elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MUFH.ARTCC, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center MUFH
Second aircraft: A380
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Having just finished reading an article about a wake turbulence accident; I felt the need to raise a safety concern regarding 'Super' aircraft. An accident involving an Airbus 380 and a Bombardier Challenger 604 caused me to rethink our wake turbulence encounter and [I] felt the need for it to be reported.Just as in the accident/incident; we were separated by 1000 ft in approximately 10 to 15 miles separation. The accident scenario was more of a head on flight where ours was crossing the wake of the A380 at approximately a 70 degree angle. The bump we encountered was nothing more than moderate chop for less than one second. Upon initial contact with Havana Center; we were held down below our planned cruise altitude.  Later the Controller pointed out an aircraft as they were approximately 80 miles away 1000 ft above us. We were intending to climb above that altitude and the FO and I mentioned to each other that at that distance we certainly had room to climb now. Visual contact was made on the Airbus approximately 2 o'clock and 20 miles away.  As we crossed their wake; they were around our 10 o'clock position and 10 miles. Up until that point; winds were very light and the ride was extremely smooth.  There was no wake turbulence encounter expected on our part with such a great distance between the two aircraft. I know without a doubt that hundreds of unreported wake turbulence encounters are experienced daily; mostly on departure with a minimum spacing between the aircraft ahead. I strongly feel that the wake produced by the A380 aircraft needs to be explored more and most likely different spacing requirements supplied.  It is almost an impossibility with airspace constraints on arrival and departure to have a fixed plan for every scenario.  At least during cruise; more spacing is likely necessary. We are all [aware that] the most severe wake turbulence is at slow speed; high lift configurations. I also believe we have all encountered slight wake turbulence encounters crossing the wake from an aircraft above us; but as the Challenger accident shows; loss of aircraft can occur; thus more research is necessary.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence at FL350 from an A380 10 miles away and 1;000 ft above them.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Other Load Planning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I discovered a cart with 630 LBS of freight on gate; when checking for a hold off code in my scanner the freight was listed as on the flight in pit 3. I know this is a violation of company and FAA rules. I have seen this problem occur numerous times. The leads and supervisors need to address this issue.




Synopsis: Ramp person reported finding a cart with 630 pounds of cargo that his scanner indicated was on a flight.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EC135
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning Compressor
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During return trip to home base; after dropping off patient; transmission chip light came on. Power was immediately reduced and a landing area was selected. The only suitable landing area was a military airfield. I informed Approach I had a mechanical problem and requested to divert into the military airfield. I was told to change over to the Tower. I informed them I had a mechanical problem; and was told I could not land without a Prior Permission Request (PPR); or declaring an emergency. I choose to declare an emergency. During the descent into the airfield I monitored the transmission temperatures and pressures; both seemed to hold steady during the descent. After landing aircraft was shutdown and Mechanic was notified. No further incident occurred. After further inspection of the aircraft the Mechanic noticed that the compressor shaft on the air conditioning unit had sheared off. The oil sample taken showed that the metal on the chip detector was consistent with the metal on the sheared shaft; and not the transmission gears.




Synopsis: An EC135 transmission chip light illuminated so the pilot declared an emergency and diverted to a nearby military airfield where it was later determined that a failed air conditioning shaft caused metal in the oil.
Date: 202006
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Other Director of Operations
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Inspector
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance; Person Other Person
When detected: Other Pre-buy
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Previous maintenance performed on the aircraft partially completed items in the required 12 year inspection.  When the work cards were turned in; the 12 year inspection was incorrectly determined to have been completed in its entirety and was marked completed in the tracking system; resetting its due date.  With the due date reset; the 12 year inspection no longer showed on the aircraft 'to do' list populated by the tracking system. During a pre-purchase inspection; the error was discovered due to the aircraft logbook having no recent record of a completed 12 year inspection and review of the work cards indicated the inspection had only been partially completed. The aircraft was immediately grounded until the 12 year inspection could be completed. This recording error was caused by a misunderstanding between the technicians and the individual updating the tracking system.  Future errors of this nature could be avoided by having a status sheet of major events/inspections incorporated into the aircraft maintenance due list.


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


Synopsis: Maintenance inspection on light transport aircraft was incorrectly recorded as being completed.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Lancair ES
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ; TFR ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Beechcraft King Air Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying practice approaches for currency in and around ZZZ airport. I was briefed and was aware of the TFR over ZZZ1 for an air show. I was flying a practice GPS XX approach. I selected the GPS XX approach as it was on the opposite side of the airport from the TFR. I was communicating and monitoring the UNICOM frequency. I announced my position multiple times. When I was on short final; a King Air suddenly appeared on downwind for Runway XY [opposite direction] and announced his intention to land on XY; despite me having announced multiple times that I was on short final for XX. My attention was on the King Air when I glanced up and saw a windshield full of skydivers. I immediately began evasive action; turning first to the left so as to pass behind the King Air. However; I realized that turning left limited my visibility of the skydivers; so I then proceeded to turn back right parallel to the runway so I could see the skydivers. I also began a climb. I was very shaken by the event. By the time I composed myself and stopped looking for skydivers; I looked at my MFD and realized I had penetrated the TFR. I immediately executed a steep turn to the right to exit the TFR space. At the same time I switched from the UNICOM frequency to 121.5. About 20 seconds later I got a call on 121.5 from ATC. I described the situation to him; and was given a number to call.My penetration of the TFR was inadvertent and a result of the emergency situation with the skydivers. I believe my actions were justified; as avoiding contact with a skydiver was my priority during the emergency. I believe the King Air that appeared had been carrying the skydivers and made no attempt on UNICOM to inform me of their presence. I exited the TFR promptly on my own volition once the emergency situation had resolved itself.




Synopsis: Lancair ES pilot reported penetrating a TFR resulting in an airborne conflict with skydivers.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MSLP.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower MSLP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Inbound to MSLP we were assigned ATUMA 1K Arrival with ILS DME Z RWY 07 transition. The common fix at the transition point is ASTOR. The STAR shows ASTOR at 2;000 [feet]; but this ILS has ASTOR at 3;000 [feet]. We manually changed the approach to match the STAR with ASTOR at 2;000; believing this was ok as ASTOR is over the ocean. Prior to passing 10;000; we inquired about the ASTOR altitude and ATC informed us that ASTOR was to be crossed at 3;000. We had time to re-enter the approach and modify the STAR altitude well before it became an issue; but it was a fair bit of FMC programming to be doing in sterile cockpit. Not ideal when descending to an airport neither of us were very familiar with. Note that both the ATUMA 1K and ATUMA 1L show ASTOR at 2;000. ILS DME Z has ASTOR at 3;000; and the ILS DME Y has ASTOR at 2;300. None of these combinations match up at ASTOR.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported noticing a discrepancy on a GPS point that has different altitudes on MSLP airport STAR and approach plates.
Date: 201210
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
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We took off with 4;000 LBS of fuel when our dispatch release and weight and balance was calculated at 3;000 LBS of fuel. So our numbers for weight and balance fuel load was severely incorrect. We were not overweight for takeoff even with this error. We still had about 600 LBS under the maximum gross takeoff weight of 17;120 LBS. I was not aware that there was 1;000 LBS of fuel in the auxiliary tanks. For some reason I did not hit the switch during prefight or before taxi. I usually will check for sure both main and auxiliary fuel gauges on the before taxi checklist; but for some reason I did not. I discovered this in flight when I happen to check to see if anything was still in the auxiliary tanks. I turned on the auxiliary pumps to see if there was anything and there was no master caution for them and no drain on the main tanks. I advised arrival operations to start finding 5 passengers to volunteer to take another flight to insure we have good weight and balance for the next flight. I also had them call Dispatch to see if they want us to hold over the airport for sometime to burn the excess fuel; but they advised not to and call them on ground. I did burn up all the fuel in the auxiliary tank before landing. This aircraft just came from two test flights. How did both crews before this flight find out that there was fuel in the auxiliary tank? The logbook fuel gallons did not reflect fuel in the auxiliary tanks only the mains. They both must have not check the auxiliary tank too. I did overhear a conversation to a dispatcher of the fuel load in the aircraft before today's test flight before mine of the fuel load and they seamed to be only aware of what the fuel load was in the mains. The fuel receipt that I got from the fuelers did reflect only adding fuel to the mains. I will not make this mistake of not checking the auxiliary tank fuel gauges again. The only thing I can think of to eliminate the problem is to reduce the checklist to separate each tank in a new line and not one. So instead of fuel total Main; Auxiliary. It could be total fuel main tanks; then total fuel auxiliary tanks on two separate lines.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 had no additional information.]


Synopsis: Beech 1900 flight crew operated aircraft unaware of 1;000 LBS of additional fuel in the auxiliary fuel tanks.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [In cruise flight at 4;500 FT I] heard engine sputter. [I] increased mixture and added power. Engine seemed to have stopped. Contacted [ATC] and informed them I believed I ran out of fuel and would be making an emergency landing and asked what my options were. [ATC] informed me [nearest airport] was 19 miles away and I replied unable. I looked for roads as possible landing locations and all had power lines on one or both sides. Another aircraft offered to come and assist; but they were 30 miles away. I found a field and informed [ATC] that I would be landing in it. I received no reply but heard the other aircraft attempt to make contact with them. I followed appropriate actions to make the soft field landing and once the airplane came to a stop; I radioed over [ATC frequency] that if anyone could hear me; I was okay and abandoning the airplane. I then called my flight instructor.




Synopsis: A C172 pilot reported running out of fuel and landing safely in a field.
Date: 202011
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Flight Attendant Y informed me of a passenger in [seat] XX3 not complying with CDC mask regulations. She told me he told him 3 times. I was picking up garbage and I passed by [seat] XX3 and he had his mask off and didn't want to talk to me or put on his mask after I gave him the [mask compliance policy] and a mask. The Captain was informed and actions were taken to meet the passenger in ZZZ.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger was non-compliant with face mask policy.
Date: 202011
Location: BNA.Airport, TN
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C BNA; Class E BNA
ATC / advisory: TRACON BNA
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: While on arrival into Nashville; we were being vectored by Approach.  We were just assigned vectors outside of the arrival.  We were notified by the controlling agency that we could expect moderate turbulence between 9;000 and 12;000 feet in the descent; which we did encounter.  Upon reaching 5;000 feet; we were still encountering moderate turbulence.  As we accepted our vector to heading 010; we encountered a pocket of severe turbulence which sent the airplane into an upsetting unusual attitude.  My Captain immediately recognized the issue; as the autopilot kicked itself off; he initiated the proper recovery procedure.  As that happened; we encountered a second pocket of severe turbulence which further upset the aircraft attitude and resulted in additional altitude loss.  My Captain went full thrust and maximum nose up attitude to recover.  We experienced moderate turbulence all the way to the ground that day; but were able to land safely.




Synopsis: Corporate First Officer reported a severe turbulence encounter during approach to BNA airport resulting in an altitude excursion and momentary loss of aircraft control.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium 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 B IAD
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on Autopilot and being vectored by ATC (Potomac Approach) in VFR conditions level 7;000 ft; ATC pointed out VFR traffic across the river 1;000 ft below our altitude. We had the traffic on TCAS; but no visual contact. The VFR traffic began a climb at our 12 o'clock position; ATC then issued a 20 degree turn left of course; as we were complying with the instructions; the VFR traffic rapidly climbed to within 500 ft. This resulted in a TCAS RA 'CLIMB CLIMB.' We performed the traffic collision avoidance maneuver. TCAS 'CLEAR OF CONFLICT' occurred at 7;350 ft. ATC was notified of the RA climb. Reconfigured and continued with ATC vectoring to RWY 19C to a landing.




Synopsis: While being vectored for arrival at IAD; flight crew received an RA and responded accordingly.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Propeller
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Upon landing on Runway XX in ZZZ the aircraft struck a deer shortly after touchdown. The approach to runway 6 was normal; fully configured; flown at Vref +10. Shortly after touchdown the deer ran into the prop while the aircraft was traveling around 70kts. The time from initially observing the deer to impact was about one second. The engine started vibrating immediately after impact and the PF (Pilot Flying) shut down the engine on the rollout. The airplane came to a stop 500 ft. from the end of the runway. Upon stopping we did a normal shutdown. No injuries onboard and the aircrafts propeller and engine were damaged.


Second narrative: Upon landing at ZZZ; aircraft suffered a deer strike on roll out. The runway XX landing was fully configured flap 40 landing. Approach speed was carrot + 10 knots due to runway length. Deer spotted at the moment of impact in the right landing light cone. Sound of impact was followed by immediate engine vibration. Estimate impact speed at 70 knots during beta application for stop. Shut down engine on the roll out estimate 45 knots to minimize further damage and blade separation. Came to a stop approximately 500 ft. from the end of the runway. Preformed normal aircraft unloading. No injuries on board and damage was limited to aircraft prop and engine.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported that a deer struck the airplane during landing; damaging the propeller and engine.