elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SDL.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Mustang (C510)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D SDL
ATC / advisory: Tower SDL
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While turning base to final for Runway 21 at Scottsdale; AZ; (SDL) I passed within approximately 100-200 FT horizontally; and no more than 50 FT vertically of a DJI Phantom Drone (I own one; hence the familiarity with it). The horizontal distance may have been closer as it was difficult to completely ascertain. I was moving at approximately 120-130 KTS IAS; the airport elevation is 1;510 FT MSL; but the approach is over gradually rising terrain; and over what appears to be a residential golf course development. I took immediate evasive action; and reported the incident to the Tower. The Tower Controller asked if it was a 'little radio controlled plane' to which I responded that it was a drone; and could have just been in a high orbit above the final approach flight path. While I cannot recall exactly; the Controller indicated he was a hobbyist and flew RC models. I spotted the object approximately 5 seconds before passing it and initially thought it was a bird. However; as it appeared closer; I could definitely see the distinct 4 quadcopter pillars and pick out the red tape on top of the unit. Keep in mind this unit has a cross section of about 12 inches; so I may have been much closer than I realize.These drones contain a 5200mAh; 11v; lithium polymer battery. While my engines have had to withstand bird ingestion testing; I seriously doubt they were tested ingesting such potentially explosive materials. This could have caused an explosion or other potentially fatal situation; (imagine it igniting a fuel tank if it struck the wing and caused a spark). I personally enjoy using my Phantom drone; and it provides unique perspectives that I enjoy; especially with my pilot background. I hate to take any action which could potentially result in the limitation of my ability to use it. However; as a pilot; and when carrying passengers; the assumption of the responsibility to safely start; continue; and end a flight requires that something be done. These units can be purchased for under $1;000; launched from a balcony directly in busy airspace (or non-busy airspace; until it is); and have the potential to completely cripple a small jet; or other aircraft.




Synopsis: CE510 Captain experiences a NMAC with a quad rotor drone at 1;000 FT AGL during approach to Runway 21 at SDL. Evasive action is taken and the event reported to the Tower.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAL.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower LAL
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: It was a normal takeoff.  Applied power held brakes called airspeed alive rotated about 5 knots above rotation normal pitch up and tried to accelerate to Vy 89 kts. Was not able to reach that airspeed to make a normal climb and was not sure if the airplane was performing correctly decided to abort takeoff with still having runway available. Once on the ground applied heavy braking and full aft elevator to try slow down before end of runway. Not able to stop by end of runway and over ran about 75 ft. onto grass. No damage to airplane or runway markings nor any injury to people or property. Was a hot day density altitude should not had played a factor due to it was only 1500 ft. Airplane was under takeoff weight I believe trying to get the airspeed for proper climb to the amount of runway left was the issue the only other decision would had been to abort just a little earlier. Runway in use 5.




Synopsis: Piper Cherokee Pilot reported executing an aborted takeoff that resulted in a runway excursion.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TSP.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: UNICOM TSP
Second aircraft: Sail Plane
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approximately 1 mile East of TSP (right off the departure end of Runway 11) I had an uncomfortably close encounter with a glider doing loops topping out at about 1;500 AGL. They came up and were upside down at my altitude approximately 300 feet away at my 10-11 o clock; pointed towards me. I made a turn away from the glider (though it probably wouldn't have hit me if I hadn't).Before takeoff; I remember hearing a tow plane announce a glider release at 9;800 [feet] NE of the airport which I believe was the same plane; though I don't remember a distance. It made no position reports after that and I don't remember any responses by it to other aircraft in the pattern.This is the second relatively close encounter I've had with gliders in the Tehachapi Valley and one of many times I've been uncomfortable with glider operations in the area (including several right near the traffic pattern at TSP). There is a glider port; L94; about 3 miles SE of TSP which has a fleet of rental gliders with no radios and no transponders. The tow planes will occasionally report release points on CTAF (shared between the two airports); but after that; there's nothing other pilots can do apart from keeping eyes out for them. Furthermore; with no radar coverage in the Tehachapi Valley; Bakersfield and Joshua Approach controllers will drop flight following well outside of TSP. This leads to a tight valley with traffic at two separate airports generally not talking to each other and occasionally infringing on the other airport's patterns - it seems like a recipe for a midair.




Synopsis: Cessna Pilot reported an NMAC with a glider while climbing out of Tehachapi Municipal Airport.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On a visual approach backed up by the ILS 25L at LAX; we encountered wake turbulence from the aircraft we were following at approximately 2000-2500 feet. I do not recall exactly what altitude. Immediately following the event we received three amber caution messages: WINDSHEAR FAIL; AOA LIMIT FAIL; and SHAKER ANTICIPATED. The FO (First Officer) had control of the aircraft and continued on the approach while I processed the alerts and formulated a decision. During this time we were handed off to tower and reducing speed so a lot was going on. The FO continued to configure and as we set landing flaps in around 1800-1900 feet MSL; I made the decision to execute a go-around and called out the go-around to the FO and advised tower. We flew an uneventful go-around and the FO had the airplane and radios while I did the QRH procedures for each message displayed. The QRH guided us to land with slat/flaps FULL. We were vectored back for the visual 25L and landed uneventfully. During this time of trouble shooting; I communicated to the passengers and FAs (Flight Attendants) the reason for the go-around. I chose to wait to contact company until on the ground due to the fact that the airplane was still airworthy and all procedures were complied with; but we were in a high workload and in sterile being vectored back for another approach. When we landed; the three caution messages cleared but two cyan crew advisory messages took their place; ADS PROBE 4 FAIL and ADS PROBE 2 FAIL. We taxied to the gate without incident and I contacted dispatch and maintenance control.I would have recommended the FO to fly slightly above preceding aircraft's flight path above the glide path to help reduce the possibility of a wake turbulence encounter on a close in visual approach. Maintenance also mentioned that this issue was not uncommon. I also would call the go-around prior to a tower hand off.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported experiencing several system anomalies after encountering wake turbulence on a visual approach to LAX.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We aborted take off due to R Eng Hi Stage EICAS message at 88 KTS. Upon informing Tower; they told us to hold short of Runway 28R. We were able to stop and exit on Runway 28L. The aircraft landing on Runway 28L was told to go around; the Runway 28R traffic landed. We were surprised that during an abort we would get a crossing runway hold short clearance. Please query SFO Tower on this.




Synopsis: A SFO Air Carrier departure from the Runway 1 complex aborted take off due to an EICAS message and was directed by ATC to hold short of Runway 28R. ATC decision was questioned by the reporter given the circumstances.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MUSC.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other N/A
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: The threshold for runway has been temporarily displaced by 500 meters (approximately 1500 feet). There was some kind of NOTAM about Runway 8; but it is completely indecipherable. The only other place this information appeared was as a note on the company field report. Pilots should not have to rely on field reports to get important information like displaced thresholds. And NOTAMS about displaced thresholds should be understandable.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported reported 'Indecipherable' NOTAMs regarding displaced threshold at destination airport.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZID.ARTCC, IN
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZID
ATC / advisory: Center ZID
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation 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; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Aircraft X; level at FL380 at the Patterson sector (98). I had issued Aircraft X holding instructions at the TORRR intersection and the aircraft was still a few miles from entering the hold.  Conflict alert began between my northwest bound Aircraft X and a southwest bound Aircraft Y.  Aircraft Y was showing in the descent out of about FL410 with FL350 as an assigned altitude. I checked with the sector in my area (88/78) if they were working Aircraft Y.  They said they had approved descending with Chicago Center (ZAU).  I then called G33 and asked if they were separating Aircraft Y from Aircraft X and they said yes.  I waited about one more minute before I decided I was not comfortable with the rate of descent from Aircraft Y since the two aircraft were directly head-on.  I then said over the 'shout' line that I was turning my Aircraft X left and they should not go right with Aircraft Y.  I turned Aircraft X 30 degrees left to ensure they would not hit.  I believe they achieved vertical separation with about 6.5 miles.  Aircraft X then reported that they had received a TCAS alert.  G33 never did point out Aircraft Y to the Patterson sector.




Synopsis: ZID Controller reports of observing an airborne conflict due to not being comfortable with the situation he was observing. Controller called the other area and told them to not turn their aircraft to the right as he was turning his to the left. Other sector did not point out an aircraft.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Second aircraft: Light Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Level at 10;000 ft ATC informed us of traffic at 1 o'clock at 9;000 ft. We did not have the traffic in sight. It displayed shortly after as a white target on TCAS. I reduced my ND (Navigation Display) range and saw it go to amber and indicate 500 ft below us and maybe 300 ft for a moment. I disconnected the autopilot in anticipation for a possible RA which we did get. It was a climb RA followed by a level RA which in total lasted maybe 5-10 seconds until we got the clear of conflict. We followed the RA guidance and saw the traffic as we were conducting the RA. We notified ATC as we climbed and once we had traffic in sight and clear of traffic. We received vectors for an uneventful landing at DEN on [Runway] 34R.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a near midair collision during descent to DEN airport.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Upon touchdown I applied both brakes and beta on the propellers. The airplane veered to the right and I could not straighten the landing path of the plane. The plane went off the right side of the runway into the dirt between the runways. The airplane was not damaged and there were no injuries. The wind was gusty and variable on landing and there was significant turbulence on the final approach. I am not sure why the incident occurred and I am having the plane inspected. There may have been a tailwind on landing.




Synopsis: King Air pilot reported loss of directional control after landing resulted in a runway excursion.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: MEL; Aircraft; Logbook Entry; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: I was in the ZZZ airport on my way to Operations for my flight when I ran into a colleague who just so happened to be the FO (First Officer) on [a previous flight]. He mentioned to me that the B777-200 that I flew [8 days ago] had an incorrectly placarded APU. He went on further to say that the ZZZZ mechanics identified what the ZZZ mechanics failed to accomplish in order to satisfy the steps provided in the MEL. I mentioned to my colleague that we were not aware of these shortcomings by Maintenance. Per guidance set forth in the MEL; ZZZ Maintenance placarded the APU; Maintenance then notified Dispatch; Dispatch sent me a revised flight plan with the MEL; and I signed the revision. We then carried out the operational requirements set forth in the MEL. With the AML (Aircraft Maintenance Logbook) in hand and with the APU placard; we departed and flew uneventfully to ZZZZ. If it was not for my colleague mentioning this issue to me; I would not have been aware of it; nor would I be submitting this.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported incorrectly completing MEL procedures for an inoperative APU.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Arrived at ZZZ to pick up the Beechcraft B200GT; to ferry it for a friend. After some maintenance work and checking all the systems; everything was working perfectly. I departed and after the gear was selected up it sounded labored. The gear systems sounded struggling to get up. The breaker popped; the generator 1 and 2 dropped and the avionics panels went black. My clearance by ZZZ Tower was climb to 2;000 ft and contact Departure. Because the panels went black; I lost communication 1 and 2 and also I lost my transponder to set 7600 to show loss of communication. I decided to maintain 2;000 ft to stay inside the ZZZ airspace and went back to the downwind leg for Rwy XX. I looked at the tower on the downwind for the light gun signal flashing green; but I could not see it; I decided to land before the standby altitude and airspeed indicator ran out of battery. On final I believe I saw the steady green light from tower. After I landed the aircraft and taxied back to the hangar the mechanics checked the hydraulic system and gear and no faults noted. The next day I checked all the electrical system again and after calling the mechanic I decided to not fly as the day before that; my flight plan was from ZZZ to ZZZ1. I made a short flight as a test flight to ZZZ2 with a handheld radio and a portable GPS just in case of a communication failure again. The flight was perfect. Then I flew from ZZZ2 all the way to ZZZ3 and delivered the aircraft all perfect to my friend.




Synopsis: BE20 pilot reported electrical system malfunction after takeoff resulting in a return to the departure airport.