elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HSV.Airport, AL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C HSV
ATC / advisory: Tower HSV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were setting up for a right base for runway 36L into HSV with the Captain being the pilot flying. It was just after dark; we had called the field in sight and began our descent to traffic pattern altitude; after being cleared for the visual approach. On the right base as we were descending the Captain asked me if I thought we were too low and I went to look at one of the approach charts into HSV. When I looked at the chart in relation to where we were I said that I thought we were fine. As soon as I said this we simultaneously were told by ATC that they were getting a low altitude alert for our flight and a GPWS warning to pull up. The Captain disengaged the autopilot and began to climb and I notified ATC that we were correcting our altitude. After correcting our altitude to a safe altitude we continued the approach to a safe landing.The event occurred because runway 35R was out of service and the ILS was out of service to runway 35L. We decided to set up for a visual and thought we were closer to the airport in relation to terrain than we thought. Therefore we descended to traffic pattern altitude too early.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 First Officer reported receiving a low attitude alert from ATC on a night visual approach to HSV.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: ORD Runway 22L; ATIS wind 180@4. First Officer takeoff. Shortly after takeoff power was set with N1's matched; airplane yawed abruptly left. FO attempted to correct with right rudder. Aircraft didn't seem to respond at first and then yawed abruptly to the right. Captain took control and rejected takeoff at about 75 kts. We were able to taxi back to the gate without any other control issues. To me it felt like brakes were being applied on one rudder pedal at a time. I debriefed the FO and asked if he might have been applying brakes while attempting to steer the aircraft during takeoff and he said absolutely not. He said his feet were low on the pedals.I was contacted by the FOQA Gate Keeper as the lateral yaw triggered a FOQA event. I explained to the Gate Keeper the facts of the event as stated above. I asked him to look at any technical data that he had available to see if there was any unusual brake applications during the takeoff roll. He said he could see none.Coincidently; after telling the story of my rejected takeoff to my current First Officer; He informed me that he has had the exact same thing happen to him on at least two separate occasions while departing runway 22L at ORD. His events occurred following aircraft landing on 28C and suggested that what we may have felt was wake turbulence from the landing aircraft. In my event; I don't recall if an aircraft had just landed on 28C but it might be worth looking into and passing on to ATC at ORD and other pilots.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported the flying FO had directional control difficulties that led to a rejected takeoff on Runway 22L at ORD; wake turbulence from landing traffic traffic on Runway 28C was cited as a possible factor.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LUF.TRACON, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZAB
ATC / advisory: TRACON LUF
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While on our flight to Scottsdale we were handed off to Luke AFB Approach north of the Phoenix area.  We were level at 6000 feet and approach called traffic at our 2 o'clock and 5500; a light aircraft I believe.  He then gave us a heading which put us directly toward the traffic.  I dialed in the heading; but my First Officer thought it odd enough; he questioned the controller why he was turning us directly toward the traffic.  The controller reiterated that he was talking to the aircraft and he was level at 5500 ft. Seconds later we got a TCAS traffic call followed but a RA climb; which we did.  We never saw the traffic; but we saw on the TCAS the aircraft had climbed to within 300 feet.  (It was hot and bumpy over the hills.)  We advised the controller of the RA.  Everything was routine up to this point; but when we reported the RA; the controller got upset at us for climbing and responding to a RA. (we climbed about 400 feet before returning to 6000).  He even questioned us why we were 'Using TCAS in a terminal area' and insisted the traffic was level at 5500.  I suspect this controller does not have a good understanding of how TCAS RA's work; and that we are required to respond.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of an airborne conflict that was pointed out by ATC. ATC turns the aircraft and the aircraft then receives an RA and climbs. ATC questions the pilot why they were using TCAS in a terminal environment and why they climbed.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: EICAS/EAD/ECAM
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While setting thrust at the beginning of the takeoff roll we received: L REV amber light; L ENG Fire Warning EICAS message; R engine TAI light green TAI (although we were not using engine anti-ice) and the ICE DET OFF message. The Captain took control of the aircraft and aborted the takeoff. After thrust levers were reduced to idle the messages went away. We taxied off the runway; shut down the left engine and had CFR inspect it for any signs of fire. After advised there were no signs of fire we taxied to parking with CFR accompanying us. Once parked; Maintenance came on board and we entered the items in the aircraft logbook. While Maintenance was on board the left engine read 50% N1 while shut down. After an idle run-up with no faults found; Maintenance suggested a high speed engine run-up; which was not possible due to the airport's night time curfew.


Second narrative: [No substantive additional information was provided in the secondary narrative.]


Synopsis: Upon receipt of multiple EICAS system warnings and messages early in the takeoff roll the flight crew of a B-767-300 rejected their takeoff and returned to their parking spot for maintenance.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Chancellor 414A / C414
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower LVK
Aircraft component: Engine Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While tracking the glideslope; it became clear the left engine MP (Manifold Pressure) was not changing with throttle movements. Rather than trying to deal with the problem while continuing the approach; I elected to cancel IFR; break off the approach; and circle north of the final approach course to take further action. I decided it would be safer to feather the engine and make a single engine landing than to attempt a landing with one engine producing partial power (~50%). We train for single engine landings; but we don't train for a stuck throttle.I [advised ATC] so ATC would clear any traffic and reduce the chance of a distraction and especially of having to go around on one engine. I rejoined the final approach course and landed without incident.I believe the problem was mechanical but I have not heard specifically what caused the engine to become unresponsive.The situation was greatly eased by being in VMC. I feel like I handled it pretty well and will handle it the same way if it happens again. However; in IMC it would have been much more challenging as the point at which the failure occurred was after radar service was terminated. I would have had to re-establish radar contact; negotiate re-sequencing for the approach; all while single engine and potentially in icing conditions. A suggestion is to incorporate similar kinds of real-life scenarios in training and recurrent curriculum.




Synopsis: C414 Captain reported left engine control problems that led to a single engine approach and landing.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon initial climb out; the crew detected a rushing of air sound in the cockpit and noticed an abnormal pressurization bump. After continuing the climb for several minutes; the temperature of the rushing air was getting very hot and we could visibly see a smoke starting to develop and smelled like a burning odor. At this point; the pilot flying elected to level off and instructed the pilot monitoring to declare an emergency with the Tracon.An emergency was declared and we requested to return to the airport for landing. Due to our fuel load; we had to make an overweight landing; 727 pounds ACGW. After touchdown; Crash/Fire/Rescue followed our aircraft in to the ramp as a precaution. After parking; we informed the fire and rescue crew that we were all clear and did not require any further assistance from them.As a precautionary measure; the fire crew did a visual inspection of the aircraft to verify that there was indeed no fire aboard the aircraft. The flight crew elected to not drop oxygen masks for passengers or use crew oxygen masks as the smoke never accumulated enough to require the use of emergency oxygen. There is nothing that could have prevented this maintenance related emergency.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: A BAE-125 air crew declared an emergency and returned to their departure airport after experiencing abnormal pressurization bump.  Additional symptoms included a rushing air sound which was increasing in temperature and beginning to give off a burning odor.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp DFW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Just wanted to give you a heads up that someone is going to ding a wing tip in DFW. After pushback for the morning departures; it is very dark as you begin to taxi out to Spot 53 before contacting Ground. There is an air carrier aircraft parked at an Auxiliary Pad Spot. It is my belief if you were to stay on the ramp centerline going to Spot 53 you would hit wingtips. If you don't hit it; it is too close for my comfort. It appears to be in a marked spot but for ramp operations; I think it is way too close.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Captain reported that an aircraft parked near DFW Taxi Spot 53 poses a wingtip collision hazard for aircraft taxiing out on the ramp taxiway centerline.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Human-Machine Interface; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Upon landing my IPad jepp FD Pro defaults to the AMM (Aircraft Moving Map) taxi chart. It appears on rollout and pops up too small and taxiway markings are not readable and not even portrayed until you blow up the map. So if I am on a rollout and get a clearance to clear at a certain taxiway; I might not be able to find it especially at night in the rain. Most of the time I do not have a free hand to let go of the tiller and throttles and reach over to blow the chart up so that I could see it. I have tried turning it off to no avail. It is set as a default and will not change. I am finding this to be a dangerous distraction on the landing roll and runway exit.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported iPad Jeppesen FD Pro taxi chart defaults to small scale; difficult to read; moving map on landing resulting in a dangerous situation.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach the aircraft was slowed to 140 knots and the gear lever was put in the down position to prepare for the landing phase of the flight. Within seconds; the pilot observed neither the in-transit nor the gear down lights were lit and the gear breaker had been blown. The autopilot was engaged for a straight and level flight at a safe altitude and an attempt was made to reset the breaker which immediately popped again. At which point; the pilot reviewed and performed the emergency procedures as prescribed in the POH for manual gear extension. After approximately one hour of in flight attempts to manually extend the gear; the pilot made the decision to land the plane in a gear up configuration on the grass runway.




Synopsis: BE36 pilot reported being unable to lower the landing gear using either the normal or manual gear extension procedures. They elected to land gear up on a grass runway.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: At cruise; we got a message 'GPS position lost'. I checked the GPS position on the FMS; which confirmed GPS position lost indication. The flight release was planed for Runway 04; which has an RNAV GPS Approach; but there was no RAIM report annotated on the release. We updated WX (weather) which favored Runway 22; so we did not need to shoot the 04 RNAV Approach; so we set up for ILS 22 Approach. I sent [Operations] an ops report of the GPS loss. Thereafter; we received a [Operations] report that the White Sands restricted area was disrupting the GPS signal; so we knew then that it was not an aircraft GPS fault. I wrote up the fault annotating all listed. Due to quick changing WX; we did a missed approach to 22 (tail wind out of limits) and shifted to Runway 04. Since we had no GPS signal; we shot the Visual to 04 with the VOR as a backup utilizing FPV and PAPI's for vertical guidance to the runway. White Sands NM restricted area doing GPS jamming testing. ELP is somewhat of an isolated airport with frequent high density altitudes due to temps; and high winds. In addition; the airport has two runways and two ILS approaches; a VOR; and a couple RNAV (RNP and GPS) approaches; of which runway 04 is supported by a VOR and RNAV approaches. The test jamming performed at White Sands directly affects the available vertical guidance approaches to Runway 04; which has a high CFIT [threat] due to the climbing terrain in the local area. As a result of last minute wind increase; we were forced to Runway 04 with a pre-dawn landing with no access to the RNAV approach with vertical guidance. We set up the VOR; as a backup for the visual; utilizing FPV and the PAPI for a landing on 04. I failed to discuss the RAIM check for a possible 04 Approach; so it was never provided on release. I did coordinate for an alternate due to all mentioned; and the Dispatcher gave us ABQ. Such airports should always have a RAIM check done and annotated on the release for an early review by the crew therefore facilitate early planning for available runways in quick changing WX events.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported loss of GPS signal apparently due to jamming from White Sands.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: While pulling into ZZZ Gate XX; we observed Company Ramp vehicles (baggage carts being towed; tugs; etc.) driving at excessive speeds as they drove through the 'under the terminal tunnel' road; then in front of our jet; past our jet; and onto their various destinations.  I realize that we need to keep the operation moving. However; whenever a vehicle passes at high speed near or through a 'Safety zone' where Ramp Agents; Pilots; Maintenance Technicians; and Fuelers are preflighting; loading; fueling; working; walking; or standing; that high speed vehicle presents a potential hazard to the pedestrian. It becomes even more hazardous at night when the high speed vehicles passes in close proximity to a stationary vehicle; baggage loader; fueling station; etc. where an unsuspecting pedestrian (not expecting to merge with a passing vehicle) may inadvertently walk out in front of the unseen high speed vehicle.  With hearing protection; the pedestrian may not even hear the vehicle coming.1. I recommend that the Ramp vehicles slow down whenever they pass in or near the Safety zone where pedestrians are likely doing their jobs.2. Since the road passes directly under the terminal and exits onto the ramp directly in front of ZZZ Gate XX; there is no way for the vehicles to avoid the high-density pedestrian area in and around ZZZ Gate XX.  Placing a speed bump in the road and placing a 'slow down; watch for pedestrian' sign may assist in preventing a collision between a motor vehicle and a person.  3. Ramp Agents wearing reflective tape vests will assist in making them more visible at night.4. Make sure lights on the vehicle are operational and turned on.  5. Drivers need to keep their scan going for pedestrians; other vehicles; and obstacles.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported high speed ramp vehicles in and around congested gates.