elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MHTG.ARTCC, FO
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: A319
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class A MHTG
ATC / advisory: Center MHTG
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on approach into MNMG the Captain [advised ATC of the need for priority handling.] This was due to the fact that we were heading into a very large thunderstorm. After several attempts to get a change in altitude and heading with Sandino Approach we [advised ATC of the need for priority handling.] We were on a south heading and turned out to the west and climbed from 6;000 to 10;000 feet. This heading took us out over the ocean and into the clear. I believe we had a language barrier issue which prevented the controller from understanding what we needed to do. There was no other traffic in the area and we were able to continue to the airport and land with no other issues.




Synopsis: A319 FO reported the Captain used emergency authority when they were unable to get a timely ATC clearance to circumvent thunderstorms in the MNMG area.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were on final approach. The weather was VFR. The winds were gusting and Tower said airspeed deviations of +/- 5 knots on final and deviations of +/- 10 knots below 200 feet had been reported. The approach had moderate turbulence that increased in intensity below 200'. Airspeed was fluctuating due to the turbulence and corrections in power and descent with deviations as reported (+/- 10) but there was not a concern for the safety of the approach. Over the runway in the flare; the aircraft floated (due to wind gust) and began drifting left. The flying pilot corrected for runway alignment with crab and wing down towards the wind. I noted the right wing drop more (probably due to a large gust and/or to correction to the gust) and was concerned about excessive bank; assisted with the controls to reduce the bank as we touched down on the runway. The landing was firm but there was no thought that the wing had struck the runway and we taxied normally off the runway and to the gate. On post flight inspection I noted the right slat was scraped and the underside of the right wingtip was scraped.  In retrospect; if we had known the turbulence was going to be that bad at the runway; I should have flown the approach because I have more experience in the aircraft. The First Officer is a very experienced and competent pilot but he is new to the aircraft. After we started the approach; if we knew the turbulence was going to intensify; we should have gone around. We had conversation about feeling 'OK' with the situation on final (the weather with the first officer flying); and +/- 5 to 10 knots is not uncommon. We both agreed and we continued. At the moment we were hit by the gust in the flare very close to the runway; it seemed best to land.


Second narrative: Unfortunately we experienced the strong cross wind gust on the flare. If we had this issue (airplane banking due to gust ) at the higher altitude may be we can fly a go around. But at that point very close to the runway it appear best to land. During the short final the Captain asked me if I was OK and I reply yes and we have decide to continue to land. I suggest with the newly hired; to add the limitation of gusting wind enviroment; the Captain must land the airplane.


Synopsis: CRJ-900 flight crew reported they struck a slat and wingtip during landing in gusty wind conditions.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Excursion Runway
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [I] applied full power for takeoff; [then] applied right rudder as the airspeed increased to counteract the left turning tendencies; but it felt like the pedal moved without the normal resistance. I elected to abort the takeoff; but pressing the right brake pedal did not apply right brake. I attempted to decelerate by placing the throttle to idle position and holding full aft elevator and gently applying even brake pressure; but it seemed only the left brake had any effect. I used the rudder pedals to maintain directional control of the aircraft on the runway but I was unable to bring the aircraft to a complete stop prior to the end of the runway. A runway threshold light was broken by the aircraft's main tire upon going off the end of the runway. I was able to bring the aircraft to a stop by using the parking brake and the left brake pedal. I responded to the Tower's transmission asking me if I required assistance saying that I did. We had the aircraft towed back to its FBO where maintenance personnel determined that there was nothing mechanically wrong with the pedals or brake system; but speculated that right brake had been overheated during the taxi and run up prior to the incident on the takeoff.




Synopsis: During the takeoff roll the pilot of a PA-28 noticed a lack of effectiveness when applying a right rudder correction. The takeoff was aborted; but the limited right brake effectiveness caused the aircraft to contact a runway threshold light and depart the runway surface. Maintenance was unable to find a mechanical problem and speculated that the brake became overheated during taxi and run-up.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower SNA
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Second reporter function: Ground
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While taxiing; I had requested the full Length of 20L. Tower acknowledged the request and made it available by having me back taxi 20L from Kilo taxiway to the full length. As I was back taxiing the runway I noticed a jet holding short 20R between 20R and 20L. I took note of the jet as I taxied in to the full length take off position; but did not expect it to move while I was behind the jet because ATC was aware of my position. In the full length position I asked tower if I was cleared for takeoff; Tower replied 'no; But now you are cleared for takeoff 20L full length. As I was holding the brakes and preparing to apply full take off power I noticed the ground start spinning; or more accurately my aircraft being blown onto the wingtip by the jet blast from the previously mentioned jet moving into its takeoff position. The only thing I could do to maintain control of the aircraft; was apply the crosswind correction. I should have alerted tower to the predicament; but the event happened so fast and I was so overwhelmed that I was only focusing on the aircraft control.


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


Synopsis: General aviation pilot reported damage from air carrier jet blast while in position on runway at SNA.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ILG.Airport, DE
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ILG
ATC / advisory: Tower ILG
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
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 a training flight and on final approach to Runway 32 at 800 ft. MSL (700 ft. AGL) it was noticed on my ADS-B In that there was a traffic conflict with another aircraft at an altitude 100 ft. above me going to the intersecting Runway 27.I made numerous attempts to call the aircraft by the tail number that their ADS-B Out was reporting.After numerous attempts were made with no response and at 400 ft. MSL (300 ft. AGL) on short final I made the decision to go around. The FBO had heard the exchange and reported to this writer that when she advised the Aircraft Y crew that another aircraft went around due to them not talking on the radio they made the statement to the effect of 'We didn't know where to find the frequency and the tower is closed'.After the flight and finding out this information I conducted a ground with my student to make it a teaching moment of 91.103 and 91.13. I explained how 91.103 requires the PIC to be familiar with all pertinent airport information. That we as the PIC need to do our due diligence in not putting others or the general public at risk and that the go around was the safest option while keeping Aircraft Y in sight in case they rejected their landing. I also explained to the student that while radio communications at a pilot controlled field are not required it could be conceived by others that it could be a violation of 91.13 by being careless in not using radios when they are equipped and not giving right of way to the aircraft that is lower than you on an intersecting runway.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported a NMAC with a non-communicating aircraft approaching on a crossing runway.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ALB.TRACON, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ALB
ATC / advisory: TRACON ALB
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Albany approach control advised us of a helicopter flying near our approach corridor and that the helicopter had us in sight and would remain clear.  Switched to Albany tower; who received verbal confirmation from helicopter that it had us visual.  After starting down glide path at 2000 feet MSL with flaps 20/gear down; received an RA 'monitor vertical speed' to stop descent.  Complied with RA; leveled off; visually acquired helicopter at 10:00.  Helicopter passed beneath us within 300 feet.  Received second RA to 'monitor vertical speed'; then helicopter was clear.  At this point; aircraft was well above glide path.  Resumed descent on approach; re-intercepted glidepath and stable conditions by 500 feet AGL.Helicopter did not maintain visual separation from approach corridor as directed by ATC.




Synopsis: B757-200 First Officer reported an NMAC with a helicopter on approach to ALB.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Automation Overrode Flight Crew; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During initial climb Pilot Flying had to use 5 units left trim to center yoke; at initial cruise he had to use over 8 units left trim. Then trim kept moving to 15 units left trim; rudder and yoke did not move after 8 to 9 units. Captain said to return to the departure airport. I took over as pilot flying and landed overweight; no further incident.




Synopsis: A B737 First Officer reported the rudder trim required 5 units of left trim during climb but increased to 15 units at cruise with 8-9 unit of aileron trim. The flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 202009
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In the blocks the right pack tripped twice. Both times we submitted an ELB [Electronic Log Book] entry and maintenance was able to get it to reset after a fairly long cool down period. They felt it was the excessive heat in ZZZ and that it would operate normally on engine air. During taxi out with both engines running; we noticed an approximately 1% difference in FMC N1 limit values with the right side being higher; but no warning lights illuminated. This coupled with the flight attendants calling to report no airflow and excessive heat in the rear of the aircraft made it clear that there was a much bigger cooling issue. We tried various configurations to cool the rear of the airplane to no avail. As passengers were beginning to get up and express their discomfort we advised ground and ramp that we needed a gate return and that it was too hot to trouble shoot away from the gate. Maintenance later determined the problem to be the air cooling machine. Maintenance wanted to defer the pack inop. Dispatch refused a deferral due to the incredibly hot temperature in ZZZ. I fully agreed with the refusal due to our inability to keep the rear of the aircraft cool on initial taxi and COVID air flow concerns. A spare was found and the flight continued to destination. Flight was fully debriefed.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported an air cooling machine issue during taxi out resulting in excessive heat in the rear of the aircraft and a return to gate. Maintenance reportedly wanted to defer the issue; but the crew and Dispatch decided against it and opted for an aircraft swap.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operating under: Other 61
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I acknowledge my mistakes when I diverted my flight to ZZZ on DATE. First of all; my radios stopped working when I switched my frequency to ZZZ1 Approach at XXX.XX. I tried reaching them multiple times to see if they could still hear me. Unfortunately; I am not certain if my means to contact them and inform them about my situation worked. Thus; I was forced to notify them about my need to terminate the flight following and squawk VFR.Secondly; I looked up to the red voltage warning light to look for any signal; however; it was also not working. I was already at a lower altitude at that time; avoiding the ZZZ and class Charlie airspace. When I was already 3 miles east of ZZZ; I decided not to continue to ZZZ2 because the engine began to travel roughly and the fuel gauges were going back and forth to the red line. At that time; I thought I was running out of fuel because I remembered from my very first solo flight from time building I consumed 21.6 gallons out of 24.0 gallons which was a lot.  So; I did not climb up to 1;499 feet anymore to wait for light signals. Nevertheless; I still tried my best to observe where the traffic was; and they were using Runway XX. However; I needed to land on Runway XY because I did not have enough space and altitude to make it on Runway XX. I then contacted the ZZZ immediately to let them know what has happened.Lastly; in order to look closely into what has caused the incident to occur; our school's mechanic inspected the airplane. They have confirmed that I experienced an alternator failure.




Synopsis: C152 pilot reported total loss of communications and elected to divert to a precautionary landing.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BTR.TRACON, LA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Broken ~4000; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZHU
ATC / advisory: TRACON BTR
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was operating on an IFR flight plan while VMC in cruise talking to Baton Rogue Approach en-route to Houston. I was cruising at 140 knots true with the autopilot engaged tracking direct to LFT. The event occurred at 6;000 ft. I was scanning outside the windscreen when out of the corner of my eye I saw a black object through the copilot's side windshield. My first reaction was a bird and it was too late to avoid. The object passed beneath my wing and I briefly lost line of sight before the object reappeared behind the starboard wing. At this moment; I identified that the object was not a bird and had four arms; rotors; and was a large; but standard looking quad copter style UAS with position lights. I estimated that the object passed with 50-150 feet of the aircraft and varied in altitude. It rapidly changed courses and as I passed the UAS it made a sharp turn and a rapid acceleration behind the aircraft's tail and out of sight. No further contact was made. I immediately contacted ATC and reported the event. ATC contacted me to follow up about 5 minutes after I reported to them and I relayed the coordinates and description of the UAS to them. The flight continued safely to its destination. While I also hold a UAS certificate and enjoy that side of aviation; this near mid-air collision was extremely unfortunate. There seems to be very little enforcement in this area of aviation. A collision would have likely resulted in an in flight breakup. As a manned pilot; I do not believe there is much I could have done to avoid this. I could coach my UAS friends in the law; but most of my peers are well versed and follow the regulations. It only takes one rogue individual to cause an issue. I also thought I might opt to fly at higher altitudes. I had chosen 6;000 for wind and visibility; but perhaps I should have been higher. I do not believe this is a compelling argument because some drones can climb to the flight levels...much higher than a piston GA. I think drones may need to have further hardware limitations (subject to overrides) that would keep them off of federal airways or on ADSB/Radar in order to ensure the safety of manned flight.




Synopsis: General Aviation Pilot reported NMAC with drone during cruise while in contact with BTR TRACON.