elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Initial radio contact was made with Tower when about 11 miles north of the airport. As I was part of a traffic flow of 3-4 airplanes approaching from the north; my initial call to Tower was that I was; '11 miles north with information xxx for landing; and I am aware of multiple other aircraft also arriving from the north.' Tower directed me to follow the Cessna ahead; and that I was cleared to land Runway XXR number one behind the other Cessna. This was the clear understanding I had; and this was also the understanding of the right seat flight instructor who was the pilot flying at this time. When approaching right base for Runway XXR I heard a 'Traffic; Traffic' alert from the onboard TIS system. Looking at the traffic display I observed a yellow target indication that was co-located on my position and at the same altitude. I called Tower and asked them whether they were observing any other airplanes close to me; and they said 'No; you look clear to us.' Having experienced many false TIS alarms due to aircraft on the ground when near airports; and with Tower's confirmation of no other traffic near me; I disregarded the TIS alert. When beginning the turn to final the flight instructor (pilot flying) saw another airplane turning to final out of our right window; no more than 50 FT laterally; and less than 100 FT vertically from our position. I immediately took the controls; applied full power; and climbed above the other aircraft as I began a 360 degree turn to the right. After re-aligning with the runway I landed the airplane uneventfully. The other aircraft apparently had been flying slightly below and behind our aircraft for some time but never saw us. I recall hearing that another Cessna had been cleared to land; but assumed that this was the airplane ahead of me. This event was most likely caused by confusion in the Tower as to relative aircraft positions; as well as the other Cessna pilot's failure to establish and maintain situational awareness. My call to Tower concerning the TIS alert should have caused more concern for them and would have tipped off the other pilot had he been listening.




Synopsis: VFR inbound to the traffic pattern experienced a NMAC with other pattern traffic as they were base to final; the reporter noting an apparent confusion on the Tower's part as to aircraft locations entering the pattern.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff Roll
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We performed a rejected takeoff due to a BATTERY OVERTEMP Master Warning. After returning to ramp PIC called Maintenance Control who wrongly advise him to put an external power unit on the plane restart the aircraft and see if we could complete the passenger trip without the warning going off. Per AC limitations; after a battery overtemp dispatch is prohibited until maintenance is accomplished. We were able to restart and complete trip without another battery overtemp; however we did not get re-released for the trip; and maintenance was not accomplished till we got to our domestic destination; per our Maintenance Controllers instructions.I suggest we slow down and don't listen to the Maintenance Controllers.




Synopsis: A CE-680 BATTERY OVERTEMP Master Caution alerted during takeoff; so the takeoff was rejected and at the gate Maintenance Control verbally directed the crew to de-energize and restart in order to reset the warning. The procedure was unauthorized but did work.
Date: 202103
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 7
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Military
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Other Military
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Helicopter piloted by Pilot X and Pilot Y 3 miles NW of ZZZ at XA:20 received priority handling due to a Number 2 Engine Electrical Control Unit failure in flight. Pilot X advised ATC and landed to a closed (NOTAMed out) taxiway. The aircraft landed safely but was unable to be moved to an alternate location due to the failure.




Synopsis: Helicopter pilot reported an engine failure caused a precautionary landing on a closed taxiway.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Airliner 99
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Compass (HSI/ETC)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While executing the ILS approach I noticed that the glideslope on my HSI was not responding or 'coming alive' like it should be for that segment of the approach. I tapped on the instrument and realized that it was stuck as the glideslope would move and stick in a new position. At this time I advised ATC that I was going missed and began executing the missed approach. My intention was to shoot the approach again using my NAV 2 but by that time the visibility had dropped below minimums so I diverted.




Synopsis: Beechcraft C99 Captain reported the HSI glide slope indicator malfunctioned.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TIX.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Turbulence; Rain; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-24 Comanche
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZJX; Special Use R2935; R2934
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: This flight was conducted in accordance with part 91 of the FAR. The aircraft was flown by myself and was on a long cross-country flight to Stella Maris Bahamas; conducted during daylight and in VFR conditions. The flight conditions had started to degrade during the flight sometime after a refuel stop; in Northern Florida. As many thunderstorms popped up enroute; I had to make may course changes to avoid IMC and thunderstorms; with onboard weather (XM) I was able to make tactical choices to head East and clear through the East Coast where the thunderstorm activity was significantly less. I had contacted Jacksonville Center for advisories enroute and as I was near Titusville; FL the ATC controller told me to turn South heading; I reaffirmed that I was not able to travel any further South as there was a level 4 thunderstorm within five miles of my position. At this point; there were few options; she stated I could climb or descend but none were on option as I was above class B airspace at 11;500 MSL and was not cleared and could have been in IMC if I had complied with instructions; my fault was that I did not see the restricted airspace to the East; R2934 and R2935 for the NASA launch facility. The weather constraints and issues with ATC; fighting them to keep them from sending me into a thunderstorm pushed me further South and into the restricted airspace. I penetrated the far North end of R2934 and R2935 in order to continue my flight but did not realize it until I was already half way through. At this point; the only option I had open for me was the restricted airspace. Knowing that NASA does not launch during IMC and coastal thunderstorms; I felt there were no actual conflicts with NASA at the time. I nor fully believe that when I travel in the summer through Florida; I should get a much earlier start before the summer pop-up thunderstorms cause me problems. I believe ATC should understand that unable means unable when dealing with severe weather conditions and give GA aircraft under VFR the same consideration that the airlines get.




Synopsis: PA24 pilot reported inadvertently entering restricted airspace while attempting to remain clear of clouds on a VFR cross country. VFR flight following with ZJX was being used.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Selector
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During IMC/IFR Climb to 4000 ft; selected the left fuel tank. My routine procedure is to have the fuel selector match the minute hand: left tank on the :45min; right fuel tank on the :15min; switching tanks 2x every hour to keep fuel balanced. To switch tanks; I select fuel pump on; switch tanks; verify fuel pressure; select fuel pump off. At XA:45; I thought I selected the left tank. Apparently; I moved the selector beyond LEFT and selected OFF. At XA:49; the engine sputtered; then stopped. I called ATC; requested immediate turn back to ZZZ; established glide and began the emergency checklist: mixture rich; pump on; switch tanks. The engine started back up. Once confirmed running - I realized my error. I requested to continue on to my destination. Once on the ground; I verified that the stop on the fuel selector did not prevent an inadvertent off selection. Corrective action: visually verify tank selection. Have fuel selector repaired to ensure the tab preventing inadvertent off functions as intended.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Piper Arrow inadvertently rotated the fuel selector valve beyond the intended position which resulted in fuel starvation. The pilot was able to reposition the valve and resupply fuel to the engine.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: At AVL we had been vectored across final and then back around to the final approach course; near the FREEZ intersection. Conditions were completely clear with great visibility. We had briefed the airport qualification pages; and had talked about the terrain and possibility of GPWS alerts. We were level at 5;100 feet; on autopilot; and received an audible 'terrain; pull up' and had a red 'gnd prox' appear on the PFD. I disengaged the autopilot and began to execute the terrain escape maneuver; and the warning disappeared almost immediately. I had climbed to 5;300 ft during the maneuver. We contacted ATC to notify of the alert and altitude deviation; and the controller replied that the minimum vectoring altitude in that area was 5;100 feet. I slowly returned to 5;100 ft and we continued being vectored onto the visual approach without further issue. Marginal distance from terrain set off the GPWS. It appears that the MVA takes us within 951 feet of the highest obstacle in the area; a small radio tower just north of FREEZ. Executed terrain escape maneuver; per company procedures. It appears the MVA of 5;100 may be insufficient in that area; recommend at least 5;200 feet.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported experiencing a GPWS Alert on approach to AVL.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SGF.TRACON, MO
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 300
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E SGF
ATC / advisory: TRACON SGF
Second aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While approaching Branson; Missouri and expecting the visual approach for runway 32 from the ATIS report we were unable to get visual on the airport until almost directly above the airport. We were in contact with Springfield approach and informed the controller that the visual was not going to work and we needed vectors for the ILS32 due to deteriorating weather conditions.The controller issued a vector to the southwest of the airport and we were told to descend to 3200 feet and expect the ILS32 which we complied with. The time periods between assigned heading/vectors seemed very excessive and the pilot flying and I commented that he seemed to be operating another frequency or distracted. After receiving a heading back towards the localizer; I noticed another aircraft on TCAS at our same altitude that seemed to be on a converging course about 4 miles away and closing. We were in and out of the tops and mostly IMC conditions but I was able to get a visual on the aircraft occasionally.When we were about 7 miles from the DILME intersection on a northeast heading I (Pilot Monitoring) queried the controller about the approaching aircraft and received an immediate right turn to the southwest and a climb from 3200 to 4000. At this time we received a TA from the TCAS and turned right and began the climb. The TCAS was set on the close in range (5 NM) and showed us less than half a mile from the other aircraft (Cessna Caravan) and at the same altitude. While we were climbing and turning the Pilot Flying got a visual on the aircraft and later stated that we were so close that the other aircraft's pilot was clearly visible.After clearing the traffic conflict and receiving vectors back towards the airport for a second time I asked the Springfield Approach controller how the near miss we experienced happened and he stated 'That was my bad; sorry'. The rest of the flight continued normally and we executed the ILS32 and landed without any more issues.




Synopsis: CL-350 First Officer reported an airborne conflict on approach to BBG that he felt was related to ATC Controller workload.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 170
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Fatigue; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing Rollout
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was wrapping up a long training flight with my instructor and we were practicing approaches and landings before wraping up for the day. On the third landing approach there was a Cessna 150 ahead of us in the pattern.  I extended the downwind to make room and turned base and final much further out than typical. One of the things we had been practicing is making sure to be low enough on the approach to not overshoot since it is such a short runway.  On this approach I was quite low and setup a little low on final when I realized that while I had seen the C150 land I wasn't certain it had cleared the runway. I thought it might still be on there and asked my instructor if we should go around. He said no and to go ahead and land since we didn't see the other aircraft on the runway anymore and we would be landing very short. The previous loop around the pattern I initiated a go around because it didn't feel right but was assured that we were setup just right for landing and should've landed.  I think that I was reluctant to do another go around 'for no reason' if I didn't need to according to the instructor.Shortly after landing and rolling out several feet and up the incline in the runway we saw the other airplane at the far end. At just about the same time we heard frantic calls for the other airplane to get off the runway as soon as possible.  I was setup for a short field landing and exited the runway after a very short landing roll about 1;700 feet from where the other aircraft had exited the runway.  We were shaken from the realization that we had shared the runway and scared the other training aircraft.Contributing factors:1. Fatigue- This was one of the first training sessions after a 4 month break and my instructor and I were exhausted.2. Human Factors - I deferred to my instructors experience and decided against the go around.  We have since discussed this issue and agreed that if either of us feel a go around is a good idea we will go around.3. Airport -  The runway X landing zone is at a significantly lower elevation than the XX end of the runway. because of the geography is difficult to see aircraft at the other end.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a Critical Ground conflict during landing rollout with opposite direction non-reporting traffic.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Aircraft component: Intake Ice System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While flight instructing; training a licensed pilot in stalls; stall awareness; and stall recoveries; carburetor heat was not applied.  The outside air temperatures were sufficient enough to produce carburetor ice.  The engine lost power; and best glide was established.  Time allotted for three restart attempts; checking carburetor heat; fuel; mags; etc...  While gliding the plane successfully into a nice field; instructing a 'real time' engine out procedure; and calling out restart checks; the carburetor heat did not clear the ice. A successful soft field landing was executed with no incident. This was a checkout/currency flight; wanting to review all phases of flight for eventual solo.  While intensely instructing; and calling out entry and recovery procedures; I failed to verify carburetor heat was indeed on.    In unusual attitudes; and stall recovery training; a more thorough briefing on the importance in the use of applying carburetor heat should have been reviewed.  In longer reductions of power; such as in stall series training; especially in dew point temperature ranges that are conducive to carburetor icing; training the use of carburetor heat should be stressed by all flight instructors and pilots alike.The aircraft was flown back from the location of the forced landing with no incident.




Synopsis: A C150 Instructor conducting a checkout with a licensed pilot failed to select carburetor heat during stall training which resulted in the engine quitting. A successful off airport landing followed unsuccessful inflight start attempts.