elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was in the traffic pattern in a C172 with a student pilot; teaching pattern work. I announced 45 degree entry to right downwind Runway XX at ZZZ. When we reached the downwind leg; I announced downwind leg. I was startled to hear from Aircraft Y that he too was downwind Runway XX. I immediately asked him to state your position. He said he was over the freeway. The freeway is about 3 miles from the runway. I told him that the freeway was not in the pattern.Moments later; once abeam the numbers to Runway XX; I was startled to see Aircraft Y go directly underneath us toward the runway; then make a 360 and join the pattern below us.I asked him: 'Aircraft Y; what are you doing?' He said; 'I saw you in the pattern so I decided to go below you.' This is highly unsafe practice. He nearly collided with us. Later; he landed on Runway XX while we were still on the runway in our landing roll. Someone should reach out to this pilot and provide remedial training. A FAA report has been filed.




Synopsis: Flight instructor reported that while on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern; another aircraft flew directly below the instructor's aircraft; performed a 360-degree turn and joined the pattern. That aircraft then proceeded to land on the runway while the instructor was on the landing roll.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 25
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Glider; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Sea; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft departed ZZZ approximately XA:16. Departure flight following to practice area. Pre-flight and briefing completed. Normal departure. XA:28 Annunciator indicated 2.5 gallons of fuel remaining. Immediately proceeded direct to ZZZ; with continued precipitous drop of fuel level. Engine quit at approximately 2000 ft. [Advised ATC]. Landed in parking lot. No injuries no damage to the plane.Examination on landing revealed fuel leaking from the gascolator petcock. Prior to flight noticed that aircraft partner had drained 5 gallons of fuel from the freshly filled 16 gallon tank to calibrate it. The plane has a slide carburetor; and when the fuel is turned on it drips on the ground. The fuel was checked pre-flight but the petcock position was not visually checked. Aircraft had 11 gallons on board on take off.On landing spoke with partner and he said he did not close the petcock (drain valve) after draining the tank. From the cockpit it is not possible to visualize fuel leaking out.




Synopsis: Single Pilot reported an uneventful forced landing at parking lot due to fuel starvation.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TRM.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E TRM
ATC / advisory: CTAF TRM
Second aircraft: Small Transport
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We set up to land on RWY 35 going into KTRM. As we entering the airport area and we realized that a Aircraft Y was landing on RWY 17. I quickly briefed we would over fly the airport and make right traffic for 17. Then my non flying pilot said they were making left traffic and we would have to make left traffic. (I prefer to make right traffic since I fly from the right seat and it is much easier to see the RWY) I brief I would fly a wide up wind; flying along a ridge line and at the end of the ridge line I would turn right and enter the pattern on a 45. As we were on the 45 more aircraft started to enter the pattern. Since the other aircraft in the pattern were not in sight I kept my downwind wide. My non flying pilot was calling my base turn since I could not see the RWY. Before we turned base an aircraft announced they were doing emergency procedures. [When we turned] base we got a TA (traffic advisory). Turned about 15 degrees to the right. The then the TA turned into a RA. I increased the power to take off power and pitch the nose up into the green as directed by the RA bars. My non flying pilot brought the gear up and went to emergency power. I did not feel it was necessary to go to emergency power; since we were climbing away from the traffic. The RA went away about 1800 to 2000 feet. We re-entered the traffic pattern and landed with no further problems. After we landed we realized it was a helicopter that was doing emergency procedures. My non flying pilot was very concerned at the length of the RA; that's why he pushed it up to emergency power. We both agree that there was a lot going on in the pattern with multiple aircraft and a helicopter doing emergency work. It was very bad judgment on the helicopter pilot to be doing emergency work (they must [have] been hovering) in the pattern of an uncontrolled airport with multiple jets in the pattern. I flew a wider downwind because we did not have the traffic in sight.




Synopsis: General Aviation pilot reported receiving an RA on the base leg at a non-towered airport requiring evasive action.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked; Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon arrival to Gate in SFO in the evening; [I] observed the beacon lights off while right engine [was] running; awaiting for ground power to connect. This could be viewed as engines off and ramp agents can get jet blasted or ingested.




Synopsis: A Ramp Agent reported that after an evening arrival and parking; an aircraft beacon was turned off with an engine running while awaiting ground power. Jet blast or engine ingestion were a concern.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on a visual approach to RWY 27L; we encountered an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. The event occurred on approximately a three mile final. Our altitude was approximately 2200 feet MSL; and the UAV was 500 feet below us and slightly off to the Captain's side of the aircraft. The closure rate was far too fast for us to take any evasive action. We continued the approach and landed without incident. We reported the event to the tower controller. During the taxi-in; ATC requested information about the incident. The vehicle appeared to have some sort of disk in the center; with rotors/propellers on the corners.Upon landing and deplaning; a [company employee] met me at the aircraft and requested that I call a phone number. I called the number from the telephone in the jetbridge.




Synopsis: An air carrier Captain on a visual approach to ATL at 2;200 feet encountered an UAS about 500 feet below his aircraft on a three mile final. The encounter was so brief no evasive action was taken.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: FAI.TRACON, AK
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E FAI
ATC / advisory: TRACON FAI
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the On the Job Training (OJT) Instructor. Aircraft X departed IFR climbing out of 700 feet. We identified Aircraft X and instructed them 'reaching 3;000 feet; turn right direct Airport ZZZ'. The pilot read back 'roger coming right direct ZZZ'; and we didn't catch the incorrect read back. Aircraft X data block never acquired; and I observed the primary target west of the departure corridor by about 1.5 miles; climbing out of 1;700 feet and realized what had happened. The Trainee asked 'Aircraft X verify heading 200' and Aircraft X responded 'negative; we are heading 297; direct ZZZ'. I took over and asked if Aircraft X could maintain his own terrain and obstruction clearance; because he was now in a 3;700 foot minimum vectoring altitude; the pilot responded 'yes'; I instructed the trainee to issue the clearance and after Aircraft X passed 3;700 feet he was cleared as filed.Expectation bias was a large factor in this; more attentive listening on our part would have prevented this from occurring.




Synopsis: A departing aircraft was issued a direct routing leaving 3;000 feet. The pilot read back the routing; but not the altitude instruction. The readback was not noticed by the controllers and the aircraft proceeded on course below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small UAS; Multi Rotor
Operator: Recreational / Hobbyist (UAS)
Operating under: Recreational Operations / Section 44809 (UAS)
Mission: Recreational / Hobbyist (UAS)
Flight phase: Hovering (UAS)
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Reporter function: Observer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Remote Pilot (UAS)
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I am a university student who is taking some drone classes; but am not an aviation student. I was walking by [a] school building (275 ft) and saw a two person UAS crew operating a small UAS below. As a licensed Remote Pilot; I stopped to look for the drone out of interest; and only saw it for a brief moment before it disappeared. I am far sighted an was concerned that the drone was being flown out of the pilot's VLOS. I assumed that they were a UAS instructor and student and did not say anything to the crew. While I have my Remote Pilot's License; I have yet to fly any missions and was not sure how high the legal limit of 400 ft. actually looks like. I brought up the occurrence to some aviation major friends and was immediately concerned to find out that the building they were flying near was 275 ft. This put things into perspective for me and I now believe they were flying well over 400 ft. AGL.I talked to my UAS professor who informed me that because our campus is in the landing pattern for ZZZ airport; the ceiling for drones is actually 100 ft. He also said that permission from the tower only grants you to fly up to 300 ft. I am reporting this because the pilot was flying the UAV at what I believe to be an illegal height in the traffic pattern for an airport that has a lot of traffic due to University's flight training.




Synopsis: There was an eyewitness of a UAS operating at a University. The eyewitness believed the UAS was flying at an unsafe altitude due to the proximity of a nearby airport.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A300
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Received ACARS from an A-300 that stated 'emergency loss yellow hyd'. Acknowledged message and replied to let me know if they needed any additional help on my end. Notified Dispatch Manager and freight recovery accordingly.  Station [personnel] observed crew talking with Maintenance at ZZZ via ground radio before landing. In addition they did not observe emergency equipment being deployed on field. Flight landed safely without incident.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported receiving notification from an Airbus 300 crew of loss of one hydraulic system. Aircraft landed without incident.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Both aircraft were approaching ZZZ from the west and calling on the radio distance to the airport and intent to enter right traffic for [Runway] XX. I acquired visual contact with Aircraft Y abeam the departure end of the landing runway when we were about 3/4 of a mile apart and with 200 feet of vertical separation. Aircraft Y was on a slightly extended downwind heading north and I was still on a 45-entry heading north west putting Aircraft Y low and to my right. I elected to make a right 360 turn to re-enter the pattern; which worked out well for spacing. The pilot of Aircraft Y considered the event hazardous however I do not. Both pilots were practicing proper see and avoid procedures; both pilots were announcing position and intention on CTAF and were aware of the potential conflict. My decision to turn right upon acquiring visual contact enabled me to keep sight of the Aircraft Y as I maneuvered to re-enter the pattern. Turning left would have made me lose sight for some time and put us in very close proximity with nearly parallel courses. I would not characterize this event as a near miss because no evasive action was taken nor required. I could have continued my course and we would have missed each other by X mile laterally and 200 feet vertically. This situation is not unusual in traffic pattern operations at non-towered airports. The closest point of approach was less than X mile laterally but still 200 ft. vertically but I maintained visual contact throughout the maneuver to re-enter the traffic pattern.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported an NMAC at a non-towered aiport.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passengers in XX1 and XY2 boarded the aircraft in ZZZ wearing neck/face masks. They removed those during flight and put on white mask with a filter valve that had hose connected to it and the other end connected a powered air filter that hung around their necks. When I talked with both of them I advised them they could not use the air filter or a mask with a valve. He began to argue that he called reservations and was told it was fine. He then demanded for me to show him where it said that. I pulled up the face mask information with no valves he took picture of page. At that point passenger took her mask off and replaced it with the neck/face mask she wore on boarding but he did not. When he was ready to deplane he changed mask he was wearing back to the neck/face mask he had originally worn as he boarded.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported passengers wearing non-approved face masks.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RST.Airport, MN
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D RST
ATC / advisory: Tower RST
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working the Local Control position combined with Ground and Flight Data; and my front Line Manager was working the Radar Approach position. Runway 20 was in use; but the wind made Runway 13 available as well. My manager was working two aircraft into Rochester: Aircraft X and Aircraft Y. My manager called me over the land line to request a visual approach to Runway 13 for Aircraft X; which I approved. Aircraft Y continued for Runway 20. When my manager shipped me the two aircraft; they were at similar airspeeds and altitudes; and less than three miles out from the airport. They were a dead tie to their respective runways. I told Aircraft Y to turn in towards the runway in an effort to create more separation. I then brought the conflict to the attention of my manager at the approach position; to which she replied; 'Tell him to slow down; make s-turns.' It was not feasible for me to resolve this situation; which would have resulted in a loss of runway separation at best; by allowing Aircraft X to continue to the crossing runway. I broke Aircraft X off his approach; had him report Aircraft Y in sight to follow to Runway 20; which the pilot did. Both aircraft landed without incident.When the Radar Controller has thirty to forty miles to ensure separation between two aircraft and no other aircraft are on frequency; it is not appropriate to hand the Local Controller a tie to the runway and expect them to sort out the conflict in three miles. The 7110.65 clearly states the Radar Controller has responsibility for the separation of radar arrivals unless visual separation is provided by the Tower. This coordination was not accomplished. If we as radar controllers work multiple IFR arrivals by pointing them at the airport; clearing them for a visual and shipping them to Tower without regard to how a situation may develop; we are not maintaining positive control or separation; and we are doing a great disservice to our pilots when the next controller has to take corrective action at the last minute.




Synopsis: RST Local Controller describes situation where two aircraft are tied for landing on intersecting runways. Controller elects to send one aircraft around to follow the other aircraft to the same runway.