elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SA-227 AC Metro III
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This incident report is in regard to an uncommanded turn to the right on landing rollout; in the opposite direction of control inputs.The SA-227 Metroliner had a normal flight with no equipment failure indications in flight. A normal landing was performed with touchdown on center line at the 1;000 ft mark. Upon slowing below the effective rudder control the aircraft began to pull to the right with full left rudder given as speeds were set low (This should engage NWS-nosewheel steering-switch was verified on at completion of event). [As] aircraft continued to accelerate its turn towards the right; pilot pressed the NWS button on the power lever to attempt to engage [nose wheel] steering with no success. Pilot then immediately deactivated NWS via advancing speed levers forward and performing 'no nosewheel' steering procedures and techniques.After de-activating NWS (below 30kt) pilot depressed only the left brake (felt squishy so pilot pumped brake repeatedly until aircraft came to a stop); applied reverse power setting on left engine and moved the right power lever to about 1/2 travel. As the engines powered up; the aircraft continued to veer right; pilot then applied full reverse and full braking action to stop aircraft movement as soon as possible. Aircraft came to a stop with the nosewheel approximately 2-3 feet off the runway with the mains still on the pavement. Pilot elected to shut down the aircraft on the runway and call the local FBO for assistance.Still being on the runway; the First Officer was assigned to the radios in order to warn any aircraft inbound that there was a plane on the runway (lucky no arrivals occurred during this time). The plane was pushed by hand backwards onto the runway and 270 degrees onto taxiway on the west side of the runway and then towed to parking. Airport security/manager came out as aircraft was being hooked up to the tug and questioning what was going on was simply told aircraft had steering issues was shut down and is being towed to parking.There was no damage to aircraft or airport property in this event. This was a sudden mechanical failure on a normal to narrow runway for aircraft (100ft wide). All evasive and control actions possible were exhausted by PIC and aircraft stopped with nosewheel 2-3 ft off of paved surface; would have still been on runway at other airports operated to.




Synopsis: SA-227 Captain experienced loss of directional control on landing roll.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Crosswind; 100
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Lost directional control after touchdown. Came to rest 200+ feet left of runway at a 70 degree angle. What could have helped was an early go around when the approach was not stable. Also reducing power to idle after touchdown and more rudder/brake inputs would have helped.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reports losing directional control and departing the runway after landing.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other after flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Manuals; Human Factors; Company Policy; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During preflight for a trip in Aircraft X we looked further into an MEL write up that had been in the book since month of 2020. According to the MEL write up the item was OK to be deferred for 500 hours with the current aircraft time written in the write up. It was brought to the mechanic's attention for confirmation on this preflight and was soon discovered that the aircraft was 17 hours over the allowed time frame. Maintenance did some quick investigating with other maintenance techs and aircraft manufacturer. It was realized that the MEL write up was not really required since the CAS message was not continually illuminated so the MEL write up was closed in the aircraft status book. So going forward we were in good shape; however; this does not excuse the fact that I operated the aircraft on a trip the prior week after the time would have expired. Looking back at my thought process regarding this write up was the knowledge that we had 500 hours to comply and with it being the COVID season seemed impossible that with the lack of flying we would have encroached on the 500 hour mark as soon as we did. From now on it is very important that no matter how benign or routine a MEL item may seem; it is very important to always verify with facts that a MEL write up is still in good standing.




Synopsis: Pilot reported flying an aircraft with an MEL deferral that had expired its allowed 500 hours.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BDN.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I reported on CTAF my final approach to land at 1-mile and 1/2-mile. While on very short final less than 1/8-mile and 200 feet AGL; a Aircraft X announced he was departing and entered the runway from the run-up area (A6). Other aircraft holding in the run-up area called on the CTAF for him to stop. However; the pilot did not acknowledge the CTAF calls and continued to pull onto the runway; apply power; and begin takeoff. I commenced a go-around at about 200 ft. AGL; sidestepped to the right; and announced my actions on CTAF. The Aircraft X continued takeoff roll undisturbed. My sidestep to the right put my go-around quite low over several aircraft operating and holding on Taxiway A. As I climbed out over Taxiway A; I noticed the departing Aircraft X drifting to the right of the runway centerline; and I was closing on the aircraft. To avoid further conflict; after checking for traffic; I turned a sharp right crosswind at mid-field; overflying the transient parking and several airport buildings at about 600 ft. AGL; and reentered the right downwind pattern (standard at BDN). I safely landed without further issue. The departing Aircraft X never made another radio call.This conflict has occurred several times at BDN; but this is the first time I have filed a report.




Synopsis: Light aircraft pilot reported executing a go-around at non-towered BDN airport after another light aircraft taxied onto the runway and took off when the reporter was on short final.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Cockpit Door
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight testing had begun several weeks prior to this occurrence regarding the possibility of using a standard Cessna 150 as a potential jump aircraft for a jump planned for above 7;000 AGL; and to occur at a private airport. On the previous two uneventful test flights; two occupants of the same C-150 had worn standard emergency aircraft parachutes and had experimented with the ability to open and close the passenger door in flight; without having it removed. On this third flight; the pilot wore a standard emergency parachute and the brief flight test was to have the right seat occupant wear a standard sport single harness dual parachute system; and test the required space requirements; the amount of force required to open the door; and the possible body exit positions. During the process of maneuvering with the door open; the passenger's main pilot chute accidentally became dislodged and was pulled aft by airflow; and could not be retracted. The passenger elected to depart the aircraft to avoid potential imminent entanglement of the main parachute with the right horizontal stabilizer of the C-150. Upon deployment; the main canopy of the passenger was open but was twisted; and the pilot chute had wrapped around the left steering line; which caused a hard left turn and loss of altitude. The passenger did not use his reserve canopy as he estimated that he was too low. The passenger landed in a grass area in a partially controlled left turn and was unable to flare normally. This otherwise normal flight test became an in flight emergency due to the uncommanded inadvertent release of the passenger's main canopy pilot chute; and the relatively low altitude of the aircraft. As a result of this problem; it has been determined that there is not enough cabin space to use the C-150 as a jump aircraft and that the possibility of [accidental] parachute [deployment] is too great for this aircraft type in standard configuration.




Synopsis: A passenger; wearing a standard sport dual parachute; in the right seat of a C-150 was obligated to jump out in flight when the main chute pilot exited the pack and was threatening to entangle with the right stabilizer. Both the parachutist and the pilot were uninjured in the incident.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [At] approximately 96 knots; FO and I both identified EICAS alert; ELEC AC BUS R; takeoff was CONTINUED and announced as such as per SOP; normal rotation; no issues. During climb out; power setting reverted to CON; FMC displayed EO SPD of 258; and a MAX ALT of 247. Jet obviously thought it was in some kind of engine failure status and responded accordingly. FO's EFB dumped as well and went black. Later a restart and time for it to do so returned it to normal status. ALL ENG was selected on 5R of VNAV climb page; CLB was selected on PERF page and climb out continued. I kept the aircraft and the radios. FO and Relief FO ran non-normal checklist. First and only non-normal checklist to populate was ELEC GEN OFF R; with a Status message of ELEC GEN SYS R displayed. We accomplished the one reset of the right generator control switch allowed; but it did nothing. APU was started and remained running until block in at ZZZZ with primary/secondary external power selected. Non-normal checklist was completed; after takeoff was completed; and then I called Dispatch for a 3-way phone patch with Maintenance Control. [Individual] in Dispatch and [individual] in Maintenance Control picked up and I explained the issues we had. [Maintenance Control] said the AHM populated a low voltage in the right engine IDG. [Dispatch] sent new fuel numbers; as it requires a 2.5% over burn per APU door open. We took off with 185;000 lbs. of fuel of which 40;192 was for tanker. Obviously; fuel status enroute or upon landing was not a concern. Finally; I made a call to the Duty Officer to give [him] a synopsis of what had transpired even though FOM doesn't require this call. I didn't know how well Dispatch and Maintenance Control had alerted down line support and knowing this would take 3 hours to replace the IDG; [he] could follow up to insure ZZZZ maintenance was prepared for a quick repair.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported multiple failures associated with low voltage on the right engine IDG.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LVK.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower LVK
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As I applied brakes while rolling out from an otherwise normal three-point landing; the airplane swerved sharply to the right. I do not know whether the swerve was caused by a gust or a brake grabbing. I attempted to regain runway heading by applying left rudder and brake. When I saw I could not remain on the runway and was headed toward collision hazards; I applied full power to go-around. The airplane rolled off the edge of the runway before it became airborne but lifted off soon afterward; at which point I initiated a gentle left turn to runway heading. At some point the aircraft's left lower wing contacted the ground; damaging the paint and fabric on the underside of the aft portion of the wingtip and the outer section of aileron. I complied with the Tower's instruction to make right traffic and followed other aircraft as instructed for a second landing. I landed long with the tower's permission because a departing aircraft had reported debris on the runway; then uneventfully taxied onto a taxiway and to the airplane's hangar. During a phone call to the Tower I was told the debris was grass and gravel. I was well rested and not tired from the approximately one-hour flight.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported a runway excursion and wingtip ground impact causing minor damage during landing. Normal landing followed a go-around.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: G-IV was descending from FL240 to cross ZZZZZ Intersection at 13;000 feet en route to ZZZ. A320 was at FL270; landing ZZZ1; requesting lower [altitude] because of moderate chop. I observed G-IV descending through FL231 to make the ZZZZZ restriction; then I issued A320 FL240. A320 started a descent. About thirty seconds later; G-IV climbed back to FL234. I advised G-IV that he must continue descent and not climb. G-IV acknowledged my transmission; and about thirty seconds later declared an emergency - right engine flame-out; five souls on board; requested direct to airport. In the same situation I would tell A320 that they would have to vector off course to get lower sooner. If the pilot agreed; I would vector east of the ZZZ1 arrival to avoid the emergency aircraft and get A320 lower as soon as possible.




Synopsis: En route Controller described a loss of separation event when an inbound aircraft declared an emergency and failed to adhere to descent instructions.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LUF.TRACON, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E LUF
ATC / advisory: TRACON LUF
Second aircraft: PA-34-200 Seneca I
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: C182/U was traveling eastbound at 5;500 FT and 10 miles west of GBN VOR in contact with Luke Approach Control. Visibility clear below 12;000 FT 20 miles. Visually scanning; Luke called traffic 1-2 o'clock at 5;700 FT descending. Traffic appeared to be a light twin. Immediately initiated a right turn to descend and avoid. Not sure of distance but appeared to be less than a half SM. Luke said traffic was not in contact with them but they tracked him until he landed. The other pilot later called me and we discussed [the event]. There are many aircraft in the area training and the other pilot advised me to monitor 128.925 - seems training traffic should also monitor Luke Approach for safety. I; as an instructor; always advise students to use ATC.




Synopsis: A VFR C182 pilot in contact with Luke Approach was advised of traffic descending and as the near missed was recognized he took evasive action from a VFR light twin returning from the training area.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORF.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ORF
ATC / advisory: TRACON ORF
Aircraft component: ILS/VOR
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While I was flying an ILS approach to Runway 23 at ORF; the approach controller reported to me that he had received a low altitude alert. I informed him that I was in good VMC; and I elected to continue at my altitude (800 feet MSL; over open water) rather than climb. He informed me a second time; at which point I climbed to the altitude for the approach; continued; and landed without incident. The situation developed as follows: In my airplane I have a GNS 430W (NAV 1) and an SL30 NAV/COMM (NAV 2). My standard procedure is to use NAV2 for an ILS; reacquired. Since my experience is that once an ILS signal comes in; it stays in (especially since I was not at a sever angle to the approach course) I was not sure I could trust NAV 2; so I set up the ILS frequency in NAV 1; with the intention of switching the CDI from GPS to VLOC (VOR/LOC). I was given direct KLINK and then fly the approach (no Procedure Turn) so I (re)programmed the GPS KLINK-KORF. Upon reaching KLINK I turned in on the approach; but I neglected to switch the CDI. However; I thought that I had done so; and so followed the indications on NAV 1; which had me on course laterally (which was correct) and also vertically (which; of course; was not). I also overlooked the fact that the GS (not received) flag was showing on NAV 1.Basically; I just saw what I expected to see. I will have to be more diligent in the future. Upon my return home later that afternoon; when I had to fly an ILS (ceiling 800 overcast); I selected the ILS on both NAV 1 and NAV 2; and got identical needle movement; so there had been nothing wrong with NAV 2 and the ILS signal for the approach at ORF must just have been weak. By the time of the flight home; I had figured out what had happened; and was trying not only to be extra careful on the approach; but also deliberately comparing the two ILS signals to see whether I had a problem with my instruments.




Synopsis: BE35 pilot reports descending early on the ILS RWY 23 into ORF due to improper setup of Nav panel. ATC issues a low altitude alert and the reporter eventually climbs back to 1;600 feet from 800 feet.