elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LGB.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D LGB
ATC / advisory: Tower LGB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During internal review of the Local Control position I identified an airspace violation. Training was taking place but it was a slow session. Local control instructed an aircraft to extend downwind without restriction then told him to turn base too late so that he slopped over into an adjacent airport's Class D airspace. No point out was given by Local Control to the adjacent tower.I have sent this to management; but my manager has instructed me not to file Mandatory Occurrence Reports on losses identified during internal reviews. I am completing this report to comply with my requirements to report airspace violations. The ATCS tried to correct the issue by telling the pilot to turn base; but it was too late. The Controller should have given a point out to the Tower. That would have remedied the situation.




Synopsis: LGB Tower Quality Control Specialist reported he discovered an airspace violation event during an internal review. The Tower Manager reportedly instructed the Specialist to not report the violation.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation III; VI; VII (C650)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were cruising at FL380 enroute direct to ZZZ1 our position was approx 80 miles SE of ZZZ. We were given a descent to FL350 as we were starting our descent we got a cabin red master caution light followed by a cabin horn; the light comes on at 8;500 feet and the horn at 10;000 feet cabin altitude. I saw we were depressurizing we both donned our oxygen masks; [requested priority handling] and started an emergency descent to 12;000 feet. I told the copilot to fly and I will check on our passenger and start the emergency QRH procedures. I was able to stop the cabin at 13;000 feet cabin altitude and advised Center that we would like to land at ZZZ. We advised Center that we had control of the cabin and ended our emergency but would still like to land ASAP. We were handed off to Approach Control and landed without incident. We were very busy in the cockpit and were communicating through our oxygen masks on intercom; and PA to our passenger and to ATC.Upon landing we had Maintenance look at the aircraft and checks preformed and could not find a problem with the pressurization system and the aircraft was returned to service and we departed back to ZZZ2 with no further problems.




Synopsis: Citation 650 Captain reported a pressurization issue led to a rapid descent and diversion.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower SEA
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: SEA Tower has a practice of clearing airplanes to cross Runway 16L on Taxiway 'C' while another airplane is rolling for takeoff on Runway 16L. This practice has resulted in two low speed [Rejected Take Off] RTO's from me in the past 4 years. I rejected both times because I heard the words 'cleared to cross Runway 16L' while I was starting a takeoff roll with multiple airplanes down field holding short of runways 16L and 16C. In both cases; after rejecting the takeoff; I learned that the aircraft had been cleared to cross behind us while we were starting our takeoff roll. In both RTO's; neither one of us heard the words 'on Taxiway C'; instead all we heard was 'cleared to cross Runway 16L'. One reason I think we failed to hear the entire clearance was that we were busy starting a takeoff roll; setting power and making required calls that most likely covered part of the ATC clearance. In my opinion this is an unsafe practice that has the potential for serious consequences should ATC and/or other pilots ever make a mistake and attempt to cross a runway while another airplane is departing the same runway in periods of low visibility. No pilot should ever become accustomed to hearing a clearance for another airplane to cross their departure runway; even if that clearance is to cross the runway behind them. My concern is after repeated acclimation to such a practice; should one day ATC make an error in low visibility and mistakenly clear someone across a runway down field of a departing airplane; that pilots will miss a final opportunity to trap a serious error that could have been prevented had they not grown accustomed to hearing this crossing clearance. My understanding is that in Europe; ATC is not allowed to cross an airplane on a runway in which another airplane is departing; even if that clearance places the crossing airplane behind the departing airplane. This habit SEA Tower has of crossing airplanes behind departing airplanes needs to stop immediately as it has the potential for setting us up for a serious incident/accident one day.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported rejecting a takeoff on KSEA Runway 16L when Tower was heard clearing another aircraft to cross the same runway. Tower did not advise that the crossing aircraft was behind the aircraft taking off.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: This was a horrible experience. We were trying to avoid thunderstorm heads and I advised ATC of heading and altitude that was needed to avoid a cell. ATC said no go heading 360 if you can't descend to 12;000 feet. We advised we were unable 12;000 feet due to a thunderstorm and needed a 010 heading. ATC argued with us. The Pilot in Command wanted one thing and ATC wanted another. Then ATC said if you're not going to descend then Traffic Alert head on course with 737 that ATC did not move either. Finally we stayed our course and maintained 16;000 feet and eventually turned on to our flight plan route. This was very dangerous for ATC to argue with us and we did hit moderate border line severe turbulence and scared our passengers trying to comply with ATC instructions. ATC should not have argued and the Pilot in Command should have talked to ATC directly rather than have me relay it. He should have transferred controls since I did not know what the Pilot in Command wanted.




Synopsis: Fractional First Officer reported ATC would not approve a deviation for weather resulted in an airborne conflict and severe turbulence encounter.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CEU.Airport, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E CEU
ATC / advisory: UNICOM CEU
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on arrival to CEU we anticipated the RNAV approach to Runway 7. Weather was clear so instead we briefed a visual approach to Runway 7 with a plan to overfly the departure end and enter the right downwind for runway 7. ATC left us high on the arrival so we were expediting down to get to Traffic Pattern Altitude (TPA). I set 1600 in the altitude alerter since I believed that the TPA was 1600. I believed it to be 1600 because I had mistakenly misread the chart and added 1500 to the Threshold Crossing Height (TCH) instead of the TDZ Elevation on the approach chart for RNAV 7. I entered the downwind and arrested my descent rate but was still gradually descending in the traffic pattern when I noticed that we seemed quite low. I verified the altimeter setting and stopped my descent. While beginning to initiate a climb we received a 'Terrain Terrain Pull Up' GPWS warning. I immediately disconnected the autopilot and continued the climb manually. It was at this time the GPWS warning stopped and since the weather was clear VFR; I could see that there was no threat of terrain so I continued my visual approach to the runway and did not fly an escape maneuver. When I briefed the visual approach; we should have read and cross verified the APT ELEV number instead of looking at the number on the approach chart and assuming that was the airport elevation. I will be more vigilant in the future to do so.




Synopsis: Light Jet Captain reported a GPWS Terrain warning after descending to a traffic pattern altitude based upon a mistaken airport elevation.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Balloon
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Second aircraft: DJI Mavic Mini
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Lighter-Than-Air
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was descending to land in a targeted landing field east of high-value homes when a drone operator sent his equipment into my balloon. The drone tore through a low panel of fabric; fell into the pilot compartment; hit me on the head; and flopped around on the floor like a fish in a boat. It distracted me and so I overburned and aborted my approach to landing. I then landed at an alternate landing site; [Name] High School - where 2 other balloons had landed.




Synopsis: Hot Air Balloon operator on approach had a mid air collision with a drone. The drone caused damage to the balloon and struck the pilot in the head. Balloon was landed shortly after.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While enroute; I noticed landing fuel as displayed on Multi-Function Display (MFD) was decreasing at a rapid rate. FO and I estimated it was showing a loss of approximately 50 LBS per minute. Fuel flow on both engines was slightly higher than normal at 2;200 PPH. At one point; landing fuel indicated 1;300 LBS on landing. Fuel total in Flight Management System (FMS) equaled fuel amount indicated on fuel page. We were approximately 180 miles from our filed destination when first discovered.We contacted ATC to coordinate modified descent profile into our filed destination to preserve fuel and obtained direct routing. Notified ATC that we had a possible fuel leak. With direct routing; landing fuel indicated 2;600 LBS; right at reserve. Initially; leaving; landing fuel indicated 4;400 LBS. Approximately 1;800 LBS was lost enroute. We had stronger than forecast tail winds and flew on profile.On landing; trucks were standing by to view aircraft in case there was a leak. Once parked in remote area; FAs and several passengers reported fuel fumes in cabin. I investigated and smelled the fumes as well; FO agreed. Passengers were deplaned and bussed to [the] terminal without incident.Could not duplicate leak condition on ground other than strong fumes in cabin after high power turn. Aircraft signed off and [ferried] to a maintenance base without incident.




Synopsis: While enroute; a CRJ-900 crew thought fuel was decreasing more rapidly than expected and assumed a fuel leak. After landing a fuel odor was detected; but no leak discovered so the aircraft was ferried to a maintenance station.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: wind; 10
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying my (UAS) drone at the boat harbor. I was recording a boat that just docked with my wife and two friends aboard. I flew too close approximately 50 feet at an altitude of 25 to 35 feet AGL; a gust of wind caught the drone and veered it into the rear open compartment deck for viewing on the vessel. Winds were 5 - 8 miles approximately with an occasional gust of 9 -10 miles per hour. I tried to recover but the UAS hit the roof deck. Witnesses said an unidentified adult man (tourist passenger) batted the UAS with his hand to keep the UAS from striking another passenger and received a minor cut from the prop. The passenger exited the boat and left on the tour bus not leaving his name or other information. The Captain secured the UAS and upon my giving him all my information returned the UAS.




Synopsis: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) pilot reported losing control of the drone; causing it to collide with a ship.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ELP.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The aircraft was towed to gate and parking brake set.  A few minutes later the aircraft dumped approximately a gallon of hydraulic fluid onto the ramp.  Maintenance Control was called and Contract Maintenance was called out.  After discussing in some length with Contract Maintenance and Maintenance Control; they came to a conclusion that it was the system 'venting.'  I have flown here for [many] years and never seen this. They insisted this was a normal thing and that there wasn't a leak. I finally asked for them to describe where the 'venting' comes from in the wheel well and to describe the place while I was in the wheel well on my phone.  So they started to describe a place low near the belly below the B system reservoir.  After they finished describing; I told them that is not where it was coming from and told them about a pressure gauge where all the fluid was dripping from.   I even got the Maintenance Control's cell number and took pictures and texted them to him.  After 20 minutes; the Contract Maintenance guy changed his tune and said he was not letting the aircraft fly because of the leak.  The aircraft was pulled from service.  So in summary; the aircraft was 'good to go' but ended up being pulled from service after I stood my ground.  My concern is what happens when this same attitude is presented to a Captain who takes Maintenance by their word and flies the aircraft.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported he was not satisfied with maintenance releasing his aircraft for service after a hydraulic leak was found. Maintenance ultimately agreed with the reporter.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Distraction
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While doing a touch and go I was correcting for a slight crosswind.  I had my left wing slightly down for the crosswind approach.  I was higher off the runway then I perceived; so the plane came down on the left landing gear harder then expected.  This force; along with the correction being put in for the crosswind started to yaw the plan to the left.  I put in full power to try and go around; but it was to late.  The rotating force had me facing off the runway.  Adding power allowed me to level the wings and bring the plane to a safe stop off the side of the runway.  I contacted the tower and taxied off the grass onto a taxiway.  No damages were done.  I think if I would have had more power in on the approach that I could have recovered without going off the runway.




Synopsis: A Student pilot misjudged his Liberty XL2 height during landing and after a bounce he added power to arrest the descent so that the crosswind correction plus the P factor rotated his aircraft causing it land off the runway's edge.