elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Seaplane or Amphibian
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Sea
Human factors: Distraction; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While the event does not meet the accident/incident reporting requirements of NTSB; this report may be of some value to other pilots.Aventura amphibious (flying boat) 2-seat single engine piston EAB in pusher prop configuration; with electric repositionable landing gear.After water-landing in a local pond; I returned to the airport area. Upon announcing on CTAF my plan to enter the downwind another pilot offered to extend his takeoff leg prior to entering a crosswind and downwind. I (unnecessarily) expedited my pattern to minimize inconvenience to the other pilot; and in the process failed to lower my landing gear (resulting in far more inconvenience). My aircraft's fiberglass hull skidded across the runway surface; leaving a line of white dust. This incident was a direct result of my failure to use the landing checklist; a checklist that is committed to memory and also printed on my panel! After coming to a stop and realizing what had happened; I notified pilots in the air via CTAF to not land on this runway and asked the FBO for assistance. I exited the aircraft to assess damage to the aircraft and to determine how to best to exit the runway.Damage to the aircraft was minimal and the aircraft is in a condition for safe flight. I was asked not to move the aircraft until given the go-ahead from the FSDO. During the approximately 30-45 minute wait; I walked the runway to verify that there was no damage to the runway surface and to verify that the incident had not deposited any FOD. FBO staff did the same.Upon receiving permission to exit the runway; two people lifted one side of the aircraft by pushing up on a wing strut while I manually locked a main gear leg into place. We did the same on the other side. I then started the engine and taxied off the runway. This process took approximately two minutes.I am still relatively new to having to worry about landing gear position (being used to fixed gear) and apparently my brain was working on autopilot and perhaps also distracted by trying to expedite my landing. The embarrassment and repair effort will ensure that I use the checklist in the future.




Synopsis: Aventura AVII pilot reported forgetting to use the landing checklist to prevent the gear up landing.
Date: 201306
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Beech F90
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working 2 sectors combined with 3 different frequencies. We just started using a temporary Tower nearby due to the fire fighting aircraft which makes operations a little bit more difficult due to the coordination required. It felt busy due to all the aircraft stepping on each other. A King Air F90 was descending and I assigned him 160. He requested lower and I assigned him 140 in a 150 MIA. It never flashed with terrain but once I realized the mistake I made I asked him if he had good visual with the terrain which he replied yes to. Then I told him to stop his descent and that I would have lower for him in one minute.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller; distracted by other than normal duties; issued an altitude below MVA requirement; correcting same quickly.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [I] noticed [a] strange odor on takeoff roll. Flight Attendants called passing about 7000 ft. Determined odor not dissipating; so [flight] returned to ZZZ.Cause - poor aircraft design.Suggestion - fix problem with contaminated air entering cabin/cockpit.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported being notified by flight attendants during departure climb of a persistent odor. Flight crew determined odor was not dissipating and elected to execute a safe air return.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CMA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 4
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 340/340A
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D CMA
ATC / advisory: Tower CMA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on approach into CMA after being pulled off prior for aircraft sequencing. While on the RNAV 26Z approach I broke out at 1;500 FT into VMC conditions. I then set the airplane up for VFR visual approach full flaps and gear down. Concurrently; I called the Tower to advise IFR cancellation and I would land VFR. After some stepping on and radio issues; at 700 FT and just over a mile out in VFR conditions the Tower insisted I go missed. A 'Special VFR' aircraft did not make it out and was coming back. I called out visual contact with the aircraft and that I would be landing VFR. The Tower continually insisted I do a missed approach which I deemed unsafe due to my aircraft set up now for a VFR landing as well as my proximity to the ground. The question/problem I have is; why would the Controller issue a special VFR clearance with multiple IFR aircraft in queue and I am cleared for approach. Isn't the airspace supposed to be 'cleared' for me? Fortunately; I broke out VFR and cancelled while having the other aircraft in sight. The call to go missed would have never occurred if the Tower hadn't issued a prior SVFR clearance to another aircraft.




Synopsis: General Aviation IFR inbound to CMA was issued a missed approach when SVFR traffic was unable to exit Class D; the reporter questioned ATC's handling of the event.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Fatigue; Other / Unknown; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I became aware by aircraft mechanics that another mechanic in the line; had to rework the crew oxygen bottle. After reading the documentation; I remembered that I did not complete my operations check tasks. This was due to a distraction by my work partner that needed immediate help with another task in the cabin (Lavatories). I know for sure this [was] a contributing factor of me not completing the task outlined and required per the maintenance manual. I was new doing this task and also having many stresses from possible layoffs.Complete task prior to engaging in another task. Pay more attention in the future. A confirmation check by another mechanic would be adequate for this task.




Synopsis: Aircraft mechanic reported not completing an operations check due to distractions from other tasks.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: AVL.Tower, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C AVL
ATC / advisory: Tower AVL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Other Unwanted situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: We were assigned the visual approach to Runway 34 into AVL. As per our POH we briefed the ILS to 34 and had the localizer frequency selected for the ILS 34. If you follow the glideslope to Runway 34 the VASI shows all white. It can be confusing coming in to land with the VASI showing such a huge discrepancy. I believe (just by looking visually) that the glideslope is way too high. I would say that the glideslope touchdown crossing height would be around 150-200 FT. It is my understanding that my takeoff landing report is predicated at having a touchdown crossing altitude of 50 FT and touching down in the touch down zone.Up until the last few months the glideslope and VASI have always coincided. I believe that the VASI is the correct approach path. However the glideslope has you landing long.I questioned the Tower about the glideslope and VASI not coinciding. The Tower said they have had numerous complaints over the last 6 months; however the FAA says that it is normal.The FAA needs to check the ILS to 34 and correct the problem. The approach plate for ILS 34 should at least say that the VASI and glideslope don't coincide (however I think there is such a huge discrepancy that it needs to be fixed).

Callback: The reporter clarified narrative to make it clear that it is the ILS glideslope that appears to be in error and that following it would place the aircraft well above the TCH on approach. The report was augmented with comments about previous problems with approach facilities at AVL including prohibitions by the company against using auto-coupled approaches or utilizing flight director guidance while doing so; limiting flight crews to the use of raw data approaches.



Synopsis: A CRJ-700 Captain reported discrepancies between the ILS glideslope signal and the VASI for Runway 34 at AVL; advising the ILS glideslope signal commands an excessively steep descent and a threshold crossing well above the charted TCH.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: JAC.Airport, WY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower JAC
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the landing rollout; we overran the runway at extremely low speed (under 20 knots) by approximately 10 feet. At no time did we ever leave the paved surface. There was zero damage to the aircraft or runway surfaces. We then initiated a 180 turn and taxied to the ramp uneventfully. The landing distance required was 2;957 feet and the Landing Distance Available was 6;300 feet. At touchdown lift dump; thrust reversers; and brakes were all used.On short approach I kept a speed of REF+15 due to the gusty wind conditions. The additional speed caused the aircraft to float longer than anticipated. I should have reduced speed earlier; prior to touchdown in order to reduce the float. On landing rollout I should have used deeper thrust reverse at an earlier time. On landing rollout I should have used more aggressive braking at an earlier time. If all three or at least two of the above remedies were used; this event would of never occurred. In conclusion; I understand exactly what led up to this event. With this understanding I can assure you that an event of this nature will never happen again in my career. I will also not hesitate to use more aggressive thrust reverse normally in the future.


Second narrative: The runway conditions were dry. The landing distance was calculated at just under 2;600 feet. Runway available is over 6;600 feet. The winds were 270/6 gusting to 14. The flying pilot was holding REF +15 for the gusty conditions. The extra speed caused the aircraft to float into a later than normal touchdown. Air brakes; thrust reversers; and normal braking were all deployed. The aircraft was brought to a stop on the first chevron of the overrun. The turnaround did not cause any delays or go arounds and there was no damage to the aircraft; over run; or property. The minor distance into the over run was at a very low speed.


Synopsis: During a gusty crosswind approach; the pilot of a BAE-125-850 carried additional airspeed into the landing. This resulted in floating longer than expected prior to landing and the subsequent slow excursion from the runway into the overrun area. No damage or injuries occurred; and the crew was able to turn and taxi normally to the ramp.
Date: 202103
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Aircraft component: Wheels/Tires/Brakes
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Crew sent ACARS and called on Satcom with high temp on #10 brake. Maintenance Control conferenced in on Satcom. Temp cooled after lowering gear. Duty Officer also talked to crew. Crew decided to [advise ATC] to have trucks standing by in case of [brake] overheat or fire. Jet landed no event.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported MD-11 Flight Crew performed a precautionary landing after the number 10 main wheel brake showed high temperature.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 605
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: Tower TEB
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were assigned the ILS 6 circle to Runway 01. Weather was VFR and quite good. We broke into the circle at or very close to DANDY; the FAF; at around 1;500 MSL. While on the dogleg base I was busy doing the before landing flow and checklist; setting up the visual to 01 in the FMS; and getting a frequency change to Tower. I had an extra several seconds of distraction because Approach did not give me a Tower frequency and I had to look it up on the chart. At some point during this period we got a 'Caution; Obstacle' aural alert from the GPWS and I looked at the EADI; which denoted 'Obstacle' in yellow. I looked outside and I did see some tall towers we were approaching in the circle; pointed them out; though they were below us. [The First Officer] adjusted heading a bit and considerably shallowed out the descent or might have even climbed. The aural warning only sounded once; maybe twice. There were other tall towers in the area and we saw and avoided those easily even though they were definitely below us. We established final and the landing was uneventful. We felt we were within the circling radius and the altitude did not drop below 1;100 FT MSL until clear of the towers. The circling minimums were 820 FT. As it turns out; DANDY is not the FAF and is well beyond the circling radius; which was a miss on our part. I'm not sure exactly how close we came to the tower; or towers; but; while they were somewhat close; I did not feel unduly concerned since we had them in sight and were able to easily avoid them. We saw no notes on the approach charts restricting a circle to Runway 01 and we assumed there would be no issues. [The First Officer] did brief the obstacles seen on the approach plate during the approach briefing; but as mentioned; it did not appear these would be an issue. I got caught with the frequency change. I try to preload the Tower frequency on my approaches; but since this time it was a circle I think I focused outside more to make sure we were setting up well and this cost me the radio set up. Had I not spent those few seconds digging for the frequency I may have seen the obstacles and pointed them out sooner. I will do better at ensuring as much is set up as early as possible so I can be a better monitor of the aircraft.




Synopsis: CL-605 Captain flying a circling arrival at TEB got an obstacle warning from the GPWS. Reporter stated the towers were in sight and easily avoidable.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had asked for the visual 15 into ASE.  ASE approach was closed and we were handled by DEN center. We were taken off the DEN SID and given direct DBL direct ASE. Then a different  controller gave us a descent to 15000'. We were VMC and clear of terrain and weather so we went down. When we leveled off; another controller gave us an altitude alert and told us to climb back up to 16000 FT. We climbed back up briefly; then a hand off to the next controller where we received our approach clearance once we had the field in sight. Continued in landing ASE.Incorrect altitude issued by ATC.Not knowing the MVA's ATC uses in that area I would've questioned their clearance if I was IMC. We would've been on the airway to ZAKOR  with an MEA depicted. The MOCA's for this area on our EFB's are not really depicted. We were set up perfectly to cross DBL at the recommended altitude of 14000 and we were clear of terrain and clouds. Not being an ASE regular; I'm not familiar to what ATC does when ASE approach is closed. Next time I'll just stay on the airway till I see the field even when I'm visual.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 Captain reported receiving a low altitude alert on arrival into ASE even though a previous Controller had issued a clearance to that altitude.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Antiskid System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Manuals
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: On visual approach at approximately 1;000 ft AGL we received an Anti-Skid R Fail Level 2 Alert. We decided to do a Go-Around to troubleshoot the problem. After running the checklist to completion we requested FDP for Runway XX. We were dispatched with an MEL for the #3 Thrust Reverser INOP (along with a Fuel Pump and several other items). Additionally; the runway was reporting condition codes of 5/5/6. When I asked for the FDP for the runway being used along with the non-normal selection for no thrust reverser as well as no anti-skid braking AND those condition codes; we received an error from aerodata because it couldn't calculate the performance with those performance penalties. The landing distance chart in the Anti-Skid R Fail checklist assumes that all the Thrust Reversers are operative. We could not find a chart that gave us landing data for both anti-skid inop AND #3 TR inop. We did our best interpolation between the charts we did have and got 6929 ft required on the 10;000 ft runway.




Synopsis: MD-11 First Officer reported a go around receiving an Anti-Skid R Fail Level 2 Alert.