elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After a full and complete pre-flight; and a run-up with no issues. Shortly after departure from Runway XXR; there was a significant loss in engine output from 2;400 RPM to 1;800 RPM. The first thing was to fly the airplane; request priority handling from ATC and find a place to land. After ATC gave priority and the airfield was within range with the remaining engine power to get to glide range if the engine completely failed. Runway XYL was requested and given by ATC; they had to divert departing traffic to the South; traffic was in sight and no factor and I landed on Runway XYL with no issue.In the future; I will be sure to complete the Emergency Procedures checklist as well; which asks for the AUX fuel pump to be turned on which I was unable to complete before we were cleared for Runway 11L; and due to the low proximity to the ground; the density of the population of the area; and enough engine power to make the airfield. I landed before being able to troubleshoot.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported loss of engine power on departure; resulting in a return to land.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZAN.ARTCC, AK
Aircraft: Military
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Refueling
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Second aircraft: Military
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft Y and aircraft X were refueling blocking altitudes 24;000-26;000 feet. Aircraft Y requested 32;000 feet via CPDLC. I advised aircraft Y to report at the top of the altitude block and vertically separated from aircraft X. Aircraft X advised via HF radio that they made a right turn and were requesting 37;000 feet on flight plan route. Controller requested a position report from aircraft X. The position report indicated that aircraft Y and aircraft X were about 100 miles apart and flying opposite direction. It appears that aircraft X left refueling block and was returning to [base] without an ATC clearance. Brasher warning was given to aircraft X.This is the third time I have experienced a pilot deviation like this from a tanker in this ARTCC. I would recommend training for military pilots on what their requirements and responsibilities are for Military Authority Assumes Responsibility for Separation of Aircraft (MARSA) and refueling operations. They don't seem to understand that they must have a clearance to alter their routing.




Synopsis: An aircraft in a refueling track departed the refueling track and began its flight back to its base without a clearance.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Pattern work on runway. Working on landings specifically the flare and touchdown. We came in a little faster than expected; flared and we were running out of pavement. I took controls from the student and commanded 'my plane!' He had his feet locked on brakes as he froze. I ordered him to take his feet off the brakes and that I was flying the plane. As a result of his feet being on the brakes with speed we started to veer. I had to restate that I had the controls and to take off his feet. All along we are running out of runway. We are going a little too quick to get off the runway onto the grass to avoid the fence and avoid flipping over. Go around was not an option; in my opinion at this point; route 50 and the obstacles ahead would have been an issue. I was committed to stop the plane by the end of the runway. Raised flaps to zero degrees; applied necessary braking and back pressure on controls to keep pressure off the nose wheel and better traction on main wheels. When I saw we were not going to make it; mixture to idle; fuel shutoff valve off and master off. After we hit the fence and stopped. Took the keys out and we walked away with our headsets.




Synopsis: C172 flight instructor reported taking control from his student during landing; but the student keeps his feet on the brakes. By the time the instructor has full control of the aircraft there is insufficient runway remaining to stop or go around and the aircraft goes into the fence at the end of the runway.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sierra 24
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Private pilot; instrument student flying ZZZ direct to ZZZ1. Flew the RNAV Runway XX; circling approach to Runway XY for circling practice as well as winds were favorable to Runway XY. Before the Final approach Fix we performed our pre-landing checklist which included gear selector down. Gear selector switch came down at the Final approach fix; and showed 3 green lights indicating gear is down and locked. Student and instructor confirmed 3 green lights indicating gear down.  Landing was very smooth; lightly touched down and began sliding.  We were unaware that the gear was not down and locked.  There was no impact or sparks.  The plane remained on the runway; veered slightly to the left due to the left gear collapsing more than the right.


Second narrative: I was with my instrument student who was flying ZZZ direct to ZZZ1. Upon completion of the descent checklist; we confirmed we would fly the RNAV XX approach and circle to land Runway XY as winds were favoring XY. Prior to the Final Approach Fix; we performed the pre-landing checklist. Upon arrival at the Final Approach Fix; the landing gear selector was set to the down position. Shortly after putting the gear down; both my student and I confirmed 3 green lights indicating the gear was down and locked. We later started our circle to Runway XY and performed the landing checklist and confirmed landing gear indicated down and locked. Shortly after flaring; the airplane touched down then we began sliding to the left of the runway. Once realizing the propeller stopped spinning and was bent; we promptly performed shutdown procedures and exited the aircraft. Upon exiting the aircraft; the right main was partially extended while the nose gear and left main appeared mostly collapsed. Neither myself nor my student experienced any injury.


Synopsis: Flight Instructor and student flying a Sierra 24 reported loss of directional control on landing during training flight due to a landing gear failure.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: S56.TRACON, UT
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Daylight
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 E S56
ATC / advisory: TRACON S56
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: While on approach into SLC we asked for deviations left to avoid a buildup that looked to top 16;000 feet. After we were clear of that buildup we were IMC and ATC gave us a vector for LDA 35 approach. While ATC was communicating to us; Com 1 had a little static so we switched to Com 2 which had the same amount of static so we switched back to Com 1. A few seconds later we heard a loud bang and the First Officer (FO) saw a flash. The aircraft handled good and there was nothing indicating a malfunction so we determined it must be a lightning strike. We continued for a final vector for the LDA 35. The FO as pilot monitoring advised ATC; sent Dispatch a free text; made a passenger announcement and notified the Flight Attendants. We continued to land and taxi to the gate with no further incident. I entered two discrepancies in the maintenance logbook; one for the lightning strike and one for the missing static wick on the left elevator. The weather conditions at the time of the lightning strike were light rain; very light chop; and IMC. We landed in VMC.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported being struck by lightning on approach to SLC.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Tablet
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Other Training
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: This is a report regarding the lack of proper training surrounding the implementation of the iPad to the pilot group. We were essentially just handed the iPad with no training whatsoever. The company has assumed a level of proficiency with the iPad that doesn't exist. No standardized procedures as to the display and use of same in the cockpit. I'm not one to resist change or new technologies but I very emphatically believe that this introduction of a new way of displaying/using/complying with non-existent procedures makes me very uncomfortable in our highly regulated and procedural environment. Many pilots will not even admit how lost they are as to the use of this new device. This was a very marginal and incomplete introduction of new technology into the cockpit and I feel very strongly that we didn't get proper training as a group. This falls into the automation management arena where I very strongly believe is where the next incident/accident will come from in the future. This report is my attempt to put this in the limelight as it is my experience that most pilots don't file reports and feel their inputs to the system are largely ignored.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain laments the lack of training prior to the introduction of the iPad EFB by his company.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OSU.Tower, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D OSU
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Was on final approach into OSU landing to runway 27L. On final at less than .25 NM from end of runway; encountered a drone approximately 1 foot X 1 foot at same altitude and had to veer to right to avoid strike. As soon as I realized what it was; I contacted tower and notified them of location and all data that I could pass on incident.




Synopsis: Helicopter pilot on final approach into Class D airport took evasive action to avoid a collision with a UAS. The pilot notified ATC.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: [The following is in response to safety department questions]1. During your flight; you deviated north of [position] where another aircraft encountered severe turbulence. Did receipt of automatic PIREP alerting reports contribute to the decision to divert?Indirectly yes. We had already deviated from our course before [company flight] encountered severe turbulence. Receiving the PIREP Alert in conjunction with ATC guidance; after they had received a PIREP from [company flight] over the radio; helped us avoid the area. ATC helped with vectors.We also plotted the PIREP Alert we received via ACARS and saw that it had been on our scheduled route. Again; ATC notified us a few minutes before ACARS. ATC is more real time if their workload permits a relay of the occurrence to other aircraft.2. What other factors contributed to the decision to divert?Our Weather Radar info; the ATC notification and vectoring and the PIREP Alert System; all helped our decision. In fact; we had been thinking of leaving FL350 and climbing to FL370 to get farther on top of the Weather but stayed at FL350 after the ATC and PIREP Alert System notification of the severe turbulence encounter of [company flight] at FL370.3. Was the amount of turbulence related messages you received during the flight excessive? If so; how did it affect your flight deck workload and threat assessment of the turbulence ahead?The message was not excessive because it indicated turbulence in reference to a fix via cardinal direction information and distance information. Those PIREP Advisories can be quickly analyzed on our Airbus aircraft by using the FIX page on the FMGC. We actually received a few PIREP Advisory messages while traversing that area and they were not excessive due to our FMGC capability to pin-point the location very quickly and with little effort. I would like to add the following. The PIREP Advisory Area System- were we get an AREA of turbulence; defined by multiple cardinal direction information and distance from a fix; are extremely difficult/time consuming to draw on our FMGC. The time required to draw those out is too excessive and distracting for the crew. I think they are a great source of information; but they should be provided in a graphic format. The textual format is just not practical in my opinion.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported being alerted to an area of turbulence via the PIREP Advisory system and stated the information would be more useful in graphic rather than text format.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Controller gave us descent to 7;000 from 13;000. I was in area of thunderstorms with moderate turbulence. Started descent mode in Autopilot VS mode; hit severe updraft; autopilot disconnected; airplane gained altitude at a great rate. As I gained control of aircraft I had climbed 1;800 feet. Severe turbulence; moderate rain; night time conditions.




Synopsis: Beech Jet Captain reported large gain of altitude in descent from severe updraft in the vicinity of thunderstorms.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Standby Magnetic Compass
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On post flight we discovered another compass deviation; a compass card blank with all corrections erased and blank. There also was no compass deviation date or data located on card. It was highly unusual. This was the second WiFi aircraft with a problem; the other aircraft had a compass deviation of 45 degrees and was written up accordingly. Both aircraft will require compass rose swing. With two problems with compasses on WiFi aircraft in one tour I am checking all WiFi aircraft for problems and correct deviation data.

Callback: The Reporter stated that the aircraft in question displayed about a 25 degree standby compass deviation with no compass card correction after an in flight WIFI system installation. A standby compass swing was not conducted after the modification which included two antennas; one under the flight station forward electronic equipment bay and one near the tail; plus a control box in an aft section compartment near the aft lavatory. A fifty foot wire connects the forward antenna under the forward equipment bay to the aft control box. The distance between the antenna and the standby compass is about 4-5 FT. The two modified aircraft this Reporter has flown both display about a 25 degree error on the ground and in flight although the WIFI does not become operational until climbing through 10;000 FT. A non WIFI equipped aircraft flown the day following this event had a compass calibration card with only minor corrections unlike the WIFI modified aircraft which had no compass calibration card and about a 25 degree error. The Reporter talked with his Chief Pilot about this and was not given a satisfactory answer about the compass error and lack of calibration. When asked if a new aircraft weight and balance was completed because of the additional weight; the Chief Pilot answered affirmatively. But when asked about a compass swing he answered it was not necessary. The Reporter thought otherwise.



Synopsis: A CE-750 Standby Compass error of approximately 25 degrees was not recorded on the Compass Card after a WIFI system installation.
Date: 201901
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Inbound B767 needed to be towed into gate; saw a team leader brought a pushback [tug] and tow bar to tow the aircraft into the gate while Supervisor there watching. I asked him if that pushback [tug] was rated properly to tow in B767; he answered me yes. Once the aircraft was at the gate I went to see if the pushback [tug] was the proper piece; but it wasn't. This [tug] is not rated to tow in anything larger than B757 aircraft. This makes what was done an unsafe act and practice.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported a B767 was towed into the gate with a tug not rated for the aircraft type.