elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ISP.Tower, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ISP
ATC / advisory: Tower ISP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were cleared direct to RIZER (the final approach fix for the ILS 24 at ISP) and then cleared for the visual approach.  We descended to 1;400 feet MSL (the glideslope intercept altitude for the ILS).  As we approached RIZER from the southeast (heading about 330 degrees); we began a slight descent to intercept RIZER at the glideslope crossing altitude of 1;271 feet.  As we started the descent; we saw towers that looked to be right under RIZER.  At about that time we got a 'Caution - Obstacle' alert. The Pilot Flying (First Officer) disengaged the autopilot and adjusted the pitch slightly.  At that point we were right over the towers and; if I remember correctly; about on glideslope.  After passing the towers; it dawned on me that it was dark and that alert should have triggered a go-around. For this particular approach; the glideslope altitude over RIZER is only 625 feet above the towers.  These towers are not the highest terrain on the chart and are kind of hidden behind the Localizer feather.  As you pitch down to capture the glideslope; it apparently takes very little pitch change to activate the alert.  Our first error was missing the towers on the chart.  An obstacle only 625 feet under the final approach fix is something you shouldn't miss.  Our second error was not going around.  By the time it dawned on me that it was night time and that the alert required a go-around; we were already past it. The final approach fix should be moved so it is not right on top of towers.  If it were a mile or two farther out; you would be better established on the glideslope before crossing the towers.




Synopsis: An air carrier Captain reported an EGPWS CAUTION OBSTACLE alert from towers 625 feet below RIZER intersection which is the ISP Runway 24 ILS glideslope intercept point.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Just prior to the tug disconnecting from the aircraft I notice a Ramp Supervisor running towards the driver. The Tug Driver informed me of a late bag and wanted to know if they could load it in the forward cargo bin. Before I could tell him to wait until I shut down the number 2 engine; the MASTER CAUTION and FWD CARGO lights illuminated. I immediately shut down the number 2 engine and before I could tell the Tug Driver to wait until the engine spooled down; the MASTER CAUTION and FWD CARGO lights went out just as quickly as they had come on. I tried to explain to the Tug Driver the requirement to shut down the number 2 engine before loading bags; but he acted like he didn't know what I was talking about. The Aircraft Operating Manual and Ground Operations Manual clearly states the requirement to shut down the number 2 engine before loading late commodities. What concerns me about this incident is that we had a Supervisor and three Push Crew Personnel; and none of them waited for the engine to be shut down; nor stop an individual from approaching the aircraft with the engine running. I don't know if this is an isolated incident; Ramp Personnel are unaware of the danger; or individuals ignoring Company policy and procedures in an effort to save time. If continued; this practice may result in personal injury or loss of life.The following recommendations are provided. First; review/training for all Ramp Personnel on loading late commodities procedures. Secondly; the warning in the Ground Operations Manual needs to be updated to mirror the warning in the Aircraft Operating Manual regarding the dangers of extreme ingestion hazard.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported a ramp employee approached the aircraft and loaded a late bag without waiting for the Number 2 engine to be shut down.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ADW.Tower, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Special Use ADW
ATC / advisory: Tower ADW
Aircraft component: Radio Altimeter
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While performing a practice ILS to Runway 1L at ADW; the Radar Altimeter sweep twice to 250 ft. The practiced ILS was performed coupled and had engaged at the final approach fix. The sweep occurred approximately 3.5 miles from the end of the runway. The helicopter was about 1000 ft. AGL then swept down to 250 ft. AGL. Stabilized for a second then returned to the correct altitude. Then it swept a second time. This sweep of the Radar Altimeter did not effect the helicopter controls.




Synopsis: Helicopter Instructor Pilot reported the Radio Altimeter swept twice from the aircraft's altitude to 250 ft. AGL and back again while on final approach.
Date: 201909
Location: TNCA.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Landing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Runway 11 at AUA has the visual illusion of a vehicle on the runway at midfield.  As we passed through 1;000 feet on final approach to AUA; the Pilot Flying said to me 'I think that there might be a vehicle on the runway'. I could immediately observe a dark; vehicle-sized object clearly contrasted on the concrete runway surface in the first third of the runway. I asked Tower to verify a clear runway. The Tower Controller complied and offered that we were cleared to perform a go-around; if we deemed that to be necessary.  As we got within 200 feet of touchdown; I focused hard and could discern that it was; in fact; a patch of asphalt (or paint) on the concrete surface. As we entered the flare; it was totally obviously NOT a vehicle or any threatening object.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported a visual illusion on the runway due to discolored asphalt.
Date: 201304
Location: VDI.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: CTAF VDI
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Other Unwanted situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Both the commercially provided and FAA taxi diagrams for the airport are extremely inaccurate. Taxiways are depicted on the wrong side of the runway; are unlabeled or are missing altogether. For example there is no taxiway south of Runway 6/24; but there is a Taxiway A that extends north of 6/24 and intersects both runways. There were no D/FDC NOTAMS regarding taxiways or changes to the airport configuration. There was no disruption to the flight; but I believe this could pose a safety hazard for future operations at VDI.The airport diagrams should be changed to accurately reflect the layout of VDI.

Callback: The reporter continues to believe there were no taxiways to the south of the field.



Synopsis: A BAE-125 Captain reported the airport diagrams for VDI inaccurately portray the actual situation. In particular; there now exists a taxiway parallel to Runway 6/24 which also provides intersection access to Runway 13/31.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Clear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Merlin Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While on the takeoff roll the left engine quit. I aborted the takeoff; recovered directional control of the plane and advised the Tower who then cleared me off the runway. [After clearing I] contacted Ground Control and was cleared to taxi to the ramp [which I did] without any incidents.




Synopsis: When the left engine of the SW4 Merlin failed on the takeoff roll the pilot rejected the takeoff; recovered directional control; exited the runway and returned to the ramp.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: During aircraft change to Gate XXX for flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1; Release noted aircraft MEL'd (Minimum Equipment List) with inoperative wing body overheat detection; limited to FL 240; one pack operation. Inbound Captain noted aircraft was warm; but they came from a location at 65 degrees. ZZZ was 106 plus on the ramp. Inbound Captain said they tried to get swapped but Company refused request. I checked gate service's air; and cockpit was above 100 degrees and climbing as well as cabin with minimal airflow from vents. PC air was connected and unable to cool aircraft. I called Dispatch and refused aircraft for passenger service safety issue. Within 5 minutes we had another aircraft at Gate YY. At YY; the off going Captain was informed he would be taking the MEL'd aircraft to ZZZ2; even though I very specifically informed Dispatch the aircraft was unusable due to being unsafe for passenger flight. I believe this is Captain shopping.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported aircraft had inoperative cabin cooling and was re-assigned to another flight crew.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cardinal 177/177RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after taking off; while leaning during climb the engine starting running rough. I noticed that cylinder #2 and #4 had no EGT. Looked up and saw [an airport] about 7 miles ahead and found frequency and [advised ATC] and made a normal straight in landing. Asked where the maintenance shop was and taxied. Door was locked. Fireman called mechanic and no one picked up. I called my mechanic and discussed the problem. This plane 2 years previously had a similar problem and was found to be a clogged fuel injector. Mechanic asked if I had access to tools. Fireman was able to get access to the hangar and tools.My mechanic told me where the fuel injectors were and how to remove them. Found #2 and #4 were partially blocked and I cleaned them with compressed air. Followed mechanic's instructions to replace the injectors. Started the plane and did a mag check and found that #2 and #4 were working properly on both mags. Later flew plane to mechanic. He called Lycoming and felt it best to replace the fuel pump and several components in the fuel system. He also replaced the fuel injectors with the newer style.




Synopsis: C177RG pilot reported diverting after the engine began running rough. Problem was later traced to partially clogged fuel injectors in cylinders #2 and #4.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: The pilot was filed to land at OBE and change destinations to AVO due to severe thunderstorms. I vectored the aircraft direct OMIGE for the RNAV Runway 05 approach and issued him to maintain 3;000 ft. As he was approaching OMIGE I noticed he was in a northbound turn and asked if he was entering a procedure turn or something. He responded; 'I'm in trouble'. I asked for the nature of the emergency and he said he was in a microburst and could not control the aircraft. I tried to remain calm and told him course and altitude is his discretion and to try to maintain level wings and penetration airspeed. I observed a sharp climb and a rapid turn to the north. I offered him vectors to LAL and he was able to regain control of the aircraft and accept vectors to the Lakeland airport. I handed him off to Tampa approach and thank god he landed safely. I have never been more scared for another person in my life. I would recommend that this pilot not fly near severe thunderstorms and stay safe on the ground.




Synopsis: ZMA ARTCC Controller reported an aircraft was caught in a microburst and eventually regained controlled of the aircraft after vectoring to another airport.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff Roll
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The event itself was a rejected takeoff on Runway 1R of SFO. It occurred when the takeoff roll commenced and the warning system of the airplane alerted us to the fact that configuration was not set properly for takeoff. Tower was notified and we exited the runway to the right. Company was called by the Captain to inform them and to make sure proper procedure was followed. Once all proper checklists were completed a new takeoff clearance was obtained and the flight proceeded normally. During night operations in SFO as we started to taxi to the runway which would be one of the 28 runways; ATC decided to switch runways to the 1's and give us a new clearance. We started preparing the aircraft for the new clearance and the Captain asked me (the First Officer) to determine what the amount of tailwind we would have on this takeoff to make sure we would not violate the maximum 10 KT tailwind requirement. As I worked on this we continued to taxi. Since we were the first to be given the new clearance and we were task saturated we made it to the runway without having completing the taxi check as normal. Without having called for the Taxi Check; the Before Takeoff Check was called for and completed; and we were immediately cleared for takeoff. Right after the power addition for takeoff we got the aural takeoff warning letting us know that the flaps and autopilot were not configured for takeoff. An immediate rejected takeoff was performed. Make sure that regardless of the situation; all checklists and procedures have been completed. Even if this involves a delay and taxi off to the side to complete if necessary. Do not let ATC push us into going when we are not ready. Be especially vigilant when things happen outside of the normal flow of things. Always take a quick look around to verify proper configuration before takeoff power is added.




Synopsis: A First Officer reported that SFO changed the departure during taxi and because of task saturation the crew failed to configure the aircraft for takeoff resulting in a rejected takeoff.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: GSO.TRACON, NC
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Airspace: Class E GSO
ATC / advisory: TRACON GSO
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: While working the West Radar scope I completely lost radar. My radar screen went black for approximately two seconds and then came back on showing TRACON airspace and secondary targets. My radar had changed to modes and I was unable to select Fusion mode. At the time I had 4 aircraft in the final airspace/box within 6 miles from one another. All aircraft were issued appropriate altitudes prior to losing radar contact to ensure separation and right before losing radar I was able to apply merging target procedures per the FAAH 7110.65. When I regained radar; it wasn't usable in a timely manner and I had to slide over to an adjacent scope to continue working traffic. No other scope had issues to my knowledge.It was my understanding that at the time of this occurrence maintenance was working on the radar to some extent. Maintenance seemed to be surprised after hearing me state 'I lost radar.' I was later told the error was a 'no user' issue and explained that it wasn't anyone's direct fault. Regardless; this is unacceptable. Luckily; I was able to utilize the adjacent scope during a moderate traffic session to continue running final traffic with overlapping approaches. I'm not sure what caused this event and I'm not sure why I was unable to obtain an answer. This was not a good time to lose radar; even if momentarily. It also shouldn't be a surprise to maintenance that is possible radar could be lost for the work they are conducting. Due to this I'm unable to recommend anything in regards to preventing a re-occurrence.




Synopsis: GSO TRACON Controller reported the radar scope went blank for a few seconds.