elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: A39.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E A39
ATC / advisory: CTAF A39
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
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: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A possible near miss occurred in the uncontrolled traffic pattern at Ak-Chin RGNL (A39). My aircraft just completed a touch and go off Runway 04 to depart the pattern. I did not hear any traffic entering left downwind so I announced my left crosswind turn to depart the airport traffic pattern at 400-500 feet AGL and well past the departure end of the runway. After doing my 45 degree right turn to depart the pattern; I noticed another aircraft ahead entering an extended down wind leg. I maintained my lower altitude of about 500 ft below the published traffic pattern to avoid any conflict. The other aircraft passed overhead at about 400-500 feet and finally announced his position above me. I was a low wing aircraft and the downwind aircraft was a high wing Cessna so both aircraft maintained sight until passing. No conflict but a learning event for us both. See and avoid and more radio calls if possible when two aircraft are converging.Contributing factors for me was a large flock of bugs hitting my right side of the windscreen hindering my clear vision to my right and ahead. This made it harder for an earlier detection of an aircraft approaching from that angle. I also did not hear any downwind calls from the aircraft ahead to alert me of any possible traffic. If I knew an aircraft was ahead or entering downwind I would fly further upwind before turning for my cross wind departure from the airport and pass will behind any extended downwind aircraft.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported an NMAC departing A39 airport.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ATC changed our arrival to the GUSHR3 and gave us direct to REFYN and a descent. We were several miles from REFYN when ATC asked our speed. We replied 300KTS. Then ATC replied if we knew about the speed note on the arrival and it was 280KTS. I understood that because we were not on a published portion of the arrival due to the direct to REFYN that the speed restriction was not applicable. We had several miles to REFYN and had planned to slow to 280KTS by REFYN as the arrival states to cross at. At that point we slowed to 280KTS and continued the rest of the arrival and landed with no other event.


Second narrative: The captain and I are both unclear about whether the 'descend via mach until 280 KIAS' restriction applies to aircraft that are NOT on a published portion of the arrival. Nearly all of the RNAV arrivals into Houston Intercontinental include this note. The note does not state that it applies to aircraft not on the published route of the arrival. If it does apply to such aircraft; we would like to know where it begins; as Center will occasionally issue substantial direct-to clearances with descents that would have the aircraft at 280 KIAS for an inordinate amount of time if this restriction was applicable. Additionally; if this note does apply to aircraft not on the published arrival route; do other speed restrictions at other fixes apply when vectored off the published arrival route? In essence; are we required or expected to slow when passing abeam a fix with a speed restriction?


Synopsis: EMB-145XR flight crew reported they were advised by ATC of non-compliance with a speed restriction on the GUSHR3 arrival into IAH. The flight crew was confused about the advisory; since they were not on the published arrival; but were cleared direct to a point on the arrival.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B BWI
ATC / advisory: Tower BWI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We were cleared to land and landed on Runway 33L. Because of very gusty crosswind conditions and a need to control aircraft drift and speed changes; we crossed the threshold five knots fast. Gusts in the flare caused us to float a little and then we landed. We did not feel the need to make Foxtrot while transferring aircraft control and got off expeditiously at Hotel. Tower called and said he planned for us to exit at Foxtrot and we needed to inform him if we were going to Hotel. I replied that landing the aircraft safely precludes me needing to get off at Foxtrot.Yes; 95 percent of the time we make Foxtrot; but Tower needs to understand we fly the aircraft not him. We were not directed at any time (nor asked) to try to make Foxtrot. I do not feel we did wrong; a missed approach was not appropriate or directed. We opted to be conservative and let it roll. I was going to get on the brakes but the Captain said 'let's get off at Hotel'. While we could have made Foxtrot it was not required or necessary. I just want Tower to understand what is safe; is not always convenient.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported exiting the runway a bit further down than the Tower Controller was planning on.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 9999
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A-1 Husky
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On landing rollout; a gust of wind from the west lifted the right wing and caused the aircraft to weather-vane into the wind. The left wingtip contacted the runway surface; but the aircraft was corrected back onto all 3 wheels before departing the runway surface at a 45 degree angle at approximately 40 MPH. Braking was applied in an attempt to stop the aircraft in the runway shoulder of gravel which is approximately 30 feet wide while avoiding a runway edge light. Braking was limited to ensure the aircraft did not nose over causing the prop to strike the ground. There was no prop strike; but just prior to coming to a stop the right main gear rolled down a steep embankment on the side of the runway. At that point gravity pulled the right wing down causing it to impact the ground. There were no injuries to either occupant. The aircraft was pulled back onto the runway and rolled to the ramp. From a visual inspection by the pilot the damage is limited to the right wing tip; left wing tip and a crack in the plexiglass over the cockpit.The problem arose when insufficient control inputs were applied to counter the unexpected gust from the right. This airport does not have any type of weather reporting other than the wind sock which did not indicate gusty winds on initial overflight or on final approach. The lack of visual or control feel wind indications lead to a perception of calm conditions resulting in a lack of preparation for the gust on landing rollout.




Synopsis: Light utility aircraft pilot reported that a gust of wind on landing resulted in a runway excursion.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Learjet 45
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Inspector
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A pilot reported that the right side of aircraft was resting low. After performing an X [cylinder] dimension check and referring to the Maintenance Manual; it was determined the left main landing gear strut X [cylinder] dimension was too high and the right main landing gear strut was too low. During the servicing of the right main landing gear strut; the nitrogen depleted to the point that fluid began to escape from the Schrader valve on top of the strut. I noticed the discoloration of the hydraulic fluid (MIL-H-5606) and the fact that it lacked any color of red to it. The fluid that came out was grey and smelled like fuel. Upon identifying the problem; the customer was notified of the findings.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 contains no additional information]


Synopsis: Maintenance personnel report that on several occasions they have found Lear jet landing gear struts serviced with jet fuel rather than hydraulic fluid.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: JNX.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E RDU
ATC / advisory: TRACON RDU
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Around 1100 [feet] my student and I were flying south of Buckhorn Lake and west of JNX practicing maneuvers; when I noticed a moving object at my 1 o'clock. It was pretty close to me on my right at about the same altitude (3;500 ft). The drone was heading North bound towards BuckHorn Lake; at a fast speed. The color of the drone was red and it looked like it had 4 small rotors and that is all I could detect. I made a call on the Johnston County Unicom about the drone and planes in the area evacuated. As soon I landed I called Raleigh approach on the telephone and made the report.




Synopsis: A flight instructor and his student encountered a UAV/Drone while practicing training maneuvers. They announced its presence on a local CTAF and; along with other aircraft in the practice area; departed as a precaution.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Heavy Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Electrical Wiring & Connectors
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Avionics; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: When hooking tow bar up to aircraft at end of check; noticed that the nose landing gear - taxi lights were on dim. Aircraft was on ground service for power. Ground service switch was cycled at lower panel. Taxi lights followed switch. The landing light switch in the cockpit was in the off position. When aircraft power was turned on and taxi light switch turned on; additional circuit breakers popped. Smoked was noticed in the cockpit. Aircraft power was turned off. Ground power plug was pulled and batteries disconnected. Avionics was called for troubleshooting. Damaged wiring was located in the lower aft section of the forward avionics compartment. Damage to wire bundles occurred in feed-through to right pack bay.




Synopsis: While on ground power; a maintenance technician noticed the nose taxi light was dimly illuminated. When aircraft power was applied and the taxi lights selected; several circuit breakers popped and smoked was noticed in the cockpit. Damaged wiring was identified in the avionics compartment.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: This aircraft's inoperative APU generator was annotated on page one of the [flight plan]. Dispatcher remarked that ZZZ Station was advised and will have ground power at the ready upon arrival.After landing; multiple radio calls were attempted to ZZZ Operations to ensure the station knew this aircraft required ground power be applied before the remaining engine was to be shutdown. No station personnel answered these calls nor did any ZZZ personnel answer telephone calls via a [company] phone patch after the fact. No ZZZ supervisory personnel were available at any time during these events.I taxied in. Ground personnel did not understand any of my repeated visual signals appealing for ground power. The cabin door opened and passengers deplaned after which I opened the cockpit side window and verbally ordered/directed ground personnel to immediately connect ground power and the visual signal received from below was the engine-cut sign. UNBELIEVABLE.The actions of ZZZ Ground personnel exemplified a lack of understanding of basic aircraft ground handling and standard visual signals. Their actions marginalized safety; were uncomfortable and completely avoidable. These actions demonstrate a need for further training and remediation for all ZZZ Ground Support personnel.Contributing factors: these events and events similar while not overly common happen all too often within the narrow-body [company] operation because [our company] outsources station operations. Outsourcing the operation outsources the safety; the quality; the standardization; customer service; and the brand's reputation for good or bad. Being out here on the line; I see a common link in non-standard ground operations and that link is the variability present within the operation due to outsourcing. Of course this is anecdotal; but if you are out in the operation it is reality. All outsourcing operations must either be standardized to [company's] standard or replaced by [company] operators.Lastly; the inability to contact any station supervisory personnel during normal operating hours is completely [unsatisfactory].




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported the ground crew was not aware the APU was inop and did not understand hand signals for connecting ground power to the aircraft.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C SNA
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Filed clearance was DUUKE2.TRM transition. PDC had crew alert ATC routing change to STREL1.TRM. First Officer; who is still on high minimums; folded the PDC and the routing change was not visible when I looked at the PDC so I went along with the DUUKE2. Shortly after takeoff; Departure asked if we were flying the DUUKE2. We replied the affirmative. She said that the DUUKE2 no longer existed and we should have been flying the STREL1. The pilot not flying (First Officer) put it in the box and the pilot flying (Captain); myself; maneuvered to TANGL on the STREL1 departure. The aircraft was never more than a mile off the STREL1 track. Also; when we called for taxi; we told Ground that we were on the DUUKE2.




Synopsis: A B737 departed SNA and ATC questioned if they were flying the cancelled DUUKE2.TRM SID after the First Officer folded the PDC in such a way that masked the revised clearance; STREL1.TRM.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Embraer Phenom 300
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise flight at FL270 the BLEED LEAK 1 Amber CAS message illuminated. We referred to the QRH checklist and followed it. This checklist led us to donning O2 masks; descending; depressurizing the cabin; and ultimately securing the #1 Engine. We [advised ATC] and asked for a clearance to ZZZ which was at our one o'clock and approximately 40 miles. I requested assistance from the Airport Fire Crew just as a precaution. All handling by ATC went smoothly and we landed on RWY 7 without further incident. After we parked at the FBO; I asked my FO to call the ACP while I talked to the Fire Captain and Airport Security officer who were waiting outside the plane. There is nothing noticed on the preflight that made me think this event would happen. The QRH and QRC checklists had a logical flow that was easy to comply with. All Company SOPs were complied with.




Synopsis: EMB-505 Captain reported diverting to a nearby alternate after a precautionary shutdown of the #1 engine because of a bleed leak.
Date: 201904
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Ramp
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I printed and reviewed my DSTG (Departure Staging Guide) and DDLR (Display Departure Load Record) and proceeded to load [a departing flight]. During the process I received a 4 lbs. piece of cargo that had a label that I [was not] accustom. I have been a lead for [many] years and this was the first time I have seen such a small piece without any recognizable labels. After the flight departed it was gate returned because that 4 lbs. piece turned out to be Dangerous Goods. As I mentioned previously; as [an experienced] lead I have never seen this label and thought the DG was in a freight can.The aircraft came back to the gate because there were only 10 securing the 4 lbs. DG box.During the conversation between Cargo and the Ramp it was revealed that technically it is not DG however it was treated as DG; (UN3373 Biological).I am up to date on my training and consider myself very professional and efficient as a Lead. Dangerous Goods labeling should always be clear and obvious to prevent any oversight. As per the [our company manuals].




Synopsis: Ramp Lead Supervisor reported an aircraft ground return due to incorrect transport configuration of Hazmat cargo.