elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Descending via the Ivane arrival. FO was pilot flying and handling comms while I was performing ECAM.Atlanta vectored us off the arrival and imposed new altitude and speed restrictions. FO experienced mode reversion to V/S and was slow to resume descent. ATC asked if we were descending. FO remarked that he might have been a little high on the crossing restriction.Task saturation and being low time. First trip as Captain. FO new hire. I was not monitoring effectively while performing the ECAM. I should have held the ECAM until I was satisfied that all restrictions would be complied with by the PF. I will try and listen harder to ATC if I am off performing ECAM actions while PNF. I will try and monitor more effectively while PNF.Multiple vectors; runway changes; and added crossing restrictions and modifications to arrival.  We were probably both task saturated.




Synopsis: An A321 flight crew consisting of a new hire First Officer and a Captain on his first flight in command failed to make a required crossing while descending via the IVANE RNAV arrival to CLT. Multiple interruptions of the STAR by ATC and a loss or autoflight mode awareness were cited as contributing factors.
Date: 201705
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While flying a new hire [training] trip on 737-900ER we had a leg to LGA. Due to runway length and ops alert regarding landing cautions we elected to land flaps 40 with brakes max. We were planning on flying the RNAV visual approach. I was cautious about coming to LGA as it had been a few years since landing here before but my student FO was doing a great job so I let him have the landing. We planned for the RNAV visual 31 and briefed as such. Once 15 miles south of airport we were told there was an issue with the current version of that published approach and that we would have to fly the Expressway Visual 31. This approach was a tighter left turn to the runway with no vertical guidance except the VASI. After quickly re-briefing the new approach we continued. The approach was very tight and close to the runway following the procedure making the descent steep and in a tight left turn around a stadium. My FO could barely see the runway for most of the base to final turn and I then had to constantly talk him through the descent and turn. Being in a flaps 40 condition and in a steep (approx 35 deg) turn I saw that he was getting slow and thought I heard the stick shaker come on for a second while I was commanding more thrust be applied.  We were able to land at 1;000 ft and stop without issue but the approach had left us shaken. It was not a safe procedure in the -900ER that close with so much pressure on the runway length.




Synopsis: B737-900ER Check Captain reported concern that the LGA Runway 31 Expressway Visual Approach is not safely designed for that aircraft type.
Date: 202012
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Upon deplaning a gentleman complained to the Purser and I; regarding another gentleman passenger.  He said the man sitting near him was coughing and sneezing the whole flight and that he was not wearing a mask.  He pointed his finger at us and sternly said you two did nothing about it.  The Purser responded to the gentleman about the situation.  My work position was in the First Class galley.  There was no complaint brought to my attention during the entire flight.  At no time did I observe any of this behavior.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger complained about another passenger coughing and sneezing on the flight and not wearing a face mask.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: UES.Airport, WI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground UES
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Taxied without clearance off ramp area to a run up area. I was obtaining an IFR clearance and was rushed off the ramp. There were no definitive taxiway markings or lines; the ramp areas; taxiways and taxiway markings should be updated.

Callback: Reporter stated that while obtaining IFR clearance; they were holding position at the north tip of the ramp where it joins Taxiway A2 northbound. There were no markings or directional signs to identify the end of the ramp and the beginning of Taxiway A2; and the reporter inadvertently taxied from the ramp onto Taxiway A2 when asked by Ground Control to move forward to allow an aircraft to pass. Ground Control then cleared the reporter onto Taxiway A2 and the rest of the taxi was uneventful.



Synopsis: GA pilot reported taxiing without a clearance due to poor signage.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, 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: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff and clearing the runway surface so there was no runway remaining; the aircraft started losing power. We had enough thrust to maintain 300 ft. AGL; but that's it. With engine conditions worsening; I; the instructor and PIC (Pilot in Command); decided to fly toward a nearby field which was about 2 miles south of the airport. As we were approaching the field; the aircraft would no longer hold altitude; so we landed in said field with no damage to persons or property. The cause of the partial power loss is yet to be determined and no anomalies presented themselves during the preflight inspection or the pre takeoff engine checks. Due to a pre takeoff abort briefing; we had a plan for what to do if a situation such as this had occurred. The importance of a good abort briefing cannot be overstated.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported landing in a field after engine trouble precluded returning to departure airport.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On day six of two back-to-back three day pairings; we landed at LAX and taxied to [the] gate. It was [late] at night and I approached [the] gate cautiously. I couldn't see the aircraft parking outline very well and saw a left wing walker and individual standing on the centerline. I began my turn and noticed the wheels of one baggage cart was inside the parking lines and stopped the aircraft. Simultaneously; I discovered that the individual I thought was the guide man had walked away. At this point I realized we did not have a guide man and directed the FO to notify Ops of the need for a parking crew. After about a 10 minute wait; a crew showed up. The guide man began motioning me to taxi into the gate; however; we had several items inside the parking lines needing to be moved. We had to open both windows and forcibly direct each wing walker to move all of the items; which was quite frustrating. Finally; the baggage cart; cones and extra chocks were moved and we could follow the guide man's instructions to park. The parking was uneventful. [Later]; while sitting in another aircraft being pushed by a tug; it occurred to me that I had made a mistake. I looked at my iPad and realized at that point that I should have shut the engines down and demanded a tow into [the] gate.It was night and the FO and I were fatigued from six continuous days of flying. [The gate] had multiple items inside the parking lines; but we could not tell for certain until I began the turn. Finally; I became fixated on looking for items inside the parking lines that I mistook the individual standing on centerline as the guide man. While waiting several minutes for the parking crew our frustration grew and then was exacerbated attempting to direct each wing walker to move equipment out of the parking lines. All the while; the guideman was motioning me to continue to park. Being slightly fatigued and extremely frustrated; I parked the aircraft completely forgetting the tow-in procedure.


Second narrative: After a long 5 days of work; I was tired. Forgot all about to shut down the engines and wait for the rampers to come out and tow us in after we made the initial turn towards the gate.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported they taxied into a gate when they should have called for a tow-in citing fatigue as a factor.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X checked on descending to FL240 from the high sector. I cleared him to descend via the TRYBE1 Arrival which has them crossing their next waypoint; UPPRR; at or above FL240 (keeping them above the adjacent low sector which owns up to FL230). The workload was low and I watched their descent rate. I remember thinking to myself as they approached leveling at FL240 that the last hit had too high of a descent rate for them to stop at FL240. So still several miles from UPPRR; they descended through FL240. At FL238 I inquired what they were doing and they said descending via. I stopped them at FL230 and PVD'd [Plan View Display] a datablock up on the airspace that was just violated to my east; Clarion Sector. After calling and explaining; I went back to Aircraft X and explained that they were to cross UPPRR at or above FL240. They apologized. I cleared them to cross UPPRR at FL230 then descend via. There were no other issues. I have seen several aircraft do this since Metroplex rolled out. Pilots just aren't paying attention. They are anticipating; displaying expectation bias and not listening/understanding the clearance. So far I haven't seen a loss of separation or NMAC; but it's only a matter of time. The issues I've seen are at the regional airline level.

Callback: Reporter stated this is happening due to expectation bias. This intersection is right on the ZOB ARTCC and Cleveland TRACON Border. Pilots do not like having to slow at this point. Reporter stated this same problem happened to him about two weeks earlier.



Synopsis: Cleveland Center Controller reported an airspace deviation associated with a crossing restriction that the pilot busted.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After parking at the gate; very shortly after shutting down the left engine (the right engine had been shutdown during taxi in) and receiving the release brakes signal from the ramp agent; I felt the aircraft move laterally a small amount. Somebody from the ramp soon appeared in the cockpit and asked me to come downstairs and take a look at something. I was a bit stunned at what I saw. The nose gear had turned 25-30 degrees to the left; moving the fore and aft chocks around. At the same time a Ramp Agent was attempting to insert the steering bypass pin. I was told he quite luckily was not injured. I made a logbook entry about uncommanded nose gear movement.




Synopsis: A B737's nose wheels turned an uncommanded 25-30 degrees as the Ramp Agent was installing the nose wheel bypass pin following aircraft shut down at the arrival gate.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was the only aircraft on frequency due to issues with the normal frequency. They attempted to check in on the missed approach off of a satellite airport but were stepped on by multiple other aircraft. Including Aircraft Y that sounded like a similar call sign at the time. Due to the frequency congestion; I answered who I could hear and asked all aircraft to standby until I called on them. When I did hear Aircraft X check on; they told me they responded to an RA and I saw a target near them squawking 1200 at a similar altitude. I identified Aircraft X and issued instructions to approve their further requests. Upon watching the replay; I saw that the 1200 code had departed the satellite airport ahead of Aircraft X but do not know if the Tower issued the traffic. I did have another controller working my assist during the frequency congestion which lasted about 5 minutes.Continue scanning airspace and keep more aircraft on the same frequency so they can hear each other.




Synopsis: A TRACON Controller reported they were distracted with radio and communications problems and did not notice an aircraft conducting a missed approach had conflicting traffic that the missed approach aircraft received a TCAS/RA for.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TNCA.Tower, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower TNCA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On final for the ILS 11; we noticed a cruise ship departing the dock to the left of final; heading towards the southeast. There is a note on the airport page for Aruba which states that 'ships transit the Runway 11 approach path. Tower coordination is required prior to a ship being permitted to transit'. Tower did not inform us of that the ship had permission to cross our path on final. Approximately 1000 feet on final I made the decision to go-around as a possible collision of our aircraft/gear with the ships 'whale tail' funnel was possible. As we executed the go-around; Tower did not understand the problem with the ship crossing final. When we fly our second approach; we estimated from the ships wake and position we may have cleared the ship by 100 feet.Tower was not concerned about the cruise ships paths crossing our final approach. I believe all approach need to be halted or reduced when a ship cross the final course. If there had been a cloud deck present; we would not have seen the ship until it was too late. This is an unnecessary risk for our flights.If the weather is less than 3000 and 5 miles; then Aruba needs to protect the final approach corridor and prevent any ships from crossing the final course to Runway 11.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported executing a go-around when the Captain believed there may be a possible air/ground conflict with a cruise ship passing through the final approach area at TNCA airport.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: My colleague & I were returning empty on an IFR flight plan Part 91 from ZZZ. I was in the right seat acting as SIC while my colleague was flying the aircraft from the left seat & acting as PIC. We switch roles in order to maintain our skills. The before landing checklist was performed after gear extension. This was done in a command / response manner. The landing was normal until the moment the nose tire contacted the runway. The airplane began veering hard to the right. My colleague was making every effort to return to the centerline of the runway but it was not bearing fruit. When we were about to exit the runway; I shouted 'steering!' At the same time; I checked to see whether the left rudder was pushed in. It was. We went traveling across a section of rocks. In doing so; we knocked over a taxiway sign & a light. The aircraft suffered FOD damage to both engines; wings & landing gear. There was also a fuel spill. I want to commend my colleague for regaining aircraft control the way he did. For a moment there; it was dicey when we were headed toward parked aircraft. Several possibilities come to mind: A centered tiller indication with a nose tire that was not actually centered. Confirmation bias with an uncentered tiller interpreted as a centered one. Something else.


Second narrative: After landing the airplane started to veer to the right and I immediately added left rudder to counteract the situation. When the aircraft continued to the right; I then applied full left rudder and to no avail the aircraft exited the runway to the right. At that time I decided to decelerate straight ahead to avoid any side loads that may collapse the landing gear in the rocky surface between the runway and the taxiway. In retrospect I will add on final a quick glance at the nose wheel tiller pointer to make sure it is pointing perfectly forward. My other advice is to delicately use as a last effort  the tiller above 80 KIAS to attempt to keep the aircraft on the runway.


Synopsis: HS-125 flight crew reported loss of directional control during landing resulting in a runway excursion.