elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B MIA
ATC / advisory: Tower MIA
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Takeoff clearance from MIA 26L was fly heading 290; cleared for takeoff.  At about 200 feet pilot flying noticed an aircraft out left window; Aircraft Y on a converging heading and started a right turn away from the aircraft.  At the same time ATC said to immediately turn right to 340 heading.  Later ATC said the other aircraft went around from Runway 30.  No other information was passed.We never heard the other aircraft say it was going around or ATC advise of the other aircraft's converging flight path.  Seems Runway 30 and Runway 26L have different frequencies.


Second narrative: Issued takeoff clearance from MIA Tower for 26L with assigned heading 290. Normal takeoff executed. At approximately 200 feet AGL Captain took evasive action (hard right turn) to avoid Aircraft Y executing a go-around from their approach to RWY 30. As Captain was beginning his hard turn Mia Tower simultaneously directed right turn to 340 in an attempt to prevent conflict with go-around aircraft. Captain's immediate action prevented a possible collision. We may have out climbed and passed above the other aircraft but it would have been very close.Suggest MIA Tower ensure aircraft have landed on RWY 30 before issuing takeoff clearance for aircraft waiting to depart 26L. Suggest MIA develop go around procedures for RWY 30 that do not conflict with RWY 26 takeoffs. Suggest MIA use same frequency for RWY 30 and RWY 26.


Synopsis: Reporters state that while departing and turning to initial heading assigned by ATC; they observed another air carrier in close proximity and took evasive action turning way from it.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EC145
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On Final Approach I was hand flying the aircraft in IMC and I descended below the approach minimum of 1;020 feet MSL. I failed to scan properly and I was alerted by Approach Control that I had triggered a low altitude warning. I corrected the altitude and completed the approach without incident. The lesson I learned was to NEVER lose focus on the instrument scan; especially during an approach.




Synopsis: A Helicopter pilot on an instrument approach descended below approach minimum until alerted by Approach Control. The situation was corrected and a safe landing was made.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Workload; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The First Officer was flying. He told me he had just over 100 hours in the airplane. Passing SLI VOR we were given a heading of 300; maintain 3600 feet until on Final Approach Course; then cleared a Visual Approach for RWY 25L. We were tracking outside of HUNDA at 210 kts. The First Officer had the FMS set up in green VNAV (no altitude protection). I questioned him if that is what he really wanted. He said; 'YES.' While on base leg he asked me to set 1900 feet in the altitude alerter. I asked him did he really want that now and he said; 'YES.' I reminded him of the 3600 foot altitude restriction until on final approach course intercept. Anyway; he blew through the 3600 assigned altitude on Base Leg. He was so confused that Captain had to take the airplane and return the airplane to 3600 feet as he let the airplane continue to descend. The Captain was telling him to get the autopilot off and return to 3600 feet. I think the First Officer at this point was in a zone of automation confusion.The First Officer seemed to be nervous or maybe not fully confident in his abilities. He asked me to fly the prior leg. I have never flown with this First Officer. The FO did a satisfactory job flying from ZZZ to the SLI VOR. The First Officer's background is that of a Traffic Watch Helicopter Pilot. It seemed that he may have been confused regarding the FMS; the various autopilot modes; letting the airplane get ahead of him; etc.The First Officer will need to be monitored (I have already let my Chief Pilot know about this unfortunate incident). Hopefully; he can be given some more training/IOE or a Line Check. The First Officer knows he made a mistake.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported the First Officer's mismanagement of the FMC and altitude alerter resulted in descending through an altitude restriction.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Upon departure I requested VFR flight following. I got up to a cruising altitude of 15;500 FT. After a short time I realized that to get above the clouds ahead I would need to go higher and informed ATC. At 17;500 FT when the cloud tops were higher still; I made a 90 degree turn to consider a return to an airport behind me; however it appeared that the clouds had filled in the space. There were icing conditions and I wanted to avoid gathering ice and could clearly see the blue sky ahead. I maintained VFR and requested a temporary higher altitude and permission to enter Class A airspace from ATC; first for FL195 then FL215 and FL225 and was able to maintain visual above the cloud layer. I remained in Class A airspace for about 15 minutes and then the tops began to drop. Then the clouds became broken and I notified ATC of my intention to descend and began my descent to the destination airport. Landed safely. I received PIREPs from ATC that were helpful. I am equipped with satellite and radar on the plane. I considered staying at a low altitude at the beginning of the flight; however was concerned about icing and believed that the tops were lower than the Class A airspace.




Synopsis: PA32 pilot on a VFR flight obtained ATC permission to climb into Class A airspace to avoid cloud tops and icing conditions.
Date: 201812
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Plane landed from ZZZ approximately 2 1/2 hours prior to our check in time. Crew swiped in with gate agent and preceded to plane. Upon arrival onto aircraft; crew noticed that there was a large bag still in overhead. Plane had not been cleaned; but had been catered. Cockpit notified Ground and when cleaners showed up; I asked them if they were going to do a cabin security search (I have been told they are now trained to do these searches instead of TSA/security personnel). They were a bit [lost] and then as if being prompted said yes; we had already stowed our bags so I asked if they needed for us to step back off plane with our bags; they said no it's ok; but I asked my crew to please gather their bags and step off so a correct safety sweep could be done. As we stepped back off plane; the gate agent came down and removed bag. I asked what she was going to do with it and she said send it to baggage claim. SOP was not followed with this flight and I was taken back by the lack of concern by our gate agent and our ground crew.




Synopsis: Flight attendant reported an unclaimed bag was discovered when boarding the aircraft and security procedure was not followed.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I departed ZZZ on a pleasure flight with a friend; which was a continuation of several friends flying rides that had been happening all day. I saw what I thought to be one of my friends who was also flying rides; heading towards the airport. I attempted to contact him on the radio; but got no response. This was not uncommon because he used a handheld and often had it turned off when not in the traffic pattern at the airport. We have previously flown in formation and I elected to go try to get his attention and do so again. I flew a wide circle around him and rejoined on his right side and maintained about a 500 ft. distance. We have prearranged signals for doing such things and with the lack of that response and no contact on the radio; I broke off and continued on to a landing at another airport. When I landed I saw him enter the pattern and land also. When he taxied up; I noticed that it was in fact NOT my friends aircraft; but was a very similar paint color and scheme (not the default [aircraft type] colors). I explained the situation and apologized for the confusion repeatedly.




Synopsis: Pilot reported mistakenly joined up with the wrong aircraft for a formation flight resulting in an NMAC.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Relief Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter FOD
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Our pushback from the gate and taxi out were uneventful. I was in the right jumpseat and all I can see is the captain's instruments. Everything was done in accordance with SOP. We were cleared for takeoff and right after the 100 knot call; I observed some debris go across the aircraft's path from the right to the left. Just after the 100 knot call and seeing the debris the captain called 'reject; I have the aircraft'. The FO made the call to tower to tell them that we rejected and to roll the trucks. After the aircraft stopped the other IRO made the remain seated call. The captain called for the rejected take-off checklist. I assisted the FO with the checklist. Tower asked us to taxi clear and the captain said we needed a minute. We ran the checklist and as a crew we determined that we could taxi clear and back to the gate. It was at this time I learned the reason for the reject was an over temp on the left engine and the debris occurring roughly at the same time. I looked up the brake temp page in the FM to determine cooling time. The captain taxied back to the gate uneventfully. The hottest brake reached 4.9. We got to the gate and shutdown in accordance with SOP. Maintenance inspected the aircraft and we were told that it was safe to fly.


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


Synopsis: B777 flight crew reported rejecting the takeoff due to an engine over temperature.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working when the sector that was working Aircraft Y called me to tell me that they had attempted to point out Aircraft Y to the adjacent ARTCC sector. The controller who was working Aircraft Y then told me that the transferring controller had refused to accept the point out because he said he was giving me traffic at the same altitude. The traffic that controller was referencing was Aircraft X. I believe that the controller who was working Aircraft Y attempted to point the aircraft out so that the adjacent ARTCC controller could perhaps descend Aircraft X below Aircraft Y since Aircraft X needed to start down anyway. The controller who was working Aircraft Y informed me of the situation at which time I called the adjacent ARTCC controller and told the controller to put Aircraft X on a 180 degree heading for the traffic.I don't believe that the control instruction that I issued was issued immediately as I did not notice the aircraft begin a turn for approximately 1 to 2 minutes. I believe that Aircraft X checked on my frequency while I was calling the adjacent ARTCC controller to have them attempt to contact the aircraft. When I came off the landline I issued a descent to Aircraft X for traffic. Approximately 20 seconds later Aircraft X said they were descending in response to an RA at which time I believe I called the traffic. When the situation was resolved I issued clearance on course for Aircraft X and as soon as possible notified management of the TCAS RA. Perhaps reiterate the importance of issuing control instructions in a timely manner especially when you have been made aware of traffic.




Synopsis: Center Controller reports of an adjacent sector's unwillingness to accept a point out due to a traffic conflict at the same altitude. Once the aircraft transitions into the Controller's sector; the Controller issues instructions to resolve the conflict; but it was too late and the flight crew complied with a TCAS RA.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Maintenance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I attended 737 Max class earlier in the week. This class has dwindled from an X-hour class to a Y-hour summary. There was virtually no discussions on the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) other than it's non-deferrable. When I asked if there were any RIIs involved with MCAS maintenance; the instructor could only answer with; 'probably.' I feel the Y-hour Max class is insufficient for qualifications.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported that a training class on the B737 MAX was not long enough and did not adequately cover the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS).
Date: 201811
Location: SAEZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center SAEZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon contact with Ezeiza Control; we were advised no holding delays were in effect. Reviewing our fuel state and weather conditions on the field; we decided to continue to our destination. We were given descent clearance to FL 240. Approaching enroute fix PAGON; we were advised holding were now in effect and holding clearances were given over the IAF Arsot. Revisiting our fuel state once again; we requested holding over enroute fix PAGON at FL 240 because it positioned us closer to our alternate SAAR; in case we had to divert. We were given holding at PAGON with an EAC time; approximately 30 minutes from entering holding. Revisiting our fuel state once again; we accepted the holding clearance. We sent Dispatch a message requesting a full burn estimate from our holding fix to our alternate at FL 240; which was acceptable. We advised Control we were unable to hold at any other fix; once cleared to descent; due to our fuel state. We continued to prompt control for updated approach clearance; but no updated time was given.Subsequently we were given clearance to the IAF ARSOT to maintain FL 240. We again advised Control we were unable to hold at any fix due to our fuel state. We were transferred to Approach Control and advised Control about our fuel state. We received subsequent descent clearances to finally descent to FL80 and then were given a holding clearance at ARSOT. At this time; after repeatedly having advised the controllers about our fuel state; we [requested priority due to low fuel]. The Approach Controller responded with radio silence. We were not given approach clearance; so we had no choice but to enter the hold at ARSOT. We were finally given clearance for the ILS X RWY 11. We landed safely and taxied off the runway.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a compromised fuel state on an international flight and subsequent difficulty obtaining expeditious handling from air traffic control.