elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GFK.Tower, ND
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D GFK
ATC / advisory: Tower GFK
Second aircraft: Cessna 310/T310C
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Staffing; Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Airport
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: On the most complex configuration at the airport. Aircraft Y came out for closed traffic. It had been busy all day but not sure of the amount of traffic at the time in the pattern. I asked the Front Line Manager (FLM) for a Local Assist multiple times and was ignored due to low staffing and not wanting to use overtime. Aircraft Y was in the upwind and as he turned crosswind being a General Aviation aircraft the turn to downwind can be unpredictable. He turned downwind late and became in close proximity to Aircraft X entering the downwind from the Northwest.I noticed they looked close and asked Aircraft X if he had Aircraft Y in sight. He responded 'yes but that got pretty close'. At this point I turned to the FLM and said 'I'm not joking around get me a local assist' I was ignored again. One of the other controllers in the tower working Flight Data told the FLM to take Flight Data and he slide into Local Assist to help. I was so busy I didn't get to follow up with aircraft X so I am unsure how close he was to Aircraft Y. We did approximately 1600 operations this day. This entire situation is preventable with a Local Assist to help watch during busy complex traffic. I knew this had the potential to get overwhelming based on how the flight school had been flying all morning. I asked for a Local Assist multiple times and was ignored multiple times due to almost no staffing available and being instructed we do not need overtime. Several other time[s] in the day controllers had to ask for similar help and all went ignored.Staffing at our facility was set at a level so low that we cannot do our jobs in a safe manner. Anytime we have 1 or 2 people on leave but we are considered 100% staffed. We need more people to run the level of traffic that we do plain and simple.




Synopsis: The Local Controller did not notice an aircraft entering downwind was in close proximity to another aircraft already on downwind. Due to workload the Controller had requested an assist position to help them but the request was denied.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 25
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Airliner 99
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departure was normal; with a quick 13 min flight to ZZZZ. After a descent to pattern altitude; landing configuration was established. Final checks were done on about a two mile final. Gear indicators were established on final and all that remained to be done was a smooth touchdown considering the winds were nice and smooth from the east. After touchdown; we rolled about 20 feet and I noticed the right wing start to drop slowly towards the ground. The aircraft then proceeded to veer to the right after the airframe made contact with the surface. The aircraft was shut down by the time it came to a stop. At this time it has not yet been established as to why the gear failed.




Synopsis: BE99 Captain experienced the collapse of the right main landing gear upon landing; cause unknown.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FME.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 15
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: SVFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E PCT; Special Use DC SFRA
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Drone sighting report. While flying a Cirrus SR20 at 1150 ft westbound enroute to FME IVO RIISE waypoint; approximately 2 miles SSE of WMPT TV Tower (1049 ft on sectional); 7 miles West of Annapolis; MD; at 120 kts; spotted a large (approximately 2-3 ft diameter) black and red UAS flying approximately westbound; same direction of travel (estimated due to slow closure rate and duration of sighting; approximately 20 sec); at altitude of between 1000-1100 ft. It appeared at first as a far off helicopter at lower altitude; though not on TIS-B MFDs (ADS-B out/mode-S in). As we grew closer it was apparent it was a drone; which we over took within 5-10 seconds; passing on the left. We were able to observe it for 10-15 more seconds; while traveling at 120 kts; I had time to confirm airspeed; altitude; TIS-B display; and reference location; then still observe the UAS - gathering the mental picture trying to identify the type; size; and color. Unknown black and red; possible partial wing quad copter or hex+ copter. No further information. Continued to FME at 1300 ft and did not alter altitude or course until within 5 nm of airport. Busy frequency and outside of Class B; so I did not report to the controller.




Synopsis: SR20 pilot reported a near miss with a UAS at 1150 ft enroute to the RIISE waypoint between FME and ANP; 2 NM southeast of the WMPT TV tower.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SA-227 AC Metro III
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Climbing out of [departure airport at] 14;000 feet. Notice a smell of smoke; started looking around feeling circuit board panels. Then smoke started to fill the cockpit just enough to see it. It did not smell like gas or exhaust more like paper burning. I was unable to hear Approach climbing out moments early on the number two radio and had to switch to number one. So immediately though it was smoke coming from the avionics so I turned the avionic master off. No change after a minute; more smoke in the cockpit; looking out the copilot's window is hazy. Turned avionic master back on; contacted Center that I would like to cancel IFR and return to departure airport. Once descending and direct [departure airport] troubleshot more; turning heat off and bleed valves. Contacted Dispatch; advised situation and coordinated where to park. 8;000 feet direct Runway 17. Smoke has now dissipated and cockpit clear; advised Tower no more smoke. Landed Runway 17. While unloading discovered 3 boxes; one Styrofoam two cardboard on the floor next to bleed heat vents. Scorching [observed] on the labels of the two cardboard and on the side of the styrofoam box. No other defects found.Keep styrofoam and labels from direct contact with bleed air heat vents and [do] not turn bleed air heat to max heat.


Second narrative: The pilot noticed smoke in the cockpit shortly after takeoff. All of the cargo was offloaded so that maintenance could inspect the aircraft. The loaders and pilot found a couple boxes placed too close to the bleed air duct vents that had signs of being overheated. Maintenance later released the aircraft back into service.Loaders need to ensure that they are not loading cargo near air bleed vents.


Synopsis: SA227 pilot and dispatcher reported the flight returned to departure airport after noticing smoke in the cockpit that was later traced to boxes placed near bleed heat vents.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [Requested priority handling] for gear mechanical/electrical failure. Landed Safely. Had three green down lights; but gear unsafe light and horn were still showing unsafe.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported landing gear mechanical and electrical issues while in the traffic pattern and made a precautionary landing.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TUL.Airport, OK
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground TUL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Taxi clearance was from our gate via Kilo; Golf; to Runway 36R. I followed the big fat taxi line on Kilo anticipating to see a curved taxi lane marking towards the right to join Golf. Unfortunately; the taxi lane marking from Kilo ends at a right angle on a way smaller taxi lane marking on Golf. As it was dark; it looked like taxi lane Kilo would go straight into the grass just to the right of Taxiway F1. I did mention this to the Ground Controller to advise airport operation; but they said that nothing probably would be done about it.Repaint the taxi line markings from a right angle to a smooth circle to join taxiway Golf.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported taxiing to TUL Runway 36R on Taxiway K in darkness and expected a curved taxi line transition to Taxiway G; but was surprised at the 90 degree dead end turn onto a narrow Taxiway G just short of the grass.
Date: 202009
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X had a tail pipe fire on Number 2 engine. [Maintenance] troubleshot the issue and found the oil over serviced. The aircraft did an RON (Remain Overnight) in ZZZ. The engines were oil serviced twice. Suggest [safety reports] from both techs on the log pages attached.




Synopsis: Maintenance reported aircraft engines were over serviced with oil.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The V-10ET Unmanned Aircraft System had just completed getting some minor upgrades to the tail rotor system with a new motor to replace an older motor that had a bearing fail. On top of that it was running new code that changed how lost comms got handled so that we would not land on top of a payload carried in sling load. We had run the code in the simulator and with the tweaks; we were happy with the performance. We did a ground run of the helicopter to cycle the new batteries that we had purchased and to exercise the tail motor; which yielded nominal change in the performance. I flew the V-10ET starting with just a normal return to service flight with maneuvering in fully stable and mission mode to run our lost comms plan to validate if it did execute the maneuver as planned. The landing plan in mission mode seemed rather aggressive but not out of control. We wanted to try it again but closer; so we flew the landing plan right in front of us. The Helicopter seemed less aggressive but when arriving at the second waypoint in the plan we experienced a loss of main rotor RPM with the piccolo flight control system commanding full up pitch collective; effectively stopping the main rotor blades. With the altitude we had and almost zero forward airspeed; an autorotation was not possible from a pilot override. Post-crash inspection showed only damage to the side frames of the helicopter; main rotor; tail rotor and swash arms. The repair cost was under 500 dollars for the items that needed repair or replacement.Our internal investigation revealed we had a connector failure due to the new batteries being able to provide more current when needed then our old set of batteries. This caused the main flight battery connector to heat up and melt when the current draw increased beyond what the connectors where rated for. It was a combination of new batteries; new software that was more aggressive; and connectors that where sub-par for what was needed with the new software.




Synopsis: UAV Operator reported loss of aircraft control resulting in ground impact with some damage to the UAV.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: First Officer (FO) took down clearance while I monitored. We were given the departure; as filed; via a transition and squawk. So we programmed the altitude and setup the departure frequency noted on the departure.We finished boarding; checklists completed; started engines; received clearance to taxi to the runway. We taxied with no further calls from ATC; secured the cabin for takeoff; switched to tower frequency and performed the PA announcement to the FA's to secure the cabin. We were then cleared for takeoff with NO altitude adjustments from the SID! Takeoff was normal flying runway heading. FO and I noticed about the same time that tower had not switched us over to departure. FO queried tower and his reply was that there was traffic and he would turn us once clear.Tower then gave us a left turn to heading of 180; we turned and were climbing through 7000+ feet when tower came on and said to level at 7;000'! We were already through 8000+ feet and climbing! I reduced power and started leveling and going back to 7000'. We queried ATC about the 7000 feet and he said we were given this in our clearance! We were both a bit dumbfounded as this clearly was not the case and told him so! He then said continue climb to 15;000' as traffic had us in sight. We continued the climb and were instructed to contact departure. No further issue was brought up by the Tower ATC or Departure Control.What could we have done differently? Probably not much given we did what we were instructed to do by Clearance! I suppose from now on I could say cleared for takeoff runway so and so climbing to altitude! That might prompt ATC to confirm our altitude!




Synopsis: There was miscommunications between the flight crew and ATC causing non-compliance with cleared altitude.
Date: 201909
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
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
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the departure; I was the flying pilot. At 300 feet AGL; we watched the airspeed tape go from normal takeoff speed indication to watch the red band rise from 140 to 190 kts. The pitch and power settings were the same as usual for the weight for this scenario as I've seen on a 737-800 many times before. We had the stick shaker go off but in a split decision due to proximity to ground and previous experience with the aircraft setting; I decided to hold the yoke; power as it was due to theory it was an erroneous indication. After a few seconds; the speed tape returned to normal and shaker stopped. The [Maintenance Document] had one other write up of the same situation [days earlier]. Once the FO (First officer) and I agreed it was safe to proceed; I wrote the aircraft up in ZZZ1 as well as called [Maintenance Control] later in the day (red eye arrival to ZZZ1.) Apparently the Number 3 flap had a bad sensor and was taken out of service for 22 hours.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported erroneous airspeed indications and stick shaker during takeoff.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: FAI.TRACON, AK
Aircraft: Small Transport
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D FAI
ATC / advisory: TRACON FAI
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was one of 3 aircraft in the airspace; the other 2 were already sequenced onto the ILS for Runway 20R and talking to Tower (which was also me). I descended Aircraft X to 4200 ft.; and for clarity reinforced the altitude by saying 'four point two' the ready back I heard was 'four thousand two hundred' after a short time I turned Aircraft X to intercept the localizer and he was at 4200 ft. I went back to the aircraft on final gave one exiting instructions off the Runway and cleared the other one to land. Then I was going to go clear Aircraft X for the approach; when I noticed he was at 3600 ft. as I was about to issue a clearance and gave him a low altitude alert. When I listened to the tapes I heard a correct read back on the altitude; and I am making an assumption but when I turned the aircraft he did not take the turn nearly as soon as I expected; so it kind of appeared that maybe his autopilot got set to an altitude of 1;600 ft. instead of a heading of 160. But this is just an assumption based on how the plane tracked on the radar. When you are descending an aircraft right to the MVA be very vigilant in your scan that they don't descend below the MVA. I believe that this was a pilot error but maybe I could have caught it sooner.




Synopsis: FAI Controller reported Small Transport descended below MVA.