elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Descending into ZZZ on a visual approach to Runway XXL; but following the guidance of the ILS.  A stable and uneventful approach. Upon landing we had a 6-7 knot tailwind. We landed longer than normal. I wouldn't say that we were outside of the touchdown zone; but it was very close. From my perspective the main wheels touched down prior to the end of the touchdown zone. We had floated a bit and I had to wait for the aircraft to lose that lift and start sinking into the runway before executing my landing flare. Elected not to go around and continue because nothing was unsafe we had a 10;996 foot runway and I elected to use max thrust reversers upon landing to slow us down safely.There was a few contributing factors. The main one being the tailwind on landing. Second was because of less travel due to COVID we sometimes have very light airplanes. Our landing weight was under 36;000 lbs being very light for the aircraft. So the lightweight along with the tailwind wasn't ideal. Lastly; company has recently within the last year or so updated our procedures where we add X knots to our straight in landing speeds regardless of the situation. Not having to add that extra X knots would have helped us carry less momentum into our final approach. We do bleed off the airspeed before touching down; although it's never perfect.The airport should have been landing in the other direction with the wind favoring the other runway; and it would also be more safe because of less terrain that we can't see at night. Also I should have thought about our extra light airplane and possibly requested the other runway. Also; It has been my opinion since it has started that airline go back to the normal landing numbers without adding extra 5 knots. And let the pilots decide when the extra airspeed is necessary depending on environmental factors.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported a long landing possibly outside of the landing zone.  Reporter attributed discrepancy to possible company policy of adding speed to straight in landings and the aircraft being light in weight.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Pilatus Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We were on initial climbout of our home airport with a commercial student and had just cleared our Class D airspace. Had changed frequencies and made a traffic call on our air to air frequency. We were at 3;800 MSL and climbing when I saw a Pilatus immediately in front of our Piper which appeared to be on a head on course with our aircraft. I made an immediate right descending bank and the Pilatus flew past us within 2 seconds. We had been looking for traffic the entire time but saw the Pilatus very late as there was no apparent motion to our aircraft and it appeared that he was traveling at a relatively high airspeed.When we got back I telephoned our Tower to see if a Pilatus had landed at our airport; which it had not. After being put in touch with the Manager of the area TRACON I was informed that the Pilatus had landed at a nearby airport. The TRACON Manager also informed me that the unverified radar showed that the two aircraft converged at 3;800 and 4;000 FT MSL; our Piper being at 3;800 FT and climbing. He also stated that the Pilatus had been given a traffic alert five miles before encountering our aircraft and been given a suggested heading of 280 which the pilot declined stating he had our aircraft in sight. The Pilatus made no visible effort to avoid our aircraft.




Synopsis: Instructor and student pilot aboard a PA-28 climbing out of a Class D area experienced a NMAC with an opposite direction Pilatus inbound to a nearby airport.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower DFW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: DFW in South flow daily runway inspections in progress.  Air Carrier X had landed Runway 17L and was taxiing via Taxiway ER restricted short of Runway 17C. Runway 17C was closed for inspection and I had depicted it as such on the ASDE-X. Immediately after I cleared  Air Carrier X to cross Runway 17C; hold short Runway 17R the pilot responded that he had red lights (RWSL) in front of him so I instructed Air Carrier X to hold short of Runway 17C and advised that I would look into it (the reason for the lights). Next; I notified the FLM of the incident and as I did so I was scanning the runway and ASDE-X display. During my scan the only thing I detected was an airport vehicle (part of the runway inspection team) proceeding southbound on Runway 17C. Even before I had finished coordinating with the FLM; Air Carrier X reported that the lights had gone out and I issued a clearance to cross Runway 17C hold short Runway 17R. The FLM called the prototype RWSL system representative at DFW and relayed the following information to me: Even when a runway is closed in ASDE-X; RWSL runway entrance lights (RELs) will illuminate if a primary target is detected proceeding down the runway at greater than 40 knots. Essentially the RWSL system considers this target as a departing aircraft even though the ASDE-X does not. The representative also told the FLM that if I had manually tagged; the primary as a vehicle; the system would not have activated. This programming logic is not acceptable. Vehicles performing runway inspections enter and exit the runway safety area repeatedly during inspections and it is not feasible to continually put data tags on them. DFW uses 5 vehicles to perform runway inspections on 7 runways every morning and just keeping them tagged would be a full time job. The RWSL should be programmed to not alert on primary targets operating on closed runways. The ASDE-X rightly didn't alert. The RWSL introduced confusion to a situation that was completely under control. A similar situation occurred at MCO this past June and the RWSL program office suggested that the airport vehicles should be restricted; by LOA; to less than 35 or 40 KTS unless the tower was going to tag the targets. Of course the system at DFW is a prototype and not identical to the system in MCO. Regardless; this type of event is not acceptable.




Synopsis: DFW Controller described an apparent 'Runway Status Light (RWSL)' system anomaly; noting the ASDE-X and RWSL systems should be more closely aligned.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PDX.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E P80
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were at assigned altitude of 13;000 FT. An aircraft began a fast descent towards us. At 500 FT away from us; we got an RA to climb. We began a climbing/ fairly steep turn to miss him. It was close enough that we saw his lights even though IMC. After calling ATC on the ground; we were told that he was given an approach clearance into a satellite airport. This should not have happened.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported an NMAC with another aircraft in the vicinity of PDX airport.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The event occurred almost immediately after climbing through 10;000 MSL to a higher ATC assigned altitude.  I heard what I would describe as a moderately loud 'poof' sound.  The aircraft lurched a bit and there was a definite vibration.  In a few seconds I smelled a somewhat noxious and certainly unusual odor.  The Captain called out the abnormal indications on the EICAS which included the left engine's N2 vibe icon and red ITT indications.  The vibration was reduced by retarding the left thrust lever.  We referenced the QRH and the Captain and I decided against a full shut down given the EICAS indications and that the vibration was very insignificant at about idle.  The Captain informed Dispatch and the Flight Attendant of our return.  ATC was advised of our need to return and an emergency was declared.  We landed safely and without further incident.  We promptly got the passengers off the airplane at a gate.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reports a compressor stall climbing through 10;000 feet that results in high N2 vibration and high ITT.  The thrust is reduced to idle and the flight returns to the departure airport.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DAB.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 40
Aircraft: DA42 Twin Star
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E DAB
ATC / advisory: TRACON DAB
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Other Laser
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Tonight while level at 4;500 FT; we (Student and Instructor) were blinded for 3-4 seconds by a green laser approximately 10 miles south/southeast of SGJ. The laser came from a residential community immediately west of the main beach road on the beach side of St. Augustine. The laser illuminated; found our aircraft; and then remained trained on our aircraft for 3-4 seconds. While we were not harmed; we were blinded and our night vision remained obscured for a short while after. It took a few minutes to become fully acclimated to night flying again.




Synopsis: An Instructor pilot and his Student were momentarily blinded by a green laser while in level flight at 4;500 MSL.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: EWR.Tower, NJ
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: This event occurred during a training session (in which I was training--my instructor filed a report for this incident as well).Air Carrier X; while on short final; went around (on its own) due to an 'unstable approach'. A heading and altitude were issued to keep this aircraft laterally separated from Air Carrier Y; which had already been cleared for takeoff and had started its departure roll. Air Carrier Y reported Air Carrier X in sight and stated that it would maintain visual separation (which was authorized by ATC). A subsequent departure; Air Carrier Z; was erroneously issued a takeoff clearance rather than a Line-Up-And-Wait (LUAW) clearance; so this aircraft was unfortunately 'thrown into the mix'. Air Carrier Z was assigned a heading and altitude below Air Carrier Y; so separation was never lost between any of the aircraft noted in this report. However; when Air Carrier Z was stopped at 2;000 FT.; this aircraft eventually conflicted with a TEB arrival (being handled by N90) descending out of 2;000 FT.; without the required 3 NM lateral separation.In the event of go-around; EWR Tower has a missed approach procedure that conflicts with its standard departure procedure. This is because of airspace limitations: TEB traffic is descending to the west and LaGuardia airspace is to the east. There is very little room to separate aircraft in this narrow corridor of airspace (EWR's NE Flow: Arriving Runway 4R; Departing Runway 4L). Airspace changes should definitely be made to ensure a safer flow of traffic--at the MINIMUM; the SID and the missed approach procedure should NOT be in conflict!




Synopsis: EWR Tower Developmental reports about SID and Airspace conflictions and the need to change airspace or SID due to conflictions.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MCO.Airport, FL
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Inadvertently taxied through 'taxiway island'.  While taxiing in toward gate; we taxied through the south 'island/no taxi' area between taxiways J3 & J4. It was late night; and I had turned off taxi light as courtesy to opposite direction aircraft on taxiway J; and marshallers in gate area. When I turned toward gate; I proceed through the UNLIT 'no taxi' area. As we passed by BLACK vertical marker the FO (First Officer) noticed we had taxied through the 'no taxi' island. If airports feel it's important enough to mark an area unavailable for aircraft movement during daylight hours; maybe it would be wise to illuminate it during hour of darkness.


Second narrative: Taxiing into gate in MCO we were cleared to enter the ramp on J3. As we turned into J3 we proceeded into our gate. After shutdown we realized we may have taxied through the edge of the south most green panted area between J3 and J4. This area does not have any lighting.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported inadvertently taxiing through a 'no taxi' area at MCO; noting that the area is not lit at night.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Was asked to relocate an aircraft. Aircraft just came out of paint shop; and was intended for export. Before flight was told by the owner that the gear was reported as having a leak in the gear but flew fine. Inspected aircraft for the leak but found no evidence of a leak; and aircraft just came out of annual. Owner operator was present throughout the preflight and process and was on board aircraft. Based on visual inspection and (exporter owner) owner's lack of concern and the recency of the annual inspection. It seemed reasonable that there was no problem and the aircraft was airworthy. However I did think it prudent to fly with the gear down to destination at reduced speed. Anyway after takeoff and out of habit I retracted the gear and immediately caught myself and reversed the gear handle to down. As soon as we turned crosswind the oil filler door popped open on the left engine; in consideration of the reduced cooling I decided to come around and land and close that door. After touch down and during roll out the left landing gear gave and retracted. The aircraft veered to the left as the left wing tip dragged on the pavement and slid off the runway and into the grass/sand and came to rest. There were no injuries or damage to the main structure. Pilot owner plus one passenger walked off without injury and unharmed. Lesson learned do not fly an unfamiliar aircraft if there is any reported or observed no matter however mild discrepancy till it was checked out by a mechanic. Certainly was a bad day.




Synopsis: After takeoff on a ferry flight; a PA-31 oil filler door opened so the piloted returned to the departure airport where the left landing gear collapsed. The aircraft was just released from a paint shop.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During climb-out we were given a heading to join the 240 radial off of DEN VOR. As we were in the climb/cruise configuration; I input the 240 radial track off of DEN; but was at a loss as to how far I should put that point in space before we made our turn towards HBU VOR on our way to our destination. I queried ATC for a distance we would likely stay on this 240 radial; but was given a vague answer. So I input a 40 mile DME [waypoint] on the 240 radial as a starting point with the next fix being HBU VOR. We joined up on the 240 radial and we became busy with checklist; the threat of thunderstorms in the area; and our passenger's desire to go to a different airport. As a result; I didn't notice--some minutes later--that the airplane had reached 240/40 DME waypoint and had turned toward HBU. We; of course; were not cleared to HBU yet; so ATC called and asked if we had been given a different routing. It was at that time I realized we had a navigational error. ATC cleared us to HBU and the flight proceeded without incident.I should have just flown 'green needles' using normal NAV mode with joining and staying on the 240 radial off of DEN until given a further clearance. My haste in getting the FMS involved and lack of awareness that we had reached the point in space and had turned to HBU without clearance allowed us to take part in a navigational error.




Synopsis: A C-560XLS First Officer; cleared to intercept a radial off a VOR with no subsequent routing elected to make a waypoint to fly to at 40 DME and then closed the resulting route discontinuity by bringing up and executing the first 'on course' waypoint in their route. Later; distracted by other duties; the flight crew failed to note they had arrived at their 'fix' and were turning toward the en route fix without having been cleared to do so. ATC quickly reminded them they hadn't been cleared to do so...and then provided that clearance.