elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: During a go around at ZZZ Municipal Airport I noticed a truck and a motorcycle traveling from the parking area to the parallel taxi way. When we were mid-field downwind I observed the motorcycle traveling on the runway at high speed toward the NE direction. On base I observed the motorcycle depart the runway and travel down the parallel taxiway. On landing I noticed the motorcycle and pick-up truck parked on the runway side of one of the mid-field taxiways. I instructed the Student Pilot to make this landing a full stop instead of the touch and go we planned. We taxied up near where the truck and motorcycle were parked. I exited the aircraft to talk to the group of people standing by the truck. One person introduced himself as [Mr. X.] I asked the group if they were authorized to be on the runway; [Mr. X] replied with 'yes I got authorization from the city'. I informed the group that they are on an FAA runway and created a runway incursion. When I mentioned that they aren't pilots and I instructed them about the hold short line and even though it looks like they are on a taxiway that they indeed are on a portion of the runway. At this point is when [Mr. X] spoke and said 'I am the Airport Manager and I am a pilot' I was appalled to hear this as he should know better. There was a short discussion with [Mr. X and] I mention[ed] he should have a radio to communicate with traffic in the pattern if he is authorized to do such activities. [Mr. X] had mentioned he had a radio but it was in his office.An airport manager should know the protocol to operate such activities on an active runway. This manager should be trained in runway incursion and airport markings as well as coordinating non-aviation events at an airport.




Synopsis: While making a go-around at a small uncontrolled airport with a student a flight instructor pilot was surprised to see a pickup truck parked on the runway and a motorcycle speeding down the runway itself. He was further surprised when; after a subsequent landing; he confronted the individuals involved and ultimately learned that one of them was the Airport Manager.
Date: 201704
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Vehicle Driver
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Unloading rear system of the plane; I was driving to universal dollies to the rear and the first dolly accidentally clipped the bag cart that the ramp serviceman was in. That caused the co-worker to lose his balance and knocked him unconscious.




Synopsis: Ramp driver reported clipping a bag cart that a ramp serviceman was in; which caused him to lose balance and knocked him unconscious.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon takeoff the First Officer was flying. Captain called out V1; First Officer replied the airplane wouldn't rotate; after which Captain stated 'my controls' (airplane was well past Vr at this point so the takeoff was initiated by the Captain). Upon climb both pilots noted a bad vibration prior to the gear retracting. At 400 feet flaps were raised and airplane control handed back to the First Officer. Arrival was normal; descent normal; approach normal; all checklists completed in order and timely manner. On touchdown there was a 'pop' from the right side of the airplane. A local witness to the landing stated that he saw sparks from the right main gear at touchdown. Airplane began to veer right with both pilots applying maximum braking. The airplane began a slow rotation to the right; now going sideways. The left tire either blew or came off the rim. The airplane came to rest off the side of runway.


Second narrative: SIC felt on takeoff the controls were sluggish on rotation. We were well past V1 and I had to pull up more than usual on the rotation to get the plane airborne. On takeoff we felt a slight vibration. Not sure what caused that since all controls were set for takeoff. Flew to [destination] with no problem. We were coming in to land and it was a textbook approach. As soon as we landed we felt the right tire go out and the plane started violently shaking. Both pilots were trying to use rudder and brakes to keep the plane on the runway. As soon as we slowed down the plane fish tailed and went off side of runway. A gentleman who was watching us land said he noticed sparks from the right tire as soon as we touched down. We shut down the airplane and evacuated.I do not know for sure why we lost the tire on landing but my only guess is that we hit FOD in [departure airport] and the tire deflated while we were en route. Which would explain why the sparks started immediately on touchdown. Again; I do not know for sure what exactly caused the tire to pop.


Synopsis: CE-560 flight crew reported losing directional control on landing roll after a main gear tire failed.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Contributing factors: Staffing; Human Factors
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: Arrived for my shift; completed my pre-duty items; and walked into a busy aisle; with all sectors yellow and heavy volume with reroutes/offloads. Was assigned RA52. Immediately noticed heavy volume and impending heavier volume and complexity coming from Canada. Anticipating this volume; at XA:15 I asked the Supervisor if the sector should be split. He replied he was unable to split the sector due to staffing; and if he had people he would split both 52/53 and 36/37.Soon thereafter; the volume hit; and the sector went out of control. While no losses of separation occurred; we had several near airspace violations; and were unable to manage the volume effectively. Several pairs of aircraft were missed; requiring Sector 39; who was also busy; to work extra hard to get spacing. Additionally; more than one hand off was misdirected; and other frequency changes were late; requiring adjacent; busy sectors to work harder. Finally; a minimum fuel aircraft became involved; which developed into an emergency fuel situation in the next sector as we did not have sufficient staff to provide expeditious handling.This happened because the assigned task exceeded the capability of the two controllers to successfully complete; and no staffing was available to split the sector. Further; when I requested time to fill out [a report]; I was informed the aisle was too short to give me time; and I would have to fill out the [report] on my own time; which I did. This was caused by inadequate staffing.Once the sector was unable to be split; no TMU (Traffic Management Unit) initiatives were put in place to manage the reduced capacity due to the sector having to remain combined. The requirement that the region must approve a TMU initiative for staffing is simply ludicrous; as the region is too far removed from the operation to make real-time decisions on TMU initiatives. We can't have a safety culture as required by the FAA's Safety Management System if we are too short-staffed to give people time to fill out reports.




Synopsis: ZBW Controller reported high volume of traffic and not enough people to work the sectors correctly.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Other Demonstration
Flight phase: Cruise; Climb; Descent
Airspace: Class G 4H1
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: UAS operations in accordance with COA/333. Mode-c transponder (30 mile/Mode C veil) not required by 91.215 exemption due to operations in Class G airspace (Notification not required).




Synopsis: A CyPhy PARC UAS pilot reported giving a demonstration flight beneath ORD Class B airspace up to 65 feet AGL without a transponder.
Date: 201909
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Crew contacted Load Planning numerous times for final Dangerous Goods summary. Station advised [Dangerous Goods form] not sent. This went on from 5 min before posted departure until 10 min after posted departure. Ramp never sent a [Dangerous Goods form]; the Dangerous Goods info generated with the final weights 10 min after post departure time.




Synopsis: Airline ground personnel reported a communication breakdown between flight crew and Load Planning regarding final Dangerous Goods report which resulted in a delayed departure.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 3
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Beechjet 400
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Wiring & Connectors
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after starting the Number 2 Engine we had a large amp draw. Battery feeder fail master warning occurred and we promptly shut down both engines. Cabin door was opened and line guy said he saw smoke coming from our tail section. We evacuated the cabin and nobody was injured. Fire was electrical in nature due to Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor Field-Effect Transistor (MOSFET) box failure and was contained mostly internal aft of the baggage compartment; however visible fire damage to the deice boot section of the right elevator. I was made aware after the incident (by the mechanics at the repair station) that an optional service bulletin was available and not complied with by choice of the owner. Apparently there have been a few fires on type because of this exact component failure.

Callback: The reporter stated that about 15 seconds after engine start they received a feeder fault and that the load meter for Number 2 generator went to the max indication. The generator tripped off line as a result of the excessive load. The reporter also stated that the cause of the smoke was the power supply for the stabilizer deicing boot shorted out causing a fire in the tail section of the fuselage. The reporter stated that this box should not be powered during ground operations; only in flight when deicing is required. The reporter stated that the fire changed the color of the metal surrounding the area of the fire. The reporter also stated that if this happens in flight the only option is to pull the control breaker for that system. The reporter also stated this option does not put the fire out; only removes power from that component.The reported stated that this has happened at least four times on other BE400s. The reporter stated that there is an optional Serviceable Bulletin for this problem; but there are no replacement parts available.



Synopsis: BE-400 Captain reported that they received a 'Battery feeder fail' master warning due to an electrical fire in the tail section.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Night
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Loss of reception on both GPS units when departing the helipad. Ground units use this pad as an LZ due to very few options available in that area. Loss of reception occurred at XA:40 and GARMIN 530 unit gave me the error message and reacquired satellites in about 10 sec and the GARMIN 430 unit took about 3-4 minutes to reacquire satellites. Reception was regained and no other anomalies.




Synopsis: Helicopter pilot reported a loss of GPS signal on both Garmin units during departure from a hospital. The outage lasted 10 seconds on the G530 and three to four minutes on the G430.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: EMB-505 / Phenom 300
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Coming into land ZZZ RWY XXL; we dropped the gear for landing at approximately the outer marker. We got a gear disagree warning showing that the nose gear was not down and locked.  We notified ATC and were given a clearance for a low pass at which time we were notified that the nose gear was still up in the gear well and the mains were extended. We moved towards an assigned altitude and followed the check list. The gear dropped by manual extension procedures. With 3 green lights; we landed safely with no issues.  1. The nose gear comes down slower than the sim. Maybe just a note to crews that this may happen.2. On the low pass (approximately 700 feet); the airplane thinks you are trying to land with your gear down and is really loud making communications difficult with the tower and the other pilot. It becomes somewhat distracting.




Synopsis: EMB-505 Captain reported a gear disagree warning resulted in a manual extension and normal landing.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IWA.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 45
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E P50
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Aerobatic Aircraft performing maneuvers southeast of IWA airport pose a continuous threat to [other aircraft.] This has been a problem for years. My flight took off from IWA on Runway 12R and told to fly runway heading. After being handed off to Phoenix Departure we were told to climb to 12;000 and turn to a heading of 080. We were told of traffic at 12 o'clock maneuvering. We said we were looking. The problem with aerobatic aircraft is that they maneuver so fast that it out performs our TCAS capabilities. All we got was a TA but only because they reversed their vertical profile we did not receive a RA. There will be a Mid Air Collision out of this airport someday. There is no question about it. I have been flying for 25 years and have had more Near Mid Airs at IWA in the last year and one half (8 total) than in my last 25 years of flying. Either move the aerobatic box or move us to a different departure/arrival profile.

Callback: The reporter emphasized his belief that the IWA IFR arrival and departure conflicts with GA traffic are going to result in an accident. The IWA east arrivals are via the HUUTY 1 RNAV and typically near CNYON with the airport in sight; an aircraft will be cleared direct TYLIK for a visual. On the arrival aircraft are descending over the Superstition Mountains around 7;000 FT for a visual approach with the intent of rolling out on a 3;000 FT; 5 mile final for Runway 30. This puts the aircraft very near the 30 mile Class B ring over the Rittenhouse AHP where small aircraft are also descending below the 5;000 FT Class B floor. In that area just outside the Class B many aircraft conduct flight training and practice maneuvers. IFR takeoffs from Runway 30 are vectored on a left; climbing downwind which also makes them vulnerable to conflicts below 4;000 and at all altitudes below the Class B floor during the climb.



Synopsis: A pilot reported a TCAS TA alert with an aerobatic aircraft at 7;000 FT after departing IWA Runway 12 and predicts future a collision because of the increased number of such conflicts in this airspace. Aircraft on Runway 30 visual approaches conflict with traffic below 5;000 FT at about 10 miles.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the ZZZ5 departure as we were climbing out ATC asked us to climb to 5;000 feet; as we were leveling off; ATC asked if we had traffic at our 1 to 2 o'clock small aircraft in sight; we replied 'Yes we have it in sight.' As we were leveling off at 5;000; the aircraft responded with an RA; the instructions per the RA were to reduce the rate of climb. We complied and leveled off at 5;000 feet at which point we were eventually clear of conflict. We were switched over to another frequency to continue our flight. No further action was taken as a result of the RA.Rate of climb was higher than normal due to a light aircraft weight.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported an airborne conflict with a VFR aircraft. The Captain stated their climb rate was higher than usual due to aircraft being lighter in weight.