elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Compass (HSI/ETC)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During vectors to ILS Approach aircraft HSI/Compass failed. First Officer was flying pilot at time of event and the auto pilot was engaged. The weather was in and out of towering cumulus clouds; cloud bases at approximately 2;500 FT and visibility was 10 plus mile. We were in a descending left turn to heading 320 degrees and altitude 5;000 FT MSL. As aircraft started to level and fly heading 320 degree both First Officer's and Captain's HSI began spinning causing aircraft to enter approximately 25 degree right bank turn. 'EFIS COMP MON' amber CAS illuminated with associated master caution during event. The autopilot continued to follow the HSI till I (Captain) disengaged and leveled wings using attitude indicator along with outside visual references. I (Captain) took over pilot flying duties for remainder of flight. After turning autopilot off; our heading varied from assigned by approximately 30 degrees and altitude was 200 FT low. While avionics failure was occurring Approach tried calling several times to assign lower altitude and intercept heading vector; but we were unable to initially respond. When we cleared clouds on the north side of final approach course we had a clear view of runway. We advised Approach that we had avionics failure and needed a visual to airport. Approach cleared us for the visual approach approximately 15 miles from runway. Soon after; leveling wings; on final approach course HSI headings returned to normal and all cautions disappeared.




Synopsis: CRJ700 Captain experiences dual HSI failure during approach with the autopilot attempting to follow the spinning HSI's. The Captain assumes control and levels the wings and once in VMC a visual approach is requested. Once established the HSI headings return to normal.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ; TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This report describes an incident resulting from cancelling an IFR clearance too soon (when I saw the runway but was not yet on the ground and had to go missed and did not have a clearance).  Bad planning on my part. I had filed and had read the notams and saw that RWY XXL was closed except for day VFR.  I did not also notice that RWY XXR was completely closed.  When asked by Approach for the type of approach desired; I requested an Initial Fix on the RNAV XXL approach; told them I knew the runway was only open if the field was VFR and if it was not VFR at the time I arrived I would be landing on XXR.  They cleared me for the approach.  The local ASOS was reporting VFR.  When I reached the circling minimums; I saw the runways and cancelled my IFR clearance.  That was my mistake (really the second mistake - first was missing the NOTAM on the XXR RWY).  As I approached XXR; I saw the X at the end and knew I could not land.  I announced on CTAF I was circling to land on XXL and as I began the circle; I realized that the field was not VFR; so I could not land on XXL either.  At that point; I changed back to Approach and announced I was missed approach and asked for vectors for the ILS [alternate airport]. Approach complied and gave me a new clearance with vectors to final and I flew the approach and it all worked out. There were no comments about the cancellation and the new clearance or whether I was IMC or VMC when I asked for the new clearance.  I was VMC when I asked for it; but I could not remain VFR.  By the time I got it; I had been in IMC and was back in VMC.The cause of my problem was at least threefold:(1) I planned a trip to an airport with a runway only open in VFR.(2) I did not read the NOTAMs close enough to find the second closed runway. (3) I cancelled my clearance before I was on the ground to avoid having to make a phone call.  To prevent a recurrence; read NOTAMS carefully and don't cancel IFR until on the ground!




Synopsis: BE35 pilot cancelled IFR clearance prior to landing and subsequently had to get clearance for an approach to an alternate field. Pilot failed to see NOTAMS regarding runway restrictions at the destination airport.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Second aircraft: Challenger Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While positioned on the ramp at FBO in ZZZ the aircraft I was operating came in contact with a parked aircraft.At brake release and at idle power I asked the pilot in the right seat if we had clearance from the winglet of the aircraft on our left which was on a tug. The pilot not flying told me that we had clearance and I released the brakes and rolled forward. The pilot not flying then told me to stop and I immediately applied brake pressure. My aircraft didn't move with the exception of the forward lurch from the brakes. I set the parking brake and then shut down both engines.I exited the aircraft and walked around to the right wing and observed the winglets of both aircraft in apparent contact with each other. Sometime later after the tugged aircraft was pushed back we observed no damage to my aircraft and that was further supported by four independent maintenance technicians and inspectors. There was however damage present to the Challenger that was still on the tug.


Second narrative: The crew; including dispatch; notified the FBO of our departure time; and request to be online; in the several days leading up to our departure.Upon arrival; we requested the aircraft be fueled. Upon passenger arrival; the marshaller and wing walker escorted the passengers to our plane; they then subsequently left without informing the crew. We then proceeded to start engines normally; and contacted ground for our taxi clearance.Upon block out; the PIC asked if our right wingtip was clear of obstacles. As I looked up I determined there was not enough room for wing tip clearance; and called for an immediate left turn. The PIC then applied brakes; but it was too late and we made contact with a Challenger; wingtip to wingtip. Maintenance personnel inspected our plane and determined there was no damage; and a logbook entry was made.


Synopsis: Gulfstream V flight crew reported impacting another aircraft's wingtip at the start of taxi.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BMG.Airport, IN
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D HUF
ATC / advisory: TRACON HUF; Tower BMG
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Staffing; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was conducting OJT on all radar positions combined during a TRACAB operation due to staffing and equipment outages. BMG shout line was Out of Service so all coordination had to be done through a dial line. We took the handoff on Aircraft X from IND Approach landing BMG. We cleared the aircraft for the RNAV RWY 17 and switched them to the tower after the inbound had been coordinated. When Aircraft X was just inside the IAF; BMG tower called and said something like 'Aircraft X lost approach guidance can he make a right 360 to rejoin?' Since the aircraft was IFR and the weather was solid IMC we advised BMG 'negative; put him back on us.' When Aircraft X checked back on he was north bound at 3000; the developmental assigned heading 360 and 3000; then attempted to coordinate with IND Approach since the aircraft was quickly approaching the boundary. After the developmental's second attempt and IND not answering I yelled over the line that Aircraft X has experiencing difficulty and was re-entering the airspace so we could get back to the aircraft and determine exactly what was going on. The aircraft advised their auto pilot entered the hold over the IAF instead of commencing the approach; which is very different than the info BMG tower passed to us. The aircraft went into IND airspace approximately five miles without coordination before being turned back towards BMG. The aircraft was re-cleared for the approach and landed without incident.There is a history of HUF and IND management having a poor working relationship and some sort of power struggle to see who has the bigger stick. This has degraded to the point that; in my opinion it is now negatively affecting the workforce and is manifesting itself in ways such as IND refusing to answer the land line and waiting until the last possible half mile to take hand offs. As controllers we are expected to be professional at all times. Management needs to lead by example and settle whatever grudge they have so we can work safely and efficiently.




Synopsis: HUF Controller reported an airspace violation due to communication problems with another facility and the aircraft pilot.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Second aircraft: Small Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flight to PHX. Upon receiving our clearance in Airport ZZZ; we noticed that recently dispatch has been filing us at 10;000 feet between Airport ZZZ and PHX. The Captain and I believe this is an issue for the following reasons. 10;000 feet on the PINNG1 arrival brings you right through the VFR practice area and the VFR sky diving areas for E60 and P08 airports. In this specific instance; there were two [small transport aircraft] both at 12;500 feet dropping skydivers around the BRDEY intersection. I noticed the Aircraft on the TCAS and prepared for evasive action. Aircraft was instructed multiple times that we were coming from below; he decided to drop sky divers anyway and began to descend resulting in our Resolution Advisory (RA). I followed the RA and the Captain and I noticed 2 brightly colored skydivers within 1500 feet of our wingtip - to the point we could see the arms and legs of the divers. ZAB came over the radio and was sternly advising them not to drop but they did anyway and then descended VFR in our direction. This was just one of the RA's among the many TA's we got on this flight. The area in the vicinity of IWA; P08; and CGZ is an extremely dense training ground (designated by the Arizona Flight Training Work group) for multiple flight schools. Flying through this area at such a low altitude is extremely unsafe and should be avoided. Especially around two of the busiest skydiving airports in the United States. From now on; a discussion will be taken between the Captain (CA); dispatch; and myself about amending the altitude on these flights to a safer altitude - 14;000 - 16;000 feet above the GA conflicts. Both the CA and I agree flying 10;000 feet on this flight is an unnecessary risk which should be mitigated. 5 TA and 1 RA is too many for such a short flight. The altitude filed on these flights should be reconsidered.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported multiple TA's and RA's on the flight to PHX at 10;000 feet and suggests filing for a higher altitude on this route.
Date: 202011
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action

Narrative: Flight ABC was taxing into Gate X when a baggage tug who was driving on the service road making a right turn from behind Gate Y failed to yield to the aircraft almost causing the aircraft to collide with the tug and baggage carts which would have been fatal for the driver as well as significant damage to the aircraft. Myself and wingwalkers tried to stop the aircraft which eventually slowed down to avoid colliding with the tug and carts. This is a common issue at this station which goes unreported and when it does; no disciplinary action is taken so it keeps on happen.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported a near collision between an air carrier aircraft and a baggage tug vehicle after the tug failed to yield to the aircraft.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I advised Tower of my position 7 miles to the Northeast of the airport which coincidentally aligns me with the final approach. On my flight path to ZZZ; tower advised me to join over the [VFR waypoint] which was approximately in my 10 o'clock position. At the time I noticed another aircraft on my ADS-B screen at a co-altitude in that area. That aircraft was cleared for the left base. I advised tower that I am in a 6 mile final and that turning would put me head-on with that traffic on the wide left base. Tower controller with an unprofessional manner said that he did not want me on final. I complied with his instructions; and after rolling out on a heading to the [VFR waypoint] I was then forced to execute a hard turn back to the right to avoid a head-on collision with the traffic that I previously pointed out to the controller. The concern that I have here is that this same controller on more than one occasion has given me vectors that conflict with other traffic and at times seems to have a loss of situational awareness.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported an airborne conflict as a result of ATC not providing adequate separation between aircraft.
Date: 201906
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Some Safety Concerns:We continue to prevent smart bags with lithium batteries from being loaded but unfortunately there is no way to monitor how many bags are getting by. When an RSE identifies a smart bag there is no process that informs the RSE if the bag was inspected; who inspected the bag and if powered by lithium was the lithium battery was removed. Smart bags are becoming harder and harder to detect or determine if the bag is powered by lithium batteries. This is creating an unmanageable threat.




Synopsis: Ground Agent reported current level of lithium ion battery powered smart bags continue to be accepted as checked bags with batteries installed in violation of Hazmat company procedures and DOT regulations.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At the intersection of Taxiway 1 and Runway XX at ZZZ; during engine run-up following annual inspection; while engrossed in monitoring the engine and mag drops; the aircraft slid beyond the hold short line without my detecting it.




Synopsis: PA-28 Pilot reported being distracted and taxiing the aircraft over the runway hold short lines.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After pushback and engine start the ground crew requested 'brakes set' and I responded 'brakes set; cleared to disconnect headsets.' Shortly after the tug was disconnected we noticed it appeared to be moving forward towards the aircraft. As the tug continued forward the ground crew was hand signaling for 'brakes set' and I hand signaled back 'brakes set' and confirmed the [parking] brake was set. The tug continued and the radome was hit by the tug window which cracked. We contacted Dispatch and Maintenance Control and were towed back to the gate. Maintenance arrived and inspected the aircraft. He noted a 2 inch diameter delamination of radome. When I went down to look at the aircraft; the ground crew advised the plane had rolled into the tug.After further reflection; I realized I had forgotten to turn on the HYD System 3 electric pump. Moreover; then realized it was a first flight of the day; so we started engine one first; not engine two. Thus; although the parking brake appeared set; there was no pump supplying pressure and the accumulator may not have held; allowing the aircraft to have possibly rolled forward.Possible suggestion is to start engine two on all starts so hydraulic pressure is always available. Also changing procedure for hydraulic pump three selection. Do other operators have a different procedure for HYD three pump.

Callback: The reporter confirmed that he had; in fact; failed to turn on the electric pump for the #3 Hydraulic System. He further advised it is SOP to do so for all starts; not only during the first flight of the day. The purpose of starting the left engine first on the initial flight is to test the functionality of an unspecified fuel valve.



Synopsis: After pushback and engine start on the aircraft's first flight of the day the CRJ-700 rolled forward and struck the disconnected tug despite the parking brake appearing to be set. The flight crew failed to power the #3 Hydraulic System electric pumps which provide the only source of brake pressure when the #2 engine is not running.