elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DAB.Tower, FL
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C DAB
ATC / advisory: Tower DAB
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was in charge in the tower and traffic was building so I opened the cab coordinator position.  I was pre-briefing the CC (Cab Coordinator) when Aircraft X was cleared for takeoff.  Following the pre-brief I was helping LC2 scan the runways.  The situation was complex because of photo flights and volume was high because of our runway configuration.  Aircraft X was a south fan destined for MLB.  LC2 incorrectly fanned the aircraft north instead of south.  No one noticed the mistake until N called LC2 and asked about him.  After I was relieved I was questioned by the FLM (Front Line Manager) why no one noticed the incorrect fan.  I told him we were very busy.  The FLM then told me Aircraft X declared an NMAC.  I asked him how and with who but he didn't know.  He said he was looking into it.  Our Support Specialist in charge of QA/QC showed me very briefly the radar playback and saw that Aircraft X was in conflict with Aircraft Y.  Aircraft Y appeared to turn into Aircraft X but I'm not sure why because I hadn't listened to the voice recording.  When RWY 34 is in use the situation can be very complex.  We had intersecting runway operations and photo flights conflicting with our normal departures.  Also; I was the only CPC (Certified Professional Controller) in the tower.  LC2; GC1; and CD were all either DEVs or CPC-ITs certified on the positions they were working. Perhaps opening CC earlier could have helped to avoid the situation.




Synopsis: DAB CIC reports of an NMAC between two aircraft and didn't know what happened until he saw a replay later. Aircraft was supposed to turn south; but local 2 turned aircraft north; coming close to other traffic local 1 was working.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DVT.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D DVT
ATC / advisory: Tower DVT
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Tower issued takeoff clearance with right downwind departure approved. Just after turning crosswind to downwind and climbing; a low wing airplane came from behind and right descending into the pattern. It came very close to our right wing tip. There was no call from the Tower about traffic and no way we could have seen a faster airplane from behind. Just as we saw the other aircraft; the Tower Controller said to the aircraft; 'oh there is another airplane in the pattern departing.' That call came way too late. In a see and be seen rule; we cannot figure how the other pilot did not see us off his nose or why the Tower did not issue a heads up call; but it happened. Deer Valley Airport is the busiest general aviation airport in the nation and extra vigilance on everyone's part is required. Because of the high volume of traffic at DVT; it would be helpful if the Tower could have primary radar system so they could have better information to separate traffic.




Synopsis: A pilot departing DVT on a right downwind departure reported a near miss with an arriving aircraft at 2;400 FT with no ATC alert until after the encounter.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While climbing through FL300 the FO side windshield suddenly and without warning; shattered. It remained intact yet was clearly shattered. We immediately advised ATC while descending with our O2 masks on just as a precaution. We diverted to ZZZ as the aircraft was no longer airworthy. The FO and I both suspected that it MAY have been a pressurization issue as we had a L pack issue in the morning and earlier in that day the previous crew had a R pack issue... however the windshield integrity clearly was the main issue. More serious evaluation of Pack problems and better QC of windshields.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 Captain reported executing an uneventful diversion due to a right windshield failure.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: EUG.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D EUG
ATC / advisory: Tower EUG
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: In EUG using no Tower communications due to early morning the Tower was not open. Got ATC clearance from Center; void if not off by XA:57. We were rolling down the runway with XA:57 on the UTC clock. ATC starts to call us saying they haven't heard from us and we are passed our void time. I look down at the clock and it still says XA:57. We lifted off and the aircraft clock still showed XA:57. My question is if we are told a clearance is void if not off by XA:57; does that mean we have to be airborne by XA:56 or is it like I think XA:57? To me it would be the clock showing XA:58; that would be the void time. Also our clocks don't show the time in seconds so starting a takeoff with the clock showing us right at the minute before our clearance voids seems appropriateOur clocks are synced to GPS so I think they are accurate. I obviously wasn't going to high speed abort a takeoff due to ATC calling me saying my clearance was void; but it was distracting. We were transmitting on UNICOM but monitoring Seattle center on takeoff. Also I am certain my clock still showed XA:57 at liftoff so why does ACARS show XA:58. Does ACARS round up?




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported ATC told them they took off after their clearance void time.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EYE.Airport, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class G EYE
ATC / advisory: CTAF EYE
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During a practice GPS 21 approach into EYE without ATC advisories; my student and I were on the outbound leg of the hold for the approach. We were monitoring the CTAF frequency for EYE and were at 3;000 MSL and preparing to descend on the approach when my student saw another aircraft pass directly underneath us around 2;900-2;800 MSL. Shortly after they passed beneath us I lost visual contact with them. The aircraft was on the ground at EYE and told us they had seen us and dived in order to miss us as they were also on the GPS 21 approach; but were on a frequency for a nearby airport. The pilot of the other aircraft did not say he saw us until they were almost on top of us.While the other pilot and I were both following recommended VFR scanning procedures; the incident might have been avoided by getting radar advisories from IND Approach; so that they could have provided separation services for the approach.




Synopsis: Two training flights; a C172 and a PA28 suffered an NMAC while maneuvering on the course reversal for the same practice GPS at a non-towered airport. The C172 was utilizing the correct CTAF frequency; but the PA28 was utilizing an incorrect frequency for a different airport.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 100
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the descent and arrival phase of our flight; the crew of Aircraft X was given routing; via vectors from our present position to descend to FL200 cross 25 miles north of ZZZ VOR. This resulted with approximately a 6;000 foot per minute descent rate which was rather steep from about FL360. This began a series of vector and altitude changes. We advised with current ATIS information and were told to expect the visual.Approach cleared us to 12;000 feet then retracted and restated descend and maintain 13;000 feet. We were then reissued the descent to 12;000 feet from one frequency to the next transmitting on [frequency].We were told to descend 10;000 feet; 'Change to frequency. Advise on the switch with your heading.'Conversation between pilot and copilot: We are already on frequency. We heard contact Tower. Due to being within 25 miles of the ZZZ airport this seemed logical.The ILS was already queued up and intercepting. Aircraft X: Tower; Aircraft X with you heading 165 degrees. Tower: Aircraft X; how far out are you? Aircraft X: Approximately 25 miles on a ILS interception. Tower: Aircraft X; standby. Tower: Aircraft X; do you have the airport in sight. Aircraft X: Yes; airport is in sight. Tower: Delete altitude restrictions; cleared for the visual approach; advise a 3 mile final. Aircraft X: We'll call a 3 mile final. Aircraft X: Reporting 3 miles Runway XX. Tower: Cleared to land Runway XX. Aircraft 1: Cleared to land Runway XX.Flight taxied to park and completed uneventfully.The take away from this situation is when things don't seem right or processing correctly ask questions and don't assume anything. Always get clarification.




Synopsis: Cessna Citation reported being confused by ATC frequency change and instructions; resulting in a clearance deviation.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a flight on GIV; I was the non-flying pilot during the Runway XX instrument approach. I called for missed approach when runway was not seen and a missed approach was executed. Terrain warning system call came when the flying pilot didn't execute the missed approach procedure properly; followed by a warning call from the Tower. We diverted and landed at ZZZ1. My recommendation is for the flying pilot to receive proper training.




Synopsis: Gulfstream IV pilot reported receiving a GPWS warning and a warning from Tower during a missed approach.
Date: 201406
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Several days ago I clearly placed placards on several tractors that had been used by our Ground Services Contractor; indicating that they had malfunctioning safety equipment; such as missing headlights; tail lights and brake lights. Today; when I went by there to follow up; I discovered that all of these placards had been removed; and the tractors had been placed back into service un-repaired. All of these tractors have been used by the Contractor's agents with missing headlights; tail lights and brake lights for three days before I became aware of this. One of the tugs will electrocute anyone who touches the battery compartment by leaning against the tug for example. I tagged the tractors back out of service.




Synopsis: A Ramp Supervisor discovered numerous ramp service tractors used by a Contractor with un-serviceable equipment and tagging them out of service. He returned several days later to discover the un-repaired tractors back in service and again tagged them out of service.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 6
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Evacuated

Narrative: At time of landing; ZZZ ATIS reported sky clear; 10 statute miles of visibility; wind 290 at 8 kts. After making a stabilized approach; right traffic for runway; I came across the threshold at about 75 kts. I touched down; then the left wing came up; the plane veered right; on its right wheel. I tried to correct this with left rudder and left aileron; with no success. The plane went off the right side of the runway; hitting a runway lamp with the propeller. I braked and we stopped in the grass near the confluence of the two runways. There were no injuries to me nor my passenger; and it appears the only damage to the plane is the prop strike. Given lack of crosswind and loss of rudder control; it may be a mechanical issue. We have filed an insurance claim and hope to learn more.




Synopsis: Cessna Pilot reported a runway excursion and aircraft damage caused possible by a mechanical failure.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 100
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; 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; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While enroute to Ontario eastbound along V186; ATC gave me a vector of 050 for airway spacing for an aircraft ahead of me on the airway. The initial vector took me towards the mountains north of the airway. After a few minutes; ATC then intended for me to turn back southbound on a 160 heading to rejoin the airway; however I turned to a 060 heading instead which continued to send me towards the mountains instead of away from them as intended. The controller then gave me a descent from 7;000 ft. down to 6;000 ft. which I read back and complied with. After a minute or so; the controller issued an immediate turn to the south as well as a low altitude alert and an instruction to climb back up to 7;000 ft. I complied and reinstated a climb back to 7;000 ft. as instructed. I then rejoined the airway and proceeded as normal.Without hearing the ATC audio of the heading instruction to turn back southbound; it is unclear if the instruction given to me was '160' and I simply misheard him and my incorrect read back was missed; or if an instruction of '060' was given by mistake even though he intended for me to turn to 160. Either way; as the PIC (Pilot in Command) I should've spoken up sooner and clarified with ATC on the heading as it did not make sense to be descending towards rising terrain. Also speaking slowly and clearly on the radios; even when it is busy; could've made it more likely that the controller would've heard the incorrect read back and corrected the situation that way. Overall; there was miscommunication on both sides and more diligence needs to be taken from myself to speak up and clarify things if they do not make sense.




Synopsis: Pilot reported possibly not hearing the correct heading after ATC gave a immediate turn and low altitude alert.
Date: 201701
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I had Air Carrier X filed on a route north and west from the line of thunderstorms. ATC re-routed the flight into the north end of the line of weather.I also had Air Carrier Y filed on a route away from an area of forecast LGT OCNL MDT FL350-FL400. ATC re-routed the flight into that area.ATC does not take into account why the flight was routed off the standard airways routing. The practice of re-routing flights prior to takeoff when no ATC program is active and putting aircraft into areas of convective activity or forecast moderate turbulence is usurping the Dispatcher's authority to keep the aircraft safe.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Dispatcher reported that two flights had been routed around weather were re-routed by ATC into the weather areas.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Single Engine Turboprop Undifferentiated
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 137
Mission: Agriculture
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On an 8 mile ferry back to my airstrip I suddenly had a windshield full of a drone. I immediately banked 90 to the right and then instantly back hard left to try to reacquire the drone. It was at that point I saw a van parked in the S.E. corner of a potato field. As I circled the van I noticed the shadow of the drone again as it landed. I noted my altimeter at 550 ft. When I asked the drone company about this I was told the drone operator climbed to avoid me. I don't believe this is true because I didn't notice anyone standing outside the van and I'm certain no one observed me approaching. This incident was 1.7 nm from my airstrip. This is the 3rd close call with a drone belonging to this company. This summer with either my airplane or the other airplane we operate we had had 3 close calls. My competitor has had 2 in the 300 ft - 400 ft range.




Synopsis: A General Aviation pilot reported an NMAC with a drone at approximately 500 feet altitude.