elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TAN.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Wing Leading Edge
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: We landed at night without event on an instrument flight plan on runway 30 TAN; but after about 1000 foot post landing roll; a deer was spotted about 5 ft from right wing running into the right wing. A thud was heard as we hit the deer with our right wing. Control of aircraft was maintained at all times. The aircraft remained on the runway centerline until stopped. Damage was noted to second right wing skin and an area of stretched skin as the deer passed under the right wing.After this incident I became concerned about the potential for a significant wildlife problem and resultant flight safety issues at Taunton Airport. After dark on [another evening] I went to look for deer and it took me less than 4 minutes to spot 2 deer at the edge of runway 30. On three occasions since then I was at the airport at night and on each occasion I spotted deer on the airport and runway without actually looking to find them. On two of those occasions they jumped out in front of my car as I was driving on the hangar access road located inside the airport grounds. There is inadequate fencing at TAN with gaps and fencing which is insufficiently high. I believe that TAN; with its present wildlife issues; to be an unsafe airport.

Callback: The reporter indicated that he has reported the event and his concerns to several local; industry and government agencies.



Synopsis: Reporter encountered a deer during landing rollout; causing minor damage to his aircraft. He has become concerned over the wildlife program at this airport since he continues to see deer in the area.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CZQM.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: BAe 146-200
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A CZQM
ATC / advisory: Center CZQM
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Research done about Canadian airspace did not catch that an IFR or Controlled VFR clearance is required to fly between 12;500 feet and 18;000 feet. To check the pressurization system we climbed to around 16;000 feet and then descended for an approach into [destination airport]. When we contacted Tower they informed us that Moncton Approach was attempting to contact us. We contacted them and they asked if we knew we needed a clearance to fly above 12;500 feet. I told them that our research of Canadian airspace did not reveal that. I asked them if they wanted me to call them when we landed and the answer was they would have [Tower] give us the number if they wanted us to call. We didn't receive any phone numbers.Future flight in Canadian airspace will have more diligent review of the airspace rules and all flights will be conducted with some form of flight following.


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


Synopsis: BAe 146 flight crew reported they improperly operated in Canadian airspace between 12;500 feet and 18;000 feet without a clearance because they were unaware of the policy; which differs from U.S. procedures.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RSW.TRACON, FL
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E RSW
ATC / advisory: TRACON RSW
Second aircraft: Citation II S2/Bravo (C550)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Approach; Departure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working SOU RADAR and saw the EST Controller not take a hand off over LBV on a jet arrival from LBV Sector at 100 FT. He did not take the hand off due to an A320 aircraft also at 100 FT over MOEMO. This has been an on-going issue with no resolution. LBV Sector does not have an out for these aircraft other than APPREQ 5 miles from the boundary. Separation was not lost. We need to stop feeding two jets over the same fix at the same altitude from 2 sectors. This procedure is unsafe. We are currently trying to work this issue with ZMA. Although there was no loss of separation; this clearly shows that the procedure is flawed and requires coordination. We have repeatedly asked ZMA for a face-to-face meeting and have been denied. We strongly encourage corrective action on this item.


Second narrative: I was working the EST RADAR position. ZMA LAL (C67) handed off an A320 15 miles northwest of the LBV VORTAC descending to 100 FT on the SHFTY STAR. ZMA LBV (C47) was attempting to handoff a C560;[that] was level at 10;000 FT direct LBV VORTAC. I did not take the handoff on the C560 because I was not sure if the A320 and the C560 would have standard separation over LBV. ZMA LBV (C47) called with an APPREQ and asked if I wanted them to descend the C560 to 8;000 FT. I replied yes to ensure we would have separation over LBV VORTAC. While I believe that the C560 would have passed behind the A320; this procedure is not working and has not worked for quite some time. We have been trying to work on this issue with ZMA for quite some time with little to no progress and what appears to be little concern from ZMA. We are still trying to have a meeting with ZMA to fix this procedure; however; it doesn't appear as though they are able to make the time. The procedure; while it doesn't happen everyday; needs to be fixed.


Synopsis: RSW Controller expressed concern regarding the dual arrival procedures over the same fix from two different Center sectors.
Date: 202010
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was assigned to accomplish a de-preservation of the APU on Aircraft X that has been in storage.  The documentation for the aircraft stated that the aircraft had been in storage for XXX days and the APU needs to be de-preserved before XXX+1 days. The APU will need more work accomplished if it is de-preserved after the XXX+1 day mark than if it is de-preserved before the XXX+1 day mark.  The issue is that the APU had a placard attached that stated the preservation was good until date and after the APU compartment was opened there was a different tag that stated the APU preservation was valid until date+4 days.  So there were two different dates documented for the APU for the XXX+1 day mark.   The question is when is this XXX+1 day mark?  The date that the APU was actually preserved or the date for the preservation / storage of the aircraft.




Synopsis: Technician reported confusing dates relating to work that needed to be performed on an aircraft that had been in storage.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZSU.ARTCC, PR
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZSU
ATC / advisory: Center ZSU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: MDSD is having labor problems with their government.  We have seen a lot of errors since they removed the normal controllers and implemented the Air Force controllers within their military.  Today they sent Aircraft X into our airspace with no coordination.  The airplane just popped up into my airspace.  Luckily there wasn't any aircraft in the vicinity at the same altitude.  This actually happens quite a bit down here at ZSU.  SVMI as well as MDSD are notorious for sending airplanes into our airspace without coordination.  It is very; very; dangerous and could lead to the loss of life if this dangerous practice continues.Not sure what to do.  This is a foreign facility.  We have reported this information multiple times and nothing is ever done.  This is a dangerous; dangerous situation that is being overlooked by the FAA.  To make matters worse; the communications with SVMI as well as MDSD are extremely poor.  When situations like this happen we can't get these facilities on the phone.  We try and call for 10-15 minutes and can't get through.  I recommend the FAA getting involved as well as anyone in the ICAO sector that can alleviate this situation and make the airspace safe.




Synopsis: ZSU Center Controller reports of problems with adjacent foreign center and coordination or lack of coordination issues.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: APC.Airport, CA
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 1
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower APC
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on final approach to APC VOR Approach Runway 06. I had the runway in sight and commenced the visual segment. Smoke generated from [a local fire] obliterated the runway at the last minute. It seemed that the color of the smoke and the runway all looked the same. The problem was slant range not vertical or horizontal range. I pulled up at the last second so as not to strike any objects. I was in a right hand climbing turn. ATC cleared me to land on an intersecting Runway 36L. But I could not bleed off enough speed; and I blew a starboard main tire [after landing]. I was using climb manifold pressure and 2700 RPM when cleared to land and trying to reduce manifold pressure in order to land at 80 knots. No damage occurred to the aircraft structure or components other than the tire.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported an unstabilized approach led to a failed main landing gear tire.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Description: While on the ZZZZZ arrival we were told that we would be doing the ILS XX when we were expecting the ILS XY. I inserted that approach in the CDU (Control Display Unit) and then began briefing the approach. While in the middle on the brief the First Officer stated that the aircraft did not make the turn at the ZZZZZ1 intersection. I looked at the AFDS (Automated Flight Director System) panel to see what mode we were in and we were indeed in LNAV and it should have made the turn. I told the FO (First Officer) to turn the plane right when ATC called and told us to do the same thing. I then noticed on the Progress Page 2 that the Xtrack error line was blank. The legs page also showed the active waypoint as ZZZZZ2 which was behind us. I did not change the arrival in the CDU; only the ILS. I do not know why the legs changed the way that it did. Cause: The runway change caused us to make changes in the CDU and which took away from my ability to monitor the aircraft's navigation.Suggestions: Suggest not making changes in the CDU whenever the aircraft is approaching a turn or other required change in the flight's altitude or speed. This will allow the crew to verify the changes are correct before any of these changes are needed. This will also allow the crew to better monitor the aircraft during these lateral; vertical and speed changes.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported clearance heading deviation after changes were made on the CDU on approach.
Date: 201504
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Other All
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I have become aware that the current use of iPad Ram mounts in the 737 cockpit; and possibly all [company] aircraft; is in violation of FAA Advisory Circular 20-173. About mounting devices it specifically it states in Section 5; Paragraph a; 'Positioning must not obstruct visual or physical access to aircraft controls and displays; flight crew ingress or egress; or external vision.' It is not possible to secure the current Ram mount in any location that complies with this directive. In fact; I have seen it mounted as high as half way up the window; effectively blocking a major portion of the view out the side window. Even when mounted on the clip board it blocks several inches of downward vision; critical during ground operations in [or] near the gate. Because of this; I consider the current Ram mount installation unsafe and in violation of AC 20-173.




Synopsis: B-737 Captain reported he feels his company's iPad mount does not meet applicable FAA requirements.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: AFW.Tower, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D AFW; Class E ZFW
ATC / advisory: Tower AFW
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I was training on Local Control and Aircraft X was switched to me from Approach. As soon as Aircraft X checked in; I issued traffic 11 o'clock 2 miles northwest bound 2;700 feet climbing to 3;300 feet. I then called over to Approach and informed them I was climbing the IFR Aircraft X to 3;300 feet. Aircraft X said how that's nice of them they are going underneath. The other aircraft had climbed to 3;000 feet and Aircraft X was leaving 3100 feet. I'm not too knowledgeable on getting new procedures; but something where planes don't cross [over] final Approach fix without talking to Approach or the Tower.




Synopsis: AFW Tower Local Control reported an unidentified VFR aircraft climbed into the final approach course of an arrival causing a NMAC.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Challenger 350
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise flight at FL390; and with 40 minutes remaining in the flight; we heard the engines come out of sync. Referencing the instruments; we noticed the right hand engine N1 fluctuating roughly 1% as well as the N2 and fuel flow. It would settle down after about 30 seconds. We had MACH HOLD on at the time. We elected to turn off MACH HOLD and continue to monitor. The right hand engine proceeded to do this 1% fluctuation 2 more times. Time frame between these events was maybe 3-5 minutes. We began talking about diverting to ZZZ1 if it continued to get worse. At the moment ATC called us to slow us down for flow into ZZZ; the right hand N1 went from 85% to 70% with an associated yaw to the right. We told ATC we were having an engine issue and requested a lower altitude in the event the right engine failed completely. ATC gave us FL310. We requested direct ZZZ1. ATC then cleared us to 12;000. Captain spoke to the passengers and company. I maintained PF duties while Captain coordinated and monitored throughout the descent and uneventful landing. During the descent; the engine never had another fluctuation but we did get the R FADEC FAIL cas message. We completed the checklist. After shutdown on the ramp; we had a R ENGINE MINOR FAULT and DOWNLOAD FADEC messages. In the current faults page; it indicted a HMU failure associated with the fuel system of the right engine. Captain entered each of these as grounding write ups in the logbook in coordination with maintenance.




Synopsis: Challenger 350 Captain reported losing N1 in the number 2 engine; resulting in a HMU [Hydro Mechanical Unit] failure in the engine.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground IAD
Second aircraft: Baron 58/58TC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: This is a known event; reported initially as a go around within 1/2 mile of runway. A BE58; on short final Runway 19C; was sent around because an E145 had exited Runway 19C on Y5; got disoriented; and re-entered the runway safety area on Y6. The E145 crew reported this to Ground Control 2 and Local Control 3 immediately sent the BE58 around. Upon further review; it was determined that a possible pilot deviation and runway incursion had occurred. There was no ASDE-X alert nor was there a loss of separation between the BE58 and the E145 due to the swift reaction by Local Control 3. Take home from this event: 1. Our newer controllers may not have worked traffic before under the weather conditions that existed during this incident. The runway and exits were not visible from the Tower. Ground Control 2 did not catch the fact that the E145 was heading back toward the runway. More experienced controllers are on guard for the possibility that crews might make a wrong turn and end up heading back to the runway. Therefore; they remember to scan the ASDE to ensure aircraft join the parallel taxiway; instead of the next high speed. A lesson's learned session using the video is needed.




Synopsis: Tower Controller witnessed a runway incursion when landing traffic exited the runway only to re-enter the runway safety area at another intersection. The reporter indicated the reduced visibility as a possible contributor to the incident.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
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: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During preflight all notifications of dangerous goods (DG) indicated that we had no DGs. After pushback and taxi-out we were notified that we had to return to gate because DGs were loaded improperly (they had to have 15 bags surrounding them). Surprised that we had any DGs on board; we returned to the ramp. When I queried operations they said they were loaded last minute. Ramp personnel reloaded the aft cargo pit...we taxied out again; got the final numbers; and took off. In my haste to depart; during the climb; I realized that we still had no notification of the DGs. I sent a message to load planning via ACARS. I received a message back from Dispatch saying that the DGs do not meet the threshold for notification. The flight continued with no further issue. I am concerned that if there are DGs that do not meet a threshold for notification then why did it have to be loaded in a certain way.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported ground gate return to correct Dangerous Goods loading configuration issue.