elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Was flying VFR cross country (no flight following) over the Sierra Nevada mountains late morning; westbound. Winds had picked up so was trying to gain as much altitude as I could before crossing the mountains. Got into mountain waves and was alternately climbing and descending at greater than 1;000 FPM each direction; while holding constant airspeed. I was able to gain more altitude than I lost with each successive wave; and for safety's sake allowed that to continue for better clearance with terrain. Eventually reached greater than 19;000 FT; climbing at 1;300 FPM (Aircraft Flight Manual says I could get maybe 200 to 300 FPM at 14;000 FT). It then occurred to me I was in Class A airspace. I had not even considered that a possibility in this normally-aspirated Piper Lance so I had not considered the need for an IFR flight plan. Immediately I began descending (I had just reached a point where terrain clearance did not appear to be an issue any longer). Before the flight I had prepared by reading some about mountain flying; and how to safely deal with mountain waves; and knew that higher is safer generally to avoid the terrain and possible strong turbulence; but hadn't considered how high I might get. Better preflight planning and more situational awareness during the flight could have prevented the brief; inadvertent entry into Class A airspace.




Synopsis: A PA-32 pilot flying over the Sierra Nevada mountains encountered mountain waves severe enough to lift him into Class A airspace. He descended out of the incursion when the wave subsided and the terrain below became less of a concern.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ACT.Airport, TX
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ACT
ATC / advisory: Tower ACT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I flew into ACT to see our son. This was a night flight and upon entering the ACT airspace it was very difficult to see the runway lighting. The runway lights were very dim and indistinguishable from surrounding city lights. When I asked the tower to turn up the runway lights; the Tower Controller stated they haven't been able to control the runway lights for 9 months due to a lightning strike. They have filed numerous maintenance requests; but none have been acted upon. This is unacceptable and a safety of flight issue. I request the runway lights be fixed as soon as possible to allow the tower and pilots to control the lighting intensity.




Synopsis: Pilot reports low intensity runway lighting and that ATC cannot control runway lights for 9 months after a lightning strike.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Windshear; Icing; Fog; Turbulence; 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other Business
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Manuals; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Based on unfamiliarity with the FAA's COVID relief policy regarding medical duration's; I acted as PIC between ZZZ and ZZZ1 on date in a type aircraft with an unknowingly expired 2nd class medical (issued date). The unfamiliarity came from reading headlines in several industry publication emails about the FAA extending medical certificate duration's during COVID.  I failed to follow up on these headlines to determine the extent of the extensions and therefore performed this flight under the assumption that medicals were extended indefinitely until COVID was over.I discovered my mistake after my coworker (in ground school) asked me about medical duration's in preparation for his private pilot written exam. I proceeded to search for his answer; and in the meantime recalled the COVID medical certification extension news.  Upon finding and reading FAA orders describing the extension details; I discovered my certificate was subject to a two-month extension and expired date.  Immediately I visited the FAA's AME directory and called several AME's because my AME has since closed their practice.  I found several AME's (including my previous AME) to be no longer practicing FAA exams (some for several years); however they were still listed in the FAA directory.  I finally found someone still in business and am in the process of scheduling an appointment with them at the earliest convenience.I have a flight today to/from ZZZ2 where I will sit the in the right seat only to provide an extra set of trained eyes and ears for the safety of the flight while not acting as PIC or SIC until my medical is renewed.




Synopsis: Corporate pilot reported flying without a current medical.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working X RADAR position. I was working a SR22 in level flight at nine thousand feet 21 miles southeast of XYZ VORTAC. The aircraft was just crossing the sector boundary into my airspace. The previous sector RADAR Controller called me to advise that the MOA had gone active 2 minutes prior. The area had not been scheduled in the URET and therefore did not appear automatically on the scope when it went active. The aircraft was in the northeast corner of the MOA and I issued a heading to clear the area the quickest way. The aircraft exited the area approximately 2 minutes later. The person that initially takes the request to schedule the MOA (the Center Management Advisory Council); or the area supervisor; should be responsible for inputting the schedule into the URET. This has been an ongoing and consistent problem and is DANGEROUS!




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described an airspace entry event when timely information regarding the MOA was not available in the URET system.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight phase: Other holding short / Rwy
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Single Pilot
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Troubleshooting; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other holding short of runway
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was completing my run-up at the arrival end of Runway XY of ZZZ when I witnessed a runway incursion event that could have resulted in two accidents involving three aircraft. Across the runway from me; Aircraft Y taxied up and was holding for landing traffic on Runway XY as well. I radioed the Aircraft Y pilot on CTAF to say that I would hold for her to depart first; since it was a skydiving ops plane and I was in no hurry. The landing traffic Aircraft Z touched down (it was a small single engine of some kind) and Aircraft Y taxied onto the runway as soon as Aircraft Z passed us. The Aircraft Y pilot did not wait for Aircraft Z to exit the runway and instead throttled up and began accelerating down Runway XY towards Aircraft Z which was still rolling out; about midfield. If this wasn't bad enough; another pilot [Aircraft A] on short final decided not to go around but instead to land on Runway XY with two aircraft ahead of him. I do not remember what type of aircraft this third plane was; a small single-engine of some kind. The Aircraft Y pilot had to abort her takeoff and slam on the brakes to avoid hitting Aircraft Z; which rolled all the way to the departure end of the field before finally exiting. Aircraft Y exited the runway just in time for Aircraft A to roll out behind it without a collision. What caused the problem: 1. While Aircraft Y might have been OK to 'line up and wait' on Runway XY; she should not have begun her takeoff roll until the runway was clear. Pilot displayed impatience and was counting on Aircraft Z to exit promptly; which it did not. With traffic in the pattern; even the decision to line up and wait was not a very prudent one.2. The third; landing plane should have executed a go-around. The runway was occupied with two aircraft ahead of it. 3. Smoke/haze in the area may have been a factor; although the visibility was at least 3-5 SM and I don't believe that the runway was obscured from view at any time.




Synopsis: Pilot holding short of the runway at a non-towered airport reported observing a a Critical Ground Conflict involving three aircraft in different phases of takeoff and landing.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower JFK
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [We] landed JFK without a clearance. Pilot not flying switched from Approach to Tower frequency and erred on frequency selected on comm. Pilot not flying called for landing clearance and did not receive a reply. Proceeded with usual callouts and completed a normal landing then realized the error. On arrival approximately 40 west of JFK we were following a heavy B747 and had been hit with moderate wake turbulence. We requested an offset from the unseen aircraft to continue. On final we got a visual on the aircraft which was sequenced right in front of us. There was crew technical discussion regarding winds; wake turbulence; go-around; etc.; from that aircraft that would constitute a distraction. Spacing and strong winds from the north made for a wake turbulence free approach. After clearing; we contacted Tower and were issued taxi instructions. Captain (pilot not flying) focused on possible wake turbulence from the heavy 747 to the exclusion of normal operations; missed the gorilla so to speak.




Synopsis: A321 landed without clearance after an earlier wake vortex encounter distracted the flight crew.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Flight plan: IFR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Fatigue; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: All 7 sectors in the Area had to be open and staffed due to traffic volume. The only problem is that this facility continues to staff us below guidelines nearly every day. So the one person out on break (had been out just over 10 minutes) was paged back to the control room to split off a RED sector that was combined. Even after the split; the Sector was still Red and could have used a Radar Assist; however there were no other controllers available to help. While this is going on; another busy controller requested a Radar Assist to which the Supervisor had to reply; 'There is no one else.'I personally was working a busy sector and could have used an Assist at the time. So with every controller in the control room and no one on break; we needed 3 extra controllers to help with the workload but were unable to get them. This is now the 1st time this has happened. It seems however it goes mostly unnoticed because we happen to get through it without a major incident so management continues to keep us understaffed every shift. In order to get people out on break two sectors were combined without an Assist position when they should have stayed split due to the 29 proposed departures pending. As I worked the combined sector it quickly became nearly unmanageable. A controller arrived at his shift start time and was able to split off one of my sectors again. However; at the time he plugged in I was too busy to give a complete and thorough briefing and pretty much just had him take the frequencies and get to work. Totally unsafe situation caused again by the lack of staffing.Please staff us to guidelines. Also although unrelated to this specific incident; the swing shift guidelines should be 11 or higher in my area not 10 especially during the summer months when we have weather deviations. On multiple occasions I have had to go over 2 hours on swing shifts again due to the lack of staffing this summer. With seven sectors and weather 10 people isn't enough to staff a swing shift with weather. They haven't been staffing us to 10 anyway; we seem to always start the shift with 9 controllers.This place is ridiculous right now and the morale is terrible.




Synopsis: ATC Center Controller reported the work area was understaffed for the level of traffic.
Date: 202011
Location: BIF.Airport, TX
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Airport
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: After landing at BIF; we were given a 180 on the runway to taxi the ramp; due to the fact that Taxiway H is not stressed for heavy aircraft. That is all the information that Ground Control gave us. There is nothing about that on the 10-9. Jepps needs to include a note on the 10-9 about this.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported BIF airport Taxiway H is not stressed for heavy aircraft; which is not addressed anywhere in the charts.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was flying with my student out of ZZZ; coming in from the practice area; we were cleared to make a left base for Runway XXL; about 5 miles out; we're given a new instructions to fly straight to the rail road; and make straight in approach for [Runway] XXR upon new ATIS. We flew that and proceeded to fly our extended final toward runway. Controller informs us that he will be calling our right crosswind turn. We do our touch and go and around 5-600 feet I am called for a radio check. He informs me I missed for calls and luckily the other aircraft had seen me with adequate time. I see the other aircraft maybe 100 feet above and 10 to the left of me. I dove to the right and resumed normal traffic pattern operations and terminated my flight there. No number given to call; just a close call.




Synopsis: Instructor pilot reported a near mid air collision after missing several radio calls from Tower during routine training operations.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ABQ.TRACON, NM
Aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ABQ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ABQ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X checked onto departure and were instructed to 'Climb via SID' which was a GRZZZ3 Departure. Aircraft X reaching 9000 FT questioned which altitude they were to climb to. Departure replied 'Top altitude FL200' and Aircraft X continued their climb to FL200. Pilots questioning the phraseology of 'Climb via SID' has been an ongoing problem at ABQ because of Clearance Delivery assigning 'Climb via SID; except maintain 90' and pilots confused over 'Climb via SID's' instructions. Aircraft on clearance should be instructed to 'Climb via SID' with no altitude restrictions; and if Approach needs an altitude restriction this will be given upon aircraft check in. -OR- All pilots need to be on the same page that when departure clears an aircraft to 'Climb via SID' this deletes the clearance delivery restriction previously given.

Callback: Reporter stated that they would like the climb via phraseology fixed; it has been going on for about 5 years and still causes problems.



Synopsis: ABQ TRACON Controller reported pilot confusion on how high too climb on a 'Climb via SID'; except maintain a specific altitude.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Military Trainer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During taxi to parking; had the L (Left) main gear collapse striking wing tip and outboard aileron bracket. Wing was lifted and pneumatic air system was able to lock gear and plane returned to hangar by tug. The Yak uses pneumatic system for gear retraction; flaps and brakes. After recovering airplane off taxiway; gear locked in the down position without problem with the opening of the air tank valve.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported during taxi to parking landing gear collapsed damaging wing and outboard aileron bracket.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, MA
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We have been working a lot of weird traffic situations with weird routes and complex traffic flows in our area due to VIP movement.  Last night; the Operations Manager (OM) told me that in 15 minutes; some airspace was going to go hot because of VIP movement; but that they didn't know which airspace.  He also advised that he suggested we start considering the TFR's hot; but no one in the area knew what he was talking about.  There had been something on CEDAR that we read before our shift; but it just talked about TRACON's Class B lateral boundary; so we didn't know it applied to us.  I had to get out a sectional; try to use a blank flight strip to make a ruler; and we tried approximating the boundary of the TFR based on those rough calculations.  No one briefed us on what impact the TFR would have; and it wasn't put in plain language for us to be able to decipher or to have any real valuable information on where to draw the TFR boundaries on our scopes.  Not only that; but we were officially told that it was in fact the TFR's going hot two minutes after they actually went hot.I know things can be fluid when it comes to VIP movement.  However; the paperwork/ information about a TFR needs to be given to controllers in a way they can actually use.  Specific dimensions and what that means to the area should be on a hot sheet or something.  Ideally; it would be nice to get a verbal briefing in case we have questions about the TFR.  Also; the added traffic and complexity needs to be taken into account and traffic should be slowed down going into areas affected by VIP movement.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported confusion when the Front Line Manager walked by and said some airspace was going hot; but did not know which airspace.