elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TOA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 350
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We were departing Torrance; California in contact with SoCal departure. We were cleared direct to Seal Beach VOR and climbing through approximately 5;000 feet when I caught movement in my peripheral vision about the 10 O'Clock position. By the time I was able to look directly at the object; it passed approximately 30 to 50 feet off of our left wing tip. I initially thought it was a bird until the sun light reflected off the object; giving the appearance of a mirrored or metallic finish; the object was moving horizontally at a high rate of speed (much higher than a bird) leading to the conclusion that it was a small drone that we nearly missed colliding with. We reported the occurrence with ATC and continued the flight with no further issues.




Synopsis: PIC reported encountering a drone approaching SLI VOR.
Date: 202006
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: This flight was planned on a route that went through ZZZZ.  In my pre-flight planning process; I checked the enroute NOTAMs by loading all the enroute FIR boundaries and then using 'control-F' and searching the enroute NOTAMs for applicable airways.  Today; there were no such hits when performing this NOTAM checking method.  Unfortunately; there was a NOTAM for ZZZZ that had been issued just before I arrived for work:...DUE TO COVID-19...ATS WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE. ATS CONTINGENCY PLAN(AIC A11/18) FOR ZZZZ1 FIR ACT.                                                                                     The flight had been airborne for some time; but was still in ZZZZ2 airspace when the crew advised me that they were being re-routed out of ZZZZ airspace - the re-route was minimal and after considerable effort (due to non-existent or out-of-date info in AIR for ZZZZ and ZZZZ3) I was finally able to speak with ZZZZ3 ATC and obtain an expected route through their airspace; and then I was able to advise the crew of the routing.  The amount of en-route FIR boundary NOTAMs is daunting - impossible to read these for every international flight --- therefore using the 'Control-F' to search for applicable airways allows the Dispatcher to quickly determine if there are any en-route implications to the flight.  Of course; if there are no associated airways with a NOTAM as in the case of the situation affecting this flight; then pertinent closures can be missed.  In addition; since the crews do not receive a copy of the FIR boundary NOTAMs; this scenario leaves the Dispatcher as the single point of failure.Be smarter when it comes to FIR boundary NOTAMs.  Utilize a resource like 'SmartNotam' to weed through all the FIR boundary NOTAMs and then provide both the crew and the dispatcher a condensed list of applicable FIR boundary NOTAMs to read and decipher.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported the flight was re-routed because ATC was closed due to COVID-19.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Shortly after rotation from runway 4 in LGA ATC advised us of a drone sighting at 1200 ft. As we climbed through 1000 ft I keyed the mike to acknowledge ATCs advisory and a drone passed just above my windscreen. I told the Tower we saw the drone and that we may have hit it. Apparently this was construed as we did hit it. I definitely could have phrased that better. We did not see an impact and all systems were operating normally. I advised Departure we would continue on to [destination]. The FAA met us at the gate [at destination] and I made a write up in the Maintenance log to get local Maintenance to do a strike inspection. No evidence of a strike was found.Previous aircraft reported the drone and we were not made aware of this until after we were airborne. I was conducting IOE with a new hire and my focus was more on the flight instruments than outside the aircraft.


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


Synopsis: CRJ-700 flight crew reported a NMAC with a UAV climbing out of LGA.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Second aircraft: Widebody Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Staffing; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were landing at LAX prior to the late night runway configuration change. We were cleared to land on 25L; a [widebody] aircraft [aircraft Y] was put on the runway with a line up and wait then cleared for takeoff. The [widebody] aircraft was VERY slow to power up which gave us minimum separation for landing. We landed right in [aircraft Y's] jet blast. Upon further review; I found that there was only one Tower Controller at the time working all 4 runways at LAX. One person working both the North Complex and South Complex at the 3rd busiest airport at a critical time at night is EXTREMELY dangerous and needs to be looked at!




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported landing with minimum separation behind a departing widybody aircraft at LAX. After landing he learned that the entire airport is being routinely controlled by one Controller during late night operations.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-18/19 Super Cub
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I decided to land on what I believed was frozen solid snow on X Lake. After 5 test touchdowns (power not completely back at idle) I deemed it safe to land. On the sixth attempt I decided to commit to the landing after feeling pretty comfortable with the ground below. As I pulled the power completely to idle I felt the snow break under me. It was too late to add power so instinctively; as I felt the nose slowly tumble forward and the wheels stick in place; I quickly reached for the mixture to stop the prop. The plane continued to roll forward on its nose slowly. I decided to call for help because I could not right the plane myself.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Super Cub landed on a frozen lake after several test landings; but had the surface give way under the nose wheel.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Turned in closer to final than anticipated after receiving vectors to final.  Cleared for the approach and wasn't quite to ZZZZZ [Intersection] before descending to the final altitude.  Received a low altitude alert from ATC.  Called up ATC and discussed the situation; didn't lose any separation or any other problems.Turned in closer to final than anticipated.  Cleared for the approach and wasn't quite to ZZZZZ [Intersection] before descending to the final altitude. Create a clear path for the descent and verify the DME.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported descending too soon while on approach and receiving a low altitude alert from ATC.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Large Transport
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified; Flight Crew Glider
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: GC (Ground Controller) coordinated a RWY XX crossing at [intersection] utilizing a conditional clearance after an arrival. Subsequently; RSU [Runway Safety Unit] pickup truck called to access the runway to pick up gear. GC told RSU to proceed onto runway XX without coordinating possession of the runway.1. Coaching the controller that runway crossings and runway ownership and separate events and need additional coordination.2. It is being taught that GC can use a conditional request to access a runway from local control. For example 'after the [aircraft] on final; cross Rwy XX at [intersection]?' This is distracting to the local controller and introduces unnecessary risk into the system. I believe this to be a systemic issue and that a 7110.65 change be initiated to close the loop.




Synopsis: Tower Front Line Manager reported incorrect coordination that led to a runway incursion.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DYB.Airport, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-6
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZJX
ATC / advisory: CTAF DYB
Second aircraft: Mooney Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I announced my intention to take off Runway 06 at DYB after a Cessna departed for right closed traffic. At this point I did not know of the conflicting traffic approaching from the north east; I did not hear if they made a radio call. On initial climb out; Aircraft Y was merging with my path on my crosswind leg from Runway 06. He made a radio call asking if I saw him; I glanced out my left window and saw our paths converging from my perspective at same altitude or <100 ft. of separation. I elected to climb to deconflict the traffic and announced my intention to do so over the CTAF. He said 'thanks because he didn't want to be run in to today'. I departed the area without further incident. In my view; Aircraft Y did not join the pattern at midfield for the right downwind which would have prevented this conflict; and instead elected to directly join the downwind from the north east (upwind) and close in to the field. Overlaying the ADSB track logs show our tracks converged on my crosswind leg.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a NMAC after takeoff.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Second aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While on the FYTTE 5 arrival into ORD we were one fix west of FYTTE and were notified that Aircraft Y would be vectored in front of us and we reported them in sight. We were both at 11;000 ft. and 300 kts. ATC asked us again if we had them in sight and by this time the sun had came up and prevented us from seeing Aircraft Y so we reported back not in sight. We were then cleared to 10;000 ft. and right turn to KURKK. Shortly after going direct KURKK we encountered moderate wake turbulence that disconnected the autopilot. The Captain manually corrected the roll and we called the flight attendant to see if everyone was alright. There were no injuries and we proceeded without further issues.I think that when the sun prevented us from seeing the aircraft ahead of us that aircraft entered our flight path directly in front. This coupled with the descent and turn probably turned us through the sinking vortices. If we could have seen where the aircraft was exactly we may have [had] a better [idea] where the vortices were going. The last time we saw the aircraft in front of us it was about the 10 o'clock position; after that we had no idea of its flight path.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported encountering wake turbulence on descent into ORD in trail of a B747.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While queued for takeoff; I noticed the windsock indicating the winds were coming from the northeast which was not what was on the ATIS. We were around sixth in line for takeoff for runway 18L. When the first aircraft was cleared for takeoff; I did not hear tower give a wind report. I asked my First Officer if [he] heard a wind report; he did not. Several other aircraft were cleared for takeoff but no wind reports were given. When cleared for takeoff; I asked for a wind check. We were told 300; 15 gust 25. We said that we would need to check our performance. Our performance data confirmed my concern that the tailwinds were out of limits. We informed tower that we needed a different runway because of the tailwinds. Several other aircraft then said that they too would need another runway after our call. We were all given runway 27.It seems like the tower lost track of the winds during the launch. It is possible there were over ten takeoff clearances issued without a wind callout. Tower might consider a process where they are required to call out the winds whenever they are over 10 knots while issuing a takeoff clearance. This way; crews could be alerted to tailwinds that were not on the ATIS. Ten knots of tailwinds are the limits for all [of my company] crews and tower should know that limit due to the high volume of our flights at this airport.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of not hearing the Tower provide winds for aircraft departing. Pilot when next in line asks Tower for winds and the Tower issues the wind. Pilot then advises Tower they cannot accept departure off this runway due to tailwind.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: GNV.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZJX
ATC / advisory: TRACON JAX
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was combining a personal IFR flight with cross-country training for my student; who is a primary; pre-solo student with about 10 hours of flight time. We departed GNV and were on the initial climbout; runway heading; but my student was having some trouble establishing proper pitch attitude and holding heading. He also told me he was having a very hard time hearing me. Tower handed us to Jacksonville Departure. I told my student to continue flying while I contacted Departure. I SHOULD have told my student; 'my airplane' and then contacted Departure. Departure gave me a simple vector to join the airway; but trying to get my student to turn; lower the nose so I could see traffic; and write down the frequency and airway number; I got saturated (as was my student at that point not being able to hear what I was telling him to do.) I realized I had forgotten the heading just given me and had to ask Jacksonville to say again; which he did. Because my student couldn't hear me; I pointed; trying to get him to turn; but by the time I returned to my paper to write the frequency; I had forgotten it again; and had to ask Jacksonville to say the simple clearance for the third time!From the perspective of the controller; I probably appeared to be an IFR pilot in need of remedial training; when in fact I was an instructor doing a poor job of managing the flight; not taking over when I needed to. It was a minor moment of task saturation and resulting brain freeze; which could have been avoided with prompt re-taking of the controls; when I realized we were both getting overloaded - him with flying the plane; me with troubleshooting the com problem; trying to get him to go where we needed to be pointed; and accepting the clearance.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported after takeoff he had trouble communicating with the student pilot. During this distracting event ATC had to repeat their clearance 3 times.
Date: 201308
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Traffic was moderately busy and complex with uneven pairs on final requiring close attention to determine which gaps would be departure holes. After a B737-700 was airborne; I noticed that another B737 with the same callsign inbound on final was the next to land on 28R; and I had already cleared him to land. This was the first time I noticed they had the same callsigns. Since I was shipping one to departure; I did not provide cautionary advisories to either aircraft. There did not appear to be any confusion in this instance during the event sequence and the pilots readback their respective take-off/landing clearances. Since the arrival was still airborne when the departure tagged up; the departure did not acquire its datablock and LCA had to call CI-1 to advise them of the identical callsigns. [The airline] needs to use stubbed callsigns (i.e. with a letter suffix) when a continuing flight on a different aircraft leaves before the arriving flight. In the scan of my strips and the radar; I should have noticed the identical callsigns and provided the appropriate advisories to both aircraft.




Synopsis: SFO Controller described a duplicate flight number event with both an arrival on final and an airborne departure having an identical flight number.