elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 3
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approach to ILS following an airbus that showed approx 3 miles ahead of us on final; approach asked us to hold 180 to ZZZZZ. Our final approach speed was Vref 111. Following the airbus into the FAF; the first officer and I were discussing our separation and closure rate on the Airbus. At the FAF I called gear down flaps 20 and started to slow to 130 knots. Below 162 knots I called for flaps 30 landing checklist. About the same time tower asked us if we could speed up 10 knots. The first officer and I discussed briefly if this was possible and told tower no; we had to slow down. We were also talking about our separation with the airbus and @ 1000 feet AGL the first officer made the 1000 feet call with 5 knots fast. Shortly after we got a too low flaps GPWS warning two times. I looked over at the flap handle and it wasn't in the flaps 30 position. I made the comment flaps aren't at 30 and called go around while initiating the go around. During the go around; tower asked us for the reason of the go around. We stated unstable approach. Went back around and came in for another ILS uneventful. While ultimately we made the mistakes; approach and tower need to stop treating all aircraft the same. A light weight 757 with and approach speed of 115 knots is not the same as a max weight MD with an approach speed of 165-170 knots. Asking crews to adjust speed inside the final approach fix is unsafe and can disrupt checklists. I think that tower asking us to speed up during an important phase of the landing checklist; disrupted our attention and we missed the flaps 30 landing checklist as a crew. During a go around tower doesn't need to know the reason why immediately when crews are at their busiest. They can wait until the flight is stable on downwind.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported being asked by ATC to speed up ten knots after the FAF at the same time he called for flaps 30. The First Officer apparently did not hear the call and the omission was not discovered until the GPWS calls out 'too low flaps' and a go-around is initiated.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Initial taxi instructions Taxi to [Runway] XXL hold short XXL at BRAVO. Holding short tower asked if we were on frequency and cleared us to cross RWY XXL right turn on ECHO cross RWY XYR (freq clutter). Ground Control was combined with heavy radio traffic; call signs blocked aircraft transmissions overlapping (stepped on). Still thinking we were to use RWY XXL (clearance to RWY XXR was blocked after crossing RWY XYL/XZR) holding short monitoring Tower. We were instructed to Line up and wait (RWY number blocked). As we moved approximately 10 feet forward we noticed aircraft on final. Stopped. Tower advised aircraft was on about a 1-2 mile final to go-around 'aircraft on runway.' Aircraft on final acknowledged; but said there was no one on runway (frequency cluttered; Tower told aircraft to go-around a second and third time even though they had already initiated go-around). Tower then instructed us to line up and wait RWY XXL. We were subsequently cleared for takeoff RWY XXL; original runway issued in taxi instructions. Climbing out Departure Control said they did not know what happened but gave us a phone number to call. After landing at ZZZ I called. The gentleman answering said nothing of situation asked for my name; phone number; address and certificate number and said thank you. I feel the heavy traffic on combined ground control frequency led to confusion. They have two ground control frequencies and should use them when traffic is busy.




Synopsis: C560XL pilot reported a runway incursion due to a communication breakdown caused by heavy radio traffic.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
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); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
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: I was hand flying the visual backed up by the RNAV. Approximately a mile outside of [final approach fix] I called for the landing gear. The nose wheel and left main had a green light; but the right main did not. The (gear) door and gear light stayed illuminated. We quickly checked the light and saw that the light worked when tested. I told the Captain that I was going around. We went through the normal go around procedures and the gear went up as normal. ATC gave us vectors. The Captain let the passengers know via the PA system why we went around. I continued to fly and talk to ATC. The Captain told Dispatch through ACARS to call us. They gave us two different frequencies; but none worked. The plane does not have SATCOM and were unable to talk to anyone from the company. Due to fuel we decided to run the checklists and drop the gear manually. Gear came down and were cleared back in to [destination]. We landed without incident.


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


Synopsis: B757 flight crew reported extending the landing gear with the manual backup method after the right main gear failed to extend.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AUS.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-34-200 Seneca I
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C AUS
ATC / advisory: TRACON AUS
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On RNAV 17 approach; I was not sure I was getting vertical guidance. Attempted to reactivate approach; but the approach would not reactivate due to being inside the initial approach fix. Lost approach (except on MFD approach charts that also indicated aircraft position on charts) on GPS due to checking programming; but had limited visual of airport and continued. Received low altitude call from TRACON. Corrected altitude; but in doing so lost visual with airport for short time. Continued approach procedure and visual landing. I knew I should not to attempt reactivation of approach; but was distracted. The Garmin 530 doesn't adequately indicate that the approach is active and functioning; or is ambiguous. If the GPS more clearly indicated phase of flight and approach functioning; probably wouldn't have happened. I need to re-read manual for GPS.




Synopsis: PA34 pilot reports losing vertical and lateral guidance during an RNAV approach. The approach is continued using the track line on the MFD only; resulting in a low altitude alert from the Tower. In and out of clouds the approach is continued to landing.
Date: 201702
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
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 Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After First Officer (FO) called; 'check thrust' and before I could answer FO said; 'I can't steer it. My rudder pedals are not working.' We rejected the takeoff at approximately 20 knots. I verified that the tiller still worked to steer and that my rudder pedals did not work. We returned to the gate.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported an aborted takeoff after First Officer stated he was unable to steer aircraft with rudder pedals.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TTD.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E P80
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: There were two instances of concern on this flight:1. Vectors were provided from HHOOD to the RNAV-A approach into KTTD. This plane's GPS was a recently upgraded to a Garmin 650; with which I have very little practice beyond one approach in VFR conditions; and some time on a simulator. The tops were at about 3;000 feet.After being cleared for the approach and stated to maintain at or above 2;500 MSL over WOODD; I continued on. The GPS was set to vectors. The GPS did not increment to the next fix; and I did not know how to increment it to the next leg. The controller stated I was on course; so I just turned to follow the course; rather than asking for missed vectors while I get the GPS sorted out. Fortunately; the ceiling was plenty high; so when I broke out about 1/4 mile off course; I was able to cancel IFR and land VFR.-The biggest learning item was that I need to become more familiar with this GPS prior to flying an approach in IFR conditions. This could have been dangerous; had the clouds been lower.2. Also; on this same flight; the haze northeast of the airport was quite severe; although it was VFR. As I was eating lunch; the haze suddenly became much darker and it went to solid IFR conditions. I called and received an IFR clearance from Seattle Center. Fortunately I was on flight following; so the clearance came quickly. Lessons learned: If it is at all marginal; just get an IFR clearance. Don't try to push on into questionable VFR conditions. It was amazing how fast the haze from the forest fires just slowly became more and more dense until it was too dense to see.




Synopsis: General aviation pilot reported difficulty with new navigation equipment while on a RNAV approach and experiencing rapidly deteriorating visibility while on a VFR flight.
Date: 201506
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cooling Fan; any cooling fan
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Two previous write ups indicated FAs could feel something shaking/moving under the floor of the aft galley. I briefed the purser and asked that all FAs be made aware of this and be looking for it. Additionally I made a non rev pilot aware of the possible problem. As we pushed I got a call from the back and both the FA and the non rev CA could feel the shaking. We pulled back to the gate and called maintenance. After about an hour of trouble shooting it was discovered to be the equipment cooling fans. When the mechanic went directly to the fans; one of them was shaking and was much hotter than the other. Maintenance Control was involved and wanted the single fan made inoperative and then continue per MEL deferral. I watched closely as the deferral procedure was being efforted. It was discovered that when the problem fan was deactivated; the other fan would not operate. With two fans inoperative there was evidently no MEL data that allowed dispatch. The following is paraphrased only slightly: Maintenance Control then said 'ok; we know what the problem is now; plug them both back in and we'll get this flight out and fix it later.' Hearing that I knew I was refusing the airplane. I got the passengers off and called the Duty Manager. I also watched closely as the mechanic refused Maintenance Control. I told the Duty Manager what was going on and explained I was very angry with Maintenance Control. The Duty Manager understood and got a hold of local maintenance supervisor. That supervisor and I made a plan (deliberately apart from Maintenance Control about how to continue using the safest most conservative approach: fix the airplane. The parts were on hand so the repair started. Two line mechanics started the repair and got it done in about an hour and a half. We [pilots] timed out however; and the flight had to be delayed a day.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reports accepting an aircraft with previous write ups for shaking/vibration under the aft galley floor. The problem reappears as the aircraft is pushed back and Maintenance is called. The problem is traced to an equipment cooling fan; which Maintenance Control wants the crew to take as is and the crew declines.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beech 1900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On short final with all checklists complete. When power levers were retarded below 1;000 lbs. TQ; the red gear in-transit annunciation on the landing gear handle illuminated. The indications observed by the flight crew were three green gear-down lights and a red illuminated landing gear handle that was in the down position. The annunciation immediately extinguished when power was advanced at or above 1;000 lbs. of TQ. After conferring with the First Officer (FO); it was decided to attempt a second attempt at landing as there was not an unsafe gear annunciation above 1;000 lbs. TQ and all other indications were normal. During the second attempt while on an approximate five mile final to the Runway; the same gear unsafe annunciation occurred under the same conditions.  The approach was aborted and ATC vectors were followed. The Emergency Checklist for Landing Gear In-Transit Indication was performed; this lead to the Abnormal Checklist for Failure of Landing Gear to Extend Normally. Maintenance Control was contacted and; with their assistance it was decided to perform the Abnormal Checklist for Landing Gear Manual Extension. After completing all checklists ATC cleared us to land. Dispatch and Maintenance advised the crew to disregard the red illuminated landing gear handle for this third approach. While on short final to 30L with three green gear-down Annunciators illuminated; the red landing gear handle Annunciator illuminated when TQ was decreased below 1;000lbs. We landed and taxied to the gate without incident.At this time...it appears that the issue was caused by runway contamination (snow; ice; sand) at the previous departure locations getting slung inside the landing gear well.




Synopsis: When; on approach for landing; the flight crew of a BE-1900 was confronted with the dichotomy of three green landing gear safe lights and a red gear in transit light they performed a go around; contacted maintenance; consulted and completed possibly related QRH procedures and; ultimately; opted to land with the anomalous lights; confident the landing gear was safe. The landing was without incident.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Exhaust Gas Temperature Indicat
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the upwind for closed traffic at about 400 feet the aircraft started to vibrate and Cylinder Head Temperature (CHT) indications were about to go yellow. I took the controls and noticed the Exhaust Gas Temperature (EGT) temperatures were at 1;500 more specifically EGT indication number 3 and 4. I took the controls and asked to land [on opposite direction runway] and the tower allowed me to bring the SR-20 for full stop landing on [opposite direction runway].In the future I can learn to be more cautious on the potential for this event to happen and notice the signs maybe before rotation.




Synopsis: A Flight Instructor reported engine vibration and rising cylinder head and exhaust gate temperatures on climb out. A return to the field was initiated with a successful landing on the opposite direction runway.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We completed pushback and engine start off XX-Gate.  We then received clearance for left 270 turn due to another aircraft to our right.  As engines spooled up we identified the threat of fuel truck moving from our left but it was still distant.  We double checked lighting set.  As aircraft began to move it became clear that the fuel truck was not stopping and the Captain had to brake abruptly to avoid collision.Took Immediate Corrective Action to Avoid a Collision Incursion




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported a Critical Ground Conflict occurred just as the Captain began to taxi. A fuel truck did not yield to their aircraft and abrupt braking was required of the Captain to avoid a collision.