elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: N85.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sail Plane
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: CTAF N85
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Glider
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I was flying a high-performance single-seat sailplane on a local soaring flight. At the time of the incident I was heading in the general direction of N85; looking for lift under some scattered cumulus clouds with bases around 5;000 MSL. I was monitoring 123.3; which is used by cross-country soaring pilots for informal communications about conditions; etc.; and was not on the CTAF for N85. I noticed a line of open parachutes about 1 mile ahead of me; at and slightly below my altitude. There was no collision hazard at this point. I circled to try to work some lift and heard engine noise. A powered aircraft that was obviously the jump plane appeared from behind and circled outside of me until his higher speed took him away (in effect flying across my nose). I stopped my turn and headed away from N85. After a short interval I again heard engine noise from behind; I maintained a straight course and the jump plane passed me on the right and again cut across my nose (from right to left) before heading away. The jump plane was a single-engine high-wing aircraft with the door removed; I am not sure of the type. I did not see the tail numbers. Presumably the pilot was trying to warn me of the parachutists and divert me away from the area; we were not in radio communication. I was heading toward the parachutists when I first saw them; but was not heading toward them at the time of either pass by the jump plane. The passes were uncomfortably close; and the second was completely unnecessary; I was already leaving the area. An uncharitable interpretation would be that this was an 'air rage' incident. I have flown in this general area about 4 times in the last 3 months; in good VMC; and this is the first time I have seen any parachuting activity even though there is a NOTAM for it that blocks out more or less the entire spring; summer and fall. In future I will monitor the CTAF for N85 when in this area.




Synopsis: A glider pilot near N85 saw parachutist 1 mile ahead and circled to gain altitude but was then approach very closely by the jump aircraft twice before exiting the area.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Evacuated; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On pre-flight we experienced smoke and fumes in the airplane. We evacuated the airplane along with telling the ground crew to get off the plane.  It was determined it was caused by de-ice fluid. We were removed from the trip and went to a hospital to be checked out. De-ice fluid being sprayed into the #2 engine while the APU was running and providing air.


Second narrative: During preflight with APU running and packs on; aircraft rapidly filled with smoke accompanied by fire horn and cargo smoke alert. Emergency evacuation performed with load crew. Captain and First Officer suffered smoke inhalation and treated at the Hospital.Unknown to crew; Maintenance sprayed Type 1 deciding fluid into number 2 engine.


Synopsis: A MD-11 crew suffered smoke inhalation during preflight and required medical treatment after exposure to Type 1 deice fluid vapor which was sprayed into the number two engine while the APU was running.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This is my second solo cross country of the day. I went to ZZZ1; ZZZ2 and back to ZZZ. Landings in ZZZ1 and ZZZ2 were good. Final was stabilized and right as the wheels were going to touch to ground the airplane yawed to the right. There was an eight kt. cross wind and using the rudder pedals to straighten out. Ended up weaving left and right until ending up leaving the runway to the right in the grass. No taxi way lights were hit and the plane did not seem damaged.




Synopsis: PA-28 solo pilot reported loss of directional control on landing resulting in a runway excursion.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were instructed to line up and wait after an MD-11 had received take off clearance.  As my standard I started my clock for wake-turbulence separation as soon as the [departing MD-11] began to roll.  After only 1 minute of the MD-11 rolling we were given our take off clearance with an initial heading (instead of the RNAV departure).  I instructed the tower we still needed 30 sec for wake turbulence separation but that we were clear for takeoff.  I omitted the heading portion as at the time I did not comprehend the change as my mind was thinking of why I was given a take off clearance behind a heavy after only 1 min. She replied roger.  At approx. the 90 second mark after the 11 rolled we began our roll and I advised the tower. At 400 feet we hit Navigate (NAV) on the Flight Computer Plan (FCP) for our departure procedure.   Before being switched to departure a different controller came on and chastised me for not telling them when we accepted the line up and wait that we would need more time on the runway than normal.  I explained that there is a min separation for wake turbulence that should've been met.  He quickly said that they have re-categorized wake turbulence separation-----it's on the ATIS.  Upon switching to departure I inquired as to what instruction had been given to us--a heading or NAV departure.  He said we should have been given a heading and cleared us to direct the next fix. [The] flight resumed [with] no further complications.The heading assignment was missed by us because it was not expected and I instantly switched thinking modes as we were given a take-off clearance before expected.  So I blocked everything out after the early take-off clearance.  Simply listening better could have avoided the mistake.  However; I was not aware of any other or re-categorization of wake turbulence separation leading me to block out everything she said after the take-off clearance.




Synopsis: A CRJ-200 Crew were issued a takeoff clearance behind an MD-11 that included a change to runway heading instead of the briefed LNAV departure. The Captain was preoccupied with wake turbulence concerns and missed the runway heading instruction. At 400 feet; he engaged LNAV and the aircraft deviated from runway heading.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon departing ZZZ; our plane reached 10;500 feet and flight crew's ears automatically popped. Upon diagnosing what happened; we noticed the cabin altitude rise into a red warning of 10;000+ feet and cabin rate went to f dashed lines in orange color. We leveled off right away at 11;000 feet; assessed the problem; and communicated with ATC (Air Traffic Control) that we had a pressurization issue. ZZZ Departure took us down to 10;000 feet fairly quickly.  Once we got to 10;000 feet; ATC turned us around and vectored us for a XXR landing. The issue was diagnosed carefully by both cockpit crew; and while the Captain PIC (Pilot In Command) started to problem solve; the SIC (Second In Command) flew the plane and communicated with ATC. The plane arrived back in ZZZ safe and sound with no injuries.




Synopsis: EMB-135LR flight crew reported a pressurization problem during climbout.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, PQ
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Emergency Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other During Gate Arrival
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We pulled into the gate at ZZZ and set the Emergency Brake. I then turned off the 'fasten seat belt' sign and hydraulics. After that; I slid my seat back to pack up my things. A few seconds later I heard some yelling from the ground crew. At that point I realized that the plane was moving forward and reached for the emergency brake; but the emergency brake was already set. I then moved my seat forward and applied the foot brakes which then stopped the plane. The ground crew then had to push us back because the plane had moved too far forward of the gate. I then called Maintenance to let them know the emergency brake was not working. The emergency brake was not working correctly.

Callback: Reporter stated the emergency brake is the parking brake. They do not have a separate handle for emergency brake applications. The EMB-145 had full hydraulics on with engines running at the arrival gate; when he initially set the brakes by applying the foot pedals and pulling the parking brake handle. A similar incident occurred 3-4 years ago on the same type of aircraft; but that happened after pushback; when he set the brakes to start the engines. Suddenly they realized the aircraft was rolling forward and he had to reset the brakes. He was never informed as to the cause or maintenance fix for either incident. The emergency brake system on the EMB-145 uses accumulators and pilots have approximately six applications before depleting accumulator pressure. Both he and the Co-pilot are required to have an ATP rating.



Synopsis: Captain reports he heard yelling from the ground crew and realized their EMB-145 aircraft was rolling forward beyond the gate; even though the parking brake handle was pulled and set.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I refused Aircraft X to fly to ZZZ due to a history of terrain faults.  I also was not comfortable taking a basic aircraft that was not RNP qualified into an airport where the only approach to Runway XX is an RNAV/RNP approach.  Added to that; neither I nor my FO (First Officer) had ever flown into ZZZ before.  There is zero guidance given to pilots tasked to fly into ZZZ.  No airport familiarization on company app.  No special notes in the FOM under special qualification airports other than the 75 hr requirement.  No guidance in the XX pages.  No guidance in the company airport pages.   History of terrain faults on this aircraft x. Basic aircraft when the only approach to Runway XX has to be RNP certified. This runway is used quite extensively.  First time flying in as Captain. First time for FO to fly into ZZZ.  Mountainous terrain and complex procedures listed on the company airport page.After flying my first flight into ZZZ; I recommend this city pair be designated one that requires a check airman for first flight into.  I have flown into all of our domestic mountainous terrain airports and some international airports.  There is usually some guidance in the airport familiarization pages or the FOM or the airport pages.  ZZZ company page states 'this airport is designated as special (14 CFR Part 121.445) due to mountainous terrain and complex procedures'.  Mountainous terrain and complex procedures is an alert to me that there should be some kind of verbiage in the airport pages for safe conduct into this airport; along with ZZZ being included in the airport familiarization section on company app.   I also recommend that this airport always have a destination alternate and takeoff alternate on the flight plan release.




Synopsis: captain reported refusing the aircraft because it was not equipped to fly to the destination airport.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: COL.VOR, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B N90
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While performing a night flight operation as the sole occupant and PIC; I was en route to the New York Skyline Route via Direct the Verrazano Bridge.  I was receiving flight following at the time from New York Approach. I was cruising at 2;000 feet VFR. At XA:44 EDT I spotted a White Drone that came into alignment and coverage with my left-wing landing light about 20-30 feet away. The drone had 4 props.  My spotting and reaction time was within 2 seconds and I performed an evasion maneuver with a quick bank to the right and turned about 10 degrees with a bank angle of about 20-30 degrees. The drone barely missed my left-wing. I immediately then radioed New York Approach and reported the near-miss of the drone. The controller asked for a description; altitude; and if I had to perform an evasive maneuver.There was nothing I would have done differently in this case; however; it does once again bring around the constant issue of drones in the NAS. I believe that drones need to be programmed to not be able to exceed a specific altitude at any time without an FAA waiver. I know some manufacturers already have these restrictions in place but there is no valid reason a drone should be at 2;000 feet AGL along the New Jersey Shoreline area during the night (or day).




Synopsis: General aviation fixed wing pilot had a near miss with a UAS.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZSPD.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Before we pushed back for start; the crew attempted to establish contact with multiple ground and apron frequencies and eventually Apron West responded. We believed we were cleared to push back and start and did so. Shortly afterwards a 'follow me' wagon arrived and we indeed followed the wagon to the holding point. On arrival at that position ATC then 'accused' us of not having had approval for push back and start. We informed them that we had been given clearance and were then told to contact Tower to confirm our departure clearance. This was completed and we eventually taxied. During the taxi out we were then told that we should have contacted Clearance Delivery for our clearance. We had used the DL (Departure Clearance Services) and received and had our clearance accepted. We were confused by the inference from ATC that we had not operated in accordance with known procedures especially at a time of night when there was minimal traffic. ATIS stated that we should accept our clearance via DL and also there was no information regarding frequencies which were not monitored during the quiet periods.


Second narrative: [Second narrative contained no further information.]


Synopsis: B767 flight crew reported receiving data link clearance and started pushback and was told they needed to confirm clearance with Delivery.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: While in flight to ZZZ we experienced an updraft at FL290 that caused the airplane to climb at 4-6000 feet per minute. We both had our weather radar operating at the time and neither of us were picking up precipitation echoes on it; although we were IMC. The Captain took control; disconnecting the autopilot and auto-throttles; and leveled the plane as the updraft has cause up to roll slightly to the right. Once leveled we noticed that the pitch limit was coming down. He applied max thrust and lowered the pitch slightly. At no time did the speed exceed operational limits; nor did we receive a wind shear warning. We were unable to maintain our altitude however; and were forced to climb which I promptly alerted ATC as soon as I was able that we were in a climb and would try and stop at FL310. ATC then cleared us to FL330.




Synopsis: EMB 175 Captain reported an updraft causing the aircraft to climb.