elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SMF.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On descent and approach into SMF we were descending VIA the SLMMR3; I was the Pilot Monitoring. At approximately POZUR we were cleared for the ILS Runway 16L once reaching TENCO. We set 1;900 ft. in the MCP window for LEVEY and we were in LNAV/VNAV. Approximately at DIRBE we were fully configured target speed was set and we were slowing. We were on the VNAV descent path and shortly after passing DIRBE VOR/LOC and glideslope captured; TDZE was set in the MCP window. I was changing to the tower frequency and when I looked up the airspeed was about Vref and the trend was still slowing rapidly. I called airspeed and reached up to advance the throttles about the same time the Captain did. I looked to the attitude indicator and the aircraft was pitching about 15-20 degrees up. I called to push the nose down and at the same time pushed forward on the control column. Again VOR/LOC and GS were both captured and the auto throttles were on. The Captain recovered and we were only between 1/2 dot and 1 dot above glideslope and still outside the FAF; but at this point continuing the approach did not seem like a good idea so I called for a go-around. We were still outside LEVEY and above 2;000 ft. and Tower assigned us runway heading and continue descent and maintain 2;000 ft. We were then vectored around for another approach and landed. This could have been a false glideslope capture but we were on the VNAV descent path and on or slightly below the glideslope indicator.




Synopsis: B738 First Officer reported that a false glideslope capture resulted in an unstabilized approach; followed by a go-around.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: POU.Airport, NY
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class D POU
ATC / advisory: Tower POU
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Ground Incursion Runway; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi; In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Two Controllers in the Tower. I was on Ground Control. Aircraft X landed long on Runway 24 and appeared to be able to exit at [Taxiway] H. Aircraft X was instructed to exit at [Taxiway] H but delayed for a reason that was not communicated to the controllers. Aircraft X was then instructed to exit onto [Taxiway] A at the end of the runway; as it appeared; they were making a turn that was too tight to exit at [Taxiway] H in a timely manner. Aircraft X then began a high-speed taxi to [Taxiway] A; at which point tower sent Aircraft Y traffic on final around. I was scanning the runways and observed Aircraft X make a turn and clear the runway edge lines with all parts of the aircraft. At that time; the Local Controller cleared Aircraft Y for takeoff; while Operations called the Tower on our high frequency radio asking if Aircraft X required assistance. Aircraft X was still taxiing at this time; but had not contacted Ground; as they were not observed beyond the hold short lines. Aircraft X was not visible due to a hangar west of the tower obstructing the view of '[Taxiway] A' that Aircraft X was using. Local Controller issued a cancel takeoff instruction out of abundance of caution because Aircraft X was not observed in a timely manner by GC (Ground Control) or LC (Local Control). The instruction was stepped on; and it was decided that it would be less safe to reissue the instruction as Aircraft Z was now rotating and Aircraft X had been observed clear of runway. When Aircraft X contacted Ground; Ground Control instructed Aircraft X to expedite taxi past the hold short lines for Runway 24 and then observed the aircraft again visually.The hangar west of the tower presents an imminent safety concern that diminishes ATC's ability to provide safe; orderly; and expeditious service to the users of POU. The hangar needs to be lowered; or the tower needs to be raised.




Synopsis: POU Tower Ground Controller reported a hanger blocks the view of the runway and issues related to the blockage.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On a quick turn at ZZZ I closed out the flight and walked up to the terminal and spoke with the gate agent. I asked for number of passengers on the outbound flight among other things.When I walked back down the jetway; a ramper showed me a photo of the inside of the cargo door where a nut was missing. I acknowledged that I intended to write up the maintenance issue.I stopped in the forward galley to perform the Flight Attendant (FA) Briefing. It took longer due to side talking about FA's personal impact from COVID.I got the cockpit and prepared the plane for the next flight forgetting to write up the maintenance issue (cargo door missing nut). I did not make the First Officer aware of the issue. Quick turn. Distracted.Pilots should verify maintenance issues first hand at the time it is brought to their attention. Pilots should write up all maintenance issues prior to beginning next flight. Pilots should follow the write up with a call to maintenance.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported failure to enter a maintenance discrepancy in log book.  Captain was distracted due to an extended briefing with the Flight Attendants regarding the personal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During initial climb out both the auto trim and electric trim switch worked ok. Approximately 2000 feet into the climb the electric up trip stopped working momentarily. Was intermittent a few times then stopped working completely. Electric nose down trim worked ok. Was the same on FO (First Officer) yoke as well. Noticed the auto trim not working also. Placed autopilot on momentarily to see if auto trim would work while AP (Autopilot) engaged. It would not trim with different thrust settings or during an intermediate level off. Deselected autopilot and needed to manually trim nose up. Followed the QRH ELECTRIC STABILIZER TRIM INOPERATIVE procedure. No autopilot for duration of flight. Was able to manually trim both directions and continued flight per QRH. Called Dispatch and Maintenance to make sure there was nothing else we could do. Asked Dispatch to give a heads up to [our destination] that we'll request Runway XXL for the flaps 15 landing. Briefed a flaps 15 landing per the QRH. Advised Approach Control that we would like slightly longer final approach to configure early per QRH. They asked if we needed to declare an emergency. Told them not necessary as everything works ok; just can't use the autopilot and need to configure earlier than normal due to loss of electric trim. Everything went well and almost didn't need to configure early. The main reason for writing this is after having a discussion with several other pilots as to whether they would've handled this differently; all but one thought that this might fall under a loss of flight control and declaring an emergency may have been prudent as we are doing a nonstandard flaps 15 landing. Perhaps this is a gray area and I look forward to further feedback.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported a horizontal stabilizer electric trim failure on climbout.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Arrival Unloading
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cargo was NOT labeled with dangerous goods on shipping label.




Synopsis: Airline ground personnel reported Hazmat cargo not labeled with required Dangerous Goods label.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Other Documentation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician; Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Second reporter function: Lead Technician; Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the Crew Chief on Aircraft X the morning of Date. The incident occurred [at] approx XA:00. The aircraft was on jacks for a test and while being lowered the aircraft made contact with the aft stabilizer. I was in the OTS (Out Of Service) office when I was notified of the incident.The aft stabilizer was not lowered fast enough to accommodate the lowering of the aircraft.Remove the stabilizer before down jacking.


Second narrative: DATE XA:00 Hrs. OTS Hangar Bay 1 Aircraft X. After aircraft jacking operation for inspection; tail stand was used. The lowering of the tail jack stand was slower than the main wing jacks. The tail engaged the jack; the jack screw tension and aircraft weight prevented lowering disengagement. I yelled 'Stop'. The rest of the crew stopped after my call was confirmed. Then I heard the noise. Then I yelled 'Up' and the crew began lifting the airplane. I disengaged the jack at the tail and removed it entirely. We visually inspected and saw the wavy skin.I heard from other crew chiefs that the tail stand should not be under the airplane during lifting and lowering.


Synopsis: Technicians reported communications difficulties and failure to adhere to AMM procedures caused aircraft damage during down jacking after hangar maintenance.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SBBR.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower SBBR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Airport; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were on arrival into SBBR and cleared for the ILS Z Runway 11L Approach. We were subsequently cleared to 5;000 feet by SBBR approach. Shortly after reaching 5;000 feet and just prior to BR003 we responded to a GPWS audible warning which destabilized the approach and necessitated a go-around. We were vectored back and landed uneventfully. Upon review of the incident we all remembered having briefed the minimum altitudes of the approach; but had not caught the departure from SOPs; or the decent below the mandatory 5;500 feet. With 5;000 feet set in the mode control panel and using FL change for the decent we had set ourselves up for error. During the approach on numerous occasions we had had to ask ATC to repeat the clearance sometimes more than once due to quality of transmission; command of the english language; and strong accent. Almost every transmission required at least one 'say again'; and additional verification from all pilots on board before the altitude was even set. I believe a contributing factor was that the area of threat had shifted from what would have been a routine arrival; to concern that we understood and were complying with the most recent ATC transmissions. This would include the obvious 'We all heard five thousand?' query before the altitude was set. Certainly not an excuse; but perhaps better communications with ATC could ameliorate the potential for incidents like this in the future. Of course in all operations verification that all arrival and approach altitude restrictions are complied with regardless of an ATC clearance is required.


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


Synopsis: An air carrier flight crew on the SBBR RNAV Z 11L was cleared to 5;000 feet by ATC; but received an EGPWS alert because they failed to set the 5;500 foot mandatory altitude crossing at BR003.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X checked on; climbed westbound off Atlanta airport. I climbed him to FL230. As I was switching communications; the pilot said that he had a near miss and that he had to pull up the nose to avoid an unknown aircraft at 11;500 in Atlanta Approach airspace. I did not notice the VFR aircraft when Aircraft X was near it; but I did notice the 1200 code after he mentioned the near miss. I was busy with unusual operations; high volume; and weather deviations may have been a factor.I need to keep a better scan going and more overall awareness. Also; the Approach Controller needs to separate the departures from all known traffic before they switches communication.




Synopsis: ZTL Controller reports of an air carrier that reported a near miss. Controller was busy with other duties and did not observe traffic until after the report.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SBY.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Second time in 2 nights we have had to execute the [SBY] ILS 32 approach. The first night the Captain performed the approach and commented on how the localizer was deviating quite a bit left and right of course within the final approach segment. I noticed the needle deflecting approximately a half dot left and right continuously to touchdown. I thought maybe it was bad reception on that aircraft itself until tonight. With a different aircraft we were executing the ILS and I was flying. I had the autopilot on and we had the localizer and glide slope captured and were following it down. After passing COLBE; the localizer again started wobbling and the flight director was chasing it back and forth causing the autopilot to turn and the aircraft to chase the CDI. By this time we had the runway in sight so I disengaged the autopilot and hand flew the aircraft down. The aircraft was slightly in an unstable approach because I was trying to get it lined back up with the centerline visually rather than with the instruments because the localizer was jumping around so much. With the rain and the runway lights on high; it made it a little more difficult to do so and I ended up landing slightly flat.There is something wrong with the localizer for 32. Two separate aircraft having the exact same problem cannot be a sheer coincidence. When it started deviating excessively we already had the runway in sight; so I disconnected the autopilot and hand flew the aircraft down on the glide slope; but visually centered up with the runway. Fix the localizer.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported an unreliable localizer signal for SBY Runway 32.
Date: 201502
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification; Time Pressure; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: Other Unwanted situation
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Other At work station
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Staffing; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: As I was preparing and releasing flight I noticed flights showing on Sabre Planning Page that were not on my worksheet. I printed a new worksheet that showed additional flights.  I asked the duty office what changed and they did not know. The new worksheet had me releasing 24 flights with 22 different stations; not including any alternate stations. Since many of these stations are only flown to once a week; I am not familiar with runways; NOTAMS; takeoff restrictions; arrival restrictions; etc. This requires a tremendous amount of time to plan each flight. In addition to normal Dispatch duties; the new Sabre revision caused initial low altitudes requiring more manipulation than just adding MEL/placard information to each leg. ATC had six FCAs [Flow Constrained Areas] in effect causing flow control problems; EWR was at the start of a snow storm; ORD had gusty winds with potential flow control problems; CLE was in the middle of a snow event and the usual slowness of Dispatch work tools added to the difficulty of maintaining operational control. Quite a few issues at play here; do not have time to expand upon [them] at this time.




Synopsis: A dispatcher was concerned that the increased workload resulting from the surprise assignment of additional flights to/from stations with which she had not previously worked; was excessive and compromised her ability to provide proper flight planning and support.