elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Mustang (C510)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Control
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While being vectored for the visual approach at ZZZ; approximately while descending through 5;000 feet; the Amber CAS message (ENG CTRL SYS (L-R)) appeared as well as the Master Caution System light; I referenced the Manufacturers Emergency/Abnormal Checklist which dictated the first step is to reset the FADEC to the affected side; which in this case was both sides; the checklist goes on to say if the CAS message clears then no further action is required; or if the CAS message remains; to land as soon as practical. The checklist also goes on to advise of the possible effects that may be encountered; they are:- Degraded or lack of response to throttle movements including possible surging or flameout.- Possible inability to restart.- Possible inability to achieve ground idle.- Loss of automatic Interstage Turbine Temperature (ITT) limiting during ground idle.- Loss of automatic ITT limiting during ground or windmill starts.- Loss of ITT indication.The message did not clear after the reset; and given the possibility of a flameout; I chose to land ASAP; I notified ATC and requested to proceed directly to the final approach course for landing. ATC complied with my request and gave me priority. The landing was uneventful; but on the landing roll out; the L Engine Fail Warning CAS message came up; it distinguished about 15 seconds later; then appeared once again about a minute later during taxi and stayed on for 10 seconds then went away.Once I arrived to the ramp at the FBO I shut the engines down and powered down the aircraft with no further incident.




Synopsis: C510 pilot reported the left engine control failed while on vectors for a visual approach.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Other Person
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Flying at 1600 feet MSL; 800 feet AGL on a direct course toward [our destination]. On departing JQF climbed to 1600 feet MSL in order to stay below the CLT class B airspace. Our course took us very close to the Mcquire nuclear power plant located on the south end of Lake Norman near Charlotte; NC. At approximately XX00 local time I received a call from a FAA inspector who is assigned to the Charlotte FSDO. The inspector informed me that the nuclear plant called JQF to determine the identity of the helicopter that overflew their plant and the tower identified us. The inspector told me that he/she could find no restrictions concerning operations over or near nuclear power plants; and there were no notations on navigation charts either. The inspector let me know that that was all he/she knew and inferred that there would be nothing more to come. I stated that I wanted to be a good neighbor and would do my best to avoid the plant in the future.




Synopsis: Pilot gets notification by a ground observer who reports the flight to the FAA that their flight went over a nuclear power point. No restrictions were to be found not allowing the pilot to do so.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LIT.Airport, AR
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C LIT
ATC / advisory: Tower LIT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Landing on 4R at LIT at night; as pilot flying; the extremely bright sign on the airport parking garage just to the left of the runway on final approach was distracting and compromised the safety of our flight.  This sign's bright intensity should be decreased by at least 50% at night to avoid landing distractions to pilots approaching 4R at LIT.

Callback: The reporter states the sign is essentially a stadium video screen with moving advertisements and is far too bright at night to be that close to the end of the runway. When an aircraft is on final approach to Runway 4R at 500 feet the sign is about 30 degrees to the left.



Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reports being distracted during a night approach; by a very bright sign on the roof of a parking garage just to the left of Runway 4R at LIT.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were loaded with an amount of bags that wasn't even close to what was on the CLR (Cargo Load Report). CLR stated we had 28 checked and 22 gate claim; we actually had 13 checked and 26 gate claim; a difference of 370 lbs. I noticed on takeoff that the plane didn't feel like it was trimmed correctly; and engaged the AP shortly after takeoff. When I disengaged the AP for landing I noticed that the plane still felt off; like it was out of CG was the only thing I could think of. When we landed I got out quickly and asked the ground crew to do a count and got the actual totals submitted in this report; they copied the CLR and their count totals for their records. As the plane was mostly full; I believe that we were probably out of the CG window for landing. I took the CLR to the Chief Pilots and told them what happened to help ensure this kind of thing stops happening.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported incorrect baggage counts which led to issues with weight and balance.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Bombardier/Canadair Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Navigation Light
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft was being towed by high speed tractor on Runway. Aircraft had no nav or anti-collision lights illuminated. No mechanic in cockpit to ride brakes as required per our Airport's Dept. of Aviation rules and regulations. Weather VFR. [Recommend to] require aircraft mechanics to tow aircraft so that the aircraft will be powered and light and brakes will be monitored as per FAA and Airport rules and regulations.


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


Synopsis: A Line Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) reports observing three Regional jet aircraft that were towed with high speed Tugs on active taxiways at airport without Navigation or Anti-collision lights on and no Mechanic in the cockpit to ride brakes.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 20FJF/20C/20D/20E/20F
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff we had a gear light problem on right main saying gear was not up. Recycled gear and light went out. On approach I decided to do a flyby the tower to make sure all gear were down. Tower confirmed gear down; lights confirmed gear down. On touchdown all gear was on the ground. After a few feet right wing started to drop and hit the ground. Applied all means to stop aircraft. Aircraft skidded length of runway and off the end before stopping. No injuries.


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


Synopsis: Falcon 20 flight crew reported the landing gear collapsed after landing.
Date: 201505
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During preflight; non-standard flight plan; Captain retrieved and typed in fixes from PDC while I wasn't there.  When I returned I looked at PDC and then briefed the routing as Captain QC'd [quality checked/controlled] the fixes in the box.  Phonetically called out fix HRTUN (HURTIN). Captain had misspelled it as HURTN.  Center cleared us direct HRTUN. I pulled up the fix to top of the page; we confirmed it; and selected it.  A couple of minutes later; ATC queried our heading.  We confirmed direct HRTUN; he spelled it out phonetically; and that's when we caught it.  Put in the right fix and adjusted the heading about 20 degrees.  The headings were fairly close at that distance; two fixes that phonetically sound the same; with a letter shift difference. Recommend changing HRTUN or HURTN to something different.  Both in same geographic area and are less than 100 miles apart.  Continue QC checks of points and hard look at points on both flight plan and FMC.  This one was hard to catch with same letters and slightly different order.




Synopsis: Airline flight crew was advised of a track deviation in flight while navigation to HRTUN intersection and realized HURTN had been programmed during preflight. The waypoints are less than 100 NM apart.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Fog
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Escape Slide
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; MEL; Procedure; Aircraft; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: MD-11 aircraft arrived. As I was doing my cockpit checks [for] an aircraft turn; station personnel informed me that there was a blown [escape] slide lying on the [aircraft's] ballast pallet. I looked at the onboard deferred list and saw that the blown slide was on MEL [for] the Right Forward (R1) Entry Door. It was stated on the deferred list at the end of the placard that the slide was removed; but the placard did not state what to do with the slide. Not knowing that the Engineering Authorization (EA) had not been done; but knowing it could not go with the ballast pallet; I removed it and shipped it to Stores. Aircraft left on [next] flight. MEL was not properly followed when being [applied] to aircraft and MEL placard was not clear as to what was to be done with the slide since the MEL covers two possible scenarios; making it unclear to someone coming in after the fact on the flight line. Insure MEL is properly performed when originally attached to aircraft. It should be stated on the placard that slide should stay on; or be removed from aircraft. There should be two separate MELs; one for each scenario. I will make sure I will read entire MEL before taking any action.




Synopsis: A Line Mechanic reports about an MD-11 aircraft that arrived with a Right Forward (R-1) Entry door escape slide that was previously blown; deferred; and laying on the aircraft's ballast pallet. Mechanic noted there should be two separate deferrals indicating whether a blown slide should be removed from the aircraft or remain onboard.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 13
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Time Pressure; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing Roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I departed ZZZ VFR. I requested and received a discrete squawk code from ATC for flight following to ZZZ1. The flight was uneventful. I was in communication with ATC throughout the flight and while approaching ZZZZ I called in to ATC to advise I had 13+ mile visibility. Following that call ATC instructed me to squawk 1200 and advised frequency change was approved. I then switched to the CTAF frequency for ZZZ1. I monitored the CTAF for traffic and started my radio callouts approximately 10 miles north west of ZZZ1. I checked the weather displayed on the MFD which indicated a four kt. wind and altimeter reading of 29.93 and there was light rain. Since the wind was calm I decided to land on Runway XX; the preferred runway. Runway XX requires right traffic. I entered the right downwind for Runway XX at 1;000 ft. (pattern altitude). I then entered a right base and then turned final. I had deployed full flaps and focused on the dissent angle and airspeed. I descended over the runway threshold about 50 ft. over the sand dune at a speed of approximately 83 kts.; the plane was stable; however just prior to touchdown I felt as if the plane was pushed forward; at this point my main gear touched down and I was unable to maintain directional control. I tried to maneuver the plane to be directionally straight however due to lack of directional control I felt a 'go around' was not advisable.The plane continued to slide and the plane slid into the fence at the perimeter of the airport and came to rest on the west side of road. The fence seemed to absorb much of the impact. Once stopped; I shut down the plane; called the Airport Manager and explained what happened. She asked if I was OK and then called police and fire personnel.




Synopsis: Single pilot reported loss of directional control on landing resulting in a runway excursion and collision with perimeter fence.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Flight Data / Clearance Delivery; Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working CD/CIC combined in the Tower. The Local Controller had traffic landing Runway 1 and Runway 10. A MD82 was landing roll on Runway 10; and an E170 was on final behind him. I told the Local Controller several times that I didn't think it was going to work; meaning that we would not have the runway separation we would need. He replied that if he had to send him around he would. I trusted that he would do this; I had no reason to doubt him. When the E170 was short final for Runway 10; I stood up to see where the MD82 was and he did not appear to be clear of the runway. I told the Local Controller that it looked like he (the E170) needed to go around. He said that he thought it was going work. I gave it a few more seconds; and then told him; 'you need send the E170 around.' he did not. The MD82 was not yet clear of the runway and therefore separation was not ensured. It is extremely rare that we have any supervisors in the Tower as they generally stay in TRACON or their office during their shift. I am not the only controller that has had these problems with other controllers not listening to the CIC in the Tower; and I feel as though it makes the operation unsafe. I do not believe the Local Controller would have refused to do what I told him to do if a supervisor would have been present. I also feel as though we should be able to refuse the duty of CIC if we do not feel comfortable. I feel as though putting 'co-workers' in charge of each other throughout the day sets us up for failure in many different ways.




Synopsis: Tower CIC voiced concern regarding the lack of response to his direction to a controller reference runway separation; noting shift supervisor rarely reside in the Tower but spend time in the TRACON and their offices during the shift.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Manifold Pressure Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Second reporter function: Trainee; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departed ZZZ on a training flight to ZZZ1. At 5;000 ft MSL during the climb the Pilot Flying noted that at full throttle the MP (Manifold Pressure) read 25 in Hg. The plane was properly configured for cruise climb and all other instruments were reading normal. We suspected an issue with the turbo charger and notified ATC that we would like to return to ZZZ due to a loss of Manifold Pressure. ATC provided priority handling and vectored us for the RNAV approach. We landed at ZZZ without incident.The maintenance shop at ZZZ investigated the problem and found a pin-hole leak in the line between the pressure transducer and the Manifold Pressure Gauge. They replaced the line and the gauge now shows the proper Manifold Pressure.


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


Synopsis: Flight Instructor flying C210T aircraft reported problem with engine instruments inflight that resulted in an air return.