elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Windshear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control

Narrative: Departed ZZZ at approx XA30 PST for ZZZ1. Weather briefing METAR on departure was calm winds but TAF had predicted crosswinds up to 20 kts. by XG00. ATIS on arrival to terminal area said wind 200/09 but some low level wind shear reported. ZZZ1 was landing XXR /XXL; so this was setup to be a quartering tailwind landing. I was setup to land with 10 flaps and on short final was doing about 90 kts. On 1 mile short final; wind check with tower was 190/10. Over the numbers I deployed full flaps and touched down at around 70 kts. I was honestly pleased with the setup and felt fully stabilized to make the landing safely and expected to use a lot of the 5500 ft. Runway to slow down. We touched down at the markers and started the ground roll without any problems. With 3 wheels down; flaps ft. will deployed; prop idle; I felt a gust from the left rear which I believed was 'weather vaning' the plane to the left and so I put in right rudder and had the controls down and away (full forward and turning to the right). I had not applied any brakes yet.The plane briefly tipped up so that the left main was no longer in contact with the Runway and the plane was rolling on the nose and right main only. I was concerned/scared that the plane was going to tip over. At this point the prop made contact with the Runway surface briefly. I estimate that we were doing between 40-50 kts. The plane righted itself on the centerline and we were able to taxi off at Taxiway1 and go to FBO without further incidentThoughts/reflections: Should I have deployed full flaps or just landed with 10 flaps? Should I have asked the tower for return to the pattern and land Runway XY (better with wind direction). I do not think a 'go round' was feasible as I was already on the ground and decelerating when the plane tipped to the right. Application of power would probably not been beneficial at this point. Future action: get additional training in cross wind landing; personal note to bug wind direction on HSI / PFD on final; and reset personal minimums for crosswind components.




Synopsis: Cessna 182 pilot reported encountering a wind gust from his left rear that lifted the aircraft enough to cause the propeller to strike the runway.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: GSP.Airport, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E GSP
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: During cruise flight; I noticed a bright green light; like a laser; low and off my left side that really grabbed my attention.  I glanced down to see it coming from just in front of a house and then it ceased within a second or two.  While staring at the area to try to determine if someone was really standing in the yard shooting me with a laser; I noticed another laser hit me from a different house nearby in the same subdivision. After about two seconds of the laser; it ceased and was followed by another laser within two seconds.  This time it was red instead of green and short lived in duration.After seeing the second set of lasers coming from in front of a house and being red and green; I immediately thought of what it could be.  Rather than a person with a laser pointer; I have seen several houses lit up with a holiday decoration that projects red and green laser beams on the house.  If pointed incorrectly some of the lasers in the array could project over the house and into a cockpit.While the effects of the lasers were not noticeably damaging to my eyesight; they were certainly a great distraction in the cockpit.  These could be a danger to flight if a pilot were to be in a critical phase of flight; such as a gusty crosswind approach and were hit with several beams from a nearby house to the airport.  These could also cause alarm for a pilot operating near or in the Washington DC SFRA as these look like the laser warning system employed there. As I am a fan of freedom and do not believe the devices should be banned for homeowners; there should be a strong public campaign to educate owners and potential buyers of these laser decoration products about the dangers that they can pose to not just aircraft; but to pedestrians and automobile drivers if these devices are misused or misaimed.




Synopsis: Pilot reported of multiple laser lights of red and green color entering the cockpit while in flight. Pilot determined that they were holiday decorations that illuminate houses with possibly a misdirected light not hitting the house. Pilot would like the general public educated that these types of lights might pose a danger to aircraft; pedestrians; and automobiles.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SAT.Airport, TX
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 6
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After Landing on Runway 12R Ground control cleared [Aircraft X] to taxi to FBO via inner ramp Delta hold short of runway 12R at Delta. Next clearance was to taxi to FBO via Delta; cleared to cross runway 12R and runway 12L. After passing runway 12L boundary line a ground vehicle (pick Up Truck) rushed in front of our path. Brakes were rapidly applied to stop aircraft by captain. Ground control informed flight crew that ground vehicle was instructed to give way to Aircraft. Taxi was then continued with no further incident.




Synopsis: An Air Taxi Captain; while taxiing to the FBO after landing; had a ground vehicle rush in front of him on the taxiway. He applied brakes rapidly and was told by Ground Control that the ground vehicle had been told to give way to him.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The Captain requested from our lead flight attendant that we eat our meals after take-off. She informed us that she wasn't in charge of the galley; but would check. We heard back that they would 'need to make some room in the oven' as they were already full with the first class meals. She made mention that she may need to cook them in the back; but since we were boarding she couldn't cook them on the ground. The Captain stated that it was fine; because we didn't want our meals until after we took off. One hour after departure; I called back to query the status of the meals; as I was the non-flying pilot. I spoke with [a flight attendant] who said that the meals had been cooked and she was waiting on a blocker. I called again [20 minutes later] and [the flight attendant] answered the interphone. I told him we had been waiting for our meals for an hour and a half. He stated that [they] didn't have a blocker; as they were finishing cart service in the back and were coordinating to open the door in a few minutes. After parking at the gate I was waiting for the Captain on the jet bridge. [Two flight attendants] questioned him about the crew meals. [One] said that they weren't allowed to interrupt the passenger service to bring us our crew meals. [Flight attendant] then stated that I was 'rude' and 'demanding'. I could hear the entire conversation from the jet bridge. The Captain stated that we coordinated on the ground for the meals after take-off and they should have been brought to us sooner. Being forced to wait for meals is a safety issue and we shouldn't need to call back multiple times to question the status to take us away from our flying duties. Furthermore; I think it was unprofessional for [the flight attendants] to question the Captain about his request for the meals early and complain about the First Officer while the passengers were deplaning. It causes me concern and makes me question [whether] direction by the cockpit could have been followed in an emergency.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported difficulty getting the flight attendants to bring up crew meals in a timely fashion.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C EWR
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
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: When cleared for the visual approach to [Runway] 4R in EWR at 3;000 FT on the way to intercept final; multiple targets started to paint on our TCAS between our 9 to 12 o'clock 500 FT to 1;000 FT below our altitude. Since the Captain was flying and I was monitoring I started to look for those aircraft (usually low altitude helicopters). At first I spotted a drone; small in size dark gray and very shiny flying south southwest opposite to our direction of flight; and it coincided with the direction and altitude of one of the targets on the TCAS. Shortly after I spotted two more of these drones around the same altitude flying also south southwest and they were no factor but I still pointed them out to the Captain. I felt the need to report it to Tower; like I would if I saw a flock of birds; so the aircraft approaching behind [could] exercise caution while during their approach. Once upon landing I was given a phone number to explain the shift ATC supervisor what I saw. The question was raised by several people about why a device like a drone would paint on the TCAS as they would also have to have a transponder. I fully understand the operation and capabilities of the TCAS-transponder relationship; so my only conclusion is that those drones had an operating transponder onboard. After landing during the debrief with my Captain; he says he only saw a 'balloon' and he would leave the phone call to ATC to me. The aircraft was never compromised; we didn't have to take evasive action and there was never an undesired aircraft state.




Synopsis: An air carrier First Officer on approach to EWR Runway 4R at 3;000 FT reported what appeared to be drones 500 FT to 1;000 FT below his aircraft's altitude at locations which coincided with TCAS targets.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: EUG.Tower, OR
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Airport Ops called me on the land line and asked me if I had spoken to an Aircraft X. I did not recall speaking to an aircraft with that callsign; but I told him I'd check the tapes to verify. He informed me that he found the aircraft on the north ramp and believed that he had landed and taxied without any ATC authorization. According to airport ops there were 3 souls on the aircraft; 2 of which were deaf and mute and the third had no identification and he claimed that he was given ATC authorization to land.Upon further investigation we established that the aircraft entered the Class Delta airspace and landed without ever speaking to ATC. I did not see the aircraft since it was dark and he landed on the east runway which can be difficult to see aircraft during the day when you're looking for them.There's a lot you could do in this situation I think it was just a fluke occurrence.




Synopsis: EUG Tower Controller reported that he was questioned by Airport Operations if he had spoken to a particular aircraft. The Controller did not recall talking to the aircraft. Aircraft was found to be at the north ramp. Pilot stated he had ATC clearance to land. It was found out later that the pilot never talked to ATC.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZHU
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were deviating north of weather on SKNRD 2 arrival. Originally given AEX transition then it changed to direct EGULZ which is on the SWB transition. We joined the arrival at EGULZ. Then we needed more deviations. We were given a series of southerly courses and step down altitudes from our cruise altitude which I think was in the mid-30s. We then were instructed to fly direct DOOBI and descend maintain 12;000 feet. A minute or two after we were instructed to descend via the arrival. Which we complied with. We slowed our descent rate to comply with the arrival and intercept the VPI. We then switched from Houston Center to Houston Approach. We checked in with 'Houston Approach passing FL250 descending via the SKNRD 2 Arrival' We crossed DOOBI between the published altitudes of FL190-220 at 280 knots. At that time Approach asked us why weren't we at 12;000 feet crossing DOOBI. We explained we were given descend via with no restrictions by the previous controller. He told us he would look into it with the previous controller. Soon after another crew; behind us; busted the altitude as well with the same incorrect instructions issued from the previous controller. The major threat was the possibility of a RA or near miss because of the lack of communication between the two controllers. As a group we need to do better at making sure we are all on the same page with these arrivals. Especially when there is a weather event affecting them. They can be confusing especially with this new phraseology. Primarily the two controllers (center and approach) absolutely need to be on the same page. Or at least catch us checking on with incorrect instructions.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer is informed by ATC that the assigned crossing restriction at DOOBI of 12;000 feet has been missed. The crew thought the clearance was to descend via the SKNRD 3 to maintain 12;000 feet and crossed DOOBI at the published altitude.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Antiskid System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We received a Brake Control Fault message during climb out. The QRH stated the braking capability may be degraded. We contacted Dispatch via ACARS to notify them of our maintenance issue and to see if they wanted us to continue towards our destination which has very modest length runways. We attempted to get additional information from Flight Department/Maintenance regarding the fault and resulting landing performance but did not receive any input. We did receive a message from our Dispatcher that she was OK with us continuing to our short runway destination if we were. Ultimately; we made the decision to divert to another airport because of its longer runways and the fact we were unclear as to the possible degradation to landing/stopping performance.This aircraft had two previous write-ups that I saw in the logbook for the same Brake Control Fault issue; one the previous day. I think it would have been prudent to send this aircraft to somewhere other than our planned destination after the repair to the brake system the previous day. Finally; the volume of ACARS communications became impossible to keep up with while handling the emergency and flying the airplane. Input from the Flight Department would have been helpful after we requested it; essentially we were on our own.




Synopsis: When faced with a Brake Control Fault message enroute to an airport with short runways the flight crew of an ERJ-170 elected to divert to an airport with superior facilities. The decision to divert was made in part due to their inability to communicate effectively with Dispatch and Maintenance to determine the extent of the failure's threat to stopping distance; a subject of great importance given the modest runways at their destination. In the reporter's words '...essentially; we were on [our] own.'
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ONL.Airport, NE
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ONL
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was departing RWY 31 out of ONL; I made at least two calls on CTAF before taking the runway stating my intentions. As I lined up on the runway; I noticed several vehicles working at the far end of the field on both sides of the runway but they were all well clear of the safety area. Shortly after I started my takeoff roll; I noticed a large pickup truck pulling a trailer approach the runway at the far end. As I had made radio calls and was currently moving at about 80 kts in the opposite direction; I thought he was going to hold short; let me pass and then take the runway. He did not hold short. He did not even pause before taking an active runway; and ended up nose to nose with a rotating [aircraft]. It was unseasonably cool due to the passage of a recent storm so I was able to climb very quickly above him. Still; I would estimate the distance between us to be about 200 feet when I crossed over.What caused this event was the truck driver's lack of knowledge and experience with airport operations. I never heard any calls from him when he took the runway so it is a fairly safe assumption that he did not have a radio and did not hear my calls. Also a quick visual check to make sure the runway was clear in both directions as is standard practice could have prevented this.[I responded to the incursion by climbing] at VX and [hoping] I clear him.Train people who intend to operate on an airfield proper see and avoid techniques and have them monitor CTAF.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a runway incursion by a ground vehicle during takeoff roll.
Date: 201505
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I have been working at IAH for almost 15 years and the most dissatifaction I get is when so much time taken to close the ramp even if lightining strikes are so close and visible above our heads and within the airport area.This must be addressed on a war basis as human life have priority over operation and customer service; last night due to the major thunderstorm I heard several heated conversations over the radio that should not have taken place if timely decison was taken.I hear that there are lights installed to caution lightining strikes but to be honest a better commuication and alert methodology must be adopted.Given the tools and technology close to error free forecasting gives an idea as to where we are headed in terms of operation.




Synopsis: A IAH Ramp Agent reported that his company is slow to clear ramp personnel to safety with lightning in the vicinity even when it is close; over head and within the airport area.