elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: This airport is known for deer in the environment of the runway. When I was lined up to land I did not see any deer in or around the runway. There was also a large deer fence along the side of the runway that I thought would protect the runway. After landing on Runway 27 I was slowing the plane when my passenger started saying 'go-around' at that moment 5 deer started to run across the runway in front of us. I decided we would not be able to get airborne and climb above the deer in the time/space between us and the deer. I got on the brakes harder and attempted to steer between the deer on the runway as I got the plane as slow as possible before impact. I missed the first deer but the second deer disappeared under the right side of the plane. There was a thump as we rolled over the deer and I immediately noticed lost pressure in the right brake. I was able to control the plane using the left brake and right rudder. We taxied clear of the runway and to transient to assess the damage to the plane. The deer was dead but no one was injured and the plane had minor damage to the gear door; the brake line and the prop. I may have been able to prevent this incident by overflying the runway to scare away any deer that may be there that I couldn't see. I didn't think it was necessary since I couldn't see any deer on final. Now I think I will do that procedure if there are deer visible or not when landing at an airport with a known deer problem. (My passenger says they were brown deer that blended with the brown grass near the runway and couldn't be seen until they moved.) The residents in this airport community said they have frequent deer strikes on the runway.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reports a collision with a deer during landing rollout causing minor damage to the aircraft and killing the deer.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Brasilia EMB-120 All Series
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A CRJ was inbound on the STAR arrival. An E120 was inbound on the same STAR arrival. I left both aircraft on the approach and descended the CRJ to 090 and the Embraer to 100. I first noticed the CRJ was faster so I knew that aircraft would be #1 and the Embraer was #2. I descended the CRJ to 070 and transferred to Approach Control. Before I transferred communication the CRJ said they have the airport in sight; so I assumed as soon as they checked on with the next controller they would clear him for the visual and they would continue their descent. I then told the Embraer to reduce speed to 210 KTS then maintain 070; he read it back. I soon noticed the CRJ was not descending and the Embraer was catching him. I turned the Embraer to a 030 heading and called the traffic; he called the CRJ in sight but separation was already lost. The Embraer was still told to maintain Visual Separation and vectored across the Final Approach Course and eventually cleared for the Visual Approach. I will make sure the aircraft is at least looking for the person he will eventually be following. Also do not assume what another controller will do. I will watch the speeds of the aircraft and not assume who should be faster. It was too close to bet on the separation working itself out and I should have been more diligent in my efforts to separate the aircraft. I acted too late; so next time I will ensure my separation sooner.




Synopsis: Loss of separation occurred when in-trail separation was allowed to deteriorate below requirements. The reporter acknowledged less than necessary diligence during this occurrence.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sail Plane
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had been flying my glider for about 2 hours and been working both south and north of my home field. The total distance between the furthest points covered was about 20 miles. I had been north as far as I could get with the available thermals and then worked my way west looking for more lift. Finding no lift I turned back south to follow the valley back to the gliderport. I was in straight cruise at about 26-2700 ft. when a power plane suddenly appeared right above me at what I estimate to be 50-100 ft. He was almost on the same heading as me and was descending. My glider is equipped with PowerFlarm which will give an alert when it detects an active transponder signal. I had been getting alerts during the entire flight; but did not get an alert from this plane even when it was right above me. I was also monitoring Tower radio traffic from a nearby airport and did not hear anything about a plane approaching from the north. However; there was a lot of radio traffic on both my primary and secondary frequencies and I could not keep up with it all. After the plane passed me; I heard someone notify the nearby airport Tower of a close call with a glider that they estimated to be 50 ft below them. Because it was a few minutes after my encounter I thought they were talking about someone else. In hindsight; given the low number of gliders in the air at the time; I think it was probably a report of my encounter.I don't know what more I could have done to avoid this conflict. If I had gotten an alert on my PowerFlarm I most likely would have banked my glider to make it more visible to an approaching plane. I do not know if the other plane had an operational transponder; but if it had I should have had warning of its approach. I will recheck my PowerFlarm to make sure the antenna connections are secure.




Synopsis: Schleicher glider pilot reported an NMAC with a light single and did not get an alert from his PowerFlarm unit.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After boarding was completed and main cabin door shut. Flight Crew started both engines for turn out and Flight Attendant notified cabin secure but aircraft seemed hazy and had an odor. Shut down engines and had Operations come back with stairs and opened main cabin door. Called Dispatch and talked to Maintenance while deplaned the passengers. Pack 2 on with Pack 1 off produced smoke/haze. Flight Crew detected with maintenance on the phone. Pack 2 started to make an unusual noise just prior to engine start but no other indication was noticed. Talking through with Maintenance we discussed the cause was pack 2. Deplaned. MEL'd pack. Reloaded passengers and went to ZZZ1 as normal but delayed.




Synopsis: EMB-145LR Captain reported a fumes event prior to pushback.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Start up and taxi was normal to Runway XXR. Once cleared for takeoff we taxied onto Runway XXR and began adding power. While maintaining centerline control with the rudder pedals; I noticed the control input seemed to be off as the nose drifted from centerline to the left at a speed of approximately 5-10 kts. At the time I assumed I may have hit a small hump in the pavement which effected the steering momentarily. After correcting for this deviation with the tiller; I added power to about halfway to TOGA (Takeoff Go-Around). Again; directional control with the rudder pedals felt incorrect as we drifted to the right of centerline this time. I added left rudder and the drifting to the right of centerline actually got worse. I then rejected takeoff; bringing the thrust levers to idle and called 'reject'. Maximum airspeed achieved was approximately 30 kts. The FO (First Officer) and I complied with all SOP's regarding a rejected takeoff. The FO informed Tower of the situation and we exited Runway XXR at Taxiway Q. Nosewheel steering with the tiller; and differential braking still worked perfectly fine.Once off the runway we developed and analyzed a plan along with the maintenance director on our jumpseat. We all agreed to head back to the hangar to have the situation checked out. We taxied to the hangar without issue. In the end; Maintenance discovered the rudder input command module was malfunctioning.The only way in our position to have discovered that this was malfunctioning was unfortunately when we did; on the runway maintaining directional control with the rudder pedals. In the future; a closer check by the Maintenance team after heavy maintenance could prevent a similar situation.Rudder command module which actuates nose-wheel steering malfunctioning.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 Captain reported a malfunction with nose wheel steering during takeoff roll.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: VFR; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-7
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Tuned radio to frequency while approaching ZZZ airport from the west.  I listened for traffic at ZZZ and announced intentions to land on Runway XY after crossing midfield Runway XY-YX.  These announcements were 10 miles and again 4 miles west of the airport.  Crossed midfield from the west; made right turn to the south to enter Runway XY from 45 degrees. Announced again on frequency entering left downwind Runway XY; announced base; then final for Runway XY.  Saw that I was high and went around.  At midfield; while departing and at about 100-200 feet AGL; I saw another aircraft approaching from straight ahead and about 75 feet above me and to the left.  The opposing aircraft banked right; as did I. The other aircraft must have been landing on Runway YX and was also going around; because I did not see an aircraft on the runway or taxiway as I approached.  I checked the airport traffic CTAF against my entered radio frequency and saw the correct frequency was frequency.  I had been announcing on frequency and did not realize I was on the wrong frequency. I had made an error in tuning radio and did not hear the airport traffic; nor did they hear me and my announcements.




Synopsis: RV-7 pilot reported tuning the wrong CTAF frequency at an uncontrolled airport resulting in an NMAC.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the afternoon of DATE; during preflight in ZZZ of what was supposed to be a ZZZ-ZZZ1 flight on aircraft X; the First Officer discovered a hydraulic leak in the left main gear. We stopped boarding; called Maintenance; and Contract Maintenance was sent out. I was asked to text photos of the maintenance logs and the hydraulic leak to maintenance; which I did. I timed out on duty period that afternoon; the flight was cancelled; and the First Officer and I spent the night with the intention of ferrying the aircraft out in the morning. In the morning; I sent photos of the logs to Maintenance; spoke to Maintenance about specific operating actions (there were none); signed the ferry permit; and then we did our preflights; de-iced and continued to an uneventful flight and landing in ZZZ2.  ZZZ station did a great job throughout the entire event; handling the crew members; Contract Maintenance; and upset passengers very professionally and cheerfully in the middle of a lot of snow. On DATE1; the First Officer and I received an email from our Fleet Manager regarding this ferry flight and asking about the amount of visible chrome on the main gear. I referenced the photo of the gear that I had earlier sent to maintenance and estimate it to be about two inches of visible chrome- within tolerances for our pilot preflight. I don't recall specifically if that was the case the next morning before we ferried the aircraft; but I do remember looking at the gear in question before we boarded; and I think that I would have noticed if it were much different than the previous night. After our email correspondence; I decided to do an report in case there's something in question regarding our preflight action. A good reminder for me that in the event that a maintenance issue spans overnight; I should clarify with maintenance that nothing has changed from the night prior before departing in the morning.




Synopsis: Captain reported that a hydraulic leak was discovered on pre-flight inspection by the First Officer. Maintenance was unable to repair; so the fight crew ferried the aircraft to a maintenance base. Subsequent to the ferry flight; The flight crew was asked about the chrome extension visible on the leaking strut.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MLU.TRACON, LA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E MLU
ATC / advisory: TRACON MLU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working radar in the tower cab and I had Aircraft X flash from (SHV) Shreveport; (SHV) called before I took the hand off letting me know that the aircraft has been pointed out with Polk approach (POE) because he is going to ride the boundary between us (MLU) and Polk approach (POE) the whole way through the airspace. As the aircraft approached Houston center's airspace flashed the data tag to Polk Low at Houston Center the data block flashed for over 10 miles. Aircraft X got closer and closer to their boundary. About 4-5 miles from the boundary I called Polk Low Houston center on the shout line 'no response' I called additional 3 times. My supervisor and I then proceeded to call on the dial line 'no response'. Also I had another certified controller call on the shout line while we were on the dial line. 'No response' I apologized to the aircraft but told him he needs to make a right 360 for me to stay out of Houston centers airspace. The pilot acknowledged but he hesitated and asked why; I explained to him very quickly that the next sector didn't take the hand off and I needed him to turn for me. By the time he started his turn he was turning inside Houston's airspace; the pilot understood and started to turn for me. Once Aircraft X got to about a 180 degree heading Houston center called quickly and stated radar contact over the shout line.Yes I could have done things sooner and reached out sooner and or had the aircraft turn sooner; that is my mistake for having him enter their airspace. But in all honesty MLU our facility has always had issues with Houston center; they won't answer shout lines it takes us 3; 4; 5 times to call for coordination and have something done or explain an issue or request something.But when they want something done they make a big deal of it if we don't answer the shout line right away. We need to fix this issue ASAP and they need to start answering the lines in a timely manner; don't make us call 5 times and 2 times on the dial line with no responses (in a polite way that is wrong).




Synopsis: MLU TRACON Controller reported an aircraft entered Houston Center airspace without proper hand-off.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FTY.Tower, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 25
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Other Part 107
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D FTY
ATC / advisory: Tower FTY
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: First flight under Part 107 Rules. I filed a flight plan using Airmap and B4UFly apps to do a roof inspection using a DJI Inspire 1. The information I was given by both apps was to be careful flying in FTY Class D Airspace. I called the Tower Chief and he suggested that I file for a waiver. I figured since B4UFly app was a FAA app and it said just to be careful flying within 5 miles of an airport; I went with it. As soon as I came to a 2 foot hover; I got warnings on my DJI app and immediately set it down; packed it up and reviewed the sectional charts again. After further review; I found the website I should have used to file a waiver; FAADroneZone.faa.gov; to file for waivers next time.




Synopsis: UAV operator reported failure to obtain an FAA waiver before operating within FTY Class D airspace.
Date: 202106
Location: OSC.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small UAS; Multi Rotor
Operator: Commercial Operator (UAS)
Operating under: Part 107
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Other All
Airspace: Class E OSC
Reporter organization: Commercial Operator (UAS)
Reporter function: Person Manipulating Controls (UAS); Remote PIC (UAS)
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Remote Pilot (UAS)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Other Post-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I originally checked the VFR sectional and misinterpreted the dashed magenta line and did not realize I was flying in controlled airspace. I was not aware I was flying in controlled airspace until management reviewed my flight and made me aware of the situation. Management discussed with me how to properly research controlled airspace. I also flew this same location without prior authorization on [previous dates].




Synopsis: Part 107 pilot learned after a flight they flew in controlled airspace without authorization.