elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on a solo cross country. All forecasts showed overcast clouds at 6;000 ft. my route was 4;500 ft. [outbound] and 3;500 ft. on the return flight. [Enroute] I realized the clouds were not at 6;000 ft. as forecast. I continued as I was still under the cloud level; just inland I contacted Departure that I was descending down to 4;000 ft. to continue VFR. As I descended the clouds descended with me. Just a few miles into the land I flew into a cloud accidentally as the layer was much lower. I then put the pitot heat and carb heat on and descended out of the cloud. At 2;500 ft. I came out of the cloud [and] noticed the visibility wasn't much better and the field might go IFR soon. [I] also noticed visible moisture on the windshield and texted my instructor that I had possible icing and that I was returning to [home base]. I then contacted Approach saying I was [experiencing] possible icing. They then gave me straight into the runway with no delay. Thankfully I was first in line and didn't need to declare an emergency. I flew straight towards [the airport] and rounded off my approach for the shortest distance. I put ten degrees of flaps in and kept my airspeed at 90 until I was within range of [the airport]; coming in faster and a bit high to ensure not needing a go-around. Once over the runway I pulled the power and dumped in full flaps; landed safely and taxied to [the ramp]. Once back I showed my instructor the icing and discovered moderate mixed icing along all leading edges. I was able to stay calm and make a quick decision; with the help of my instructor's instructions to this point. This experience was very humbling and the decision to go was probably wrong but I trusted the forecast.




Synopsis: C172 student pilot reported returning to departure airport after encountering unforecast icing conditions.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Relief Pilot; Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [We were cleared] for ILS to visual conditions on rwy XX. Captain was PF (Pilot Flying); I was IRO (International Relief Officer). The glideslope signal was intermittent around 3;000 feet or so and the Captain disconnected the autopilot and started descending. Once it stabilized he was below glideslope and in FLCH mode with 100 feet set in the altitude window. He continued to follow the flight directors below glideslope at a descent rate that would keep him from capturing glideslope. When no correction was made I said 'you are in FLCH' and he said 'I'm hand flying and I see the runway'. Around 2;000 feet he still hadn't caught the glideslope and was descending; I said 'you cannot be in FLCH with touchdown elevation set.' He said; 'I'm hand flying and I'm looking at the runway'. At this point I told the PM (Pilot Monitoring) to put 3;000 feet in the window (missed approach altitude). He does but the flight directors were locked on FLCH and Captain was still descending following the flight directors. I told the PM to select another mode. He did push something but I don't know what and airplane stayed in FLCH. At 1;000 feet I said very loudly 'level off or we are going to go around'. He slowed his descent but didn't level off. I was ready to call go around at 500 feet. The airplane gave us a glideslope warning and he leveled off enough for glideslope to capture between 700-600 feet.




Synopsis: B787 Relief Officer reported concern when the Captain flew the approach in FLCH with touchdown elevation set and seemed unaware of the potential dangers in doing so.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: AWO.Tower, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G AWO
ATC / advisory: CTAF AWO
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I entered the pattern on a 45 for right downwind and was flying a normal pattern for landing at Arlington on 16. When I was on short final approx 500' from the threshold and 300' AGL [Aircraft Y] crossed the hold short line and rolled onto runway 16. As he crossed the hold short line I made a radio call announcing go around; said aircraft on the runway don't take off and applied full power. [Aircraft Y] continued onto the runway and began his takeoff roll. I deviated right of center so I could keep him in sight and he climbed out and turned right crosswind approximately 500' below me without making any radio call. I was talking to other planes in the pattern so my radios were working. I was in full power climb so went well above traffic pattern altitude to make sure I was clear of the other pilot that clearly wasn't looking or listening.This event was entirely human failure on the other pilot. I was short final with my landing lights on and was making appropriate radio calls. I suspect his radio was not working. Additionally he was not ADSB out equipped; I got his tail number visually.




Synopsis: GA Pilot reported a NMAC after another aircraft entered the runway and took off as the reporter was landing.
Date: 201902
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: My partner and I were pushing a 787 with a super tug. The push went smoothly with no warning signals coming from the super tug. As soon as I was done with my push I spin the set around and my observer got into the tractor so we can move forward to go to the top and over to ground as directed by Ramp Tower. As soon as I put the super tug into drive the 'Over steer' alarm went off. The 'Over steer' is a flashing Red Screen and a Warning siren to let the crew know that the Super Tug has an over steer and that has to do with the hydraulic system and the airplane in the cradle of the super tug. When the alarm siren went off it was so loud in the cabin where the driver and observer sit that we could not hear the ATC Ground Tower. When my observer went to make his first call to the ATC tower to get directions to our holding pad in the west hangar; the ATC said that he could not hear our transmission over the alarm siren. There is no way for us to lower or turn off that siren until we lower the airplane and open the cradle and move the super tug away from the airplane. Also the Mechanics have a key to where they have to reset the computer and warning alarms. My observer had to step out just to make the call and when he gave us direction we both did not copy it was to what we both thought we heard and what my observer repeated back to the ATC. The call was to turn right onto X Taxiway and hold short of Y1. We both thought over the Over Steer warning Siren that the ATC said to turn right onto Y and hold short of Y1. ATC got back on the radio and told us that we missed our instructions and we went the wrong way. The whole tow was very difficult to hear ATC instructions and we had to keep on asking him to repeat the instructions. This was very dangerous and unsafe to have that siren that loud and could have caused an accident; near miss; and/or a surface incident. I had to take off my jacket when holding short of Y2 to try and muffle the warning siren just so we would miss any more calls and we can hear the ATC as well as for them to hear us read back instructions. The jacket didn't do much muffling of the alarm. At the end of my tow and securing the A/C we took the super tug down to the garage and I let the lead mechanic know the issue. The lead mechanic said he will look into the volume of the over steer warning.




Synopsis: Ramp agent reported that an extremely loud warning signal in the tug being used for a push made it diffucult to hear Ground Control's instructions.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground EWR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon taxi out; Ground Control issued us a clearance to taxi via 'B' and 'D' to Runway 4L. At that time there were multiple aircraft taxiing in the ramp area. Shortly thereafter; Ground then issued a clearance to a 767 on 'B' holding short of 'K' to 'give way to the Guppy; and taxi to 4L.' EWR Ground control's nonstandard phraseology of referring to a 737 colloquially as a 'guppy' has the potential to cause confusion and an increased potential for a deviation or incident due to misunderstanding.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported nonstandard clearance terminology use by Newark Ground Control may result in confusion.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Aircraft; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Monitor Vertical Speed on TCAS on base leg prior to turn on final. Traffic was at 500 ft below our altitude at all times and procedure was done accordingly to SOP's. A go around was performed after leveling off at 2;500 ft since continue to land with an stabilized approach was not possible.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a NMAC while on base leg.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MSP.Airport, MN
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: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Second aircraft: B787-800
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying a Piper Archer under visual flight rules.  I was familiar with the area. I was flying south around highway 55; about 3-4 miles west of 494 near Wayzata; Minnesota.  This area is under the 4000 ft shelf of the MSP class Bravo.  I was tuned to FCM Tower as I already made my 10 mile out call.  The wind was out of the east.  I received a traffic warning from my G1000.  It pointed out traffic to my right at about 4 or 5 o'clock and 300 feet above me.  I turned and looked over my shoulder to see an airliner heading right for me with his lights on.  At that moment I would guess the airplane was less than 1 mile away from me.  I put my plane in an emergency dive. I pulled up at about 2;500 feet MSL. By this time the plane was passing to my rear and left.  I returned and landed at FCM but was quite shaken up. I looked up the plane on [an app] which shows a 737-800 flying in the same area at the same time.  The track shows the plane descending to 3;900 ft MSL a couple miles prior to entering the 3000 foot ring of the Class Bravo.  I was not on flight following at the time; but my trip was recorded in [the app].  My conclusion is the actions of the flight crew in the other plane caused them to leave the protected space of the Class Bravo.  This caused a near miss with another aircraft; and caused [me] to do emergency evasive maneuvers over a highly populated area.




Synopsis: Piper Archer pilot reported an airborne conflict with a B737-800 that had apparently descended below the MSP Class B airspace on arrival to MSP.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LGB.Airport, CA
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Mission: Other VFR Pattern
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower LGB
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Working Local Control 2; I had Aircraft X in the pattern doing full stop landings. Aircraft X was back taxiing on Runway 25R for a departure in the right pattern; Aircraft X had a takeoff clearance from me for Runway 25R. I observed Local Control 1's traffic; one aircraft departing (Aircraft Y). One aircraft taxiing into position (Aircraft Z) with Aircraft A on one and a half mile final; showing 140kts over the ground with a full data block under LGB Tower control. I commented to Local 1 Controller at that time 'That's brave' referring to putting an aircraft into position in front of Aircraft A. Local 1 responded something unintelligible; then cleared Aircraft Z for immediate takeoff with far less than required same runway separation. Aircraft Z started a takeoff roll; but Aircraft A was clearly going to be past the displaced threshold by the time Aircraft Z got airborne. The Local 1 Controller then asked Aircraft A if he could change to Runway 30 for landing. I told him 'You can't; I have someone rolling on 25 right.'Local 1 then cleared Aircraft A 'Runway 30 cleared to land; hold short of Runway 25 right.' There was a slight tailwind to a direct crosswind; and Aircraft A is not eligible for LAHSO in any category. At this point I think that Local 1 has made the decision to force the situation regardless of the safety risk; and therefore I cancelled Aircraft X's takeoff clearance on Runway 25R just after Aircraft X had started their takeoff roll; and waited until Aircraft A had cleared Runway 30. Recurrent training for Local 1 Controller on the proper use of same runway separation; land and hold short operations; and required coordination per LGB Tower's SOP.




Synopsis: LGB Tower Controller reports of a session where the other Local Controller did not follow the SOP and/or the 7110.65 for the safe separation of traffic. The other local had a loss of separation with an aircraft on the runway and one over the landing threshold; and advised the landing aircraft to hold short of a runway. This was against the LAHSO rules and the SOP.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 125
Flight plan: None
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Other ATP
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Inspector; Lead Technician
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other On Ramp
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Airplane was loaded too far aft of CG and tipped back on it's tail.


Second narrative: Aircraft was loaded incorrectly; which caused a shift in the CG and caused the aircraft to tip on its tail. I believe lack of communication and rushing to get the freight loaded played a factor in the incident.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew and a Technician reported that the aircraft tipped back onto its tail after cargo was loaded.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ELP.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: Learjet 55
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ELP
ATC / advisory: TRACON ELP
Second aircraft: Citation II S2/Bravo (C550)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Trainee; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A Citation was level at 10000 feet westbound via MOLLY4. The Learjet checked in descending out of 13000 feet for 11000 feet via MOLLY4 RNAV Arrival. At MOLLY Intersection the Learjet was level at 11000 feet; and then suddenly he started to descend to 9000 feet head on with the Citation. My Instructor noticed the Learjet was descending and in conflict with the Citation. Immediately; he took over the position and instructed the Learjet an expedited descent instruction to 9000 feet to avoid the Citation.[I should] confirm with the ARTCC Controller if the aircraft has been instructed to maintain altitude above my traffic and/or restate to maintain the altitude I need the aircraft to maintain for traffic. Do not rely on pilots when they report descending to an altitude assigned by other controller. I will ensure and instruct the pilot to maintain the altitude I need the aircraft to maintain.




Synopsis: A Trainee Controller reported an aircraft he thought was descending to 11000 feet continued descending through 11000 feet into opposite direction traffic at 10000 feet.