elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ; TFR ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Laptop Computer (performance; planning; etc.)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I briefed my flight with Garmin Pilot on my iPhone and noted the fire TFR. While enroute I was using my iPad to follow my route. Because the TFR was not yet displayed I thought I was still outside of the Southern boundary. I realized there was an error somewhere. I had recently had issues with Garmin Pilot on my iPad so I had unloaded and reloaded the program to fix the problem. Unfortunately; I had neglected to turn the TFR display back on. When I discovered this I immediately enabled the TFR display and to my dismay realized I was already approximately four miles into the TFR. I immediately turned ninety degrees east to exit the TFR as quickly as possible. Fortunately a recent snowstorm had greatly dampened the fire and there was no air traffic fighting the fire at that time. This was very educational experience for me. I learned I must be more in tune with my navigational equipment at all times. Pilot error!




Synopsis: GA pilot reported penetrating a TFR.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EFD.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 310/T310C
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E I90
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During vectoring for ILS approach 35L at EFD (Houston Ellington) in IMC conditions the Controller flew us outbound (downwind) very close to the final approach path (approximately 4 miles parallel) making it difficult to turn on to the final approach course. The Controller realized after turning us on to base leg that we were too close and gave us another outbound vector (heading 180) before trying to turn us in again (still too close). We had a difficult time establishing a stabilized approach and would have been forced to miss the approach if the ceiling had been below 1;000 MSL. It was solid IMC with continuous choppy air and light rain and no time to be rushed on the short approach. In hind sight; I should have announced missed approach and requested vectors for a re-position for a more stabilized approach. I am not sure that the Controller even realized how hard he made it for us with the short turn approach right at the localizer and glide slope intercept point. Also; at one point during vectoring we received a low altitude alert during a time that we were established on the assigned altitude of 2;200 MSL (not sure why that happened).




Synopsis: Cessna 310 pilot reported too tight of a turn to final in IMC conditions; making for a difficult approach. Reporter also noted an altitude alert that was unexplained.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower DFW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were waiting to take off. The aircraft that took off ahead of us reported hitting birds on take off. The controller asked if they hit the birds directly over the runway; the crew confirmed it was. We were next for takeoff when the controller asked if we had heard the report from the aircraft ahead. We said we did. Tower then delivered a caution about possible FOD (Foreign Object Debris) and birds on the runway and cleared us for takeoff. We refused the clearance and asked that the runway be inspected. We were then informed that it would take a long time for an inspection; we said we will wait. This seemed to aggravate the controller. Tower continued to give takeoff clearances until eventually no one wanted to go until the runway was inspected. This seemed to expedite the runway getting inspected. Once it was deemed safe and free from FOD; takeoffs resumed.I then reached out to an airport authority and their ATC group. They informed me that they have an agreement between the ATC and the Airport Authority about such events. If at their airport that same report was made on takeoff they stated the runway would have been closed for an inspection. They also stated it takes less than 5 minutes At DFW I waited longer than that due to refusing the takeoff clearance.I then took the question to the APA National Safety Committee and asked what they knew about procedure when this happens. Coincidentally; on that call was another pilot that had the same thing happened to them at a different airport. As we have been researching this we are finding there is no standardization from airport to airport on this. Some airports have written agreements between ATC and Airport Authorities and others don't. Does this infer that certain airports take safety more seriously than another? It is factual that the Captain will always have final authority. But shouldn't ATC procedures across the system be uniform with regard to concerns with the runway condition? To give a takeoff clearance with no attempt to inspect the runway in order to keep traffic moving seems at odds with a culture of safety.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported they refused a takeoff clearance after the preceding departure reported a bird strike over the runway.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground PHX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We got clearance to taxi via D13 to Runway 25R. I barely taxied from Spot 8; and all I had signage for that I could see; was straight ahead E13 and nothing said D13 or to my left Taxiway Romeo. I stopped; told the First Officer this is confusing how the signage was and was not sure. I (while stopped); studied the Jepp 10-9 page some more (we both did.) I thought I was on D13; but I must have been right before it. (We were the only jet at the time when we taxied out and when we were maneuvering about.) According to the chart; I thought; if we were at D13; left or straight gets you to 25R. I sadly turned left; right before D13. I turned right immediately; turned right of which I now know was Taxiway Romeo. No signage I could see till right AFTER I turn right on Romeo; looking back I saw the Taxiway Romeo sign only after you go past it. I maneuvered back to where D13 would have taken us. Again; no planes around us at the time. Very discouraged. How did we mess this up? Ground and Tower said nothing to us; and were quite kind. Next time; when in doubt; stop like I did; but this time; ask the controller for clarification.




Synopsis: A B737-300 flight crew was confused by a taxi clearance at PHX when no immediate sign was available to identify taxiway D13.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: P50.TRACON, AZ
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Second aircraft: A319
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Air Carrier X was a MAIER arrival; had descended him to 4;000 feet; planning a base turn for a 6-8 NM final. He was number 1 for Runway 26 and I had coordinated with Verde Air Carrier Y to fit into my sequence. I subsequently turned Air Carrier Y EAGUL arrival toward a 5 NM final for spacing and descended to 6;000 feet. I turned Air Carrier X to the base leg; however; never got a read back. The Air Carrier Y EAGUL reported the airport in sight so I issued the visual approach clearance; expecting to clear Air Carrier X on the next transmission. However; I noticed Air Carrier X had not turned; tried to turn him further right with no response. I immediately cancelled the Air Carrier Y clearance with a maintain 6;000 feet; and a turn to the South. I tried Air Carrier X again and this time got a response. Wound up turning the Air Carrier Y back towards the Northwest; then to the final. This is the first day we were running 'fused RADAR' in STARS. I believe the unfamiliarity of the movements of the data blocks and history trails contributed to this event. Until I become more accustomed to the quirks of the fusion display; I will go into the finals (base legs; turns and clearances) with a more conservative technique. I have noticed that the PTL lines and the 'baseball bat' cones seem to lag behind more than traditional RADAR. This may just be an optical illusion.




Synopsis: P50 Controller experienced a developing conflict event listing the unfamiliarity with 'fused RADAR' as a causal factor.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While on approach to Runway 10R; we received an erroneous EGPWS 'CAUTION TERRAIN' aural warning and amber glare shield indicator at 210 feet radar altitude. The autopilot was on and coupled to the flight director in approach mode with 'green needles;' utilizing the localizer and glide slope for Runway 10R frequency 110.9. All indications showed the aircraft to be on glide slope with localizer centered. Since weather conditions were VMC and we had clear line of sight to the runway touchdown zone we disregarded the alert and elected to continue the approach to a landing. The alert continued to sound until the aircraft touched down well within the touchdown zone of the runway at approximately 1;500 feet down the runway. Not sure of the cause; possibly an EGPWS equipment/database issue with the opening of the new runway 10R at KORD. Correct any database or equipment anomalies in the EGPWS for the CRJ 700.




Synopsis: During a stable ILS approach in VMC with the runway in sight; CRJ crew experienced an erroneous EGPWS 'CAUTION TERRAIN' aural warning. The warning continued until touch down. Crew suspects an EGPWS equipment/database issue with the opening of the new runway.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approaching five miles from FAF; First Officer requested flaps 1. I noted speed 210 KTS. Selected flaps 1; Left flap needle never moved; Right flap needle moved to half way between 0 and 1 then stopped. Flap in transit light remained amber. Requested hold at FAF from Tower; and informed them of Flap problem and declared an emergency. Proceeded to 'Trailing Edge Flap Disagree' checklist which led me to 'Flap Asymmetry' checklist. Completed 'Flap Asymmetry' checklist extending leading edge devices through alternate means and found Ref speed for landing condition. Referred to Abnormal landing configuration landing distance in Performance section to assure sufficient landing distance; and completed Emergency Landing checklist. Sent Dispatch a free text of our condition and our intentions to land. First Officer and I began final approach segment from 3;000 feet and 10 miles from runway to assure long stable approach.With auto brakes set at MAX; touch down was firm but not hard. Auto brakes gradually applied MAX brake pressure; and stopped aircraft on center line. Requested AARF personnel to inspect aircraft; paying particular attention to wheels; brakes and tires. Approach speed target was 180 KTS. No problems found; preceded to gate. First Officer and I inspected exterior of aircraft and found left flap up and right flap down approximately 2' down from flush with wing; as indicated on flap gauge. Inspected brakes and wheels and temperatures seemed to be normal.We had communication with AARF only through relay from Tower staff. Spoke with airport safety coordinator after this event and he said they would solve that issue.




Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew experienced a flap asymmetry; ran the checklist and landed without incident.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Clear; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DJI Inspire 2
Operator: Commercial Operator (UAS)
Operating under: Part 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Commercial Operator (UAS)
Reporter function: Remote PIC (UAS)
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Remote Pilot (UAS)
Human factors: Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fly Away (UAS); Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person UAS Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Software and Automation
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We began to set up and build the drone. We had one camera operator; I was the PIC and we had two visual observers. Before our pre-flight check list we set up our own anemometer an saw the wind speed was 4 MPH and guesting to 6 MPH. Sky was clear and temp was around 70. When we were all set for our test flight; we powered all of the equipment on. The Controller showed that we needed to calibrate the DJIR Inspire 2. We executed the calibration and once complete; the upper left hand of the screen showed 'READY TO GO (GPS) in GREEN'We cleared our launch area and announce we would send the drone up. Our plan was to lift up 10 feet from the pad and work on camera feeds to video. (This was on a camera controller not the drone controller.)When the drone was 10 feet it took off over Road. We immediately made everyone aware that we had a fly away. The remote was unresponsive to any command or return to home. In under one minute it had flown into the building across the street. The drone had broken and was wedged in a wall. No one was injured; the drone was a loss. [It was] concluded that it was a manufacturer error.With most pro-level drones; the pilot can override the computer. If I would have had the option to manually take control; I believe that I could have landed the drone.




Synopsis: DJI Inspire 2 UAS RPIC reported a fly away resulting in the drone flying into the window of a nearby building after liftoff. RPIC was unable to take over manually.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was issued Line Up and Wait (LUAW) instruction for Runway 12R. Aircraft Y had been taxied to Runway 22. I had multiple aircraft. A previous departure had not turned as instructed; so I had to coordinate a point out with departure control. I had another arrival inbound for Runway 12R. That aircraft requested to change arrival to Runway 17. After completing coordination with departure control; I mistakenly used the wrong call sign for the aircraft already in position on Runway 12R. I cleared Aircraft Y for takeoff on Runway 12R when I should have cleared Aircraft X. Aircraft Y started departure roll on Runway 22. I noticed the aircraft on Runway 12R had not started departure roll because the arrival to Runway 17 was about to turn final. Aircraft Y must have noticed the mistake and aborted takeoff on Runway 22. Aircraft X was recleared for takeoff on Runway 12R and the arrival to Runway 17 landed without further incident.  Aircraft Y taxied back to Runway 22 and departed.I accept full responsibly for this error. I am disappointed that I did not catch the call sign error. I am glad that Aircraft Y stopped. I failed in this situation. I can only try to avoid this situation in the future




Synopsis: An aircraft was cleared for takeoff with an arrival on short final for an intersecting runway. The departure saw the arriving traffic and aborted its takeoff. The Controller meant to clear a different aircraft for takeoff from a different runway which would not have been a confliction with the arrival.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Flight ORD-ZZZZ was en-route to ZZZZ with a listed alternate of ZZZ.  While flight following; a new TAF for ZZZ came out that was below alternate minimums. I sent an ACARS to the crew advising them of the situation and asked for their FOB and what they were showing landing with.  Based off of the numbers they provided me and the available airports to use to change their alternate to; there were no legal options for an alternate.  I advised crew that there was no legal alternates that we could use and advised them that we could not legally continue without a legal alternate and needed to divert to get fuel.  Captain then advised me that the TAF for ZZZZ was no longer calling for CAT II conditions and wanted to know if that changed anything.  I advised him that it did not and that we still needed to divert due to not having a legal alternate for the flight.  Captain then stated that he thought that the alternate minimums were only for dispatching and not applicable once airborne.  I advised him that the alternate needed to remain legal throughout the flight and again told him that we had no legal alternates available for use to continue the flight.  At this point he said that he was using his Captain's emergency authority and would continue onto ZZZZ.  Flight landed in ZZZZ without incident.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher informs a flight crew; after takeoff; that their alternate was no longer legal. Captain questions if he needs an alternate anymore as his destination was no longer reporting CAT II conditions. Captain decides to declare an emergency; and continue to destination after Dispatcher requests they divert for fuel to a different alternate to stay legal.