elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Ramp
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft is non-electrical with no starter; and based at a private airpark home.  Aircraft was tied down at tail and triple chocked. Preflighted and prepared for a normal start and flight. Normal start; but as I was walking around wing to the cockpit engine power increased more quickly than expected after start. I was unable to reach the cockpit to shut the engine down before the chocks gave way followed by the tiedown stake pulling out of the ground. Aircraft traveled unoccupied down sloping yard and hit a ditch coming to rest on the taxiway; resulting in landing gear damage and propeller striking ground and pavement and engine shutdown. No injuries or property damage occurred. In retrospect I have always been careful to secure the aircraft for start correctly with triple chocks and tie down. It's possible; on this start; I may not have tightened the throttle friction lock fully which may have allowed the throttle position to travel partially forward after start. The chocks in front of all three tires started to strain; then failed and the aircraft rolled forward as I was moving around the wing. The last available restraint was a tiedown at the tailwheel position. Momentum and some slack in the tie down rope caused the tiedown stake to pull loose from the ground as the slack was taken up. The downhill slope of the yard added to the acceleration before impact with the ditch. I should have double checked the throttle setting and friction lock to make sure that throttle position would not change. The increase in power would not have happened.




Synopsis: Pilot reported that after a prop start the aircraft jumped the chocks and separated from the single tiedown.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; .5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
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; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Cat II autoland winds 140/05. 3 autopilots on landing nose wheel touch down speed brake moved forward to disconnect autobrakes and engage manual braking and rudder went hard over to the right. Aircraft still on centerline. Brakes and nose wheel steering worked. Clear runway and came to a stop.  5 minutes after stopping rudder unfroze and everything worked.  Auto pilot also disconnected at that time.[Maintenance inspection notes]: inspected no status messages or [maintenance messages]. Performed a visual inspection of rudder no discrepancies noted. Also performed test of rudder control system. Rudder grd test good with full deflection left and right returning to neutral.  Indication agreed with all rudder movement. Engaged l; r and c  [autopilots] one at a time to look for rudder movement. No rudder deflection occurred. All 3 [autopilot] engagements and disengagements grd check good. No history and no faults Found rudder system grd checks good ok to continue.After clearing the runway and brakes set; I had the First Officer (FO) put his feet on the rudder pedals to see if he could move the rudder; he could not. I then called maintenance; while on the taxiway to see what they wanted to do. While waiting for the Ramp office to get maintenance on the radio the rudder and trim went back to normal operation and we taxied to the gate. I called the Duty Officer and explained the situation and ask to be connected to Tech Support; I explained the situation. Maintenance found no Fault codes and ran ground check on the Hydraulic and Autopilot System. Systems checked fine. (Maintenance was not able to check all three Autopilots engaged in the chocks)After talking with the FO we decided that we were comfortable flying the plane back. FO hand flew the aircraft to FL340; trimmed the aircraft for level flight and then engaged the right autopilot. The autopilot function correctly throughout the remainder of the flight. Landing was hand flown to a normal landing.Not sure as to what caused the situation.




Synopsis: A B757 Crew on a Category II landing rollout experiences a rudder handover to the right as the nose wheel is lowered to the runway. No fault codes were shown and the rudder checked out OK on the ground.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon landing gear extension; a loud bang was heard in the nose wheel compartment. We suspected some major malfunction or damage so we configured the aircraft normally for landing but requested a low altitude (500 FT) flyby to have the Tower inspect the nose gear for damage. We had three green down and locked and no indication of hydraulic fluid loss. We flew the aircraft by the Tower and performed a normal go-around but left the landing gear down. We flew a right downwind visual approach and reconfigured for a normal landing with flaps 30. We discussed the situation between ourselves and had no reason to suspect anything but a normal landing; so communication with the flight attendants was curtailed due to time constraints. Particular attention was made to the nose wheel touchdown rate and touchdown ultimately was slow and soft. Taxi to the gate was normal. Upon reaching the gate; the next crew was in place to perform the preflight inspection; which resulted in observing large quantity of fluid coming from nose wheel area.


Second narrative: Upon gear extension; there was a loud bang in the nose wheel compartment. After a slight delay; we got three green indications. There were no abnormal lights or any other indications of a malfunction. The Captain and I discussed probable causes and decided to do a low level Tower fly by to make sure there wasn't any visible evidence of a malfunction of the gear. The Tower reported that everything appeared to be normal. We made a close in right pattern and the landing was normal and uneventful. After parking at the gate; the post flight inspection revealed a significant amount of hydraulic fluid under the nose wheel.


Synopsis: B737-300 flight crew reports a loud bang from the nose gear area when the landing gear is extended but no other anomalies are exhibited. After a Tower fly by a normal landing ensues with taxi to the gate. Post flight reveals a hydraulic leak in the nose gear area.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SLE.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: TRACON PDX
Second aircraft: Aircraft Manufacturing and Design (AMD) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Private pilot instrument student was flying. I was instructing from right seat. Always scanning visually for traffic as well as the ADS-B display; while we were northbound I noticed a target on ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast)  less than a mile behind us at -300 feet (we were at 3;100 MSL). Target was gaining on us and climbing toward our altitude. When target showed -100 feet and nearly merged with us on the ADS-B display (approaching from our 7:00 position); student initiated a climbing right turn to the east since it appeared the target aircraft had no idea we existed. Thankfully; that maneuver started to put some distance as well as altitude between us. However; the target started turning right as well. We continued climbing and turned further right (net 180 by then); while it appeared target was still at their previous altitude (now -700 thanks to our climb) and maintaining a roughly easterly heading but still in a right turn. After we continued our right turn (now heading west); I for the first time caught a visual on the other aircraft at roughly our 4:00 position and 700 feet below (where ADS-B said they were at that moment). They appeared to be still turning right; perhaps practicing 360s -- I don't know. In any case; we were continuing to put distance and altitude between us such that we resumed our northerly heading back to home airport without further incident other than perhaps a minute during which our altitude was 3;800 MSL -- not a legal VFR cruising altitude -- while we made sure the other aircraft was not trying to chase us. We then descended to 3;000 MSL and contacted Portland Approach for flight following for the assurance of an extra set of eyes.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported a NMAC in cruise near SLE airport.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: OK51.Airport, KS
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Other Agricultural
Operating under: Part 137
Mission: Agriculture
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Observer
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Driving southbound on US81; 3 NM north of Hennessey OK; a yellow low wing crop duster was dusting crops from east to west and west to east across the north/south lanes of US81. The aircraft repeatedly flew beneath 30 FT telephone lines on both sides of US81 and less then 5 FT off the roadway as he dusted both fields. Flying in between north and south bound traffic; I was required to stop. Subsequently; the crop duster flew in front of me (southbound) and between a northbound 18 wheeler. Both vehicles had to slow down to keep from getting too close. Crop dusters normally will fly north/south in the area covering crops. Never have I seen an aircraft fly east/west across US81 and fly below the power lines.




Synopsis: An automobile driver traveling southbound; as well as other traffic in both directions on US Highway 81; had to stop to avoid and encounter with a crop duster passing beneath power lines on both sides of the highway while dusting crops on fields to both the east and west of the highway.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Aircraft: Falcon 900
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Second aircraft: Learjet 60
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working an F900. I pointed out the aircraft to adjacent satellite Sector (P) on an eastbound heading at 90. Sat (P) had LJ60 traffic at 70 and handed him off to the Departure Sector (N). N has control for climb after accepting the radar handoff. N climbed the LR60 on a northeasterly heading. Sat P failed to point out his accepted point out to the departure sector. I noticed the LJ60 climbing into my traffic; I immediately issued a turn to 180 heading on my F900. I determined this turn was not sufficient and turned the aircraft more to the southwest and descended the aircraft to 80. I have no idea the proximity; but it looked close. These procedures seem a little misleading to me. The departure sector(S) that I hand off too doesn't own airspace for 20 miles and we are not required to point out the aircraft to the (N) Sector. The P Sector is required to do the point out but that sector is very often extremely busy running all departures and arrivals for both LZU and PDK. So as it often happens; P is responsible for separation of 2 aircraft when he is talking to neither one. I understand it was an error on the P controller but it seems we could maybe standardize the procedure as it is done differently by numerous controllers.




Synopsis: A80 Controller described a loss of separation event claiming the local point out procedures are less than positive with regard to controller actions and responsibilities.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: About one hour from landing; we started to smell a faint burning scent from the packs. It was very faint; but noticeable. It smelled like glycol or plastic burning. It remained constant until we initiated a descent from FL390-FL370. The smell became more pronounced. For lack of another checklist or procedure; we ran the smoke fire and fumes QRH. The smell was only in the cockpit and not the cabin. Since we could not determine the source. We deemed it appropriate to take the safest course of action to expedite getting the aircraft on the ground with no undue delay. We [advised ATC] and asked for CFR (Crash Fire Rescue) to meet us to check for anything out of the ordinary upon landing. We initiated a high speed descent and approach; and performed a safe landing. CFR met the aircraft and checked it over and we taxied to the gate.




Synopsis: B737-800 First Officer reported a flight deck fumes event during cruise.  The crew ran the appropriate QRH checklist and continued to destination.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Mid shift started on at least 4 sectors (normally on one); 2 controllers held over for one hour. At the end of that time [they were] put on 2 sectors. I had worked one MCO arrival he was unable to stay in the arrival areas [and] deviated well into another area. I was asked by management where the arrivals to MCO should go; I said they cannot make it this way. I was told 'you have 20 coming' the overtime controllers and management left telling me I needed 20 Miles in Trail (MIT) to MIA Center on MCO arrivals.The sector was extremely busy; weather deviations and trying to vector for sequence. Eventually TPA Approach called to tell me to hold TPA arrivals this added to complexity. I called supervisor from Central area to help coordinate with MCO approach that I could take no more departures; the mid supervisor came to sector and helped watch traffic; a fellow controller from east area came and worked d-side till it was somewhat manageable traffic maintained at high volume throughout the next few hours.Do not leave controller hung out to dry with no support just because it is time to go home.




Synopsis: ZJX Controller reported aircraft were deviating for weather and he had to hold other aircraft for airports with weather problems. Controller reported he felt overwhelmed by traffic volume and no support from management.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MKL.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 6
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Other Aerial Photography
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D MKL
ATC / advisory: Tower MKL
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I finished flying the mission near the Jackson airport and continued towards the airport. While descending to the airport I checked the weather and received a clearance into the airspace and traffic pattern. The weather was 170 15G25 clear below 12;000 feet. I continued to the traffic pattern altitude and was cleared for a left downwind for Runway 20. It was quite choppy around the airport during my base to final turn as I descended further. On short final around 100 feet it became significantly smoother and I continued to land. I was configured to land with full flaps doing approximately 70 indicated on touchdown. I paused; then applied the brakes while closing the throttle. We rolled for 1-2 seconds then I felt a yawing motion to the right. It felt like my right main had locked up so I released the brakes to regain traction and used the rudder to maintain centerline. I asked my [passenger] if my right tire was flat or destroyed and he said no. I regained control of the aircraft; then I immediately felt a second yawing motion to the left followed by a wild spinning motion to the left. The plane rotated like a top 30-40 degrees towards the left while also pushing us towards the edge of the runway. I attempted to maintain centerline but felt too much force and thought I would roll it. I continued towards the grass trying to slow the aircraft and maintain directional control. I maneuvered the aircraft away from airport lighting into the grass and before entering the grass applied some pitch up to prevent flipping the aircraft. I kept the propeller away from the grass and kept pressure off of the nose wheel. Once we came to a complete stop I looked to my [passenger] to see if he was ok. The Tower radioed to us if we needed assistance and I said no. We taxied back to the ramp under the aircraft's power and parked it at the ramp. We were able to safely shut down the aircraft and secure it on the ramp. After the aircraft was shut down I inspected to see if there was any damage and found that the bolt holding the right wheel pan was missing and the wheel pan was loose.




Synopsis: C206 pilot reported losing directional control during the landing roll for unknown reasons.