elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After shutting down both engines in the gate we got a 'LWR AFT CARGO' fire warning. We ran the checklist and discharged the fire suppressant. I then asked ramp personnel if there was any sign of fire or smoke near the lower aft cargo door. They said no. I was then informed that one of the ramp workers had opened the lower aft cargo door; placed an insecticide spray bottle in the bay; and then closed the door. The resulting mist is what set off the fire alarm. There was never any actual smoke or fire. I then notified Maintenance and wrote up the AML.Placing an activated insecticide spray bottle in the cargo compartment; which tricked the system into thinking there was smoke in the bay; when in fact it was simply the mist from the insecticide bottle.Have the ramp agents tell the crew they are about to place an activated insecticide spray bottle in the cargo compartment; and might get a fire alarm. The crew can then monitor the EICAS for any alarms. If an alarm occurs; the crew can then verify with ramp personnel there is no actual smoke emanating from the lower aft cargo bay; and decide whether or not to run the checklist and discharge the fire suppressant.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported responding to a LWR AFT CARGO fire warning by discharging extinguishing agent into the cargo bay while parked at the gate. Crew was advised the warning was triggered by Ground Personnel placing an insecticide spray bottle in the compartment.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-24 Comanche
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Confusion; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I flew back to ZZZ after dropping my son off in ZZZ1. On the return trip I lost my GPS and HSI. When descending for landing the radio was noted to be weak---diagnosed electrical/alternator problem. The landing gear was quickly put down at which time all remaining electrical power was lost. Emergency manual extension reviewed and followed. Gear was thought to be down and locked--confirmed by looking in left wing mirror and by feeling extension lever. Attempted to land--gear buckled--repowered aircraft and circled to give time to think. Again tried both electrical and manual extension--felt gear locked. Attempted to land again. This time main gear held for about 2-5 seconds at which point the left gear failed and then the nose gear causing propeller strike. The aircraft stopped safely on the runway. No injury to myself (sole passenger) nor was there any property damage.




Synopsis: The landing gear collapsed after landing following an electrical failure.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Speed (Rate Sensing)
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I replaced an airspeed switch for a stab mis-compare squawk. I performed an ops check of the two position horizontal stab system I/A/W CE560XL m/m chap. 27-40-00 and believed the system checked ok per the maintenance manual. [Seven weeks later] I was contacted by my supervisor and advised that the aircraft was in inspection and during the operational check of the horizontal stab system it was discovered that the airspeed switch failed the operational check and was installed incorrectly. After being made aware of this instance I was counseled on paying attention to the proper installation of components and indications during the operational checks. The company made a training PowerPoint for its employees to bring awareness to this issue and other components that can be installed incorrectly. Also a technical publication change request was submitted by Cessna from a request made by QAC to note/warn of the possibility of this switch being able to be installed incorrectly.When I installed the switch and performed the ops check I believed it to check good IAW the MM and would not have released the aircraft otherwise. I have learned to pay closer attention to the components before and after install to try and assure this does not happen again.




Synopsis: A Maintenance Technician was advised that the part he replaced several months earlier had been installed incorrectly. The fault was identified by the failure of the horizontal stabilizer operational check during routine inspection.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon base in an approach to land at ZZZ; I reduced airspeed to gear speed; lowered the gear; and set the flaps. I heard the hydraulic pump engage and the airplanes performance and sounds appeared the gear system was in motion. I believed that I had a gear down condition. Upon short final I set the flaps to full and subsequently landed with gear up. Upon investigation after landing the gear switch was noted in the down position. Hydraulic fluid was present on the runway and the aircraft wheel well area. Apparent hydraulic leaks and pump failure was the reason for the gear not to extend properly. The factors involving the incident were no gear warning light or horn. The time of day was near sunset and light and glare in the cockpit as well as the location of the gear up lights were hard to detect. My failure was not verifying the gear down condition via the gear condition light system.




Synopsis: Experimental aircraft pilot reported that that  a hydraulic system malfunction resulted in a gear-up landing.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: In VMC conditions; we were cleared by Center for the RNAV Approach. Reaching [the IAF] I noticed that the FMS was programmed to make a turn outbound. We had briefed a Visual Approach backed up by the RNAV Approach and had the runway in sight. I thought that there was an error in the programming of the FMS. Most RNAV approaches with a 90 degree T-shaped base to final turn do not include a procedure turn. This approach is an exception. I overlooked that detail. I disconnected the autopilot and turned inbound to the runway. I called for the flight director to be cleared and hand flew the rest of the approach visually with no flight director. The First Officer sequenced the FMS so I had lateral and vertical guidance in addition to the PAPI and runway; which I could see visually. The approach; landing; and taxi in was uneventful. The cause of the event was the expectation of doing a Visual Approach and not noticing that No PT was not depicted. With clear weather and the runway in sight; I was in the mindset of doing a visual approach even though we were cleared for the RNAV. Additionally; there were 2 other aircraft in the pattern. A light single engine aircraft and a military C-130. After crossing a fix I was thinking about the spacing between us and the other aircraft in the pattern based on making a turn inbound. We were warned that this airport was an unstable high energy approach airport; so I was focused on slowing and configuring for landing early. We are also experiencing light to moderate turbulence; so more attention than normal was required to maintain the desired airspeed. I selected continuous ignition during the approach due to moderate turbulence.We should have noticed that this approach was unusual in that it did not have No PT. We could have requested the visual approach from center; so we would not be required to fly the 7NM holding pattern in lieu of a procedure turn.




Synopsis: Air Carrier pilot reported flying a Visual Approach instead of the RNAV they were cleared for at a non-towered airport.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Right pack placarded inoperative. At approximately 4;000 FT left pack failed. Complied with QRH procedure; left pack would not reset. Informed Dispatch; declared emergency with ATC for overweight landing. Soft; uneventful landing and taxied to gate and briefed Maintenance. Do not allow Dispatch on a single pack.


Second narrative: [We] took off with right pack placarded inoperative. Passing approximately 4;000 FT the left packed failed. [We] followed QRH procedures to reset pack. Pack would not reset. [We] declared an emergency with ATC for an overweight landing. Notified Dispatch; landed; and taxied to gate.


Synopsis: B757 flight crew reports being dispatched with an inoperative pack then loosing the second pack shortly after takeoff. When pack won't reset flight returns to departure airport for an overweight landing.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We were at FL360 and encountering light to moderate chop. The seatbelt signs were on; and the Flight Attendants were seated; and we had slowed to Mach .76. ATC had indicated the rides would be better at FL380 and the FMC showed that would be within our safe operating envelope for the aircraft weight. We received clearance to climb to FL380 and initiated a climb. As we were climbing; the turbulence began to get worse instead of better; so we checked the cruise performance and found that if the rides were not better at FL380 we would have to descend back to FL360 or lower. At this time our altitude was about FL370 and we encountered severe turbulence. The airspeed began fluctuating wildly and I disconnected the autothrottles. Our vertical speed began fluctuating plus or minus about 1500 fpm and the autopilot disengaged. We were able to receive clearance back to FL360 and eventually FL340. There were no injuries reported from any passengers or Crew; and we continued to our destination without further incident.We had reports leading us to believe that the rides would be smoother at our planned cruise altitude of FL380.  There was no indication to us that the turbulence would become worse. The only way we could've avoided severe turbulence is if we had more accurate information.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported climbing to FL380 from FL360 to find a smoother ride; but instead found severe turbulence passing FL370. The crew then requested FL340 and descended.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the Pilot Monitoring. We had received clearance for the Freeway Visual approach to LGA. When approaching DIALS; at approximately 2650' MSL; we saw a fairly large and black drone pass within 20' of our right wing. The drone appeared to be a disc shape; of the 6+ engine variety; vs 4 engine kind. I reported the near miss with NY approach and advised them of altitude and color. No evasive actions were taken as it had passed us within a second or two of us noticing. Later; I received a call advising that the feds were investigating the incident. Obviously; there was no transponder on the aircraft; and it was so small it likely didn't appear on the controller's primary radar. Short of banning all drones; I don't know what could have been done to avoid this type of encounter in the future.




Synopsis: First Officer reported an inflight encounter with a drone while on approach to La Guardia airport.
Date: 201908
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; MEL; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While flight planning; I noticed on the inbound aircraft defect report that there were multiple engine generator faults and resets.  I called dispatch and maintenance to ask about the generator problem and see what maintenance planned to do about it.  The maintenance controller said that the generator needed to be fixed; but the flight was a planned quick turn; and that there would be no time to fix it.  He agreed with me that this is a safety of flight issue; but told me to go through the refusal process or it wouldn't get fixed.  Flying with an engine generator deferral at night; over mountainous terrain; with thunderstorms negatively affects safety so I refused the airplane.  Maintenance ended up taking only 15 mins to replace the GCU and fixed the problem.  Unbelievable! This is what they should have done without forcing me to go through the refusal process in the first place.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported that he refused to accept the aircraft due to multiple AC Generator and MEL problems.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had been cleared to land on Runway XX into airport ZZZ. At around 500 feet we noticed flashing lights of an airport operations vehicle on Runway XY driving towards Runway XX. I confirmed with the tower that we were cleared to land on Runway XX. The tower replied affirmative at which time he must have noticed (as did we) that the vehicle was not stopping. At that time the tower issued go around instructions. We were between 300 and 250 AGL. We initiated the go around. On the initial climb we got a momentary TA indicating an aircraft 500 feet below us which we attributed to an aircraft on the ground with its transponder turned on. During our climb to 4;000 feet tower instructed us to fly a 280 heading. We heard him tell the vehicle he was supposed to have held short of Runway XX. We then were switched to departure who turned us north and brought us in on the visual approach to runway XZ.Human error on the part of the operations vehicle. Not sure if they are required like us to read back hold short instructions.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information]


Synopsis: ERJ-175 flight crew reported executing a go-around about 300 feet AGL when an airport operations vehicle drove on to the runway.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B BOS
ATC / advisory: Tower BOS
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were on the ILS 4R approach to BOS in good VMC conditions. The approach controller on frequency 126.5 reported traffic to our left that had us in sight and was landing on runway 4L. Although we saw a target on the TCAS to our left and below us; we were not able to locate the aircraft visually. Approach control switched us to the tower on frequency 132.22. Shortly thereafter; at approximately 3500 feet MSL; we received a TCAS Traffic Advisory (TA); then an Resolution Advisory (RA); but were still not able to see the aircraft. I initiated a climb in response to the RA and the captain reported the RA to the tower. When clear of conflict; I returned to the glideslope and a stabilized approach and continued to a landing. We never did see the aircraft.An aircraft on a visual approach to runway 4L apparently strayed into the approach corridor for runway 4R. The aircraft either did not have us in sight or did a poor job of maintaining visual separation.Approach control could possibly stagger the arrivals to the parallel runways to provide better separation even though visual separation is already in use.


Second narrative: We were on the ILS 4R and advised of traffic though never saw him. While descending through 3500 FT we received a RA/Climb command we executed a climb and never saw traffic. We advised ATC; climbed about 200 FT; were 'clear of conflict' and able to re-stabilize on approach and landed without incident on 4R in Boston.I don't think the other aircraft actually ever had us in sight even though he called it. Our TCAS showed he was directly below us and not off to the left which is where he should've been.Unfortunately we can't do anything if someone reports 'traffic in sight' and may not actually see us; we did as TCAS commanded and everything turned out fine.


Synopsis: ERJ-190 flight crew reported getting an RA caused by an aircraft on a visual approach on the parallel runway into BOS.