elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CRW.TRACON, WV
Aircraft: Cheetah; Tiger; Traveler AA5 Series
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON CRW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Grumman Tiger VFR at 5;000 feet came over from ZDC non-RADAR. I worked him for a while; but coordinated with ZID to take him because they had RADAR on him. At the time I went to switch the pilot he advised he was entering IFR and was going to request IFR clearance and reverse course. He had told me he was 40 miles southwest of BKW; which is already outside of my airspace. I switched him to ZID and coordinated with them his request. ZID advised he was 5 miles east of BKW so I requested them to put him back on me. It took some time for him to switch; and by the time he did reach me he was inside the 5;700 feet MVA. I asked if he could climb VFR to 5;700 feet for his IFR. He said he might. I then asked if he could maintain his own obstruction clearance; which he could; and I then issued IFR clearance via RADAR vectors to BKW and to fly present heading. I did not have him on RADAR at this time; but expected to get him soon. I didn't know how else to clear him non-RADAR. This is the scenario I recently reported about our MVA map: mountainous terrain near BKW; and no guidance as to how to handle non-RADAR below our MVA or below 2;000 feet AGL in mountainous terrain. I asked my Supervisor and he even said he wasn't sure.  From what he understood; the MVA gave non-RADAR required separation. At the same time a Piper Aztec went NORDO and began to fly into an MVA around an antennae. We need guidance about mountainous terrain here at CRW. No one here knows how to handle a situation like that and still guarantee FAA required separation. I would like further instruction about non-RADAR and requirements for mountainous terrain.




Synopsis: CRW Controller described a confused non-RADAR procedural event when an aircraft experiencing IMC conditions requested service when he was below MVA requirements.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Preflight Planning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Our arrival fuel was planned for 4;793 lbs; including 1;731 lbs extra for altitude flexibility. I called the Dispatcher and asked if; in expecting to possibly use this extra 1;731 lbs; he was OK with us actually landing with 3;062 lbs? He said; 'Yes.'  I informed him that in all my years as an A320 Captain I had never; ever seen a landing fuel anywhere near this number and he informed me that he was a probationary dispatcher and had to follow policy. It was simply policy.... Accident[s] usually occur through a series of steps; any one of which; if avoided; breaks the chain and prevents the accident from happening. 3;062 lbs of landing fuel gives the crew no time to say; fix a gear problem discovered at the outer marker. It allows for no possibility of a minor reroute or landing runway change; should there be even the most minor mechanical after taxi out; a return to the gate; for refueling would be required. All in all; the idea that we would plan for a flight landing with the FAR minimum is ludicrous.... My point is this: I am an experienced Captain with a natural distrust of the potentially hazardous environment within which I operate. I will not let a decision like this back me into a corner by rubber stamping the Dispatcher's decision because it is 'policy.' A different; less discerning mind; may well simply agree. We now have two steps towards disaster.... So let's not allow the first step of the error chain to exist. I added 3;000 lbs and burned 400 lbs under flight plan with all the safety margins intact. 6;000 lbs of landing fuel allows for a normal FAR landing fuel of 45 minutes flight time; contingencies that are common and normal; and/or an abnormality at the end of the flight.




Synopsis: A320 Captain questioned the safety margin allowed by the Company's fuel reserve policy.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RMG.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; 1
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZTL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I'm a newly minted instrument pilot. This was actually my first flight in IMC since receiving my instrument rating. Enroute to RMG; I was navigating direct to JISET for the full approach RNAV 19 into RMG. About 8nm from JISET ATC said 'Maintain 4000 until established cleared for the RNAV 19 report inbound from JISET'. The published altitude for the hold at JISET is 3500 ft. About 2 miles from JISET. ATC asked my distance from JISET and then said 'I need to get a plane off ahead of you - hold at JISET.' I replied 'hold at JISET XXX.' I proceeded to JISET entered the hold and descended to 3500 FT- the published holding altitude. ATC asked 2 minutes later 'XXX what's your altitude' I replied 3500. ATC said 'I didn't clear you for 3500 then asked me to climb to 4000 FT - Which I did.It seems that communication was the main problem. Obviously when I was asked to hold my clearance was cancelled. ATC could have stated the holding altitude but more importantly I should have asked ATC to confirm the altitude he wanted me to hold at.




Synopsis: A pilot was cleared into holding at JISET on the RMG RNAV RWY 19 at 4;000 feet and descended to 3;500 feet; the minimum holding altitude. ATC directed him back to 4;000 feet because he was not cleared to descend.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Other Non-Flight
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; MEL
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We took over an aircraft from another crew which had MEL 52-50-XX (Fortified Flight Deck Door - Automatic Locking System (Primary System). There were three requirements which had to be met to comply with the MEL. They are as follows: a. Automatic locking (remote access) system is deactivated;b. Secondary locking system (mechanical deadbolt) is verified operative and used to lock the door; andc. Alternate procedures are established and used for using the mechanical system and access to the flight deck.My question to Maintenance Control and Management Personnel prior to departure was simply - can we comply with requirement 'c'? Specifically where it says 'and access to the flight deck.' In my opinion; the only way to comply would be to give a key to unlock the flight deck to the Flight Attendants should both pilots become incapacitated in flight. However; it has been passed down along the way since I first started flying this aircraft that the keys to the forward cargo door and flight deck always stay in the flight deck. Furthermore; I was advised by the company not to give the keys to the Flight Attendants prior to this flight. As we were flying to our destination; it was weighing heavily on my mind that what was instructed by the company and the decision to move forward; that in my opinion we did not satisfy requirement 'c' because we truly did not establish an alternate means for Flight Attendants to access the flight deck. I couldn't find anywhere in our company manuals that gives guidelines as to whether or not we can hand the keys to unlock the flight deck to the Flight Attendants to hold on to during the flight. My thought would be either have the MEL written a little more specifically using the words 'such as' ...giving a key to the flight attendant prior to boarding passengers and having that same guidance in our company manuals as well; or the opposite (to have our manuals clearly state that we are NOT to give a key to the Flight Attendants during flight). There are risks involved with either scenario.


Second narrative: [Report narrative had no additional information].


Synopsis: A Dash 8 flight crew questioned their compliance with an MEL addressing cockpit door lock issues.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; Icing
Light: Night
Aircraft: Chancellor 414A / C414
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During 17;000 feet cruise; my passenger noticed two white stationary lights off the right side of the aircraft (2 o'clock). Passenger pointed out the lights to me (Pilot) and I noticed they were slowly drifting apart from each other but staying in the same position. After about 5 seconds I could start to see what looked like a fuselage and realized it was another aircraft about to hit us. I immediately dove the aircraft and we witnessed the white (wing markers?) lights pass right over top of us. There were no other lights on the unknown aircraft aside from two incandescent looking white wingtip markers. It was too dark and we were between layers so I was unable to ascertain the type of aircraft or size as it passed right over top of us. I was also fixated on controlling our aircraft in the quick descent. The passenger and I estimated the other aircraft crossed us at about 200 feet above. I radioed ATC about the situation and informed them of our sudden altitude loss. ATC reported that nothing was on their scopes and cleared us down to 11;000 feet. During the descent; a check of the cabin pressure showed a 5 psi differential pressure. A follow up call to ATC reported nothing on their radar anywhere near us. Our strobes and Navigation lights were on at the time of the event. Upon landing I inspected my aircraft's wing tip lights and tail light and found them all to be in good working order.




Synopsis: The pilot of a multi-engine aircraft became aware of another aircraft in close proximity; and took evasive action. ATC was unaware of any traffic in the area; and was unable to identify any on radar.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Engine Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I am forwarding a safety concern I have regarding continuing failure to repair a 767 engine control which resulted in a high speed abort; causing a tire failure. It is my concern that there is a significant issue with the left engine fuel control system of some type; whose failure to fully trouble shoot and repair caused a high speed; heavy weight abort with tire failure. The potential outcome of the abort could have been so much worse. On the next flight the Capt. reported the same surge at V1. This issues needs to be thoroughly investigated and repaired. Passengers and crew are being placed at risk.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported a high speed abort related to an EEC problem that resulted in a tire failure. Reporter stated the same problem has been written up multiple times in the past.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: O26.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: F/A 18 Hornet/Super Hornet
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: TRACON E10
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Possible NMAC in Owens Valley near Olancha; CA. F/A-18F operating low level; heading northbound. Approximately 450 KCAS (Knots Calibrated Airspeed). Object observed close over canopy. Not identifiable. Possible large bird or small aircraft. No onboard radar tracks or advisory calls noted.




Synopsis: F/A 18 pilot experiences a NMAC with a large bird or small aircraft over the Owens Valley in California; during a low level training exercise.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student was on solo flight inside traffic pattern for ZZZ RWY XXR. Right traffic abeam the numbers on downwind. He was asked to report traffic on final in sight by Tower; but unfortunately got confused and said traffic is in sight by having contact with the traffic which was inside base- final turn number one. Added workload; confusion and lack of extensive experience; he turned inside the traffic on short final which put his aircraft in close proximity and hence the other traffic had to discontinue approach and go around. Realizing the mistake and with further instruction from ATC avoided any further incidents. Moreover; [he] received landing clearance shortly after and landed safely. The incident was reviewed with him / ATC and his authorized instructor. Takeaway from the incident includes learning more about being aware of the traffic ahead; behind and in proximity of our aircraft in high work load environments like traffic patterns and approach phases of flight. I; the instructor; will make sure that he receives extensive training on the things he was found deficient.




Synopsis: C-172 instructor reported a student pilot on a solo flight had an NMAC event while on the landing pattern training. The student mistakenly identified the wrong aircraft to follow for landing resulting in a loss of separation and causing other aircraft to execute a go-around.
Date: 201407
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On an almost 4.5 hour flight. Both the Captain and I had to go to the restroom. I went first. The procedures were followed. When I was finished and ready to come back in the cockpit the Flight Attendant called up said the code word and while waiting for the other Flight Attendant to come out; I looked up and the Captain was walking out. I ran in; sat down and buckled up and got settled. Upon the Captain coming back the rest of the procedures were followed. I explained to the Captain that was not the procedure; he agreed and understood his mistake. Both the Captain and I are fairly new on the airplane. Maybe in indoctrination or sim; we could run through the procedures in the actual airplane as to better perform them.


Second narrative: We were given a reroute due to weather which took us up near Chicago and required us to obtain more fuel. This made an already long flight even longer. The total flight time was near 4.5 hours. ...I had to go to the bathroom so bad at this point that for some reason I got up and exited the cockpit as the First Officer was coming into the cockpit. We passed each other near the back of the cockpit and I realized my mistake.


Synopsis: When their flight was made longer due to a weather reroute both pilots aboard an ERJ-170 found themselves in dire need of physiological relief shortly before TOD. Their attempts to utilize proper security protocols while still expediting access to the facilities ran amok when they passed each other at the cockpit door during the figurative baton pass.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Right after lift off; something felt different than normal. Airplane yawed to the left. As I went to apply right rudder; I felt no response from the aircraft at which point I decided to abort the takeoff; made the call for 'my controls' and landed the airplane off the runway. During the entire time I tried to apply right rudder but didn't feel that response from the aircraft as the left yawing tendency continued until the aircraft came to a stop.




Synopsis: C-172 Instructor reported a rejected takeoff due loss of directional control at liftoff resulting in a runway excursion.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Cessna 310/T310C
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately 10 - 15 minutes after departure; [I] started hearing engine backfire plus smoke coming into the cabin. Requested priority handling and returned to land at ZZZ on XXL. Right alt smelt of burnt rubber/smoke- no irregular voltage/amp indication in cockpit. Waiting for mechanical inspection.




Synopsis: C310R pilot reported engine problems and smoke in cabin after takeoff resulting in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Object; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Airport; Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Flew from ZZZ to my home airport; a grass strip. During the landing flare; a wind gust with variable direction changes lifted me off ground and forced a go around. I closed carb heat; gave full throttle; saw I could not clear all the tree tops; stayed slight nose high attitude; and plowed through the tree tops. I continued my go around and landed slightly hard to stay on the ground. Damage to my Cessna was right wing position light sheared off; nose cone dented; horizontal stabilizer dented on both outboard edges and left wheel pant fiberglass damaged. Minor dents to leading edge of both wings. No injuries or property damage other than to my airplane.




Synopsis: C150 pilot reported striking trees during a go-around; resulting in damage to the aircraft.