elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: EAR.Airport, NE
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E EAR
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I went to shoot some footage using my DJI Mavic Pro (Drone) after being contracted by a company. I checked flight maps before flying to make sure that I would not enter Class E Airspace during the shoot as the Class E airspace for Kearney Regional Airport (EAR) extended down to the surface near where I was flying. During takeoff and the first 15 minutes of my flight; everything was running as it should. Aircraft had no issues; and I was NOT in Class E Airspace; however; as I went to capture the east side of the building; my DJI GO 4 app began warning me that I had entered Class E airspace of the Kearney Regional Airport. After discovering this; I ended my recording and proceeded to land in a safe location outside of Class E airspace. I did not exceed 60 feet AGL during my flight at any time.I believe this problem resulted because of how close the event was to Class E airspace and also due to the fact that I could not zoom in close enough with my map resource (www.skyvector.com). Based on what I read on my map; I believed that I was not going to enter Class E airspace during my flight.No aircraft were harmed. My maximum altitude was 60 feet AGL. There was no risk of any aircraft colliding. No aircraft had to take action to avoid a collision.




Synopsis: A contracted drone operator reported he was alerted by the drone's sensors that he may have penetrated Class E airspace. He immediately terminated his video photography and exited the area.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Navigation Database
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Inspection Authority; Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: Other unknown
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While installing the monthly NAV DATA update; the wrong aircraft type was installed; [that is] MD-11 database [loaded] in a B-757 aircraft. I was using a new type 409 Data Bus Loader that was formatted slightly different and failed to notice the wrong aircraft type load was installed. I only checked the current data date; but failed to notice the fleet type difference. Wrong NAV DATA installed in FMS.




Synopsis: A Line Mechanic was informed he had loaded an MD-11 NAV DATA update into a B757-200 aircraft. He had used a new type 409 Data Bus Loader and checked the current data date; but failed to notice the fleet type difference.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was flying VFR near ARCHI at 4;500 ft. descending to GROVE to practice ILS 28R [at] OAK.  I had flight following. Then Center vectored me to heading 270. In this area; I was under the Bravo airspace shelf above; which starts at 6000 feet. All good.  However; the controller vectored me towards the center of Bravo airspace. I continued to follow his guidance and vectors for safety. And then; right as I approached the lower level Bravo airspace (down to 4;000); he said resume own navigation; right as I was against the Bravo wall at 4000 feet. To avoid unsafe maneuvers; I continued on into Bravo airspace and immediately requested a clearance; yet the controller did not clearly grant it me. This was a challenging position; as I had to follow his guidance [and] vectors; but these contradicted other guidance given from him. What could be done in the future is if a controller gives vectors that lead into Bravo airspace; then also give a Bravo clearance.




Synopsis: Pilot describes a situation where he is under flight following and then vectored at an altitude to enter the Class Bravo airspace; but terminated just before entering it.  The pilot had to enter the airspace and then request a clearance to be in it.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the Dispatcher on duty. I had received a 10 [mile] out call from Aircraft X on company frequency. I also had CTAF radio on in the dispatch office. There was an aircraft making garbled and unreadable call that turned out to be Aircraft Y. Aircraft X had made multiple calls for a straight in final at 10; 5; 3; 1 miles and short final. I was looking out the window of the dispatch office and observed Aircraft X on an extremely short final less than 200 ft. over the local cemetery; and Aircraft Y that made an aggressive short approach which appeared to start abeam the numbers of the runway and descended on top of and into Aircraft X. From my view Aircraft X was definitely the lower aircraft on approach and had the right of way. Aircraft X made an evasive maneuver to avoid collision from Aircraft Y which appeared to be less than 10 ft. horizontal and vertically. Aircraft X continued approach without further incident and taxied for deplaning and shut down. Aircraft Y continued very close behind before making a decision to go around. Following the incident; Aircraft Y radio call became more clear and concise and exhibited unprofessional radio etiquette before circling around for landing. At this time Aircraft Z was repositioning from east to west ramp on the taxiway and Aircraft Y exited the runway and cutoff Aircraft Z who had to taxi into helipad parking to avoid and give way to Aircraft Y. Aircraft Y then taxied to the FBO on the east side of the field and shutdown. This was the end of my observation.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher at a non-towered airport reported a NMAC on short final and the aircraft that caused the NMAC cut off a different aircraft while taxiing.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CRW.Airport, WV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower CRW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On arrival for landing; I had a little trouble getting a landing data assessment to come up on the ACARS until I entered the correct code for a displaced threshold 05-SW578F. Again when doing our takeoff data; the ACARS would only give us data with 05-SW578F entered. I misinterpreted this to mean the takeoff data was based on a takeoff from the displaced threshold; and not the full length. So when cleared to back taxi; cleared for takeoff; I only went as far as the displaced threshold.About ten minutes into the flight; I was thinking why only have numbers from the threshold. I pulled out the old release; and checked it against the takeoff release; and saw my mistake. The landing distance for that code included the displaced threshold. The takeoff distance for that same code did not include the displaced threshold; it was for full length. I made a poor interpretation of the takeoff data code; and did not look at the planned runway length on the release TLR together with the ACARS perf.It not very common to get these runway code corrections; so Threat and Error Management would be well used by slowing down and double checking both release and ACARS data.


Second narrative: Neither of us had been to this airport before and the displaced threshold was a NOTAMed addition which caused the ACARS to require a special coded input for runway performance. This tripped us up on both arrival and departure. Additionally the displaced threshold was not as well-lit as the runway. Finally; we had another aircraft waiting to enter the runway after us; creating a minor sense of urgency.


Synopsis: CRJ-700 flight crew reported taking off with less than planned useable runway length.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAN.ARTCC, AK
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 4 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Handoff / Assist
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was D siding D-9 and was relieved; then told to go D side for 4/15/16. The R side was working alone and there were multiple strips canted and things needed done. When I sat down; the first thing I noticed was a transfer at Devid to Russia had not been completed yet; and it was within the 45 minutes it needed to be done by. So; to prevent any further delay; I called Murmansk ATC and completed the transfer. The R side said he was busy working 4 aircraft into Deadhorse Airport at the time and didn't get it done yet; but that he would have after an aircraft had arrived at Deadhorse and he cleared the next one for approach. I then called and obtained my relief briefing and continued d siding. I recommend that the CIC/Supervisor on the desk pay attention better and get adequate coverage for traffic as there were plenty of people here to help. Staffing wasn't an issue; but awareness of the area traffic was and therefore the LOA with Murmansk Center was not adhered to. There should have been a D side on the sector way earlier when the traffic situations at Deadhorse were presented.




Synopsis: ZAN Controller reports of lack of supervision to attain adequate coverage to be able to adhere to the LOA between ZAN and Murmansk Center.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: Tower DCA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Fatigue; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was pilot monitoring. We were cleared for River Visual Approach to runway 19 at DCA. FO had visual on the river and began the approach. Aircraft was on the path. Told to contact tower and I went heads down to switch over and get landing clearance. When I looked back up we were below the path and descending. Just as I directed a correction we got a GPWS terrain warning. FO disconnected the autopilot and started correcting back to the descent path. I also directed a turn to the left to continue following the river. We configured the aircraft and he was slightly below the path at 1000 ft and correcting. At 500 ft he was stable and following the VASI guidance. Landing was uneventful.


Second narrative: I was flying the aircraft; the Captain Pilot monitoring (PM). Was given the River Visual 19; which I had flown many times. Given descent to 3000 prior to FERGI LVL CHG; no problem reaching 3000 feet prior to FERGI ALT HOLD; was gear down flaps15 prior to FERGI and fully configured by GREYZ. CLEARED for RIVER VISUAL; Captain set 600 ft in altitude window and started down on visual (10 miles vis). Our descent rate got a little high on way point after SETOC which set off the TERRAIN ALERT; Approach called us at almost the same exact time with a TERRAIN ALERT. Added power (disconnected auto pilot) immediately and climbed turning slightly away from RESTRICTED AREAS P-56A/B until a safe altitude to re-established on PAPIs landing uneventful. I didn't feel that tired; but fatigue had to have been a player landing at midnight; last two nights were short and all late flights. I had only received about 6.5 to 7 hours of sleep woke twice; once someone at my door. Should have called in FATIGUE. Inside outside scan broke down a bit after SETOC got a little low setting off TERRAIN ALERT because of sky scrapers. Get proper amount of sleep and call in FATIGUED when you don't get it.


Synopsis: Flight crew of a large transport jet reported going below glide path on approach into DCA resulting in a GPWS warning. After correcting the flight landed normally.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
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; Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing checked with Operations; they advised ground air and electric available. We arrived at gate with engine one running. Ground crew parked the aircraft and attempted to start ground power unit. After waiting 4 minutes; we started the APU. The ground power unit was never connected prior to the crew leaving the aircraft. After the cockpit door was opened a flight attendant stated that ground personnel were walking within 10 feet of the running number one engine. There are no engine inlet safety markings on the ramp. The company procedure does not account for the lack of these markings or proper training of ground personnel. The only other airline that does not [use] APU taxi in procedure has engine inlet safety marking at all of their gates and use only company ground crews. We violate the Airbus 19 foot inlet safety guideline in many of our locations. I recommend we suspend the 'No APU taxi in' procedure until a comprehensive review by the Safety Department is completed. No action will result in a catastrophic event.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported to the flight crew that ground personnel were walking within 10 feet of a running engine at the gate.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Embraer Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were operating within Class E airspace in and around the town from 2;000 ft AGL to 10;500 ft MSL from XA:00- XC:00 PST in support of [military] close air support operations. After a simulated air-to-ground profile at approximately XB:25 PST we climbed back up to 9;000 ft MSL and re-established a level left-turn orbit over the town. Prior to the profile; the airspace within 8NM of the town was clear of all traffic as indicated via ADS-B. At approximately XB:27 PST after entering or orbit; I observed rapid movement to my right and slightly high and was able to quickly identify a C-172 flying straight and level on a westerly heading directly above our aircraft. I immediately banked hard left; descended rapidly; and checked ADS-B. The C-172 track indicated yellow and 300 ft+. After confirming positive de-confliction; I maintained visual on the C-172 until it was out of sight to the west. The C-172 never reacted and I believe never saw me.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a near mid air collision and maintained separation to avoid additional conflict.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: sun low in horizon; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: It was late in the afternoon and the sun was low in the horizon. Because of the sun being a factor landing towards the west; I elected to land to the east (Runway X). Approaching the airport; I made calls 5 miles out; long final and short final. The approach was straight in as no traffic was [noted] on CTAF. The runway looked clear and I proceeded to land. At the point of touchdown; I noticed another aircraft departing or attempting a touch and go on Runway [Y] (i.e.; taking off into the sun). The departing aircraft was able to climb above my aircraft. The major factors contributing to this unsafe condition were: communication (it is unclear as to which aircraft was not transmitting/receiving) and inability for each aircraft to see the other. For communication; I did a radio check on the ground and another pilot reporting hearing us 'loud and clear'. For see and avoid; it is obvious why the aircraft taking off towards the sun could not see our aircraft. However; even with the sun to my back; I did not see the aircraft using Runway [Y]. In addition; there was another private pilot in the right seat who was also looking for traffic. Both of us did not see the other aircraft.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported a conflict just after touchdown from opposite direction aircraft taking off into the sun.
Date: 201302
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: During landing with light snow and no braking action advisories on ATIS. Captain slowed aircraft to make the high speed turn off. Aircraft started to turn and then began slipping on the snow/ice at the turn off. Captain regained directional control and made the turn. We did not feel anything unusual; but thought it was possible that the right gear could have contacted a taxi light during the skid. We notified Tower of the deteriorating braking action and contacted Ground to request an OPS vehicle inspect the lights. OPS reported that lights were not contacted and no excursions or problems noted. We then continued a normal taxi to the gate; using caution due to the conditions. Crew was not alerted to deteriorating conditions.


Second narrative: No braking action advisories or runway reports ATIS prior to the final approach fix; aircraft were being vectored off and back on to the localizer (including us) due to the tight spacing between aircraft. Landing and touchdown normal. Part way into turn for the taxiway to my surprise the aircraft started to slide on ice and snow with some control with steering and differential braking.


Synopsis: B757-200 slid sideways onto snow while exiting the runway after landing.