elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: SA-227 AC Metro III
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged

Narrative: During visual approach to landing at ZZZ Runway XXL; on short final; the aircraft began to yaw significantly to the right. The pilot corrected with rudder just prior to flare. The pilot noted that the amount of rudder needed was excessive to what is normally required considering current conditions. The aircraft banked uncontrollably to the right just prior to touchdown and the right wing tip and made contact with the ground. The aircraft pulled hard to the right and came down on all three wheels. As the aircraft departed the runway; the nose gear collapsed upon contact with the dirt. The aircraft came to a stop. The pilot alerted ATC that he was ok; shut off the batteries and egressed from the aircraft through the forward cabin door. The pilot awaited Airport Ops and rescue personnel next to the aircraft and provided all requested information. No physical injuries were noted on the pilot. Unverified cause of uncommanded yaw and bank prior to touchdown. Suspected Right Engine thrust deficiency and possible excessive drag prior to touchdown. Pilot egressed aircraft after coming to a stop. Assisted with local authorities in assessment post incident.




Synopsis: SA-227AC pilot reported aircraft yawed and rolled uncontrollably during landing phase; resulting in a wingtip strike.
Date: 201510
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Gate Agent / CSR
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Gate agent met inbound flight. The flight attendant had opened the door handle before the jetway was moved on to the aircraft. The procedure for [Company] aircraft door opening upon arrival is the gate agent opens the door; not the flight attendants. The gate agent indicated the door was slightly opened; then she opened it a few inches further to speak to the Flight Attendant (FA) at which point the FA continued to open the door approximately 2 1/2 feet. The door was never fully opened properly to avoid the slide from deploying. The slide was still connected to the aircraft floor via the metal bar and to the aircraft door. The FA then offered the customers to deplane with the door only opened approximately 2 1/2 feet. The customers had to step over the slide to get into the jetway. Maintenance was contacted and when they arrived they did confirm the slide was armed and could deploy at any time. Numerous safety errors were made. Maintenance indicated it was necessary to take the aircraft out of service.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Gate Agent reported the Flight Attendant on the inbound flight deviated from SOP and opened the aircraft door; spilling the slide to the floor.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LCH.Airport, LA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D LCH
ATC / advisory: TRACON LCH
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: During the approach briefing for the ILS approach to Runway 15 at LCH; the First Officer (Pilot Flying); informed the Captain that he had problems with the Runway 15 localizer on two previous flights for this runway. The FO (First Officer) said that on both previous flights; the Runway 15 localizer did not stay centered. The FO explained the Localizer Course Deviation Indicator (CDI) had swung left and right of course. After discussing this; the Captain and FO agreed that the FO would remain on GPS guidance while the Captain would monitor on the localizer radio guidance. After being cleared for the approach; The FO intercepted the inbound course on GPS guidance. The Captain's localizer guidance initially appeared stable. Approximately three miles prior to the final approach fix; FIDGA; the FO switched his course guidance to the localizer. The approach guidance was stable. We passed FIDGA; intercepted the glide slope; and began our final descent. At approximately 1;300 feet MSL; the localizer began deviating left and right of course. The autopilot was engaged. The FO disengaged the autopilot and we immediately descended below the cloud ceiling; which was approximately 1;100 feet MSL or 1;200 feet MSL. The Captain and FO both sighted the runway at 1;100 feet MSL. At some point below 1;000 feet MSL; the localizer appeared to be stable. The remainder of the approach was uneventful. During the approach; the winds were 40 knots from approximately 200 degrees; prior to the FAF. After clearing the runway; we reported the problem to the Control Tower. The FO informed the Tower Controller he had problems with the Runway 15 localizer on two previous occasions. The Tower Controller said he had not received any other notifications about problems with the localizer from any other aircrews. At no point was the approach unstable. [Request] inspection of the localizer antenna. A query to the LCH Control Tower to determine if other aircrews have experienced the same problem. A notification in the daily read warning aircrews they might encounter the same problem.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported problems with the localizer inbound to LCH.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CYYZ.Airport, ON
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had already calculated my CYYZ-[U.S. destination] flight plan; but had not added an alternate in the appropriate page. I then added the alternate to the flight by selecting it in drop down menu. I failed to click re-compute; however; so the alternate showed on the screen but was not actually calculated into the flight plan. Neither my Dispatch OJT trainer nor I noticed that alternate burn showed 0 on the flight plan. We released and sent the flight plan on time. The crew sent an ACARS message enroute to advise us they had no fuel for the alternate. We attempted an inflight revision/addition of alternate based on current position; payload; and fuel on board; but the aircraft had insufficient fuel on board to do so. By artificially inflating the fuel on board number; we were finally able to get the plan to run; just to give the crew burn information; however; flight was below 10;000 FT by then; so we opted not to send the information. Destination weather was approximately 1 statute mile at the time so we monitored the flight until it landed in its destination. We had the burn information ready to send if the flight missed approach in their destination. When flight landed; we sent ACARS advising crew we were filing a safety report and recommending they file also. [This was my] first day of OJT. I have worked the system in the past; but had forgotten about this particular 'gotcha.' Better time management and closer attention to detail on my part will prevent this error from occurring again. One of the other dispatchers also pointed out the alternate burn column; which provides a quick reference during high workload situations and is a good 'double check.' [I needed better awareness] of how the system works; was not aware that 'release' did not recalculate plan to capture all information. Better time management and attention to detail in spite of time pressure.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher undergoing OJT failed to take the step required to program fuel for an alternate airport that was required for dispatch. The flight crew discovered the error only after departure. The destination airport was the most viable airport to resolve the issue at the time it was discovered. It landed safely.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working sector 78/87 combined when I handed off Aircraft X to sector 16/86. The last clearance issued by me was for Aircraft X to cross HEPOX at FL350; via the SOP. After transferring communication to sector 16/86; 16/86 then deleted the restriction and issued a descent to FL270 and initiated a handoff to MIA center while the aircraft was still approximately 20 miles in my airspace. The aircraft was below FL350 by HEPOX without back coordination. This is another example of complacency and laziness portrayed by a group of controllers at ZJX. It is becoming a safety concern for the flying public and the controllers working with or around these controllers. When asked about situations associated with 7110.65 and SOP/LOA; these controllers say they 'don't care' or become upset with those controllers whom request basic coordination be followed. I would recommend decertification or re-training of individuals that continue to show ineptitude in the safe and expeditious control of air traffic.




Synopsis: ZJX Controller reports of disregard from other ZJX controllers that violate SOP/LOA on a consistent basis and how nothing is being done to stop this. In this instance another Controller deletes a restriction without coordinating with the sector the aircraft is in.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: During vectors to RWY 22L visual approach we encountered wake turbulence from a preceding 757. The autopilot disconnected; we entered a 30 degree left bank and gained 150 ft in altitude. After recovering I attempted to reengage the autopilot but it would not engage. I advised the pax of the issue as he was concerned. We continued the vector and ATC changed the rwy assignment to 22R visual. We landed without incident. I advised the [Chief Pilot] on duty of the event. I was subsequently given a min rest overnight and had to [call in] fatigued; and was given 14 hours off duty. Both previous days were 12 hr duty and 5 leg days. We had adequate separation from the 757. I believe the event was caused by prevailing winds pushing the wake into our vector flight path.




Synopsis: CE-560XL Captain reported encountering wake turbulence on approach to JFK in trail of a B757.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Spark Plug
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Ground assigned me an intersection departure on Runway XY. I declined the intersection departure and requested full length as it was the first flight post-maintenance. Runway XY is 10;000 FT in length with a grass overrun area at the end. After runup; I took off and when I reached approximately 150 feet AGL; I experienced what felt to be a complete loss of engine power; pulled the throttle to the idle position; configured the aircraft for landing and landed straight ahead; overshooting the end of the runway. I landed in the grass field past the end of the runway and slightly to the right to avoid approach lights. Prior to the incident; maintenance to the alternator was performed in which the air ducting to the fuel servo had been removed. It was reported to me that mechanical examination after the incident revealed that both spark plugs in the #4 cylinder experienced destructive damage as well as damage to the top of the piston.




Synopsis: During the takeoff following alternator maintenance; a M-20 pilot experienced what he believed was a complete power loss. He landed long and rolled of the runway end. Later; Maintenance found number four piston top and both its spark plugs damaged.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB-505 / Phenom 300
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ2
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ2
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At cruise the crew observed a projected -350 lb. fuel load at destination. This is unusually low for this phase of flight. The crew closely monitored the fuel situation and over the next 20 minutes and determined a worsening condition. The crew recalculated the flight plan; asked for direct to the airport to troubleshoot and identify the problem. All efforts did not resolve the issue. The crew [advised ATC] and diverted to ZZZ. On the way to ZZZ the fuel over destination worsened and the crew requested a closer alternate destination of ZZZ1.MFD indicating a negative fuel quantity upon or arrival.Reviewed flight plan; also requested direct routing to arrival fix for recalculation of fuel at FOD (Fuel Over Destination). Still showed a negative fuel balance and deteriorating.


Second narrative: Aircraft fuel condition showed a predicted (landing) negative fuel amount upon level off and continued to worsen throughout cruise flight. Crew requested and received shortcuts with ATC to shorten total flight distance. As a precaution the crew opted to divert as the information being provided by the aircraft showed progressively worsening fuel status all the way to the touchdown at ZZZ1. Upon level off; noticed the fuel over destination (FOD) showed -300 lbs. of fuel. The condition worsened as the flight progressed. The total fuel on board was checked to see/compare against current duration of flight which showed we had used more than expected. The crew asked for a turn away from the current 100+ [kts.] headwind to see if the FOD would recalculate based on a tailwind. This made an insignificant difference and continued to worsen. We could have tried to further troubleshoot prior to diverting but with passengers onboard we opted to error on the side of caution and land sooner than later.


Synopsis: Flight Crew reported diverting after FOD Fuel Over Destination showed a total loss of fuel in flight.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CHS.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E CHS
ATC / advisory: TRACON CHS
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was training a developmental in all the radar positions combined. We had 4-5 aircraft being vectored to final for RWY 15 at CHS. Another IFR aircraft was on course to an IAF for an instrument approach at JZI. When Aircraft X called VFR looking for his IFR flight plan; he was potentially a direct conflict for the aircraft approaching JZI. I told the trainee to have him head westbound to avoid the other aircraft; but he was still VFR. Aircraft X was approaching an area with an MVA of 020 and he was at 015. While also focusing on keeping the aircraft separated and sequenced to CHS; I told the trainee to clear Aircraft X. I missed it if he was directly in toward an obstacle. Also; I interpreted the .65 that it was still up to the pilot to obtain their own obstruction/terrain clearance. Aircraft X was cleared on his IFR flight plan; but no other turn or direction was given. Aircraft X climbed and proceeded on course with no incident.The needs to be definitive guidance on when it is ATC or the pilot's responsibility to maintain obstruction/terrain clearance when transitioning between VFR to IFR. If I interpreted the .65 incorrectly; I would like to be clear so I do not make the mistake again.




Synopsis: TRACON Instructor reported being unclear of the party responsible to maintain obstruction clearance while transitioning from a VFR to IFR clearance.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Dash 8-100
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Lubrication System
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After deicing with Type 1 fluid we taxied out to the Runway for departure. Once we were cleared for takeoff I held the brakes and ran the power up to 40 percent for 10 seconds; and everything looked normal. I released the brakes and started my takeoff roll. Soon after setting takeoff power the Number 1 engine oil pressure warning light illuminated; and we rejected the takeoff at 80 knots. The warning light extinguished after 5 seconds when I reduced the power. I proceeded to shut down the Number 1 engine and we taxied back to the gate. The mechanic arrived and checked out the Number 1 engine and found that it was 3 quarts low on oil. He said that Maintenance told them it had been 3 days since the oils had been checked! No leaks were noted. I asked him if 3 quarts low could cause the oil pressure warning light to illuminate and he said that it was the probable cause. It may be necessary for Maintenance do more frequent oil checks.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 contains no additional information.]


Synopsis: A DHC8-100 Captain rejected the takeoff when the LOW OIL PRESSURE WARNING light illuminated and after returning to the gate Maintenance discovered the oil had not been serviced for three days resulting in the quantity being three quarts low.