elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202005
Location: MCO.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B MCO
ATC / advisory: Tower MCO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Taxiway is very rough especially when expediting across 17R. [There should be] a note on the taxi chart to proceed extra slow.  This could create an issue when trying expedite for 17R traffic.




Synopsis: Captain reported taxiway crossing MCO Runway 17R is very rough and should be noted in charting.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: S50.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G S50
ATC / advisory: CTAF S50
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After entering the pattern at S50 there was a helicopter on downwind landing for Runway 34.  I had the helicopter in sight and flew the pattern to it.  As I turned final the helicopter seemed to be taking a lot of time and I couldn't tell if he was going to land on the runway or on the taxiway so I inquired if he was landing on the runway.  He responded that he was going around.  I continued with the approach. The aircraft I was flying has poor visibility forward during landing.  In the round out I caught sight of the helicopter about 1/2 to 3/4 of the way down the runway between 50-100 feet AGL and apparently stationary.  I executed a go-around; sidestepped to the left to avoid a potentially dangerous situation; and advised the helicopter to go right.  After I landed I was met by an NTSB inspector [who had witnessed the event] who said that they had been having issues with helicopters and I should stop by the airport office and report this incident.  I do believe FAR 91.126 instructs a helicopter to avoid the flow of fixed wing aircraft.




Synopsis: A King Air pilot executed a go-around when the helicopter on approach ahead of him was hovering at low altitude over the runway as he was in the flare.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on my first solo cross-country after receiving my endorsement from my CFI. The actual cross-country went very well and I made it safely from my home airport to ZZZ. I made a successful landing are receiving clearance from Tower and once on the ground I was instructed to back taxi on runway XX to depart again and do one lap in the traffic pattern before I headed back to my home airport to finish my solo cross-country. I was lined up and received clearance to depart runway XX; the ATIS if I remember correctly was winds from 130 at 5 kts so little to none crosswind component on this takeoff. I was performing a normal takeoff and I noticed my aircraft had trouble staying on the centerline; wanting to veer left; up to the point where I was using full right rudder. I got up to about 20 kts groundspeed before the aircraft took a fairly sharp turn to the left and was on course to go off the runway into the grass. I immediately pulled throttle idle and tried to stop but I knew I wasn't going to stop on time and I didn't want to make a sharp hard right turn with my brakes because of the risk of flipping the aircraft so I opted to just let it ride out in the grass right off the runway XX. I immediately notified Tower and told them 'I went off the runway into the grass. I think I have a flat tire;' and he responded to stay put; shut down the aircraft and he'll send some of the FBO guys to come out and help me and I complied. There was no damage to me or the aircraft during this time. I then called my CFI and told him exactly what happened and told me to stay put and have maintenance check it out and that I did the right thing for owning up to what happened. The aircraft was then inspected and nothing was visibly wrong with it and so my CFI picked me up that day and then the A&P's from my flight school came and picked it up the next day. For precautionary measures; the flight school had me do a training flight with my CFI of just takeoffs and landings and that went satisfactorily and I'm being double-checked by a check instructor at my flight school to ensure I'm a safe pilot.




Synopsis: Student pilot reported a runway excursion.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D98.Airport, MI
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: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E D98
ATC / advisory: CTAF D98
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; 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 made a radio announcement that I was departing the airport heading north. Another aircraft flew in front and slightly above me during my initial climb; causing a near-miss in the traffic pattern. This aircraft made several other landings without using a radio and was not entering the traffic pattern mid-field as expected.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Piper Dakota reported that another pilot caused a near mid-air collision condition in the traffic pattern by failure to utilize his radio and the use of non-standard traffic pattern entry.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: WSSS.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: INS / IRS / IRU
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Inverted the parking spot coordinates in the initial position to initialize the IRUs. The sign at gates XX and XY have the wrong coordinates. Signs read N122.4 E1040.04. The correct coordinates are N 1 22.4 E 104 00.4. This needs to be fixed. The Jeppesen 10-9C1 pages that list parking spot coordinates is correct; the sign at the gate is wrong. The decimal place on the longitude is in the wrong place.  Our aircraft had been towed to the gate. When I initialized the FMS; the numbers were off so I used the coordinates off the gate sign to initialize. That position put the IRUs on the west coast of Africa. The GNS (Global Navigation System) RNP (Required Navigational Performance) began to climb after alignment and after some time; we received an unable RNP alert. Maintenance deferred the GNS and we proceeded without GNS and ADS-B.I realized what had happened on pushback from the gate and informed maintenance of the discrepancy in the gate sign. Wrong coordinates on the gate sign for gate XX and XY at WSSS. Fix the sign and always take the coordinates off the flight plan for FMS initial coordinates.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reports entering IRU coordinates from the gate sign at WSSS which has a decimal point error. The east coordinate is entered as a 10.4 instead of 104 causing GPS error messages and a call for maintenance. The GPS is deferred and the actual cause of the anomaly is discovered during push back and corrected.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SUA.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D SUA
ATC / advisory: TRACON PBI
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was doing a night VFR cross country to PBI with a part-141 student... My student used SUA as a checkpoint. Upon arriving over SUA; the airport was dark with no runway lights on. I used the pilot controlled lighting frequency and activated the runway lights to high intensity to show my student where SUA was as he could not find it... PBI approach then asked me if I was the one who turned on the runway lighting (SUA was asking PBI approach)... I was un-aware that SUA increased their operational hours to [later in the evening]. I admitted that it was me. I was then told my PBI tower that I was given a possible pilot deviation for said action of turning on the runway lights @ SUA. I then called SUA and proceeded to talk with them. We had a discussion and was told that no action would be taken and that they would appreciate if it was not done again. I can understand the possible consequences that could result of turning on the runway lights at both a controlled/uncontrolled airport at night without listening in on the frequency first to determine traffic status... I should also consult the AFD before turning on the runway lights at a controlled airport to verify operational time.




Synopsis: A flight instructor reported comments by ATC after he had activated the airport lighting while flying overhead as this could impact other traffic.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SDF.Airport, KY
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C SDF
ATC / advisory: Tower SDF
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was training a CPC/IT on Local Control; and he had Aircraft Y depart 17L; and then slotted Aircraft X into departure position; with the Aircraft Z on about a 3 mile close in visual approach. Aircraft Z checked in at about 2.5 mile final (due to a missed frequency change; I was told later) and I know he was caught off guard by the arrival; thinking that it was still on the downwind versus being on a really close in base leg; but instead of fixing the arrival; which I was anticipating; he told the arrival to continue; and then launched Aircraft X; with Aircraft Y just off of the departure end. We turned Aircraft Y to a diverging heading with plenty of time to spare; but that did not help us with the wake turbulence separation requirements. We ended up with 2.5 miles of lateral separation on the two departures. I believe this was caused by a reflex on the trainee's part that he was in the heat of the moment and knew he had enough separation with his departures. As a CPC from another facility; he is used to using the standard separation standards between these types of aircraft; and he reverted to that mindset when he realized he was in a tight spot. At SDF however; we have Wake Turbulence Recategorization Separation Standards; which allow us to run large and heavy aircraft closer together; but we have to have more separation with the small aircraft and anything else. This; along with the very quick nature of the event; and slower reaction time on my part; were all contributing factors to this event. After the operation; I and my trainee discussed all of the options we should have employed to prevent this situation; such as not slotting the second departure; or using visual separation; coordinating for another runway for the arrival to land; etc.I would love to see the Wake Recat standards allow for the benefit of the closer heavy separation requirements; along with keeping the same standards for smalls as we used to have; that would be a benefit to all facilities; nationwide; not just facilities that have a majority of heavy aircraft.




Synopsis: SDF Local Control Instructor reports of incident where he let the Developmental depart an aircraft too close to a previous departure because of aircraft on short final.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Cleared to 'descend via RIIVR Arrival; cleared ILS 25L approach.' Weather: Cloud top deck at 3700 FT MSL and ceiling 1600 FT MSL. Passing 4300 FT MSL on ILS glidepath/course and 240 knots; SoCal Approach pointed out another carrier on right base to 24L. We were asked if we had it in sight. We said yes; but would lose them when both aircraft entered the cloud deck. Told to respond when we lose sight in clouds. We respond that we were losing sight of the other aircraft as they were entering clouds. We were told to maintain 4000 FT MSL. We were not told to cancel approach clearance. Then we were told to maintain 3800 FT MSL. We had to climb from 3700 FT MSL back up to 3800 FT MSL. We queried the Controller about our approach clearance. He said to maintain localizer course. We were now well above glidepath. Then; we were told 'cleared ILS approach.' We were high. Then; we were told to slow further because of overtake of the aircraft in front of us. We were high at the FAF and fast trying to configure and get down. Broke out just inside FAF with runway in sight. High on glidepath; greater than 1000 FT Vertical Velocity Indicator descent; and fast. We were stabilized inside the slot and elected to land as the approach criteria were coming together.Factors attributed to this incident included poor ATC controlling and verbiage. Question: With field under IMC conditions and both aircraft under IMC approach criteria; why were we told to maintain visual after being given instrument approach clearance? And; then didn't have approach clearance cancelled after given altitude clearance while on ILS approach?




Synopsis: Pilot reports of marginal weather inbound to LAX and being asked if they could maintain visual with another aircraft. Pilot responded that they could; but would lose the aircraft when it went into the cloud deck. Controller told them to maintain an altitude; then cleared them for the ILS. Pilot wondered why controller would issue the visual when they were aware of the clouds and why did the Controller not issue a clearance cancellation.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight; Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: CA (Captain) on Aircraft X; ZZZ-ZZZ1 called and asked about NOTOC (Notice to Crew).  He noticed that on walk around in ZZZ1 that human organs and dry ice was loaded on to the aircraft.  ACARS was inoperative via MEL; but nowhere on the Load Closeout [documents] were restricted articles listed.  I conference called the CA with CLP (Load Planning) and the CLP Supervisor said that there is nothing on their side they can do if the Crew Chief does not advise them.  Also; usually a MEDEVAC notice from ATC would give us both a heads up about dry ice but they [did] not advise Dispatch. [Incomplete flight closeout documents issued due to] Missed SOP by Crew Chief. [Reporter recommends] not allow a flight closeout to be sent when a restricted item is loaded until CA acknowledges.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Dispatch reported a communications breakdown between Dispatch and Ramp Crew Chief regarding SOP to issue required Hazmat documents.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D21.TRACON, MI
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DTW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D21
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: METROPLEX Subject Matter Expert submitting report on behalf of a D21 [controller] working East Departure. This was his first session working 1E since the DTW/CLE Metroplex implementation. While observing the operation as a floor-walker; I overheard him; utilize the legit 7110.65 phraseology to 'climb via except maintain 17;000' upon initial radar identification off of DTW. I warned the controller to be vigilant about watching the corner where the RNAV SID procedure turns from the southeast to the southwest and are procedurally separated from RNAV STARs so long as the departure complies with an at/below 7;000-ft crossing restricting at LAZYI that coincides with the STAR traffic descending via to a bottom altitude of 8;000-ft on the downwind. Many pilots who are initially assigned a top altitude of 7;000-ft by DTW clearance delivery and subsequently instructed to 'climb via except maintain 17;000' by the Radar Controller seem to disregard and not comply with the at/below restriction at LAZYI. This particular pilot read back the revised climb via clearance and was subsequently observed climbing above 9;000-ft as they crossed LAZYI. Air carrier flight crews do not seem to understand how to comply with a 'Climb Via' clearance. It appears they read it back correctly but treat it as an arbitrary 'Climb and maintain' clearance; disregarding all subsequent altitude restrictions on the RNAV SID. As much as we want the pilot community to learn how to comply with the phraseology correctly; in the interim; we are advising radar controllers to avoid utilizing the 'climb via except maintain' phraseology and instead utilize standard 'climb and maintain' phraseology once clear of traffic conflicts. This option is safer but if we universally decide to avoid using the 'climb via' phraseology; the flight crews will never learn either. An education piece needs to be forced out to the airline pilot workforce at large.




Synopsis: D21 Subject Matter Expert training ATC personnel in the facility reported pilots often miss altitude restrictions when issued 'climb via' clearances.