elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was descending down to pattern altitude of 1;600 feet to enter the pattern at ZZZ. I saw an aircraft on Foreflight via my ADS-B receiver that was northeast of ZZZ at 1;600 feet. I initially thought that the aircraft was probably inbound to ZZZ. I made my announcements on CTAF; but never heard the other aircraft make any announcements. Once I was at 1;600 feet; my IPAD showed that the other aircraft was at the same altitude (pattern altitude) and basically on a collision course with me. I went full throttle and started an aggressive climb. By the time the aircraft passed directly underneath of me I was only 500 above it. We were only 2 miles from ZZZ airport; well within the class E surface area. (Other aircraft tail number was Aircraft Y.)




Synopsis: Pilot reported taking evasive action to avoid a collision with an aircraft operating without communications within the Class E Airspace.
Date: 201911
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Aircraft: RV-8
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Special Use DC SFRA
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approaching DC SFRA I experienced intermittent electrical failure. During this time; GPS Navigation devices were inop. I restored power; however; comms were unreliable. Attempted to contact Potomac Approach on 132.77; but was unsuccessful.   During this time I inadvertently entered the DC SFRA for a few seconds. After exiting; Potomac Approach contacted me and informed me that I had entered the SFRA. In cockpit; distractions were the cause of the unintentional flight into the airspace.




Synopsis: RV-8 pilot reported an electrical power interruption resulting in GPS failure and an airspace violation.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was operating a skydive jump aircraft and had entered the pattern for landing on Runway 30. We enter the pattern at a high rate of descent and enter on a high right 45 degree entry for right traffic for Runway 30. I had announced my position on a high right 45 degree entry and then on entering downwind at 2000 feet AGL and descending. There was no one else announcing themselves on CTAF and I did not see any other traffic in the pattern. As I was descending through 1500 feet AGL on downwind a Piper Cherokee suddenly passed just in front and to the right of me in level flight. I did not have time to maneuver and passed behind and below the Cherokee as I continued on downwind in the pattern. I attempted to make contact with the Cherokee on CTAF but did not get any response. I landed without incident. I believe the cause of this incident was the Cherokee flying through the traffic pattern of the airport without reporting its position or responding to my reports. I believe the traffic may not have been monitoring the CTAF despite being within 2 NM of the airport and at pattern altitude. Also contributing was the hazy conditions and the sun's position low in the sky; making it difficult to see any traffic.




Synopsis: King air pilot descending in the traffic pattern experiences a NMAC with a PA28 at 1500 feet overflying the airport. The King air pilot was descending at a high rate and making position reports while the PA28 pilot was apparently not on the the CTAF. Visual contact occurred too late to evade.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: PUI (Pilot Under Instruction) had gone for a cross country flight to ZZZ. As PUI was approaching through arrival; PUI was routed northbound and then cleared to land on Runway XXC. As PUI is approaching on final he felt the need to wind correct; as he touched down it seemed that the wind and left turning tendencys got him yawing to the left; causing a loss of directional control; having to go around. Unfortunately at the point of go around PUI hit the runway edge light; leaving damage to the right gear strut.PUI should have requested a different runway if he felt unconfortable; as well as should have gone around earlier. PUI as well felt a little windshear so he decided to go around even if it was a little late.




Synopsis: C-172 Single Pilot reported a go-around on landing due momentary loss of directional control . The right main landing gear struck a runway edge light in the process of the go-around.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Company Policy; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was approaching the ZZZ1 boundary. I intended to point him out to ZZZ1; but was distracted by an aircraft with multiple requests in the area. I did not have a D-Side. Additionally; I was distracted by a discussion with my Supervisor about whether we would retain our health care coverage while not being paid. This was of great concern to me because I have multiple health conditions that would quickly deplete my savings if I were to lose my insurance. I realized Aircraft X was within 10 miles of ZZZ1 and attempted to call ZZZ1 with the point out but it took several attempts before they answered. Aircraft X was within 3 miles by the time they answered and took the point out. Have better staffing so that there is a D-side when [sectors] are combined. Start paying ATC their salaries.




Synopsis: A Center Controller working a combined sector reported that they were distracted by a conversation with the Supervisor over pay issues and made a late point out to the adjacent facility.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aircraft Logbook(s)
Component problem: Improperly Operated
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: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Early morning departure. Show up to plane. No logbook. Continue to load box; set up for flight etc... aprox 20 min before departure Maintenance Technician shows up and hands us the logbook. Only problem- it was the wrong logbook. I caught this error and called the Mechanic back. I explained to him this could have been a huge mistake if it this error was not trapped. He told us they were over worked; too many planes on the ground; too many jobs to do with not enough staff; and he was told to deliver it to Gate XX where we were located. The plane he was actually looking for was on Gate XY. He didn't seem to get the message that no matter how rushed he felt; he needed to slow down and do proper work and not take short cuts. He leaves.New Mechanic comes to the plane with our actual Aircraft Logbook; and he repeats the same complaints that the first Mechanic had. They have more planes on the ground each night with more work orders than mechanics to do them. He also said they were pressured by supervisors to get work done even though they feel rushed and make mistakes because of it.As a Pilot who flies into ZZZ quite often; this is now becoming our problem too. I'm not a fan of mechanics taking short cuts because they are being pressured to complete or sign off unsatisfactory work. This should be a red flag to the safety department to start some digging into the maintenance technicians operation in ZZZ.Fun fact: the only other time I've had the wrong logbook delivered to the plane was also in ZZZ. [Cause is] Rushing of maintenance technician personnel. Look into ZZZ maintenance technicians.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a mechanic brought the wrong logbook to the aircraft and another mechanic subsequently brought the correct logbook.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Filed and cleared for the SERFR1 RNAV STAR. We were given numerous step-downs while being cleared to follow arrival. As we approached MENLO ATC told us to expect the Quite Bridge 28R approach. ATC requested that we call the airport or San Mateo Bridge in sight. After descending below 5;000 feet for 4;000 feet; I called the airport in sight and we were cleared for the RW28R Quite Bridge approach. On the SERFR1 Arrival the crossing restriction for MENLO is 230/4;000 feet. On the Quite Bridge approach MENLO's crossing restriction is 5;000 feet. I called NORCAL approach on the phone after we landed. The controller I talked to said we did nothing wrong. And he emphasized that there was an issue with the different altitude restrictions at MENLO and they were trying to correct the discrepancy which was causing confusion. He said we had nothing to worry about. He was very helpful and informative.This should be brought to the attention of all that fly into SFO to be careful of this difference in altitudes at MENLO transitioning from STAR to Quite Bridge Approach.


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


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew on the SERFR1 Arrival into SFO; descended below 5;000 feet enroute to the MENLO fix prior to being cleared for the Quiet Bridge visual approach. Crew noted that are different crossing restrictions for the MENLO fix on the SERFR1 Arrival and the Quiet Bridge Visual Approach.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TPA.Airport, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing; Initial Approach; Final Approach
Airspace: Class B TPA
ATC / advisory: Ground TPA; TRACON TPA; Tower TPA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We flew a long pattern to Runway 1L arriving from the north and sequenced behind all other traffic. We were cleared for a visual approach well south of MacDill; already slowed to 210 kts. We intercepted the glide slope and flew an extremely smooth and uneventful approach. I remember thinking that it was awfully quiet; but not unusual since we were the last on approach. Mostly; I was glad to be done with a turbulent day and appreciative of the nice weather in Tampa. Only after clearing the runway did we recognize the error; as Ground Control had not been preset on Radio 1. We were cleared to taxi to our gate after a slight hesitation from Ground. Not as an excuse; but as a factor; Approach did not send us to Tower prior to landing.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported landing without a clearance.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ISP.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ISP
ATC / advisory: Tower ISP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Visual approach to unfamiliar airport. Airport environment was in sight but not landing runway. Chain of events started with my concern about the landing runway performance in the [aircraft]. I focused too much on the actual runway then misread/didn't see important information on ILS approach chart to [Runway] 24. Briefed highest obstacle south of CCC [VOR]; but missed Tower next to centerline. Thought RIZER was at 1400 feet; it's 1271 feet. While on left base outside of RIZER; realized that we were 2 dots high. Descended to catch glideslope while still on left base. Tower called a low altitude warning. I looked at my chart to check altitude and received a GPWS obstacle warning. Instead of an immediate go-around; I looked out to see where Tower [was] relative to our position and extended centerline. Then GPWS 'obstacle; pull up' prompted immediate go around while at 1000 feet. Tower told us to go runway heading and 2000 feet while I was climbing through 2000 feet; cleaning up the aircraft and turning to runway heading. I pulled thrust to idle to prevent flap overspeed but still hit 2700 feet before descending back down to 2000 feet. First Officer notified Tower of altitude deviation. We were then vectored for another visual approach. Second approach and landing was in moderate turbulence; but completed.All would have been avoided had I studied the approach chart more in depth; then briefed and executed an ILS instead of a visual. I haven't been to Islip in a long time and never in visual conditions. I was focused more on the [aircraft's] landing performance in gusty crosswinds. It was poor judgment after a long day. I know to immediately execute a go-around from a GPWS alert; but had a delayed reaction to it.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported receiving a GPWS obstacle warning on approach to ISP airport.
Date: 202005
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: Parked
Aircraft component: Aircraft Logbook(s)
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: MEL; Logbook Entry; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We operated two flights with an incorrect MEL applied. Flights A and B were operated under the incorrect MEL. MEL XX-X-XX was applied to Aircraft. The correct MEL should have been XX-X-XY.  Due to flight deck wipe down I did not review logbook and MEL closely enough nor did I make sure I communicated completely with FO for confirmation.I need to remember to utilize CRM when it comes to MEL compliance.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported operating flights with an incorrect MEL applied. The flight deck sanitizing process was cited as a reason for not closely reviewing the logbook and MEL.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Aircraft: Eagle (F-15)
Operator: Military
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Second aircraft: Gulfstream G100/G150 (IAI 1125 Astra)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
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; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Eagle (F-15) had exited Warning Area 105 on IFR flight plan. Aircraft was not able to be handed off to us due to automation issue. We attempted numerous times to get control of aircraft data block; but the computer was not letting us take control of the information. Eagle (F-15) was pointed out to Sector 47 descending to 110 direct BAF airport. Approximately 5 minutes after we started working on getting control of the data block for automation purposes; the RADAR Controller was able to drop the data block track on Eagle (F-15). When he dropped the data block from our scope; it automatically removed the data block from Sector 47. The RADAR Controller immediately started another track and was in the process of making a manual hand off to BDL Approach Control when Sector 47 put traffic on his scope; G150. Aircraft were approximately 12 to 15 miles apart on converging courses. Sector 47 had already sent G150 over to BDL Approach Control; so we had no way of turning the aircraft away from Eagle (F-15). BDL Approach Control called us and issued descent clearance to Eagle (F-15) to 8;000 feet. Closest proximity with both aircraft at 110 is approximately 9 miles. The automation issue of not being able to get control of the data block to ensure proper automated hand off is the bigger issue between the two aircraft. If we did not have to make all of the attempts at getting control of the data block; when the original data block finally did get removed; it would not have dropped off Sector 47 radar display. The data block dropping off Sector 47 scope makes the issue worse; and then ultimately the Radar Controller at sector 47 forgetting about the Eagle (F-15) flight at 110 did not help. Ultimately; in my opinion; all of this would have been avoided with proper automation and hand offs for Eagle (F-15).




Synopsis: ZBW Controller described a probable airspace separation event when the automated hand off efforts failed.