elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LGB.Airport, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower LGB
Second aircraft: Fighter
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I just relieved the previous controller; I was working normal pattern traffic and VFR ins and outs. Aircraft X called for a departure; left standard; then changed to left crosswind at river. I built a window for the departure. Ground Control asked me for a crossing of 25L at Lima and Bravo twice. I gave the crossing at Lima; and with a restriction for traffic on the runway; Bravo twice.  I had planned to use Line Up and Wait (LUAW) for Aircraft X; but because of the tower staffing being marginal; Controller In Charge (CIC) was combined with Clearance Delivery (CD); and LUAW was not authorized. I remembered that; so I didn't line Aircraft X up. When I observed the landing aircraft clear the runway; I cleared Aircraft X for takeoff; forgetting about the crossing. When Aircraft X rounded the corner; the first crossing was complete. The ground controller alerted me that they were still crossing one more; and was able to stop the second aircraft Y in the flight before they crossed the hold bars. I cancelled Aircraft X's takeoff clearance; they exited them from F1 and the second Aircraft Y crossed without incident.I need to be more focused coming into the position. Having adequate staffing numbers for the facility to be able to use LUAW throughout all busy hours would help. Realistically; most Certified Professional Controllers (CPC) here ignore the rules of LUAW for the sake of the operational efficiency.




Synopsis: LGB Tower Controller reported that there was approval for two aircraft to cross the runway. After one crossed the Controller reported that they cleared an aircraft for takeoff. Ground Control advised Local Control of the second aircraft that was cleared to cross. Local cancelled the takeoff clearance before the crossing aircraft crossed the hold short bars.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; 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 Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While on an IFR flight plan to ZZZ; I had a near midair collision; NMAC; with another aircraft not talking with ATC and had to immediately take evasive action to avoid the other aircraft by climbing.The other aircraft was less than a half-mile away; closing within 50 degrees of a head-on collision and level at our assigned altitude of 3;000 feet MSL. The other aircraft flew directly under us within 200-300 feet from what we could tell and took no action to maneuver away from us. ATC had given us a Traffic Advisory call; saying; 'Traffic; 2;700 feet and at your 1 o'clock; northbound; unknown type.' I could see them on ADS-B In and saw that they were actually in a slight climb and then leveled off at 3;000 about 10 seconds after the traffic call-out. ADS-B In showed 0 feet vertical separation. Because of this; I was vigilantly staring at my 12 to 1 o'clock looking for them. [I] saw them closing towards us and in less than a second; I pulled up and gained 300 feet Less than 2 seconds later; they passed directly under us.After ensuring they were no longer a factor; I began correcting our altitude back down to our assigned altitude of 3;000 feet and called ATC to let them know we had a NMAC. He said; 'I showed that traffic at 2;700 feet' again and didn't ask anything more about the situation. I feel like ATC should have done more to separate us and given us a vector away from the closing traffic. Yes; at that moment; we were in VMC and were able to avoid at the last moment; but we had just emerged from the clouds and only saw the traffic as we got around the corner of another cloud. If we had reacted seconds later; I feel [that] we would've collided.




Synopsis: C172 Pilot reported a NMAC and states that ATC could have done more in the way of separation.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Flight plan: IFR
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: After takeoff with positive rate of climb; the gear was selected up. The gear handle stopped only halfway. I left the gear selected in the down position and figured that we would gain altitude and check it out. I looked out the front and saw a flock of geese. I said it out loud to make sure the pilot flying had seen them; however there was nowhere to go. We then heard and felt geese hit the plane. The left engine indications became erratic and we decided to return for landing. I informed the tower of what had happened and our intentions. We were cleared to enter downwind and land. I then heard someone say that our left engine was smoking. We had gained enough altitude to make the decision to shut the left engine off; especially with the indications we were getting and the fact that it was reported smoking. We landed cautiously with the knowledge that the gear was down during the bird strike and could potentially be damaged. The landing was normal and we taxied to parking.




Synopsis: Distracted by a landing gear that failed to retract; the flight crew of a BAE-125-850XP noted a gaggle of geese too close ahead to avoid; and felt one or more strike the aircraft. The impact was followed by erratic indications and a report of smoke from the left engine heard over the radio. They performed an inflight shut down; and returned to their departure airport for an uneventful landing.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A couple along with their lap child got on the plane toward the end of boarding. Their assigned seats were X1 and X3. They wanted to sit together and they asked the man in X4 if he would be willing to switch but he said no. I talked to the gate agent and asked if Y3 was still being blocked off for social distancing. The gate agent said that it was blocked off. The man in Y4 said he was willing to switch but I informed everyone about the seat being blocked and Passenger X got argumentative with me asking why they couldn't move. I apologized and told them that it was blocked for social distancing for the flight attendants. He got upset and asked me for my name. In flight he was busy with the lap child so I gave his wife my name and employee number. About halfway through the flight they both had their masks off and they were not eating or drinking anything. I had my B Flight Attendant tell them to put their masks on because they didn't have an issue with her. Passenger X informed her that his broke so she gave him a replacement.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger became argumentative when told they could not switch seats due to social distancing.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TUPJ.Airport, VI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower TUPJ
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Out of TUPJ; we called for taxi and clearance. Common to get it all at once at this airport. The controller gave us Taxiway D to the active runway and immediately spit out the clearance at a fast speed. We held position as my partner tried several more times to understand the clearance. The Controller seemed to get irritated as we tried to figure out his instructions. The island accent and pace of his instructions were making it difficult. We finally got it in the box as he instructed us to expedite the back taxi for he had two aircraft inbound. We did so and then took off. After takeoff he told us to contact departure and to 'next time wait for takeoff clearance.' No further communication took place as we switched to departure. We both believe he gave us takeoff clearance. Slower communication from ATC. It is very difficult to understand the accent. Patience from ATC. If he felt rushed; he should have stopped us from continuing onto the runway.




Synopsis: A Captain reported TUPJ ATC was very difficult to understand but with effort the clearance and taxi instructions were completed. After back taxiing on the runway he took off without clearance because he misunderstood the Controller.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: With the new rule about changing data blocks in some one else's airspace people are routinely either calling on every climbing or descending aircraft to get control; slowing the sector down to sometimes unsafe conditions or just changing the data block which is against the rules. This needs to be fixed now!Change the rule fast before this causes an accident.




Synopsis: ZAU Controller describes a rule change about data blocks and how people are calling for permission to change the data block creating more work for the sector.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RYY.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: HS 125 Series
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E A80
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On a re-positioning flight to RYY at 3000 ft Atlanta ATC cleared us for a visual approach to Runway 27. Shortly after; ATC called traffic for us at 1000-1100 o'clock and 2500 ft. I saw the traffic on TCAS but at this time had no visual. Watching said traffic on TCAS; I saw it go from 500 ft below to 400; 300; 200. TCAS gave us an RA and I complied. As I climbed; I got a visual on the aircraft. Though I saw the aircraft; I continued complying with the RA until we were at approximately 3800 ft. I asked ATC who the aircraft was and they told us they were not talking to them. While I realize he is running a business and we all share the airspace; keeping your 'head on a swivel' is definitely something everyone should practice. In his type of operation; I would suggest that he keeps open communications with Atlanta and local towers.




Synopsis: HS125 Captain reported an NMAC on arrival into RYY.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Wiring & Connectors
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At about 25 minutes out; our Flight Attendant reported some light white smoke that came out around seat XA accompanied by a small amount of electrical smell. This was also confirmed by a jumpseating Flight Attendant who also voiced his concerns about the smell and the smoke. There was no smoke build up noted but a small amount of white smoke appeared to linger according to them. We checked our systems via the MFD pages and found nothing unusual while we prepared the QRH for smoke/fire in the cabin. The Captain turned off the recirculation fan as a precaution. After hearing the same report more than three times from the our Flight Attendant and that same report being confirmed by the jumpseating Flight Attendant and the passenger seated at row X; we decided to declare an emergency. We were already on the arrival so we proceeded to the original destination. We did not see any smoke in the cockpit but I did detect that electrical smell for a brief moment only right before we got the first call from our Flight Attendant. We were cleared direct and received priority for the ILS approach. Emergency crew and equipment were waiting upon our arrival and they found no signs of fire. Maintenance was also on board after the fire department crew left. We acted on the conservative end by declaring emergency in case there was indeed a fire and a valid source of smoke. We did not run the QRH as we did not find any concrete reason to do so but felt the need to get expedited handling by ATC so we can get on the ground as soon as possible.




Synopsis: EMB145 Captain is informed of electrical smoke and fumes emanating from a row of seats by a Flight Attendant. The recirculation fan is turned off as a precaution. After being informed of further smoke and smell incidents the Captain elects to declare an emergency and lands safely at the destination airport.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were in a hold over SAC VOR at about 3;000 ft. with flight following from North Cal. Another aircraft (CE-172?) came within 300 ft. vertical separation (according to my Stratus 3 and ForeFlight display on iPad). The pilot of the other aircraft involved in this encounter (CE-172?) also reported to North Cal that his ForeFlight warned of being close to our aircraft. That day there were a lot of aircraft in the area (according to Stratus 3 and Foreflight display).




Synopsis: Pilot reported a NMAC with a Cessna while holding over the Sacramento VOR.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: MD-83
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Air Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departed. On climbout; Master Warning for a TAIL COMP TEMP HIGH. Accomplished Immediate Action Items declared an emergency returned to the departure airport. Aircraft had a previous history; of this problem. Captain called it a night.




Synopsis: A MD-83 TAIL COMP TEMP HIGH and Master Warning alerted after takeoff; so an emergency was declared and the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aborted takeoff due to negative engine spool up. Actually; I find it very depressing that the FAA now defines a rejected takeoff as a pilot deviation. It has always been my impression that the safety reporting program was designed to improve safety. How is it that we; as crew members/pilots; did exactly what we were trained to do but we are now required to fill out a safety report. In my opinion; this isn't why the program was developed. I find it insulting that the FAA has gone to these levels. More paperwork doesn't make our or any other airline safer; addressing the real issues that are safety related will. Just one pilot's opinion; maybe I don't 'get it' because I don't have the 'big picture.' What I am afraid of is that some pilots will take the approach that they might not abort a takeoff due to the fact that they do not want to have to deal with the consequences. As sad as that is; I'm afraid it could become reality. In some cases; a low speed abort may be required; however a crew might try to 'troubleshoot' or determine if its an 'indication' problem and continue the takeoff. Just food for thought.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer laments the requirement to file a written report after a low speed rejected takeoff.
Date: 202007
Aircraft: SR20
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After being cleared onto 27C for take off the student went full power and began his takeoff roll. All engine indications were good and the airspeed indicator was 'alive'. When reaching 70 kts the student attempted to rotate but there was not enough lift so the stall warning horn went off and the aircraft was slightly airborne(>20 feet) then landed back on the runway. By this point enough airspeed had been built up and the student rotated successfully. All of this occurred in the span of about 5 seconds. I took controls and made the decision to continue climbing as there was not enough runway to land. At this point it was clear the airspeed indicator and stand by were wrong so I tried to keep the ASI higher than normal and use known power settings and the feel of the controls to return and land. We landed on 27L without requesting priority handling. Aircraft X had been written up for the ASI on two separate occasions and my student and I briefed that prior to the flight which allowed us to quickly diagnose the problem quickly; however we did not notice anything unusual prior to the takeoff.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported an airspeed indicator malfunction that resulted in a return to the departure airport.