elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Physiological - Other; Fatigue
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was enroute from ZZZ1 to ZZZ2 in a Cessna 182.  About 40 minutes from my destination at a cruise altitude of 7;500 MSL on the autopilot I began to feel a small amount of fatigue. I felt that if I could rest my eyes for a moment that would be okay.  I fell asleep almost immediately.  I awoke 30 minutes later inside the outer ring of ZZZ Class Bravo airspace.I immediately performed a 180 turn and exited the airspace; descended outside the airspace and proceeded to ZZZ1 which is my destination.  I did not have clearance to enter Class B airspace.As a professional pilot I take this event very seriously.  After some introspection of my errors I have identified two areas that need to be improved upon.My process for determining fatigue levels needs to be modified so that I have a greater awareness of my fitness to fly.  In the future I will land the plane at the nearest suitable airport when I feel the need to 'rest my eyes'.I was not using any TRACON services such as VFR flight following.  This omission was an unnecessary risk especially as I approached a busy airspace.  I will use some type of radar services whenever available.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported feeling fatigued; closed eyes for a few moments to recover with autopilot on; but fell asleep and violated a Class Bravo airspace.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Other After the fact
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: [Dispatch manager stated that his] records show [that I] planned a large amount of additional taxi fuel and [that I should] remember the impact of the cost to carry this fuel over the period of a year. [He asked that I] immediately reconsider this practice as it is very apparent that for the majority of operations this fuel is not needed...when there are no anticipated delays. [I consider this] bullying; intimidation; offensive and insulting commentary directed at a specific individual a possible FAR Part 121.533 violation.




Synopsis: Dispatcher who was personally cited by his Mangager for purported excessive fuel loading; felt that such intimidation might be in violation of FAR 121.533.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HOU.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B HOU
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared to descend via the BAYYY2 RNAV STAR; then they turned the airport around from landing on 12R to now landing 30L and we were given a different STAR to fly. Moments later; before we could even finish programming this change; they changed our STAR again; this time to the PUCKS 2RNAV STAR with the clearance of descend via (meaning 6000 feet MSL). Now we were way high and fast and trying to get down to comply. These multiple changes in our clearances and turning the airport around led to more reprogramming and more briefings. At approximately 9000 feet; the Controller asked us; 'What altitude are you descending to?' I replied; 'We are descending via the PUCKS2; down to 6000 feet as we were cleared.' She replied; 'No...I believe I cleared you to only descend to 11;000 feet.' So I told her; 'If you did; we never heard that and certainly did not reply to that radio call.' As you can imagine there was a lot going on with attempting to update the ATIS to determine what was happening at HOU; updating ATIS; reprogramming the FMC twice; and new briefings; but we (the two pilots) both looked at each other and said; we never heard that. Then the Controller said; 'Just descend to 6000''; so we did.In my general aviation flying; my military flying; and other airline flying; we were always taught whenever you hear a Controller speak; all briefings and talking stops and listen. That is not our policy and it should be. Also; a Controller knows when they tell a Crew something; if the Crew does not respond back acknowledging this clearance; they did not hear it (regardless why they didn't hear it) and therefore they will not be complying. We can't comply with what we didn't hear.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported overshooting an altitude clearance they never acknowledged in descent following multiple STAR clearance changes.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X called on ground at RIW looking for an IFR clearance to ZZZ. Advised aircraft that there was no flight plan on file but would file it for him. Aircraft X gave the flight info; requested routing; requested altitude; etc. I then issued Aircraft X an IFR clearance. In the area of RIW there is poor to no radar coverage below 12000 ft MSL. Aircraft X checked on after departure climbing to 16000 ft. Because Aircraft X was ADSB equipped I was able to radar identify the aircraft out of 7000 and went on with other duties. A couple minutes later; the pilot of Aircraft X broadcast that he had just had a near miss with another aircraft about 500 ft from him. There were no other targets in the area due to the lack of radar coverage so there was no way to call any traffic to him. Aircraft X happened to be on my scope because he has ADSB onboard.




Synopsis: ZLC Center Controller reported that an aircraft reported a NMAC with another aircraft in an area of poor radar coverage.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: The Captain and I met at the airplane in the morning and the first topic of discussion was the automated parking guidance procedure as neither of us had used the system yet and they appeared to be operating. We referenced the flight manual as well as the local notes concerning the system and still felt that we were not sure exactly what we were supposed to do approaching the gate. We asked rampers prior to departing and their explanation; which did not help much. We departed and further discussed our plan for approaching the gate in our briefing for the return leg. As we approached the gate 3 rampers were present and the guidance panel worked well and was intuitive. We found a Ramp Supervisor and he discussed the details with us and answered questions we had. The guidance in the flight manual is inadequate as it does not address definitively whether or not marshallers are required to be at the spot. It does not specify the procedure for requesting assistance from ramp personnel if required It does not address what to do in the event that equipment is in the safety zone. Finally; the guidance as to when the screen symbology is required references 'the nose of the aircraft passing the jet bridge' which does not apply to the Aircraft X in where the system is active. My interpretation and common sense answers to these questions are likely to create a safe operation but safe and compliant are not always the same thing.  We entered the gate area in compliance with the flight manual to the best of my knowledge and interpretation; however I feel that the guidance in the manual was inadequate. Part of the information we used to determine a plan for parking came from talking with rampers. They obviously have good insight but their word does not meet acceptable standards for determining compliance with a procedure. I would recommend a simple update to the manual that goes beyond description of the guidance panel and sets definitive procedures for entering the gate.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot recommends changes to flight manual guidance concerning operations using the automated parking guidance system.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Parking Brake
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After starting the engine and setting the parking brake; I noticed that my seat was too low and attempted to raise the seat. This required trying to lift my weight off the seat and at the same time activating the seat adjustment knob. While I was doing this; I felt a forward motion and looked up to see the aircraft rolling at a quick walk to a slow jog toward another aircraft parked on the ramp. I quickly applied the brakes and noticed the right wing tip narrowly missed another parked aircraft on the ramp. I previously positioned my aircraft to clear this one; but to clear the second aircraft would require turning the plane while taxiing. Since I couldn't be sure of the clearance I had with the second aircraft (having rolled past where I would have started the turn); I elected to shut down and manually reposition the aircraft. Two lessons learned. First; what we are all taught during primary; to not trust the parking brakes in light GA aircraft is true. They are not reliable enough to let your guard down. Second; while I thought I was minimizing my risks by doing necessary head down work while stopped; in reality it had never occurred to me that the aircraft might roll forward on a crowded ramp without my knowing. Next time; I will do as much work as I can prior to engine start; and leave any remaining tasks to the run-up area. The risk is forgetting to do these tasks later; but a sticky note or equivalent would solve that issue.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reports starting his engine and setting the parking brake to discover the seat height needs adjustment. While head down making the adjustment aircraft movement is detected and the brakes are quickly applied. The aircraft narrowly misses two aircraft parked on the ramp during the undetected movement.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ1
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I am a pilot who hasn't flown GA in XY+ years. I hired this pilot to re-familiarize me in the GA world. Instructor is very capable and in my opinion did nothing incorrectly. We had been doing touch and go's at ZZZ1 airport; and we were returning to ZZZ to land. The runway being used was XX. The instructor was flying back and made all the required calls on the Unicom frequency. I was in the left seat; watching instructor fly and listening to instructor speak on the radio. I saw a plane turn toward us as instructor started to make base turn and I told instructor to roll out and stay downwind. Instructor lifted wing and saw the traffic coming right at us. He had taken off on Runway YY. He never made any calls. He was turning upwind when we were turning base. He finally saw us and passed behind us. He made a comment on the radio; admitting to making 'a huge mistake' and apologized for it. The runway in use was definitely XX with a 10 kt head wind. I shudder to think what would have happened if I hadn't seen him.




Synopsis: Pilot reported taking evasive action to avoid a collision with another aircraft that failed to follow established departure procedures.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight; Routine Inspection
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: During inspection of DG Hazmat can; First Officer noticed fluid on floor of Hazmat can. Can was deemed not safe and removed from aircraft. [The cause was] human error or leaking package.




Synopsis: MD-11 flight crew reported Dangerous Goods container leaking fluid during preflight. Dangerous Goods removed from flight.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B BOS
ATC / advisory: TRACON A90
Second aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On the arrival between 21;000 feet and 17;000 feet and 280 knots encountered severe turbulence in smooth air with no warning. Auto pilot kicked off and sudden bank to the right followed by oscillation in bank angle.On the descent starting around 21;000 feet; the aircraft rolled suddenly and hard right 30 to 50 degrees of bank and then oscillated left and right 30 to 40 degrees of bank. Auto pilot kicked off and both Pilot Flying and Pilot Monitoring had to be on the controls to regain stability. No loss of altitude other than what was planned since we were on the descent at about 2300 fpm. Took manual control of aircraft after event started and auto pilot kicked off. Slowed aircraft to 250 and shallowed descent. Captain immediately checked on Flight Attendant and passengers after event occurred and everyone was okay and seated. Seat belt sign was on at the time the event started.After event; ATC informed us we were following a 767 which was around 10 miles in front of us with a 40 knot tail wind in the descent and no other turbulence in the area; I believe it was wake turbulence.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported encountering severe wake turbulence on arrival into BOS in trail of a H/B767.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Canopy Window
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Day VFR conditions. Approximately 45F; Winds 310@10.  Start and taxi were normal. Crew closed and locked canopies in the chocks at start up due to cold wind. After an uneventful run-up crew performed a normal Verbal and Visual confirmation 'Two canopies down and locked; Lights Out.'  Aircraft is equipped with canopy lights (Front and center on this aircraft panel on their own and extinguished at that time). Rear crewmember also did two elbow taps outward to confirm a good locked canopy as he always does per his habit. Performed a normal takeoff.After airborne and about midfield over the left Runway; PIC noted a loud bang; rush of wind; and a red light illuminate for rear canopy. Aircraft configuration was left in T/O configuration and PIC continued straight ahead to assess status of rear aircrew (whose headset came off).  Requested a 'low closed pattern' for an early return; Tower approved that and asked if we needed assistance and I said 'standby.'  During low closed pattern; visually checked the aircraft and observed missing rear canopy plexiglass section and no obvious damage. Advised Tower that there would be 'canopy plexiglass' in the vicinity of the left Runway. Requested and was cleared to land on the right Runway. Flew final at 85 to 90 kts until landing assured due to unknown airflow effects.  After clearing runway; another visual check was performed and no damage was observed.  Recommend owners of Romanian IR23 Aircraft consider installing additional pins to hold these custom built canopies shut.




Synopsis: IR23 pilot reported that a section of the aircraft's plexiglass canopy detached while departing the runway. An air return and uneventful landing were made.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MCO.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B MCO
ATC / advisory: Tower MCO
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During final app on visual app to Runway 36L in MCO about 1;800 feet MSL and about 5 to 6 miles of landing runway; we encounter a drone on our same altitude and approximately as close as 50 meters; in our right side and apparently flying hover flight. At the same time we identify the drone suddenly it descended and disappeared from our sight.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported that while inbound on a visual approach; a small drone was hovering at the same altitude within about 65 feet.