elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CRQ.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Other Maneuvering
Airspace: Class B SAN
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a flight of upset recovery training; done between 9;000 and 10;000 FT; a lot of time was used to clear the area of traffic below.  Due to high winds aloft from around 340 degrees; estimated at around 25 to 35 KTS and after we practiced a spin recovery where we lost around 2;000 FT we drifted inside Class B airspace (B airspace starts at 6;800 until 10;000 in this area).  According to the GPS we were around 0.5 NM inside the B airspace.  It was discovered by me as Instructor when our position relative to CRQ was around 4 NM and SSW.  A corrective measure was immediately taken to go below the airspace and north of it.  After we were done with upset recovery training  an IFR request was made for VOR-A practice approach at OKB and LOC-D at SEE. During these contacts with ATC no comments were made regarding this violation.




Synopsis: C172 Instructor pilot reports drifting into SAN Class B airspace during upset recovery training due to high winds from the north.  An immediate exit to the north is accomplished upon discovery.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MSP.Airport, MN
Light: Night
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B MSP
ATC / advisory: Tower MSP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: MSP was in a 30's/35 Runway configuration using CRO/ADW procedures. The wind was strong A gusting generally 320 at 19 with gusts 30-32. Both aircraft listed reported wind shear of 15-25 knots to local control south landing runway 30L as did several not listed to Local control North landing Runway 30R. In addition local control North had at least one departure report wind shear upon departure rotation. As per MSP SOP's 16-13(a) and 16-13(c) we should stop arrivals to 35 at this time. Arrivals continued to 35 until the end of the arrival bank for at least 22 more minutes. I would have followed the current SOP and stopped arriving Runway 35 with all aircraft outside final approach fix and stop departures until those already cleared for the approach are safely on the ground as I had been previously briefed to do for safety reasons.




Synopsis: MSP Local Controller reported of a windshear at the airport. Reporter stated they should stop arrivals to a specific runway 35. Arrivals continued for an other 22 minutes before stopping.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Normal descent on the BLUZZ arrival to a visual approach to 36R. Little-to-no traffic - one aircraft on parallel approach to 36L. I configured in order (slats 15; flaps 15; flaps 20) to arrive at 500 feet on GS and stable. At just under 1;000 feet and approximately 50 knots above Vapp; I called for flaps 40. At that time; FO (First Officer) reminded me I had not lowered the gear. I decided to continue the approach; and called for landing gear down - even beginning to reach for the gear handle myself; realizing I was likely not going to be stable. FO lowered the gear; then flaps; making as much of an effort to get configured as possible. At 500 feet; I on glide path; but still 20 knots fast and checklist not fully complete. I told the FO we would 'continue;' deciding in my mind to go-around if I felt like the landing would be unsafe. We were stable at approximately 200 feet; and landed normally.I was rushing the approach at the end of a long morning on our second revised/cancelled pairing (two long early AM legs instead of one planned for the night before). I was trying too hard to manage my energy and stretch my speed as long as I could; and got distracted from the basic configuring of the aircraft. FO noted afterwards that he 'should have said something' about the gear not being down so late in the approach; but I said that it was not really his duty as PM (Pilot Monitoring) to manage my approach; and that he did the right thing by alerting me to the gear being up when I called for flaps 40. We were both hesitant to call for the required unstable/go-around; probably for a variety of reasons - the most likely not to extend and complicate an already long day by cutting off an otherwise completely uncomplicated daylight approach and landing.




Synopsis: Widebody Transport Captain reported unstable approach to MEM airport due to speed and configuration mismanagement.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I flew from my home airport ZZZ1 to ZZZ to a maintenance facility. I accomplished my preflight without any difficulty. Takeoff was normal with a 9 kt. wind predominantly from 070. I started reporting my position and intentions 10 miles out of ZZZ using CTAF. I kept announcing my position and intentions from 5 miles out; left downwind; left base; final; and short final to Runway 36. Runways at ZZZ are intersecting 18-36 and 9-27. They intersect at approximately 500 ft. from departure ends of 36 and 27. I was on short final to Runway 36 when I noticed an agriculture airplane moving down the taxiway parallel to Runway 18-36 nearing the departure end of Runway 27.Assuming the Ag. aircraft was going to hold short; I continued my landing. Rather than holding short of 27; the Ag. pilot entered Runway 27 and immediately initiated a takeoff. We narrowly escaped a collision at the intersection of the runways. I discovered later that ZZZ has an AWOS broadcast warning of agriculture activity in the area. I was already aware of that. What I was not aware of was a request during that broadcast for traffic; other that Ag. traffic to turn on runway lighting when in the area of ZZZ regardless of light conditions. It was my perception that the Ag. service operating from ZZZ has radios capable of communicating on the CTAF and that they use them. I did not imagine a need to activate runway lighting on a bright; clear; sunny day in lieu of pilots monitoring CTAF while operating from the airfield.I was also caught off guard when the Ag. pilot took off from a runway with winds behind him/her. In the future; I will pay closer attention to the entire ASOS/AWOS information. I will also be more alert of Ag. pilots operating in the area and will now assume that they are not operating within aviation guidelines instead of assuming they are.




Synopsis: PA-28 Cherokee Pilot reported an NMAC during landing with an aircraft taking off from a perpendicular runway.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Throttle/Power Lever
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting; Workload
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After turning base; we were given a speed of 170 KIAS. Once we had slowed and were about to make our turn to final; the number one engine didn't spool up again. An ECAM alerted us to a discontinuity between the position of the thrust levers and the thrust selection sent to the FADEC (number 1 Thrust selection was indicating idle while thrust lever was in the climb detent).  After referencing the QRH and the A320 landing app; the Captain elected to continue the approach and we landed without incident. Thrust lever position sensor failure.


Second narrative: On base about to turn to final; ECAM warning 'ENG 1 THRUST LEVER DISAGREEMENT'. Performed ECAM procedure; First Officer continued the approach and landing with the number 1 engine at idle due to number 1 thrust lever being unresponsive to power settings. The Thrust Level Angle (TLA) indicator dropped to the bottom of the EPR gage.Failure of TLA indicator sensor; obtained from post flight report.


Synopsis: After slowing for the final approach at 4;000 feet; an A320 ECAM alerted ENG 1 THRUST LEVER DISAGREEMENT. The ECAM procedure was completed and the approach continued with the engine at idle. Maintenance found a failed Thrust Level Angle (TLA) Indicator Sensor.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flew visual/ ILS to 4R. FO [First Officer] XX_41 XX_28 was the flying pilot. Approach was uneventful until the landing maneuver. He started to flare too high. I told him he better get it down. He flew it onto the runway far enough down the runway the other FO; XX 42; and I told him to go around; rapidly; more than once. I stowed the speed break and followed the throttles up while trying to contact Tower and get him LNAV back; as well as the subsequent departure call; and heading change. The go around altitude was 2500 feet. We had no auto throttle since it had disconnected on the ground or perhaps he never hit TOGA. At some point he had pulled the power back. XX_42 called out 'airspeed' just prior to the stick shaker going off momentarily. I immediately pushed the power all the way up and as the speed increased the flaps were retracted. I advocated to turn on the autopilot. The subsequent approach and landing were flown by me and were uneventful.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information].


Synopsis: A Boeing 787 flight crew reported performing a go around due to landing too far down the unway; followed by procedural errors which resulted in a significant speed deviation.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C SJC
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was working the sector at the beginning of an arrival sequence to the airport. Weather; high winds. Winds reported out of the south at 43 knots at 2000 feet by some jet arrivals. First few arrivals from the west uneventful. I noticed; of course; aircraft established on 10 mile final were losing 60-100 knots of ground speed. The first aircraft already cleared on final on tower frequency; Aircraft X on a vector from the west approximately 10 miles away in-trail to join a 12 mile final.I issued a speed of 170 knots to Aircraft X. Aircraft X joined final behind the lead aircraft with a little over 3 miles in trail; 100 knot overtake. The aircraft never descended. Realizing it was never going to work; I issued a turn to the east with a climb to 3000 feet; then another turn to heading 300. Strong winds pushing the aircraft to the north. The aircraft entered a 3900 foot minimum vectoring altitude area in the slide. I issued a climb to 4000 feet.  It's been a few months since I worked an arrival sequence like that with strong winds. All day long there were reports of aircraft going around due to LLWS. Prebriefing yourself is very important; getting into a more conservative state of mind is essential. As an instructor; also; I've always taught 3 major things.  Issue control instruction; verify correct readback; most importantly; and ensure the instruction is fulfilled.




Synopsis: NCT TRACON Controller was vectoring an aircraft for re-sequencing at 3000 feet when the aircraft entered a 4000 foot minimum vectoring area.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beech 1900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Starting System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Just before engine start. All passengers and First Officer boarded. Fuel truck was moving away after having refueled right wing. Ground crew gave signal to start #2; at that moment I became distracted by the fact that the load sheet fell to the floor. I retrieved it in a hurry; and attempted to resume. By mistake I engaged starter of #1. The moment the left prop started to spin; I aborted; and started the right. No one was near the prop at all. This event was my worst nightmare coming true. I have always taken pride in being precise and thoughtful prior to doing anything. This event was a huge departure from that tradition and I am the most fortunate man in the world because no injuries or damage resulted. I have learned from my mistake and will never let it happen again.




Synopsis: A BE-1900 Captain became distracted immediately prior to engine start and engaged number one engine starter after receiving clearance to start two. Upon realizing his mistake he aborted one and started two.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMUB.ARTCC, FO
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZMUB
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After departing ZBAA; approximately one hour into the flight; we were level at 10;400 meters (34;100 feet) approaching waypoint MENOR on G218 (Mongolian Airspace). I was Pilot Flying (PF) and First Officer (FO) was Pilot Monitoring (PM). We asked center if we could climb to 10;700 meters (35;100 feet) shortly afterward we received what we believed was a clearance for us to climb to FL350 and to contact center on a new frequency. We read back the instructions and believe we asked for confirmation. Both FO and myself heard [our call sign] when we received the clearance to climb. We were unable to contact center on the new frequency so returned to the old frequency; at which point we were told by ATC that we had not been cleared to climb the 900 feet to FL350. After several minutes another (I assume senior) controller came on to inform us that the instructions we had received had been for a [another air carrier with similar call sign]. They then told us to remain at FL350. The rest of the flight was uneventful.It should be noted that the radio transmissions from the controllers in this area were of very poor quality. It should also be noted that the controller himself had a very thick accent and was very difficult to understand. Having [another air carrier with similar call sign] on the frequency didn't make the situation easier; as we could not hear his responses. (I assume he was too far away) Lessons learned: Check; check and then recheck the controller's instructions; especially when they are difficult to understand. When another aircraft has the same number callsign; be especially vigilant.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: An international air carrier flight crew reported they deviated from assigned altitude when they responded to a clearance intended for another air carrier with the same flight number. The Controller's accent was mentioned as contributing.
Date: 201808
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground SFO
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: While taxiing to our gate at SFO; we had to stop the aircraft on Taxiway Alpha and ask for progressive taxi instructions to the gate. The 10-9 pages depict the Terminal 1 gates as they used to look. They now extend five times further all the way out to Taxiway M1. In addition; there is a fence all the way around construction making it even more confusing. We had to taxi all the way to M1 to go around the construction to get to our gate. The 10-9 pages [do not] accurately depict Terminal 1 construction. Correct all JEPP charts.[Suggest] correct the page depiction. Add safety information to SFO weather describing construction hazards.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported the Airport Diagram page does depict current ramp and terminal construction zones.