elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure climb from KMSY; we were cleared from FL340 to FL360. At FL355; Captain (flying) pointed out a TCAS target slightly behind (less than 1 mile) and exactly at our cleared altitude of FL360 on both NDs. No TCAS RA was received; so he asked me to confirm with Center if there was an aircraft at our cleared altitude. ATC didn't hear my initial transmission; as I believe the hand mike cord came out of the socket as I grabbed the hand-held mike. Meanwhile; the Captain stopped the climb momentarily at FL355 as ATC asked if we were level yet at FL360. I attempted confirmation again that there was no aircraft at FL360; while the Captain disconnected the autopilot and auto-thrust to keep the aircraft level at about FL355. At this time; ATC directed us to turn right immediately 30 degrees and had another aircraft that wasn't initially on our TCAS; but was climbing to FL350; then descend to FL340. I don't know if that aircraft received a TCAS RA; but I re-established communication with my headset and confirmed we had turned 30 degrees right and were at FL355. ATC asked if we were maneuvering for a TCAS RA; which we weren't. ATC didn't mention any loss of separation; but subsequently cleared us the block FL350-360 momentarily as we assessed the situation. At that time; we both noticed 'TA ONLY' on our NDs; even though traffic mode was selected. We also knew this aircraft had been written up the previous day for this same malfunction (without the phantom targets). Captain then re-selected auto-flight and leveled at FL360.




Synopsis: A320 First Officer reported receiving a TCAS warning for what was apparently a phantom target.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CPS.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E T75
ATC / advisory: Tower CPS
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A helicopter was flying VFR southbound not in communication with air traffic control. The pilot checked with CPS tower and reported a near miss UAS incident. The aircraft was at 1;400 ft and 7 NW of CPS. The pilot reported that the drone was less than 100 ft from the helicopter and had to take evasive action with a 60 degree banking turn to avoid the drone. There was no reported damage to the aircraft and crew was not injured. The color of the UAS was reported as black and grey; 3x3 ft; 4 propellers with balloons on top. Law enforcement was contacted and police dispatched. UAS checklist was followed and completed. Acn and no further incident occurred.Add law enforcement procedures to checklist. I was also not sure of what was to be expected of me with law enforcement. I used my best judgment and had the police dispatch cars to the possible scene from where the UAS was launched.




Synopsis: A helicopter pilot called ATC after a NMAC with an UAS at 1;400 feet over the STL metropolitan area.
Date: 202006
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
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: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: In cruise flight received RA to climb. We complied with the RA and climbed to 8500 until clear of conflict and descended back to 8000.  Separation was only 300 ft. These types of events are difficult to prevent.


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


Synopsis: CE-750 flight crew reported an NMAC event during cruise.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: Ground LGA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: After landing on Runway 31 we exited at taxiway Tango. We told Ground Control we were going to gate. Ground Control instructed us to 'turn left on Bravo; right on Lima; taxi to the gate.' I have a lot of experience operating out of LGA; however; I have not landed there since the new terminal was built. I taxied south on Bravo and I identified taxiway Lima. It was dark and the new terminal is very bright. I made the right turn on Lima and saw gate straight ahead. I taxied toward the gate and suddenly; out of the darkness in front of me I noticed multiple; 2-3 foot tall; UNLIGHTED taxiway edge posts. I immediately stopped the aircraft and was able to make a hard left turn to barely avoid hitting the posts. It immediately became apparent that taxiway Lima is actually on about a 45 degree angle from off of taxiway Bravo vs what I thought was a 90 degree right turn. For whatever reason; there is an UNLIGHTED; 'false island' between Taxiway Lima and the ramp. Due to the conditions of darkness; a very bright new terminal and gate area; and unlighted taxiway edge posts; it was very easy for me to turn right onto taxiway Lima and then focus on taxiing straight ahead to gate right through the 'island.'




Synopsis: Captain reported on night taxi to gate; crew nearly hit unlit taxiway edge posts which are difficult to see due to bright terminal lights at LGA airport.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
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 Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Prior to the approach the ASOS was reporting 2 SM and fog. We were 40 miles out from the IAF and could see ZZZ. The visibility looked clear and no fog in the area. Center cleared us the approach 25 mile outs from the IAF and cleared us to change to advisory. I hesitated on calling the visual because of my experience with fog. After determining that there was no fog and it was clear and 10 SM visibility. We tried to contact Center to call for the visual approach; but were unable to reach Center due to a NOTAM that ground comm was out. After we landed my First Officer said that ASOS was reporting a 1/4 mile and fog; which was inaccurate. It was clear and with a visibility greater that 10 SM. I was informed by the ground crew that this has been an ongoing problem with inaccurate weather. ASOS needs to be relocated or repaired.




Synopsis: CRJ200 Captain reported ASOS was broadcasting inaccurate weather.
Date: 201910
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: There are insufficient amount of B787 qualified technicians in [Company] to meet the needs of service. We now have 8 to 11 B787 through flights a day and the lack of qualified techs in [Company] hinder and have a negative effect on the operation. On top of this; we have technicians that do not even have an A/P license which again has a negative impact on the assignments and the operation as well as placing the undue responsibility on those that are qualified.Everyone should at minimum; hold an A/P license to work in [Company]. More B787 classes should be made available for either signing up or junior manning technicians to these classes.




Synopsis: Technician reported that a lack of qualified personnel is causing delays and excessive workload.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-23 Apache/Geronimo Apache
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This was a return flight to the plane's base after a work related training flight. Our first approach to land runway 24 resulted in a go-around due to undesirable lineup on short final. On our second approach winds were from 300 degrees at 10 knots; gusting 25 knots. Tower notified us of wind shear experienced by the aircraft that landed before us. Standard procedural aircraft checks and proper configurations were made prior to landing with no abnormalities present. The landing was acceptable given the conditions. However; upon landing both pilots heard something come from the right side of the aircraft. This was at first thought to be a flat tire. However; handling tendencies were not consistent with a flat. Shortly after landing tower alerted us that possible landing gear problems were observed. The plane continued to handle fine. It wasn't until rolling further down the runway that the plane sank to the right and the right prop struck the ground. At this point both pilots shut down and secured the aircraft and made sure no one was injured.It seems a bolt that served as part of the gear broke. Preflight inspections did not reveal anything out of the ordinary as everything appeared intact and consistent with multiple prior preflight inspections. I am unsure at this point what caused the gear to collapse. My only assumption is that the bolt in question failed as a result [of aging].




Synopsis: PA23 pilot reported the right main landing gear collapsed on landing roll resulting in a prop strike.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BJC.Tower, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D BJC
ATC / advisory: Tower BJC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure; Manuals; Company Policy; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had just assumed the Local control position when I observed an unknown target on the radar level at 7;500 feet northbound cut through the eastern edge of our airspace. I transmitted in the blind in an attempt to reach out to the pilot; but was not able to. He exited to the north to an unknown destination. No traffic was affected.This is a persistent problem at BJC; with incidents appearing to be on the rise. We have a VFR corridor that is located on the extreme eastern edge of the airspace with a ceiling of 7;500 feet. The biggest issue this creates is the IFR aircraft are supposed to be at 7;000 feet the final for 30R; but sometimes they will be slightly higher. When we are on Runway 12L; the departures are put right in the face of any aircraft flying this corridor. The safety issue here is obvious. Something needs to be done about this.




Synopsis: A Tower Local Controller reported an aircraft fly through the airspace without making contact.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We received an RA to climb heading into ZZZ. As we were approaching ZZZ about to begin our final decent; we were told my Approach that a C172 was 500 ft. below us to our 1-2 o'clock. We saw the traffic on TCAS but could not visibly see the traffic. We made ATC aware that we were looking for traffic. As the Pilot Flying; I realized that the aircraft was climbing and the nonflying pilot saw this as well. As this aircraft came to about 2-300 ft. below us; we received the RA to climb which I did and let made ATC aware of this. After we were clear of conflict ATC told us the traffic should no longer be a factor. I'd suggest with VFR traffic that close it should have been given a lower altitude or maybe a heading to turn to; to avoid situations like this from happening in the future.


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


Synopsis: EMB-XRJ pilot crew reported an RA approaching their destination and followed the TCAS guidance.
Date: 202012
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: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were given a taxi instruction from Gate X to Runway XXL via 'Romeo; Yankee; Uniform; Kilo cross [Runway] Y; to XXL' but we taxied Romeo to Yankee; taxied on Y past Uniform (apparently missed it) and crossed [Runway] Y at Yankee. The ZZZ Ground Controller caught our mistake and gave us amended clearance to XXL via 'Victor to Kilo; Kilo to XXL.'I believe I simply misheard the Ground Control clearance; because I briefed the taxi route as I executed it; and I believe the FO repeated it to Ground without anyone questioning it. It was only questioned after we crossed Runway Y; and the Controller realized we were not on K but on Y taxiway. So; either I simply misheard; or I was tired and did not catch the error; and the FO did not catch it either. Either way; my error.This shows how easy it is to get a clearance wrong; especially when you have not flown into a particular hub airport in nearly a year. It points out how we have to stay extra vigilant; especially in these COVID-19 times; because crews are not flying as much; and ATC controllers are handling multiple sectors/tasks; so even if one repeats the clearance the way you believe it is; the ATC Controller may not catch the error.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported miscommunication with ATC resulted in a taxiway incursion during taxi-out.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Texan T6/Harvard (Antique)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Selector
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Sea
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was on a return trip in a North American AT-6 when my engine coughed. I immediately looked down to switch my fuel selector from left reserve to the right tank; the fuel selector was on left; not left reserve. I also saw that I had plenty of fuel in the left tank. Once on the right tank; I began using the manual wobble pump. After several pumps and no response; I declared an emergency; and turned for ZZZ; which was directly off of my wing. Once in contact with Tower; having gotten the gear down and established on a safe approach; I resumed manual wobble pump. On final the engine resumed; and I landed safely. I was able to taxi to the FBO under my own power.




Synopsis: AT-6 pilot reports possible fuel starvation at 4;500 feet and after switching tanks; turns toward a nearby airport. The wobble pump is used during approach and the engine resumes normal operation; but the approach is continued to landing.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
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; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On a training flight with a student; we had alternator failure an hour into our lesson. I did not notice the ammeter reading negative until the transponder began to flicker on and off. When I was troubleshooting; I asked the student to look at the ammeter; since it was on his side; and he told me that it was showing a negative reading; and that there was a red light. I immediately turned towards ZZZ1 and began to reduce the electrical load; hoping to lengthen the amount of time that we would have a working radio. At this point I checked into our traffic avoidance system; and noticed that there was heavy traffic at my airport of intended landing. I queued up Approach and told them the nature of my situation. I told them I wasn't sure if I would have enough battery to safely make calls to get into the traffic pattern; considering my transponder was dying. A few minutes later; right after they transferred us to Tower; who quickly cleared us to land; we lost all ability to communicate. We were unable to use our electric flaps on the landing. I taxied back to the ramp and gave Tower a call to see if I needed to fill out any paperwork; and they told me that they had taken care of it. In retrospect; I should have caught the failed alternator sooner. My student had noticed the light; but did not know what it meant; and his yoke was in the way for me to notice it. During our cruise checklist; that is one of the items that we check; and I did not notice anything wrong when we did the checklist 20 minutes prior. Additionally; after noticing the issue I could have just completely turned off the master switch and used pilotage to get us close to [the airport]; after which I could have turned the master back on and then used my radio. I had never had this happen before; so I was trying to make quick; confident decisions.




Synopsis: C172 Instructor Pilot reported returning to departure airport after experiencing alternator failure.