elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201908
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While I was on a training flight with a student; my friend (in another aircraft) and I were making radio calls and operating in the vicinity of each other. I made a radio call letting everyone in the area know I was returning to ZZZ with my student.My friend asked; 'Would you like some company?' I ignorantly responded; 'Sure!' We maintained straight and level while he pulled up along my right wing. I estimate his prop actually was within 5 ft. of my wingtip. Realizing a potential collision hazard; I began a turn to the left and deviated away. He initially followed and then broke off. We returned separately to ZZZ. I did not conduct a briefing with my friend before-hand; nor have I ever flown in formation. I was not expecting him to fly as close as he did; which was certainly an assumption on my part. Because this was a training flight with a new private pilot student who had not flown in 15 years; and formation flight was not at all the intention of my flight with my student today. I felt that I let my responsibilities as a CFI be out shadowed by the excitement of formation flight. My student enjoyed the view; but I debriefed with him on the ground that what we did was not okay. Additionally; I'm not sure if flying with a student where formation flight is not part of the plan for that day constitutes 'carrying passengers for hire.' Especially considering how malleable students are to the law of primacy; I did not want him to believe this was acceptable. This was a horrible situation that I allowed myself to get into and I never want to experience it again. Formation flying is an amazing privilege we have in aviation; but needs to be respected with sincerity and safety.




Synopsis: Flight instructor reported excessive closure with other aircraft during formation flight.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EGE.Tower, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D EGE
ATC / advisory: Tower EGE
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While performing a charter flight under FAR part 135 departing off of runway 25 at EGE we were assigned the BEEVR2 SID. After programming the FMS I noted that the FMS did not include the initial turn to a 206 heading; I told the Captain that he would need to use heading mode on the SID and he immediately dismissed it as incorrect; even after me bringing up the chart and the active legs page for him to review. This resulted in us not making the turn at the correct time and triggering a GPWS Warning accompanied with the 'Pull Up' 'Pull Up' annunciator to go off. Eventually he did disconnect the auto-pilot but went direct to the first fix instead of the 206 heading.




Synopsis: Citation First Officer reported a delayed initial turn on the SID which resulted in a ground proximity warning.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: GUM.Airport, GU
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C GUM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: During touchdown on Runway 6R at Guam International Airport a bird struck the aircraft just above the Captain's forward cockpit window.


Second narrative: I was Captain acting as the pilot not flying. On touch down in GUM a bird flew up from the left side of the runway and struck the center of the fuselage above the cockpit. Landing roll out and taxi off was uneventful. No damage was noticed.


Synopsis: An air carrier crew landing at GUM reported a bird strikeover the Captain's window while in the flare for landing.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After running the originating and before start checklists; the crew was cleared to begin engine start. #2 was cleared and started. #1 was then cleared to start. The Captain followed the engine start procedures; started the timer; engaged the starter; and placed the condition leaver into Start/Feather at 18% Nh. The engine failed to ignite 10 seconds after placing the condition leaver into Start/Feather. The Captain began to abort the start; while calling for the Start Abort checklist. While putting the condition leaver to Fuel Off; the Captain noted the engine then appeared to ignite. The ITT immediately rose to 1500C. The Captain continued the abort procedure; pulling the T Handle; placing the ignition switch to OFF; and allowing the starter to rotate for 15 seconds before shutting it off. The engine temperature continued to rise to 1824C; hold; then erratically change temperature on the ITT gauge. NO FIRE INDICATION WAS NOTED IN THE FLIGHT DECK. The Captain immediately called maintenance control and explained the situation as it had happened. During this time the ITT gauge needle fell to 0 and digitally indicated a temperature of 0 for the remainder of the time the aircraft was powered on. It was unclear at that time; due to the erratic ITT indications; and lack of fire indication in the flight deck; if the issue was a true hot start or if the ITT gauge had malfunctioned. The decision was made to deplane; all passengers then exited the aircraft without incident. Contract Maintenance was called out; and the #1 engine was inspected. The Mechanic noted to the Captain that the entire burner can area had been charred black. Including the igniters; fuel lines; and injectors. Maintenance was notified and the flight was then cancelled.




Synopsis: Dash 8 Captain reported aborting the number one engine start when the engine fails to light off in the allotted time. While putting the condition leaver to Fuel Off; the Captain noted the engine then appeared to light off and the ITT quickly rose beyond 1500 degrees C. Maintenance is called; the passengers deplaned and the flight is cancelled.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MEM.Tower, TN
Weather elements / visibility: Wind
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Aircraft component: Central Warning/Master Caution
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: In the flare just prior to touchdown on Runway 36L at MEM got a [tailstrike warning] activation--'deedoo deedoo; go around! tailstrike!' Honored the activation and initiated a go around. Everything was looking good for the landing; no idea what triggered the activation. Normal go around; pattern; and subsequent landing. No idea what caused the activation. Landing was looking good. No suggestions other than possible re-calibration of the [tail strike warning system] for that airplane.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported executing a go-around from short final at MEM after receiving a tail strike warning just before touchdown.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BFI.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D BFI
ATC / advisory: Tower BFI
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Last week; I finished a currency check with my flight club after 6 months away; and I wanted to enjoy a solo flight.  I performed some pattern work and landings at my home airport; then decided to fly south to the Class D airport adjacent to the city I live near.  This airport is situated in a river valley; and is hemmed in by large hills with several residential neighborhoods.  It is also just underneath the approach path of the Class B airport just 5 miles away.     I performed one full stop landing at this airport.  On the downwind leg and cleared to land; I pulled power back; entered my first 10 degrees of flaps and began my descent.  Turning onto the base leg; I noticed I was descending a little steeper than I was comfortable with; so I added some power.  The tower called me to point out traffic inbound to land on the parallel runway.  I started to fixate between my runway; and the parallel landing traffic and allowed my altitude to deteriorate further.  I suddenly saw trees and a couple houses close below me; but before I could add power; the hill dropped away to the valley floor.  Even after this; I was still above the visual glideslope of my runway; so I calmed myself down enough to land; then taxi back for departure.  The tower never pointed out any problems.  There are a couple flight schools on the field; so maybe this is not an unusual occurrence.Normally; I have no problem flying into this airport.  However; I should have respected that my skills would become rusty after 6 months away.  I fixated far too long on the other traffic as well as my runway and allowed my scan to deteriorate to the point that I did not notice my altitude.  I should have waited a little while longer to turn base where the hill dips lower; or perhaps not began my descent until I was established on the base leg.  Even though the tower did not call me out; and I still ended up above the glideslope; I should have been more careful and perhaps waited until I had regained enough proficiency before returning to this airport.




Synopsis: A C150 pilot reports completing a currency check with his flight club after 6 months away from flying. After the instructor is dropped off; the flight continues with several more touch and goes. The pilot then makes a flight to BFI. During the visual approach the reporter is distracted by traffic for the parallel runway and the aircraft is allowed to get very close to terrain.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp CLT
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: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other pushback
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were at Gate X. When we called for push; ramp cleared us to push tail south and to leave enough room for Aircraft Y to push as well. As we were completing our push ; ramp called us to keep pushing to keep a bit more room for Aircraft Y to push. I communicated this to the ground crew and we kept pushing. Ground crew then told us to set brakes and I said ' Standby; let me ask ramp if this was deep enough' Ground crew said 'Can't go any further as Gate Y is also pushing'.At this moment; I felt that the ground crew was disconnecting and I jumped on the brakes just as we started moving. The ground crew said 'we are disconnected'. They showed me the pin and walked off. I set the parking brake and waved them off. I was aware of the uncommanded aircraft movement bulletin and had this on my mind. We did have a few interruptions during this push which may have been different for the ground crew. Maybe we could remind the ground crew to wait for the Captains 'cleared to disconnect' message. Strict adherence to standard phraseology and awareness will be the key to avoiding these situations. Another suggestion here would be to have ramp give specific push back instructions eg 'Push tail South; release abeam Gate'. This would have cleared any doubt and would have reduced our flight deck to ground comms and we could have reverted to more standard and 'normal' sequence of events.


Second narrative: While at the gate I called for pushback. The instructions were to push back far enough to leave room for an adjacent jet to push back. The captain called for push and we were pushed back. The ground crew stopped us; and ramp asked us to go further back so we relayed to the ground crew. The second time we stopped the Captain asked me to call ramp to see if that was enough room for the other aircraft. While I was making the call; the ground crew disconnected and the Captain had to quickly get on the brakes. Post radio call the Captain informed me that he had not requested the disconnect. [Cause was] Expectations bias and complacency [Suggest] Adherence to standard comms.


Synopsis: Airline flight crew reported the pushback ground crew disconnected the tow bar without informing the Captain to set brakes.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cardinal 177/177RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During VFR practice approach; approximately 3 miles from the runway; the engine quit. The fuel gauges were left tank; 1/4 full; right tank variable between empty and full. I landed in a nearby field; approximately 1/2 mile short of the runway. No damage to the airplane; and no injuries. Received assistance from local farmer and property owner. The fuel tanks appeared empty. I put fuel in the airplane; inspected the engine; and determined the most likely cause was fuel starvation. Successful takeoff from the field; flew to [nearby airport]. Further inspection showed no damage to the airplane. I filled the tanks and flew to the home base.




Synopsis: C177B pilot reported executing a forced landing in a field following engine failure that was apparently due to fuel starvation.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: We took off to PHX with the normal burn fuel for the flight and only the standard 700 lbs of contingency fuel. The forecast for the time was high ceilings and good visibility. About a little more than half way; Center tells us that we should slow down and expect holding instructions. We slowed down and received holding instructions at GEELA with an EFC time of 30 min from our present time. I texted dispatch the situation including the way point; FOB; and atltitude. I then started looking for alternates. The closest airport I could find that was in the system was TUS and we would only be able to make it if we proceeded directly there at that time. At this point we were only 500 lbs above min fuel. Dispatch then got back to us and told us they were in communication with ATC on the phone and instructed us to declare min fuel. We declared min fuel and did another turn in holding. At this point we had committed to landing at PHX. We then received radar vectors to PHX and landed at min fuel.




Synopsis: Passenger turbojet flight reported of an unexpected holding for the destination resulting in landing with minimum fuel.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: VHHK.ARTCC, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; 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 Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On approach to Runway 25L in Hong Kong; ATC cleared us direct to Lotus then for the ILS 25L. Once we were past Lotus and established; we were descending to the final approach fix altitude of 1;300 feet. Without any terrain avoidance alerts from the airplane; 2 miles past Lotus; ATC told us 'low altitude alert... Go around'. We executed the missed approach and came back without any other issues. All three crew members agreed we were at 4500 feet passing Lotus and we had the altimeters set to 1006 as what ATIS [broadcast]. [ATC] said we had deviated over Lotus 200 feet low. Maybe something was wrong with the altimeter in the aircraft.


Second narrative: On approach to Runway 25L into Hong Kong; the crew was cleared direct to LOTUS then cleared the approach ILS 25L. We crossed LOTUS at 4500ft. (altimeter setting 1006hpa given by ATC)  and the First Officer made the radio called to ATC 'established ILS 25L'; ATC replied 'continue'  we then started a descent to 1300 ft. which was the final approach fix altitude; glide slope was not yet captured. About 2 miles past the LOTUS Fix ATC commanded a missed approach due to low altitude. At NO time were we off course and at NO time did the crew receive a terrain alert. We followed ATC direction and were vectored for another approach; Landed without incident. After landing I contacted the Tower Supervisor and spoke to him; he stated we were at 4300ft at LOTUS and that is why the Controller initiated the missed approach. Make sure to cross fix without a doubt the altitude needed. Verify FMA's.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported executing a go-around on approach to HKG after receiving a low altitude alert from ATC.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SJU.Airport, PR
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C SJU
ATC / advisory: Tower SJU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After the national weather service advised they were going to release the weather balloon in the next couple of minutes; I advised all aircraft in a blank transmission about this. Minutes later; I cleared a Caravan for take off Runway 10 when seconds later I observed the weather balloon midfield of Runway 10 appearing to be in close proximity to the runway. Since it was hard to determine the position of the weather balloon; I advised the pilot of the situation and approved a deviation if the pilot needed. Seconds later I observed the Caravan making a sharp turn to the left appearing to try to avoid the weather balloon and after the maneuver; resumed course without incident. Although for many years I never had an incident involving approving the release of the weather balloon; this was the first time I have became concerned with this procedure. The conditions placed the balloon almost over the runway. Changes in the procedures for approving balloon releases should be considered. I recommend that the balloon is released immediately as the approval is granted.




Synopsis: A SJU Controller observed a departure vs. a weather balloon conflict. He now questions the procedures for releasing the balloons.