elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After making a normal traffic pattern and landing; a gentleman told me I was very close to an airplane on short final and that the other pilot had to make a steep bank to avoid me. I am concerned that a nonstandard procedure may have led to the incident. I had no visual of the other airplane I was just told it got very close and he made an evasive maneuver.




Synopsis: A small experimental biplane pilot was told after the fact that another aircraft took evasive action on short final to avoid a midair with his aircraft. The biplane pilot did not see the other aircraft.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BNA.TRACON, TN
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON BNA
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: An E135 checked on [cleared via] the RYYMN RNAV Star from the northwest. He took the time to complain that the RNAV arrivals were impacting their safety margin as they were continuously heads down in the cockpit working on the complex routing. Spending all your time heads down working on automation instead of flying the airplane has been cited by the FAA multiple times as a factor in incidents. I've had this complaint from multiple carriers about these new procedures and failed to log them. I will try and log more as they come in. I encouraged this pilot to file a complaint with his own safety program as well.These RNAV procedures seem to be a solution to a problem that didn't exist. We are mixing aircraft both on the RNAV and other aircraft off or not capable of the arrival and the different speeds and altitudes can conflict unless you watch it closely.I think it would be better to take just a single post of our 4 post arrivals and reserve it exclusively for RNAV and let the other three posts continue as before. That way we wouldn't run into as many conflicting scenarios.




Synopsis: An Approach Controller reported one of several instances of complaints from flight crews about the complexity of the newer; 'optimized' RNAV STAR procedures into BNA. In this particular instance; the STAR in question was the RYYMN.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CAK.TRACON, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C CAK
ATC / advisory: TRACON CAK
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Pilot reported near mid-air collision with an object that appeared to be a UAS.




Synopsis: Pilot reported NMAC with what appeared to be a UAS.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small UAS; Multi Rotor
Operator: Commercial Operator (UAS)
Operating under: Part 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Hovering (UAS)
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Reporter organization: Commercial Operator (UAS)
Reporter function: Person Manipulating Controls (UAS); Remote PIC (UAS)
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Remote Pilot (UAS); Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Other post-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on-site to perform a photo mission to take some photos of [the roof top] of [an] elementary school. We are doing an [equipment] replacement project for this school. The work will involve some work on the [rooftop]. I called the ZZZ Tower/ATC to let them know about the flight prior to the flight. After speaking to them; I assumed that I was authorized to make the flight from having informed them about the flight and based on the fact that they did not tell me that I was not authorized to make the flight during the call. I performed the drone flight to an altitude of no more than 150 feet AGL for a duration of no more than 18 minutes. That is the time from the first call to the second call to the Tower/ATC to let them know that I was done with the flight. While I was operating the drone; [the] Manager of Drone Operations called and left me a message. I did not know about his call until after I made the flight. After the flight; I returned his call. He identified himself as the person in charge of the Drone Operations for ZZZ Tower. He indicated that I was not authorized to make the drone flight. At that point; as stated above; the flight was already complete; and I made the flight assuming I was already authorized to make the flight from my earlier conversation with the Control Tower Operators. I explained this to Manager of Drone Operations. I also asked him what I should do to ensure that I was authorized to make future flights in the area of ZZZ. He indicated that I would need to contact him for future authorizations. I indicated that I would do that for any future flights in the area of ZZZ. The call was ended.




Synopsis: Part 107 pilot failed to receive authorization to conduct a flight within controlled airspace. Flight was completed safely.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were in ZZZ. I don't Remember the gate. It was my leg to fly to ZZZ1. We had some weather approaching from the south. Me and the Captain knew it was going to be a quick taxi being we were going to takeoff XXR. So we did preflight check at the gate and then when the flight attendants were ready they closed the flight deck door and then locked it. When the ramp crew was ready we did the push checklist. We started both engines as me and the Captain talked about because of the short taxi. Then we did the taxi check before we moved the aircraft due to the short taxi. We then taxied towards Runway XXR and during that time we did the before takeoff checklist. I'm pretty sure I called the back and told the flight attendants and cabin we were next for takeoff. After going through the checklist and noticed that the flight attendants did not call us. So I called back there to see if they were ready and from what I heard they were. It was not as clear as normal because of the wearing of the mask for COVID. We then closed the before takeoff checklist before departure and was cleared to takeoff. We then arrived at ZZZ1 with no issues. Then we landed and passengers deplaned; someone getting off the plane said something to me but was not able to hear being she was walking and far away with her mask on. Then the forward Flight Attendant came to the front and spoke to the Captain saying they had a passenger was not listening to the rules with the mask compliance. That's all I heard about. We then continued the rest of the trip. Then yesterday; we went ZZZ2 to ZZZ3 had 2 hrs between the next flight so then I went to go get food before everything closed. As I was going back to the gate the Captain told me we were removed from the rest of the pairing because of the other day that the flight attendants were not seated for departure. That was what I heard for the first time and was a little confused because the flight attendants never said anything to me after that flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1 the day before.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported taking off with the flight attendants not seated citing a possible misunderstanding because the FA was speaking through a protective mask.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During the landing rollout; the Tower Controller was asking what turnoff we could make. As the PF; I was zoned in on trying to get the aircraft stopped and wasn't hearing most of the Controller's communications with my F/O. With other aircraft inbound on the same runway; I chose to turn right at [a particular] Taxiway. After we cleared the runway; the Controller told us that Taxiway was closed there and that we were supposed to have turned left on [another taxiway] instead. With the aircraft in full reverse thrust and in critical phase of flight; confusion with Controller's communications took place. We taxied on into the gate.


Second narrative: While rolling out on landing; the runway was reported 5; 5; 5. We were still in reverse trust and anti-skid cycling while Tower was telling us to exit [assigned] taxiway while we were still very busy in a critical phase of flight. I was responding back unable. We were stepping on each other and all I heard was [a different taxiway]; as did the Captain; and he turned right on [the wrong taxiway]. After turning right; Tower told us to stop and do a 180 turn. We were unable at that point. Tower then said to continue and contact Ground and to comply with instructions next time.


Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported missing a taxi clearance that was issued during a critical phase of flight during reverse thrust application on landing roll.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Aircraft: Q400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Landing
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: Tower SEA
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Inbound; initially expecting runway 16R; then switched to 16L for a visual approach due to traffic on approach to 16R. Switched to tower; then cleared to land 16L. Just prior to landing 16L; heard tower controller give [another] flight that had just landed 16R a clearance to cross 16C and 16L. Since we were about to land 16L; I made a quick call to the tower that we were on short final to 16L. The controller immediately had [the other aircraft] hold short 16L; which they did. We landed uneventfully.I could see the [other] flight on the taxiway approaching 16C when the clearance to cross 16L was given. Based on the timing; had [the other aircraft] continued to cross 16L as cleared; we likely would have arrived at that intersection on the runway at the same time. Luckily for all of us; we were paying attention and heard the clearance given to [the other aircraft] to cross the runway we were about to land on and were able to avoid a runway incursion.The controller stated after landing that we were the first to land 16L in a while. Due to the complexity of SEA and that the vast majority of flights land 16R; anytime there is a runway change can create an Expectation Bias or Loss of Situational Awareness among the controllers and/or pilots. Obviously mistakes have and will be made with runway changes; so it's important that we pay attention to what's happening around us. In this case; a clearance that was not for us had a direct impact on our flight.




Synopsis: Q400 Captain reported he was on short final to SEA Runway 16L when he heard Tower clear another aircraft to cross the runway. Tower cancelled that clearance after a heads-up from the reporter.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RNM.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent; Cruise
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT; Tower RNM
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
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: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Holding over JLI VOR; descending to 7700 to execute the RNAV-B approach; I noticed a plane approaching the VOR from the south as I crossed the VOR he turned behind me and deliberately followed me as I tried to evade. He passed behind and then overtook us on the right hand side. He was also doing a VFR practice approach. I contacted the TRACON and asked if he had both of us on radar and said that I had a very close call. I switched to RNM Tower frequency and called and asked if they were talking to the aircraft and they said no. The aircraft continued on the approach ahead of us and we were about 1 mile behind during the remainder of the approach. Eventually he contacted RNM Tower and said he was conducting the VOR approach. I wasn't able to tell if there was more than one person on board as I landed and saw him taxiing.




Synopsis: An instructor pilot and student flying the RNM RNAV (GPS)-B Approach reported a near miss near JLI VOR at 7;700 ft.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B787-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I am flying through ZZZ this month; several days with originating aircraft after a international leg. After an international flight the US Government requires insecticide to be sprayed throughout the aircraft including the flight deck.The last two days on flights; I have noticed a very thick white film on the flight deck glare shield. It is so thick that it looks like someone has been grinding some type of plastic and the dust has settled on the glare shield. At the same time; there is a film of dust on the inside of the glare shield.On; day two the layer of dust on the windshield was so thick that I could not see out the window. I called ops for an interior window clean.The cleaner came and wiped a dry rag across the inside of the window; accomplishing nothing then left.Maintenance was coming to the aircraft; when they got there I asked if they had some rags; which they did; I used their rags and water and cleaned the windows myself. I entered into a discussion with the Mechanic about the substance on the window and glare shield. The Mechanic is the one that told me it was the insecticide. He said that the Mechanics had written it up several times with no action.I am very concerned about the amount of insecticide in the flight deck. It is so thick that it reduces the ability of the glare shield color to do its job in the sunlight. Also with that amount of insecticide on the glare shield and console I am concerned about the side effects of breathing it and skin intake from having it also on the controls and console.The aircraft need to be sprayed. But the clean-up needs to be much more comprehensive. Because the cleaning crew is not well trained and does not complete their job as required. There is no oversight of the crew. Maintenance stated they have written this up several times with no response. Think about the Roundup weed killer lawsuits currently in process. This is the same type of illness causing situation waiting to happen.Complete review of the insecticide program. Require supervisor check and sign off after cleaning of the flight deck.




Synopsis: B787 pilot reported that cleaning crews failed on two occasions to remove insecticide from cockpit surfaces; resulting in a health risk.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: A B757-200 was departing Runway 25R. The LC2 assist was unable to rundown the departure via automation; had to verbally run down aircraft. I investigated as to the cause of the 'dup id' message and found that there was another flight with same call sign; but as an arrival to LAX. The 'T' affixed to the end of the callsign led me to believe the departure was a continuation of this arrival; and that the arrival had already landed and the RADAR track was in coast mode; not uncommon at LAX. I removed the arrival control by using the OK function. The departure rundown was now completed via automation. Later I found out that the arrival was still inbound; and due to my actions; the data tag had been lost; but the RADAR track was still displayed. In removing the arrival control track; I created the same situation I was trying to prevent; i.e. have an aircraft airborne with no associated data tag. In this case; an un-tagged departure would have been better than an un-tagged arrival. The first change would be to discuss with the company why they used a 'T' suffix on two callsigns; when the use of the suffix is to resolve confusion to same callsign events (like this one). A better fix would be to use two different suffixes; a 'Q' or 'J' etc.




Synopsis: LAX Controller described a confused event when an automated departure run down to the TRACON failed because of an apparent 'dupe ID;' the reporter's corrective actions resulted in an arrival aircraft losing data block information.