elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EVV.Airport, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C EVV
ATC / advisory: Tower EVV
Aircraft component: Propeller
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: En-route an abnormally low prop rpm was noted (below the normal; governed cruise rpm which is not controllable by the pilot). The emergency checklist was consulted. The problem could not be resolved but it was determined that the flight could be continued to destination. On approach; as the power was reduced the prop rpm continued to reduce. Because the possibility of other prop anomalies was anticipated; some power was kept in until just prior to touch down. After touchdown power was reduced to idle and beta was selected. Instead of braking action resulting; the aircraft was felt to surge forward. The power lever was returned to flight idle and the condition lever moved to ground idle. Heavy braking was applied; resulting in both tires being flat spotted and deflating. After slowing the aircraft was taxied clear of the runway onto a taxiway and shut down. No further damage resulted.


Second narrative: We allowed for a slightly longer landing with a bit more power. This resulted in a slightly longer float landing with more than 3500 ft of remaining runway. This amount of runway is well within the landing capabilities of the PC-12.It is known that the PC-12 is light and tires must be treated with care. Heavy braking can easily lead to flattened tires. At the time of landing the aircraft was accelerating when it was supposed to be slowing. The first reaction was to add heavy pressure to the brakes while trying to slow the plane by other means which included PL back to neutral; CL to ground idle; and flaps to O degrees. The perception at the time was that we were fast approaching the end of the runway thus increasing anxiety which resulted in braking heavily. This resulted in the flattening of the two main tires.There was no further damage to the aircraft or property. The passengers were deplaned.


Synopsis: When the PC-12 suffered abnormal propeller RPM response the flight was continued to destination where; upon landing; the prop failed to shift to Beta mode and the aircraft accelerated and demanding immediate and extreme braking to stop on the runway.  Both main gear tires were flatted and deflated as a result.  No injuries or other damage to the aircraft.
Date: 201908
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: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Captain called via phone for a phone patch with [Load Planner] to discuss a concern regarding getting the final weights and the fact he had Hazmat on board consisting of dry ice which was below the limit for a DG (Dangerous Goods) notification form. They also had a pet loaded. Shortly after this conversation was completed I was advised by [Load Planner] that the flight needed to return to the blocks since the ramp had loaded the pet in the same cargo hold as the dry ice which is not in compliance with policy. In addition they had not secured the Hazmat with the required 15 bags which is also company policy. The Captain was also concerned that he had not received the required form from ramp showing a pet was loaded on board.Once back at the gate these issues were rectified and a new fuel load was planned and new final weights were sent and the flight then operated normally to ZZZ.


Second narrative: Station Ops called Load Planner after break release to state a live animal was loaded in pit 2. The live animal was not listed on DSTG (Departure Staging Guide); thus no airspace calculation was done. A [Priority Package] containing dry ice was also planned for pit 3. Ops was instructed to 1) get the live animal listed on DSTG; and 2) move the [package] to pit 4 and secure with minimum 15 bags. This necessitated that the aircraft return to block.


Synopsis: Commercial Airline Dispatcher reported receiving phone call from Captain after pushback regarding discrepancies with aircraft weight; Hazmat [Dry Ice] cargo; live animal documentation. Ramp Agent also reported that aircraft returned to the gate.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: Tower DFW
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was acting as pilot flying while on approach to Runway 36L at DFW. The approach was typical and stabilized. We were following an Airbus A320 in visual conditions and had the aircraft in sight. The wind at the time of the incident was a quartering headwind. I believe a 10 knot additive was added to Vref as calculated by recent reports. While in the landing flare approximately 10 feet from the runway surface we encountered what I would describe as 'severe wake turbulence'. The aircraft gained between 20 to 30 feet of altitude and experienced a desire to roll. Realizing that the landing must be rejected I called aloud 'go-around'. Since my eyes were already fixed down the runway during the flare I kept my sight picture outside; pushed the thrust levers to max power; rotated to approximately 10 degrees (takeoff sight picture); countered the roll moment; called for 'flaps 2' and then called aloud for 'positive rate; gear up' at the appropriate time. This entire moment took both of us by complete surprise. With the speed so low and the attitude of the plane upset I forced the throttles to max power without regard for the go-around button. When sufficient altitude had been gained I returned my attention to my PFD. I noticed that my flight director was still attempting to direct me on the localizer. I disregarded this information and flew a heading assigned by Tower Control and a pitch attitude at or near 10 degrees. The rest of the go-around procedure occurred as typically trained. We cleaned the airplane up; leveled at 3;000 feet; rejoined downwind; and made a successful visual approach and landing on 36L. I would suggest that more unanticipated balked landings occur during training. The 'startle factor' of a wake turbulence upset near the runway was intense. I believe this 'startle factor' was what led me to abandon my duty to push the go-around button; thus upsetting the normal flow for a go-around.




Synopsis: ERJ-170 Captain encountered 'severe' wake turbulence just before touchdown at DFW in trail of an Airbus A320. A somewhat confused and non-SOP go-around was executed.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Intake Ice System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Descending through clouds at FL240 an engine anti-ice valve faulted on Number 1 engine.  QRH and ECAM procedures were to avoid clouds and icing conditions.  I elected to turn with Center clearance 70 degrees to the left to remain clear of clouds.  Due to fuel requirements going into this airport we had no choice; but to fly through a lower overcast layer.  No icing conditions were present.  Once we were on the ground a maintenance log write up was made referencing the faulted light and penetration into clouds.  In the jumpseat we had a FAA inspector.  We discussed the descent and all agreed there was no other choice; but to descend through the overcast layer.




Synopsis: An A300 number 1 engine anti-ice valve faulted during descent through overcast at FL240 so the crew asked for deviation clear of clouds; only penetrating a non-freezing layer before landing.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuselage Tail Cone
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon post flight I found water streaking along the outside skin of the tail cone; in between the strakes. Upon further inspection of the tail cone compartment; I found excessive water and condensation on the water separator and all adjacent and associated pipes; and lines. It was following a fairly short flight at 8;000 FT. On ground OAT was 26C and the dew point was 19C. No flight through precipitation was conducted the entire day. Please see attached pictures of the tail cone compartment. Maintenance Control did not want me to send in the discrepancy as they considered it as only condensation. An A&P that replenished oil into the aircraft's engine mentioned it seemed excessive to him as well. I chose to send Maintenance Control the attached pictures and they still believed I shouldn't write-up the discrepancy.I chose to contact the on duty Chief Pilot who was thankfully very helpful. He agreed that I should write-up the discrepancy as an AOG write-up. I wanted the a review of the maintenance discrepancy and the associated pictures so as to provide me with the education to know whether such amounts of water and condensation is safe to continue the operation. Particularly; in light of the numerous flight control malfunctions in the XL/XLS fleet; allegedly due to excess water in the tail cone compartment.Does an excessive amount of condensation potentially indicate a bleed air leak? It seems that the XL/XLS fleet has had more than a few of those lately. Though; it would be nice to know which systemic issues truly exist in each fleet; rather then; rely on the words exchanged around the 'water cooler.'




Synopsis: A CE-560XLS Captain found what he considered excessive moisture on the underside of the tail cone; but was told by Maintenance not to enter a maintenance log entry. In light of previous flight control issues with tail cone ice; a log entry was made.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Other ALL
Mission: Other all
Flight phase: Other all
Airspace: Class A ZME; Class E ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Our frequency has been well documented that we have a hard time communicating with aircraft at lower altitudes in the sector. This affects approximately 3 or 4 airports in this sector. Normally this sector is combined with another sector and we have fewer problems since we can change aircraft over to the other sector frequency. This event is from [a recent time of high] activity in the area. An airport in the Sector was split because of the volume of traffic; we had to split off the sector by itself. This left me with few options in talking to aircraft during a tremendous amount of inbound traffic that were either on IFR flight plans or on VFR Flight Following to this airport. It is my understanding that a new antenna is supposed to be installed that would fix this issue but still has not been done. This issue on the frequency caused a very unsafe operation in this airspace. I think at one point I had 6 or 7 inbounds that all of the aircraft could not hear my transmissions. Just get the frequency fixed as soon as possible; we have been waiting on this and it could have helped us a lot if the frequency was in working order prior to the amount of traffic coming into the terminal Area.




Synopsis: A Center Controller reported losing radio contact with numerous aircraft during a busy period in an area with known poor radio coverage that has not been fixed.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft departed and made a left downwind departure. Climbing though approximately 5;000-6;000 feet a loud bang/pop was heard from the aft of the aircraft followed by a slight yaw to the right. The right engine gauges showed the right engine spooling down with an EGT of 800 C. Captain made a 90 degree left turn back parallel to the airport and declared an emergency with ATC and called for First Officer to run to Engine Failure Checklist. Captain made a series of 180 degree S- turns across the localizer to lose altitude while maintaining VMC conditions; as that there were several T-storms to the west-north. Captain advised the flight attendants of the engine failure; that we were returning; and would be on the ground in approximately 5 minutes. A PA was then made to the passengers advising them of an engine malfunction and that we would be returning. With the Engine Failure Checklist and Single Engine Checklist complete the aircraft was turned onto the ILS approximately 5 miles from the runway. Landing was made with Flaps 28; at 144;000 lbs with a normal touchdown and MED auto brakes. Aircraft was stopped on the runway with approximately 2;000 feet of runway remaining. Captain made a PA for the passengers to remain seated with their seatbelts fastened. Once CFR inspected the aircraft and gave the all clear; the aircraft was taxied to the gate and the passengers were deplaned via the normal jet bridge with no injuries reported. After the passengers were deplaned the aircraft was taxied to the southwest corner of the parking pad. Discontinue the MTO [Max Takeoff Thrust] program. Both engines on this aircraft were placed on the MTO program after over temping on T/O during the prior departure. The failed engine having reached 612 degrees for 90 seconds. No inspection was made by Maintenance before this aircraft was placarded and released back into service. Perhaps had an inspection been required prior to releasing this aircraft this whole incident could have been avoided.




Synopsis: MD80 Captain experiences an engine failure at 5;000 feet on departure. The engine is shut down and the flight returns safely to the departure airport. Both engines had exceeded EGT limits on the previous departure and had been allowed to continue without any inspection required.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DTW.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground DTW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Called Ramp Control for push back. Received clearance to push and hold short of taxiway K. Received clearance to taxi; E 2; taxi lane F; hold spot 1; contact ground. E 2 and F is a 'Y' type intersection and paint is well worn. As I approached I could make out a yellow taxi lane that turned the correct direction a bit farther down the taxi way(E 2). This path turned out to be lane 1 in the deicing pad. I elected to proceed to and hold short of H at H2. I told Ground Control of my error and they gave us further instructions. Although I am familiar with DTW the ground paint is worn and I missed the intersection. I feel the instructions were clear but markings are poor.


Second narrative: DTW Ramp Control gave us instructions to taxi via E2-F hold short of K. The paint on the Y intersection between E2 and F is worn out; really faded; difficult to see the lettering on the pavement. The Captain could not see the lettering on the line (F) and inadvertently continued taxiing eastbound on E2; he then turned south on line 1(deicing pad) and he'd short of H. It was at this point that we realized our mistake and spoke to ground control about it. We need to pay closer attention to the airport diagram and make sure instructions are well understood before continuing to taxi; we should have stopped and ask ATC for clarification.


Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported DTW taxiway paint is well worn; which resulted in a taxiway incursion.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Other Glider
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After flying a stabilized RNAV RWY XX practice instrument approach to ZZZ and a normal flare and landing; the fixed nose gear of the airplane collapsed and the plane skidded to a halt on the runway. I believe that the landing gear failed because the strut suffered metal fatigue at or near its weld adjacent to the engine frame.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot reported a nose gear collapse on landing and suspects metal fatigue caused the strut failure.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Crew flew the DIRTY3 arrival into ATL. In the vicinity of the REAKS intersection we were given a turn to heading 180 and descend to 4;000 feet; as a base leg for the ILS 8L.  We were IMC; but knew we were following another aircraft about 4 miles ahead per the TCAS display.  ATC instructed us to turn heading 120 to intercept the final; maintain 190 knots to SCHEL (the final approach fix) and we were cleared for the ILS 8L.  Upon joining the ILS; ATC advised we were following a 757; caution wake turbulence.  No sooner had we acknowledged the transmission; than the aircraft began an uncontrolled anti-clockwise roll to 60 degrees angles of bank.  As the pilot flying I input full control to the right to counteract the roll; initially this had no effect.  Upon exiting the wake the aircraft made a rapid correction to level flight.  We advised ATC of the encounter; at this point we were below the cloud bases and VMC. We slowed the aircraft to increase distance and remained above the glide path to a landing without further incident. We were 3 miles behind the 757 at the time of the encounter.   Flight attendants were seated at the time of the upset.  There were no injuries to the crew or passengers.  It was a quiet [weekend] morning into Atlanta; there was very little traffic arriving; probably no reason to turn us that close to a 757.I am submitting this to provide feedback to ATC.  The conditions at Atlanta were very quiet; low workload and few aircraft arriving.  I think ATC turned us too close behind an aircraft with heavy wake turbulence characteristics; the warning from ATC sounded like an afterthought.  Keeping our aircraft fast at 190 kts with the 757 slowing to final approach speed created a situation that did not need to exist.  I would just like this report shared with the appropriate ATC agency.  I did not ask the First Officer to submit a report; as there were no violations.




Synopsis: An ERJ-170 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence in trail of a B757 on approach to ATL that resulted in an 'uncontrolled...roll to 60 degrees angle of bank'.