elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight crew for this flight; which was my student and I; were flying traffic normally without missing radio call; looking for traffic the entire time. At the moment [the student] had flight controls turning crosswind to downwind; we received TRAFFIC ALERT on our PFD. First; we thought traffic [was] coming in from [an] Arrival; we see nothing; check our screen; and the aircraft behind us; Aircraft Y; cuts us off by 100 ft. [We] turn into downwind. I took controls of flight and quickly executed a steep turn and climb to the left to avoid collision. Tower says 'Aircraft Y; you cut off the traffic you were supposed to be following.' I made a left 360 to rejoin downwind for XXR. After I see [the] aircraft land; I would think [they] would make a full stop and taxi back to runway and prior to landing. I noticed that it was a solo student; [they were] not Private solo; did not see any instructor out in the runway environment. Once we landed; I advised [FBO staff] of incident.Before sending out solos please make sure that their situational awareness is good; and they can look for traffic on their own. It was only my flight crew and this solo in this traffic pattern.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported an NMAC while in the traffic pattern.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Wind
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
Second aircraft: Small Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Other Person
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prior to crossing [Runway] XX at Yankee; we did the pre takeoff checklist flow. Held the takeoff checklist until crossing Runway XX. After crossing XX at Yankee; we ran the before takeoff checklist. After the Takeoff checklist was complete; I noticed a small twin taxing from FBO East to Yankee. I brought this up to my FO (First Officer); because Ground had told him to give way to Aircraft Y but I wasn't sure he saw us. He stopped short of taxiway Yankee and asked Ground if he was to give way to Aircraft Y. Ground advised him to give way to Aircraft Y. Both my FO and I agreed we had room to taxi by since he was not interfered with taxiway Yankee. As we taxied by the twin; he told ground our wing passed over his cockpit. It was really a surprise to both my FO and me as we had saw him; discussed him and thought we had plenty of room.[Cause was] the twin pilot's lack of situational awareness during taxingIf there is any question; I should have stopped the airplane and coordinated with ground.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported that during taxi the aircraft's wing reportedly passed over the top of another aircraft. The flight crew stated they believed there had been adequate clearance.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: 7A8.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 60
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Flight Engineer / Second Officer; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While flying a cross-country; I encountered strong mountain-wave action; making altitude difficult to hold. I asked for and received a 'block altitude'. The conditions were VMC all the way to the surface. The aircraft was on autopilot with altitude hold engaged. The autopilot called for 'trim up;' as the aircraft was descending I added power. I asked the other pilot to give it nose-up trim as he had done several times before. (The aircraft only has manual trim.) Suddenly; the aircraft nosed over. I immediately hit the autopilot disconnect button and pulled the circuit breaker. I noticed that the aircraft was very nose-heavy and I struggled to keep it from pitching down further. I called for more nose-up trim; but the problem got worse and I could barely slow the pitch-over even by pulling with both hands.During our descent; the controller queried us about our rapid descent. Given that I was extremely busy; I advised ATC. Finally; I told the other pilot to help me pull the nose up; whereupon the aircraft responded and I began adding nose-up trim and climbing back to altitude. We arrested the descent and leveled off and then I began the climb back to cruise altitude.I checked the aircraft for any control difficulties and determined that there were none; I advised ATC that I was climbing back to cruise altitude. Upon discussion with the other pilot; we determined that instead of adding nose-up trim; he was inadvertently adding nose-down. Because the autopilot had been engaged; we did not notice the wrong direction trim. We continued to our destination to get clear of the AIRMET for turbulence. Upon landing; an A&P inspected the aircraft and found no evidence of over-stressing the aircraft.




Synopsis: PA32-300 Pilot reported mountain wave activity and improper operation of trim resulted in loss of aircraft control.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: P48.Airport, AZ
Weather elements / visibility: 100
Aircraft: Sail Plane
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class G P48
Second aircraft: Piper Single Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Light single engine Piper passed 50 - 100 FT below me as I was approaching IP; crossing the departure end of Runway 23 about 1;400 FT above ground. The airplane approached from my 7 o'clock direction; departing (continuing) away about my 1 o'clock direction. At the time I was flying about 45 MPH and I would estimate the other aircraft cruising past me at over 100 MPH. I based my estimate on vertical separation on the wingspan of the glider I was flying which is 51 FT. They passed directly underneath me within one or two of my wingspans.




Synopsis: Glider pilot reported an NMAC with a light single near P48 airport.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MGGT.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower MGGT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: While on the approach to Guatemala ILS Z runway 02 ILS out of service. We used the non ILS procedures. The VTI was centered; LNAV/VNAV. Five different first officers and five different aircraft with the same results. At about 200 feet the HUD commands a further descent into the valley; at that point the PAPI appears to indicate normal.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported on unusual indications on the ILS Z at MGGT.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Crossfeed
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Our aircraft arrived late due to weather in the area. On taxi out; it looked as if we were going to be delayed due to weather so we taxied out on one engine. I opened the fuel crossfeed valve to try to keep the fuel balanced while waiting to takeoff. The delay was not as long as we thought it was going to be so we went through the start procedure on the second engine and I failed to close the cross feed valve before we took off. There was a lot of weather in the area and I was focused on deviating around weather during the climbout. I did not notice the fuel imbalance until we were clear of the weather and into the cruise portion of flight. When I did notice; the fuel was approximately 4;000 LBS off. I started the crossfeed process and saw that we would need to have vectors on the arrival in order have the fuel balanced within the 1;000 LB imbalance needed to land. We received the vectors and landed with 3;250 LBS in the left tank and 2;550 LBS in the right tank. The landing was normal.I should have told the First Officer that I was opening the crossfeed valve to help keep the fuel balanced during taxi and checked the balance during climbout as I normally do. Better crew coordination is vital especially during high workload situations.




Synopsis: Anticipating substantial delay after taxi out due to weather the Captain of a B737-300 opted to taxi on one engine and; to protect against lateral fuel imbalance; opened the fuel crossfeed. When the delay proved minimal they started the second engine and departed only to discover during cruise they had not closed the crossfeed and were now faced with a 4;000 LB lateral imbalance.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing; Final Approach
Airspace: Class B MIA
ATC / advisory: Tower MIA
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During approach briefing; we briefed the approach to RWY 26R in Miami. We also briefed the possibility of moving to RWY 26L if it was available. The brief was to use full flaps on the short runway (26R) and flaps 3 if we were able to sidestep to the long runway (26L). Having done this probably a hundred times in every other airplane I've flown; the one thing we neglected to brief was the necessity of changing the Perf page and the flap 3 button.During the last 1000 feet the airplane started squawking at us for not having selected full flaps to match the selection of the button. I saw what had happened and also saw we only had a little over 6;000 LBS of fuel remaining. I asked First Officer to continue the approach and selected full flaps to quiet the aircraft yelling at us. I felt uncomfortable with the thought of going around at this fuel level which was the reason I asked him to continue.This was the first time I had done this sidestep maneuver in this model aircraft. It was a learning experience because I found this aircraft requires too much computer work to even consider attempting this type of maneuver again. Having easily performed this so many times; I just wrongly assumed that it was this easy to accomplish in this airplane.It takes too much work to attempt this type of maneuver this close to the airport. I will not attempt this again in this model airplane.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported a GPWS warning for flap setting following a side step maneuver to a longer runway.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: JAC.Airport, WY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During approach into JAC to runway 19; under VMC conditions; cleared for the visual approach; Captain flew left of course to comply with the noise abatement of the Moose Lodge. As were just prior to abeam the lodge we got the GPWS warning for terrain. I believe the primary reason was a slightly closer path to the terrain to the left and slightly low. At no time were we in jeopardy of hitting the terrain in the VMC conditions and airport in sight. Continued approach with a right turn abeam the lodge to align with the runway.I truly believe there is so much emphasis on avoiding the Moose Lodge that it causes pilots to take a path that places them closer than necessary to the terrain to the east of the Lodge. There is no stipulation on how far is far enough. We have no idea what the noise levels are at what distance/altitude. Also there is such a fear factor in all the chart info and company airport data that on a clear; dry-runway-condition day pilots tend to make a shallower approach path to the runway. I guess the thinking is that we must land by the PAPI so if I am lower it will help; instead of making a normal approach and only 'dipping' below the glide path in the last 500 ft or so. Having flown into JAC numerous times in the last 3 months I have learned that way too much fear is imparted when the runway is dry and winds are favorable.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported ambiguous company noise abatement procedures into Jackson Hole airport require flying off course during approach to comply.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Communication Systems
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Did not have takeoff data available before push back because the incorrect runway data was sent to the airplane even though the correct runway was requested multiple times. On taxi out; the SATCOM failed; so we were unable to contact dispatch/load planning via voice. After multiple messages to dispatch; in addition to multiple distractions on taxi out; [we decided] we would pull over and sort this whole mess out at the end of the taxiway. As we approached the end; it was obvious we could not get out of the taxi lineup due to traffic and closures. We finally received the correct info as we approached our spot in the takeoff sequence.The entire concept of pushing off the gate without takeoff data is patently unsafe and dangerous in certain situations. Taxiing the aircraft; with all the inherent distractions associated with moving an airplane on the ground (heavy rain; taxiway closures; language barriers; etc); without being properly configured for takeoff with the proper flap and trim settings is just a disaster looking for a place to happen.The fact that we are putting operational performance (getting off the gate) in front of safe operation of the airplane is embarrassing to me as a professional pilot and I will never do this again. Ever. This is an incident/accident just waiting to happen and the procedures should be revised immediately; it is absolutely shocking how much 'heads down' time this procedure has generated and we are lucky nothing has happened yet.




Synopsis: B777 First Officer laments the new company policy of allowing aircraft to push back and taxi before receiving their final weight and balance message. In this instance; a late message at a foreign airport; caused a great deal of consternation for the First Officer.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Exterior Pax/Crew Door
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a night cross country training flight the instructor noticed the rear door wasn't fully secure. The instructor attempted to secure the rear door by re-setting the latch and accidentally hit the emergency latch which caused the rear door to be ripped off the airplane in flight. The aircraft was safely flown back to the home airport.




Synopsis: DA40 instructor pilot attempted to secure a rear door that was not fully latched in flight; resulting in the emergency latch being accidentally hit and the door departing the aircraft.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MHK.Airport, KS
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Airspace: Class D MHK
ATC / advisory: Tower MHK
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Aircraft component: Transponder
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was receiving instrument approach training from my flight instructor while using a view limiting device. While executing a missed approach procedure for the ILS Runway 3 at MHK and in communication with Marshall; we experienced a missed approach. The aircraft was at 3;000 feet MSL on the 143 radial between the VOR and ALMAS and approximately 5 miles away from the VOR. At some point my flight instructor noticed another aircraft had taken off from MHK and was climbing towards us. After a positive exchange of the flight controls my instructor took immediate action to avoid the impending traffic. While I never saw the other aircraft; as a result of the view limiting device; I was told that the aircraft was approximately 200 feet off our wing. After the situation we contacted Marshall and were informed that radar contact had been lost during the incident. For this reason; Marshall did not alert us of the traffic. The transponder in this aircraft does have inoperative MODE C. I have been informed that the aircraft I was in should be taken to Maintenance later this month where the altitude ending from the transponder should be fixed.




Synopsis: Pilot reported an NMAC while on recovering from a missed approach at MHK airport.