the nose gear; but then started sinking again; until the propeller made contact with the runway; then settled again onto the nose bowl and nose gear doors.  The plane slid on runway for some distance; veering slightly to the right.  Tail was pulled down; and nose gear pulled out of gear well; prior to using the tow bar to move to taxiway; awaiting a tow back to the hangar.  The plane was towed back to the hangar without further incident.




Synopsis: Aero Commander 200 pilot reported a nose gear collapse on landing causing the propeller to contact the runway.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: NYL.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
ATC / advisory: TRACON YUM
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Airport; Equipment / Tooling; Procedure
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: Crew of Aircraft X filed to NYL. During pre-flight crew of Aircraft X researched NOTAMs and called a briefer who also confirmed NOTAMs with crew of Aircraft X. When Aircraft X was switched to Yuma approach the crew requested the GPS approach for runway 3L into NYL. Aircraft X was given said approach; and was told to switch to unicom frequency for Yuma due to the tower being closed. Aircraft X followed the glide slope on the LNAV approach and landed around the 1000 foot markings on runway 3L. After landing the crew of Aircraft X was going to taxi to FBO via runway 3L; runway 35; then taxiway Z. While taxiing on runway 3L Aircraft X had to hold short of an arresting cable stretched across runway 3L. The crew of Aircraft X decided to back taxi on runway 3L and found an alternate taxi to fbo with the help of Yuma approach. After shut down at fbo the crew of Aircraft X called a briefer to find out if there was a NOTAM out that was missed regarding the arresting cable. The briefer said he was unable to find one and that the national NOTAM service was inoperative for the day. The crew of Aircraft X was also unable to contact the airport manager because the manager's office was closed due to the long weekend. No damage to the aircraft and no injury to crew were sustained as the aircraft never came in contact with the cable. During the alternate taxi to fbo the crew of Aircraft X noticed other arresting cables at the other runways; but none of the others were extended. If the tower is closed and a NOTAM is not able to be put into the NOTAM system; maybe have the approach controller advise the pilot of a cable on the runway prior to clearing the aircraft for an approach into said runway.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of landing at a military airport and seeing arresting gear on the runway.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Compass (HSI/ETC)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise flight at 31;000 FT we experienced a heading failure on the left PFD. We noted the issue and called for the appropriate checklist. Upon running the checklist we corrected the fault by using the revisionary mode as directed. I placed a call to the manager on duty to inform him of this issue.  Less than 5 minutes after we encountered the first failure; we now had a failure of the right PFD heading information that was being used as primary navigation. At this time we notified ATC of the issue and advised them we would need initial heading information for our route. ATC provided us this information.  We then selected the dual heading failure checklist and ran to completion. I then placed a call to my Dispatcher requesting weather information at airports in front of me that we could get into visually. We selected ZZZ as this was clear. At that point we regained our heading information back and elected to continue to destination in visual conditions and completed a visual approach.




Synopsis: CE560 Captain experiences a dual heading system failure at FL310 with single failures occurring five minutes apart; and elects to divert. Heading information is regained before the divert can be initiated and the flight continues to destination.