elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: DJI Air 2S
Operator: Recreational / Hobbyist (UAS)
Operating under: Recreational Operations / Section 44809 (UAS)
Flight plan: None
Mission: Recreational / Hobbyist (UAS)
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flight Control System (UAS)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Recreational / Hobbyist (UAS)
Reporter function: Person Manipulating Controls (UAS)
Reporter qualification: Other TRUST Completion Certificate
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person UAS Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I got authorization to fly recreationally. I was in a nice cruise down a trail while maintaining visual of sight when the drone made a hard right turn into a tree. The drone had acted up near that spot by coming to a slow stop and about 600 feet later did the same thing. All sensors were turned off and the flight was in sports mode. No one or property was injured in the accident except for my props. The drone flight data shows the drone made a hard right turn into the trees while the stick was pointed to the left. I believe that local interference caused my drone to turn and crash into the trees. There is at least one tower with a microwave transmitter near by; along with the Water Treatment Facility. I contacted the FCC who said file a police report. I am worried that someone was using a jamming device or that the transmissions might be too powerful and interfered with my GPS signal/control of the drone during the flight which might also interfere with manned aircraft. I had no errors on my controller that I can see from the data.

Callback: Reporter indicated they believed microwave radio interference from a nearby tower was the root cause of the loss of UAS control. The UAS flew fine after the incident in other areas. The reporter indicated they were flying with LAANC approval. They did not have any waivers; exemptions; or other authorizations.



Synopsis: Hobby UAS pilot was using manual flight mode during cruise flight when UAS made a non commanded right hand turn into a nearby tree. The UAS suffered minor damage and was recovered.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During landing rollout; we got a level 3 indication of an engine fire in the Number 3 Engine. We cleared the runway; ran appropriate checklist and secured the engine firing the fire bottle. We did not declare an emergency. We requested CFR assistance and CFR did not show any evidence of a fire on the Number 3 Engine. We shut the remaining engines down and had maintenance tow us in. CAT 2 approach with half mile visibility; blowing snow; RVR 3;000 FT. Snow ingesting in the Number 3 Engine during rollout could have caused an anomaly for the engine fire indication.


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


Synopsis: MD11 flight crew experiences a number three engine fire warning after landing in a snow storm. The aircraft is taxiied clear of the runway and the engine is shut down and Engine Fire Checklist accomplished. No actual fire is detected by CFR.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Oceanic
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X was coordinated inbound. Coordination indicators necessitated that the routing needed to be verified. Miami Center read routing to us that was discrepant with what we showed in Advanced Technologies and Oceanic Procedures (ATOP). We amended our routing to concur with the routing given by Miami Center. Once the aircraft was in our airspace we asked the pilot to relay what routing they showed. They relayed that they had the routing we showed originally; not what was coordinated by Miami Center. We sent a route clearance to the flight to clarify the routing. This flight originated in a foreign country. Apparently their equipment is not reliable to provide updated information on some flights.[I recommend] a procedure for flight information to be verified between the foreign country Center and our ATC facilities.




Synopsis: An aircraft entered ARTCC airspace on a different route than what the ARTCC flight plan showed.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beechcraft Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on an instrument flight plan and was instructed by ATC to intercept the localizer.... I intercepted; cancelled my instrument flight plan and proceeded VFR to the airport. I called my position on CTAF. Other traffic called their position as 3 miles final for [Runway] 8R. I called my position at 3 miles behind the Cessna on final. As the aircraft made progress towards landing he called his position at 2 mile final 8R. I also called my position as 4 mile final 8R. I watched the Cessna touch down and I called my position as 2 mile final 8R. Another Cessna on the downwind leg for 8R turned base to 8R. I inquired as to the intention of the Cessna on base and the pilot stated he had the right of way according to the AIM and he was turning final and stated if I didn't like it I could take it up on the ground with him. At this time I was approximately 1 mile from the aircraft who just turned final. I was unable to execute a go around or break off the approach due to multiple aircraft utilizing [Runway] 8L and traffic on downwind for [Runway] 8R. Additionally the proceeding Cessna had just departed the runway straight ahead and the Cessna that cut me off did not state his intentions as to whether he was full stop or final. Given the circumstances; I landed on the runway behind the Cessna that was approximately 2;000 FT down the runway. I was never any closer than 1;000 FT from the aircraft that cut me off on final.




Synopsis: Pilot of a Single Engine Beechcraft on Localizer approach; cancelled IFR; made appropriate CTAF reports; and was cut off by a Cessna turning base to the same runway. Unable to go-around due to traffic; Beechcraft pilot landed behind the Cessna.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At FL350; straight and level cruise with autopilot engaged. Aircraft began a roll to the right. Crew noticed rudder brick off center. Scanned instruments and noted rudder trim full nose left. Pilot flying (First Officer) disconnected autopilot and overrode runaway. Pilot not flying (Captain) re-centered rudder trim per QRH and re-engaged autopilot. After landing; Contract Maintenance did a check of the AFCS fault codes (none noted) and an operational test of the rudder trim system. After checks complete; aircraft signed off OK for service. I exercised Captain's authority and refused to fly the aircraft since there was no indication of why it happened and no guarantees that it would not happen again.


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


Synopsis: A CRJ-700 rudder trim deflected full left with the autopilot engaged; so the QRH was completed; the rudder re-centered and the flight continued but the Captain refused the aircraft for further service after Maintenance found no faults.
Date: 201404
Location: ZKC.ARTCC, KS
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZKC
ATC / advisory: Center ZKC
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [We were] in cruise flight at FL350 near SAAGS waypoint in Kansas City airspace. Ride was smooth; no forecast or reported turbulence. Seat belt sign was off. No reported traffic by ATC in vicinity; and no TCAS targets in close proximity. Experienced a moderate jolt that lasted less than 2 seconds; and ride was back to smooth and remained smooth. Felt very much like crossing another aircraft's flight path and wake turbulence. First Officer reported wake turbulence encounter to ATC; Captain called the back to check on status of flight attendants and passengers. Initial response from purser was flight attendants were OK as were passengers. Approximately 10 minutes later; received a call from the cabin that flight attendants were NOT all OK; and one of the flight attendants in the back had hurt her back and was in significant pain. She was bent over in the aft galley at the time of the encounter. Captain spoke with injured Flight Attendant to ascertain her condition. She was not in acute medical distress to warrant a diversion; so the Captain elected to continue to [destination]. Immediately after; Captain began coordinating with Dispatch regarding the wake turbulence encounter and the injured Flight Attendant. Arrangements were made for medical to meet the aircraft. In-Flight and the station were also notified through Dispatch to coordinate for acquiring a third flight attendant for the continuation of the flight. Remainder of the flight was uneventful; and via altitude management avoided any turbulence and chop the remainder of the flight. Upon arrival we deplaned the passengers while the injured Flight Attendant was seated on the aft jump seat with ice on her back. The medical response team then entered the aircraft to attend to the injured Flight Attendant.


Second narrative: There were several aircraft above us in our immediate vicinity; but no contrails to visually indicate a potential wake. Additionally; there were no radio transmissions from other aircraft in our vicinity that indicated anything other than smooth rides in our vicinity.


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported wake vortex encounter at FL350 that resulted in an injury to a flight attendant.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground IAH; Tower IAH
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: First time ever for me in Houston and the First Officer (FO) a couple times a couple of months ago. Heavy rain reported and our arrival was changed but the ATIS [update] did not for several minutes. Instead of 8R now 26L and I briefed taxi plan NA or NB to NK but we were more interested in the radar picture. As I was turning left off the high speed the automated 3000 feet remaining audio was very loud and when it stopped we heard tower say contact ground but thinking back he could have told us to turn left on the first parallel but neither of us heard it. Then ground said turn right NK and I was trying to think where that was when I remembered the FO saying back in the descent that NB turned into NK so I went straight ahead to turn left on NB but Ground yelled where are you going then said tower should have told us and we both said no they never did but it could have been drowned out by the 3000 feet call plus heavy rain and wipers high speed and my attention on trying to see.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reports misunderstanding or not hearing a taxi clearance after landing Runway 26L at IAH.
Date: 201402
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: This report is not timely and does not have to do with an actual incident. I recently completed my yearly proficiency training and was again reminded of the issue I wish to discuss here. The QRH is a good tool; but it could be much better and it would be simple to make it so. Such an improvement could move us toward an integrated B767 fleet; realizing large economies of scale within the pilot force resulting in significant cost savings for the company as well as significant increases in overall safety. While I understand the need to control costs; the construction of the QRH in its current form is a false economy. Trying to fit all the sub fleets we fly into one all encompassing document (B757 or B767) dedicated to the safe outcome of rarely practiced stressful emergency and irregular operations is dangerous and will/does result in undesired aircraft states when its purpose is to do exactly the opposite. Any procedure that necessarily states a specific aircraft subtype is an undesired aircraft state looking for a place to happen. Put another way; no QRH in any of our individual aircraft should contain a procedure in it that does not pertain to that particular aircraft. An added benefit would be significant reduction in bulk of the publication making it much easier to handle in an irregular or emergency. The cost of editing and maintaining appropriate QRH's is no doubt small compared to the cost of a wrongly executed procedure done on an aircraft that the procedure does not even pertain to or worse yet; the creation of confusion in an already stressed and perhaps fatigued crew because things don't add up; potentially leading to a tragedy.




Synopsis: B757/767 Captain laments the complexity of the QRH due to the variety of aircraft covered after the merger and the opportunity for error in an emergency situation.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: DC Battery
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft was on initial climbout; 141 heading. Aircraft was given an initial climb to 10;000 ft. [Climbing] through roughly 8;000 ft the crew noticed an excessive discharge on the aircraft battery. The crew performed the recommended generator reset procedure; to no obvious effect. The aircraft then experienced a shed of the aircraft non-essential bus; and bus-tie. The crew opted to divert to [a nearby alternate]. The aircraft was given a descent and initial vectors for a visual [approach]. Once the aircraft joined the downwind; the crew detected a burning smell. At this time; the crew requested emergency ground personnel. The aircraft landed without incident; shutting down on [a] taxiway. The aircraft was evacuated.




Synopsis: PC-12 Captain reported diverting to an alternate airport after experiencing loss of several electrical system components.
Date: 201907
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower IAH
Second aircraft: A321
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We landed on the left runway and taxied to hold short of the right runway and change to Tower frequency. We waited a few minutes behind another aircraft holding short for a couple of arrivals. The Tower cleared us both to cross and cleared us to taxi and contact ramp. As we were about to cross runway we looked to our right and saw an aircraft on final no higher than 100 feet so I stopped just short of hold line; having not entered runway and advised Tower we stopped. I did not recall seeing LAHSO on ATIS and having only been to this airport about half dozen times I did not recall LAHSO. While stopped with the parking brake set I rechecked 10-7 and 9 and saw they indeed have LAHSO. Right after that we watched an A321 land and exit and the Tower got mad at him and told him he needed to advise Tower if they need full length. However again LAHSO was not in ATIS that I recall and the crew sure seemed surprised by their response. I am confident LAHSO was not in effect. I advised Tower that we could cross when clear of traffic on final or if advised landing aircraft was LAHSO. Shortly thereafter there was a large break in landing traffic and we were cleared across the right runway and contact ramp. While taxiing we saw an opposite direction B747 and we stopped. Tower said turn right on A. Well there is no A; so we questioned. The Controller was annoyed and cleared us to taxi right and contact ramp. I get they are busy; but this sequence of events had two chances of bending metal or near miss and runway incursion.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier pilot reported they held short of a runway that they were instructed to cross when they observed an aircraft on short final because they did not know that aircraft was going to land and hold short and then they were given taxi instructions which placed them on a conflicting route with an aircraft taxiing in the opposite direction.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing rollout
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On landing roll out; aircraft veered left; pilot applied proper recovery technique; aircraft continued to roll off left side of runway. Prior to actually going off the side; pilot applied full right brake blowing the tire. Aircraft returned to runway. No ground loop; no damage to airframe or pilots.




Synopsis: AT-802 Instructor reported the aircraft departed the runway during the landing rollout.