elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While executing a recovery from a power on stall during a training flight; I made visual contact with a high wing Cessna 172 or 182 approximately 100 feet to our left and at the same altitude. I immediately maneuvered to the right and initiated a climb in order to provide more spacing with the other aircraft. I do not believe the other aircraft ever had me in sight because it continued on the same heading and altitude after the event occurred.During the entire flight; I was communicating with ZZZ Approach Control with radar contact and a squawk code. Prior to initiating the power on stall maneuver; my student and I made 2 clearing turns to the right and left; with no traffic noted above; below; or at the same altitude. I believe the other aircraft involved was directly or nearly directly below us during the turns; which caused us not to see it. After the stall recovery; I noticed the aircraft climbing up to; and leveling off at our same altitude within approximately 100 feet traveling south to north.I attempted to make contact with the approach controller; but was only able to get a response after 3 attempts and approximately 5 minutes. I initially told the controller that it was within 300 feet; but after consideration; I believe that distance was significantly less. I was not given a traffic alert or altitude restriction during this particular phase of flight.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor on training flight reported a NMAC with another aircraft.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I experienced a partial power loss [while flying above a state highway]. On all other sides were swamplands. I decided to set the plane down on the road. No damage to aircraft or other vehicles. At the time of this writing; the engine appears ok. Suspect carb ice.




Synopsis: Experimental aircraft pilot experiences a loss of engine power and elects to land on a highway. No damage to the aircraft or property is reported. Carburetor ice is the suspected cause of the power loss.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying VFR back to my home airport in Aircraft X. This is an older tailwheel airplane with limited electrical availability so no ADSB in or out. We were breaking in a cylinder so we were constantly monitoring the oil pressure and the oil temp.We were leaving our VFR cruise altitude of 3500 feet and descending to set up for a 45 entry to our home base traffic pattern at ZZZ. We had listened to the local AWOS and was monitoring the CTAF; getting ready to call 7 miles out. We did not hear anyone nor did we see anyone leave. Visibility was great. I had been flying the return trip; but asked my husband in the back seat to take over and land as I had been flying all day and needed a break. He took the stick and I looked down for only a few seconds to scan the instruments and gauges. When I looked up; there was an airplane right in from of me - I could see faces; wheels; etc; and it looked like they were slightly climbing; so I instinctively pushed the stick forward and dove - which scared my husband who started yelling; but he then saw the other airplane. My husband is also a pilot with over 10;000 hours of GA experience; and 51 years of flying. It scared us both - I actually cringed when I pushed the stick forward because I thought we were going to hit them and expected to feel an impact.  We think they saw us at that point because they turned back toward us. They were a low wing and we are a high wing. No one did anything wrong; but it is an example of serious need to SEE AND AVOID as head on gives you zero time. I was looking and scanning even though I was not controlling the stick; and looked down for maybe 7 or 8 seconds; but it was enough to make a huge difference.Normally we fly with an ADS-B receiver connected to our phone; but the phone had dropped to the floor and we couldn't reach it. Although ADS-B is great and maybe it would have helped us see them sooner; it would not help them see us; so I can only say how important it is to be diligent and look outside.




Synopsis: GA instructor reported an NMAC while flying a high wing tail wheel aircraft. Descending to enter the CTAF traffic pattern immediate evasive action was needed to avoid an aircraft that was climbing through the instructor's flight path.
Date: 201901
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Enroute to ZZZ we received ATIS and confirmed to expect Runway 9 for landing. The ATIS along with the NOTAMS for ZZZ indicated taxiway Sierra would be closed between S3 and Victor. Per Jeppesen page; taxiway Sierra is the only approved taxiway to proceed to parking. We placed a call to dispatch to inquire as to what to expect upon arrival. Dispatch contacted ZZZ tower and a short time later we received an ACARS message that Sierra was fine and to expect no issues. Upon landing; we cleared Runway 9 and where instructed to continue taxi and to hold short of Tango. A short time later; we were instructed to cross runway 12/30 at Tango and proceed to parking via Tango. We queried the tower as to the instructions and let them know that Tango was not an approved taxiway for the [fleet type]. They came back and said it was; and to proceed to parking as instructed. Since we have been using this taxiway for the last [several] years; and that we checked with both dispatch and the tower: we complied and taxied to Tango until clear of the construction and joined Sierra at S3. We taxied to parking with no issues. [A few days later]; I placed a call to the safety team on an unrelated issue. During the call; we discussed what took place in ZZZ. We reviewed the Jeppesen plate and after doing so; I was advised that there was no relief to use taxiway Tango. During the call; I became aware this maybe a possible violation. Having flown into ZZZ; in the past [several] years in the [fleet type] made this decision difficult since I had used this taxiway many times in the past. In conclusion; I should have been more insistent with ATC to follow the approved taxiways as per the Jeppesen chart. Going forward I will insist that they are always followed in the future.




Synopsis: Widebody transport aircraft Captain reported receiving taxi clearance to a taxiway that was not authorized for the wingspan as per the Jeppesen/SOP plate.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan 208B
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On initial takeoff and climb; ASI was stuck on a low airspeed and not increasing. Being VMC I was easily able to determine airspeed from nose attitude and also by glancing at the ASI on the co-pilots side. Climbing through around 400 FT AGL I informed ATC that I needed to return for landing due an instrument malfunction. ATC responded and asked did I need emergency assistance; I replied negative; and asked to circle back to land. I determined that the safety of the flight was not compromised being in VMC and having the co-pilots ASI; and using nose attitude against horizon. I believed I did not need to declare an emergency in this case. I was able to make an easy; successful and uneventful landing.Upon pitot/static system exterior check there was some debris in the pilot's side pitot tube [was] seen by using a ladder to get a close look (not something that could be seen during normal preflight). Engineer cleared the system and after high speed taxi check; aircraft was released to service.




Synopsis: C208 pilot departing in VMC notes Airspeed Indicator stuck at a low speed and continues the takeoff. Using the copilot ASI and pitch attitude the aircraft is brought around for landing. Maintenance finds debris in the left side pitot tube.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: High Crosswind; Dark; 8
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ; TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I made my calls at 10 and 5 miles out for intent to enter a crosswind in order to land on XX. I heard 3 navy planes doing touch and goes as well as low passes; a private plane landing; and a Saratoga on taxi to XX. Upon approaching the numbers for crosswind XX; observed plane Z climbing in front of plane W climbing under me. Plane V; exited to the south. I made a call to exiting traffic; 'Do you see me?' No reply as it continued to climb under me; with me now at 850 FT then emerges in front approaching base for XX. Plane Z is now calling me from behind as I turn final; then breaks right. Now at 700 feet; I see a plane approaching from a right base and announcing 'Right base and turning final;' then turns final for XX within a few 100 FT of us at high speed. They used [unique] call signs. The Saratoga that was waiting to takeoff observed and acknowledged the plane making the right hand entry to final as well. Conditions were dark and gusty winds. These planes were mixing their call signs; they were flying under pattern height at high speeds and using right patterns; total disregard for public safety at a public airport.This is not the first time we have encountered Navy planes flying right hand patterns; nor the first time I have complained about it. This time I called the TRACON. I asked to have someone get these planes on the ground before someone gets hurt. He explained that the 'Navy planes' are in uncontrolled air space so they couldn't be monitored. But he would make some calls.My point: why are these planes (that are Navy planes) allowed to ignore the rules and execute maneuvers while unsupervised in a high traffic and uncontrolled air space where they endanger the general aviation? There are at least 3 other air fields that are for their use only.




Synopsis: A single engine civilian pilot complained that Navy aircraft pilots were operating in an unsafe manner at a civilian airport during night operations.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower SEA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As we taxied out I heard a company aircraft get an intersection taxi clearance. We were cleared for takeoff full length; I start adding takeoff power; then I heard Tower clear a company aircraft to takeoff on the same runway at an intersection (didn't catch the taxiway). So I go to flight idle and stop (power was not in rating detent yet). It turns out that Tower cleared a company to takeoff from TWY D; rather than downfield like the other company had a taxi clearance to do so. What caused my concern was that they cleared the second aircraft to takeoff when we had barely started rolling. Usually when they launch closely the first aircraft is already halfway down the field; not still in the TDZ. I said my flight number to Tower; Tower cancelled the second aircraft's clearance; told me I was still cleared for takeoff and that the intersection was behind us.The immediate clearance of a second aircraft to takeoff from an intersection while I had barely added power; while the taxiing intersection downfield aircraft was in the back of my mind.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported rejecting his takeoff early in the roll when he heard another aircraft cleared for takeoff on the same runway.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground EWR; Tower EWR
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Malfunctioning; Design; Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ground; Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: During rollout on 22L into EWR my iPad timed out. We cleared the runway at Taxiway V. We were told to hold short of 22R on V and find out if the gate was opened. Thankfully I had preloaded ramp and operations frequency in Comm 2. Captain stayed on Comm 1 with Tower. Gate was open. I tried to open my iPad to have my 10-9 out and ready to copy taxi instructions to the gate only to find my iPad locked me out; stated it was time for a new password. Captain had his 10-9 out and I copied the taxi instructions onto some paper. I know this is against company policy to not have the 10-9 out while taxiing but we both felt it was safer rather than to have me try and reset my password. I can't think of a worse time to be locked out of the iPad.




Synopsis: B777 First Officer reported the EFB timed out on rollout; making him unable to use the 10-9 airport diagram for taxi.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Passing through 100 KIAS during takeoff; I heard a pop sound and noticed that several large cracks had formed in the Captain's L2 window. We continued the takeoff. Passing through approximately 2500 ft MSL; I heard another pop sound and noticed that more cracks had formed in the window. We also received a Window Overheat indication for the window. At this point we decided to level off at 5000 ft while we ran the checklist for Window Damage and Window Overheat in the QRH. [Landing priority was given] by ATC while we were in the process of analyzing the situation. We noticed that the size and lengths of the existing cracks were continuing to increase and that they had formed in the outer pane only. We determined that the safest course of action was to air return to [our departure airport]. We returned for the ILS; landed; and taxied to the gate uneventfully.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported extensive cracking in his cockpit window; resulting in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PIT.Tower, PA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower PIT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Excursion Ramp; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X called exiting the ramp via TWY D3. TWY D3 was NOTAM closed. Since Aircraft X was already out of the ramp and on D3; I issued taxi instructions via TWY E to RWY28C. Some taxiway NOTAM and runway NOTAMS were recently canceled; so I scanned and verified that D3 was closed. I instructed the pilot he was on a closed taxiway and to use extreme caution and exit the taxiway as soon as safely possible. I informed the FLM/CIC (Front Line Manager/Controller in Charge) and he informed the WS (Watch Supervisor) FLM position. I did not issue a Brasher Warning because I believed this to be another Ramp Control excursion. I queried Ramp Control as to if they knew TWY D3 was closed. They did not know. There have been several systemic issue with Ramp Control. An update LOA (Letter of Agreement) was drafted and reviewed by the LSC (Local Safety Council); but has not been processed through the appropriate staff and management channels. Management was advised of this event; however; as of the time of filing this report no MOR (Mandatory Occurrence Report) has been filed in CEDAR (Comprehensive Electronic Data Analysis and Reporting).The ERC (Event Review Committee) to coach local management to Conduct a Systemic Issue Review with the aid of the Local Safety Council on the various Ramp Excursions and develop a local CAP (Cooperative Agreement Program) with their assistance. Add requirement for airport management to pass NOTAMs closing exit points from the ramp to Ramp Control. Process and review the draft LOA with Ramp Control for any new changes that may be required by the Systemic Issues investigation.




Synopsis: PIT Tower Controller reported of a situation where an aircraft taxied onto a closed taxiway. It appeared that he was the only one who knew the taxiway was closed and checked with Ramp Control and they did not know. Reporter wanted some type of a review of the operation because this issue with Ramp Control not knowing has been ongoing.