elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Seaplane or Amphibian
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Gear Float
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon landing seaplane Aircraft X;  I stuck an unrecognized 'rogue' wave at ZZZ. Intersecting rolling waves believed caused by wake boats created a sea state larger than usual and under-appreciated.  The seaplane bounced into the air; power was added and an uneventful touchdown was completed. The port-side float at its fuselage attach point was fractured; however; and the airplane tilted down and leftward; the prop striking the first of five float chambers; breaking a blade lodged in the float. The passenger and I exited the plane to the starboard float and the seaplane was towed to shore.  No one was injured.A significant contributing factor was the discovery post-event that the forward; port upper strut was 75% fractured and unrecognized prior to breaking.  The starboard attachment was discovered post event to have sustained a previous (estimated) 10% prior fracture. I purchased the amphibious seaplane in month; year; with approximately 665 TTA+E. At the time of the incident; I had flown the aircraft another 30.5 hours. (I have accumulated approximately XXX logged seaplane hours.) There is no inspection requirement pertaining to the float strut attachment points and the fractured area would not be visible without physically removing the floats from the aircraft.  Both the aircraft and float manufacturers were informed with a written report and photographs. It was suggested that an inspection requirement be implemented and/or a redesigned; strengthened fuselage float mount bracket be designed.Considering human performance factors; the larger than usual sea state containing nearly invisible rolling waves contributed to the incident. Though the area selected for landing was clear of all boat traffic; I (the pilot) underestimated the effect of the wave action created by the powerboats operating closer to shore on either side of the selected landing area. Had the float strut been completely intact; the bounced landing would not have been beyond the capability of pilot or seaplane. With the fracture; the incident was just waiting to happen.




Synopsis: Seaplane pilot reported aircraft suffered a strut failure during a difficult landing. Investigation revealed unrecognized previous fracture of its mounting bracket.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Aircraft: Learjet 60
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Second aircraft: A330
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Took briefing for sector. Solar flares were a problem; no aircraft could be contacted on HF; only limited SATCOM with some aircraft and CPDLC communications possible. The LJ60 progress report put him in confliction with the A330 prior to me taking the sector. Instead of the required 15 minutes on cross aircraft; I had approximately 9 minutes. The LJ60's position report was plausible but not verifiable due to frequency outage. Initially descent for the LJ60 was not possible due to conflicting traffic. Multiple attempts were made to see if the A330 was able higher; and to change his altitude. All attempts resulted in failure; and message was received for loss of separation which was forwarded to Supervisor Queue. Finally communications via a relay were established with the LJ60 and a clearance to FL390 was issued after separation was lost as per his newest progress received via relay. Event happened due to the fact that solar flares took away communication with almost all aircraft. Furthermore; this event was reported to management; twice as well as the messages going to the supervisor. When I reported for my next shift I asked the supervisor on duty in the area if a loss of separation was on file; it was not in the system. Recommendation; more aircraft need SATCOMS for these type events and more equipage of CPDLC communications. Additionally it would be nice if when there is a chance of solar flares; for us to be briefed and traffic initiatives put into place.




Synopsis: ZNY Controller described a probable loss of separation event when solar flares limited HF communications and aircraft equipment limitations made it impossible to relay control instructions to oceanic traffic.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Dash 8-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon climb out; the First Officer and I noticed a 'surging' of the Number 2 Engine. The surge was felt in the aircraft and noticed on the gauges as well. I immediately stopped the climb; notified ATC and declared an emergency.  Approach gave us priority for the runway. A shutdown of the Number 2 Engine was NOT warranted given the rate of fluctuation in the engine surging (minute). A normal landing was accomplished.




Synopsis: A DHC-8-200 Captain declared an emergency and returned to the departure airport after the Number 2 Engine began surging during climb after takeoff.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MCO.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B MCO
ATC / advisory: Tower MCO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On final for 17L; runway changed to 17R and had Company 2.5 miles ahead. We were closing fast on Company and were configuring to slow. First Officer (Pilot flying (PF)) called for flaps 30. I thought I had selected flaps 30; but was distracted by Company ahead and our closure rate on him. FO called for Landing Checklist and we both verified flaps at 30. At roughly 500 feet; we got a Too Low Flaps warning. I checked the flap gauge; saw they were at 25; and moved them to 30. FO confirmed and landing was uneventful. The approach was on speed and stable except for the flap setting.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reports being distracted by a late runway change; resulting in the final flap setting not being set until a 'too low flaps' warning is annunciated at 500 feet.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: NHK.TRACON, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E NHK
ATC / advisory: TRACON NHK
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Initially; I was looking inside the cockpit performing NFP pre-landing duties. PIC startled me as he brought my attention outside. I looked up in time enough to see the drone; shining and stable passing less than 300 feet off the starboard side. It might have been about 5 feet in length. It passed less than 300 feet below us. My gut is that it may have been as close as 150 below and 200 starboard. I immediately called TRACON; but she was occupied and delayed in responding to me. When I got her attention I reported us having passed a drone; the controller did not seem concerned and did not ask any questions. I even asked that she copied my report - she acknowledged and went on about her duties. My fellow pilot and I later debriefed on the incident and agreed that it was a drone; it appeared gray and black; maybe with white; and we agreed on our estimations of the approximate position of it passing our aircraft.A cursory search does not avail a drone reporting system; and I would suggest that either one be created or that this ASRS system provide accounting for drones. I would like to know what if anything can be confirmed about this incident; and express my serious concern for a drone at 6800 MSL; unreported; without TCAS; and passing so close to manned aircraft.

Callback: The reporter stated their destination was SBY. NHK TRACON showed no interest in filing information about this event. The reporter stated he was very angry at the Controller's attitude.



Synopsis: Light Jet Air taxi First Officer reported a near miss with a UAV at 7;000 ft while flying a straight in visual approach to SBY Runway 14. TRACON Controller showed no interest in the event.
Date: 201305
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Spoiler System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After take off; climbing above 10;000 FT continuing almost to cruise altitude; noticed unusual high frequency vibration in airframe. Aircraft required 3 units of right rudder trim in cruise to level the wings; with fuel and power equal on both sides. ''Spoilers' EICAS message [was] displayed later. Followed QRH; looked in FM; MEL; FRM; and cockpit checklist. [We] could not find an abnormal landing distance chart for this abnormal. Cockpit indications do not indicate which individual; or spoiler pair(s); or if any ground or flight spoilers will; work after landing. Due to less than 7;000 FT available on longest runway destination airport; only ILS being inoperative; possibility of a wet runway after sunset; but mainly no landing distance information for this abnormal available to us; we diverted to a longer runway to assure a safe landing roll distance.




Synopsis: B757 Captain experiences a high frequency vibration during climb and initial cruise requiring three units of right rudder trim to level the wings. Later a 'Spoilers' EICAS message displayed. The crew and Dispatch are unable to locate landing performance data for this anonaly and the crew elects to divert to a longer runway.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On descent into Denver on the NIIXX.3 arrival over HUDPI intersection at approximately 12;500 ft a drone with a white light came in proximity to the First Officer windscreen. Notified Denver Approach of the drone.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported seeing a UAS near the aircraft windscreen while on final approach to a Class B airport.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Landing
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While landing on Runway 36L at CLT; roughly 100-150 feet above the ground; we encountered wake from the previous aircraft.  It caused the aircraft to roll and drift off the runway.  Being so close to the ground; instead of attempting to recover the landing; I decided to do a go-around.Aircraft Rolled. Wake Turbulence from previous aircraft. Executed a Go-Around.


Second narrative: Final approach to 36L at Charlotte; calm winds 10sm clr; at 150 ft we experienced wake turbulence from the preceding aircraft and preformed a go-around. Sudden experience of disrupted and turbulent air. Wake turbulence. Preform go-around procedure Increase spacing into Charlotte.


Synopsis: Dash 8 Captain reported his aircraft rolled after encountering wake turbulence about 100-150 feet AGL on approach to Runway 36L at CLT; leading to a decision to go-around.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A-1 Husky
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing Roll
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was returning from a personal sightseeing flight; having previously departed. Upon my return about an hour and a half later; I contacted Tower and advised I had the current ATIS weather briefing and requested a full-stop landing. Tower responded that I was to fly a straight-in approach for Runway 8; which was different from the active runway stated in the current ATIS briefing. I asked Tower to confirm Runway 8 and current winds. Tower responded that I was number two to land behind a Learjet on Runway 8 and the winds were now favoring Runway 8 with a left crosswind. I proceeded to land Runway 8 as directed. I flew a normal straight-in approach and flared for a three-point landing; adjusting for the crosswind. After touchdown; the aircraft served to the left of the runway centerline. I attempted to correct the misalignment; but was unable and the aircraft continued to turn counter-clockwise. The aircraft ground-looped to the left; departed the runway a few feet; and stopped after about 270 degrees of rotation with the main wheels (front) positioned on or very close to the edge of the runway. I assessed if there was any damage to the aircraft and; finding none; I applied power; moved back to the runway centerline; and called the Tower to advise that I was OK and that the aircraft was undamaged. The aircraft did not contact any runway lights or anything else during the ground-loop. Tower provided taxi instructions and dispatched an Airport Security Vehicle to inspect the runway to confirm that there was no damage to the runway. Aircraft that were holding at Runway 8 for my landing subsequently used Runway 8 and took off. I spoke with Airport Security on the taxiway and again after engine shutdown at the FBO and confirmed that there was no damage to the aircraft and no injuries.




Synopsis: An Aviat Husky A1C pilot ground looped the aircraft after landing; departed the runway with no damage the aircraft or airport property.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MHR.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: Other Flight School
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D X
ATC / advisory: Tower MHR
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: It was a training flight returning from a cross-country trip. Neither the TAF nor METAR indicated gust during our preflight briefing. I; the instructor pilot; asked the student to practice a short field landing on Runway XXR; more specifically the desired touchdown point was the numbers 'XX' and the letter 'R'. In selecting such a landing spot the aiming spot must be a point before the desired landing area; in this case the blast pad prior to the runway threshold. The student was on final at the appropriate airspeed and glide path was stable; aiming point was also appropriate; power reduction was proper. We transitioned into ground effect and suddenly I noticed the aircraft begin to rapidly lose altitude; speed also decreased. I called for a go-around and I ensured maximum power by pushing the throttle along with the student and controlling pitch to prevent increase drag; knowing that any further loss in altitude and speed would cause us to land on the blast pad. As the go-around procedure was initiated the thrust was not enough to overcome the drag and the aircraft's main gear made contact with the blast pad. During the go-around the tower announced winds at 160 at 5 kts. gusting to 10. The sudden loss of headwind could be a factor in this unintentional situation. Corrective actions would be to call for a wind check on final when becoming established in a traffic pattern; adding half gust factor to approach speed; as well as no longer selecting the numbers as practice.




Synopsis: DA40 Instructor reported wind shift on final that caused his student to touch down on the blast pad before the runway threshold.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RDU.Airport, NC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C RDU
ATC / advisory: TRACON RDU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on vectors to final approach Runway 23R we received a vector directly towards a C-172 on the parallel Runway 23L while in and out of IMC 10 miles away. There was only 2 aircraft under ATC control at the time. We anticipated the TA and got it within a few seconds. ATC asked us to remain at 210 KTS while 90 degrees intercepting the final approach. We then slowed down to accommodate the impending TA/RA since we were definitely going to overshoot at that angle and speed. We got confused with the next ATC clearance: intercept final at 3;000 FT maintain 210 to 5 miles out. The Captain began issuing proactive instructions to avoid the TA/RA. Once the TA began more instructions to slow down and turn to not overshoot and descend on top of the C-172. ATC was asking the impossible to stay at 3;000 FT till 2 miles from the marker for separation; so that instruction didn't compute while our attention was on the TA. We began a descent on the glide slope before receiving an approach clearance. We successfully avoided the C-172; but didn't comply with ATC instructions while maneuvering. Got a phone call from ATC about the incident. The supervisor said; 'The Controller gave you no help; and that's in my report.'


Second narrative: [This narrative provided no additional information].


Synopsis: RDU Air Carrier arrival failed to comply with ATC instructions reference the intercept to final due to traffic on a parallel runway; altitude and speed.