elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: Tower IAH
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Cleared for takeoff 15L turn right to 230. Single engine aircraft traffic in the area. We did not see the single engine aircraft until airborne. The RA went off telling us to climb more. I saw the aircraft and told the copilot to climb more as well. The Tower said something to the aircraft and he started a left turn. We came about within 400 FT horizontally and 200 FT vertically.


Second narrative: On Departure off of 15R IAH talking to Tower we were in a climbing right turn after takeoff to our assigned heading when we received an RA approximately 1;500 - 2;500 FT AGL. We complied with the RA Climb maneuver and when the Captain spotted the traffic it appeared to be no more than 300 FT from our aircraft. The TCAS is all that saved us from a collision with this single engine aircraft. We were never given any advisories from Tower. Our first awareness of this near midair was due to the TCAS. We told the Tower we had just responded to an RA. The Controller seemed indifferent as to the situation. As far as I know we did everything correctly and the RA maneuver did not result in any altitude deviations as we were cleared to climb and maintain 4;000 on departure.


Synopsis: An Air Carrier Crew reported a near miss at about 2;000 FT with a single engine aircraft after takeoff from IAH.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While in the descent Approach had cleared us from 5;000 FT to 4;000 FT. As we left 5;000 FT the Controller informed us of GA traffic in our area. We saw the aircraft in question visually as well as on TCAS and it would have been fairly close but not an issue. Passing approximately 4;500 FT the GA aircraft suddenly turned directly into our flight path which triggered a TCAS RA climb. We climbed approximately 300 FT until TCAS advised clear of traffic; then informed ATC what we had done and continued our descent back to 4;000 FT with no further issues.GA aircraft are a common annoyance and threat in this area. The GA pilots need to be more alert of their surroundings and action should be taken against them when they cause issues such as this with other aircraft; particularly commercial aviation.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 flight crew experienced a close encounter with a light aircraft and complied with a TCAS RA while descending in contact with Approach Control.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Air Carrier X could not hear my transmitter on 132.90. This is located at TVC; and has traditionally been a good frequency. In last few months performance has gone downhill. This aircraft was on the MBS135007 fix at 16;000 feet; and only 16 NM out of my airspace; and they could not hear my transmissions. This is unacceptable; since it will tie up the frequency and cause workload to increase when traffic increases. Either: a) Vote the 132.90 frequency with the 118.05 frequency location (at MBS) b) Install new equipment at the TVC site; and/or find the source of interference; or c) Change the LOAs and SOPs: assign 118.05 to Sector 02; since the main and standby equipment work better in that airspace and have terrific coverage; compared to Sector 01. 125.47 works much better in Sector 01; and covers better than 118.05; with the exception of a 10 NM radius around Y31 airport; which the BUEC on 118.05 works better because it is located there. I fly my personal aircraft in that airspace; and I know all of this to be a fact. Change the LOA's with ZOB to assign all aircraft 118.05 entering Sector 02. Change the LOA with MBS approach to assign all aircraft entering Sector 02 to 118.05.




Synopsis: ZMP Controller voiced concern regarding the recent performance of frequency 132.90; the reporter providing a number of equipment and/or procedural solutions to the problem.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Tank Cap
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I departed ZZZ1 bound for ZZZ as Aircraft X. After reaching cruise altitude of 8;000 feet I observed the right wing tank fuel gauge showed an increase of several hundred pounds of fuel. I then observed that the filler cap for the right tank stuck BELOW the right wing attached to its lanyard with fuel being vented from the fill opening. The wing tanks feed the main tanks and there was plenty of fuel to reach the destination ZZZ. I diverted with concern that spreading jet fuel over the most populous city in an environmentally conscious state might not be well received. ZZZ2 provided a close alternate over sparsely populated mountains without need to fly over the city proper.As I slowed and descended into ZZZ2 and put approach flaps down; the cap that initially dangled below the wing moved up to the top of the wing still attached to its lanyard and fuel stopped venting from the open filler hole in the tank. This was not a situation where a faulty fuel cap vented fuel 'in place'. I had 30 gallons of fuel added to the right-wing tank in ZZZ2 by an experienced fueler who opined that the cap was secure and apparently worked properly. I was not aware that I should have had a mechanic inspect the cap - and continued the flight to ZZZ in violation of company and FAA policy.




Synopsis: A pilot reported the fuel filler cap came off in flight. The reporter landed and refueled but failed to have a mechanic inspect the cap.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TTD.Tower, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D TTD
ATC / advisory: Tower TTD
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was serving as a certified flight instructor conducting part 61 flight training with a student pilot. My student pilot was in control of the aircraft. We were on the downwind for Runway 25. We were told to extend downwind. Soon after was cleared to land Runway 25. We were on an extended final and number 1 for landing. While on final I saw an aircraft on the downwind off my 10 o clock position begin to turn base for Runway 25 and descent rapidly toward us. The other aircraft was descending directly in front of and on top of us on a collision course. ATC was unclear which aircraft was which and therefore unable to provide conflict resolution instructions. I took control of the aircraft and took evasive action; diving under the aircraft and in the opposite direction. We were headed toward a hillside and once I felt that the aircraft was behind us; I climbed at the highest rate possible to get over and beyond the hillside. The other aircraft continued to land. We were circled around the then landed without further incident.




Synopsis: An instructor Pilot reported a NMAC on short final.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SBCW.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Second aircraft: Balloon
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
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; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While descending on the STAR ATC notified us of possible hot balloon traffic on or near a fix on the arrival. Shortly thereafter; I saw the balloon directly on our path and at our altitude. I immediately turned 20 degrees right and continued our descent. We immediately told ATC we were deviating to avoid balloon traffic. By the time we were abeam the balloon we were well below it. Unfortunately; neither us or ATC knew if the balloon was tethered. When we were done deviating; ATC cleared back on route. No loss of separation was encountered to the best of my knowledge. While on final approach; we encountered another hot air balloon. We were on final at 1000 feet. We saw a balloon at our altitude just to the right of course. ATC didn't seem to be aware of this balloon. We notified ATC of the traffic. No deviation was necessary. We made a normal landing.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: B767 flight crew reported taking evasive action while on approach to Sao Paulo to avoid a hot air balloon.
Date: 201809
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I had Gate Agent tell me I could get the PRR (Pilot Reconciliation Report) electronically over my iPad. I advised them that the policy was still a paper form and that not all stations were able to provide PRRs electronically as yet. Still undergoing beta testing. We were able to verify that the paper copy is still the standard but read that the PRR should be available 10 minutes prior to scheduled pushback.Issues:1. Ten minutes prior to pushback is a busy time in the cockpit. The necessity of returning to the iPad to get another form is unreasonable.2. Reliability of signal; wifi or [data]; at the gate is suspect. I frequently need to leave the cockpit and walk to the boarding area to acquire a signal of sufficient strength to get our required paperwork prior to our flight. This is done at a time when 'time' exists for flight planning.3. My iPad is in airplane mode from the time I acquire my paperwork until the next time I need paperwork. Turning the iPad's airplane mode (battery saving mode) to off to acquire one simple form; at a very busy time in the cockpit; sets up a situation where one would forget to get the device BACK into the airplane mode.4. The recharging device on the Airbus (if it works at all) barely keeps up with the discharge rate if using the WSI function. Having the device depleted; due to omission of the airplane mode; could render REQUIRED AND NECESSARY [publishings] unavailable at a vital time; which is inherently unsafe.5. Whether in the program or not; all armed individuals need to be accounted for and location/affiliation/status known to our crews; but especially for our FFDOs who could find themselves in a compromised position if this data is not provided.Bottom line; it is a small form/gesture that ensures a last minute reconciliation between customer service (our ground security coordinator) and the Captain (our inflight security coordinator) of what assets are onboard and any concerns. I know we want to achieve an autonomous; automated environment from which to operate. This one form NEEDs to stay.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported that the Pilot Reconciliation Report can be accessed electronically.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on a routine training flight; a runway incursion occurred. A search for traffic was made and a radio call announcing our (the student and I) intention for using Runway XX for stop and go traffic operations (Prior to crossing the runway hold line). After; we taxied into position on Runway XX. It was at this time that we saw Aircraft Y initiate a go-around from Runway XY at ZZZ. No radio calls were received from Aircraft Y. We (Student and I) were not in contact with Aircraft Y until after they initiated and announced a missed approach (the weather was VFR).The training aircraft's transponder was on and set to 1200. I checked the radio gear; and headsets of the training aircraft for proper operation with no abnormalities noted.




Synopsis: C172 flight instructor reported an accidental runway incursion causing an aircraft to go-around.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the PF (Pilot Flying) doing CA (Captain) upgrade line check. Coming on the left downwind for runway 19L in ZZZ at 3000 ft. IMC we got a TA/RA and the TCAS was showing a traffic about 3 miles 12 o'clock same altitude; I disconnected the A/P (Auto-Pilot) and A/T (Auto-Throttles) and initiated the TCAS maneuver following the guidance which directed us to climb; PM (Pilot Monitoring) advised ATC and ATC informed us that there were no traffic in the vicinity of the airport and advised us to get back to 3000 ft. and vectored us for the ILS approach 19L and while we're descending back to 3000 ft. the FO (First Officer) side inbound DU (Display Unit) went blank; few seconds later the same display unit on my side went blank as well at this time we were already turning final and I saw the runway and decided to continue to land meanwhile the PM called the ATC and advised them that we had multiple display failures; 2 minutes later we got the displays back and we continued the visual approach to landing.False TCAS TA/RA and multiple display failures.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported TCAS warning on approach.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Approaching localizer for 16R between CELAK and BUGNE on a heading of 190 approach controller had flight crew fly thru localizer. Shortly after flying thru localizer controller assigned heading 130 and altitude down from 4000 to 3200 along with approach clearance. Just as aircraft was capturing 3200; coincidental with the glide path; we encountered wake turbulence from preceding 737 traffic that had joined localizer from the west side as well. After a few seconds of valiant effort the auto pilot kicked off in a fairly steep right bank; simultaneously we observed a brief (fraction of a second) stick shaker and the low speed cue briefly spiking up 10-15 knots. As pilot flying I already had my hands on the controls and immediately pitched forward and added some power. I did not initiate the stall recovery procedure; contrary to my training; as it was quite obvious that this was not a true low speed event; low speed cue returned to an acceptable spot and good aircraft control was present. It should be noted that we had acquired the airport environment visually shortly before the event. Additionally the ref speed switch was selected to increase at the time of the event. We selected ref speeds off shortly after the event as the airframe was free of contamination and I believe it was free of contamination prior to the event; we just hadn't gotten around to it yet. I don't believe that I was more than 100 feet below last assigned altitude or more than one dot below glide path at any time during or immediately after the event.I believe the cause of this event was the approach controller's tight vectoring of our flight behind preceding traffic which I feel must have been a little high on the approach. My expectation of the ATC system providing adequate clearance between IFR aircraft may have contributed to this event. Additionally the high workload associated with the late turn kept me from monitoring the altitudes of preceding TCAS targets. This is not procedure that I'm aware of but has been proven to be good practice in busy airport environments.




Synopsis: Turboprop First Officer reported momentary stick shaker after encountering wake turbulence in trail of a B737 on approach to SEA.