elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream G200 (IAI 1126 Galaxy)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: Texan T6/Harvard (Antique)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was on a Visual Approach from the North.  My Radar Assist called the inbound to the Tower in a timely manner and prior to me issuing the Visual Approach to Aircraft X. Once the Visual Approach was given and Aircraft X was descending through 7;000 feet; I noticed two aircraft departing and were climbing through 4;000 feet. The courses were head on. I called traffic to Aircraft X then immediately called Tower to ask if they had visual on the departures and Aircraft X because it looked like they were head on and climbing and descending.  The Tower asked where the aircraft was and I responded by saying they were head on and only about 3 miles apart.I jumped off the land line and again called traffic for Aircraft X this time Aircraft X was descending through 6;000 feet and the departure was climbing through 5;000 feet still head on. I could not vector Aircraft X because by this point he was below my Minimum IFR Altitudes. I attempted one more traffic call but at that point the aircraft were almost side by side and less than 1 mile apart.  It looked like the departing aircraft actually turned towards Aircraft X at the last second; but it is hard to tell. It looked like the closest the two aircraft got was about .5 miles; same altitude and opposite direction.These particular aircraft are operating out of the airport for 3 months (and just started this week) with course rules that do not separate VFR/IFR traffic. Tower should call Center on every departure to get a release in order to avoid this from happening.




Synopsis: A flight of two aircraft departed an airport VFR and climbed head on into an inbound aircraft cleared for a Visual Approach.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were descending via the DRLLR5 arrival into IAH; RWY 26R transition. The aircraft was already established on the downwind approximately 6 miles west of SKLER and descending through 7;300 feet. Approach (124.35) had switched us over to final approach frequency 119.1. I checked in and immediately the controller told us to turn heading 360 IMMEDIATELY and climb to 8000 feet; there was traffic south of us heading right at us and climbing. The First Officer disconnected the autopilot and turned right away to 360 and began climbing as instructed to 8000. We ended up leveling off prior to 8000 because the aircraft was climbing much faster and ended up going over the top of us. I advised Approach that we stopped our climb and could see the traffic on our TCAS climbing above us. After getting the aircraft on the ground we queried IAH tower if we could get more information on what just unfolded. They gave us the IAH TRACON number and we called to get the details of the event. An aircraft departing to the North was given a climb to 16;000 feet right into our flight path. The aircraft came within less than 2 miles and 200 feet. Thank God it wasn't our time to go.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported being given an emergency turn and climb to avoid traffic the TRACON vectored north after takeoff into the arrival path.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LBB.TRACON, TX
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 C LBB
ATC / advisory: Tower LBB
Second aircraft: Small Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local; Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X [was] on ILS approach following Aircraft Y to runway 26. Dust storm with 3/4 mile visibility and wind approximately 270 at 25G35. I was training on Local combined with Ground/Clearance Delivery and Flight Data; not unusual for time of day and traffic. TRACON switched Aircraft X to Local on about 8 mile final; 4 miles behind Aircraft Y with a 20 knot overtake. I advised Aircraft X that he was number 2 following Aircraft Y and asked that he reduce approach speed as much as practical. Aircraft X continued to compress to 3 miles just inside the final approach fix when I asked my trainer if we are qualified to run 2.5 miles inside of 10 on final. He said that he did not think so; but did not tell me to send Aircraft X around. The Tower Controller in Charge (CIC) began looking up the rule to see if we were able to run reduced separation; but we were not certain; based on the wording; [if] whether we qualified. I advised Aircraft Y to expect to exit at Kilo in order to expedite his runway exit. Separation compressed to approximately 2.5 miles when Aircraft Y crossed the threshold of runway 26. After the event; my trainer discussed that I should have sent the trailing aircraft around. I called the ATM after being relieved; and he said that we are not single site radar and do not qualify for reduced separation. Three miles is required IFR at the runway. I believe that my trainer knew that we needed 3 miles; but when I questioned whether or not we are qualified to compress to 2.5 inside of 10; that he was uncertain and it led to confusion.Next time; I will send the second aircraft around for re-sequence with the TRACON.




Synopsis: LBB Developmental/Front Line Manager (FLM) reports of a loss of separation due to compression on final. The Developmental/FLM asked his instructor if they were capable of running 2.5 miles on final and the instructor replied he didn't think so. After the two aircraft landed the Developmental found out that they needed three miles instead of 2.5.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Fatigue; Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While waiting for the airplane to be towed to the departure gate; I ate a heavy breakfast and did not consume any coffee as this was an Air Carrier X operation and I anticipated coffee being readily available on the plane.  In spite of my request; the FA never made any coffee.  ATC issued a 15 degree heading change for traffic.  I made the heading change without incident.  Subsequently; I began to feel a bit drowsy.  After approximately 5 minutes; ATC issued 'Direct SUNED' fix.  I selected direct SUNED in the FMS and activated after PM confirmed the change.  I forgot to select the NAV mode on guidance panel and we continued on the previous heading for 3 more minutes.  I snapped to attention ATC reissued the Direct SUNED clearance and after a moment of confusion as to why the clearance was reissued; I realized that the guidance panel was still set to HDG mode.  The proper NAV mode was engaged and we proceeded direct to SUNED without incident or any further mention of the issue by ATC. Driven by adrenaline; I remained mentally aroused and vigilant for the remainder of the flight.Cause - PF's Postprandial lassitude caused by failure to ingest a suitable amount of caffeine following heavy breakfast.  PM inattention/distraction was also a factor.Ensure personal availability of postprandial drowsiness countermeasures (aka Coffee) and remember to verify changes on flight mode annunciator.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported a track heading deviation during departure from SLC airport.  First Officer cited feeling drowsy due to not consuming caffeine after a big breakfast may have contributed to the event.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Was cleared to land on Runway XXR at ZZZ; airspeed was approximately 5 knots higher than usual on approach. Made a normal; smooth touchdown on XXR prior to Taxiway 1. Almost immediately on the initial rollout encountered a right crosswind and aircraft swerved hard to the left. The aircraft exited the runway pavement between Taxiways 1 and 2 and the remainder of the rollout was on the grass infield between Runways XXR and XXL until reaching Taxiway 2. Then taxied onto Taxiway 2 and; after receiving clearance; taxied the aircraft normally across Runway XXR to parking. The aircraft sustained minor cosmetic damage and there were no injuries. It was a solo flight. ZZZ Tower had inquired after the rollout as to whether any assistance was required to which I replied in the negative.Factors which I believe contributed:1. Due to Covid 19 pandemic and aircraft being in annual for a month did not have much recent flight experience.2. Due to Covid 19 pandemic; had to order shoes online; instead of being fitted in a store; which were heavier than expected and worn for the first time during this flight; which resulted in less rudder sensitivity and probably decreased ability to control aircraft on rollout.3.Crosswind force taking effect almost immediately upon initial rollout right after touchdown.4. Airspeed 5K too high on touchdown.5. Failure to react quickly enough due to lack of recent flight experience in regards to a go-around; though still not sure a go-around would have helped.6. Had been very mentally focused on instrument procedures and flying holding pattern during the flight prior to landing and had 'expectation bias' of a normal landing with no crosswind.




Synopsis: Pilot reported after landing a crosswind took control of the aircraft causing a runway excursion.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-10
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Loss of electrical system resulted in communications loss in IMC.  Attempted a return to the departure airport due to anticipated VMC weather conditions. Arrived and attempted landing but weather changed to IMC. Changed destination to ZZZ where visibility allowed a safe landing. Recently changed panel to glass panel with battery backup ADAHRS. This backup coupled with my iPad foreflight map program allowed for safe navigation and landing.




Synopsis: RV10 pilot reports electrical failure in IMC. Due to a recently installed glass panel with battery backup ADAHRS and an iPad with foreflight; a safe landing ensues at a divert airport.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight phase: Climb; Descent; Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDC; Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Traffic Management
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
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 Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: ZDC had convective weather from a line RDU to ORF and south. RDU NE departures and RDU NE arrivals are having to share the same airspace because of weather. ZDC requested ZNY and ZBW reroute RDU arrivals via J48 to stay on the back side of the weather and stay out of the departure corridor. For 4 hours the ATCSCC (Air Traffic Control Command Center) complied and put out advisory 092. ZDC requested to extend the reroute for another 2 to 4 hours. ATCSCC denied request; then the ATCSCC denied ZDC NTML entry to stop RDU arrivals from the east side; and finally ATCSCC denied ZDC request to ground stop RDU arrivals from the east side. The ATCSCC does not have the equipment to see our sectors; to see the deviating departing and arriving aircraft. The ATCSCC cannot see the sectors where aircraft are deviating and therefore should not have the power to tell ZDC that ZNY and ZBW cannot reroute RDU arrivals to the west when ZDC is trying to mitigate an unsafe situation by preventing arrivals in the corridor where departures are deviating.




Synopsis: Traffic Management Coordinator reports of issues related to flow control and the fact that when asked for an extension the Air Traffic Control Command Center (ATCSCC) denies the request. The reporter then goes on to report that the ATCSCC cannot see the traffic and should not deny the controllers what they need for flow.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 140 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departing runway 18L; above 80kts received a Caution EICAS message and captain stated 'continue'. In the climb; we began to receive intermittent 'IAS' comparator alerts on PFD 1 & 2 airspeed indicators. Continued the departure climb to 10;000 feet at which time the difference in airspeeds continually got more substantial. During this time we also received intermittent 'SPS Advanced' Cautions. We ran the 'Unreliable Airpseed' checklist; decided to return to [departure airport]; declared an emergency. The captain briefed the flight attendant and we landed flaps 45 degrees; below max landing weight.  Cause: Apparent issue with pitot-static system.




Synopsis: EMB-140 First Officer reported loss of multiple pitot/static related components.
Date: 202010
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Gate Agent / CSR
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Other in terminal; check in
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During Xpm check-in there is no social distancing between passengers. There is no space for agents to move about kiosks to assist passenger check-in without tripping over passenger's bags that are everywhere in walkway and between kiosks. Security line is very long and agents and passengers have difficulty making way to kiosks. Passengers touch agents and pull them over to help them even though an agent is working with another passenger.




Synopsis: Customer Service Representative reported COVID-19 issues relating to agents in the terminal at check in.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
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: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Captain was the Pilot Flying. On the landing roll-out on Runway XX in ZZZ he noticed a fuel truck attempting to cross the runway on Taxiway XX. I was heads down monitoring the airspeed; around my '80' call out the Captain said...'That's a fuel truck'. I was unable to see it because of the windshield divider. He immediately applied full brakes and full reversers and we managed to come to a complete stop within 100 ft of the truck.The sound of the brakes screeching and reversers caused the driver to slow to a stop. He still managed to make it past the driver side door onto the runway. I made another CTAF call announcing we were on the runway still...there was no acknowledgment from the fuel truck. He backed up allowed us to continue down to Taxiway XY; then he crossed the runway on XX. I continued to make CTAF traffic calls and never heard the fuel truck make a single one while he continued to the side of the runway.I believe the fuel truck was not monitoring the CTAF frequency. We were switched from approach to advisory frequency well beyond 5 miles from the runway landing zone. Even after the event occurred we still did not hear him make any calls as he continued driving across the airport taxiways.Ground personnel should be trained to constantly monitor CTAF; Ground; Tower and ramp frequencies at all times when moving in vehicles around the airport.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported a max effort stop was required on the landing roll to avoid a collision with a truck crossing the runway.
Date: 201909
Location: BNA.Airport, TN
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Electronic Device; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During taxi; as I take my position as B [flight attendant]; for the safety demo I could hear an electronic device rows away. As I approached I noticed two children in seats 10 A and C were watching their iPad without headphones. I informed the mom sitting in 10C they are required to wear headphones or it must be muted. She stated that this is their 3rd flight and no one has told them this before. I apologized that it was missed on a previous flight. I continued the safety demo and she said she would like to see it in writing. I told her I would need to get back to her as I am in the middle of the safety demo. A neighboring passenger showed it to her in the in flight magazine. After the demo; I secured the galley and it was time for takeoff. I was unable to go back to her at that time. After takeoff I checked the entertainment kit and no headphones were in the kit. Shortly after the seatbelt sign came off a passenger came to the back galley and handed me a paper with her contact info and told me she is seated in 11B is a witness to the exchange between the passenger and I and she wanted to make sure I was covered because she heard the passenger telling her son they 'cannot use the iPad because the flight attendant yelled at her and said they couldn't use it.'Also the other flight attendant said a passenger in front of 10C offered her an extra pair of headphones she had and the passenger refused and said her son was autistic and required special headphones.The work group could be consistent on their flights informing passengers about the headphone requirements. If there had been consistency this situation could've possibly been avoided as the passenger could have been prepared.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger refused to comply with instructions for her two children to use headphones and caused a disruption during the safety briefing.