elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On a 2 mile final approach to Runway 32 I slowed the A36 aircraft to 90 mph at 2400 ft. AGL. I did the routine GUMPS check and waited for the three green before releasing the gear switch. I trimmed my descent with full flaps to 85 mph and adjusted power to maintain the descent to the numbers. With my hand on the throttle I crossed directly over the numbers while correcting for a right crosswind with ailerons. As the right main touched a gust lifted the right wing of the aircraft and push the aircraft off to the left side of the runway. I immediately pushed the flap switch up to reduce the effects of the wind on controlling the aircraft. I then decided to go around and reach for the throttle to apply full power. Before I could apply power the aircraft contacted the runway again and steered off to the left. Immediately thereafter the aircraft landing gear began to collapse. The nose dropped and the propeller struck the surface. The aircraft slid to a stop within 100 feet. I immediately turned off the master power and exited the aircraft. There were no fuel leaks and I notified the airport manager to shut down the airport. Inspection of the wreckage showed the landing gear stuck on the inboard doors and partially retracted. This situation could have been avoided if full power was applied when a gust was experienced and execute the go around procedure. Also; an alternate airport with a larger runway and less cross wind would have been selected for landing.




Synopsis: An A36 pilot made a late decision to go around because of cross winds. The aircraft departed the runway causing the gear to collapse and a prop strike.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Observer
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Observer
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: [Company] Owners flying unsafely in Civilian airspace over a neighborhood with a UAV for profit.




Synopsis: A Los Angeles; California observer reported someone flying a UAV for profit over a neighborhood. Exact location unknown.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: This is the first report I have written involving an increasing problem with flying into DEN. Today; we were told twice we needed to be rerouted to Denver on another arrival fix and STAR for traffic. They always come back when queried that it comes from the Traffic Management Unit. Every time ATC gives these reroutes well into a flight [they] are 12-20 minutes over original plan and anywhere from 1100 LBS to 2000 LBS more burn for the flight. Every time; the new clearance has put us in a less than 45 minute fuel state at arrival. Every time after accepting the clearance and programming FMS; [we have to] advise ATC the new route puts [us] in a min fuel state where if returned to original flight route puts us landing with more than 45 minutes of fuel. ATC could solve this problem by either giving us a reroute early; like before departure with PDC so evaluation and additional fueling can take place or metering/slotting DEN like the New York airports.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported an increasing number of reroutes received from ATC enroute to DEN that resulted in fuel concerns.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Night
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Airport; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: On rollout/runway exit; [Runway] XXR to [Taxiway] XX; braking action good on Runway; FICON 5/5/5; from a near stop we exited onto [taxiway] and the aircraft began to slide sideways. Once clear of the runway; with throttle to idle and brakes applied; aircraft continued to slide off taxiway into grass. Aircraft stopped. Powered up to get on [taxiway].




Synopsis: CE-525 flight crew reported a taxi-way excursion due to icing.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I routinely call dispatch to monitor my fuel load to this particular Island airport. Tankering is a standard procedure to this destination. I like a moderate tankering so that my landing weight is 190;000 or less because of my concerns of the constraints of this particular airport. My dispatcher knows my concerns and informed me my landing weight would be 190;000. In fact my landing weight on approach was 194;000 just 4;000 lbs below max landing wt. The winds on the surface were light/variable; however on final a quartering tailwind of 5 knots. The previous ATIS had light rain. My landing performance is approaching the maximum length of the rwy. I asked for a reasonable landing weight and didn't get it. I was under the impression a flight was dispatched with joint authority. I'm frustrated with tankering fuel into special airports and that dispatchers are ignoring my concerns and continuing a practice that I believe should be revisited. If fuel costs are so high at this airport; why when I ask to land at my domicile airport (VFR) with a fuel load of 10;000 lbs...I land with 14;000 lbs of fuel. Dispatch is not listening to me or even showing any concern for high fuel costs. The policy of tankering has been in existence for many years. This policy works at saving money when fuel costs are high at particular airports. Moderation is what this island destination and similar airports need for tankering. I believe dispatchers repetitively dispatch tankering into special airports and as long as all legalities are met this practice will continue.




Synopsis: A B757 Captain questioned his Dispatcher's authority to load tankering fuel above his request when he is concerned about runway constraints at Island destination.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Oil Pressure Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After cleared approach and slowing for landing configuration a Lo Oil Press #1 engine appeared on upper ECAM with no caution or warning light or aural alert. Engine page showed approx 45 PSI in amber band and oil quantity was normal as were all other engine indications. Oil pressure intermittently returned to normal range of 210-220 PSI indicative of a sensor problem. Approach and landing continued uneventfully.  Eventually oil pressure entered red band and engine was shut down after landing. QRH consulted but only leads to post engine shutdown approach procedures while airborne.  Entered observations into AML and maintenance subsequently removed aircraft from service. QRH is vague for this condition. Phase of flight did not allow for extensive review.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported a #1 engine low oil pressure indication on the upper ECAM display and elected to continue the approach to landing; subsequently shutting the engine down after exiting the runway.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: An aircraft was doing practice approaches. The aircraft requested the VOR A approach to join the arc to start the approach. It isn't an approach that is normally used. I cleared the aircraft to maintain 3000 ft. until established and they got into the small 032 MVA area at 3000 ft. No recommendations. I should have looked at the MVA prior to clearing.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported clearing an aircraft below the MVA.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: A B737 level at FL340 on route requested lower in a muffled tone. I advised traffic on an E145 at FL320; descended him to FL330; and turned 15 degrees left. At that time I could not understand the reason the pilot stated he needed to change altitude. Traffic was moderate to busy so I began to issue other clearances until vector took effect and I could further descend the B737. It did not appear that the B737 took the turn when he again made a transmission requesting lower altitude. The aircraft sounded in distress and advised he needed to descend now due to a cracked windshield. During the entire situation it was very difficult to understand transmissions from the B737. Although the aircraft did not declare an emergency; I felt the situation was extremely serious; borderline emergency situation. I turned the B737 from about a 260 heading to a 180 heading away from the E145; and descended the B737 to FL290. I also turned the E145 to a 280 to get additional separation. Declare an emergency for the aircraft experiencing difficulty; since he did not declare an emergency himself.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller provided a descent to an aircraft experiencing a cracked windshield; the reporter noting he should have declared an ATC emergency for the aircraft and provided an immediate descent.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MTJ.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV; UNICOM MTJ
Second aircraft: Light Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were talking to DEN center while going into MTJ. Descending into BRUUK on the arrival we were cleared for the visual approach to Runway 17. Center told us about traffic in the area which we had on TCAS west of BRUUK headed east with no altitude read out. The traffic was moving very slowly. We could not tell their intentions at that point. My First Officer (FO) was making position reports and saying that we were landing on 17 but the other aircraft never made a position report nor did he state his intentions. As we approached BRUUK while descending to 9;000 feet I started to turn to the right (northwest) as the other aircraft kept coming toward BRUUK also. Just then we got a TA for 'traffic; traffic'. I continued northwest till well clear but did not feel comfortable making a 360 because of the terrain. I then turned south and paralleled the course and was going to follow the missed approach procedure. Although; the other aircraft was so slow that we passed him very quickly and re-intercepted the final and safely landed the plane on 17. The other aircraft; which was a [light twin]; finally made a position report when we were well ahead of him. My FO had been making position reports the entire time.It happened again [on another flight]; [and] the same [light twin] had a very close encounter with this flight also. Three days in a row; the same aircraft all had close encounters on the arrival with the same [light twin]. All 3 flights had to do maneuvers to avoid the traffic. I was sitting in a window seat on my DH back out to MTJ. I felt the avoidance maneuver and saw the [light twin] right outside my window. It was as close as I have ever been to another aircraft while airborne. I feel that we need a part time tower put in place for this airport at least on weekends. It is; in my opinion; the most dangerous airport that I fly into. When we left that day there were aircraft taking off and landing in different direction on Runway 17 and 35. That coupled with the lack of position reports is a situation being set up for an accident.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported taking evasive action to avoid a light twin aircraft while on approach at MTJ; and stated the same aircraft has caused problems in the past.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure; Confusion; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft was written up on the previous day for a 14th stage bleed leak.  Upon bringing mechanics to ZZZ they discovered that this was the 4th time the aircraft had been written up; and all three previous write ups had been cleared by various maintenance stations.  Within a few minutes of inspecting the aircraft they had found a piece completely detached from where it should have been.  One of the mechanics was pretty irritated that it had gone through several other mechanics who simply wrote 'Ops check OK' but there was something pretty obviously wrong with the aircraft at that time.  The flight crew went to the hotel; and returned the next day when Crew Scheduling said that a ferry permit was ready. We arrived at the airport to find the mechanics had only gotten there a few minutes before we did; and had the incorrect part; and hadn't even started the process for a ferry permit.  Again; the mechanic mentioned that [Maintenance Control] wanted them to 'Pencil whip'; by forcing the incorrect part to fit and signing the logbook so the aircraft could be returned to service/ZZZ1.  Somewhere between the mechanics that I was communicating directly with and the schedulers/supervisors/Duty Pilot I was communicating with over the phone; the message changed from 'We have the wrong parts' to 'Airplane will be good to go in a few minutes'.  I'm unsure of the tail number of the aircraft in question.  [Maintenance Control] wanted mechanics to 'Pencil Whip' the logbook and force incorrect parts to fit.  Mechanics refused which was the correct response.

Callback: Reporter stated that aircraft was not ready and Flight Crew did not ferry the aircraft to Maintenance Base.



Synopsis: Captain reported that aircraft had repeat logbook entries requiring mechanics to prepare aircraft for ferry flight without correct parts under pressure from Maintenance Control and were unwilling to accept aircraft.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Ground Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling; MEL; Procedure; Software and Automation
Primary problem: Software and Automation

Narrative: When the fuel stick calculator was first approved for MD11; I had an aircraft that was not on a level ramp (roll attitude) with a number 3 fuel quantity on deferral. I used the online fuel stick calculator to try and verify the fuel quantity in the #3 tank. The numbers were off significantly. I used the maintenance manual procedure to correctly measure the quantity and it matched the known quantity. Afterwards I did more research and found that the web based fuel stick calculator to be inaccurate with the RH wing tanks of all fleets if the ramp isn't level. The problem stems from the fact that there is only one selection for wing tanks and that selection includes both left and right tanks. The calculator gives the same quantity for left and right tanks regardless of the roll selected. I had sent emails to the website contact and the Director of Maintenance office. Periodically throughout the last 6 years I have been sending emails to the office and discussed with my managers trying to get this corrected. About 6 months ago there was a read and sign about the importance of doing accurately sticking the tanks. This prompted me notifying the Maintenance office about the problems with the calculator again. I checked today and it still hasn't been corrected. I haven't heard back and I'm out of ideas to get this resolved. I believe the FAA would be very concerned if they were aware. Correct the calculator by making each tank a separate entry with its own table of quantities instead of combining left and right wings.




Synopsis: Technician reported frustration with a web based fuel stick calculator that has proven to be inaccurate over a period of six years.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Rudder
Component problem: Failed
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: High winds caused two airplanes to have a collision on the ramp at ZZZ resulting in damage to the rudder on our aircraft. A different serviceable rudder was installed and the aircraft was returned to service without a test flight. I think common sense would dictate a test flight since a control surface was replaced and the aircraft was involved in a collision. However it is not required in the manual. It is worth noting that the latitude and Challenger manuals would require a qualified crew to conduct a test flight. In the case of this incident one aircraft involved would require a test flight and one would not. I find this to be extremely unstandardized and I believe the same level of safety should be applied across the board to all aircraft. The manual on the CE680 should be updated to the same standard as other aircraft in the fleet.




Synopsis: CE680 Captain reported that after Maintenance replaced a primary flight control surface; the aircraft did not require a test flight.