elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower MDW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight was cleared for takeoff. I was Pilot Monitoring. I was expecting a left turn to 250 degrees after departure off [RWY] 31C. Tower issued a right turn to 130 degrees as we were spooling up the engines. I asked if he meant 250 degrees. Tower asked if we were going to ACITO; a departure fix. I said we were going to XXX. Tower's next response was 'Cancel takeoff clearance.'  The throttles were standing up; the engines were spooled and we were moving down the runway. I detected from Tower's tone and words that I had caused a lot of confusion.  In that context; I decided there was no safety of flight issue; so I pushed the FO's hands forward to set takeoff thrust and continue the takeoff. We turned right and were handed off to Departure. The rest of the flight was uneventful.Although departure headings are assigned all the time; perhaps ATC could say 'expect XXX heading'; while taxiing on to the runway so any resultant confusion could be addressed in a timelier manner. I have; in the past; had Controllers think we were going somewhere other than our planned destination.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reports being assigned a heading as the takeoff roll is commencing; which he questions. The Tower replies with a question which the Captain does not directly answer and the Tower responds by canceling the takeoff clearance. The Captain elects to continue the takeoff and turn as originally cleared.
Date: 202102
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: Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Shipment labeled for cargo only aircraft was intercepted prior to acceptance by dock agent. Shipper was under the impression that because this was a cargo flight product was able to fly on aircraft.




Synopsis: Air Carrier ground personnel reported Hazmat cargo labeled ship on 'Cargo aircraft only' was intercepted prior to being loaded.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X and Aircraft Y where being handed off to me from ZFW 47/SPS HI. I took the hand off on Aircraft X and upon looking at the URET [User Request Evaluation Tool] and the aircraft route I noticed an alert with Aircraft Y. I then looked at Aircraft Y flight plan and confirmed they were in conflict and would lose separation. I decided not to take the handoff on Aircraft Y; ZFW 47 then called me when the aircraft was within 1 minute of the common boundary and said over the shout line; 'I am not turning him'; I then picked up the line and said 'What is your plan for seperating those two coming together?'  He then said 'What' and I proceded to say 'The two [aircraft at Flight level 380] that are coming together in my airspace; simple question; what is plan for seperating thoise two?' He the proceded to laugh and said put the Aircraft X back on me and laughed again. Aircraft X  was already in my airspace. And then we both got off the line. After a few minutes; I then separated the aircraft myself. The situation could of been much worse had for numerous reasons.




Synopsis: ZAB Controller reports of two aircraft that are being handed off from another ZFW. Controller takes the first aircraft and then uses a tool to verify the route of the second aircraft. The second aircraft is in conflict with the first. The reporter calls ZFW and asks what they are going to do to separate the aircraft. The other Center Controller laughs and then transfers communication without the handoff being accepted. The reporter then separates the two aircraft.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On departure from runway 31L at JFK we were informed by the Departure Controller of a drone sighting by the preceding aircraft. The Controller gave us a heading and advised us that the drone had been seen to the preceding aircraft's right at 3000 feet msl. We turned to the assigned heading (autopilot on; but yoke in hand; just in case); and were both scanning outside the aircraft. I spotted the drone just before we went abeam it; on our LEFT side; at 3000 (we were just above it in the climb; perhaps 50 feet higher). Our geographic location at the time was approximately 3/4 of a mile northeast of the former Coast Guard air station. We passed the drone without the need for evasive action. We immediately notified ATC; and I remembered to press the FDR (Flight Data Recorder) Event button to save the location data. I later (when time permitted) ACARSed our dispatcher so as to make sure the FDR data would be preserved. It was a large drone; and appeared to have some kind of parachute/balloon attachment. Had we made contact it would have been very bad. The remainder of the flight was uneventful. I would note that the turn given [to] us by ATC was entirely proper based on available data. The Controller had only one data point from the preceding aircraft to go by; and made a best guess as to the safest course of action. The Controller did give us ample warning to be aware; thus having us in the correct position to take evasive action had it been necessary. I was somewhat surprised that departures and arrivals continued. I would have suggested stopping them; and sending up a police helicopter to locate the drone and thus have a specific location before sending larger and fast passenger aircraft into the area.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a close encounter with a UAV on climbout from JFK Runway 31L after being informed by Departure Control that the preceding aircraft had reported sighting a drone.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This flight is a known fuel critical flight. Because of the high density altitude in ZZZ it takes a lot of ATC coordination sometimes to get a departure runway for this flight. ATC did a great job in getting us Runway XXR and expediting our taxi against the flow of landing traffic. Our company failed miserably though in getting us our final weights so that we capitalize on this coordination and get airborne in any kind of timely way and more importantly; land [at our destination airport] with a safe amount of fuel. We pushed 2 minutes early and accomplished a single engine taxi even at an extremely heavy weight; and then sat short of the runway for 42 minutes waiting for ramp and load planning to get us our numbers. We landed [at our destination airport] 39 minutes late after declaring minimum fuel specifically because of that ground delay in ZZZ. That is inexcusable. Also; we had the same problem uplinking cruise winds during preflight that I have had on several flights because Dispatch keeps flight planning waypoints that are more than 900 miles in between. In this situation; the winds will not uplink inflight either. This is inexcusable also because now it's up to the pilots to continually be manually entering winds on a 5 1/2 hour flight. If these winds are even just a little inaccurate; we don't have a good indication. We landed with 5000 lbs of fuel with a flight plan that said we should have 7000 lbs of fuel.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported landing with less than minimum fuel due to a takeoff delay waiting on weights and being unable to obtain updated wind information.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: 7B3.Airport, NH
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF 7B3
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Returning to 7B3 (Hampton Airfield) late at night; turned on the runway lights; and landed in-between them. However; the lights border the grass runway rather than the asphalt runway that I meant to land on. As a result; I landed on the grass runway; when I expected to land on asphalt. This was potentially dangerous; if the grass runway was blocked with snow (it was not; fortunately). The grass runway was not operational at the time (NOTAM to that effect).No adverse effect happened; but it was not ideal.It's not clear that in order to land on the asphalt; I'd have to land OUTSIDE the two sets of runway lights which border the turf runway. Adding a third row of runway lights (on the other side of the asphalt runway) would make it much clearer for a night landing.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported a loss of situational awareness resulting in landing on adjacent grass runway at 7B3 airport.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZKC.ARTCC, KS
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZKC
ATC / advisory: Center ZKC
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X ZZZ.SPI.KOLTS.KOLTS1.IND entered my sector at FL350. I issued clearance to descend to FL330 and subsequently to cross KOLTS at FL240 assuming the RNAV route with KOLTS was constructed to comply with our ZID letter of agreement. Approximately 20 miles from the ZID/ZKC boundary I initiated a radar handoff to ZID I75 sector for Aircraft X; and transferred radio communications to ZID I35 sector (per L.O.A. instructions; 'flash through' I75 sector) after acceptance of the radar handoff. Later I noticed a conflict alert with Aircraft Y at FL250 in ZID I75 sector that seemed odd to me (as of I75 may not be aware of the impending conflict). I called I35 and I75 sector(s) to make sure they indeed were aware of the crossing restriction issued to Aircraft X at KOLTS; which apparently was not what they expected. Both aircraft were turned; I don't believe separation was lost. After reviewing our L.O.A. agreement with ZID I discovered the 'cross the boundary at or below FL240' wording which was an obvious conflict to my expectation that the previously issued routing (SPI.KOLTS.KOLTS1.IND) included a crossing fix 'KOLTS' as an acceptable crossing restriction for ZID. KOLTS is approximately 2 miles on the wrong side of the boundary line. I will no longer use 'KOLTS' as a crossing fix for IND arrivals; and must issue new clearances to each IND arrival that is given the erroneous routing.I will no longer use KOLTS as a crossing fix for IND arrivals; and must issue revised clearances to each IND arrival that is given the erroneous routing or short cut. Perhaps we could move KOLTS 2 miles west and rename it CRAIG; and further revise the automated preferential routing (and associated ZKC facility SOP's / MCI SOP's/RNAV STAR) to indicate SPI.CRAIG.CRAIG1.IND. This new routing goes a long way to remind me of the mistake and never to make it again.




Synopsis: ZKC Controller reported that he issued a crossing restriction but it was not what the receiving controllers were expecting. Separation was not lost due to turning of the aircraft to avoid each other. Reporter wanted to change the fix where the restriction was to a new one to avoid this error in the future.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: In a student-provided C172; a climb; VOR tracking (30 to 35 min); Minimum Cruising Altitude (MCA); stall recognition and recovery training at 3;000 FT MSL went with out incident or problem. During the return to the airport with the airport within gliding distance; an engine out exercise was attempted by placing the fuel selector in the 'off' position. After getting the aircraft to best glide; two engine restarts were attempted - Primer in and locked; Mags - checked; Carb heat - on; Mixture - full rich; Throttle - full; fuel selector - both. Both attempts were unsuccessful. Unable to make the airfield; elected to do off field landing. During the landing the nose wheel was damaged. After landing; I checked the student and myself for injuries and none were observed. I then turned off the master; removed the key and set the fuel selector from 'Both' to 'Off'. I then notified the FAA.




Synopsis: C172 Instructor pilot reports simulating an engine failure by placing the fuel selector to off. When the fuel selector is placed to both the engine does not restart and an off airport landing ensues.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ITH.Airport, NY
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: TRACON ELM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While approaching ITH from the south; we had a visual on the airport and were cleared for the visual. I turned away from the FAF which was our last point of direct navigation as assigned by ATC. I slowed the airplane and configured for flaps 9. As we got closer I was heading for a 4 to 5 mile intercept of the final approach course and began a slow descent from 4000 ft to 3000 ft; the final approach [fix] altitude. I set 3000 ft and began a 500 fpm descent. As we approached 3200 ft we got an EGPWS warning 'Terrain'. I disconnected the autopilot then added max thrust and began a climb; I climbed to MSA for the area; 3700 ft. The First Officer and I felt that we were still in a position to continue the visual into ITH and did so. All precautions were taken; the flight operations quality alert and terrain were discussed both on the departure briefing and the arrival briefing. We briefed the tallest obstacles; their location and the rising terrain. We were slowed to 180 kts flaps 9 and used a slow descent rate to avoid such alerts. Performed the escape maneuver and leveled at MSA. Next time I will ask to just begin the approach from OCCIE fix rather than attempting the visual.


Second narrative: During visual approach on RWY 32 Pilot Flying (PF) turned away from FAF .The airplane [was] slowed and configured for flaps 9. The airplane was on left base about 5 miles before intercepting the final approach segment. [Captain] began slow descent from 4000 ft to 3000 ft with VS 500 fpm. At 3200 ft we gotten EGPWS warning 'Terrain '. PF immediately followed escape maneuver for EGPWS and climbed to 3700 ft. After that we continued visual for landing. During departure briefing and approach briefing we following all SOP's. During approach we briefed for tallest obstacles. We used slow descent rate to avoid such alert.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported receiving an EGPWS Terrain warning on a night visual approach to ITH.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: S56.TRACON, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E S56
ATC / advisory: TRACON S56
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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 New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were in a north flow. Staggered airspace configuration. Feeders were stacking final so I offered to take Aircraft X from a 110 heading. Aircraft X was originally descended to 13;000 feet. I had a General Aviation(GA) aircraft inbound from the south. I had assigned 13;000 feet to Aircraft X and 12;000 feet to the GA aircraft and then I went back and swapped the altitudes. I didn't realize Aircraft X would not miss the 12700 foot Minimum Vectoring Altitude(MVA). The Supervisor asked me about Aircraft X one mile from the MVA line. I immediately turned Aircraft X 15 degrees and asked pilot if he had the terrain in sight. He did. I instructed the pilot to provide their own terrain and obstruction clearance through the MVA which pilot read back. I realize this is not correct application of this rule. 15 degrees was not enough to clear the MVA. Aircraft X entered the MVA by .4 of a mile for 2.7 miles as they passed over the mountain ridge line.  I should have let the feeders work out their own plan. I had been off for 10 days and this was my first session back. I could have reviewed the airspace more.




Synopsis: A TRACON Controller reported they allowed an aircraft to fly below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.