elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PDX.Airport, OR
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E P80
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Airport; Company Policy; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Routine day on final. This report could probably be filed every hour of every day on the final position. No loss of separation occurred. Working final on west configuration is like playing a game of Frogger trying to avoid VFR 1200 code targets. They circle south of the final approach course for at all different altitudes below 5000 feet. They are constantly turning; climbing; descending. It's a miracle that there hasn't been a mid-air collision. I try to miss the targets laterally and vertically; but sometimes it is impossible to do both. Sometimes the target will climb into the aircraft you are vectoring; or turn into them and you have to take action immediately to avoid a TCAS event. Our airspace needs to have a Class Charlie extension to the east. Fifteen miles from east to west and 4 miles on each side of the final approach course. Without an airspace design change; or a reclassification to Class Bravo it is only a matter of time before a serious accident occurs.




Synopsis: P80 Controller reported numerous unidentified VFR targets routinely fly in close proximity to the final approach course; and suggested that the airspace be evaluated for a redesign.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: 1G3.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF 1G3
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 Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing
Result: General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I flew to 1G3 using VFR flight following. Weather was VFR clear no turbulence with a broken ceiling at 6;000 ft. I flew at an altitude of 5;500 ft. with a flight time of 42 minutes. The entire flight was normal and uneventful. Upon arrival at 1G3 I was given instruction by Approach to squawk VFR and go to advisory frequency. I did so; announced my position to the airport when 5 miles away; then announced when entering base to Runway 1; then announced final to Runway 1; all with no response from anyone. After touching down on the numbers of Runway 1; I noticed a person on the runway about midway on the runway; 2;000 ft. or so from where I was. The person moved off the runway and I then noticed 2 constructions type vehicles at the very end of the runway. At both sightings of the person and the constructions vehicles I would have easily been able to brake to a complete stop if necessary. About 1;000 ft. from the vehicles a person from airport office contacted me on the radio telling me that the runway was closed for maintenance. The vehicles moved to the parking area and I taxied to park. A young man approached with chalks and told me that I was lucky they just removed the large red X markings off the numbers which showed the runway would have been closed. There were not red X markings over the numbers on either end of the runway when I landed. After meeting the people I went to visit with; upon returning there was a Police Officer waiting to take my name and information. The officer was very nice and professional. I provided her with my personal information and aircraft information and I flew home. I did not find any NOTAMs saying the runway was closed; only there could be various construction vehicles in the area.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported landing on a closed non-towered runway.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Vectors to the visual 3 at ZZZ. We were approximately 5 miles east of the airport and essentially on a downwind for Runway 3 at the assigned altitude of 3;000 MSL. Captain had just noted that the RA (Radio Altimeter) was indicating 1;800 feet and about 5 seconds later we received the EGPWS (Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System) warning. I was the Pilot Flying; the autopilot was disconnected; an immediate climb was initiated to approximately 4;000. The deviation was reported to ATC and we were returned to the original assigned altitude of 3;000. Flight was continued with vectors for the ILS 3 and landed without any further incident. Cause unknown. We were on the east side of the airport ZZZ; where the MSA (Minimum Safe Altitude) is 2;000 MSL. We were at the assigned altitude of 3;000 MSL at the time of the terrain warning. After reporting the event to ATC; the Controller stated that MSA for that area is 2;000 MSL.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported receiving a terrain warning while on a visual approach at the assigned altitude.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing we realized we had landed at 150 knots when approach speed was supposed to be 136. 150 knots was our clearance to the final approach fix. We were distracted looking for birds the Controller told us were at our approach end. This was my second flight after not flying in three months.At 500 feet instead of saying stabilize clear to land should have verified approach speed bugged and actually flying.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a speed deviation on landing and attributes the error to being distracted as they looked for birds pointed out by ATC.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi; Parked
Aircraft component: Door Warning System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We waited over 35 minutes for an aircraft swap due to a broken lavatory.  Once we got a new aircraft; the cabin was very hot.  We took several minutes to let the aircraft cool with the APU. My first flight with the FO. I had been off for two weeks (due to COVID); so I took some time to get all set up and start with solid Crew Briefings for FAs and FO. During pushback; FA called to say the banner on the aft door snap was broken. She told me that it was no big deal right now and I assumed I could look at it upon arrival into ZZZ1.  The aircraft was terminating in ZZZ1.  During the flight after thinking more about it; the item should have been resolved in ZZZ.  I believe the long delay for Maintenance (swapping aircraft) led to the push to get the aircraft to ZZZ1.  Upon arrival; after looking at the aft door; we noticed that the lower snap had been installed on the wrong side.  I called Maintenance Control and we coordinated Contract Maintenance with ZZZ1 Ground operations.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported departing with an inoperative safety item that should have been inspected by maintenance prior to departure.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were deplaning the last couple of passengers (Sport team). I don't know if the APU was hooked up yet when the dirty sock smell came from the aft galley and moved throughout the cabin.  I told the Captain. He began doing some checks. There was a previous write-up on date; about the fumes. I asked the cleaners to stay off because of the fumes. All crew got off and ended up waiting in the airport for 6 hours or so because the Captain and FO did some test runs and checks. We boarded the people and the Captain became illegal. We canceled the flight. All crew had some irritations due to the fumes. I suffered a headache which lingered throughout the night. We stayed at the same hotel as our passengers. We had a 10 hour over night.[Reporter suggested] fix the problem to begin with on date.




Synopsis: A319 Flight Attendant reported a fume event during deplaning. Maintenance was requested resulting in extensive delay and flight cancellation.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DAB.Airport, FL
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C DAB
ATC / advisory: TRACON DAB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A CRJ700 checked on departure off of Runway 7L; I then RADAR identified the aircraft and issued a climb to 11;000. During the time of the incident; I had a southbound IFR C182 along V3 that seemed nervous about the upcoming weather. My plan for the CRJ700 was to climb him up above my southbound C182. When the CRJ700 was leaving 4;000; I then issued a vector to 280 degrees to bring him west for his climb. When I realized it wasn't going to work; I stopped the CRJ700 climb to 9;000 to guarantee positive separation. While in the turn I was scanning the weather to the south along my C182 route of flight so I could prepare a course of action for his deviations. When I glanced back over to the CRJ700; I immediately noticed VFR traffic at 6;000 (an IFR altitude); no services were being provided to the VFR traffic at that time. I then immediately gave the CRJ700 traffic; after that I then issued an immediate turn to the left to pass behind the traffic. While issuing the traffic to the CRJ700 no responses were received from him. I then began to notice a descend from the CRJ700. I only could assume afterwards that he was responding to a TCAS resolution. After I noticed the aircraft climbing back up; I then asked if he was responding to a TCAS Alert. His response was 'absolutely.' This situation occurred very early into my rotation on this position. We often have aircraft flying over our airport up and down victor airways at IFR altitudes while squawking VFR. Daytona only has one SID to the north. It happens often when aircraft depart to the East we have to climb and vector them through a lot of VFR traffic. I think maybe a SID would help if we were departing to the east that would take high climbing aircraft offshore so the center can climb them would alleviate a lot of weaving of climbing and descending IFR traffic.




Synopsis: DAB Controller described a TCAS RA event involving an Air Carrier departure being vectored and an unknown VFR overflight; the Reporter suggests development of a SID that provides clearance from know VFR routes.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Merlin III
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Fatigue; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was instructed by my air carrier that I required an extended rest period of 10 hours. The following morning I was told by my air carrier that the decision to extend my rest time from 9 to 10 hours was a company made error. I was told our customer was upset by the company's decision to delay the flight; and the extended rest period was not necessary. Though I questioned this statement; Operations carefully explained the reasoning of why I only needed 9 hours off duty instead of the extended 10 hours off duty. I was instructed by the AM Operations Manager for my air carrier to fly the aircraft at the scheduled departure time; and I was assured that I was within duty time limitations. After arriving to the outstation and unloading all the cargo; I was informed by my air carrier that I should have received an extended rest period of 10 hours. I have been a pilot for nearly fourteen years; and I have never fallen into a situation of this nature. I feel the company used me to move the cargo; with total disregard to safety and regulations. I realize I should have had a better handle on whether I needed nine or ten hours of rest prior to the flight; but I put my trust in my air carrier. Factors that contributed to this were lack of sleep; pressure from my air carrier; and pressure from our freight customer. In order to correct potential duty time violations; I would recommend the Part 135 airlines take a larger responsibility.




Synopsis: A Metroliner pilot was told he needed 10 hours rest but that was changed back to 9 hours so he flew the assigned trip and was told after arrival that 10 hours was legally required. The Company wanted to move the freight at any cost to satisfy the customer.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Longeron/Stringer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a routine A check inspection heavy corrosion along several areas of the fuselage PSE were missed by the mechanics performing the routine A check task cards. The aircraft is in the maintenance hangar currently. If not addressed; the corrosion could possibly weaken the pressurized structure and cause rapid decompression.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reports discovering during a routine A check inspection; heavy corrosion along several areas of the fuselage PSE [Principle Structural Elements] were missed by the mechanics performing the A check task cards.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing; Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground DFW; Tower DFW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: DFW Tower is issuing runway crossing clearances to runways with aircraft on short final. The landing aircraft are issued a LAHSO clearance.This has happened to me several times; both as the crossing and landing aircraft. In all cases; I have been uncomfortable; and several times; the Captain has expressed some surprise/discomfort. Great emphasis has been placed on runway incursions. It is negative training to teach crews to use caution when entering/landing on a runway; then to issue a LAHSO and show them the visual setup for an incursion. What might be the expected outcome if in the above setup an aircraft; other than the lander and the one on the runway protected by the LAHSO; wanders on the runway? The landing aircraft might not detect that it is not supposed to be there and how much runway remains between the two is now left to chance. I understand the need to move the planes; but setting crews up to accept a visual picture that says incursion is removing a level of safety (the crews) and now all that is left is ATC or a sharp crew. Is the amount of time saved really worth the chance somebody mistakenly accepts an airplane of the runway/short final as 'this is DFW and they do that here?'




Synopsis: DFW issues LASHO landing clearances so that taxiing aircraft may be crossed down field during approach a process which may establish negative training for both taxiing and landing pilots as well as controllers.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BJC.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon picking up our clearance at BJC on a quick turn we were given an amended clearance that included the RIKKK 3 Departure. I heard it instead as the BRYCC 3 Departure (Sounding like BRICK) and read it back. I then went to load the FMS. On the SIDS page on the FMS the BRYCC3 Departure comes up on the first page; as well as when you look at DU2; you don't even see the RIKKK3 Departure. Instead it is buried in the list. After I loaded the flight plan I looked at the map of our altered flight plan to ensure continuity; and briefed the BRYCC3. We took off; were given a radar vector as part of our takeoff clearance and departed uneventfully. We were then given direct RIKKK. Confused; we asked 'direct BRYCC?' The controller said 'direct RIKKK; isn't that on your flight plan?' We then asked for the spelling of the fix; which they didn't have and instead they gave us a heading instead while they sorted it out. Upon looking at the FMS departure list again; we found the RIKKK departure buried deeper in the list. This did not turn into a loss of separation issue; just a lot of confusion on the part of the controllers and flight crew.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: Gulfstream IV flight crew reported they programmed their FMS with a different route than cleared. After departure; ATC detected the errant track and provided route clarification.