elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLE.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B CLE
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were cleared to descend via the BRWNZ 1; landing north; and descended normally without incident. Approaching JIIMM on the arrival; ATC verbally cleared us for the ILS 06R. We sequenced the approach; to include a turn towards DAUGS to intercept the final approach course. As we were flying to DAUGS; approach asked us to state our intentions. We replied that we were flying towards DAUGS to intercept the ILS 6R in accordance with previous instructions. We then stated that we had the field in sight; at which point we were re-cleared for a Visual 6R. We then configured and landed normally; where upon Tower gave us the TRACON number to call. As Captain; I called TRACON. Person was very cordial and went over the STAR and approach plates; highlighting intent at CLE for aircraft to fly over HICKR before turning in on the ILS approach. He acknowledged that this is a procedure that is relatively new to CLE and may not exist in many other places. Finally; he agreed that there was no conflict issue today; and appreciated our review of this procedure with him over the phone. Unclear ATC instructions regarding the interface of points on the BROWNZ 1 STAR and ILS 6R approach at CLE. Clarify phraseology on this arrival to emphasize need to fly to a specific point; such as HICKR; before joining the ILS approach.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported unclear ATC instructions regarding the interface of points on the BRWNZ 1 Arrival at CLE.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on the ILS 25L; my FO stated; 'Is that a bird?' and pointed to the left side of the aircraft. As I turned to look at what the FO was pointing at; he stated that he saw a UAV of some sort to the left of the approach course. I did not see the object.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that the First Officer saw a UAS off the aircraft's left on approach to LAX. The Captain did not see it.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LVK.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D LVK
ATC / advisory: Tower LVK
Second aircraft: Cessna 152
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I called LVK Tower from Altamont pass for landing. At about the same time a C152 called for landing from Brushy peak. This landmark is about 3 nm North of Altamont pass. The Tower controller instructed me to report 4 miles out for 25R. I believe the 152 was instructed to report a 2 mile left base for 25R. As I reached the 4nm distance; the 152 called 2 mile left base. The controller instructed him to change to 25L and cleared him to land. I called in immediately after that and I was cleared to land on 25R. This resulted in the 152 crossing my flight path. In fact he crossed directly underneath me about 50 feet lower than me.  If I had descended a bit more quickly; we would have collided. I never saw the 152 and I don't think the Tower controller ever told me where he was. I think the 152 might have reported me in sight; I don't remember clearly. He might have been a student pilot.Anyway; because of the near miss and the confusion that almost led to a fatal accident; I believe a careful review of this incident is in order; including review of the recorded audio and radar tracks.




Synopsis: Pilot of C-172 experienced a NMAC with C-152 while on visual approach to a parallel runway.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: 2 cleaners came on to service the aircraft in ZZZ. I saw them take trash from the first class pocket and set in into the seat even though they had trash bags. They were doing other things which I hadn't paid much attention to; but as one of the cleaners came to change the first class side trash I told her to not worry about it because I didn't really use it. She said she thought there appeared to be trash in it. I said it was fine. She said 'Really.' I felt now pressured; so said ok; if you want to do it. I preferred they were not touching everything if I hadn't actually used anything after I had sanitized it. The other cleaner comes into the galley and they are talking and I'm near row 1. I realize my coffee cup is up in the cubbie/sink area and want to remove it while they are up there cleaning. I say excuse me and reach past the man and grab my cup on the counter. She has a trash bag in her hand. I take a drink. It is not my coffee but a cup; trash that the cleaners had set there to dispose of as they were doing the trash. I immediately spit the tea into the front lav. Tried to sani-wipe my mouth. And gargle with water but all of this is clearly futile. I know no passengers set it there. I stood in the galley until everyone deplaned. I asked the pilots. I know this is new for the airline and these cleaners. However; to even drink from a strangers cup on a non-flu; non-Coronavirus season would in itself be disgusting. An error for a cleaner to not immediately take trash and immediately put it into the trash bag in their hands. Not onto clean seats or sanitized counters. The cleaner never stopped me to say 'Stop; wait; that's trash.' She kept chatting to her coworker. This was a very bad error.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported thinking she was drinking out of her own cup and realized cleaners had put a different used cup in place; and was concerned about possible COVID-19 exposure.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-42 Cheyenne III/IIIA
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Beechcraft Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After performing a touch and go at the airport; I began my initial climb out to remain in the pattern for Runway XX. There were several other planes in the pattern and a Bonanza that had been calling in from the north to enter the pattern. On the climb out from the touch and go; I announced the CTAF that I was on the departure leg and remaining in the pattern climbing to 2;500 (1;500 AGL). At approximately 1;000 feet AGL my traffic system warned me of traffic ahead and above by 700 feet. I did not have the traffic in sight. I slowed my climb by throttling back and pitching forward. Unfortunately; my momentum was great enough that it did not immediately stop climbing; and I was able to level off at approximately 1;400 feet AGL. I lowered my left wing to begin a turn onto the crosswind and clear the direction of traffic and I saw the Bonanza approximately 100 feet below and VERY CLOSE. I took evasive action and turned right to avoid them; and then continued my traffic pattern at 1;500 feet AGL.The decision of the other pilot to enter the pattern on a descending crosswind across the departure corridor; I feel; was a very poor one. The other pilot turned downwind at 1;500 feet and then continued to descend into the downwind; another poor decision. On a side note; I did try to talk to the pilot on the ground about what had happened; so perhaps we could both learn something from the event and he became very belligerent blaming me for going too fast; etc.This could have ended very badly for both parties involved; and I feel keeping a standard pattern entry is of the utmost importance. Unfortunately; not everyone agrees and still insists on doing it their own way at non-towered airports.




Synopsis: PA-42 pilot reported a near midair collision while operating in the traffic pattern at a non-towered airport.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On the subject flight; we were cleared by the ORD tower controller for takeoff on runway 28R from intersection EE.  We performed the takeoff as per SOP with no issues.  Just after clearing us for takeoff; I heard the controller instruct the aircraft behind us to; 'Line up and wait'.During our takeoff roll; while we were still on the runway; and I would estimate about 20 knots below V1; I heard the tower controller clear the flight behind us to takeoff and the flight acknowledge the clearance.  I remember thinking; 'Boy; I hope we don't have to abort.'  Being below V1 would have meant we would still be on the runway and another flight approaching takeoff speed coming at us on the runway.  Hopefully they would be able to abort before hitting us.  Fortunately our takeoff proceeded normally and nothing occurred.I am not completely familiar with ATC procedures.  I don't know when the earliest time a controller is permitted to clear another aircraft to takeoff behind another departure.  What I did know was that we were still about another three seconds from when the other flight read back the clearance until I called V1.  If anything happened; (remote of course); SOP would have us stopping on the runway.  Though the weather was clear; it was nighttime and I don't think the following aircraft would see us until it was way too late.  Not to mention; if an abort was required there very well could have been debris left on the runway for the other plane to ingest.  This would also depend on how fast I would be able to radio tower about the problem and the other aircrew to realize they were going to have to abort.Overall; as I said; everyone may have been completely in the right and conformed to procedures.  But from where I was sitting; I thought the takeoff clearance for the next flight was too soon and could been a disaster if something we always train in the simulator for (aborts); occurred.




Synopsis: Pilot is cleared for takeoff and is approaching V1 when he hears Tower clear another aircraft for takeoff on the same runway. Pilot wonders what would happen if his aircraft had to abort; and also wonders what type of separation is required by ATC to have two aircraft on the same runway.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: UAO.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: SKC; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D UAO
ATC / advisory: Tower UAO
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Rotorcraft; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prior to entering the traffic pattern at UAO; I could hear over the radio that it would be very busy with all the air traffic and could sense the air traffic controller was not taking his job too serious because he had had a comedic inflection in his voice; which I've never heard any other controller use. I was told to enter left downwind for 'A' taxiway and report when abeam the tower. I entered the left downwind and reported when abeam the tower. Nothing was heard from the controller. After thirty seconds had passed I made another call to the tower and the controller instructed me to pass behind the traffic that was on right base for Runway 35. During the downwind approach I got multiple 'Traffic' advisories. This became a distraction and I reported back that I had the traffic on final in sight because I had been focused on that aircraft. This was not the correct aircraft that I was supposed to pass behind and my transmission was not corrected for by the controller so I turned for left base. As I'm turning I am getting another 'Traffic' annunciation and look out my right door. Down below I see Aircraft Y 500 feet under me. By the time the controller comes up on the radio and questions my intentions it is already too late. Luckily the Cessna saw me and began descending or else we would have been a much closer incident. I maintained my altitude and requested a descending right 360 because I had overshot 'A' taxiway. This in turn caused a fixed wing that was departing to the south from the right downwind to make a left 360 to avoid me. I proceeded down to the taxiway to park on the company ramp. I should have not got so caught up on the aircraft on final that caused me to not read back the proper clearance back to the tower. I was also distracted from the multiple 'Traffic' annunciations while I was trying to locate where these aircraft were in particular. I feel that had the controller also done his part in correcting my incorrect read back that the situation could have easily been avoided.




Synopsis: Pilot reported misidentifying an aircraft while on approach to landing and caused another aircraft to take evasive action to avoid a mid air collision.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
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: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Descending via the arrival we were cleared direct to intercept the localizer; descend and maintain 6000 feet. As we approached the localizer at 6000 feet we called the airport in sight and ATC cleared us for the Visual Approach. As the First Officer started a descent; I was looking for the traffic ahead of us as indicated on TCAS on the same approach when I saw a glint of light at 12:00 level with us and very close. As we were descending below 6000 feet we saw very clearly a black; four-rotor drone with a flashing red light and camera hung below pass 100 to 200 feet off our left wing nearly level with us. We immediately reported it to ATC as there were planes lined up behind us on the approach. After landing Ground Control gave us a number and we had a telephone conversation with the Tower about the near-miss. Someone flying their drone too high and on the approach path. Trying to get video of passing airliners for their Instagram? Can we install jammers that could prevent their remote controls from working near the airport?




Synopsis: An Air Carrier pilot reported a Near Mid Air Collision with a Drone.
Date: 201905
Location: MMUN.Airport, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground MMUN
Second aircraft: B737-800
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I recently did 2 MMUN turns out of ZZZ. The standard arrival procedure is to land on Runway 12L; taxi D; C; E3 to the gate. The standard departure procedure is to push off the gate; take E1 and C to Runway 12R. Upon joining E3 while taxiing to our gate during the first turn; I commented that the spacing between E1; E2; and E3 seemed tight. It was not a problem that day as there were no other aircraft movements. On the second day; we pushed off Gate XX and were disconnected on E1 (per ATC instruction). We noticed another carrier B737 with scimitars taxiing on E3 taxiing towards Gate XY. 'His' scimitar winglet appeared to be directly over the E2 lane. His nose gear was centered on the E3 lane. This is not one of those situations where my assessment of where his winglet was was off by a few feet. We had an excellent vantage point; and maybe I was off by a few inches (at most). As a side note; as one joins E3; there is a sign painted on the pavement stating that the maximum wing span is 36 METERS. That translates into 118.11 FEET; not 118 feet and 11 inches. The Boeing 737-800 with scimitars has a wing span of 117'-10'. Our B737 has a wing span of 117'-X'. If the other carrier was exactly centered on E3; and we were exactly centered on E1; our winglets would be about 12 inches apart. That works great on paper; but not in real life. We taxi around all the time in close quarters (e.g. ZZZ1); but never have I been in an airplane where the margin of error on the ground is measured in inches! The story ends with both us and the other carrier deviating off the yellow line to give ourselves a few more inches of clearance. There is no mention of wingspan limitation or caution on our airport information page; none on the 10-9 (there is a note for aircraft on E2) and nothing in the MMUN route brief. Someone needs to go out to the ramp and actually measure the spacing of E1; E2; E3. Also; there should be notes added to our pages (at the very least) urging extreme caution while taxiing on the ramp.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported the taxi lanes are very tight at MMUN.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Cruise; Climb; Parked
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Prior to boarding; the flight attendants smelled an odor.  I also smelled it; but did not think it was a toxic fume.  We decided together to continue with our flight.   The odor persisted the whole flight.  On the descent it became very strong.  I had a metallic taste in my mouth.  Upon landing the flight attendants called up about it.  All of them had the metallic taste in their mouths and burning eyes.  We called Maintenance.  Maintenance met us at the gate and as soon as the door was opened they could smell it. [The] cause was engine oil in the packs. I will never accept an aircraft with any unknown odor.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a fumes event prior to boarding. After departure the fumes progressively worsened requiring Maintenance upon destination arrival.