elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Q400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After 'positive rate' and 'gear up' calls; I went to select the gear handle up. I didn't get the handle up completely and smoothly; the handle did go up with a pause. The red gear unsafe lights remained illuminated for approximately 15-20 seconds. The red main gear unsafe lights extinguished; however the red nose gear unsafe remained illuminated and the amber nose gear door light illuminated. The landing gear knob also remained illuminated. We accomplished the 'Red LEFT/NOSE/RIGHT Gear Light(s) Remains Illuminated and/or Gear Handle Light Illuminated' checklist. We leveled off at 15;000 FT; while also keeping airspeed under 185 KTS. The Captain conferred with Dispatch and Maintenance Control; and we made the decision to return. We accomplished the 'Alternate Gear Extension Checklist;' while also taking vectors in order to burn fuel to prevent an overweight landing. We landed uneventfully. The Captain was able to taxi off the runway; and we were towed to the gate.  At the gate Maintenance Personnel discovered damage to the nose gear doors. Failure to grab good hold of Landing Gear Control Lever.




Synopsis: Q400 First Officer reports an unsafe nose gear indication after not getting the gear lever completely up on the first try. The alternate gear extension procedure is used to lower the gear and an uneventful landing ensues at the departure airport.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was cruising at 5;000 MSL on an IFR flight plan from ZZZ-ZZZ1 via MFD. While in cruise; ATC advised of traffic at my 11 o'clock; altitude indicating 5;400 but not in contact with ATC. I immediately began scanning for traffic. Controller came on again and advised that his radar was showing that we would converge. When I identified the traffic; I immediately requested deviations due to the closeness of the other aircraft. I was given approval and I disengaged the autopilot and descended down to 4;600-4;700 MSL. The aircraft in question; identified as Aircraft Y on my traffic map; appeared to be cruising at roughly 5;000-5;100 [feet]; but was VFR according to the controller.




Synopsis: Cirrus SR20 pilot reported receiving a traffic advisory from ATC; locating traffic and descending approximately 400 feet to the avoid conflicting traffic.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System Lines; Connectors; Fittings
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight started standard and uneventful. Shortly upon crossing ZZZZZ intersection; crew received an EICAS 'R HYD QTY'. Crew called for and performed the R HYD QTY QRH checklist. Upon completion; Dispatch was notified. Crew called the second Captain and Maintenance staff to the flight deck to review the conditions. Situation was discussed; SATCAL made to organize a plan of action. Crew ultimately made the decision to divert to planned alternate; ZZZZ. Crew contacted ATC and began diversion. Maintenance Control advised crew to complete R HYD SYS PRES QRH Checklist as a precaution and to preserve right hydraulic system components. Subsequently aircraft advised of new EICAS BRAKE SOURCE light. Crew completed associated QRH checklist. Company requested crew readjust and divert to ZZZZ1. Crew adjusted and continued to new destination. Landing was completed without any additional issues or complications. ZZZZ1 emergency staff and equipment inspected runway after landing with nothing to note. Crew reviewed aircraft condition; and taxied to assigned parking gate. Aircraft inspected after passengers disembarked and discovered a fluid leak under the mid left wing section.




Synopsis: B767 First Officer reported that a loss of hydraulic pressure resulted in a diversion.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; In-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon entering the jet bridge the F/As (Flight Attendants) and I noticed a strong 'dirty sock' odor approximately 30 ft from entering the main cabin door and upon entering the aircraft the odor was very intense. I immediately turned off the APU bleed that was on as I entered the aircraft. The FAs opened both rear exit doors to help with ventilation. I notified Maintenance Control and the APU was deferred before departure. Rain was occurring during the event. A pack burnout was not performed prior to our departure. We departed with the odor no longer present until we started our descent at approximately 12;000 ft with rain showers along the approach. I turned off Pack 1 with no change to the odor in the cockpit and then Pack 2 with the odor still present in the cabin. [Medical assistance] was called for the crew members at that time who were not feeling well. It included myself; the first officer and a flight attendant. After consultations we were removed from working the return flight and were on passenger only status. While waiting for hotel accommodations; my flight attendant fainted and the paramedics were called and she was taken to the emergency room for the evening for medical care. The return flight was canceled.Perform a pack burnout before returning the aircraft to service. Are we tracking when these incidents occur most often? Is it occurring in the first flight of the day or on the third or fourth leg of the day for that aircraft? Also what are the weather conditions when these happen; such as higher humidity levels or rain present? Appears just immediately deferring the APU is not solving these issues when I talked to other pilots that have had these issues.


Second narrative: Maintenance only action was [deferred maintenance] of APU. No venting of pack was performed. Odor on approach was stronger than before.


Synopsis: A319 Flight Crew reported a strong 'dirty sock' odor in the cabin before and during flight which resulted in hospitalization of a Flight Attendant.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: HCF.TRACON, HI
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B HNL
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure; Training / Qualification; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Trainee; Approach
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Weather was IFR at the airport. A pop up IFR aircraft who was hard to understand and follow was asking for an approach into the airport because of the weather. Aircraft X departed on an 185 heading climbing to 6;000 feet. He was issued climbing instructions to 16;000 feet and a 360 heading. Normally; he would have turned quicker but I believe because of weather the pilot turned slower. A 330 heading was issued to turn him sharper and I advised the pilot to increase rate of climb for minimum altitudes. He complied. The aircraft entered the 11;000 foot minimum IFR altitud (MIA) just above 10;000 feet. There were no issues after climbing above the MIA. With the weather in the area I should have taken into account possible abnormal aircraft characteristics. Next time I will keep in mind the factors that may hinder an aircraft to turn or climb/descend at a slower rate.


Second narrative: I was training on two sectors combined. Weather was bad and the field was IFR. A VFR aircraft to the south of the field picked up IFR because he couldn't land otherwise. Tower called for a departure; but the IFR pick up was still in the way at 4;000 feet. Once they were clear; I released the departure on an 185 heading instead of on the SID.  Aircraft X departed; and I climbed them to 16000 feet. When they were out of 6800 feet; I turned them left heading 360. There were about 5 miles of space to the left; before the aircraft entered a higher Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA). I turned the plane further left to a heading of 330; but it didn't help. They ended up heading east for about 7 miles; and into an 11;000 foot MVA at 10000. My instructor stepped in and told the aircraft to expedite their climb for terrain. I should've let the aircraft climb higher prior to allowing the turn. Or; I should have let them know that I needed a tight turn.


Synopsis: A Departure Controller Instructor and the developmental reported an aircraft turned slower than normal and flew below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: RCTP.Airport, FO
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While scanning [one of my flights]; I observed that the Weight & Balance exceeded the released payload by 237 lbs and the reported fuel was over by 200 lbs. The payload was capped on this leg due to the planned LGW. LGW was planned at 480534; less than 1000 lbs below max. The Ramp printed the Weight & Balance without contacting Dispatch as required. The Weight & Balance system prompts the Ramp Agent to contact Dispatch and acknowledge in the system that the action was performed before it will allow a calculation that exceeds a capped payload. A positive response is required by the preparing Ramp Agent to proceed. I detected that the Weight & Balance preliminary report was printed to the aircraft and that it exceed the allowed payload. When I detected the excess payload; I contacted the ramp to discuss the issue. I talked with a person who said they were not the ramp agent but was preparing the W&B. No name was given. I was concerned about exceeding the MLGW. The LGW was showing 480935 lbs. and the MLGW was 481500 lbs. At push; aircraft reported FOB 72400 lbs; 400 more than planned making the LGW 481122; 378 lbs from MLGW.This is a worldwide problem but especially prevalent throughout the Far East. I think there needs emphasis placed on the necessity to contact Dispatch immediately when prompted by the Weight & Balance system to do so.   I suggest that payload capping be eliminated in our system for uniformity and to lessen the possibility of misunderstandings between ramp agents and dispatchers. This would require the Ramps to contact Dispatch anytime it is necessary to exceed the release payload thus putting all parties in the loop and affording the possibility of an overweight problem and possible delay while freight is off-loaded or worse; an aircraft actually departs that exceeds a limitation.  It may be necessary to conduct additional training with the ramps to reinforce the procedures; how the failure to notify Dispatch is a violation of the Ramp operations; that is essentially a falsification of records and the importance of adhering to process to maintain safety of flight  within the system.




Synopsis: Dispatcher laments load planners at some foreign airports; not contacting the Dispatcher when the actual load exceeds the planned load. This leads to the possibility of exceeding maximum takeoff or landing weights.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While doing complete stop landings for night currency; and on last landing at touchdown; I hit a coyote with the right main gear and the gear broke off about 17' up from the wheel/brake assembly just under the passenger step used to enter the aircraft. Kept the aircraft under control and down the runway on nose wheel and left main wheel until airspeed started to bleed off. Then turned it between runway lights onto a grass area and it came on down onto the broken off stub. Pulled power to idle/mixture cutoff and prop to 90 degree horizontal so as not to strike the prop. Aircraft went straight until broken strut caught in higher grass and turned the aircraft 90 degrees to the runway behind the runway lights. Did a runway walk and found the dead coyote just right of the center line about 1;000 FT from approach end of Runway 29. The broken off wheel assembly with the broken portion of the strut attached was about 40 FT off the right side of the runway about 200 FT from where the coyote was struck. Cleared the runway and called for help to remove the aircraft. Local fire department came over along with 2 individuals from the flying club. Used the inflatable air pillows from the fire department to lift the aircraft to the point where we could slide a 4 wheel dolly under the broken strut and tied it onto the dolly. Pushed the aircraft back onto the runway and used a tug to pull it back to the hanger. No damage to the runway or lighting system. The only damage to the aircraft was the broken off right passenger main gear just below the step. Wing tip was not struck; prop was not struck and tail assembly was not bent. Called the FSDO the next day and they sent over a Mr. X who looked at the aircraft. At this point had decided to call it an 'incident'. Does NOT fit the criteria for a NTSB Form 6120.1 'Substantial Damage' required report.




Synopsis: C172 pilot performing night landings reports hitting a coyote at touchdown causing the right gear to break off and the aircraft to depart the runway.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: 2R9.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While on a circling approach to RWY 16 at 2R9 (Karnes County Airport); tall (approximately 50 foot high) billboards approximately 200' from the approach threshold of RWY deflected a 23K left quartering headwind upward at high velocity; causing 15K drop in indicated airspeed on short final.  The pilot and his IFR instructor decided to execute a go around.  Go around safely executed.  The placement of these billboards is hazardous to air navigation.  I am especially concerned about night or actual IMC landings here due to their location.

Callback: The reporter reviewed the commercial satellite imagery and agreed that his original estimate of their distance from the threshold was inaccurate.  They range in distance from about 800 feet for the southeast most of the four to about 1600 feet for the furthest.  Reporter advised they are each built atop a singular pole thus allowing the winds to swirl about them; the end result of the disturbance thus being highly irregular and; for practical purposes; unpredictable for the lay pilot.  He enhanced his original description of their encounter by adding that; in addition to the significant loss of airspeed; the aircraft also ballooned approximately 100 feet which further compromised the odds of a successful landing on the short runway.



Synopsis: An SR20 pilot experienced a sudden airspeed drop on short final to runway 16 at 2R9; attributing the loss to 23K quartering headwinds being deflected by four 50' tall billboards on short final to the runway.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: TRACON M03
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Initially assigned MASHH1; due to weather; clearance changed to TAMMY 4 due to our route bringing us in from the southwest to avoid weather (ZME ARTCC requested routing). Pulled up ATIS and MEM had been consistently landing south; 18L/R from the time we departed. ATC cleared us for the TAMMY 4 arrival; and I thought it was for landing on the 18's (south arrivals); but in retrospect; I believe the Controller stated 'TAMMY 4 landing north'. The fact that the [arrival] course turns to the north; coupled with expectation bias; led all of us in the airplane to hear what we wanted to hear; which was the expected arrival to land on the [Runway] 18s. Approaching TAMMY Intersection; ATC inquired if we could be able to make the ROCAB restriction. As we had loaded the South arrivals; we did not have ROCAB; and it took a few moments to sort out what he meant. We inquired directly; and the Controller restated. We then informed him that MEM was landing south; and the Controller then took a moment and said 'oh; you are correct; I did not realize they had turned the airport around'. As near as I can tell; they had been landing south for at least 2 hours by that point. I do not think we missed any clearance; as he quickly revised us to the landing south arrival. The phraseology of the clearances is not ideal. The use of 'landing south' or 'landing north' can be easily taken to mean what you want to hear as the turn for landing south is to the North and vice versa; so the type of issue we had could happen again. Suggest to change it to the runway NUMBERS; as there would be no doubt as to which arrival would be used.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reports being cleared for the TAMMY 4 arrival to MEM landing north. This clearance is misinterpreted to mean to use the north transition to land on Runway 18 L or R. In the end the Controller was in error but the misinterpretation by the reporter allowed it to go undetected until the course divergence at TAMMY.