elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Government
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Utility / Infrastructure
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: 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: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: At approximately XA:42; I arrived on location.  Upon arrival; I performed sUAS operation in support of law enforcement officers under fire from the active shooter to provide over watch of the scene until sunset. The following information was used to evaluate the decision to continue operations beyond evening Civil Twilight at XF:20 hours:  a fellow sUAS pilot and myself were within night currency on all aircraft flown (30 days); the area was flooded with light from three industrial flood lights and lights from responding armored vehicles; the aircraft met the lighting standard necessary under 14 CFR Part 107; assisting law enforcement agency had an operational night waiver under their Certificate of Authorization (COA); I have extensive education and experience in operating manned aircraft at night; and finally; the night operation did not significantly increase our Risk Assessment (RA) factor over our daytime factor. In hindsight; I should have made an emergency (Special Government Interest) request to operate at night through the FAA's Regional Operation Center (ROC).




Synopsis: A law enforcement UAV pilot reported operating a drone after civil twilight in violation of FAR 107.29. He and a fellow UAV operator were both night qualified and operating in support of an active law enforcement action.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During push back; ramp crew appeared to use excessive 'angle' to maneuver aircraft during pushback. A loud bang was heard and push crew stopped push. They explained that [the] tow bar had broken and brakes needed to be set as push was ending. They advised Maintenance was needed and we called Maintenance. They arrived and assessed there was damage to the nose gear and a 'super tug' would be needed to bring us back to gate. Eventually we were towed back to the gate. Maintenance entry was produced by crew and [the] aircraft [was] taken out of service.


Second narrative: Broken tow bar during pushback following several loud metal-on-metal noises. Maintenance determined that the push also resulted in damage to the nose landing gear. Maintenance pinned the gear and asked flight crew to re-pressurize the hydraulic system to straighten the nose gear. Maintenance then called for a super tug to effect the gate return.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported pushback tug driver used an extreme angle resulting in a broken tow bar and damaged nose gear.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CLT.TRACON, NC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Other all
Operating under: Other all
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other all
Flight phase: Descent; Cruise; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: During a very busy arrival and departure session. It appeared that ZTL Center started to vector aircraft off of the arrival and towards my departure corridor. TMC (Traffic Management Coordinator) and the Supervisor told me after the fact that they released my airspace to Center without my knowledge. TMC told me they told Center to call me with a point out but I never talked to Center. Approximately 5 or 6 aircraft entered my airspace without approval or point out from me and at the time I had multiple departures climbing underneath this operation; then the supervisor approved them to hold an aircraft again in my airspace without my approval. I asked the Supervisor after this situation why this occurred and why we didn't have Center go into holding. The Supervisor told me that I should have known what was going on and that it was ok for someone else to approve operations in my airspace. I stated this was unacceptable and a very unsafe practice. After the first aircraft was coordinated; the TMC should have went in to holding in the appropriate location. The Supervisor should have seen what was happening and also discussed holding the aircraft. The supervision was very poor in this entire situation.




Synopsis: CLT TRACON Controller reported that his Supervisor assigned some of his airspace to ZTL Center without his knowledge.
Date: 201208
Location: A90.TRACON, NH
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON A90
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Cleared via KRANN RNAV STAR; expect Runway 22. Two minutes from KRANN we were re-cleared Runway 27 arrival. I forgot to put in 5;000 FT in the MCP. I was putting Runway 27 in the CDU and the CDU showed a route discontinuity after KRANN. Plus; I was unsure of tracking outbound on the 075 radial; or 078 radial. I think we were at 13;000 FT. About this time the co-pilot said we were supposed to cross KRANN at 11;000 FT. I said; 'What!!' We were already 1;500 FT high on the descent page. I disconnected the autopilot; pulled the speed brake; and made our crossing restriction.I did not know we were cleared lower. I thought only about the route. At this point I was still hand flying and we were talking about which radial to fly. I told the First Officer 'I thought the 075;' he said; 'the 075--then; no the 078.' I said 'What?' and he pointed to the inset [on the STAR chart which displays the additional runway transitions]. Boy!! I put 5;000 FT in the MCP; put autopilot on; closed up the route discontinuity; and began briefing the Approach. We then began getting vectors; conducted the approach and landed. After completing the parking check; I told the First Officer I had messed up. He said it was confusing and we were tired. I said; 'No excuses; I messed up!' It was my first time doing this arrival; I should have looked it over better. My fault; period. The next day we had a jump-seater in the cockpit who was commuting to work. After talking a while at cruise; I said; 'You probably don't fly into BOS; but if you do; be careful on this KRANN arrival. I messed it up last night and felt like a fool. I don't want that to happen to you or anybody else.' He said; 'That's funny; because I commuted last trip on another carrier's Airbus and those poor guys messed it up also. Maybe you ought to write a safety report.' I started thinking; if other pilots are also having trouble I should write this up to prevent some other poor guys from having the same trouble.




Synopsis: While descending via the KRANN RNAV STAR to BOS the flight crew of an air carrier aircraft suffered serious confusion and distraction when Approach Control changed their Runway from 22L to 27.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
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: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: In cruise back to IAH we heard a similar call sign; Flight ABG took our hand off to a new frequency. Our flight number was Flight ABC. The other aircraft had already switched so we were asked by Houston to contact them and ask them to return to frequency. We did and both flights were unaffected. This threat of far too similar flight numbers has been a growing problem and is directly attributable to company policy. While I understand the company's marketing department assigns blocks of flight numbers for us to use; they need to be aware that there are too similar flight numbers flying in the same geographical area and they are directly impacting safety. This isn't an isolated incident; it happens frequently. Going forward I am going to report every one of these events to attempt to get the attention of the Company and FAA; in an attempt to force the company to re-evaluate their flight number assignment procedures.




Synopsis: Air Carrier described a confused communications event with ATC; listing that the company practice of assigning similar four digit call signs within the same area at the same time is directly impacting safety.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Second aircraft: B737-500
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was training on D34; my Instructor asked me if any aircraft were in conflict; after my scan I told him a B737-500 was climbing slow out of FL265 to FL370 and was a factor with a MD-83 opposite direction at FL340. I pointed this out to the R-Side. The traffic was about 7 minutes apart; my R-Side decided to issue 1;800 FPM for 4 minutes to the B737-500. The aircraft said he could do that but that he was heavy today. After a few minutes; I asked if he wanted to stop the B737-500 at FL330; and he said no; so I flashed the aircraft to the next sector. My Instructor told the R-Side that he was not ensuring separation and didn't agree with his climb rate calculation. About 4-5 minutes before the conflict point; I called the next sector as they were calling me.  They asked if I was planning on toping the Md-83; I said yes; and got control of MD-83 in case we needed to turn the aircraft. Maybe 2 minutes before the conflict; my R-Side asked if I could check what direct EUG looked like for the MD-83; I told him it appeared to be maybe 5 degrees to the right. So the R-side issued it to the pilot; then 1 minute before the conflict; he turned the aircraft 10 degrees right. At 15 seconds before the conflict he asked the B737-500 to verify out of FL350; the pilot reported out of FL349; the next update we showed the Mode C at FL348 and less then 5 miles. Recommendation; better controller judgment; there was no need to keep the B737-500 climbing; we could have stopped the aircraft and let the next sector climb passing traffic.




Synopsis: ZOA Controller described a loss of separation event when the R-Side failed to accept the suggestions of the D-Side and tried to climb above an aircraft; the reporter suggesting an altitude 'stop' would have prevented to event.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Rain; 2
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Eclipse 500
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This event occurred on final approach as I was beginning to transition from IMC to visual conditions on the ILS Runway XX at ZZZ. The ILS was flown with the autopilot engaged until approximately 1;500 AGL. At approximately 1;500 AGL; I pressed the autopilot disconnect button; (gray button on the control stick). I noticed the autopilot did not disconnect and I could feel the clutch was still engaged. I paused for a moment and quickly moved to press the 'ALL INTERRUPT' (red button). The 'ALL INTERRUPT' button also disengaged the Flight Director which made it difficult to maintain the ILS glideslope and localizer course. At the moment of the failure; I had intermittent Ground contact and after a rough and wobbly transition; I was able to make appropriate corrections; complete the approach; and land safely.




Synopsis: Eclipse 550 Captain reported autopilot disengage issues during final approach.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SBP.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D SBP
ATC / advisory: TRACON SBA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was advised to expect a single turn on to final - aircraft was tighter on the approach than necessary in an effort to squeeze him in front of 3 faster aircraft inbound to ZZZ. Aircraft X was number 1; descending to 031. Shortly afterward; the single turn to final was issued; clearance for the RNAV Runway 29 SBP issued; and the clearance read back. I took care of other duties while keeping an eye on the [aircraft]. I noticed he went through final; advised him my turn on might have been a little later/too tight; and issued a heading of 280 to get him back onto the approach course. I made a transmission or two to other aircraft; then observed Aircraft X was tracking something closer to a 290 north of the RNAV 29 final approach course; very close to the 3;500 foot MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude) around 5 mile final for SBP. I advised the aircraft to turn right heading 020 immediately and expedite climb to 035 due to high terrain. Aircraft X read back correctly; but did not begin the turn until appearing to be just inside of the eastern line of the 035 foot MVA. At this time I realized as he was turning he was heading towards a higher 4;400 foot MVA; so I issued another immediate turn to 110 for terrain with a climb to 4;500 feet. The turn was made; the aircraft climbed; and he was placed just over 3 miles north of the 2 jets inbound to SBP. He was re-sequenced to be number 3; with no additional issues on his approach.  Ensure aircraft comply with instructions in a timely manner and issue instructions with time enough for pilots to comply before MVA's are a factor.




Synopsis: SBA TRACON Controller reported pilot making late turns while vectoring aircraft onto RNAV final resulting in entering areas of higher MVA.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cockpit notified during pushback of a passenger who was verbally abusive to one of the flight attendants along with refusing to wear her mask. Passenger was loud and abusive and appeared to be heavily intoxicated. Captain elected to have the aircraft towed to the gate. Passenger service along with a Supervisor met the aircraft. Offending passenger was deplaned along with her traveling companion without incident. Airport police were not requested. Flight departed for ZZZ 20 minutes later uneventfully.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that after pushback the aircraft was towed back to the gate to remove a passenger who was verbally abusive and refused to wear a face mask.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BJI.Airport, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cross wind; 10
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZMP
ATC / advisory: CTAF BJI; Center ZMP
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I preformed a go around after winds changed on my first landing attempt. On my second landing attempt and upon landing I didn't sufficiently correct for the cross wind and went off the runway. I applied more than needed braking action and when the left wing lifted the left wheel off the ground and continued braking on right wheel [exacerbated] the problem causing the aircraft to turn sharp to the right.




Synopsis: C172 student pilot reported losing directional control during landing when he failed to properly correct for a crosswind.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Aircraft: Golden Eagle 421
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I had been sitting at the sector for about 15 mins. BigSky APCH (Boise) flashed Aircraft X; a (C421) probably 15 minutes before the aircraft would be in my airspace. The Aircraft X had a final altitude of 090 in the data block. I brought up my MIAs knowing that this altitude would be below the MIA along the route. After doing this; I came to the conclusion that 100 would be a safe altitude for Aircraft X. BigSky APCH called me for something (don't remember now) and I asked the controller to climb Aircraft X to 100 for terrain. She responded 'wilco' and took the hand off back. I continued to work and sometime later accepted the hand off on Aircraft X at 120. 'Even better;' I thought to myself. I issued the BOI altimeter to Aircraft X when the aircraft checked on and went back to working without re-checking my MIAs. Aircraft X was now between 5 and 10 nm north of the original route that I had looked at earlier. The MSAW alert went off on Aircraft X for a 129 MIA ahead. I measured Aircraft X's current heading and believe it was like a 092. I issued a right turn to a heading of 110 to Aircraft X thinking that I went more then needed on the heading. I continued to work and kept checking back on Aircraft X. It looked close to me; but I believed the heading was working and would ultimately work. The MSAW never stopped flashing that kept me second guessing. I felt that the aircraft was on the boundary of the 129 MIA; but still clear. But; the fact that the MSAW didn't stop flashing until the aircraft was clear of the MIA makes me question if I was safe or not?First off; I should have re-examined Aircraft X's route and the MIA's along it. Secondly I should have issued a stronger turn to the aircraft ensuring that it would stay plenty clear of the higher MIA.




Synopsis: Salt Lake Center Controller reported an unsafe situation where an aircraft was given an altitude to maintain below the Minimum IFR Altitude.