elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Inside the final approach fix for Runway 22; First Officer noticed that we were below glideslope. The autopilot was engaged and approach selected tracking the localizer however; unbeknownst to us; the VNAV was in pitch mode. The First Officer brought this fact to my attention and I added power and began to climb to re-intercept the glideslope. Approximately the same time; I intercepted the glideslope we broke out VMC conditions and had the runway and PAPI insight. We performed a visual landing.Believing the autopilot had captured the ILS correctly; I relied too heavily on automation and failed to keep my scan going. I must keep in mind that the buttons in the flight guidance panel are myth and what displays on the PFD is truth. Meaning-- I can't rely on the aircraft to do what I command by simply pressing a button on the flight guidance panel. I must verify the plane is doing what I command by what is displayed on the PFD. I must also keep my scan going and not get complacent.


Second narrative: If we would have both initially verified that the Flight Guidance Controller and autopilot were indeed programmed to do what we intended to do at the top of the attitude indicator on the PFD this event would have never happened. I know to do this each [time]; but this time we assumed that by pressing the button on the Flight Guidance panel it would do what we wanted. This was the 4th ILS we had to shoot that day; so we possibly became a little complacent and our scan broke down momentarily. This reemphasized to me to never assume that when you press a button/mode on the Flight Guidance panel that the airplane will accept that function. You must always verify what the automation is doing on the PFD.


Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew descended below the glideslope inside the Final Approach Fix; but corrected back to the glideslope after discovering that the VNAV was in pitch mode.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MDPC.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower MDPC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were asked if we had Aircraft on 3 mile final in sight and we told tower we did; he then said when he passes line up and wait at our discretion while the aircraft is still 3 miles out.  Hmm!




Synopsis: Pilot reports that he was asked if he had the aircraft on three mile final in sight. Pilot reported yes; and then was told when he passes line up and wait. This happened at a foreign location.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: JYO.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-34-200T Turbo Seneca II
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF JYO
Second aircraft: Cirrus Aircraft Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departing JYO. Part time Tower closes in the afternoon. Called Ground for clearance. Was informed Tower was closing; Runway 35 was in use and to get clearance from Potomac Approach. Announced taxi to Runway 35 on Unicom and taxied to run-up area. Switched frequencies and got IFR clearance. Was told there was inbound IFR traffic and that we were cleared to go as soon as they arrived. Traffic was on base for 35. They landed and we announced our departure for 35 on Unicom and taxied out. As landing traffic cleared runway we started our takeoff roll. As we rolled I spotted landing lights on short final for Runway 17. I aborted takeoff and stopped the plane well to the side of the runway. The approaching airplane; a Cirrus; landed and taxied off the runway. We then departed on Runway 35. I do not believe the Cirrus ever saw us. We did not hear him call position or intentions on Unicom. The wind favored Runway 35 and that was the direction all traffic had been landing according to the Tower before it closed. The runway is long and neither airplane was in jeopardy as the Cirrus stopped in a short distance and exited the runway. But had I not seen them in the distance it could have been much closer.




Synopsis: PA34 pilot reported rejecting takeoff after observing unannounced traffic on short final landing on the opposite direction runway.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot 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 Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Near maximum takeoff weight; had to use runway not being utilized for normal departures; packs off takeoff. Shortly after gear retraction; EICAS warning indicated left main landing gear still down and locked with nose and right main gear retracted. Completed departure procedure; pack takeoff procedure; and notified departure of gear problem. Chose to restrict speed to 250 to comply with max landing gear extension/retraction speeds. Also stopped climb at FL200.After coordination with company dispatch and maintenance via SATCOM; a divert to [an alternate] was decided upon rather than a return to [departure airport] due to terrain and possible further potential problems in the event of a go-around and having to leave gear extended.[We advised] ATC; and headings were given to [the alternate]. Due to the heavy weight; we elected to dump fuel to reduce our landing weight. Coordination and approval was obtained from ATC for the dump. After dumping we prepared for a landing. The flight attendants were briefed; and then the passengers were informed of the issue and plan. Landing distance performance data for the overweight landing was obtained from dispatch; and the arrival and approach were briefed.The landing was made at a weight of 380;000 LBS with no issues. After landing; we taxied to remote parking; shut down the aircraft; and submitted the maintenance ACARS items for the gear as well as the overweight landing. Checking the landing gear synopsis page; we noticed one of the left main brake [temperatures] was higher than the rest; so after ensuring the aircraft was chocked and with approval of the maintenance technician we released the parking brake to facilitate cooling of the brakes.




Synopsis: B767 First Officer reported diverting to an alternate after one main landing gear failed to retract after takeoff.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cargo Compartment Sidewall Panel
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Load Planner
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors; MEL; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Load Planning called approximately 2 hours prior to departure to inform that the forward cargo compartment was inop and we would restrict 9800 lbs cargo since the plane couldn't be kept in balance. I placed them on hold and told Maintenance Control that we were taking a 9800 lb payload restriction with the AC out of the departure station. He asked why and I said the forward cargo compartment was inop and he said it was an easy fix. All they had to do was pop in a panel. I asked if I had to worry about it and he said no. I then told Load Planning that Maintenance Control was fixing it and it was an easy fix by popping in a panel. Load planning then called after the flight was airborne and less than 2 hours from arrival in the next station to inform me that 2 cans were loaded in the forward cargo compartment and what happened about the fix. I questioned him and mentioned how we discussed the 9800 lb weight restriction at the departure station. He only then said that it would be fixed next and that was the intention. I reiterated that the problem was in the departure station and that's what we discussed.


Second narrative: Aircraft had MEL applied due damage to the forward system liner. MEL condition required forward system to remain empty. 787 Dispatch was informed by the shift manager that 28000 lbs of cargo was being held off and possibly the same amount would be held off the next segment with this placard applied. Later Dispatch called the load planner assigned the flight and informed the load planner the placard would be cleared. The load planner planned items in the forward system and the ramp closed out the flight with these items onboard. Subsequently the load planner was informed the MEL was not cleared and was planned to be cleared in the next station. I am not sure who between Maintenance Control; Station maintenance or 787 Dispatch misunderstood where the MEL was to be cleared.


Synopsis: A B787 forward cargo compartment liner was damaged which restricted it from any cargo. Maintenance notified Dispatch that repairs were made; so cargo was loaded and the flight departed. In flight; Dispatch was notified no repair was made.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Quad copter drone passed inside 50 feet of right wing while we were limping out of SJC at 11;000 feet 8 miles southeast turning north.We need more effective Drone restrictions.


Second narrative: It passed very slightly high; approximately five feet above us with a distance no greater than our right wing tip. We had absolutely no time to react. From the time we first saw it to the time it was upon us was less than 2 seconds. It was a grey or white 4 rotor 'X' shaped drone. The size of the aircraft is difficult to determine; but it was definitely larger than any bird you would normally see including the largest goose. I am extremely glad we didn't hit it. Drone flying is continuing to pose a threat to aviation. In this case; it was flying at night over a huge metropolitan area. If this aircraft; and drones are exactly that; would have hit us; the results could have been catastrophic. Regulations are going to have to be put into place and enforced. History has shown us that air to air collisions do not end well.


Synopsis: Flight crew climbing out of SJC suffered an NMAC with a large four rotor UAV drone.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 4
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were vectored for the ILS XX at ZZZ; upon crossing the VOR we flew the full approach. Visibility was 4 Miles overcast 200 ft. The overcast had previously been 300 ft. then dropped to 200 ft.; the DA (Decision Altitude) was 250 ft. We decided to fly the approach since the visibility was 4 miles. When reaching the DA of 250 ft. my copilot called runway in sight; I continued the descent for about five more seconds but I did not have contact with the runway ; just as I was pressing the go around button the runway came into full view. The 200 ft. overcast report was correct as far as I'm concerned. We were still in position to land so I continued the landing. After words I realized we were below the DA when I saw the runway and should have gone around. Hence this report.




Synopsis: CE525 flight crew reported descending below minimums on an ILS approach.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Auxiliary/Standby System
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: Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon initial taxi out; we received an ECAM HYD PTU (Power Transfer Unit) Fault message during the second engine start; we taxied to a holding area where we investigated the issue prior to take off. Following consultation with Maintenance Control; a return to the gate was coordinated with ZZZ Maintenance and Operations. The hydraulic PTU appeared to be inoperative and needed maintenance attention. Due to the late hour; Operations said the self-park system at gate X would be turned on and a ground crew would be coordinated. We taxied to the gate stop point under the automated guidance system and set the parking brake. The jetway was moved into position and the airplane door was opened to allow two awaiting maintenance technicians to board the aircraft and begin troubleshooting the hydraulic issue. The passengers remained onboard the aircraft. We remained in our seats as the technicians; on the flight deck behind us; followed their troubleshooting instructions they had brought with them. At some point in the procedures; the lead technician requested the parking brake to be released. He said we were chocked and I moved my seat forward to guard the brakes as I released the parking brake. No immediate movement was noted. The troubleshooting continued; for 5-10 minutes after the parking brake release; until it the airplane was noticed moving backwards. Then; the parking brake was immediately set. The movement wasn't noticed until the personnel on the jetway began yelling that the plane was moving. A maintenance supervisor was requested to inspect the airplane door as it appeared door 1L had come into contact with the jetway visor. The door was inspected and determined to not be damaged. Subsequently; the hydraulic PTU was determined to inoperative and needing repair. An aircraft swap was coordinated; the passengers offloaded and we moved to the newly assigned airplane.


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


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported that while troubleshooting a hydraulic power transfer unit fault maintenance requested the parking brake to be released; which caused the aircraft to roll backwards into the jetway. No damage was reported to either the aircraft door or the jetway.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Cessna 425/441 Conquest I/Conquest II
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was flying towards PUB when about 250 miles out I encountered wake turbulence and made the aircraft fly below the selected altitude of 34;000. I was about 250 NM from PUB when the encounter happened.




Synopsis: C441 pilot reported a wake turbulence encounter at FL340 resulted in an excursion from assigned altitude.
Date: 201203
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were in cruise at 38;000 FT. About 100 miles east of MCI; I noticed a very small vibration almost sounding like a lavatory motor that runs longer than it should. The vibration went away after five seconds. There was no anomaly noted on the engine instruments. The same vibration came back a few more times and would go away in about five seconds with roughly five minutes elapsing between each occurrence. Before the last time the last vibration came back; I asked the First Officer to ask Center for lower because I didn't like that the vibration kept coming back even thought we tried speeds from .80 to .75 in .01 increments.Out of FL360 there was a much more noticeable vibration; which we actually felt through our seats. At this point; the left engine failed; the autopilot disengaged and various alarms illuminated on the engine instrument display screen. The Engine Failure and Driftdown checklists were accomplished after declaring an emergency with Center. A single engine overweight landing was accomplished at the nearest suitable airport.After an initial inspection by company Maintenance I was informed the left engine had seized to the point where you could not even turn the fan blades. A substantial amount of melted engine parts were also found in the tailpipe.


Second narrative: [No substantive additional information was included in the secondary narrative.]


Synopsis: A B737-700 flight crew declared an emergency and diverted to the nearest suitable airport when the left engine seized following several vibration cycles at cruise.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 310/T310C
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Trainee
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Second reporter function: Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Heavy vibrations were felt during the landing roll while slowing to 20 MPH or less. Thinking the source was the nose wheel; back pressure was applied to the elevator to try to stop vibrations. When doing so had no effect on the vibrations the back pressure was relieved which made the vibrations greater and back pressure was reapplied. At that moment the right main gear folded under the aircraft at a speed of 10 MPH or less.


Second narrative: The right main gear torque link bolt detached and the right main gear folded causing substantial damage to right engine; propeller and main fuel tank.FAA considered this to be a result of a hard landing.  I was providing multi-engine instruction to the owner of the aircraft. The landings made were well within the realm of normal landings with no side load on the gear. The aircraft had recently had an annual inspection and the landing gear had been worked on.


Synopsis: A private pilot undergoing multi-engine training in his C-310 with an instructor suffered the collapse of the right main gear on landing roll. The instructor believed all immediately prior training landings were well in the 'normal' range; but noted the landing gear had been subject to maintenance on a recent annual inspection.