elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E C90
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
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
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were arriving into ORD on the VEECK arrival. We were level at 11;000 ft. about 8.5nm south of CLUSO intersection. As we were receiving instructions from ATC; I was heads up and saw a black object on the horizon approaching. At first; I thought it was a mylar balloon; but as it approached; I could easily see that it was irregular in shape. As it came closer; it was clearly an unmanned aircraft. It was all black; and multi-rotor. It passed our left wing at our altitude. It was difficult to determine how far away it was; but couldn't have been more than 1;000 ft. away due to the details I could see. It was likely closer than that. The Captain was heads down at the time; and on the radio; and didn't see the [object]. She reported it to ATC. We didn't call it a NMAC at that moment; but probably should have. We were busy with ATC instructions for heading; altitude; and airspeed changes. The rest of the flight continued uneventfully.




Synopsis: B737 pilot reported sighting a drone while on the VEECK arrival into O'Hare airport at 11;000 feet.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Piper Single Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While descending on the 25R into LAX crossing LYCOM fix at 10;500'; we [experienced] a near miss from a small single-engine aircraft that appeared to be a Piper Cherokee type. TCAS was functioning normally and did not alert us of any conflict. We believe the aircraft was not in compliance with ADS-B requirements. Our descending path took us underneath the small aircraft; missing by less than 300'. His starting position was to our left and below moving slowly to our right above. We cleared conflict below and to his left. We queried LAX Approach Control about the aircraft. They had no target on their screen of any kind and they don't believe he was in radio contact with any controlling agency. Our track was on the ILS on profile tracking 235 from CRCUS and turning to 251 track crossing LYCOM. His track appeared to be between 270-290 degrees. Once we were at a lower altitude; Control allowed us a side step visual to 24R and flight landed successful with no further incident.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported an NMAC with a light aircraft on approach to LAX.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-7
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
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
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I decided to do some practice approaches with my safety pilot. I got gas at ZZZ1 and it was a direct line from there for the approach into ZZZ so I did that one first. I got the weather; which was favoring the opposite direction; and changed to the advisory frequency. Another airplane announced that it was on the the approach for Runway XX but was farther out than we were. I announced that I was on the approach for Runway XY and would break off early. There was a lot of chatter on the radio both at ZZZ and at other airports that shared that frequency. We heard someone else mention Runway XX but couldn't make out what they were doing. I broke off the approach at about 800 ft. and 2 miles from the end of the runway as I knew I'd be far from the aircraft on the opposite approach. That's when my safety pilot saw the near miss plane that had departed Runway XX at some point. We never heard them announce taking off or on upwind and they did not show up on ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast). We immediately turned left for the missed but were past them by that point. After we passed them and announced the missed; the pilot of the other aircraft said something on the radio that I couldn't make out.Contributing factors were me continuing an approach in the wrong direction longer than I should have given the heavy chatter on the radio. The other aircraft was also not announcing enough or not announcing correctly or getting stepped on by other chatter or otherwise unintelligible. Another contributing factor was the other aircraft not having ADS-B Out installed. It wasn't required there but it would have greatly helped avoid the near miss. Given that we did hear another mention of Runway XX; I should have asked for their position since I didn't hear it the first time. In the future; I will break off opposite direction approaches much sooner when there is other traffic in the vicinity.




Synopsis: A pilot on final approach to a non towered airport reported a near miss with an aircraft departing the opposite direction runway.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
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: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were flying Aircraft X to ZZZ. The FO (First Officer) was flying. We were cleared for the visual approach to Runway XX. We were on a wide left downwind. The FO wanted to intercept final outside the final approach fix of ZZZZZ since we had the RNAV GPS for Runway XX loaded in the FMS as a backup. We were VFR and in sight of the rising terrain and Tower to the South/Southeast of the field. The Autopilot was on and the FO had flown downwind a little more than needed at 2;300 feet MSL and I was about to tell him to turn base; when I saw him start his turn. Just as we were starting our Base leg turn; Tower informed us of a low altitude alert and that we were below the minimum vector altitude and to check altitude. I replied that we were turning our base leg and had everything in sight. ATC didn't say anything else. We never received any EGPWS warnings of any kind. We then intercepted final and landed without incident.The FO flew an extended downwind; that caused us to enter an area that ATC determined we were too low for.Suggestions - Keep the visual pattern closer to the airport.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported that the First Officer conducted a wide approach; entering an area with rising terrain that caused ATC to issue a low altitude alert. The First Officer elected to continue the approach to landing.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On a beautiful VMC day was on the ZZZZZ arrival for the FMS Visual Approach X XXR.  LNAV/VNAV path. Approaching ZZZZZ was given the third of three large speed reductions.  Slowed prior to ZZZZZ1 to 230 then slowed to 210. Still able to remain on path.  Inside of ZZZZZ2 told to further slow to 180 cleared for the FMS.  The last speed change was too close to ZZZZZ to cross at 7;000 and 180.  The pilot flying had not flown in 85 days and was slow to recognize I was slow at requesting relief for altitude at ZZZZZ and slow advocating max allowable flaps.  The PF had flaps 5 set and max speed brakes applied trying to slow and go down. We crossed ZZZZZ at 180 but at approximately 7;400.


Second narrative: While on descent into ZZZ on ZZZZZ arrival we were ask several times to slow and descend at same time which left us high crossing ZZZZZ. We were in VNAV path and everything was working fine. About 5 miles before ZZZZZ we were asked to slow to 210 knots and that made us high crossing ZZZZZ.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported experiencing an altitude deviation while crossing an arrival fix.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Found in all cargo bays; all smoke detectors had been sprayed with an oily unknown substance and was seen while inspecting the cargo areas of the forward; aft and bulk. Nothing was said about them not working only that they had been sprayed with oily unknown substance and the concern was that this could cover the screens which could compromise the particles from entering the photoelectric sensing chamber.Knowing that with the blockage of particles being able to enter; a fire or excessive heat with oily/dust blocking the labyrinth can cause a delay or total failure of the smoke detectors.This was seen while doing a visual inspection of the cargo bays that all the smoke detectors had spray over them. [Component Maintenance Manual] states how to clean the detector when the external detector requires cleaning. I never said anything about the detector not working but the sign off was an operational test checking if they worked; and the [Component Maintenance Manual] of a GVI (General Visual Inspection) of the smoke detectors which is what was written up in the first place and was of concern. The manufacture states that cleaning or replacement of the smoke detector; nut neither was accomplished with the sign off only a test and a visual of all 29 smoke detectors having nothing on them. The ceilings and walls of all the cargos have an oily substance sprayed on them; with spray also on the nozzles for the discharge extinguishers and ceiling lights as well.                                                                                    So again; my concern is that if the cargo bays are being sprayed with an oily unknown substance and this is covering the screens of the smoke detectors with the use of a optic circuit to detect smoke particles which pass through a mesh screen which has now been covered with an oily spray and not cleaned per Component Maintenance Manual. They might be able to pass a test because they are testing the electrical end of the circuit-- but I'm concerned that the smoke detectors that are using two different wavelengths of light to note smoke particles will not be able to analyze properly with the detectors covered and not being cleaned per the manufacturer's instructions.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician found smoke detectors in cargo bays covered with oily substance.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student and I were turning base to final when my student was cleared for the touch and go and the Tower told us to make right traffic after touch and go. My student read back the landing clearance and did not read back right traffic. I came over the radio and read back the remainder of the call for right traffic to be made. I was talking to my student the whole way down to landing. I was talking a lot to them as they were putting in too much crosswind correction. They were a little behind the aircraft; so I was helping. Upon takeoff we cleaned everything up and took off and incidentally made a mistake and turned left traffic. We did not realize the mistake that had been made until after we were midfield left downwind. Tower did not say anything; nor were we that close to any airplanes (nothing that isn't close for a normal traffic pattern where training is being done). The student and I both should have realized that we needed to turn right traffic after we were clear of the departure end and we were at least 500 ft. off the ground. From now on as an instructor; I will be making taking more precaution to be more aware and to make the correct decisions. I instill in all of my students to ask if you are not sure; do not do something that could potentially put you in a bad situation. I let this moment slip. I will take it and learn from it.

Callback: Reporter had no additional information to note.



Synopsis: Cessna 152 Flight Instructor reported they made closed traffic in the wrong direction.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large UAS (At or above 1320 lbs)
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Airframe Composite Structure
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person UAS Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While practicing landings at ZZZ airfield.  A landing gear strut cover detached in flight (plastic covering weight approximately 1lb.).   We were in the pattern two separate times from XA22 local - XB00 local and XB50-XC22 local. The aircraft stayed with in 3.0 NM radius of the airfield and north of the centerline of ZZZ during its pattern operations. The aircraft is a [UAS].Neither the [visual observer] or crew witnessed the part departure. Discovery of the strut cover departed during flight was not noticed until shutdown and post landing inspection.




Synopsis: Fixed wing UAS was conducting a training flight when a small portion the UAS fell off the airframe.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: There was no PDC available in [originating airport]; so we sent Dispatch a message asking about it. Both pilots copied the clearance and confirmed to planned international destination. Route was 108 miles shorter than original; and fuel and time enroute still checked good. On the ground; I asked Dispatch if we needed a full route and answer was no (as per 100+ change). After departure; on climb out; we were handed off of NY Center to NY Radio. Also on the climbout; we got a message from Dispatch telling us not to go over the 'WATRS NY area.' NY Radio gave us an HF frequency to do a radio check. We realized that they were requiring us to have HF on board; so we called NY Center back to tell her we needed a new route. We were out of her coverage area; so she asked another aircraft to relay for us on 121.5 while she was working on a new route. We made communications with that aircraft who told us to use 123.45 so we wouldn't congest 121.5. Another aircraft also was on board to help us relay. I asked the relaying aircraft to see if he could get us direct ILM and back on original course when we were over ROLLE and his response was 'no; they want you to stay on course; they are working on something for you.' It took 340 miles to finally get a clearance. We were told to contact MIA Center on 123.67 20 miles from SUMRS. A pilot I had flown with 2 weeks prior was deadheading on my flight to bring return flight. I asked him to come into cockpit because it was difficult to listen to 121.5 and 123.45 and talk to him on interphone. He had flown this flight before and was used for advice and help and an extra set of eyes. Since this appears to be a reoccurring issue and the company is aware of ATC giving clearance out over ocean; it would be helpful to have something written in remarks section of the release. ATC in [originating airport] needs to be aware that we are not able to accept those routes. I should have confirmed reroute with chart and dispatch before leaving.




Synopsis: A319 crew took off without the required operating HF radio for the planned route. Crew obtained a modified clearance from ATC with routing that precluded the HF radio requirement.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; 9
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C JAX
ATC / advisory: Tower CRG
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was filed IFR. I was unfamiliar with flying into CRG. I had gotten the ATIS for CRG and was anticipating landing on runway 32. Also the actual weather; unlike the ATIS report was more like MVFR There was a lot of traffic in the area with many airports in the Jacksonville area. JAX approach was holding me a bit high and giving me vectors but stated they were 'working on lower'. Eventually I was asked if I had the airport in sight. I was almost on top of the airport; saw an airport with the 'V-shaped' dual runway configuration and a runway that matched the RW32 I was anticipating. Though I thought it was a little early I called the airport in sight for a right downwind to RW 32 and was told to switch to CRG tower. Tower eventually asked again if I had the airport in sight and I told them I was about to make a right turn to base. Tower then asked me my position and I stated that I was south of the airport to which they responded that I was actually north of the airport. I was then told that I was actually looking at JAX. I was given vectors to CRG but due to the haze and being at the base of a 2700' cloud layer I had a hard time picking out the airport. Additionally tower told me I was being vectored for a left downwind to RW14 which didn't make sense to me. Eventually when we called the airport in sight we were actually indeed on left downwind for RW32 and landed uneventfully.I was questioning why I was asked if I had CRG in sight when I was overhead JAX 13nm away because the current visibility would not have allowed it. Lessons learned for me: Though I thought my situational awareness was accurate I was trapped by a situation where two airports with similar looking runway arrangements; in a dense traffic area that I was unfamiliar with was a classic gotcha. Also combined with MVFR conditions with early morning sun angles made it challenging.




Synopsis: Pilot reported misidentifying landing airport due to MVFR weather and sun glare.