elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We may have had a pilot mishap that needs to be addressed for our ongoing flight operation safety. I noticed the safety of our flight crew; passengers; and ramp personnel were jeopardized. After going through the push back procedure and disconnecting the tow bar; the pilots began to start #1 and put both engines into auto. The marshal stood in front of the plane waiting for the clear from the Captain to be relieved from the aircraft. Once the engines were in auto condition; I noticed both pilots were looking down and the aircraft began to move. The marshaller then noticed the danger and began to move out of the way of the aircraft. After a moment; the flight crew became aware of their movement and violently hit the brakes. My concern here is that there was evidence of rushing which led to not following procedure. From my view; it seemed that the flight crew were unaware of the aircrafts movement or there may have been miscommunication between pilot and marshaller. Regardless; the plane shouldn't have been moving until all ground crew are clear of the aircraft. I wanted to bring this to our attention so that this can be critiqued and corrected from happening again.




Synopsis: After pushback; a Mechanic reported the flight crew failed to set the parking brake and ended up stopping the aircraft abruptly after it began rolling.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DJI Air 2S
Operator: Recreational / Hobbyist (UAS)
Operating under: Recreational Operations / Section 44809 (UAS)
Flight plan: None
Mission: Recreational / Hobbyist (UAS)
Flight phase: Cruise
Second aircraft: Hercules (C-130)/L100/382
Reporter organization: Recreational / Hobbyist (UAS)
Reporter function: Person Manipulating Controls (UAS)
Reporter qualification: Other TRUST Completion Certificate
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person UAS Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was flying at LAT: XX.XXX LONG: XX.XXX recreational when a C-130 approached from behind me. It looked from my angle to maybe be at 400 feet headed straight for my drone. The aircraft then banked to the left as it approached my drone. I quickly descended as fast as possible to avoid a collision. My drone was able to make a safe landing and the aircraft kept flying. I confirmed through my data that I was 100% under 400 feet at the time of the near miss. I was not in an area where I needed permission to fly according to Aloft and B4UFLY. I talked with representatives of ZZZ which has C-130 they said; 'None of our aircraft have been below 1;000 feet over [the city] today.' They also said; 'None of their pilots had reported a close call with a drone.' But that it could be another [Airport] flying in the area as others regularly fly in the area. I then informed them that from my angle it looked lower and that I would file a report just in case there are any questions in the future or someone came forward.

Callback: UAS pilot reported they spoke with staff from the nearby airport and found no further information about the route of the C-130. The area of the flight was not near any charted military training routes.



Synopsis: UAS recreational pilot was flying below 400 feet in an area with no airspace restrictions and saw an approaching C-130 flying towards the UAS at a low level. The UAS pilot immediately flew to a lower altitude and landed to avoid any further conflict.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CMH.TRACON, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E CMH
ATC / advisory: TRACON CMH
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Called on the telephone;  #1 for takeoff RWY 28 DLZ. Released; climb 3;000 Direct TRAKK. We took off. Called departure. Cleared to 10;000 ft.  Was told about traffic 12:00.  Given Altimeter setting. I said on radio 'We have traffic on TCAS...' (could not see the airplane but had him on the computer screen). I wish I had just said traffic not in sight. I told the PF (Pilot Flying); the CA (Captain); I did not see traffic. To me the TCAS showed traffic on our screen about in the 11:30 position. So I advised the CA to turn right. We continued to merge. My eyes were outside; no traffic. We were about his altitude; 1 mi. We got RA to climb and the CA pulled back hard; full power. I told center we had an RA. Never saw traffic.  I'm not happy about the event. Wished CA had stopped climb when we were still below. Wished center had left us below.




Synopsis: Flight crew reported TCAS RA during climbout and took evasive action.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Second aircraft: PA-46 Malibu/Malibu Mirage/Malibu Matrix
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was working Aircraft Y; a VFR PA46 Southbound at 12;500 FT. I had given Aircraft X; A320; the descend via clearance for LGA. The aircraft crossed over each other just South of DAVYS intersection. I had never issued a traffic call; I was coordinating off landlines with controllers in my area about a flight of 2 F16 I was working; and needed a point/handoff to adjacent sectors. The Aircraft X was at 13;400 FT and keyed up that they had they traffic in sight. The Aircraft Y then said they had the traffic in sight. The Aircraft X restriction on the descend via was to cross DAVYS at or above 13;000 FT; and the confliction point was South of DAVYS. I should have still called traffic and didn't. 'Conflict alert' goes off all the time at various sectors. It is almost a second job just to divert your attention to the 'conflict alert' and determine if it's real or not. In this case; however; I do not believe 'conflict alert' went off until they were already passed each other. See if there are any improvements on the criteria for 'conflict alert'; as well as to have real time information about actual aircraft (VFR) that will be entering our space. In this regard; ERAM should help a lot. 'Conflict alert' goes off for aircraft that appear to be climbing; but aren't actually going into our airspace; and the descend via protects for the airspace. Some controllers become complacent to the fact that 'conflict alert' goes off all the time; and it is a distraction-either to analyze continuously; or the pure distraction it is and then to ignore it; even it's real.




Synopsis: ZDC Controller described a VFR/IFR conflict acknowledging traffic information could have been more precise; adding that the 'conflict alert' activates all too often when separation has been established.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Air return to ZZZ due to strong odor and haze entering the cockpit and cabin through the air system. This occurred right after takeoff. After running the appropriate checklists; were vectored back around and landed and taxied without incident back to the gate. We were deiced prior to the flight. Caused by fumes entering the cockpit and cabin.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported a fumes event during initial climb resulting in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GFK.TRACON, ND
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: TFR GFK
ATC / advisory: TRACON GFK
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; 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: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On a VFR cross country training flight; the planned course took the flight through the TFR.  Upon departing local controller handed us off to Grand Forks Departure where ATC radar contacted us.  At that point we requested transition through the Grand Forks Air Force Base TFR; and GFK DEPT told us that; 'Transition through the TFR approved.'  We acknowledged our clearance through the TFR and proceeded on course.  I was telling my student that since we are in the TFR we have to be on with GFK DEPT until we are clear of the TFR as listed in the NOTAMs.  After some time had passed; ATC advised us that 'Radar services terminated; squawk VFR and frequency changed approved.'  At that point we acknowledged back; then tuned into FSS (Grand Forks Radio) to open our flight plan.  Once we changed over to open our flight plan; FSS (Grand Forks Radio) opened our flight plan but then advised us to 'Contact Grand Forks Approach immediately.'  We acknowledged and promptly contacted GFK APP on 121.50.  They then told us to contact them on 118.1; we did so as directed and they advised us to maintain that 'Frequency and will hand us over to Minneapolis Center in a bit.'




Synopsis: Pilot receives clearance to fly through the GFK AFB TFR. Controller then terminates the flight while in the TFR; pilot contacts FSS for IFR clearance and is told to contact GFK Approach immediately.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DGG.Airport, AK
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Weather; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: After making the missed approach at DGG airport we followed the missed approach instructions - 'Climbing LEFT turn to 3;800 FT direct AWAMY and hold.' The problem is that at 3;800 FT we were unable to contact Anchorage Center and receive clearance to our alternate airport. We were unable to contact Kotzebue Radio either. Eventually (about 1 1/2 turns in the hold) another pilot on the frequency established a relay for us to get clearance to climb higher from Anchorge Center.The FAA should change the missed approach holding altitude to 8;000 FT or higher at AWAMY. In the mean time; establish a policy that requires us to request an alternate missed approach holding altitude clearance before losing contact with Center when cleared for the approach.




Synopsis: A B737 flight crew was unable to contact Anchorage Center following a missed approach at DGG.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: About 15 minutes after landing it was brought to my attention that I was at the scheduled alternate airport instead of the scheduled intended airport. The cause of the mistake was initiated when I had entered the alternate airport as destination airport into the FMS and iPad. This mistake was never identified by either myself or the pilot monitoring. Halfway into the flight ATC asked us the name of the airport where we were landing and we replied what was in our FMS; the alternate airport. ATC did not question this; which only reinforced our error. Approach control cleared us for an approach to the wrong airport and the tower cleared us to land. Upon shutting down at the gate; I called [company] and informed [them] of our arrival. At that time the passenger deplaned without saying a word about the airport. The FBO at first didn't say anything to me about being at the wrong airport. Everything seemed normal until I contacted dispatch about our next release. At that time it was discovered that I was at the wrong airport. I contacted [company] and informed them of the situation. They did not indicate any problem. I did not have any contact with the passenger after he left the aircraft. I did not walk him into the FBO. I stayed in the aircraft as the PIC escorted the passenger. By the time I entered the FBO the passenger had left. We received a release to [a new destination] and flew there without further incidentAll the necessary procedures for entering data into the FMS have already been put into operation. I cannot think of anything to improve the procedures. I cannot explain how or why I entered the wrong destination or why it was not corrected. All the waypoints were double checked per procedures; but the destination was not noticed to be wrong. With some fatigue it is possible; as in this case; that the crew could enter the wrong airport in the FMS as the destination.


Second narrative: All I can add to the above is that I should have put the destination in my iPad from my brief not the box my partner programmed; then I would have caught our mistake. I also wish when ATC questioned our destination I would have looked at my phone not iPad.


Synopsis: Light transport flight crew reported landing at the wrong airport following an FMS programming error.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: During preflight loading of the takeoff data; FMS would not calculate V speeds or EPR.  RFO noticed that the TAT indication was well above normal.  Eventually the TAT started coming back down and soon the FMS calculated V speeds and EPR.  While the Captain student and myself were continuing with our preflight duties; the RFO deduced that the aircraft had sensed that it was airborne due to nose strut extension.  I do recall during preflight feeling the nose rise up; but it was not dramatic.The aircraft had been tethered with a [larger aircraft] tether as opposed to an MD-11 tether.  The additional length allowed the nose wheel to lift off of the ground sufficiently for the ground shift to sense airborne.All 3 crew members checked that the aircraft was securely tethered prior to entering the aircraft. However we were not aware that there are different length tethers and that interchanging them could cause a problem.




Synopsis: MD-11 Captain reported that during cockpit setup crew noticed the TAT indication was well above normal and the FMS would not calculate V speeds or EPR. Crew then realized ground personnel were using a tether from a larger aircraft that allowed the nose to rise enough that the flight/ground switch was activated.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was beginning a dual instruction flight from [the airport] with a requested departure to the East. We had climbed through 800 FT and were in our turn to the east. Traffic inbound had been previously reported to us by ATC before takeoff and an update to its position given to us while we were turning on course. We had been likewise reported to the other aircraft; Aircraft Y; located to the northeast of the airport; upon our departure and upon our turn. Aircraft Y reported us in site and stated he would avoid us. ATC instructed us to 'climb; climb' and we did. We were watching for the traffic while departing but did not see them until after they had passed below us. We did initiate the turn on course as approved because I believed the traffic to be further away from us. The traffic was in a challenging position as we were in a climbing right turn from [the runway] to the east and they were approaching from the northeast. My flight was a training mission with a student pilot in the left seat.  All information was coordinated by and given to both parties. My concern is that the clearance to depart and turn created a conflict and that both aircraft were allowed to get so close. There had been several other conflicts in the airspace earlier in the day. I had just had discussion with another instructor about aircraft being mistakenly identified to each other in the traffic pattern.




Synopsis: A PA28 instructor pilot reported that during climb they had a near miss with another PA28 that was on descent.
Date: 201808
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: When C-30 is pushed out and proceeds to taxi away from the gate; excessive jet blast consumes C-31. The amount of throttle the pilots give the engines is unnecessary. It has become unsafe to be working C-31 on the ramp while C-30 taxis out. It is only a matter of time until someone gets injured or aircraft/equipment damage occurs. I have come up with some options to solve this issue.1: Only service [medium transport] aircraft on C-30. No [large aircraft].2: Halt operations at C-31 until C-30 had completely left the gate area (apron).3: Extend blast fence all the way down to taxi-way zippered line (between C-30 and C-31).




Synopsis: A ramper reported that jet blast from an adjacent gate creates an unsafe work environment for ground personnel.