elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Jet/Long Ranger/206
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Special Use MILITARY AIRSPACE
ATC / advisory: Military Facility ZZZ
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While hover taxiing at a [military] training field a quadcopter drone (app. 2ft by 2ft) flew overhead of my helicopter at roughly 200 ft AGL. The training field is 1 square mile. My aircraft was in the southeast corner of the field. The drone flew over my aircraft then to the northwest until it eventually exited the training environment. There were 9 other helicopters at the field during this time. The drone flew overhead at least 3 other aircraft that were doing hover training during its transit across the field. [Military] operating altitude at this outlying field is 650 ft AGL and below. I made a call over our common training frequency to alert the other aircraft and also had the field duty officer file a report with local law enforcement.




Synopsis: Military helicopter instructor reported a NMAC with a UAV in a military training area.
Date: 202006
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I am writing to object to the narrow forbearance provided to instrument pilots under the SFAR. By limiting the modifications of recent flight experience the way that you have; a significant group of IFR pilots are being denied the ability to exercise instrument privileges unless they are willing to fly with a qualified safety pilot or an instructor; any of whom could be carriers of the virus or an unintentional victim of an infected pilot.I do not meet the present requirements for: flight hours accrued in the last 12 months; or number of instrument approaches in the last 3 months; nor do I qualify under the various types of flights the SFAR is restricted to. However; last year; I passed an IPC; a BFR; and was signed off for both a high performance endorsement and complex endorsement. Since that time I have accrued over 30 hours of solo flight time in the airplane; and flown probably 15 or more instrument approaches under VFR conditions. I feel competent to fly the airplane in instrument conditions.The limitations imposed by the SFAR in this respect; while well intended; seem to essentially negate any significant applicability to the population of instrument pilots. More consideration needs to be given to other indexes of competency; with involvement perhaps of the Instructing community to use their judgment of pilot competency in providing a subjective element to the requirements.




Synopsis: Pilot reported concerns with the limitations imposed by the SFAR concerning the ability to exercise instrument privileges.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TVC.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D TVC
ATC / advisory: Tower TVC
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
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: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was the PF (Pilot Flying) conducting a visual approach to Runway 10 at TVC. After a go around due to wind shear; we received a TCAS descending RA (Resolution Advisory) while being vectored onto the left downwind at 3000 ft. The autopilot was engaged and my aircraft had just rolled out on an assigned heading of 270 degrees. My airspeed was 200 kts. The traffic of conflict appeared to be operating under VFR. Upon initial indication of the TA (Traffic Advisory); the aircraft appeared to be at my 11 o'clock position; less than one mile; and showing an altitude of +100 above us. Within a few seconds; it was obvious to me that our aircraft were on a collision course. The TA almost immediately changed to an RA commanding an initial descent rate of 1000-1200 fpm. It was about this time that ATC first contacted us about the traffic. I promptly followed the guidance of the RA; which by now was commanding a descent of approximately 1800-2000 fpm. I maintained visual contact with the conflicting traffic; while dividing my attention with the RA guidance. The aircraft appeared to be in a descending right turn. The aircraft passed nearly overhead; and perhaps only slightly to my left; at an altitude above us I would estimate to be 300-400 ft. Shortly after passing the traffic; we received the 'clear of conflict' aural. I leveled the aircraft at 2500 ft and we received clearance for a visual approach to Runway 10. Two aircraft in very close proximity.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a NMAC with traffic not called by ATC.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While intercepting the localizer to Runway 27R; the Captain acting as flying pilot became confused and turned in the frequency to the localizer for Runway 27L.  This action was caught immediately by the flight crew and also ATC.  ATC remarked with; 'verify that you are in the turn to intercept 27R.'  This confusion had all taken place quite a distance from the field before an Approach Checklist could be run; where the  mistake would have also been identified.  An immediate action was taken place and the correction was made; there was no further remarks from ATC.




Synopsis: EMB-145LR First Officer reported Captain selected the wrong localizer frequency on approach to ORD that led to a small lateral deviation before the crew and ATC noticed.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: CH750 / Cruzer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Taxi test. Taxied on parking area - turning maneuvers and braking - the wind was light maybe 6 - 8 knots. Took it down the runway 3 times. The last trip down to run-up area could feel wind really pushing me. Decided to return to hangar. Gust caused a steep pitching motion; tried to counter with down to level. But airspeed had dropped and stalled -landing on hard on side of runway. No injury. Had to shut ELT off. One of the pilots called them to tell everything was OK. [Another pilot] told me the wind picked up suddenly and gusting to more than 22 knots also one witness observed it. [A local pilot] that came out wondering if my ELT was transmitting. I told him I had turned it off. Center had called him to investigate it. He called them and told them everything was OK.




Synopsis: Private Pilot reported loss of control during a taxi test due to a wind gust.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Second aircraft: Military Trainer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A few minutes prior to this event; a fast moving VFR target appeared and started climbing rapidly northbound towards aircraft on the FYTTE4 arrival into ORD. Traffic was called to an IFR aircraft to which aircraft called 'traffic in sight'. The second time traffic was called the VFR aircraft appeared to parallel the IFR aircraft's course. I stopped the IFR arrival twice higher. The incident in question involves the same VFR aircraft. I later found it to be Aircraft Y after I called Approach to have the Tower tell the pilot to call ZAU ARTCC after landing.Aircraft X was descending via the FYTTE4 arrival into ORD. This VFR target appeared off of Aircraft X's right side and traffic was called. The VFR target was at his 2 o'clock and 4 miles rapidly climbing out of 12000 feet unverified; type unknown at the time.  The second time the traffic was called Aircraft X responded to an RA and leveled off at 16600 feet. The VFR aircraft appeared to have climbed 4;000 feet in 29 seconds.The VFR aircraft a high performance turbojet; fighter style aircraft. In the six years I have been in this area; this aircraft routinely rapidly climbs and maneuvers very close to other aircraft especially towards aircraft descending into Chicago.  Other co-workers who have been in my area many more years than I have also have observed this.  I'm certain the pilot will say he is practicing see and avoid.  'See and avoid' and a collision between known aircraft operating in the system has a middle ground; in this case called negligence.  This is a high performance aircraft operating in a dangerous/reckless manner in very; very close proximity to other high performance turbofan aircraft. The pilot cannot plead ignorance about the nature of operations north of the airport he has been based at for many years. It is my opinion the Flight Standards should be contacted pertaining to this manner. Outside of taking away a pilot's license to operate their aircraft; you cannot force a pilot to operate in a safe manner.




Synopsis: ZAU Center Controller observed a personal high performance turbojet maneuvering in the vicinity of aircraft on arrival into ORD resulting in an RA.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan 208A
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on a VFR approach Runway XX into ZZZ. I called Unicom at this time and announced I was planning for a straight in approach for Runway XX. When I called again for a 5-6 mile final an aircraft came on the radio to announce his position it came in garbled and unreadable; so I announced on Unicom 'last aircraft to call it was unreadable.' So Aircraft X repeated and announced that he was doing a dog leg to downwind for Runway XX. He was a light experimental aircraft and I am in a turboprop airplane on an about 5 mile final; so I continued my approach. After this; Aircraft X didn't make any other calls so I assumed he was still on downwind. I announced that I was on a 3 mile final; then a short final and this aircraft did not make any more calls. When I was very short final; less than half a mile before Runway XX something to my left caught my eye and I look over: Aircraft X was 10 feet or less descending on to me and turning into me. I made quick and sharp evasive maneuvers to the right to avoid what would have been a sure midair collision. When I saw I was clear of him (because I am a faster aircraft) I continued my landing. He was unprofessional on the radio afterwards telling me that I didn't have the right away (I was lower and on final when he decided to do a short approach and descend on top of me). I cleared the runway and got my passengers safely into the terminal.




Synopsis: Cessna 208 Captain reported an NMAC with aircraft not complying with normal pattern procedures; at non towered field.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AUS.Airport, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class C AUS
ATC / advisory: Ground AUS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: On  taxi out of Austin for [Runway] 17R; Ground Control gave us Charlie 2; Charlie; [Runway] 17R. We had briefed at the gate possibly ramp to Charlie; then [Runway] 17R and also Golf 3; Golf; Charlie; [Runway] 17R. With the instructions from Ground; we both heard Golf 3 to [Runway] 17 Right. We turned left after pushed back on a 180-turn; we were headed out Golf 3; and we saw traffic on our right on Charlie and stopped. We asked Ground if they knew about the traffic; and at that time he told us we were taxiing the wrong direction. He said he gave us Charlie 2. We had to look at the 10-9 page and see that there is no Charlie 2. So we were confused as to where he wanted us to taxi. We got a second confirmation on the taxi instructions and headed to 17R with no further incidences.  The Jepps 10-9 does not indicate C2. [We need a] correction to the 10-9 page. The parking and gate page shows C2.


Second narrative: After pushback; Ground gave us taxi instructions C2-C-Runway 17R. We heard G2 and should have inquired about missing G Taxiway in assignment. Starting a turn onto G Taxiway we learned of the mix-up and checked the taxi diagram but didn't see C2 on the 10-9. After getting confirmation from Ground we taxied G-G3-into the ramp then C2-C-Runway 17R.As the Pilot Monitoring I should have asked more questions regarding our clearance to clarify; but I would like to see C2 on the 10-9 if ATC is going to use C2 instead of ramp phraseology.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported a taxi deviation occurred when Ground referenced a taxiway not charted on their 10-9 page.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During landing rollout; nose wheel began to shake violently. While braking to turn off on assigned taxiway the nose gear collapsed. The aircraft came to a stop on the runway. The instructor communicated the nose gear fault to Tower who visually confirmed it. Both student and instructor exited the aircraft while leaving the avionics on to maintain communication with Tower. They stood by the aircraft while a tractor came to tow the aircraft back to the hangar under Tower's authority.




Synopsis: Sky Arrow instructor pilot reported the nose gear collapsed during taxi after landing.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After the completion of prearrival service all 6 FAs were in the back galley securing carts and service items when we hit turbulence. Since there are only three jumpseats in the back of the airplane; and there were 6 FAs working some of us had to sit on the floor; with nothing to hold on to.Last row of seats should always be blocked for FA use; in the event of turbulence; if more jumpseats are not added.




Synopsis: B787 Flight Attendant reported there are not enough jump seats in the aft cabin during turbulence events.
Date: 201912
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Tarmac concrete is rough-it provides friction. Lead in lines use thick non-porous paint which the aircraft nose gear drives on. When wet/covered in melted salt or deicing fluid; the nose wheels get no traction. I have seen nose slide on the line after parked in wet conditions when windy; and slow moving aircraft skid when line is wet. On this flight; the parking personnel had the plane needing to turn. The nose wheel turned; but the aircraft continued in an inertia inspired Newton's 1st law way...it continued on its original path. The pilots turned the nose gear more; and the aircraft still continued in on its original course. When the plane came to rest; without adjusting; the parking personnel told the crew they still needed to move forward; but they were as close to the park spot as possible; moving forward would have just made it worse.




Synopsis: Ground employee painted taxi-in line reported to be slippery when wet.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Leading Edge Slat
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During initial climb-out during the slat / flap retraction period; the slat fail message appears. The checklist was run in the QRH and we limited our speed to 210 KTS and limited our climb with ATC to FL200. After running the checklist; the message did not clear and it was visually confirmed that the slats were still down. After conferring with Dispatch and Maintenance Control via radio; the decision was made to divert. On approach; the slats failed to come down from 3 to full. The Captain declared an emergency at this point and we landed.




Synopsis: An ERJ-175 CAS alerted SLAT FAIL during climb out so the climb was continued to FL200 where the decision was make to divert and on approach the slats remained at 3.