elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HEF.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B IAD
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Second aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Departure; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had just departed Manassas (HEF) Runway 34R. Tower had me maintain runway heading; then turned me on course to the west (out to the SFRA FLUKY gate); and switched me to Potomac Departure.  On my ADS-B in; I noted a target 100 feet below me; and simultaneously Potomac Departure called out that traffic and asked if I had it in sight.  I replied; 'No because it is directly under me.'  The low-wing light sport aircraft passes the wing directly under the pilot; so nothing directly under me can be seen.  I started to climb but Departure warned me there was also traffic above me.  It was then that I noticed that I had climbed into the bottom of the 2;500 foot ring of the Class Bravo.  Then Departure informed that traffic was no longer a factor; and I descended back below 2;500 [feet]. I believe Manassas Tower had me continue on runway heading to clear traffic that had just departed Runway 34L.  Perhaps Tower was not aware of the traffic which eventually found itself under me. HEF traffic is very constrained by Class Bravo to the North; the East and directly above; and R6608 directly south; leaving only two narrow paths for arrival and departure--to the west toward the FLUKY gate; or narrowly to the SSE between the Class Bravo and FRZ to the East and R6608 to the West.




Synopsis: Pilot reported enterring Class B airspace during a climb required to resolve an airborne conflict.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AZO.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground AZO
Second aircraft: Falcon 2000
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After a 1.1 hour pattern work flight with a student; the student had controls and was taxiing back from Runway 35 via G; A; C - Cross Runway 23 (Per ATC instructions). After the turn was made from Alpha to Charlie; we continued down Charlie back to our parking location. While we were taxiing; we noticed a Falcon with its engine cowls open sitting on the GA ramp; with two maintenance personnel 'working on the aircraft'. The Falcon was pointed with the back of the engines facing the taxiway (C) at a 90 degree perpendicular angle.  As we taxied past; our aircraft all of the sudden began a sharp turn towards the Falcon (assuming from jet blast on our tail); and I took controls from the student. The aircraft went into a nose down attitude; with only the nose wheel and the right main wheel touching the ground. Close to a prop strike. I used the flight controls to keep the aircraft from flipping/prop striking; and we continued past the aircraft to our parking location after I recovered the aircraft. The maintenance personnel on the Falcon were running the engines up on the Falcon with no regard for other aircraft taxiing past; and no notice given to ATC that they would be running up blasting the taxiway. A post-flight inspection found no damage to the aircraft or propeller; the student however did hit his head while being 'tossed' by the Falcon's jet blast. No visible injuries to the student; just shaken up a bit. To prevent a future incident like this; I would suggest that aircraft running up their engines at AZO DO NOT use the GA ramp pointed back towards the taxiway; and they find a different spot on the field where that risk is mitigated.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported that while taxiing behind a Falcon performing an engine run up; the airplane encountered jet blast resulting in a loss of aircraft control.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: VBT.Airport, AR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was holding short of Runway 36 waiting for landing traffic to clear the runway on north end. After landing traffic called clear I announce taking active Runway 36 and prior to crossing hold short bars I visually confirmed no traffic on base or final for Runway 36. Once I took the active Runway 36 I held for departing traffic on Runway 35 grass strip. While holding on the active Runway 36; Aircraft Y overflew my position on an approach to landing and came within 50 ft. AGL of landing at the 1;000 ft. markers. The plane never landed but increased power and departed the runway flight path to the east then rejoining the traffic pattern. After the departing plane on Runway 35 called cross wind to Runway 35 I began my takeoff roll and departed the area to the west.No traffic announcement were made by the short approach traffic prior to or after overflying my position on Runway 36.




Synopsis: C172 Pilot reported a critical ground conflict while in position on active runway.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
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: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Manuals
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Descending into KSFO on the DYAMD 2 Arrival; I failed to notice the FDC NOTAM for the ARCHI crossing altitude. We briefed and flew the arrival as depicted on the Jepp Chart. Just prior to crossing ARCHI at about 7;700 feet; NorCal Approach said ARCHI is at 8;000 feet due to a NOTAM. We immediately climbed back to 8;000 feet and continued the approach without incident. Looking back at the data; this arrival has been causing issues for months. A new chart should be issued immediately or information placed on the company airport pages. It's just too easy to miss an FDC NOTAM and cover page notes.




Synopsis: Flight crew missed the mandatory crossing altitude NOTAM change from 7;000 to 8;000 feet at the final fix (ARCHI) on the DYAMD TWO RNAV Arrival to SFO. Due to the amount of time that the NOTAM has been in effect; crew recommended that the charted altitude be changed at the next revision.
Date: 201304
Location: YNG.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D YNG
ATC / advisory: Tower YNG
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [I made a] precautionary landing; in contact with Tower. My engine began to run rough (very low RPM) set up for a field; engine cleared up 100 FT off of the field continued to land. No injuries and no damage to aircraft.




Synopsis: C150 student pilot in the traffic pattern experiences a rough running engine and low RPM. The pilot sets up for an off airport landing but at 100 FT the engine recovers and a normal landing ensues.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: Fighting Falcon F16
Operator: Military
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent; Climb; Cruise
Airspace: Special Use ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was working the Operational Supervisor Desk when a controller told me there was an aircraft that had not [requested priority handling]; but was trying to figure out a technical difficulty. The aircraft [requested priority handling] with an engine malfunction; and requested to land at [a] Naval Air Base immediately. There was a layer of clouds over the field. The airport lies within a Restricted Area that was hot. We had already coordinated direct to the airport with the Military Radar Unit for the [priority situation]. The pilot asked what the MVA was in the area he was at because he needed to get down to land and was on top of a cloud. The controller issued the MVA. I instructed the controller to issue the aircraft a short range IFR clearance to get him down. I made the decision as a safety of flight due to [a priority] situation. There was a disagreement as to if it was legal. Our LOA (Letter of Agreement) on controlling in the Restricted Area Complex allows us to issue short range clearances when aircraft in the complex encounters IMC conditions.




Synopsis: An ATC Supervisor reported instructing a controller to issue an IFR clearance through a Restricted Area due to priority situation.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A Cirrus called for IFR release off of Runway XXR. The Cirrus was cleared for takeoff. Our IFR departures that take off Runway XX depart to the west and are instructed to 'fly heading 270 Radar vectors to'. The 270 heading puts the aircraft departing Runway XXR in front of the departure path of Runway XXL. A Cherokee requested a left downwind departure off of Runway XXL. The Local Controller issued the IFR traffic departing the parallel runway and cleared him for takeoff. At this point the Cirrus was already rolling on Runway XXR and due to typical performance of both aircraft typically the Cirrus is going to pull away from the Cherokee. I was then relieved from the CIC position and started to conduct my briefing. Once this was completed and I was doing my two minute overlap; a helicopter requested departure from the hospital southbound along the highway. Traffic was issued to the helicopter for the Cherokee on the upwind doing a left downwind departure and he was cleared for takeoff. It was at this point that the Cirrus had started his turn to 270 heading in front of the Cherokee. The Local Controller then told the Cirrus that the Cherokee had him in sight; the pilot of the Cherokee had not said that he had the Cirrus in sight; and to contact Departure. The Cherokee reported to the Tower that the Cirrus had come over top of him at approximately 100 FT. The Cherokee then requested the tail number of the aircraft that cut him off and the Local Controller gave him the Tower Cab number instead so as to discuss it on the telephone when he gets back. At this point I keyed into CIC and said '2 minute overlap complete'. Typical aircraft characteristics of the Cirrus would have it pulling away from the Cherokee. The Local Controller and I had discussed things that could have been done differently which where to delay the Cherokee for departure; tell the Cherokee that the IFR departure off the parallel runway will be turning to a 270 heading once airborne; or advise the Cherokee early left crosswind approved.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a NMAC between a VFR and IFR departure from parallel runways; the reporter listing IFR departure procedures and unexpected aircraft performance characteristics as contributing to the error.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge; Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Passenger; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As we hit 10;000 feet; I was preparing first class service as I was working the forward. The Aft Flight Attendant had alerted me that she could smell fumes in row 1-2 of first class cabin and I had confirmed the fumes. I notified the flight deck and we ensured that there were no hot spots or fired and fires in lavs caused this. There was no apparent danger and neither of us felt as we would be incapacitated. However; as the flight progressed the fumes seemed to irritate us more; both of our heads were hurting and noses and eye irritation like burning sensation. The aft Flight Attendant had informed me that a passenger could smell the smell at one point. We completed the flight to ZZZ; but did not take the plane. On ground in ZZZ; pilots and Maintenance both confirmed smell. We swapped [aircraft]. I did an report but am still working for now.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Flight Attendant reported notifying Captain of fumes in the cabin during flight resulting in physiological symptoms. Maintenance swapped aircraft at destination.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Workload
Anomaly: Other Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: No incident occurred; however; I'm requesting a review of the DCA TRUPS 1 RNAV STAR. The newly initiated RNAV arrival is not user friendly. On more than one occasion I have found it difficult for the FMS and VNAV to keep up with the numerous points of below and above crossing altitudes; In addition; it demands an excessive amount of focus on the arrival at the cost of other responsibilities. It is hard to calculate the foot/minute descent rates required to back up the computer when there are multiple thousand foot variables on both ends. On this last flight; although we were given 'descend via' just prior to our top of descent point; we were able to dial in the altitude and begin the descent [in a timely fashion]. Although the 25KT tail winds were programmed into the Descent Forecast page so that the FMS had all the information it needed to complete the arrival; the aircraft was just barely able to make the descent between JARHD and PJAAE. If we had been given any speed reduction for spacing we would not have been able to make the crossing altitude. My recommendation would be to rework the arrival with no more than one 'below and above' crossing; configure the descent path with tail winds considered and with the prospect of being given a speed reduction for spacing during the descent. In an old B727 that can sink like a rock it would be easier; but with the newer; more efficient wings that don't descend so well--and absolutely do not slow down and go down at the same time--this arrival's descent path needs to be reconstructed. It is a violation waiting to happen or at least an arrival that will have 'unable crossing restriction' calls more frequently; which is not what is desired on a 'descend via' arrival [intended to reduce the flight crew's workload].




Synopsis: A B737NG Captain expressed concerns regarding the ability of aircraft to consistently comply with the altitude and airspeed restrictions on the TRUPS RNAV STAR to DCA. He deems the procedure to be too complex and so altitude/airspeed restrictive that compliance will frequently become impossible when tailwinds reduce the 'descent per NM' capability of modern aircraft.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-12
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G ZOA
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other initial climb
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon takeoff from RWXX at ZZZ; I was climbing out and my engine failed at 545 ft. MSL. I immediately initiated a left hand turn back to RWXY. Wind was 230@18G23; so take off was easy; but returning to land downwind was challenging my RV12. I announced on CTAF 'engine failure and returning to land dead-stick runway X' I successfully performed a 180 degree turn; which was successful from about 465 ft. AGL; but with an airspeed of 65 Knots (best glide) and a gusting tailwind; my groundspeed back to land was excessive and contributed to my lack of control on landing. Having no ability to go around and concerned I would run off the end of the runway; I landed; braked hard; and then received a gust of wind that lifted my right wing and I departed the runway on the left side striking a taxiway sign and coming to rest just beyond the sign. It would have been nice to stop about 20 ft. sooner which would have avoided the sign; however the nose wheel was torn from the aircraft. No injuries occurred.




Synopsis: RV12 pilot reported an engine failure after takeoff.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: Other Fatigue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Our schedule had us starting duty 1315 and we were off duty at 2330. Day two; had us starting at 1400 with a planned off time of 0030. The airplane had a mechanical issue which required maintenance and we were off duty at 2055. We were then given a 10 hour turn to sit on hotel duty with a broken airplane. We were off duty on day 3; at 1530. Our day 4 brief showed a 0200 show for a 0630 go. Both pilots had been falling asleep at 0000 or later for the past few nights due to the late evening schedule we were on. There was no way to safely get adequate rest for a 0200 show. I got 2 3/4 hours of sleep and my partner reported that he had 'about 90 minutes.' We called the Company at report time and declared that we were unsafe to fly due to fatigue. Implement the fatigue awareness software that would clearly show this amount of schedule shift is unsafe. It is only a matter of time before some pilot feels pressured to take an assignment like this one and has an accident or incident with catastrophic repercussions.




Synopsis: Citation Captain reports a fatigue call to scheduling when the schedule is shifted from late check ins to very early check ins.