elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Other unknown
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passengers seated X4 -X5; we mentioned 4 times that the mask is required for the entire duration of the flight and they were upset.




Synopsis: Flight attendant reported two passengers had to be reminded several times about face mask policy.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Texan T6/Harvard (Antique)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Observer; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As pilot; I made a right base turn to Runway 15 and a right turn-out after a flyover of the field. Upon turning out I passed under another plane which I did not see. I was on the wrong frequency for CTAF and believed I was flying upwind but I should not have flown right turns. I realized after flying out of the area what a terrible mistake I had made and had a bad feeling in my gut. I evaluated the events that led to my lack of judgment in not following standard pattern procedures. I was clearly not fully engaged (thinking through) and complacent; which would also explain my not being on the right frequency. I can not understand how I didn't think through my action enough to feel intuitively the risk me and other to fly right turns. Then I received a call from an acquaintance informing me of the near miss. As a result I have grounded myself to take full stock of my actions; the events of the flight that led to this serious lack of attention. I now see a series of issues with the 45 minute flight that likely contributed to the situation; all dealing with me; the pilot; getting into the plane without thinking through/planning for the flight; then being inattentive and complacent in flying on a nice sunny day.




Synopsis: An AT6 pilot entered a CTAF airport on the incorrect frequency on clear day and had a near miss with an aircraft when he did not comply with this airport's established traffic pattern.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LGB.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Single Engine Turboprop Undifferentiated
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C LGB
ATC / advisory: Tower LGB
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Departing Runway 25L out of LGB. My initial clearance was to depart runway heading and at 800 feet turn left to heading of 200 and expect vectors to SLI VORTAC. Just after departure and at 300 feet Tower came on radio and ask we begin our turn to 200 and go over to departure on 127.2. As I made my turn (and climbing at 700 FPM) and switched to departure my TCAS sounded and a plane directly in my flight path was immediately visually spotted out the windscreen traveling from 3 o'clock position to my 9 0'clock position. I immediately turned the plane right to avoid. The opposing plane aggressively lowered its nose to lose altitude and avoid us as well.




Synopsis: A small aircraft pilot reported departing LGB Runway 25L and was asked by Tower to turn southwest at 200 feet. In the turn; TCAS alerted traffic nearly directly ahead.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Super King Air 350
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Beechjet 400
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While working Local Control. The Beechjet was handed off to Tower 15 miles southwest of the field on an unapproved visual approach. [The airport was] advertising the ILS approach and no prior coordination for the visual was obtained. Release obtained for the Super King Air 350 off Runway XX. Aircraft was told to hold short for traffic crossing through departure corridor. The Beechjet was told there would be a departure off Runway XX prior to his arrival. The Beechjet was turning 3 1/2 mile right base to final out of 1;700 FT descending when the Super King Air 350 was at the departure end and turning on the SID Departure out of 1;500 FT climbing. Visual separation was being applied. After the Super King Air 350 was switched to Departure; I noticed the Super King Air 350 didn't continue on the SID Departure; but turned to the northeast at the Beechjet either by the TRACON or pilot initiated. No coordination for turns off the SID Departure was obtained by the TRACON. My expectation was that the aircraft join the radial then continue a 160 heading at 2;000 FT not turn northeast at my final. All coordination for other any advertised approach on the ATIS be coordinated prior to aircraft entering our airspace. Coordination for turns in ZZZ airspace be accomplished if taken off the SID. Review and revise the wording of the SID Departure off Runway XX; this will keep the departure west of the final for Runway XY. Although I was applying visual separation I would have exchanged traffic to the Departure (the Super King Air 350) about the arrival (the Beechjet). It is unknown at this time whether the Super King Air 350 deviated off the SID Departure on his own.




Synopsis: Tower Controller voiced concern regarding the TRACON issuing a visual approach to an inbound with no prior coordination noting a developing conflict with pattern traffic.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Given clearance by Tower to taxi Taxiway A to Runway XY. Taxiway A was the west edge of the parking area. At the end of parking area there were markings for entry to Runway XY. At that I stopped; did run-up and asked Tower for takeoff clearance. He advised I was at intersection. I requested remaining runway footage. He advised 7k+ feet. I said A intersection departure was ok. He cleared me for takeoff; I turned right about 120 degrees and started takeoff run after about 100 yards of perfect pavement XXX's appeared showing a closed Runway and poor pavement; I started to abort takeoff and at the same time Tower advised to abort takeoff due to closed runway. No dangerous condition took place. In my opinion the closed XXX's should be at the beginning of the closed runway and yellow lines from taxiway to Runway XY should be in place. I was unfamiliar with the airport and the marking confusing. The Tower advised me that they have had several similar occurrences at that intersection. The Tower Manager advised they can't put the closed markings at the beginning of the runway because it is at the intersection of Runway XY; this does not make sense to me. From where I stopped and did my run-up; I would have had to make a 180 turn to enter Runway XY; this is unusual.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot reported that when he attempted to do an intersection takeoff he aborted because the runway was closed due to construction.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: BWI Approach Control was vectoring us for a visual to RWY 10 and keeping us at 3;000 ft due to traffic below us at 2;000 ft.  Approach turned us in on a short approach between COLUM and JEANS fix to Runway 10 and cleared us to 2;000 ft.  On right base we were asked if field was in sight and we acknowledged it was and we were cleared for a visual to RWY 10 and contact tower.  Crossing altitude at JEANS is 1;500 ft so pilot flying selected 1;500 to catch the glide path.  At 1;800 ft tower said they were getting a low altitude alert and cleared to land.  Pilot flying disconnected the autopilot and leveled which was just about on glide path 6.4 miles from runway. We were never below the 1;500 ft min altitude inside of COLUM and joined the glide slope normally and landed.  The approach was stable at all times.Possible short approach clearance by ATC.Better vectors by ATC or requesting extended downwind.  Possibly alert was issued due to leaving us high and us having to increase rate of descent.


Second narrative: On arrival to BWI; the Approach Controller kept us at 3;000 ft due to a Cessna at 2;000 ft. As we were turned toward the final approach segment between COLUM and JEANS on the approach; the controller gave us 2;000 ft and asked if we had the field at 1;230 and 8 miles.  We confirmed the airport in sight and we were cleared for the visual approach and told to contact Tower. Crossing alt at JEANS is 1;500 ft. We started to descend to 1;500 as we were rolling into the final at 1;800 ft in the descent the tower called a low alt alert.  We leveled the aircraft at 1;800 ft and 6.4 miles from the runway. GS was captured and normal landing accomplished no other coms about low alt alert.We were cleared for a visual approach and were descending to the Altitude at the Marker. Apparently our rate of descent may have triggered the low alt alert.  The approach controller could have extended us further out in order to give more time to descend at a slower rate since they had held us up high so long.


Synopsis: Air Carrier Flight Crew reported Low Altitude Alert from ATC on approach.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
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: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After 3 runway changes; we departed from Runway XXR at ZZZ on the ZZZZZ departure.   Takeoff and climb out was normal as I hand flew.  I was following the flight director yet I was notified by ATC that we exceeded the 10;000 restriction at ZZZZZ1.  ATC said that there was no issue but to be 'more careful next time.'  The FO was PM and responded that we were sorry.After being off for 3 months due to not being called on reserve and being paired with a FO who was having his first trip off IOE; we both talked about the imposing threat of the combination of a Captain not flying the line for 3 months plus the threat of a new freshly minted aircraft.  We decided to take things slow as much as possible and speak up if somebody is in the yellow.  Upon taxing out from ZZZ; we received 3 runway changes.   The FMS was a very challenging issue for my First Officer with respect to TPS/Takeoff performance changes.  It seemed I had to teach him how to use the 'box'.  I sensed that the First Officer was quite eager and willing to learn to reinforce what he already knew.  He told me he came from the aircraft and the box operation is completely different.  He mentioned how the schoolhouse teaches the box 'one way' and he is taught it differently 'another' way when he got to IOE.  After takeoff; I was hand flying the aircraft; yet I was following the flight director and I never received any indication to level off at 10;000 before ZZZZZ1.The combination of a Captain with no recent line experience within 90 days and a newly minted FO is an unsafe combination that may be more prevalent given the new 'normal' of reduced flying; short term leaves; and lackluster reserve usage.  This is an unsafe environment.  Despite briefing this issue and taking our time; we still found a way to circumvent some layers of procedural safety through human ignorance.  This has given me great pause on how to conduct operations in the cockpit in the future.  I have no idea why the flight director didn't keep me from busting that altitude; it was in VNAV PATH.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported missing a crossing restriction during departure and referenced lack of flying as a contributing factor.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Light load on flight. Briefing Flight Attendant on flight particulars; she mentions she has to keep first four rows of coach empty due to a weight & balance problem. She says an Agent told her this. [This is the] first I; as Captain; here of this. There is nothing on any of paperwork indicating this; no message from dispatch; nothing from Loads. How can I as Captain sign a flight release signifying I am complying with all regulations for this flight when there is a restriction I don't know about? [Multiple] times this has happened to me. A simple header on the [takeoff performance data] showing a weight restriction would solve the problem. This event occurred because the procedures in the weight&balance department don't allow the Load Agent to indicate a balance problem on the [takeoff performance data]. This needs to be changed. If there is a restriction on the airplane from the weight & balance department; the Captain needs to know about it before he/she signs the flight release; otherwise we are violating regulations.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported that a Flight Attendant advised of a passenger loading limitation affecting weight and balance which the Captain was not aware of and which was not noted on the takeoff performance data.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E PCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Flight Data / Clearance Delivery; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working the Flight Data sector when JYO called for a clearance for Aircraft X. Traffic Management Expect Departure Clearance (EDCT) times were in effect; and I received a time for Aircraft X that was 30 minutes from the current time. I relayed this to JYO and they issued the clearance. The JYO Letter of Agreement states that releases must go through the departure sector. JYO apparently forgot this and launched Aircraft X without a release from the sector. This was a full 30 minutes after they had received the EDCT time. Any controller that has been around more than a minute should understand the difference between an EDCT time and a Release time. The JYO test tower has been nothing but a nightmare. They spin IFR arrival aircraft. They delay inbounds because they cannot accept 'opposite direction' IFR arrivals. The procedures handicap the arrival sector. The controllers there consistently try to apply things like tower applied visual separation; which they are not allowed to do. JYO's proximity to IAD makes this a dangerous spot for a 'test' remote tower. This was a bad idea from the start and I believe that there will be a serious incident sooner or later because of the existence of this tower. To solve this particular issue with the EDCT time; JYO should be required to call TMU to get EDCT times for departures.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported the JYO Tower allowed an aircraft to depart before the Expect Departure Clearance Time.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Airbus 318/319/320/321 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I released flight in Operations and began my walk to the gate. At some point during my journey to the gate; our original aircraft was swapped and we were placed on Release 2. This aircraft had a maintenance deferral for an inoperative APU. As soon as I discovered the deferral; I called SFO Operations to coordinate for a ground pneumatic unit.Just as we were to begin the pneumatic ground start sequence; someone on the ground crew pulled the external power. We were then left with only battery powered equipment. I lost contact with the push crew. I began waving my arms at two individuals sitting in a baggage cart tug directly in front of the cockpit; hoping they could help get the push crew's attention; but their focus appeared to be concentrated on the cell phones they were looking at. I then opened my cockpit window and was able to attract the attention of a Supervisor and told him what had happened and requested that external power be reconnected ASAP.The actions of the ground personnel led to an unsafe situation. Disconnecting the external power without cockpit concurrence could lead to an electrical incident; not to mention; if this had occurred during the start; we would have had no way to monitor the conditions of the engine. Additionally; I would like to know why any ground personnel are allowed to be using cell phones on the ramp? Aren't there enough hazards present without being distracted by a cell phone?




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that with an inoperative APU the ground crew disconnected external power before the start and had difficulty getting the ground crew's attention to reconnect.