elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CAE.Airport, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground CAE
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: While taxing on our ramp; I called Ground and reported at Taxiway Delta. The Controller gave us an extensive taxi clearance for Runway 11 that began at Taxiway Foxtrot. Since we were already at Delta; we could not make the turn on our ramp to comply with the clearance. We advised the Controller and he gave us a different route to taxi to Runway 11. Later; we realized that the new 10-08 and 10-09 taxi plates are different than our company 10-10 plate and that the markings depicted on the plates are different than the markings on the ramp. This led to some confusion on our part and we could have stopped a little sooner; so that we could comply with the Controller's request.


Second narrative: We could have stopped a little sooner; so we could have complied with the Controller's initial clearance. All charts should indicate the same information; even if there is construction with temporary charts. Also; if we are supposed to report from a numbered spot; have that on the 10-9 chart as well.


Synopsis: A crew exited the CAE cargo ramp and were confused by ATC's taxi instructions using newly designated taxiways on 10-8 and 10-9 CAE airport diagrams which the crew did not have.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SUX.Airport, IA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower SUX
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I planned to fly to 7K8 and immediately return. I traveled with another pilot with his private pilot license. I did my flight planning on my iPad with current FlyQ maps and weather information. I did not file a flight plan. I was also using the airplane GPS unit with Nexrad. The weather conditions were clear skies; and mild wind conditions. The recent snow covered all but the cleared highway/runways. After achieving our desired altitude; the onboard GPS malfunctioned. We had a current sectional on hand as well and we were able to easily identify the correct course as it runs along the I29 interstate. While my passenger was trying to fix the GPS; I obtained the current weather information on ATIS. I contacted Approach for SUX to obtain clearance to enter their airspace. They granted my clearance and issued a squawk code and confirmed my altitude. 7K8 is within SUX airspace and is about 4 miles from the SUX airfield. I told SUX that my destination was 7K8. I could see what I thought was the 7k8 runway and continued my approach and descent. I was not contacted by SUX during this time. I landed and saw the Control Tower and immediately knew that I had landed at SUX. I contacted the Tower to acknowledge my error. The Tower then gave me the option of doing a 'touch and go' and takeoff or I could taxi off the runway and obtain clearance to take off. I thought it better to taxi off the runway and 'regroup' to make sure I was clear about the 7K8 route. I was cleared for takeoff and flew to 7K8 where I landed. I then taxied back and took off toward [original departure airport]. I was contacted by SUX Departure and asked to call the Tower on my landline once I got to my destination. Upon getting back; I called the landline for SUX. I spoke with one of the controllers and explained why I had issues. I asked him what if anything I needed to do; and he instructed me that I did not need to file any report; but I should expect a letter from the FAA. He told me that this was a formality; but that he didn't anticipate any significant action.




Synopsis: A general aviation pilot landed at the tower controlled airport (SUX) without a clearance after overflying a non-towered airport with similar runway alignment located within 5 nautical miles.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Corporate
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Our operation was just notified on Date 3 that our aircraft registration expired on Date 1. I operated one training flight as SIC. The flight was on Date 2. I am guilty of just looking to ensure that the document was on the airplane; while completely disregarding my duty to ensure that it was valid. A contributing factor to this is that the aircraft registration is addressed to our company headquarters; which is a different address than our operations base hangar. Due to COVID related staffing at our headquarters; our FAA reminder postcards were never delivered to our hangar. Again; it is my responsibility as a flying crew member to ensure that the correct paperwork is on the aircraft prior to each flight. We have instituted the following changes to ensure that this does not happen again: 1) Added the registration expiration to our maintenance tracking software. This will flag our maintenance team when expiration is close to occurrence. This will also be printed on the preflight form that all pilots utilize. 2) Training will occur and language will be added to our General Operations Manual (GOM) and/or expanded normal procedures document emphasizing the action to ensure that a valid registration is onboard the aircraft. 3) A consultancy company has been hired in ZZZ1 to automatically renew our registration and deliver it directly to our hangar.




Synopsis: Pilot reported flying an aircraft without current registration.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was cleared to land Runway 9 but due to the similarity between this flight and the flight a few days earlier; I set myself up on final for Runway 34. Tower caught my mistake and I executed a go-around. Tower restated my clearance to land Runway 9; but as my mind was preoccupied with my prior mistake; I started flying Right downwind for Runway 16. I was again saved by Tower who gave me a westerly heading for a left downwind to Runway 9.This was my second solo flight since earning my PPL and was also only my second solo flight in this aircraft. The Archer III flown during the incident utilizes a glass cockpit and is G1000 equipped. I've talked this incident over with a few flight instructors and will; from now on; use my airport diagram to verify which runway to land on and how to enter the pattern for the intended runway.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot reported several heading deviations while maneuvering for landing.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MYR.Tower, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C MYR
ATC / advisory: Tower MYR
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
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 New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X departed. Aircraft X was on an IFR flight plan departing to the northeast. His final altitude requesting was 5;000 feet. I glanced at the flight strip and for some reason thought he was VFR requesting 5;500 feet. Aircraft Y was northeast; southwest bound; IFR at 4;000 feet. I knew the two aircraft would possibly be a factor for one another so I assigned Aircraft X 3;500 feet for an altitude based on my wrong assumption that he was VFR. The two aircraft crossed about 2 miles from one another and slightly diverging at about 500 feet based on the altitude I had assigned. When the traffic was no longer a factor I tried to climb Aircraft X to 5;500 feet and the pilot questioned the altitude and at that time I realized my mistake. I then assigned him the correct altitude of 5;000 feet. I had just taken the position from another controller and I believe I may have looked at the wrong flight strip and also I did not notice the data block not indicating VFR. I think I made a false assumption in my mind when the aircraft departed and never double checked. I think simply my lack of awareness led to the error. I was fully aware that the two aircraft needed to be separated and I took action but used wrong separation minima based on thinking that Aircraft X was VFR. Be more aware of flight information on flight strips and data blocks. Also don't make assumptions about aircraft and their status. My scanning probably should have caught the error. Additionally when initially taking a control position be more aware that errors may occur.




Synopsis: A Controller thought an IFR aircraft was VFR. The Controller assigned the aircraft an altitude 500 feet below another IFR aircraft.
Date: 201601
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: Tower SEA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While on approach for Runway 16L at SEA we passed FINKA (the FAF) and was finishing the configuration for an approach when SEA Tower gave us a go around. We were at 1;400 feet slowing through 145 knots and fully configured. The instructions were 'go around; fly heading 200 climb to 2;000 feet. Contact approach'. We complied no problem. We were boxed around for another approach. At the exact same location we received the exact same instructions. Another go around. This time though as we were turning and climbing the controller's voice [switched].The (trainer I think) started to insist that we acknowledge the go around. My First Officer told him to stand by. The controller then started to lecture us on his need for an acknowledgement. I told him we were busy; but he kept lecturing us. The controller was creating a hazardous situation when we were very busy. He then switched us to Departure where we got vectored back for another approach and we stated that we were now minimum fuel. We were down to about 2;000 LBS total. This time we landed with no problems with the [the original] controller working the local control position. My problem is; that when I was working Towers; the fact that we were complying with the instructions was acknowledgement and they could look at their radar and see our track turning and the data block showing an increase in altitude. [The controller's] lectures [were] very distracting and caused a very dangerous situation at a critical time of very high workload.Got too close to the preceding aircraft on approach. We held the required 170 knots until FINKA then slowed.




Synopsis: An aircraft was issued go-around instructions for two approaches in a row. The pilot felt they were too busy to read back the ATC instructions.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear Indicating System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While on final to Runway XXL and descending toward 1;500 [feet] I called 'gear down; flaps 15; landing checklist.' Both my First Officer and I heard a momentary gear warning horn. Looking at the gear lights we noticed three red gear lights along with the normal three green lights. Looking at the overhead paned we saw three green lights. We both commented that the gear was down and safe. We continued the approach considering that maybe the lights may go out with further configuration changes. The lights remained on and at 500 feet AGL we got a 'too low gear' audio warning. I called for a missed approach. The red lights went out with the gear retraction. We ran the 'Gear Disagree' checklist. Since the lights were out at that time I elected to leave the GPWS circuit breaker; the final item on the checklist; in. We planned that during the next approach we would extend the gear early and if the same lights illuminated we would be able to finish the final item; if necessary; for a safe landing. We returned for another approach; the red lights never came on and the approach and landing were normal and eventful.




Synopsis: After a B737 landing gear was selected down both GREEN and RED indicator lights were ON and when TOO LOW GEAR warning sounded at 500 feet a go-around was executed. Upon returning for a second approach all indications were normal.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FLO.Tower, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D FLO
ATC / advisory: Tower FLO
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While taking off of Runway 19 from FLO we spotted traffic; a light helicopter; and were advised of the traffic.  The FLO Tower also notified the helicopter that it had traffic (us) passing on its left. The helicopter responded to the effect; 'Okay turning left.'  The helicopter then made a left hand turn into our flight path requiring me to take control of the aircraft (the First Officer didn't have visual on the helicopter) to maneuver it out of the flight path of the helicopter. I estimate that the helicopter was with in a few hundred feet horizontally of my aircraft at the same altitude. We saw the helicopter in close proximity.  This event occurred because we were given a takeoff clearance with traffic in the departure corridor of our runway. It also occurred because the helicopter misunderstood communication from the Tower that wasn't corrected by the Tower upon the helicopter's erroneous read back. I took control of the aircraft made a turn to avoid striking the helicopter; then notified ATC of our deviation from assigned heading. Returned aircraft back to the First Officer after clearing the conflict and then obtained a new clearance. This event could have been avoided if the Tower Controller would have instructed the helicopter clear of the departure end of the runway prior to launching us. It could have also been avoided if the Tower Controller would have corrected the erroneous read back of the traffic call from the helicopter.




Synopsis: Air Carrier departure from FLO experienced a conflict with a helicopter; both aircraft were advised of one another but ATC failed to hear an incorrect read back by the helicopter resulting in the conflict.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: B737-800 checked on my frequency after take off climbing to 10;000 FT on a ZZZZZ departure. North departures were 10 miles in trail to the Center's airspace and being vectored due to weather over the other normally used fixes. B737-800 on initial call asked if the speed restriction could be deleted. I replied that he was RADAR contact and negative on deleting the speed. Prior to ZZZZY I assigned B737-800 250 KTS until advised due to the 10 miles in trail. When B737-800 approached the Victor airway; I instructed him to turn left heading 360 to avoid the weather over ZZZZZ; he advised that he wished to stay on his routing. My concern was had I left him go directly to ZZZZZ he would want to deviate farther east and enter the area where the northeast arrivals were. The pilot was not following my instructions and at one point said he was declaring an emergency. I asked if he wished to return to ZZZ and he replied negative that he wanted to continue heading 030 towards the arrival corridor. After several more transmissions back and forth between B737-800 and myself; he finally accepted the 360 heading but advised that I had taken him through heavy precipitation. At the time my RADAR display was showing light to moderate precipitation to the west of where I was vectoring the north departures and moderate to heavy precipitation to the east of ZZZYY over the ZZZZZ area. My display was not showing any precipitation on the Victor airway in the area that I vectored this and the preceding departures. I was shown a Falcon replay shortly after the event and the area that I was vectoring the departures through was showing weather that was NOT displayed on my RADAR scope. Recommendation; find out why my display was not showing the same weather that the pilot was seeing and that the Falcon replay was showing.




Synopsis: Tracon Controller described an unsafe event when issuing departure vectors that reportedly resulted in an air carrier traversing heavy precipitation. The Controller indicated a 'Falcon' replay displayed different weather that the operational display revealed at the time.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: Gulfstream G200 (IAI 1126 Galaxy)
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E NCT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I released Aircraft X from LVK airport on the LVK3 departure. The aircraft checked in 018 climbing to 040 on the departure procedure. I asked him to IDENT and issued traffic 1 mile away indicating 036. I told the aircraft radar contact and issued a turn to heading of 360 and climbed the aircraft to 100 when the aircraft was leaving 026. I had to reissue the turn and climb to the aircraft for additional traffic that was along his course at 029 indicated. The aircraft then advised that he was responding to an RA and descended into a 038 MVA to 022 when I issued a 'Low Altitude Alert' to the aircraft before Aircraft X started a climb to 100.LVK airport is in a valley with no radar/radio coverage to approach control you cannot talk to the aircraft until almost 020 with the aircraft climbing to 040 on the departure procedure. I recommend they expand the Delta to 4000 to the north to protect the departures from the airport.




Synopsis: NorCal TRACON Controller reported an unsafe situation with a departure off of Livermore airport.