elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach the first officer/flying pilot commanded gear down. When the landing [gear] came down with spoilers armed I noticed that the number one and number two spoilers had amber X's meaning inoperative. Shortly after that we received an ECAM for a 'nose wheel steering fault'. We informed the tower that we were going around and proceeded to do so. On the command gear up; I placed the gear lever to up position. Shortly after that we received an ECAM for 'landing gear not up-locked'; and we could hear that the gear was still down. We discussed recycling the gear and I placed the gear lever to the down position. I decided to leave the gear down because all indications showed that the gear was down and locked. I also felt that trying to recycle the gear might cause damage. We also noticed that the ECAM for 'nose wheel steering fault' had gone away. We decided to proceed back to the airport to land on Runway XY because it was the longest runway on the south side of ZZZ. I ran the performance numbers out of the QRH for two or more spoilers inoperative; and decided that we would be able to land on that runway. The landing was routine and we were able to slow the aircraft with no problems. Somewhere below 70 knots I asked for 'control of the aircraft'. The first officer gave me control and I went to turn the aircraft with the tiller and the 'nose wheel steering fault' came back and we had no nose wheel steering control. I was able to get the aircraft off the runway by using differential braking and thrust. Once stopped we informed ground control of our problem and notified them that we would need to be towed in. Our ground handling personnel were able to pull us into the gate without further incidence.I don't know of any suggestions; but the aircraft is a tired old bird that has caused me more headaches than need be.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported several mechanical anomalies were annunciated upon landing gear extension; possibly related to an aging aircraft.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LGB.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D LGB
ATC / advisory: Tower LGB
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Local Control (LC) was combined and LA was open.  Aircraft X was cleared for the option and had been in the pattern on RWY 25L.  LC cleared Aircraft Y for VFR take-off from RWY 25L at Delta when Aircraft X was inside of a mile final.  It was clear immediately that the unneeded squeeze play was not going to work.  LC was also aware of it; because he stood up to look closely at the event.  He could have sent Aircraft X around at any time; but monitored the loss of separation standing up until Aircraft X touched down past RWY 25L threshold almost abeam the tower and Aircraft Y on departure role lifted between F2 and RWY 34L.  I used Google earth to identify the distance between the aircraft at approximately 1600 feet. The CIC was turned toward the computer and was not aware of the event.  I did give out a small yelp 'Come on' before the loss only because I could not restrain my lips.  The LC and the LA were clearly watching the event and did not make mention of it to anyone; but pretended nothing happened. Issue is related to employee arrogant lack of concern or obedience to rules that govern ATC.  I have seen this type event before with this employee and choose not to monitor position if he is working and a Front Line Manager is not on duty.  I do not believe this is an ability issue.  I believe this is a behavioral issue.  He does not control traffic the same when supervision is in the cab.  This employee's attitude is dangerous.  He knows how to work the tapes to his advantage.  He said nothing on frequency other than telling Aircraft X that was cleared for the option to turn off of the runway.




Synopsis: LGB Controller observes another Controller let an aircraft land while another aircraft is departing on a crossing runway and having a loss of separation.  The working Controller does not send the arrival around or cancel the takeoff clearance of the departing aircraft.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Had issues with passenger sitting next to each other and a dirty seat. We were finished boarding so I moved a passenger to row XX; row XX got filled by the agents I told her she could have row XY. Row XY was also filled last minute.  I moved her to XA. The seat that was to be blocked was YA. The agents tried saying it had to be moved on the computer and they wouldn't. I used the service framework to try to make it easier on the guest who had already grabbed all her stuff. The passenger count was submitted correctly and allowed us to move her. This was the best solution to make everyone happy while leaving on time.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported moving a passenger due to a dirty seat and for social distancing.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Latitude (C680A)
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During en-route descent into ZZZ to Runway XX the E-GPWS was activated. En-route from the east to ZZZ we queried ATC to start a descent into ZZZ as we were approaching approximately 20 nm from the field. They gave us a descent to 5;000 ft. I started a descent and had the field in sight as VMC conditions prevailed. We were also headed direct to ZZZZZ on the RNAV Runway XX. I knew that we would need beyond the normal 3 degree descent so I expedited my descent. We were cleared for the visual Runway XX. Due to rising terrain and the expedited descent the E-GPWS activated 'sink rate' followed immediately by 'pull up' around 4000 ft. I then added power and started a climb. Once we confirmed terrain wasn't an issue I leveled off and continued the descent. During the event we were VMC and had all terrain in sight as well as the field. I believe the higher than normal descent rate coupled with the rising terrain and tower located south of our course is what activated the E-GPWS. I don't believe at any time we were closer than 2;000 ft. to the terrain. The rest of the en-route descent; approach; and landing were uneventful.We should have asked ATC for a descent sooner or asked for a vector to lose some altitude. Although it was VMC I should have had the terrain display up so that I could have had better terrain awareness. I also could have elected to go further south to avoid the higher terrain just east of ZZZZZ.




Synopsis: Citation Latitude First Officer reported E-GPWS warning with 2000 ft. of clearance from terrain and no conflict.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: M-20 B/C Ranger
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ; Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Throttle/Power Lever
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While practicing a VOR approach with a flight instructor; engine response to throttle was lost with engine at 15 inches of manifold pressure. Gear was raised and flight was continued to position for landing. On final approach; engine was shut down and landing gear and flaps deployed. Altitude required a steeper than normal approach resulting in higher than desired airspeed to reach the runway. There was a bounce on landing resulting in a minor prop strike. Without throttle control a go-around was not an option. This occurrence does not meet the standard for an aircraft accident or serious incident as defined in Part 830. This aircraft had been flown for 20 hours since overhaul. It was later determined that the throttle cable was disconnected from the carburetor; but no parts were discovered. The throttle connection had been checked by the Mechanic and by another pilot prior to the aircraft being flown.




Synopsis: M20 pilot reports a throttle failure during a practice VOR approach with an instructor on board. The power is fixed at 15 inches MAP. The engine is shut down on final but the resulting approach is high and fast resulting in a bounced landing and a prop strike. The engine had been recently overhauled.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff leg; the aircraft unexpectedly veered left twice. We were able to keep the aircraft on the runway; and continued the takeoff. We initially thought we might have blown tire(s); so we did not raise the landing gear. We then orbited ZZZ and coordinated with Dispatch; Maintenance Control; ZZZ Operations; and ZZZ Approach for a return to land at ZZZ. Once airborne; the aircraft flew normally; with no yawning or rolling tendencies. We also asked ZZZ Tower to check for tire [debris] on the runway; which they did and found none. After coordinating; we made a normal 40 flaps landing; with no further problems noted. After landing; we had the Fire Department check our tires and brakes. After they reported everything appeared normal; we taxied back to a gate; got a spare aircraft; and departed again. Additional comments: The support we received from ZZZ Approach; Dispatch; Maintenance Control; ZZZ Tower and Ground; and the Fire Department was Outstanding. Also; after we returned to ZZZ to end our trip; Maintenance Control called me to tell me they were changing a badly scuffed right nose tire; an imbalanced left nose tire; and a nose wheel steering control valve; and they would [flight check) the aircraft before returning it to service.After the directional control problems occurred on the runway; I feel we; and all the agencies that supported us; handled the situation well.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported two swerves on takeoff and returned to the departure airport for a normal landing. Maintenance changed two nose tires and a nose wheel steering control valve.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Pilot Seat
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Company B757-200 aircraft. Captain seat track lock assembly faulty. Potential exists for a pilot to loose control and wreck an airplane on approach when the seat shifts unexpectedly. [I am] requesting a directive requiring increased scruntiny of this critical mechanism on B757/B767 fleets. This is an unrecognized safety critical issue. I replaced the seat assembly June 2015. A Routine Inspection Task card for the seat assembly is in use and I suspect this is not enough to prevent future accidents. In this example; the Captain found the problem and made a log entry.

Callback: Reporter stated many of the B757s and pilot seats are 25 to 30 years old. He doesn't know when; or if a seat overhaul is required; but he believes the segmented checks on their B757s only require a yearly inspection for seat operation and condition. He found both tension springs broken under the Captain's seat for the Track Lock Control lever. The lock lever overcomes the spring tension in order to release the pin that locks the seat in the seat tracks. The springs were not a line replaceable item. With both springs broken; the Track Lock Control lever did not have a positive tension to secure the seat's latching pin in the seat's floor tracks. As a result; he could easily make the seat slide forward or aft merely by shifting his weight in the seat.Reporter believes the minimal maintenance checks for flight crew seats are not adequate to maintain seat serviceability. That's why reporter was requesting a fleet wide campaign to check flight crew seats on B757/B767s. Reporter wants to be clear that the seat design is not the issue; just the limited maintenance checks of the seats; which do not seem to be adequate.



Synopsis: A Line Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) reports about an unrecognized critical safety issue that exists for pilots to lose control of B757/B767 aircraft on approach; if the pilot seat shifts unexpectedly due to broken Seat Track Lock Control assemblies. Technician suspects the routine seat inspection task card is not sufficient to maintain adequate serviceability of crew seats.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cargo Compartment Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise at FL370 Captain was Pilot Flying. Fire alarm sounded. Alarm was silenced and an aft cargo fire was indicated. QRH was called for. Light extinguished momentarily then fire bell rang again. We notified ATC [of our] decision to land at PHX. First Officer (FO) ran the appropriate check list and ATC was handled by Captain (CA). Upon completion of the checklist CA informed Flight Attendants (FA's) of the situation; time to landing (11 minutes) and that landing should be normal. A PA to the passengers was made about the landing and they were informed to follow FA instruction and remain seated upon landing. Also mentioned the safety vehicles would be near the aircraft upon landing. Informed Dispatch via ACARS with description and time to arrival. Asked for ARFF (Airport Rescue Firefighting). FO got current field info. CA set up approach and landing data. Descent was made at .78/320 KTS. ATC (on the discreet frequency) cleared us ILS to Runway X. Descent and before landing checklists were run. Landing was normal. CA stopped on the runway. ARFF approached the aircraft to check for heat in the aft cargo. None was detected. We were cleared to taxi to gate. During taxi the fire bell sounded. Aft cargo fire indication again. We stopped the aircraft on taxiway B immediately and asked to have the ARFF do another check to confirm we did not have a fire. The check was negative. The FO called company operations to make sure ramp personnel did not open the cargo door without the ARFF there. ARFF followed us to the gate and uneventfully opened the aft cargo. They donned protection and entered the aft cargo to ensure no fire existed. No issues. Passengers were deplaned upon gate arrival without incident. The discrepancies were noted in the logbook. Crew was met by managers and contacted by union reps. CA and FO were removed from the sequence and FAs continued after a delay. Most likely a problem with the fire detector loop in the aft cargo compartment.


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


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported diverting to an alternate airport after receiving an aft cargo compartment fire warning. After landing warning was found to be false.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZAU
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Aircraft component: Navigation Database
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were flying the PANGG Arrival with the Runway 13C transition.  The ATIS for MDW was advertising the 'RNP' Approach to 13C.  We had programmed the RNAV Y 13C.  Upon check-in with Approach; we were told to expect the RNAV Z 13C.  I looked at chart and noticed that was a straight-in GPS approach; which I found odd that we would be issued since the ILS was operational.  I questioned ATC if they meant the 'Y' or the 'Z' approach; and they confirmed the 'Z.'  The Pilot Flying loaded the approach in the FMC and began to brief the points; to which we realized none of them matched the chart.  We both looked in the list of available charts and the list in the FMC database to make sure we were looking at the correct approaches; and it appeared we were.  I checked both Jeppesen apps and they both had the same approach plate; dated 2018.  I looked to see if there was a NOTAM I had missed or a message in the airport page and there wasn't one.  My assumption was this was a new approach; since the FMC database was for (date-two days ago); and for whatever reason; we did not have the approach plate available.  I notified ATC that we did not have the proper plate; and would be unable to do the approach.  We were then issued the RNAV Y for 13C; and I confirmed with ATC the points on the approach to make sure we had the correct procedure.  Both the First Officer and I had current Jeppesen databases.  I checked after arrival if there was an update available; and there was not.  My currency said there was 13 days until the next update.  I called Dispatch to let them know what happened; and he thought it was due to the fact that we have tailored charts; but he would forward the information.  I did mention putting a note on the weather packet. Prior to filling out this report; I checked the backup documents on the company website; and they also have the old chart dated 2018 in that database.  However; government sources (NOS) have a chart dated (date-two days ago) that have the new approach with points that match our FMC database.  My guess is that the Jeppesen app either did not update properly; or they have omitted the chart from this cycle.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier pilot reported they were assigned an approach which was not available in their FMC Database.