elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ASE.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Global Express (BD700)
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ASE
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While taxiing on the centerline of Taxiway A to Runway 15 at ASE; our right wing came very close to the windsock between Taxiways A4 and A5. The crew noticed how close we were and I turned left before the windsock. We cleared the windsock; but not by more than a few feet. The wingspan of our aircraft is substantial. I think smaller aircraft should be OK. I did ask Operations to add a note in our records about the windsock hazard for other flight crews. Windsock relocation would be ideal. Add a note in airport pilot briefing. Taxiway centerline realignment away from the windsock would help. Have Tower warn aircraft with large wingspans.




Synopsis: Global Express Captain reported taking evasive action on ASE Taxiway A between Taxiways A4 and A5 because he perceived his wingtip near the windsock located 84 ft off the taxiway centerline.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post-Flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I filed a VFR flight plan through the Garmin Pilot app for a VFR flight from ZZZ1 direct ZZZ. I file IFR nearly every flight and had not filed VFR in some years; but with unsettled weather; I felt it helpful for ATC to have my information beforehand in the event weather dictated an IFR clearance. VFR time enroute was estimated at 22 minutes. After initial contact with Clearance at Class C ZZZ1 I activated the flight plan; then contacted local ATC for taxi; takeoff; and initial climb. The direct route filed goes through Class B airspace; and after handoff from ZZZ1 Departure to Approach; I was cleared through Class B; remain VFR. ATC required a slight deviation for traffic; which added a short time to the flight. A few minutes before reaching destination; radar service was terminated; and until that time I had been under ATC control the entire time the flight plan was open. I was able to land at destination without circling or delay. Taxi to the ramp took only a short time. Upon shutdown I noticed I had missed a phone call while still operating the aircraft. I returned that call; to FSS; to learn that my VFR flight plan was not closed soon enough; and Search and Rescue (SAR) had begun a search. When I questioned how they could have initiated such a search so quickly; even while I was still flying the plane in busy ATC-controlled airspace; I learned that since the privatization of FSS; SAR no longer waits 30 minutes past estimated time of arrival to initiate search procedures. The FSS representative assured that no further action would be taken. I am grateful to the FSS representative for helpfully and candidly educating me on how SAR now operates. But the early stages of flight operations and ATC-required deviations can easily result in a flight taking 15-20 minutes longer than planned. And I respectfully suggest that no longer having that 30-minute buffer; and perhaps having to contact FSS while operating in busy Class B airspace to cancel a VFR flight plan; unnecessarily adds to pilot workload and detracts from safety of flight.




Synopsis: GA Pilot reported his flight plan was not closed soon enough before search and rescue was initiated.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: SoCal gave us VTU SADDE8 we verified all points and altitudes. They then cleared us direct FIM for the SADDE8 which is on a different transition. We verified all points and re-entered the missing altitudes and speeds. Then we were given direct SYMON cross at 12;000 feet. We initiated a descent at this point. Then we were given IRNMN2 direct IRNMN. Which creates the question of what altitude? Then we were given descend via. I was doing 1 altitude at a time while First Officer was attempting to program and dual verify all points. I may have missed JUUSE by a few 100 feet as I was on a steep descent we were time compressed by ATC. This was a short flight. Each SoCal frequency change involved a new arrival; new direct to way point; and new altitude. And a runway change.In retrospect I would have asked for delay vectors or told ATC we were unable to switch arrivals or runways this close to destination.


Second narrative: On the short flight from ZZZ to LAX we were cleared for the SADDE8 and expect Runway 24R. We verified speeds an altitudes were correct in FMS. We were cleared direct to VTU. Then as we got close we were cleared to FIM which is on another transition; which meant re-entering the arrival into the FMS and re-verifying altitudes for the descent. ATC gave us Cross SYMON AT 12;000 feet. As we began that we were assigned the IRNMN2 direct IRNMN with a descend via and Runway 25L. Then a frequency change. I became task saturated with NAV changes; frequency changes; verifications and perf programming. Pilot flying had to make a steep descent to make the 9;000 feet at JUUSE. ATC informed us we had missed that altitude although both of us thought we made it just in time. After that we were assigned another lower altitude; which we complied with. While using VNAV then changing arrivals there is a slight lag in the automation. In consequence; it would be better not to accept such changes when already beginning one procedure. Particularly as the three different arrivals/transitions are virtually identical.


Synopsis: Corporate jet Captain reported receiving multiple arrival changes on approach to LAX resulting in confusion and missing a crossing restriction.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DAL.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 45
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While being vectored for a visual approach to runway 13L at DAL; the crew was informed from Regional Approach that a VFR traffic was below us at our 1 o'clock. Our altitude was 3;000 MSL. We looked for that traffic but did not see it as it blended with the landscape below. As the traffic approached our position; the TCAS advised us of a Traffic Advisory. Shortly thereafter; the TCAS gave us a Resolution Advisory and commanded us to climb. The Pilot Flying (PF) disconnected the autopilot and started a climb. At about 3;300 feet MSL; the TCAS advised us that we were clear of conflict. The PF proceeded back to the original altitude of 3;000 MSL. No further incident emerged from that issue and the flight continued its approach uneventfully.




Synopsis: LR45 Captain reported receiving an RA approaching DAL airport.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Flight Attendant Crew was told before boarding that we had passenger boarded on our flight who had gotten a warning on his previous flight but the Supervisor said as long as he kept his mask on during boarding he was okay to fly on our flight.This seems like a straight forward violation of policy and safety. The policy is very straight forward. Are the Airline's supervisors not following the procedure because that's their instructions and if so; why not?




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger who had previously violated the face mask policy was allowed to board this flight.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HCF.TRACON, HI
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B HNL
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; 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
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The aircraft descended to 400 feet prior to the FAF which has crossing restriction of 1500 feet. I noticed the descent then tried to contact the aircraft on my frequency; guard frequency; and through the Tower. The pilot finally contacted Tower. I don't remember if I gave him his position; reference a point on the approach or not. Sometimes I'll turn aircraft onto final; then give them a position when they are closer to the fix before I switch them.I did feel a little pressured. Sectors were combined and we were on an unusual runway configuration.




Synopsis: HCF TRACON Controller observed an aircraft descend below the published FAF altitude.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gust Lock
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: This is a correction to the early report submitted. 1. All required checks were completed prior to takeoff as per AOM I. 2. At the takeoff the gust lock appeared to be off. 3. I cannot recall if thrust levers were in detent. 4. While climbing out I noticed ac was not climbing normally and took over ac. I then realized the gust lock was in the intermediate position. 5. We declared an emergency and made an uneventful safe landing. We returned to gate and wrote up gust lock. 6. The gust lock was written up because it was the identifiable problem at hand which prevented movement of the Thrust levers.  After several days of replaying the event in my mind. I remembered the release being in a position where it was blocking the gust lock during the thrust setting procedure and I pulled it out. This action could have returned the gust lock to the intermediate position during the takeoff roll.I suggest 1. Keep gust lock area free of anything. 2. Maybe a design changes that prevent the gust lock from blocking the thrust levers. Or something like shear pins in the bar and release lever attachment points.


Second narrative: The before take off checks were completed and a normal take off was made. During the climb out the Captain that the aircraft was not climbing normally. He attempted to advance the thrust levers beyond the thrust set position and they would not advance. The Captain did not feel that aircraft was safe to continue on to filed destination. We continued the climb out; cleaned the aircraft and declared an emergency. Upon our safe landing and return to the gate ms was notified. The aircraft was inspected for gust lock malfunction and thrust lever quadrant damage/FOD. Maintenance returned the aircraft to service after a thorough inspection and a gust lock MEL; we continued safely.


Synopsis: After takeoff an EMB-145 Captain determined the aircraft was not climbing normally and discovered the Gust Lock in an intermediate position blocking the thrust levers; so an emergency was declared and the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SMO.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 300
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower SMO
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Established on VOR-A into SMO; between BEVEY and WURUD intersections; 1900 to 2000; PM saw two drones whiz by the windshield 15-20 ft on both sides; and called them out. The event was over so quickly that I did not have enough time to look up from instruments and actually see the drones. Somebody was playing with their drones too close to an airport and too high. It is a little scary to think that these drones could have been there intentionally; and perhaps even with a small pack of explosives strapped to them. There was no time to react. We were just lucky that we missed them. Recommend stricter drone policies.




Synopsis: CL300 Captain on approach to SMO reported a NMAC with two UAVs.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PDX.Airport, OR
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: Tower PDX
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Recip Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Fatigue; Confusion; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I cleared Aircraft X for takeoff RWY 10R at intersection E; heading 110.  Problem is that I had forgotten about Aircraft Y on landing roll. Aircraft X didn't say anything; but waited for Aircraft Y to exit; then departed. I realized what had happened when Aircraft Y was exiting.  I didn't stop Aircraft X because it wouldn't have mattered at that point. Those pilots had my back. Thankfully their scan was better than mine.I was looking into the sun so the visibility in that direction wasn't ideal; but if I had been more intentional with my scan; this wouldn't have happened.  I must have not scanned the ASDE; because then I'm sure I would have seen the small transport.  The previous night my sleep was interrupted from about 1-4 a.m. I didn't really feel the effects at the time of the incident; but in hindsight I wasn't as sharp as normal. Later in the shift I felt very tired.




Synopsis: PDX Local Controller doesn't cancel takeoff clearance to departing aircraft while previous arrival is still on runway.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Emergency Exit
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Lead Technician; Technician
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Manuals; Aircraft
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: There were two other AMT's and a QA Inspector on or at the aircraft. I took the task of being the monitor AMT and the other two AMT's were the task AMT's. We were assigned the task of putting the left over wing exit hatch back into a serviceable condition. This included re-arming the emergency escape system. Initially [the] steps were confusing to me. I had to re-read them several times; eventually I became frustrated with what I interpreted them to be. Having said that I now know that I made a mistake by not continuing to be the monitor of the task. At the time of the incident I felt that I had interpreted the point the paperwork was trying to convey to me. I then let my mechanical experience take over and proceeded to do what I felt should have been done to complete the task within the intent of our assigned referenced task.


Second narrative: Myself and two other AMT's were assigned to this aircraft to re-arm the over wing escape hatch. The slide work card had some confusion with regards to arming of the slide. When the battery was attached to cannon plug to activate battery the slide deployed.


Synopsis: B737 Maintenance crew reported that they installed an over-wing slide and it deployed when they connected the electrical connector.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DAL.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: Tower DAL
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Departed 13L on the kingdom departure. Instructions called for a 190 heading up to 3000 feet. After taking up heading tower instructed us to resume runway heading. I questioned it. Controller said that is for props only. I later called tower and asked. Because nowhere does it state props only. Controller said it was ok. It's a confusing departure especially when received by PDC. Controller pointed out on departure plate in fine print #3 states; 'jet aircraft contact tower for instructions.' This should be in larger text so it does not happen again. No other aircraft involved.




Synopsis: CE680 First Officer reported departing DAL on the Kingdom departure from Runway 13L and heading 190 as instructed in the initial climb box. ATC advises to fly runway heading; that the 190 heading is for props only and that note 3 at the top of the departure chart instructs all jet aircraft to contact Clearance Delivery for departure instructions.