elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cirrus Aircraft Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was practicing commercial takeoffs and landings with my student on [date] in Aircraft X. I was on IWA tower frequency at [time]. My student and I were in the right downwind for 30R when we heard tower clear a Cirrus aircraft to turn crosswind inside of us. This is routine at IWA and means that the aircraft will turn crosswind in front of us making us number 2 behind that aircraft. My student and I both looked for the traffic assuming that he would be in front of us. We were told to extend downwind for that other aircraft because they had requested a short approach. We did not see the Cirrus in front; so we looked at the traffic page on the MFD to find that we had an aircraft 200 feet below us directly abeam our right wing. I took control of the radio from my student to query ATC about whether that aircraft was supposed to be there because he was in the process of overtaking us in the traffic pattern between our aircraft and the runway. We had received no prior warning from the tower controller about this. Tower responded; 'the Cirrus is slightly behind to your right; he's passing you off the right and has you in sight; he's inside of you for a 1000 pattern short approach; you're extending downwind'. I responded that I was simply ensuring that the traffic would be no factor for us. In an unfriendly tone; tower responded 'He is no issue; I'm working the pattern here'. We were unable to accurately estimate the lateral distance of the Cirrus aircraft from us; though we were approximately 0.9nm from runway 30R when this occurred; and the other aircraft was far enough away from 30R to make a traffic pattern as well.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported a near mid air collision while engaged in pattern work on a training flight.
Date: 201908
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
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: Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: My duty period began [in the early evening] as a short call reserve. I was called out to cover [a transatlantic flight]; departing [late that night]. I arrived at flight operations and learned that due to late inbound equipment our flight was delayed [about 35 minutes]. At that time I felt that I was still fit for duty and confirmed this electronically. About half way to [the destination]; it became apparent to me that the First Officer and I would struggle to remain awake; much less alert; for the remainder of the flight. We used all available techniques including caffeine; standing and taking lavatory breaks; turning up all cockpit lights; etc.; and still I found myself nodding off at the controls. It should be noted that while most international flights from [the East Coast] to Europe are augmented this particular flight is not. As the sun rose that helped to increase our alertness and as we entered the descent and arrival phase adrenaline allowed us to perform our duties with only minor lapses of SOP which were quickly corrected; such as forgetting to reset the altimeter descending through the transition level.It is my sincere belief; having flown internationally for over 22 years; that unaugmented operations on North Atlantic tracks at night are inherently unsafe. With the best of planning and intentions the airline can simply not take into account the effect of delays; which happen frequently; maintenance issues; adverse weather; and other contingencies that can affect the performance and readiness of aircrews on those [flights]. I do realize that according to FAR 117 these operations are legal; but legal does not always equate to being safe; and I believe we; as professional aviators and airline companies have a duty and a moral responsibility to provide the safest service that we can to our passengers. By eliminating relief pilots on certain transatlantic flights; especially those that depart late at night; airlines are compromising safety for the sake of profits.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported having difficulty staying awake and alert on an unaugmented transatlantic flight and stated this type of operation is unsafe.
Date: 201308
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I told a Cessna to go around because the Cessna that landed before him was still on the runway; in the process of the go around the aircraft appeared to try to land and for the second time I told him to go around again and make left traffic. It looked like the aircraft was making a an early left cross wind turn and the aircraft rapidly lost altitude and impacted the ground.




Synopsis: Tower Controller witness an aircraft issued a go around turn crosswind and failing to climb impacted the ground.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Tank
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Returning from a camping trip; while descending over mountains east of ZZZ near ZZZ1 the fuel low level light came on; I checked the fuel and the sight gauge on the right tank showed half full indicating at least 6.5 gallons of fuel. The left tank sight gauge showed empty. Shortly after that the fuel pressure began to fluctuate and the engine began surging. I turned on the second boost pump and moved the stick around to try and keep the engine running. The engine continued to surge but did not quit. However the engine power was not enough to maintain altitude. I continued to descend and decided I would not make the airport. At that time I picked an open; grass field and landed. There was no damage to the aircraft nor any injuries. I called a friend to bring me some fuel. When he arrived I added 8 gallons to the left tank. I had help in pushing the aircraft up onto the county road at which time I started the engine and ran it up to full power. The engine ran with no adverse indications. I took off from the county road and flew to ZZZ. I rechecked the engine operation after topping off both tanks. On my continued trip to my home field; at altitude I turned the left tank valve off. Within 8 to 10 minutes the fuel low level light would illuminate. Turning the left tank back on would extinguish the light. I will be examining the right tank fuel feed system as there could be some kind of blockage.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported making an off airport landing due to fuel starvation.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small UAS; Multi Rotor
Operator: Commercial Operator (UAS)
Operating under: Part 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Commercial Operator (UAS)
Reporter function: Person Manipulating Controls (UAS); Remote PIC (UAS)
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Remote Pilot (UAS); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Training / Qualification; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other post flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Software and Automation; Procedure; Airport; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Myself; acting as RPIC was conducting an equipment test flight to ascertain if UAS was locked out due to software limitations inside Class D at ZZZ.  This airspace based on manufacturer Self Unlocking is classified as an Enhanced Warning Zone. I had filed an authorization request through LAANC on Day 0 for a commercial flight on Day 4 for real estate photo of a residence which was cancelled automatically by Aloft 24 hours before the proposed start time as no definitive response was received from the FAA. I was not totally familiar with LAANC procedures with certain airspace's requiring a manual FAA review as opposed to real time authorization.  I have now totally reviewed these procedures to avoid a subsequent occurrence.RPIC for this flight operated within the Enhanced Warning Zone at ZZZ without proper authorization for a real estate photo shoot. I had filed a request for this flight on Day 0 which was subsequently cancelled by Aloft on Day 3 for 'no definitive response received from FAA.' I then filed a request through Drone Zone hoping I would get approval on Day 4 which I received [days later].  This was wishful thinking and poor judgement on my part and I should have rescheduled this job until I had authorization in hand.  I have also thoroughly re familiarized myself on the procedures for airspace authorization with Aloft.




Synopsis: Part 107 UAS pilot used the LAANC system to request authorization for a flight within controlled airspace. The request was not approved and the pilot continued with the flight in controlled airspace.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Maintenance
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After deplaning I was notified by ZZZ Maintenance that the DG container door was found off the DG container resting on the inside main cargo deck door. When I looked inside the DG container I could tell that the DG cargo was properly loaded and secured and the fire extinguisher hose was properly attached. The ZZZ OFF LOAD CREW informed me that the only peculiarity was the DG can door was not attached. During the flight we did experience some light to moderate turbulence enroute to our destination.  When I talked to the ZZZ Hazmat Specialist; we hypothesized that it could have been possible that the door was placed onto the Hazmat can unlocked and became dislodged after we hit the moderate turbulence. Utilizing a verification procedure to help crosscheck important items.


Second narrative: After deplaning I was notified by ZZZ Maintenance that the DG container door was found off the DG container resting on the inside main cargo deck door. When I looked inside the DG container I could tell that the DG cargo was properly loaded and secured and the fire extinguisher hose was properly attached. The ZZZ OFF LOAD CREW informed me that the only peculiarity was the DG can door was not attached. During the flight we did experience some light to moderate turbulence enroute to our destination.  When I talked to the ZZZ Hazmat Specialist; we hypothesized that it could have been possible that the door was placed onto the Hazmat can unlocked and became dislodged after we hit the moderate turbulence. Utilizing a verification procedure to help crosscheck important items.  Possibly adding a verification procedure by either another Hazmat Loading Specialist or the First Officer during the Hazmat inspection to ensure the door is properly latched in place and won't come lose during significant turbulence and to ensure doors are installed during rushed or late operations.


Synopsis: A300 flight crew reported being notified by arrival Ramp Personnel of Hazmat configuration issue regarding a Hazmat container.
Date: 201906
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The [electronic fuel monitoring system] showed that we were out of tolerance on the high side for gallons boarded. I asked for the fueler to come speak to us. When I showed him the [electronic fuel monitoring system] and asked him to explain it; he was unable to do so. He knew nothing about gallons tolerance; and he seemed confused when I asked him if perhaps the density was incorrect. He said he just pumped in enough gallons to give us the fuel we requested. At that point I asked him to have his Supervisor come speak to us. The Supervisor told us that the fueler had used an incorrect density number. The fueler used 6.75; and the actual density was 6.67. I asked how this could happen. He replied that the density number is just typed into the device the fueler uses to transmit the fuel uplift information; and that it isn't updated very often. He also said that the same thing occurred on the previous day.I don't understand this answer at all. How can the person pumping fuel not understand the concept of fuel density? And how can the density number be entered into an electronic transmission device and not updated with some frequency? This is my second [report] this year about fueling issues in BOS. There might be some training and/or process issues going on here.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported receiving more fuel than required and questioning fueler as to why.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RIC.Tower, VA
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C RIC
ATC / advisory: TRACON RIC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Flight Data / Clearance Delivery; Ground; Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working on ground control/clearance delivery and Controller in Charge (CIC). We had light traffic so I decided to help a developmental go over a few items for training. Runway 2 had just closed about 20-30 minutes ago. It was numerous vehicles on runway 2 for mowing and other things that the airport was doing to the closed runway. I looked up to the radar screen and noticed that there was an aircraft inbound for closed runway 2. I quickly called the radar sector and told them that the runway was closed and that is when the local control heard me say it. He then told said 'aircraft x change to runway 34; runway 34 clear to land'. The aircraft responded with 'uggghhh do we really have to'? The local controller said 'yes; the runway is closed'. The aircraft was about on a 3 mile final by this time and he had to turn the airplane quickly to the east and had to set up for runway 34.Personnel need to pay attention more and don't allow any distractions get in their way of working. The memory aid that we have is not in plain view. I think it should be moved.




Synopsis: Richmond Tower Controller reported seeing an aircraft on final to a closed runway. Reporter called TRACON and advised. Reporter then heard local change an aircraft on 3 mile final to a different runway.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A310
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Lubrication Oil
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approaching level off altitude of FL350; we got an ECAM advisory of low oil on the Number 1 Engine. All other parameters were fine so after level off we retarded the throttle per the QRH to see if that would affect the quantity. It remained low (less than 2 quarts) but the other parameters still showed normal. We sent a quick message to Dispatch to see if Maintenance had any thoughts; but before they could respond; we saw a slight fluctuation in oil pressure. ZZZ was about 100 miles in front of us so I decided to divert. I declared an emergency and sent Dispatch a quick message that we were going to ZZZ. Engine parameters remained in the normal range and there were no ECAM alerts; so we kept the engine at idle for the arrival. I took over as pilot flying 40 miles out and we made a flaps 20 landing. On rollout we got the Engine 1 low oil red ECAM; so we shut the engine down after we exited the runway. We taxied to the ramp with no other problems. The loss of engine oil caused us to divert and I declared an emergency because of the possibility of an engine shut down.




Synopsis: A310 Captain experiences low engine oil quantity upon reaching FL350 with all other parameters normal. When oil pressure fluctuation is noted the decision to divert is made and an emergency is declared. With good oil pressure the engine is operated throughout the approach and landing. During roll out the oil pressure light illuminates and the engine is shut down.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TRL.Airport, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb; Cruise; Final Approach; Landing; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E D10
ATC / advisory: CTAF TRL
Aircraft component: VHF
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Sea; Flight Crew Rotorcraft; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: In the vicinity of Terrell; TX. Airport (TRL); numerous operators/aircraft/other airfields use same CTAF frequency 122.8; which results in highly cluttered frequency which is barely usable. Numerous 'stepped-on' calls occur. Evaluating local area radio frequencies and amount of radio traffic on 122.8 in this location; changing some if necessary; would enhance aviation safety!




Synopsis: Pilot landing TRL experiences excessive use of the CTAF 122.8 resulting in stepped on and missed communications. Reporter suggests that the frequency be evaluated and perhaps the number of airports in the area using 122.8 could be reduced.