elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C SNA
ATC / advisory: Tower SNA
Aircraft component: Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While on final to SNA (less than 5 miles from airport) and in the landing configuration we received a TCAS TA at our 12 o'clock and 300 FT below.  We quickly searched the area and could not see the intruder.  We opted to perform a go-around to avoid getting an RA in close and low. Upon return to the airport; I notified the Tower of the reason for the go-around.  He said that there was no observed traffic between us and the airport at the time of our go-around.  He said that other aircraft had also reported getting TA's on final (no times or dates given).  He referred to this as a 'phantom' TA or 'ghost' TA or something of the sort. I have never experienced the phenomenon of a 'ghost' TCAS signal at any other airport.  I wonder if there could be a TCAS signal being generated by something other than an aircraft somewhere close to the airport; perhaps by a tech company; test/manufacturing facility or drone.  If so; this should be corrected or made known to aircrews.  Apparently more than one aircraft has experienced this during a critical landing phase of flight in a high density traffic area.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain experiences a TCAS TA on final approach to SNA and goes around. On the second approach; ATC advises that there was no traffic at the time of the go-around; but other aircraft have reported phantom TA's in the same location.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Aircraft Cooling System
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: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I received a diversion message sent from crew stating: 'Equipment Cooling - returning to departure airport.' I sent a message advising receipt; further advising I had received no ACARS position report. The crew acknowledged my response and I sent out a company message noting the diversion and destination.I then called the Tower to check on the flight. I asked if the flight was dumping fuel and the Controller told me no; that at approximately 50 NM out the crew requested to return. Controller told me the crew reported a minor problem with the aircraft and that the crew did not declare an emergency. I informed Controller that we have an Equipment Cooling issue. The Controller informed me the flight had just touched down. An ACARS message from the crew confirmed the overweight landing and that an emergency was not declared with ATC.Be more mindful that; in the event of an overweight landing; policy states an emergency must be declared.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher reported one of his international flights returned to their departure airport and landed overweight due to an equipment cooling anomaly. He cited their failure to declare an emergency as the factor requiring a report to be made.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
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 B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: We were on the PAITN4 arrival into ORD and had just received a vector to intercept the LOC to 27R. I noticed that we did not have preview needles; so I knew that something wasn't right. So I started by checking to see how far away from the airport we were. We were within 30 miles; approximately 27NM from the runway. So I asked the FO to switch to green needles after verifying we had the correct frequency 111.75 set as the active frequency in NAV 1 and 2. Once he switched to green needles it was too late. We had already gone through the localizer course and had entered the arrival corridor for 27L. At this point I checked to see which approach was loaded in the FMS. It was the ILS to 27L. We started to correct back to the 27R course at which point the ATC controller told us to turn to 290 degrees to reintercept the localizer. A few seconds later she informed us that the localizer was out of service. The FO at this point claimed that he could not hear the Morse code on NAV2 to identify the localizer. We got vectored back into sequence and flew the RNAV/GPS to 27R without any event or risk of conflicting with other traffic.


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


Synopsis: CRJ-200 flight crew reported difficulty intercepting the ORD Runway 27R localizer due to a misprogrammed FMS. At the same moment; an issue with the airport's ILS system prevented them from reintercepting the localizer.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was landing and suddenly was hit by a gust of wind which pushed me to the right side. As I aborted the landing some damage occurred to the airplane and parts of the airport. I broke the wheel pant of the airplane and the taxi signs on the ground.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reports losing control during landing due to a wind gust. Damage results to the aircraft and airport signs during the ensuing go around.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approaching the final fix; when the gear were extended at 160 KIAS and flaps 3 there was a red UNLOCK indication above the green triangle for the left main landing gear; the ECAM L/G LGCIU (Landing Gear Control Interface Unit) 1 FAULT illuminated; and there were flashing XXs for the left main gear on the SD (System Display) wheel page. Indications for the nose gear and right main landing gear were normal. Went around and wanted to do a left turn to avoid terrain but were continually directed to do a right turn and climb so [advised] tower. WX was VMC so turned right and received vectors back around for the ILS 05R due to our low fuel state (6K pounds). Accomplished the checklist for the ECAM. Received word from Tower that aircraft on the ground confirmed we had 3 landing gear down. Landing was uneventful; taxied clear and to the gate.


Second narrative: Approaching FAF; 160 kts; flaps 3; put gear down for landing. Nose and Right main were normal but Left main showed both a green down arrow and a red UNLK. Also the wheels showed a flashing Left main. LGCIU1 (Landing Gear Control Interface Unit) fault ECAM also a landing gear disagree ECAM.Aborted Landing/went around. Controller wanted us to do a right 340 degree turn (mountains right and behind us). Had to comply with less than desirable turn due to language barrier. Worked on checklist for LGCIU1 fault and unsafe landing gear. Fuel was short and based on Tower's assessment of all of our gear being down; we cut off checklists and landed uneventfully.


Synopsis: On approach an A320 left main landing gear indication was a green down; red UNLK and an ECAM LGCIU (Landing Gear Control Interface Unit) 1 FAULT so the Captain executed a go-around. The QRH was followed and safe landing completed.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Maintenance
When detected: Pre-flight; Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The aircraft had been in maintenance for a fuel contamination issue some days prior to the flight. There was a HAZMAT product placed on board the aircraft (Biobor) in the Flyaway Kit in the baggage compartment of the aircraft. The bottle had been placed in a zip lock bag and tucked away in the fly away kit. It is our suspicion (only) that the service center decided it would be good for us to have the left over unused portion. There is no known communication to/from anyone stating that the product had been placed on board inside the tote. The bottle and it's contents were discovered by a [FBO] Maintenance Tech some time after the flight. Suggest mandatory inspections of the Flyaway Kit on preflight and particularly after maintenance. The Flyaway Kit is not something that is on the pilots radar when preflighting an aircraft.


Second narrative: Multiple legs were flown in Aircraft X; including two FAR P. 135 legs; with an undisclosed Hazmat material stored in the rearmost baggage compartment [Aircraft Flyaway Kit]. The material was BioBor; a fuel additive with biocidal properties. It was contained within an unmarked bottle and further sealed in a ziplock bag. It was placed in a bin container which is kept in the baggage compartment to store miscellaneous small items; i.e. static wick covers; fuel test kit; spare chocks; etc. It is believed this material was left over from a fuel tank treatment procedure performed by an OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) service facility and placed in back for safe storage back to base; however; our Maintenance nor the flight crew was informed of its presence. This bin is not typically included on preflight inspection. The material was discovered by company maintenance personnel on a routine post flight inspection.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported discovering Hazmat leftover maintenance item had be placed in aircraft Flyaway Kit during preflight.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
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: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
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 Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Cruising at FL 400; my FO (First Officer) noticed a master caution flash of HYD. I immediately pulled up the HYD page and we saw that our System B quantity showed 0. We still had 3;000 PSI of pressure but that started to bleed down quickly eventually showing 0. We immediately went to the QRH and ran the checklist procedures for a Hydraulic system B failure. At our position we had the option of [two airports] for divert airports. We both agreed that ZZZ was our best option with it being a [company] hub and we would have plenty of support. We [advised ATC] and asked for priority handling. We contacted dispatch via ACARS and told them of our intentions. We coordinated with the flight attendants and told them of our situation; asking them to prepare the cabin for a landing with no expectations of an evacuation. I made a PA to the passengers informing them of our intentions and asked them to follow the instructions of the flight attendants. We received priority handling from ATC and center set us up for an extended downwind. We did a flaps 15 landing as required by the QRH configuring with the backup electric flap system. We had emergency trucks standing by as a precaution due to the emergency. We landed uneventfully and taxied to the gate unassisted. Everyone did a fantastic job. The mechanics met us right away; the gate agents took care of our passengers; a flight attendant supervisor met the airplane along with a rep from the chief pilot's office. An airplane was available and we were able to load our passengers and continue to [the original destination]. My FO did a fantastic job supporting me and the flight attendants did everything by the book with professionalism.  Our dispatcher was a huge help in coordinating our requests and getting us back into the air. I think the system worked and I was proud of [the company's] operation.


Second narrative: One quick master caution flash followed by HYD light; immediately checked system and quantity read zero. Pressure quickly dropped to zero. Diverted; ran checklist and landed uneventfully. Mechanic said a pinched O ring had given out and emptied the system. Spare airplane available at gate next door so we continued to [the original destination].


Synopsis: B737 Crew reported a Hydraulic system B failure with a diversion and uneventful landing.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: Tower PHX
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was First Officer and Pilot Monitoring during a 120 kt. IAS abort on Runway 7L at PHX. We aborted due to a configuration alert. We began taxi back to gate but no gate was immediately available. While waiting for a gate in the East hold bay the CFR (Crash Fire Rescue) informed us that both left tires had deflated. We suspect they deflated while parked in the hold bay due to heat generated from the abort. We then off loaded the passengers on to buses for transport back to the terminal. While exiting the aircraft I was surprised to discover that the number 1 tire had deflated due to tire failure. In other words; the tire had failed before the fuse plugs released the pressure. It appeared that the number 2 tire had deflated due to the fuse plugs as advertised.This event occurred because of a configuration alert. I heard through a second hand source that the configuration alert occurred because of leading edge flap asymmetry; however I have been unable to confirm this.I recommend that a user-friendly venue be established to close the information loop on mechanical causes like this. I believe that most pilots want to use events like this to learn from. My questions are:1. What caused the configuration light and why did we get it so late in the takeoff roll?2. What maintenance action was taken to fix this?3. Why did the number 1 tire fail and is it common for a tire to fail before the fuse plugs release the pressure?




Synopsis: 737 flight crew reported receiving a takeoff configuration warning; resulting in an aborted takeoff at high speed and failure of two tires.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
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 approached DEN for a night landing and were told to expect the visual. We were not able to see the airport in spite of a vector by ATC. We had the localizer tuned and identified and were prepared to track it inbound. ATC told us that we could not do this without the airport in sight and we were issued an 'immediate' left turn. We were vectored around for an ILS. However; the 'missed visual' significantly increased our workload. As we intercepted the localizer; we were told that we were close in trail of a 737 and were issued the standard Wake Turbulence warning. We were also told to maintain 170 knots to the FAF. As we began our descent on the glideslope; we began to 'feel' what we perceived to be edges of the wake turbulence from the preceding aircraft. We discussed and agreed to fly the glideslope one dot high. It is my belief that in reconfiguring the descent to fly this glideslope slightly high; we began to slow. According to the post landing phone call with ATC; we started slowing approximately 2 miles prior to the FAF. Both crew members should be in stated agreement before accepting a visual approach. We should have asked for the ILS upon initial contact and once 'lined up' converted it to a visual. I believe that had we asked for an ILS to begin with; we would not have had the increased workload and would have been able to manage the aircraft more precisely. If airspeed changes are required due to wake turbulence avoidance; ATC should be notified. Contributing to this situation was an early switch to Tower and we were on Tower frequency when the slowing apparently began...therefore; there was no opportunity for direct communications with ATC. In the future; as part of my approach briefing; I will be including this 'visual approach' guidance.




Synopsis: Citation First Officer reported an airspeed deviation occurred on approach into DEN in an attempt to mitigate possible wake turbulence.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was on an approach to Runway XX. ZZZ [Approach] changed Aircraft X to an approach to Runway XXL to help a help another aircraft turn ahead of them for a [Runway] XY approach. Aircraft X turned out the West. I saw the aircraft turning out to the West and fly through the final for Runway XXL and Runway XXR outside of my airspace. Aircraft X then turned back East toward the airport. I was launching airplanes and trying to be an extra set of eyes for LCE [Local Control East] who was very busy at the time being combined with [XYZ position]. Aircraft X then checked on to my frequency for Runway XXL and I cleared them to land Runway XXL. They appeared to still be SE toward Runway XXL. As I noticed they may be lined up for the incorrect runway ZZZ Approach called and asked me check as well. I informed the pilot they were lined up for the wrong runway and they chose to go around on about a 3 mile final.Some of my focus was on aiding the traffic for LCE. If we had more staffing we could have had a [XYZ] Controller aiding with that.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported an aircraft lined up for the wrong runway during approach.