elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: PC-12
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While remaining on my IFR flight plan; we were cleared the visual approach by Center into ZZZ approaching the airport from the west. The wind was favoring Runway XY so we entered the left downwind traffic pattern at 4;000 MSL. While entering the pattern and making traffic calls I noticed a target (Pilatus PC-12) appear on TCAS 15 NM away to the south of the field level at 3;500 MSL not making radio calls. We continued making position reports over the CTAF. On the midfield downwind the traffic approached 5 NM south of us and 10 NM south of the field; we finally received a radio call from the Pilatus saying they had us in sight. He did not state his intentions of how he would sequence himself in the pattern. We continued downwind when my First Officer reported traffic in sight turning right to enter the downwind beneath us and I received a TCAS 'monitor vertical speed.' I immediately got on the radio and broadcast to the other pilot that he was cutting us off. My TCAS reported the traffic at 3;700 MSL and climbing (300 feet) beneath us. My First Officer reported him off our right side by about 300 feet laterally while maintaining visual contact with him at all times. It was not until I was yelling at him on the radio did the Pilatus pilot call back saying they would make a right 360 degree turn in the downwind to enter behind us. After flying the remainder of the pattern; we landed safely rolling the airplane to the end of the runway. As I began my left turnoff to exit; I glanced behind me and the Pilatus was touching down on the aiming point. I estimate he was approximately 5;500 feet laterally behind us while I was still in the center of the runway before clearing.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported a NMAC with a PC-12 in the pattern at a non-towered airport.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Pre-flight; Routine Inspection
Result: General Work Refused; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was so focused on no altitude restriction per tail number and dry ice restrictions due conversation with other Dispatcher about dry ice on his flight that ended in an ASAP event he experienced that I did not tell the ramp agent no lives allowed except on main deck.  Lives were listed. Crickets coded AVI [live animal] in the ABK [aft bulkhead compartment].  Ramp insisted they are [US] Postal Perishables not lives.  Told ramp to remove crickets. [I was] so focused on not making a mistake in one area of MEL that mistake was made in other area of same MEL. I will print and highlight areas of all MEL's that must be communicated prior to making phone calls to ramp agents.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Dispatcher reported a communication breakdown between Dispatch and Ramp personnel regarding Hazmat loading configuration resulting in removal of Hazmat cargo.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DAL.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation II S2/Bravo (C550)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Aircraft component: TCAS Equipment
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Was given clearance to proceed directly to FACIA and intercept the localizer for Runway 31R. About a mile from FACIA I began to get a TCAS TA. While looking for traffic I missed the intercept and flew through the localizer perhaps 1/10 of a mile or less. ATC issued a turn back to the localizer. I continued to get the TA during final and while taxiing into the FBO.ATC did not say there was any conflict or problem from the deviation.Maintenance has been alerted.Corrective action: I had the number two VOR set up for the ILS. I should have had the number one set up as well or had the approach set up on the FMS so when the TA occurred and I was distracted looking for what could have been a false echo; the aircraft would have made the turn inbound on the localizer. The approach should have been flown as if in IMC conditions; even though we were VMC.




Synopsis: Distracted by an apparently false TCAS TA the single pilot of a C-550 flew through the localizer he had been cleared to intercept.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MMGL.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower MMGL
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
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 Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were airborne from MMGL runway 28. Tower switched us to approach control and started speaking Spanish to a domestic Mexican aircraft. With the Spanish; we had no idea where the aircraft was. As we climbed through 7;000 feet MSL we got a TCAS advisory which then turned into a TCAS RA with a 'descend; descend' command. We followed TCAS RA procedures and as I tried to visually acquire what I thought would be a GA airplane; [an airline aircraft] flushed out at our 5' clock position approximately 100 feet above and 300 feet laterally. Guadalajara Departure said nothing to us neither did Tower. The other aircraft had executed a go around and was over taking us and being above us the whole way probably did not have us in sight.




Synopsis: A U.S. air carrier departed MMGL Runway 28 and while climbing through 7;000 feet responded to a TCAS RA from a domestic Mexican airline aircraft speaking Spanish with ATC after initiating a go-around. The event resulted in a NMAC with no prior warning from ATC.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The day began with a maintenance delay. In ZZZ XXX Radio issued us a Hold For Release Clearance about 15 minutes prior to departure. I read the clearance back and wrote down 'HFR' at the bottom of my clearance.Once bag loading was complete we started engines taxied; and took off.  After takeoff XXX Radio called us and asked if we had departed.  We then realized we had not gotten ATC release.  Nothing further.Keep the pacing normal; no need to rush.Develop a technique to remind you that you do not have takeoff clearance.On the next leg we also had a Hold For Release clearance and I put the checklist between the throttles to remind me and verbally repeated 'Hold For Release' on every radio call on CTAF frequency.


Second narrative: We were running late due to an FMC issue in ZZZ and trying to make up time.  XXX radio said they would issue us a hold for release time when we had a better idea when we would be taking off.  We finished up with loading; engine start and check lists.  We took off and before we reported in with ZZZZ radar XXX called and asked when we would be taking off.  We explained that we had forgotten to get the hold for release time and were enroute.  They activated our flight plan and we proceeded without event.  They gave us a phone number for ZZZZ and we called reaching ZZZ1.I had not flown in 6 months due to the pandemic.  In the future I will go slower and put out a visual reminder when ever issued a hold for release; such as a QRC between the throttles.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reported taking off without an ATC clearance. Captain reported having not flown in 6 months.
Date: 201902
Location: KZAK.ARTCC, HI
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center KZAK
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
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
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Due to NOTAM A0XXX/XX for military airspace; Dispatch filed us off R465 between CORTT and CUNDU. However; the PDC looked identical to standard R465 routing; because not all intermediate fixes are listed on the PDC. Pilots mistakenly interpreted this to be a removal of the non-standard latitude longitude; and contacted both Dispatch and Honolulu Center to verify the removal of [latitude/longitude] from route; and therefore standard routing on R465; CORTT to CUNDU. Both Dispatch and Honolulu Center indicated military space was not hot; and routing was back to normal on R465.Immediately after CORTT; via CPDLC; Oakland Center questioned our routing and then instructed us to offset right of course 25 miles between CORTT and CUNDU to avoid military airspace; and we complied. After parking [at destination]; pilots phoned Oakland Center and discussed the incident. Oakland said they had reviewed it with Honolulu Center; and they could understand how Honolulu misunderstood our verbal requests for route clarification. Thanks to Oakland's quick action at CORTT; we never entered military airspace.Considering the hundreds of lines of information delivered to the cockpit printer every flight; the routing instructions on the PDC should never be abbreviated. We thought we had clarified the routing ambiguity with Dispatch and ATC; but we were wrong. In hindsight; we should have requested a full route read back from ATC at anytime from the receipt of the PDC until approaching CORTT; and recovered from this miscommunication without incident.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported erroneous clearance provided to flight crew by Dispatch and ATC was corrected by Oceanic ATC sector.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DJI Matrice 600 Pro
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 107
Mission: Surveying / Mapping (UAS)
Flight phase: Other All
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Person Manipulating Controls (UAS); Remote PIC (UAS)
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Remote Pilot (UAS)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person UAS Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This was purely human error. I flew previously at this location several times; and obtained the proper LAANC (Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability) authorization via AIRMAP. On this date I was too wrapped up in the ground control logistics; and neglected to file the flight with AIRMAP. Going forward; I will be using a checklist which does include filing the flight and obtaining proper authorization. Note that this flight took place with three visual observers; and we had clear line-of-sight visibility of the UAV at all times. The flight occurred around a [processing plant]; and I had full permission from the plant supervisor to fly there.




Synopsis: UAS crew failed to obtain LAANC authorization prior to UAS flight.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Takeoff trim was set 8 up and verified by checklist. On takeoff roll I noticed exceedingly heavy yoke. Like the aircraft wanted to pull the yoke out of my hands. At 85 knots I glanced at the trim and saw 5 up [so] I attempted correction but overshot and triggered a Master Warning. Per my takeoff brief we abort for any Red Warning light after 80 Knots. Takeoff was rejected at 100 Knots.Trim was set and verified according to the checklist. I suggest the verification of the trim setting moved to the Before Takeoff section.


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


Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew reported rejecting the takeoff at 100 kts when they discovered the stabilizer trim was not set properly.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.TRACON, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Twin Otter DHC-6-300
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Cargo Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the initial climb out of ZZZZ to ZZZ1 we received a DOORS UNLOCKED annunciation light. We were at 700 feet AGL over the bridge. Looked through the cabin to see that the cargo door had opened. At that time the co-pilot went to the cargo hold to secure the door. He was unsuccessful due to no interior handle on the door. After passing the bridge the co-pilot returned to the flight deck and reported that the door had detached and fell into the ocean. There were no adverse effects to the flight characteristics of the aircraft. We continued the visual approach to ZZZZ1. I did not ask for priority handling and landed without further issues.




Synopsis: Captain reported cargo door departed the aircraft in flight and continued to destination airport.
Date: 202007
Location: MMUN.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: While landing on Cancun (MMUN) Airport Runway 12R at night we noticed that many of the signs along the side of the runway and taxiways were not illuminated. We were not sure of the cause:1. Tower forgot to turn sign lights on?2. Sign lights worked at one time; and do not work now?3. Sign lights never worked?It is much easier to identify an exit taxiway from the runway and judge the proper braking required at night if all the signs are properly illuminated after sunset.1. Sign lights need to be inspected on a regular basis to ensure the sign lights are illuminated at night.2. Institute fail safe procedures in the Control Tower to ensure sign lights are turned on each night.3. Repair sign lighting system to ensure that the sign lights are operational.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported runway and taxiways signs at MMUN Airport were not illuminated at night.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GSP.TRACON, SC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D GMU
ATC / advisory: TRACON GSP
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The previous controller approved an opposite direction IFR approach to a satellite airport just prior to me getting briefed for the position.  GMU ATCT was advertising Runway 19.  Aircraft X requested and was approved for an opposite direction ILS Runway 1 approach and coordination was effected and complete.  I took over the position; vectoring and clearing Aircraft X for the ILS approach.  Meanwhile arriving from the north IFR to GMU requesting a visual approach to Runway 19 was Aircraft Y. I assigned Aircraft Y a westbound heading and to maintain 3;000.  I then switched Aircraft X to GMU ATCT.  Shortly after Aircraft X dropped off the radar on short final; I verified Aircraft Y had the airport in sight and cleared him for the visual approach to Runway 19.  It was later brought to my attention that Aircraft Y needed to be at least 10 miles from the airport prior to being cleared visual approach and Aircraft X on the ground.  Safety and separation was not an issue as Aircraft Y was at least 5 miles from the airport when Aircraft X touched down.In this day and age; opposite direction approaches provide no significant benefit to the operation under normal circumstances especially with all of the required coordination and separation.  Therefore; I will not be authorizing opposite direction approaches anymore.




Synopsis: A GSP TRACON Controller reports of a deviation to the Opposite Direction Operation because the second aircraft was not within the standards for the operation to occur.
Date: 201808
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Stearman
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I took off Runway 6 after making radio call and saw and heard nothing; I did not realize another very small aircraft had landed on opposite runway. I apologized to other pilot as I passed over him at about 50 feet. I had been flying all that day and everyone had been using Runway 6. I had been giving free rides away all day and turned the radio down while switching passengers. But the time from picking up passengers to takeoff was about 30 seconds not enough time to hear someone changing runways I now will forever keep my radio on at all times and additionally ask if anyone is in pattern before taking the active at an uncontrolled airport.




Synopsis: Stearman pilot reported accidentally turning the volume down on the radio and during takeoff observing another aircraft landing on the opposite end of the runway.