elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BIL.TRACON, MT
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C BIL
ATC / advisory: TRACON BIL
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Confusion; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The Automated Radar Terminal System [ARTS] System went out and we were using primary targets for separation. Aircraft X came over from ZLC15 with multiple coordinations on descent and position due to the outage. Coordination was performed by the Tower for a departing [Aircraft Y] on course through the final approach course for the active runway.  Aircraft X was cleared for the visual and the VFR Aircraft Y was misidentified through position correlation between the Tower and Radar controllers.  The VFR Aircraft Y was never in communication with the Radar Controller. Instructions for collision avoidance were given to the wrong aircraft.  The problem is we are always doing this type of maintenance during normal business hours and we should be doing it overnight when traffic volumes are lowest and the margin of safety would be higher.  This was an unsafe situation and would not have taken place had we not given up the ARTS system.We should be giving different shift assignments to maintenance personnel when monthly/yearly PMs [Preventative Maintenance] are due.  Trying to accomplish these things during normal business hours introduces risk into the system unnecessarily.  No overtime would be needed if they were just assigned a 1600 to midnight shift once or twice a month to accomplish these PMs.




Synopsis: Controller describes operational error due to lack of Automated Radar Terminal System [ARTS]; which had been released to Maintenance for preventative maintenance.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Trainee; Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was practicing traffic patterns at the airport (ZZZ) and when I was turning to the right crosswind; I noticed the plane behind me was already in the upwind. I thought he was going to extend his upwind to give me more space; so I continued normally. As soon as I joined the right downwind for Runway XXR; I heard Tower ask the other plane if he was still following the traffic in front of him; looked towards my right trying to find him and I saw him off my right wing doing a climbing left turn to get away from me.The tower did not tell the other pilot anything after that. I don't know if he did not see how close we were; or he thought it was irrelevant to say something. As for the other pilot; he must have been distracted and lost sight of me. I will be more aware of my surroundings next time. This happened before the tower closed. I am glad it was still controlled airspace; otherwise it would have been another (probably tragic) outcome.




Synopsis: C152 reported an NMAC event during landing training.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
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: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: After overwing briefing; I noticed two passengers at the overwing wearing masks. I took it upon myself to inform them that they could not wear them during takeoff and landing in case of emergency as they would have to give commands for the exit. I was the B Flight Attendant and I notified the C Flight Attendant of what I said.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant observed two passengers wearing face masks who were seated by exits and asked them to remove the masks during takeoff and landing in the event they needed be heard while giving commands during an emergency.
Date: 201808
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: When cleared to line up and wait for 26R; we were asked to confirm that the [other aircraft] in front was in sight. He was definitely in sight as he was only a couple hundred feet in front of us as he was pushing up the power for takeoff. This odd procedure is apparently used to keep the separation between departing airplanes to a minimum; therefore allowing more departures and increasing capacity. The problem is; seeing an airplane directly in front of me while taxing 5 kts has ZERO impact on whether or not I'll be able to see him in a few short moments when we have a 15-20 degree nose up climb attitude on departure. So when ATC tells us to maintain visual separation with the departing aircraft once we're airborne; based on seeing him on the ground as we take the runway; it seems ridiculous at best; and unsafe at worst.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported ATC requested them to maintain visual separation from a preceding departure while they were still taxiing to the runway.
Date: 201407
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Emergency Equipment
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I have again encountered an exit sign where there is no exit. This time it is at row 7 and there is another sign two rows back at the actual over wing exits. I question this again as I was told that the arrows are just directional yet the bulk head exit row sign has no arrow and that is an exit. My announcements do not refer to the arrow just 'each exit has an overhead exit sign'. There is no reference to arrows. The answer is not consistent with this aircraft and does not match our announcements.




Synopsis: Regional jet Flight Attendant reports that some of the aircraft that she flies have exit signs where there are no exits.
Date: 201603
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: A321
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On departure from La Guardia on the La Guardia 9 departure New York Departure queried if we had started our turn to heading 040. We were already in the process of making a left turn from heading 180 degrees to heading 040. I notified ATC that we had winds of 328/28 increasing our groundspeed and radius of turn. Adding to turn radius was that we momentarily shallowed our bank angle upon a slight wake turbulence encounter on a preceding A321 which was climbing at a greater rate.ATC asked us to tighten the turn and the Captain as the flying pilot complied.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported a track deviation departing LGA; citing a tailwind and a wake vortex encounter as contributing.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-18/19 Super Cub
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Pre-solo flight instruction in tail dragger. Student flying aircraft after landing roll out with speed slowed to taxi speed. Student then made control inputs that sent aircraft into right and then left turn. On the left turn aircraft headed for edge of taxi way and I tried to regain control of aircraft by grabbing controls and announcing I have the aircraft. Student remained on controls and did not release until we had started a hard right turn. This hard right turn lifted right wing and lowered left wing which scraped on the ground. We stopped after 180 turn on runway and I taxied aircraft back to ramp. No injuries or damage to other property. Damage to aircraft not 'substantial'.




Synopsis: PA-18 flight instructor reported his student lost directional control during landing roll that resulted in a 180 degree turn and scraping a wing tip.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Piper Single Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While my friend was receiving weather information inbound to ZZZ; I saw an aircraft directly to our left at the exact same altitude (2;400MSL) headed to our right. My friend was writing and listening to the weather from the front seat and I was in the back seat. I immediately grabbed controls and turned the aircraft left; while we both watched a twin engine plane fly across what was now our right side. My friend immediately made a radio call after safely transferring back controls to my friend in the front seat and there was a responses of 'ZZZ Traffic; I think I just saw you; I'm over the lake'. We landed in ZZZ and after about 15 minutes a twin aircraft that appeared to be what we saw in the air landed and parked in a hangar in ZZZ. The Near Miss was very close and at the exact same altitude. Had I not been a passenger in the back with a view of things closer to the aircraft (as opposed to my friend's view of things further from the aircraft) this story may have ended differently. Also; our aircraft had the right of way and the faster twin was not spotted against the horizon while scanning for traffic prior to the incident.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported a Near Mid Air Collision was averted by taking evasive action.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; 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 Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Software and Automation; Aircraft; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While navigating to a fix ATC inquired as to where we were navigating. I responded direct to the fix ZZZ1. Our FMS showed us 2 miles south. ATC came back and said we were in fact 12 miles from ZZZ1  so at that point I knew our GPS wasn't working. I asked for vectors to the airport and they were provided. Upon an uneventful landing our GPS still showed us 34 miles from the airport when we were sitting on the ramp.




Synopsis: A Pilot reported receiving false information from their GPS.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: APA.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 60
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-34-200T Turbo Seneca II
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D APA
ATC / advisory: Tower APA
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was (I thought) cleared to land Runway 28 at APA. On short final I saw a plane taking off on Runway 10. The plane banked to his right and did not pose a threat. The Tower called using a different call sign from mine asking to go-around to the right. Not being sure Tower was talking to me and having seen the plane was no threat I continued to land. Tower asked if I had heard them. I said yes but they did not use my correct call sign. I do not know why a plane was taking off in the opposite direction to my landing and Tower did not explain. I think it is up to the Tower to avoid these kinds of conflicts. Also it would be helpful for Tower to use correct call signs. That would avoid confusion on the pilot's part.I know APA is very busy but landing on Runway 28 and departing on Runway 10 opens the way for conflicting traffic. They may want to discontinue using both runways at the same time.




Synopsis: Light twin pilot cleared to land Runway 28 reports another aircraft taking off Runway 10 and turning away. The Tower issues a go-around but uses an incorrect call sign and the reporter lands on Runway 28.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Second aircraft: A380
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working the Front Line Manager position when I noticed a Red Warning Alert cone on aircraft X. I walked over to the final scope and saw that the aircraft had been cleared for a visual approach using plane to plane visual separation. I advised the controller that he could not do that and he said; 'Since when?' He then went back and queried aircraft X if he had the airport in sight. This was followed by a visual approach clearance with radar providing separation. I looked at the distance between and it was barely over 7 miles. I advised the controller of the distance between the two aircraft and the overtake that he had. I told him; 'You have 7.03 and a 20 knot over take; don't lose it.' He responded with; 'I'm watching it.' He then lost separation and began pullout and recovery of the incident.Controller education. I should have instructed the controller to break out the aircraft instead of advising him of the distance. I later asked the controller if he was aware that the required separation was 7 miles and he said yes that he was aware.




Synopsis: An I90 TRACON Front Line Manager observed a Controller using visual separation with a large category aircraft behind an A380. The Manager advised the Controller visual separation rules are not permitted following an A380. The required seven miles separation was lost and the Controller broke the second aircraft out for re-sequencing.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Air
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During initial climb; the flight deck air conditioning vents began emitting a pungent wet socks smell; which lasted for approximately 5 minutes. We had departed in a bleeds open configuration; meaning the APU was off; and also meaning that the engine bleed air was feeding the air conditioning packs. The scent went away once we reached higher altitudes in the climb and did not recur in cruise. We cruised at FL230. Then again; during initial descent; the same scent began filling the flight deck; this time lasting for approximately 10 minutes.During this second occasion; I experienced a slight headache; which was followed by a minor; but persistent loss of focus. This loss of focus lasted for about an hour after the second wet socks smell event. Captain notified maintenance of the issue after we parked at the gate. Reading some literature online; I became aware that this may classify as a toxic fume event. The captain suggested; and I agreed; that we notify maintenance of the issue. The Captain then placed a write-up in the maintenance log.Cause: This event concerns a CRJ-900 where engine bleed air had been feeding the air conditioning packs. The issue was not noticed at the departure airport gate; during the outbound taxi; during the inbound taxi; or at the destination airport gate; which were all times that the APU was on and feeding the air conditioning packs. I believe the cause originates from an automated system; which when the APU is off; manipulates engine bleed air for use by the air conditioning pack system. Literature seems to indicate that the bleed air may become contaminated with certain oils and/or lubricants from the engine; creating the pungent wet socks smell.Suggestions: The only solution I am aware of at present would be to operate the APU throughout the initial climb and descent. Other solutions should be devised that allow the airplane to operate in its normal APU-off takeoff and landing configuration.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 First Officer reported a pungent socks smell during initial climb; which dissipated; then returned temporally during descent.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Extremely strong fuel smell lasting 5-10 minutes upon gate arrival at ZZZ. Odor did not disperse until the aircraft door had been open for several minutes. Cockpit procedures may need to be changed.




Synopsis: A319 Flight Attendant reported strong persistent fuel fumes upon gate arrival.