elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After a routine IFR flight and on approach I picked up the runway 5 miles out and proceeded visually. Upon touching down (runway conditions were wet) the aircraft unexpectedly veered off to the left side of the runway leaving the pavement. The aircraft entered the grass and came to a stop after a skid of approximately 200 FT. Upon coming to a stop in the grass with no apparent issues; I powered the aircraft forward and back on to the runway (while communicating with the Tower) and taxied to the FBO ramp. No runway lights were struck and there was no apparent damage to the aircraft after shut down and a visual inspection. I believe that the left brake may have been grabbing and caused the unexpected pull to the left. This may have been caused by earlier use of the parking brake: prior to the flight the parking brake was applied for approximately 15 minutes and then released.




Synopsis: A Beech C90 veered off a wet runway upon touchdown and came to rest in the grass.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Airplane was cruising at FL370; .80M; [and] CI 100. We were assigned to descend to FL360. First Officer elected V/S at 1300 FPM. During descent ATC ordered a left turn of 15 degrees AOB. In turn; I observed the Speed Trend Vector went into the Maximum Operating Speed bar. I took the airplane; disengaged the autopilot and leveled the aircraft. During the maneuver; the aircraft experienced a high-speed buffet for 1 to 2 seconds. The Stick Shaker Symbol appeared above the Airplane Symbol and the Flight Path Vector Indication was below the Airplane Symbol. The Stick Shaker Symbol disappeared once the buffeting ceased. There was no loss of airspeed; no stick shaker; no airspeed limitation exceedance; and no altitude deviation. ACARS generated a TAPS [Turbulence Auto-PIREP System] report: RPTS SEVERE TAPS EVENT. Dispatch inquired via ACARS if we experienced a severe turbulence incident? I responded via ACARS that we did not and added 'concur that no maintenance action required' Dispatch agreed that no maintenance was required. No maintenance entry was made. The remainder of the flight was uneventful. Possible suggestions/causes include but not limited to: - The selection of vertical speed versus altitude intervene or descend now prompt. - During discussion; First Officer stated that he initially selected 1300 FPM. We discussed use of V/S at high altitude; other modes of descents; and selecting a smaller FPM selection. - The action of leveling the aircraft in response to the airspeed trend. - Flying close to max speed in compliance with the flight plan.




Synopsis: During descent from FL370 to FL350 at 1;300 FPM and a 15 degree AOB; the Captain notes the speed trend vector move into the overspeed area and assumes control of the aircraft to reduce airspeed.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight was awarded in the bid and flown as scheduled. After completing pairing no indication of any possible discrepancies/violation of a FAR or Company Operational Specs was not made known until suggested by an ASAP member via email to suggest the filing of this ASAP. This suggestion was received today. The event is noted as operating an aircraft per C070 with an incorrect airport status. To my understanding based on the current suggestion a B767 was only authorized to operate into ZZZ for alternate reasons and not scheduled. No further events occurred.




Synopsis: B767 pilot reported landing at an airport only allowed to be an alternate per the company Op Spec.
Date: 201503
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Second aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Initially slopped R1 on track at coast out.  Hit moderate wake from aircraft at FL320 so slopped R2.  The wind then shifted and we felt it better to go back to R1 to avoid the drifting contrail.  Then encountered severe wake from the aircraft at FL320 13 miles in front of us.  The autopilot was initially on but did not respond well with the encounter as we climbed 200 feet and rolled past 30 degrees bank.  I manually took over the aircraft as the autopilot did not respond and I immediately was able to level the aircraft and roll out of the bank.  As the winds were blowing the contrails into the 'slop' area we elected to fly the NAT with no slop.  Oceanic quickly SELCALed the aircraft asking our altitude. Captain stated we were now level at FL310 and further explained the situation and that we did not fly off our altitude but were rather pushed there from the severe wake encounter.  Oceanic told us it was a B747 at FL320.




Synopsis: B767 First Officer reported wake encounter in trail of a B747 in oceanic airspace at FL320 that resulted in a 30 degree roll and a 200-foot climb.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approach was briefed for an ILS. VFR conditions with skies clear and 10 miles visibility and winds calm. Aircraft touched down on first third of runway well within touch down zone. The main gear touched down then I placed the nose gear on the runway. Aircraft started veering right of center line. We tried to correct but the aircraft deviated off and to the right side of runway at about the 2;500 FT mark down the runway's right side. Aircraft came to a stop 30 feet off side of runway on the grass area.

Callback: The reporter stated that subsequent to the incident he was told the nose wheel steering computer failed and commanded a 20 degree right input which caused the crew to veer off the runway. This nose wheel steering computer is a third generation box; which has had moisture issues in the past. No damage to aircraft.

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


Synopsis: G-IV flight crew lowered the nose wheel on landing and the aircraft veered to the right off the runway due to a malfunction of the nose wheel steering system.
Date: 201403
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On right downwind; abeam approach end of Runway 10L at ZZZ; Approach Control cleared us for visual approach.  Shortly after; while still on downwind leg and descending from about 7K to 5.7K; ATC reported traffic at 6K moving from our right to left.  ATC asked us to commence our base turn now (earlier than we planned).  While starting the base turn; we saw traffic that was probably our conflict.  TCAS gave traffic call followed quickly by climb RA.  First Officer complied with RA guidance (which lasted only a few seconds).  We then completed the visual approach to 10L and landed uneventfully.ATC should not have cleared us for a visual approach with a known traffic conflict between us and the intended landing point.  By the time ATC asked us to commence a base turn (earlier than normal for an aircraft our size); it was too late.  ATC should have kept us on radar vectors until clear of conflicts or until we reported the traffic in sight.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain states ATC issued traffic but did nothing to prevent a potential conflict which resulted in a RA.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Routine Inspection; Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon arrival at the aircraft I was standing outside on the stairs and I notice jugs of what appeared to be a liquid falling out of the ULD [Unit Load Device] being unloaded from the aircraft. I descended the stairs to investigate what type of the liquid was in the container. The ZZZ Station Manager happened to notice me looking at something on the loader and approached. We both believed this to be a possible HAZMAT situation; not to mention loose cargo. There were several 1 gallon jugs that were outside the packaging box. The label was 5-40 Synthetic Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Oil. I believe I saw 5; 1 gallon jugs. The [load sheet for the] flight had no NOTOC [notice to crew].




Synopsis: B767-300ER Captain the inbound aircraft had indications of improperly configured Dangerous Goods along with documents suggesting undocumented transport of Hazmat cargo.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZSU.ARTCC, PR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZSU
ATC / advisory: Center ZSU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Arrival sectors were de-combined due to complexity since a runway is closed at SJU. I was working one of the arrival sectors at the time of the event. When I expanded my scope I observed that Aircraft X was at 3000 feet in a 4000 foot MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude). The other arrival controller also noticed and gave Aircraft X a 050 heading to a lower MVA area. The Supervisor was right behind the controller monitoring the operation and I am pretty sure he saw the whole thing and did not say anything at the time. I did not hear that Aircraft X was given a low altitude alert. This is a safety problem that I think we are drifting from because we are forgetting the importance of safety alerts and that the MVA's are there for a reason. We need to be reminded of the importance of issuing safety alerts and safety flow of traffic.




Synopsis: ATC Center Controller reported another sector allowed an aircraft to operate below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departed ZZZ at XA:27Z for anticipated 2:30 hour flight at 6000' into 28 knot headwind. IFR flight plan. Weather 3000' broken to scattered; tops 5000'-7000; visibility at least 10 miles once got across the border.Checked in with Approach; then inadequate electrical power to transmit or receive. Squawked 7600.At usual point about 45nm ENE of ZZZ2 where typically get descent to 3000'. I descended to 2500'; fine VMC. Used cell phone to call 800WXBRIEF; told of the problem. Got weather and active runway for ZZZ2. Advised that I would approach from north.In VMC (but hot; humid; and bumpy) I flew north then west of ZZZ3 about 5nm.With POH open for guidance; I manually had extended the landing gear just NE of ZZZ3.Got steady green light from tower.Landed (no flaps; cross-wind) without problem.Telephoned tower to thank all who helped (goodness knows how many behind-the-scenes folk there were); explained loss of electrical power.Glad that had:(1) good VMC beneath;(2) practiced manual extension of landing gear;(3) cell phone (much more practical to use than hand-held portable radio);(4) experience of many trips in the area;(5) ADS-B-in data onto iPad (powered independently of buss bar voltage); with moving map; and;(6) 5+hours of remaining fuel; when landed.Frustrated that nil cell phone service for about 50 miles; until descended to 2500'.




Synopsis: Pilot reported losing electrical power and getting a green light for landing clearance.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MIA
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the PM for this flight. We were on a radar vector for the ILS 09 at MIA. We were turned to a base to intercept the localizer. The aircraft was at approximately 3000 MSL; configuration 1; gear up. The PF requested that I 'extend a line' for the final approach course. While I was 'heads down' the PF asked 'Did you see that?' I heard a muffled thud that seemed to emanate from the bottom of the aircraft. The PM stated that he saw an object that possibly struck the aircraft. He was certain that it was not a bird. The aircraft systems were cross checked and all indications were normal and there were no adverse flight characteristics. ATC was informed of the event and we landed without incident. An entry was made in the AML and maintenance and dispatch were informed of the event. This flight was returning from an international destination therefore we were not permitted to conduct a post flight inspection.This event occurred due to a rapid closure rate of a small inanimate object that may have intentionally or unintentionally been released into Class B airspace.


Second narrative: While on base leg to RWY09 at KMIA; 3;000 MSL; 210 KIAS; Flaps 1 and gear up; I was pilot flying and noticed a small airborne object similar in shape and size of a small drone; directly in front of the aircraft. A second later the object passed under the aircraft and myself and the First Officer heard a soft thump as the object impacted or glanced off the underside of the aircraft. All aircraft flight controls and engine parameters remained normal. A few moments later we received a ECAM caution message pertaining to the radar altimeter. It is unclear if this was related to the drone strike or coincidental. After we parked at the gate; Customs/Border control forbid us to leave the gate and inspect the aircraft. Entry was made in the logbook and aircraft turned over to maintenance.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported a possible collision with a UAV on approach to MIA.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EC135
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Engine Fuel Filter
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Engine Number 2; Fuel Filter caution light illuminated during cruise. [Previous] night pilot experienced the same indication on Engine Number 1 the evening prior. Had Number 1 [Engine] Fuel Filter replaced this morning; which fixed that problem (no visible contamination found; though). Now the same indication on the other engine within 90 minutes of flight time. Engine Number 1 Total Time (T/T) is 2894+33; Engine Number 2 Total Time is 5218+34; so it is unlikely that both fuel filters are the same age and wear out within this short time frame in between each other. Suspecting fuel contamination. Fuel samples taken regularly at every shift change; no discrepancies noted. No suggestions. Part-135 revenue flight. Flight Nurse and Medic on board. Fuel filter light illuminated continuously. Air turnback and precautionary landing.

Callback: Reporter stated the helicopter involved was a Model EC-135T-1 with two Turbomeca Arrius 2B1 Engines. Fuel filters are metal type; not paper. They returned to their Base airport during the Air Turnback. Fuel samples are normally taken twice a day from the EC-135's fuel tank sump drain. Also the airport's Fuel Supplier tank was checked for contamination; including one of the hospitals where fuel was recently supplied to the EC-135. No evidence of fuel contamination was found from the samples taken.Reporter stated the Turbomeca Arrius 2B1 Engine Fuel and Oil Filters are located on top of their engine with a small access panel and a spy glass to view the filter pop-up indicators if either filter should become clogged. The Pratt PW-206B Engines have their Fuel and Oil filters at a different location not as easy to access. The EC-135T-1 model they fly do not have Fuel Flow or Fuel pressure indicators in the cockpit that could be helpful to refer to when the fuel filter caution light illuminates. He requested both engine fuel filters be replaced again and since then; no further pilot write-ups for fuel filter issues have occurred.



Synopsis: An Air Ambulance pilot reports that Number 1 and Number 2 Engine Fuel Filter caution lights had illuminated continuously on separate occasions during cruise flight on a Eurocopter EC-135 helicopter resulting in an air turnback. Fuel contamination suspected even though fuel samples taken regularly at every shift change.