elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream G200 (IAI 1126 Galaxy)
Operator: Corporate
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: TRACON issued a climb to a departing aircraft.  The aircraft auto-acquired onto my scope as it violated my airspace above 9000 feet then climbed to 15000 feet; was flashing a handoff to the adjacent Center  sector and re-entered TRACON airspace from the side. Then I heard TRACON on the shout line calling the adjacent sector with a handoff.  Shortly thereafter that sector called me for a point out to climb above 15000 feet; still within the lateral confines of my airspace.This has happened at least three times this year that I am aware of; similar circumstances. TRACON needs to do a point out; handoff; or other coordination prior to entering another facility's airspace.  Perhaps they need to review adjacent center sector boundary maps.




Synopsis: An aircraft departing TRACON airspace climbed through the overlying ARTCC sector without coordination. The automated handoff was in effect with the next ARTCC sector along the aircraft's route of flight.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I woke up in the morning and saw the fog; so I took my iPad and reviewed the minimums and the section of [flight manual] for low visibility take off minimums.When we arrived at the airplane I called ATC to ask about the RVR (Runway Visual Range) and they told me the RVR was 2;400 ft. I checked again the plate with the takeoff minimums and we had enough visibility to depart.We started taxi and by the time we get to the runway the RVR had dropped to 1;200 to 1;400 ft. At this point I looked again and I didn't pay enough attention and mixed up Runway 23R and 23L minimums. When we took the runway I checked we had the runway center line lights (Runway 23L has HIRL and CL) so I didn't get alerted and we took off with no issues. After takeoff I decided to look at the plate again and realized that I mixed up the minimums for Runway 23L with Runway 23R. Runway 23L required RVR 1;600 ft.The flight continued normally.I Didn't pay enough attention to the runway on the plate. The other runway is short and was closed. We talked about the minimums with the First Officer and never mentioned the 'wrong runway'.Next time I'll make sure we both review the takeoff minimums plate when a new RVR is announced and make sure both pilots agree on the minimums for the current runway set on the FMS.




Synopsis: E170 First Officer reported misreading the RVR minimums for takeoff; resulting in a departure below RVR minimums.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog
Light: Night
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent; Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I filed a flight plan to ZZZ1; with a required alternate of ZZZ2. I departed with 3;100 LBS of fuel; requiring only 2;900 to make my alternate and 45 minute cruising time. Upon arrival in ZZZ1 class C airspace; I was informed that the RVR had dropped to 1;200. I asked to hold; and was told to hold at [navigational aid]; which I did. After 2 turns in holding at 5;000 MSL; I asked to climb to 12;000 for fuel conservation. I elected not to divert to my alternate of ZZZ2 because ZZZ3 (which I was holding over) has an LPV approach; and was reporting 6 SM visibility. I was able to see the runway lights and beacon at ZZZ3 with each turn in holding. After approximately 30 minutes of holding; I noticed that there was a reduction in visibility at ZZZ3 (I could still see the beacon and runway lights; but with less clarity); and checked the AWOS there. It was reporting 2 SM visibility.I then decided to attempt to land at ZZZ3 before the weather deteriorated any further. I attempted the RNAV Runway XX there; but had to go missed. I then requested vectors to ZZZ4; and began to set up for the approach there; however; their AWOS showed 1/4 SM visibility. With approximately 30 minutes of fuel left; I realized I had boxed myself into a very bad situation. I am very familiar with the ILS XX at ZZZ1; and elected to [advise ATC of minimum fuel] and attempt the ILS there. The RVR was reported to be 1;600; but I was essentially out of options. I landed successfully; and was escorted to the ramp by airport operations.I will never hold for more than 2 turns before diverting again. I believed that the weather would clear (the RVR would bounce from 1;000 to 1;600 at ZZZ1); but should have erred on the side of caution and proceeded to ZZZ2. I was emboldened to stay in holding because of the weather at ZZZ3.




Synopsis: A Cessna Citation pilot reported having to advise ATC of minimum fuel due to deteriorating weather conditions at the destination airport; which necessitated several holding patterns and a missed approach at an alternate airport.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DTW.Airport, MI
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Airspace: Class B DTW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D21
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I told a CRJ7 to maintain visual separation from a B737. He used the call sign in his read back but did not acknowledge the visual separation. I restated the clearance saying CRJ7 maintain visual separation from the B737. He read back his call sign and 'will do'. I am not sure if 'will do' is acceptable as a read back in this situation. I did not combine it with any other control instruction and the pilot used his call sign. I did not go back a third time and try to get the pilot to say the phrase 'will maintain visual separation'. In the future I can ask the pilot to read back the phrase 'will maintain visual separation'.




Synopsis: A D21 Controller reported a possible phraseology/clearance error when issuing a 'maintain visual separation' clearance and the pilot not responding with the exact phraseology required.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BFI.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Recip Eng
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground BFI
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Workload; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: It was dark and wet with intermittent very light rain. I was given a clearance to taxi to Runway 13R at Alpha 1 on Taxiway Alpha. While taxiing I was looking inside and outside while setting radio frequencies. All of a sudden I noticed an orange construction barrier right in my path. I swerved to the right to miss it. I watched it go by my left propeller very close. I was unsure if I had hit it so I told Ground that I would like to exit the taxiway onto the ramp to check something. I shut down and my passengers and I got out with flashlights and proceeded to check the aircraft. We found absolutely no signs of any damage whatsoever. After this inspection I assumed that I had missed the barrier. I elected to continue to continue and we flew home. After arriving back a call from Operations confirmed that it looked like I had indeed put a few small slices in the plastic barrier. There were many variables I feel that led up to this.1. Perceived familiarity with the airport.2. I was there all day and I was late for another flight I had to make in another aircraft upon my return.3. Dark and wet4. Being in too much of a hurry5. The taxiway centerline went right into the barriersI feel fortunate that I saw it when I did. It would have been much worse had I not see it at all. To prevent this from recurring: NEVER EVER taxi while programming or doing something inside. I don't recall Ground Control or the ATIS giving a warning about the obstacles. Re-striping a centerline around it may have helped.

Callback: The Reporter stated that he did not remember a NOTAM regarding a taxiway obstruction nor did Ground Control mention it. The previous day the Reporter flown in and out of BFI and did not see the obstruction on that trip. He suggested a Ground Control comment something like; Caution Taxiway Obstruction at A7; similar to Caution Jet Blast. Also; a complete obstruction such as this should have required a temporary taxiway centerline replacement.



Synopsis: A pilot; taxiing on BFI Taxiway A in dark wet conditions; detected an orange construction barrier on the taxiway centerline. After diverting; thought he avoided it but was informed at his destination that his propeller struck the barrier.
Date: 202105
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: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Observer
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [Airways bill] went un-manifested on flight. This is a ID8000; Class 9 shipment with a Dangerous Goods weight of 0.76kgs. This came in on flight from ZZZ in the manual pit and was transported to cargo and dropped off at the inbound [shipping] cart just inside the warehouse. Manifest Agent had made an error on the outbound date for this shipment when she prepared her paperwork for this flight - she put [the date +1] on her paperwork.  The inbound agent confirmed [to] the shipment agents her printed manifest and moved it to the outbound cart.The [airline] runner came by and picked up the shipment and took it to the flight. Despite not being listed on the DSTG [Departure Staging Guide]; this was loaded on to [the] flight. We first knew of this incident when ZZZ1 informed us that this shipment arrived off flight in ZZZ1. ZZZ2 manifested and departed the shipment [the next day] in order for ZZZ1 to [receive] the shipment there.Will work with the ramp to get their side of the story. Also; requested document copies from ZZZ; none were attached to the freight or in the inbound doc box.




Synopsis: Air Carrier cargo ground personnel reported undocumented transport of Hazmat cargo due to ground handling errors.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
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: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On landing; nose gear steering became ineffective in the right direction resulting in plane sliding off Runway XX to the left. No damage to aircraft; persons; or property.




Synopsis: C150 instructor pilot reported an inoperative nose wheel steering led to a runway excursion at a non-towered airport with no damage or injuries.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I am filling this out more because I am sensing a large proficiency issue in the GA community that is growing due to the introduction of ADS/B in the cockpit.  Due to a cockpit distraction back at the tie down; I never entered my beacon code in the transponder - I was still squawking 1200. I only realized the mistake when switching to departure.  Seconds before that realization; I was also given a heading change. I guess between the heading change; the realization that I needed to punch in my code and the fact that the radios are to my right (supposition on my part) - I started a turn to the right instead of the left and transposed to heading to 030 in my head.  That's my guess what got me in to a bad situation - not the issues I mainly want to address. I did have a short discussion with departure as to if I made the wrong turn. It was unclear if I had.  Regardless; when I turned; I immediately got a traffic alert. It mentioned traffic less than one mile.  It also said something about 'climbing.' At this point I was confused. I didn't know if the traffic was climbing or it was telling me to climb. I remember reading the manual over a year ago; but I could not recall the details. Consequently; I leveled off; searched and found my traffic.  No evasive action was warranted.  I then continued my climb.  When our ADS/B unit was installed; I read how there was a traffic alert feature.  Until that day; I never got to experience how it worked.  I think there is potentially a growing proficiency problem in GA now that we have ADS/B - specifically 'TCAS like' traffic alerts.  We need to come up with a way for us GA pilots to experience traffic alerts for their kind of ADS/B equipment so that we are proficient on our actions and; equally important; not surprised by the alerts.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported failure in training to understand ADSB alerts and resolutions.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Fatigue; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On flight to SFO. During the approach and landing phase the aircraft descended below 1000 ft and close to full scale deflection on the GS during VMC daylight conditions while on the FMS Bridge Visual to 28R. I was flying pilot and following the FD while slowing to 160kts and trying to maintain a position behind an aircraft on approach to 28L. I stopped the descent and climbed to about 1000ft making positive adjustments per SOP. At this point we received one GS aural warning. I then intercepted the GS and proceeded to land uneventfully.Several factors contributed to this undesired state:1. The previous three days were single assignments starting early on the 28th; late on the 29th finishing early on the 30th; and then starting early on the 31st. All while maintaining long call reserve in-between and not knowing how to prepare in advance for the next days assignment. Fatigue was an issue as I was not able to fully recover from switching duty periods almost 12 hours different for the previous 3 days.2. Being new to the fleet; but being comfortable in the aircraft previously. Having the AP not intercepting the GS before intercepting the Localizer is new to me and the aircraft contributed to this state. I do not know why the FD guidance guided me to this state as I was locked on and relying on it for guidance while focusing on the aircraft on 28L.This was a combination of fatigue; first time experiencing the GS not intercepting before the LOC; and high work load environment on parallel approaches.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain on visual approach to SFO descended below glideslope by following incorrectly programmed FD bars. Fatigue was listed as a contributing factor.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BZN.Airport, MT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA20-C1 Eclipse
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground BZN
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft was holding short of Taxiway A after starting and completing pre-taxi checks. ATIS was obtained. Student switched to Ground frequency in order to call for taxi clearance. The frequency was monitored for about ten seconds to ensure a transmission would not be interrupted. The frequency was quiet and the student transmitted; 'Bozeman Tower (meaning to say Ground) this is DA-20 ready for taxi with information G; remaining in the pattern.' After a brief pause a transmission was heard; 'Taxi Runway 12 via A; verify you have information G'. After clearing left and right; student began rolling toward taxiway A and stated; 'That's correct we have G; taxi via A; DA-20.' Now on Taxiway A Ground transmitted; 'Is DA-20 calling ground?' Instructor replied; 'Affirmative; DA-20.' Ground replied; 'What did you want?' At this time Instructor realized we had not been given clearance to taxi; stopped the plane and replied; 'We just called and got taxi clearance to 12 with G.' Controller replied; 'Okay; I just gave taxi clearance to aircraft Y. DA-20 taxi to 12 via Alpha; say intentions.' Instructor replied; '12 via A; we have G; remaining in the pattern; DA-20'. After listening to the recording on liveATC.net it became apparent that the student's initial transmission was blocked by Ground issuing a taxi clearance to aircraft Y. This caused us to hear only the words 'taxi Runway 12 via A verify you have information G.' The cause of the problem was the instructor's failure to either verify that the transmission was for the correct aircraft or have the student do so. A recurrence of this event can be avoided by obtaining verification from ATC if ever in doubt.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor describes the circumstances of a missed communication with Ground Control when his student called for taxi clearance.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 58/58TC
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approaching ZZZ from south to north to enter right base for ZZZ RWY XX. Saw on ADSB scope the other aircraft at my altitude and opposite heading to mine. I was in contact with ZZZ Tower who also advised of approaching aircraft. I began descent and shallow right bank (turn) as the other aircraft initiated a right turn. In spite of seeing it on my scope and being advised by Tower; I did not have a visual on the other aircraft until I saw it turn to its right.




Synopsis: A VFR pilot reported a NMAC while approaching the traffic pattern.