elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201902
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Other Person
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: TALPA (takeoff and landing performance assessment) conditions reported in airport ATIS broadcasts often provide conflicting guidance WRT RCC codes and reported runway conditions. According to various FAA TALPA Advisory Circulars; RCC (runway condition) codes should be determined by the Airport Operator by consulting the RCAM (runway condition assessment) matrix for reported runway contaminants and broadcast in FICON (field conditions) NOTAMS with limited ability to upgrade conditions based on PIREPS; yet ATIS broadcasts often report significantly better RCAM numbers that are in conflict with reported contaminants. If the RCAM numbers reported in ATIS broadcasts are not Airport Operator derived RCCs; it should be made explicit in the ATIS; with aircraft type information. Crews are often confused by reported RCC numbers that conflict with reported runway conditions and may default to the reported RCC reports for aircraft operations as our training and guidance was not adequate to determine specifically when to use the Aircraft Operator RCAM in lieu of reported runway contaminants or under what conditions. I am concerned that crews will default to inaccurate optimistic RCC codes broadcast in ATIS for performance data and we will have a runway overrun with possibly injuries or loss of life. Crews will likely be held liable for not using the most accurate data available because they are not aware of the conflict due to inaccurate and incomplete guidance. If RCCs reported in ATIS broadcasts are incorrect; airport operators and ATC should be compelled to provide accurate RCC numbers going forward. If it is our guidance that is incorrect or incomplete; Company should provide explicit; simple and straightforward guidance when to apply the RCAM matrix in lieu of ATIS reported RCCs.




Synopsis: A pilot reported some ATIS broadcasts are not reporting accurate field conditions that should be following the RCAM (Runway. Condition. Assessment. Matrix.)
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Small UAS; Multi Rotor
Operator: Recreational / Hobbyist (UAS)
Operating under: Recreational Operations / Section 44809 (UAS)
Flight plan: None
Mission: Recreational / Hobbyist (UAS)
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Special Use ZZZ
Reporter function: Person Manipulating Controls (UAS); Remote PIC (UAS)
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Remote Pilot (UAS); Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person UAS Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was at [the] ranch. Ranch located near Restricted Area R-XXXX (RA); some inside; some outside of Restricted Area. That morning; before sunrise; Person 1 saw a group of people walking in the dark. Called Person 2 to come and secure the area. Did not see them again. Later in morning fixing breakfast about XA:00 am Person 3 stated he saw someone walking in the brush. Also he said the buzzards had been circling nearby all morning. He asked if I could launch drone and check it out. I did so; flying two take-off for a total of about 10 minutes airborne; max altitude 40 feet. Person 4 walked up and asked if we were inside Restricted Area. It then occurred to me I was indeed inside RA. I landed immediately and put [the] drone away. I didn't think about it then but I would have imagined the area was inactive. Later we were advised by law enforcement; there were several groups of [people] transitioning the area. We are XX minutes to nearest public road and quite isolated. To say it lightly; we take trespassing seriously. In the moment; I forgot I was in RA and maybe flew where I was not suppose to. I should of called [the Control Agency] for status as I would have for any fixed wing flight. My Error. Won't happen again.




Synopsis: A UAS operator reported flying in restricted airspace. When the operator realized they were in the airspace they landed immediately.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
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
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Immediately after liftoff got a SMOKE CREW REST F/D EICAS as well as a master caution. Smoke alarms were heard going off in cabin as well. Flight Attendant confirmed they also had smoke in cabin. We also had a thin mist of smoke in cockpit. All 3 of us up front donned O2 masks and stabilized the aircraft. Decision was made to return to [the departure airport]. Landed overweight.




Synopsis: B777 crew reported returning to the departure airport shortly after takeoff due to fire detection and smoke alarms with visible smoke on the flight deck and cabin.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; 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 Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Maintenance action for odor.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer reported a fume event during climb. Crew executed a return to departure airport.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Weather elements / visibility: VFR; 7
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Flight Engineer / Second Officer; Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Vectored to intercept RNAV approach Runway 16: Descend to 2100 [ft]. Pilot set up automation to comply with ATC. Pilot flying called for final checklist. Pilot monitoring proceeded to comply with final checklist; head down. Pilot Flying realized [the] aircraft was descending rapidly through 2100 [ft] and corrected at approximately 1280 feet. Pilot flying climbed back to 2100 [ft] while monitoring visually outside.ATC alerted crew of low altitude and to monitor altitude at about [the] same time flying pilot began level off and climb back to 2100 [ft].Pilot flying re-established correct altitude and continued approach without automation.




Synopsis: Air taxi Captain reported they descended below assigned altitude resulting in ATC issuing a low altitude alert.  Captain stated distraction was a contributing factor.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 100
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: ILS/VOR
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was flying cross country to Santa Monica; CA (SMO) at 4;500 MSL along V-186 with VFR Flight Following.  About 20 NM West of PDZ VOR; ATC advised that I was inside LAX Class Bravo airspace and gave me vectors to the North; after a brief period of time the controller advised that I could resume own navigation. My VOR indications the time that the controller advised that I was inside Class B airspace were that I was directly on centerline of V-186.




Synopsis: C172 pilot; west bound on V186 near EMT at 4;500 feet is informed by ATC that he has drifted into Class B airspace and to turn right to return to the centerline. The reporter's indications were that he never left the centerline.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: During crosswind landing and transition to taxi; a gust of wind turned the non-event into an adventure into a snow bank along the runway. A gust lifted the wing and turned the plane towards the runway edge. I made every effort to correct; but the momentum kept me in that direction. Once the main was into the snow I could not maintain directional control and the nose also dug into the snow and we slowly flipped over on the planes back. Cause was not enough directional control and lack of planning. I would like to suggest more control input and focus.




Synopsis: C172 instructor reported a loss of control during taxi with high winds resulting in flipping over into a snow bank.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flew my plane from ZZZ to ZZZ1 to have lunch and get the plane washed.After lunch and wash; preflighted plane; filed to fly to ZZZ2 at FL270 (Note: It was in the mid 90sF at ZZZ and the low 80s in ZZZ1).Departed ZZZ1 and activated autopilot.Conditions were clear and at FL180 I turned the pitot heat on per check list.I did note that when I turned the pitot heat on; OAT temps were already -10c and thought nothing further.As we approached FL240 the plane began to pitch up nose high and airspeed dropped to zero.I disconnected autopilot; hand flew the plane and began to trouble shoot the issue.  Since the pitot heat was on from FL180 to FL240 (2 mins?) I incorrectly assumed that the heat caused an issue.  ATC cleared me for FL270 and my copilot correctly told them unable.We checked in with ATC and told them we lost airspeed and altitude indications.  ATC said MODE C was reporting an altitude that we knew was what the airplane was showing but no longer correct. We knew we had a Pitot static issue but needed to determine why.My pilot/passenger correctly suggested that the appropriate action was to actually leave the pitot heat on and he was ultimately correct.  We got a little airspeed indication on the instruments but was not enough to feel comfortable so co-pilot requested priority handling with ATC.  We received vectors to an arrival procedure back to ZZZ.  After about 5 mins all instruments returned to normal and we cancelled the priority handling. I landed without incident.  ZZZ Airport Fire and Operations met us at my parking space to make sure we were OK. We suspect that the cause of the incident was water in the pitot tube from getting the plane washed at ZZZ1 exacerbated by me not turning on the pitot heat before the water in the pitot tube froze.Consider always flying with pitot heat on.  Make OAT a more regular part of my scan




Synopsis: Lancair Evolution pilot reported pitot static system icing in climb. The pilot diverted and landed without incident.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-23-250 Aztec
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: An EMB-175 checked in with me on about a 10 mile final and I cleared him to land XXL. At the time it appeared that there was a VFR near the marker moving north. I then went on to talk to a [another airliner] and a few helicopters. North RADAR (NR) called up and said I did not issue the EMB-175 that traffic. I immediately issued the traffic; still thinking he was northbound. The EMB-175 then started telling me how the aircraft had turned towards him and he had to take actions to miss hitting the aircraft. I called down to the TRACON and was informed that the Piper Aztec had the EMB-175 in sight and was maintaining visual with him. I advised the EMB-175 pilot of this and he said he was going to file a NMAC. I informed the Supervisor of his actions. I then went down to the TRACON and was told we did everything right; no rules broken. Have picture taking aircraft remove themselves from final.




Synopsis: Local Controller described NMAC event when an air carrier on final declared same with a helicopter operating near the final that was maintaining visual separation with the air carrier.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Single Pilot
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student was completing some solo laps. On his touch and go; he added power and veered to the right and hit a runway light.


Second narrative: Was doing a touch and go and veered off to the right and hit a light.


Synopsis: C172 Student Pilot doing solo touch and goes reported hitting a runway light.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Aircraft component: VHF
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: A buzz-squeal picked up in VHF1 from transmissions from VHF3 covered transmissions from ATC; from approach at 2000 AGL until we were at the gate. My FO and I could not hear the taxi instructions during rollout from tower and were forced to ask for re-transmit. The buzz-squeal interference was picked up from approach; during runway exit; during taxi; and during parking. This aircraft; seems worse than others in the past; but this is a problem that affects a majority of the fleet. We experienced this problem in DEN on 133.3; 121.85; and 131.97. Honeywell radios have a long standing problem that needs to be fixed




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a problem with a buzz-squeal on VHF1 transmissions from VHF3 covered transmissions from ATC.
Date: 201201
Location: 9N1.Airport, PA
Aircraft: Sail Plane
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Glider
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: The Van Sant Airport; Erwinna; PA is located on a knoll having the crest near the middle of the main Runway 6/24 [7/25] which is utilized by powered aircraft and gliders. Recently; Runway 6/24 was improved by the removal of some of the crest of the knoll; however this work was done such that there is a sharp edge between the northern edge of the middle one third of Runway 6/24 and the terrain north of the runway which comprises a ramp/tie down area and the extension of glider Runway 5/23. This sharp edge prevents a low wing glider from crossing that area and thus clearing the Runway 6/24 [7/25] to the north after landing or during an aborted takeoff. Furthermore; the side slope of Runway 6/24 having the northern side higher than the southern side precludes the possibility of a low wing glider lowering a wing during a cross wind landing or takeoff when the cross winds are from the north/northwest. Gliders landing long on Runway 23 have the risk of dropping off (at perhaps slow speed) the sharp terrain transition between Runway 6/24 and extended Runway 23. Another risk is that Runway 6/24 continues to be on a shallow knoll such that a glider that lands and stops near the center of Runway 6/24 cannot clear the runway due to the terrain sharp edge to the north and the drop off of the terrain to the south of the runway precludes that option; furthermore a glider must roll beyond the area of sharp terrain transition to clear the active runway; if the glider does not have sufficient energy to do so; or the pilot does not foresee this safety issue; the glider would be stopped possibly on the blind side of the hill so to speak. Van Sant is an uncontrolled airport; having a Unicom frequency which some pilot utilize and some do not. It is suggested that the sharp terrain transition along the northern edge of Runway 6/24 be removed to create a rounded shallow transition of terrain such that a low wing glider can safely transition to clear the runway after landing or an aborted takeoff. If the knoll of Runway 6/24 can be further removed; such that a low profile aircraft such as a glider; could be seen from any position on Runway 6/24; that would be an additional safety enhancement.




Synopsis: Glider pilot reports that recent 'improvements' at the Van Sant airport (9N1) to remove some the crest in the middle one third op the turf Runway 7/25 have left sharp transitions at the runway edges preventing low wing gliders from exiting in that area.