elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MLB.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E F11
ATC / advisory: TRACON F11
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: IFR flight to MLB descended from cruise altitude of 7;000 down to 5;000; but got lower (4;900) and eventually lower still (4;800). ATC called out traffic - 12:00; 3 miles; opposite direction; VFR at 4;500. Looked and saw it almost immediately; saw that it was not a factor; as it was well below and a little off to the side. Also noticed my low altitude and began correcting; about the same time that ATC informed me I was low. Although the traffic was VFR; he actually popped out of a cloud that had a floor of about 4;000 - as soon as he did; we saw him. Just a bit of information - it didn't have anything to do with me being low. There was a good bit of turbulence; since we were right at the middle of the cloud layer - a scattered layer from about 4;000 to about 8;000. When inside a cloud; altitude control wasn't really possible - we were going up and down well over 500 FPM at times. When outside of the clouds; it was still a challenge; but if I had been paying closer attention to the altitude; I could have corrected it. We do not have an autopilot.




Synopsis: C182 pilot at 5;000 FT on an IFR flight plan reports a NMAC with VFR traffic at 4;500 FT and possibly not clear of clouds. The reporter had descended to 4;800 FT inadvertently due to turbulence in the clouds.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Citation Latitude (C680A)
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After several attempts to depart; we returned to the FBO ramp; and were waiting in AC when we timed out of daylight. We shut down the AC; and the cleaning crew came to begin cleaning. We left the AC for the FBO; without realizing the AC was not chocked. The AC rolled approximately 3 ft into the parked pickup of the cleaning crew.Our normal after landing flows were interrupted from the taxi out and taxi returns; the ramp personnel chocked us; and we removed chocks when we were heading out again. Because we never left; they did not know to come put chocks back in. Our normal post flight flows were interrupted by the arrival of the cleaning crew. We should have made sure the aircraft was chocked prior to heading into FBO.


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


Synopsis: CE-680A flight crew reported that after they went into the FBO the aircraft rolled into a pickup truck.
Date: 201407
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Other Other
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After [the last passenger left] the plane; I was going to give [the agent] a hat and book that were left behind. When I was at the threshold; I heard [the agent] yell; 'MOVE-I'm adjusting the jet bridge.' I was startled and hopped in the jet bridge to leave the forgotten items on the podium. I assumed she was 'leveling' the jet bridge; but when I turned around she was pulling the jet bridge back from the plane while the forward entry door was opened. The 'D' Flight Attendant who was taking over told her to push the jet bridge back to the plane. Within seconds; our deplaning 'D' was feet from the door and only stopped when we started screaming for her to stop. The agent then pushed the jet bridge back to the plane. This agent did not seem startled by what she did until we reacted with horror. She was not conscientious and did not communicate what she was doing with the crew or why.




Synopsis: B737 Flight Attendant reports a gate agent moving the jetway without announcing her intentions or erecting a safety line. Another Flight Attendant nearly walks into the gap.
Date: 201705
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
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pilot Seat
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During an intentional spin; the co-pilot seat departed from the seat rail; causing the Instructor Pilot (IP) to fall backwards. The Pilot Under Instruction (PUI) executed proper spin recovery procedures without IP assistance and IP sat up and forced chair to floor using own weight. Crew proceeded directly to [home airport] for a full stop. No emergency was declared; as crew determined the seat malfunction did not appreciably affect the pilot's ability to land.Aircraft used for utility-category maneuvers could have a reinforced seat mechanism to ensure stability.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported the co-pilot's seat came off the seat rail during an intentional spin training maneuver.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aural alert. The weather was VFR and we had the airport in sight. We had both set 29.90 from listening to the ATIS; and 29.90 was copied down on the ATIS card. When we asked Tower for a current setting after the alert; we were given 29.51. We adjusted the altimeters and the aircraft path and landed normally.We both believe we heard 29.90 from the ATIS; but it seems possible that we could have misheard a verbal 29.50. By the time we rechecked the ATIS; it was broadcasting 29.51 with the latest report. The pilot monitoring had the VSD (Vertical Situation Display) displayed; but said the error was not obvious; maybe due to the hard right turn ahead. Once the proper altimeter setting was set; it showed us low on the path. Thankfully; we were still above the MEA for the segment. This is a good reminder that vigilance is required when setting the altimeter using a verbal source of information.


Second narrative: While conducting RNAV RNP Runway XX Approach at ZZZ we got [an] altimeter setting" aural alert just about crossing ZZZZZ. We were in visual conditions and I queried Tower what [the] altimeter setting was. We had 29.90 set and Tower told us it was 29.51. While copying ATIS information prior to top of descent; I heard and wrote down on the card 29.90. I had the VSD (Vertical Situation Display) up on my side and I did not notice any deviations from the path. We visually had the airport in sight; updated our altimeter settings; and landed uneventfully."


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported receiving an altimeter setting aural alert during initial approach and proceeded to update to the correct altimeter setting after verifying with Tower and landed safely.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: OAPM (Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex) issue. Aircraft X's flight plan showed POM9 SID and was issued and flew the POM9 SID. The aircraft did not fly or was not issued SNSHN1 SID as required.




Synopsis: ZLA Center Controller reported a departing aircraft was issued the wrong SID according to the new OAPM arrival/departure procedures implemented for their airspace.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Eurocopter AS 350/355/EC130 - Astar/Twinstar/Ecureuil
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was requested by Maintenance to move the helicopter from its parking spot to the hangar parking pad. After preflighting the aircraft and obtaining tail clearance to hover taxi I proceeded to hover taxi the aircraft south on the parallel taxiway and turned west on the designated taxiway to the maintenance parking pads. After turning west I noticed a Ford F-150 pick up truck to my front and left moving left to right. I continued almost where the vehicle would cross the taxiway and determined that the vehicle was not going [to] stop. I was hovering at about 5 feet. I performed a quick deceleration and the aircraft climbed about 3 to 4 feet and stopped. I then looked through the chin bubble and saw the vehicle pass beneath me. The vehicle stopped at a maintenance hangar located at the end of the row of hangars and the driver got out and went inside. I then parked the aircraft on the maintenance pad; shutdown the aircraft and went inside the avionics shop to determine why the driver did not give way to me. The driver stated the she didn't see or hear me and seemed amused to the fact that she had not seen or heard me. The driver also stated she was not familiar with the airport markings for taxiways and was not familiar with any rules of movement of vehicles while on the airport grounds.




Synopsis: Helicopter pilot reports a near collision with a vehicle during air taxi via taxiway. A quick pull up avoids contact; with the vehicle passing five feet below. The driver stated that she did not see or hear the helicopter and was not familiar with the airport markings for taxiways and was not familiar with any rules of movement of vehicles while on the airport grounds.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This event occurred on Date at approximately XA01-XG00 local time; ZZZ Gate Z-XX.  During my exterior pre-flight of our aircraft; while under the left wingtip; a white van nearly killed me heading west at high speed.  It was after sunset; and the vehicle's speed made it impossible to see or record any identifiable markings.  I spoke with a Manager; who I believed to be the Ramp Manager. He said that he would try to identify the perpetrator.I was wearing my vest and had a flashlight.  This was either deliberate; or an example of gross incompetence.Cause - Poorly trained drivers who don't understand why there are flight line speed limits; drivers whose supervisors failed to share with them the technique of looking out of the window while driving.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported nearly being hit by a speeding vehicle while walking under the aircraft's wing during the pre-flight walk around.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Rejected takeoff near V1. Maximum power was required for our gross weight of 455;000 lbs. Stop margin was 1000+ feet. Normal acceleration through the 80 Kts call. Nearing V1 the First Officer stated 'Reject' (no reason given at the time) and I rejected the takeoff. Airspeed was 133 Kts; V1; 134. Standard reject procedures were used. This included Manual Brakes Maximum.Upon clearing the Runway; I was sure we would have 'hot brakes.' We cleared prior to the end of the runway and stopped on the parallel Taxiway Y. As the brake temperature continued to rise we advised the Tower and the fire department was asked to come out and take a look at us. No emergency was declared but the fire department stayed with us till the brakes cooled and the tires were changed. Temperatures of the left front truck; right front truck; and the center gear; reached about 550 degrees. Maintenance was advised. Approximately 15 minutes later both the center wheels had the fuse plugs deflate the tires. All engines were shut down and we waited for the brakes to cool. Maintenance decided to change the center tires prior to moving the aircraft. Once completed we started engines and returned to the blocks. The 'reject' call was for a loss of airspeed.


Second narrative: High speed reject. Loss of airspeed indication and MFD display flickering.


Synopsis: An MD-11 flight crew performed a high speed rejected takeoff just before V1 when the First Officer noted a loss of airspeed and called 'Reject'.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While descending into ZZZ on autopilot with Digital Flight Guidance System (DFGS) #2 selected the aircraft leveled off and went into alt hold. The airplane then began uncommanded climb and the pilot flying disconnected the autopilot and returned to selected alt[itude]. The autopilot was re engaged and the airplane again started uncommanded climb. The autopilot was again disengaged and QRH procedure for runaway stabilizer was completed. The autopilot was disconnected for remainder of flight and ATC was advised of situation due to the flight control malfunction.




Synopsis: An MD82 pilot describes a possible runaway stabilizer trim scenario when his aircraft levels at the assigned altitude; on autopilot; then begins to climb. The autopilot is disengaged and the aircraft returned to the assigned altitude. When the autopilot is re engaged the anomaly repeats. The flight continues to a normal landing with the autopilot off.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B JFK
ATC / advisory: Tower JFK
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: As I was relieving the previous Controller to start my shift; a B767-300 was leading aircraft on the VOR approach to Runway 13L. The trailing aircraft was a B737-800. The previous Controller told the B737-800 to reduce speed and make his approach to Runway 13R; the parallel runway but the aircraft still fly the same VOR approach to both 13L/R; they do not differentiate for the purposes of wake turbulence. As the briefing was taking place; the B737-800 may have come within the required 5 NM separation with the B767-300 even though landing a different runway for the purposes of the approach. I do not know if the previous Controller had established visual separation and by the time the position had been handed off to me the B767-300 was over the landing threshold. Due to the nature of this non-precision approach and the non definitive method of separating aircraft on this curved approach to parallel runways I am not sure if 5 NM was maintained as required. We need to define what is acceptable with these parallel runways but same approach separation and to determine what is acceptable on a curved approach such as Runway 13L/R. It has always been the contention of controllers that flying miles measure separation however in most computers separation is measured point to point which severely lowers the actual flying separation and inhibits the ability to run this approach at all with our traffic level.




Synopsis: JFK Controller described a questionable wake separation event involving a heavy followed by a large aircraft landing on the parallel Runway's 13.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Utility / Infrastructure
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Confusion; Workload; Distraction
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During inspection of HRL VDME for VOR MON (Minimum Operational Network) data collection; aircraft was operating along US/Mexican border. Crew was navigating using VFR techniques involving position determined by [the] application on iPad and reference to ground when terrain features were visible. At a time of increased workload; GPS position data was lost along with ground reference. Before positional awareness was re-gained; ATC advised of pending penetration of the Boca Chica TFR. Crew initiated immediate action to avoid the TFR. When well clear of the TFR; crew resumed inspection flight path.


Second narrative: During inspection of HRL VDME for VOR MON data collection; aircraft was operating along US/Mexican border. Crew was navigating using VFR techniques involving position determined by the application on iPad and reference to ground when terrain features were visible. At a time of increased workload; GPS position data was lost along with ground reference. Before positional awareness was re-gained; ATC advised of pending penetration of the Boca Chica TFR. Crew initiated immediate action to avoid the TFR. When well clear of the TFR; crew resumed inspection flight path.


Synopsis: While inspecting a VOR for data the PNF reported a loss of GPS signal. The pilot reported the aircraft was operating VFR but was relying on the GPS signals to avoid restricted airspace. ATC advised the pilot crew of the close penetration and the aircraft avoided the TFR.