elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I called ground ready to taxi from the ramp to the active runway for an Eastbound VFR departure. I was given instructions to taxi to runway XX via taxiways Bravo; Echo; and Charlie and to cross runway XY. As I was in left turn from taxiway Echo onto Charlie; another aircraft; a high wing single engine; collided with my airplane from the right side. That airplane had been taxiing Northeast bound on taxiway Charlie. I shut down and notified ZZZ ground of the collision; and assistance was sent. I was unaware another aircraft was in my vicinity; approaching the same runway I was; traveling northeast bound on taxiway Charlie. I received no warning from ZZZ ground control of conflicting traffic nor was I issued any 'hold short' clearances. Apparently; from talking to the other pilot; the other aircraft was not either. Contributing Factors: The Echo and Charlie taxiways at ZZZ intersect at a less than ninety degree angle. The Aircraft I was flying also has large blind spots out of the sides due to the engines; propellers; spinners; and a large pillar between the windscreen and side windows. This makes it difficult to see traffic approaching from certain angles both in the air; and on the ground. Adding to the contributing factors; The tower at this airport has combined Ground and Clearance Delivery to one controller on the same frequency. I believe this is because of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Normally; Clearance Delivery and Ground control are handled by two different controllers on different frequencies. This particular airport is still quite busy with traffic during this pandemic; adding to the controllers workload. Several lessons come to mind that we are all taught from the time we begin flying. Be vigilant. Keep your eyes outside. Check your blind spots. Check them again. keep your scan going. Controllers are busy. Airplanes may not be where they are supposed to be; or where they say they are. Listen to what else is happening on the frequency.




Synopsis: Captain reported a collision during taxi with conflicting traffic at taxiway intersection.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: JXN.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-24 Turbo Comanche
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower JXN
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: JXN has a new runway; 7/26 and new taxiways and intersection with 14/32. Upon landing on 26 and able to look for taxiway D for left turn to ramp I saw the sign for D with arrow pointing left. I turned left; well that was at runway 14/32; not D taxiway. It was for the next intersection. 14/32 is first then taxiway D. The two intersections are very close but the taxiway D sign is too close to runway 14/32. I had missed the 14/32 runway sign. I stopped on runway and queried tower what to do they said to continue.Upon leaving the ramp and taxi to runway for departure an hour later I heard ground control having another encounter with a pilot turning on 14/32; not D taxiway. I think the D taxiway sign is much too close to 14/32 runway.




Synopsis: PA-24 pilot reported that poor signage at JXN airport contributed to a runway incursion.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Just at the time of closing the L1 door; The CSA and the 'D' Flight Attendant were about to close the door; I was unaware that this was the very moment they were performing this duty. I was standing behind the 'D' (who didn't know I was standing there) putting away or picking up the interphone (I can't remember). The door started closing and my head got wedged between the boarding door and the airplane wall. I was dizzy for a moment. Everyone was gravely concerned and terrified. We checked for bleeding; I felt I would be OK (swelling for sure) but OK. I continued on the flight and felt fine for the exception for a little pain behind the ears where I was caught. In hindsight; I should have been much more cautious and removed myself from the flight (even though I had a normal day). This was not a wise and prudent decision on my part. My desire to not inconvenience the flight took over my reasoning as well as disbelief at the possible severity of the situation.I think this was lack of situational awareness and just plain freak accident. No one person is to blame. Truly it was just a very weird circumstance of events that happened at the same time. We had much going on with the boarding; full flights; 5 flight attendants and 2 jump seaters. There was a lot of distraction. The door of the 737 seemed to open a bit wider than the other planes as well. We were all paying attention to getting the plane out of the gate in a timely fashion. Trust me; this will NEVER happen to me again as an 'A' Flight Attendant. I will be no where in proximity when it is remotely time to close or open the L1 door.




Synopsis: A B737 Lead Flight Attendant's head was caught between the main cabin door and door frame as the 'D' Flight Attendant and Customer Service Agent were closing it but no serious or long term injured resulted.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On Visual Approach the First Officer dialed in 7000 feet and Level Change. We were on glidepath and then got below the path. Approach advised us we were below minimum vectoring altitude.




Synopsis: An air carrier Captain reported the First Officer descended below glidepath below the ATC Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: First off; I don't think it is possible to properly brief for multiple runway assignments; especially when there are NOTAMs involved for each runway. Along with being informed late by ATC. Runway 27 was the last runway I would expect while on this arrival. The expected runway via the arrival is 26R. Me underlining the NOTAM for 27 did not help me to remember unfortunately. Switching the runway up is busy enough work in this phase of flight. I'll be more aware of this type of goat rope by ATC as a possibility after this incident. Next up. ATC giving a visual clearance with a crossing restriction over a fix that is only on the ILS 27 and RNAV approach plate. This to me is a very lousy clearance. That being said; I accepted the clearance. So I take some blame. At the same time ATC needs to refrain from giving such clearances. Last minute runway switches can be very troublesome especially when NOTAMs are involved. I'm not sure why the ATIS did not advertise Runway 27 RNAV instead of the visual. Both Runway 26R and 26L were shown on the ATIS as both ILS approaches. Had this been the case (RNAV 27 approach advertised) none of this would have happened. I know I am the last line of defense and I did catch these errors; unfortunately not as quick as I would have liked to. But it would help if the system was better set up to not set the pilots on such course.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported missing an altitude restriction on arrival into IAH; citing a late runway change as contributing.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SBCW.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Center SBCW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Fly this ID frequently. This time of year we land early enough in day where sun and haze conspire to form very poor slant angle visibility. The Tower and ATIS are non-specific to actual aircraft visibility.  They only call 'CAVOK'.  The published minimum visibility for this 'R' approach to 9R ILS is 3100 Meters (about 2 miles) and 3300 DA.No way is anyone seeing the runway by the MAP.  Yet they all land OK. H ow is that? We see ground OK; barely; but not [the] runway until around 300 to 400 feet [AGL].  I have many times requested 'T' [approach] which is an actual ILS to 200 feet and 1/2 mile (what is needed) but ATC GRU always refuses. That is the problem.  By refusing to give us the real ILS they are inviting this situation; since we cannot tell what the actual slant angle visibility is until we are at or near MAP.  This creates a conflict and unsafe situation; and is a regular occurring situation here.




Synopsis: Captain reported that actual slant range visibility conditions are often worse than reported on ATIS for their early morning approach and landing to SBGR; but the Tower is resistant to their requests for the full ILS.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: Enroute
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken

Narrative: While in cruise flight I saw an aircraft quickly pass from left to right underneath us with a vertical distance of less than 200 FT. Piloted aircraft was flying south and approaching aircraft was on a west south west heading. Approaching aircraft was seen at the 7 to 8 o'clock position aft of the left wing at a distance of less than 500 FT horizontally. I was operating on an IFR flight plan and was in communication with Chicago Center. No traffic advisory or warning was issued. I immediately reported the near miss to Chicago Center twice with no acknowledgement. I subsequently made three radio calls but was not answered until 15 minutes post incident. I requested the number for Chicago Center and reported the incident to the facility once on the ground. Chicago Center was able to find the recording and said it would be passed to the Quality team for review. Due to the high speeds and short duration of the near miss; there was no time to deviate. The rest of the flight continued uneventfully.


Second narrative: I was working Sector 51 and 50 combined sequencing back doors for ORD and MDW arrivals. We also had 2 Skydive airplanes over Skydive Chicago (8N2) all morning traffic was slightly up but manageable. There were multiple VFR targets in C90 air space just south east of Joliet (JOT) VOR like any other day. While sequencing my arrivals and trying to miss the jumper aircraft with my inbounds I noticed a Bonanza flashing in C90's airspace approximately 7 miles south east of JOT VOR. At this point the aircraft was not on my frequency. He checked on and about 5 minutes later the pilot advised he had an aircraft pass close by a few miles back.I was not aware of any VFR targets close to him other than the ones that were in C90's airspace.I need to keep pilots aware of VFR targets in their area. Maybe C90 could work out a different altitude or not transfer communications until making the pilot aware of VFR targets in the vicinity.


Synopsis: An IFR Beech Bonanza pilot suffered an NMAC with a high wing Cessna.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BNA.Airport, TN
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground BNA
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were given a taxi clearance of Runway 20C via T5 S7; cross 31/13.  While entering 31/13; the FO called out Stop Stop Stop!  We used maximum braking and came to an abrupt stop narrowly avoiding a single engine small aircraft taxiing at high speed from right to left.  Ground apologized saying they weren't talking to the small aircraft.  Flight then progressed without incident to destination.


Second narrative: We were given a taxi clearance to Runway 20C via T5; S7 cross 13/31. While attempting to cross 13/31; I looked to my right and saw a single engine small aircraft taxiing down Runway 13/31 with a converging path to our aircraft. I called out; 'Stop; Stop; Stop!!' to the Captain; who then brought our aircraft to an abrupt stop in order to avoid collision with the small aircraft. The small aircraft continued to taxi in front of us; right to left without slowing. We stayed put until Ground then again gave us clearance to cross 13/31 S5; T7 to 20C. Ground also apologized to us and said they were not talking to the small aircraft.There was an obvious miscommunication between the small aircraft and Ground; as Ground said; they were not talking to the small aircraft; and the small aircraft stated they had clearance to turn left onto Runway 13/31.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported a ground conflict with a small aircraft during taxiout at BNA airport.  Reportedly; ATC was not communicating with the small aircraft.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PBI.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C PBI
ATC / advisory: Tower PBI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Upon initial departure climb from Runway 10L at approximately 50 FT AGL noted 3 large birds soaring along departure path of aircraft. One bird then glided directly into the path of our aircraft at approximately 100 FT AGL and struck the left front nose of the aircraft. As pilot not flying I immediately scanned the instrumentation and noted the handling of the aircraft was normal. I immediately instructed the First Officer flying to continue with the departure. I simultaneously notified the Tower of the bird strike and was then told to call Departure Controller. We performed our flight crew functions normally; scanning for any abnormalities; and contacted Departure Controller. I also informed Departure Control that we would continue the departure profile; as all aircraft handling and instrumentation appeared normal. Visually the First Officer pointed out a portion of the bird (mostly a few feathers) clinging to the TAT 2 probe. After reaching 10;000 FT I instructed the First Officer to engage the autopilot; to decrease workload. We consulted and performed the Bird Strike QRH. I also asked the First Officer to take all radio calls as I would be contacting Maintenance; and Dispatch. I did instruct the First Officer to immediately notify me if any changes to aircraft flight handling or instrumentation changed in anyway. After reaching Dispatch and Maintenance; we all agreed that continuing the flight to destination could be accomplished without any safety issues. We all agreed that if anything occurred or any difference in aircraft handling was noted that we would immediately land the aircraft.


Second narrative: We hit a really big bird on takeoff from PBI; part of the bird remains were left on TAT probe. Captain and I ran through QRH procedures and event didn't call for an air return based on QRH criteria. Called Dispatch and informed both Dispatcher and Maintenance Control. All instrumentation functioned normally aircraft handled just fine. Once we landed post flight inspection revealed damage to front nose just below TAT probe. No other damage was discovered and aircraft was taken out of service for repairs.


Synopsis: EMB145 flight crew experiences a bird strike at 100 FT after takeoff. After discussions with Maintenance and crew evaluations the flight continues to destination. On post flight inspection damage was noted resulting in the aircraft being taken out of service.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Door
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X required a weight on wheels 'H' check of the NLG (Nose Landing Gear) and right MLG (Main Landing Gear). We centered the ladder in between the NLG doors and I began to install the pressure gauge to the top fitting on the NLG strut. While doing so the ladder must have shifted positions. During this time I never heard any loud hissing to indicate to me that air was being released due to extreme noise from our A/C and other A/C & vehicles in the vicinity. My partner went up to turn off the A/C power due to the noise level. A few minutes after coming down from the ladder I noticed the left NLG door sitting on top of the ladder. I immediately moved the ladder to prevent any further damage. I suspect that air escaped from the t-handle on top of the tooling and due to the noise I wasn't able to hear it. The very slow release of air may have caused us to not notice the plane had shifted.


Second narrative: Aircraft X required a weight on wheels (H) check of the nose and right landing gear struts. We centered a work ladder at the nose landing gear to have clearance for aircraft movement. My work partner attached the tooling pressure gauge to the fitting on top of the strut. I went up inside the aircraft to remove ground power because of the noise and communication issues we were having. After going down the jetway and returning to the work area I noticed that the left nose gear door had settled on the work ladder. The ladder must have been accidentally shifted just enough to have clearance issues with the aircraft and some type of unintended slow pressure release of the company tooling pressure gauge. No one could hear the strut nitrogen leaking because of the flight line noise and slow nature of the depressurize.


Synopsis: Technicians reported aircraft settled on Nose Landing Gear Door during a Strut Height Check.