elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Sail Plane
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: [We were] descending on LYNDI3 Arrival via PKE. Passing TRIXI Intersection; we were cleared to 9;000 FT. I announced and entered Vertical Speed mode; 1;000 FPM down. We were not given the 10;000 FT restriction at SLOYD; however; were going to cross it at approximately 10;000 FT anyway. Approximately one mile from SLOYD at 10;300 FT we received latest ATIS via ACARS. When I looked up; I saw a glider approaching from the right; low (less than 200 FT below). I called out; 'holy ...; glider; autopilot is off; turning.' I disconnected the autopilot; added power; leveled off and turned right approximately 20 degrees at 30 degrees of bank. The First Officer told ATC what we were doing. ATC responded that this happens in that area. After the glider passed; we returned to course and landed uneventfully at SAN. The glider did not change course at any time it was in view. We passed within 100 FT horizontally and 100 FT vertically. The glider; like most; did not have a transponder.


Second narrative: We were descending on the LYNDI 3 STAR into San Diego. Approaching SLOYD; we had been given a descent below 10;000 FT. The Captain called out traffic and started to arrest the descent rate. I looked over to our 11 o'clock and saw a glider below us at approximately 10;000 FT. He passed by our left wing. I would estimate it at 500 FT. I told ATC we had passed a glider. He asked the altitude and I responded approximately 10;000 FT.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reports a NMAC with a glider approaching SLOYD on the LYNDI 3 arrival to SAN. Evasive action is taken by the B737 Captain; but the glider does not alter course.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; extremely wet; 7
Aircraft: Challenger 605
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff Roll
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Late night; after 14-15 hours; a missed approach to [destination] for no lighted runway returned to [departure airport] and were told we were to continue; refuel; and return to [destination] as they would have lights on. On Line up I was apparently distracted as left brake dragged and lined up way right of center. I powered up and drifted right more into grass and aborted takeoff before 80 knots and re-centered on the runway. Returned to hangar; no injury or damage was noted; but dirt was on the main gear.[After the hours I had] flown [I] should have told [Company] to cancel all flights as I said I was very tired. [There were] numerous calls from the Company to get fuel and go let alone explain why I had to file new flight plans; add fuel; negotiate with customs to accept us at near midnight on our return flight. [This is] pilot pushing at the least. Both pilots should have caught it; but I am the Pilot In Command.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information].


Synopsis: CL605 Captain reported lining up on the right side of the runway; then drifting further right on the takeoff roll and eventually going off the runway onto grass. Takeoff was rejected and the aircraft returned to the centerline without damage. Reporter attributed the incident to fatigue and pilot pushing by the Company.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cheetah; Tiger; Traveler AA5 Series
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
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: I was practicing landings in Aircraft X [and] completed 6 with Flight Instructor and did 2 solo landings. ZZZ is an uncontrolled airport; fairly busy; and there was a lot of radio traffic. During the time I was flying left-hand patterns; there was a helicopter practicing landings in a right-hand pattern and was turning base over the numbers which made him very difficult to see. Also; I did not hear a radio call from the helicopter for his base turn or his turn to final. I don't know if the pilot didn't make the radio call or if he was covered by other radio transmissions. My instructor pilot confirmed that he did not hear the call either. Once I rotated on takeoff I heard 'he's 300 ft. above' but that was the only part of the call I heard. It's my understanding that the helicopter may - and I emphasize may; because I did not see him - aborted his landing and executed a right crosswind turn. I may have been on takeoff while the helicopter was on final and/or landing but I believe I was ahead of him as I did not see any traffic on takeoff.




Synopsis: GA student pilot reported an NMAC with a helicopter in the traffic pattern at a non-towered airport while on takeoff.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was CFI in Aircraft X; DA40. Aircraft Y was a Cherokee (I think). My student and I had been flying VFR patterns at ZZZ for approximately 30 minutes; making all our normal calls on CTAF even though we were the only aircraft in the pattern the entire time. Due to winds and sun angle we were utilizing Runway XX. Upon our missed approach from the fifth pattern; while on the upwind still climbing out; we observed Aircraft Y on a collision course with us. That aircraft was approaching the airport straight-in to Runway YY. There had been NO position calls from that aircraft up to that point. I immediately initiated evasive action and passed approximately 1;000 feet to the right (due to the angles at the time) and nearly co-altitude with the aircraft. Only after I queried the aircraft did he respond and confirm his tail number. He maintained a too-close position to us even though we were reporting our position to him relative to his airplane as well as our position in the pattern. This individual maintained that he had made requisite position calls; but he had clearly not and likely not even been on the frequency. He apparently did not understand/hear that we were working the opposing runway...or he didn't care.We departed the pattern after the pattern following the conflict. Aircraft Y landed full stop.




Synopsis: DA-40 Flight Instructor reported an NMAC during climbout with another aircraft approaching the opposite end of the same runway; requiring evasive action. Reportedly; the pilot of the other aircraft had not made any position announcements.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Second aircraft: Medium Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the transition to an ILS Approach. Once we were handed over to Approach we were given different speeds along the approach which is typical. It was IMC with a reported ceiling of 700 ft. We were given 160 kts. and handed over to Tower frequency. The aircraft we were following at the time was 5 miles ahead of us. Approximately 3 miles outside of the final approach fix I saw on the TCAS an aircraft turning a right base and appeared to be sequencing in front of us. Tower shortly after instructed us to slow to approach speed which was 135 kts. We were then told we were following Aircraft Y. The Aircraft Y was approximately 2 miles ahead of us. I told the First Officer to plan on a go-around. I had fully briefed the approach prior to Top of Descent. Tower then asked the Aircraft Y to do a midfield landing due to separation. Around 1;400 ft. we were told to go-around. It was a normal go-around profile and we were vectored back for a normal landing.


Second narrative: Crew was on approach. Initial ATIS reported ceilings 400 feet and 1/2 mile visibility. Crew elected to transfer controls to the Captain and execute an auto-land approach for currency and to increase safety margin. Approach was commencing normally with positive airspeed control by ATC. Approximately 4 miles from Final Approach Fix ATC vectored an aircraft onto final ahead of us. Aircraft rolled out approximately 2 miles ahead on final as indicated by TCAS. We were handed off to Tower and given clearance to land number two. Preceding aircraft was instructed to expedite turnoff after landing due to close interval. At approximately 800 feet. and at the top of the IMC layer; Tower canceled landing clearance and directed a climb to 2;000 feet and track localizer inbound. Crew conducted a normal go-around. Aircraft was vectored to a second approach and a normal landing ensued.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew conducting an auto-land reported LAX ATC issued them a go-around due to insufficient spacing with the preceding landing aircraft.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CBF.Airport, IA
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C OMA
ATC / advisory: TRACON R90
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A C172 departed CBF airport 7 miles east of OMA. He entered the OMA Charlie Airspace east of OMA Eppley prior to establishing two-way radio communications. He established communications 3 miles East of OMA on his way Westbound and climbing. Pilot simply did not comply with two-way radio communication procedures in a Charlie Airspace environment. A remote transmitter/receiver at the CBF airport would help greatly. It's a very busy satellite airport and it needs a remote transmitter/receiver.




Synopsis: R90 Controller described a Charlie Airspace incursion by traffic departing CBF Airport; the reporter noting improved communications gear near CBF would likely reduce these types of events.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Snow; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight was begun from ZZZ to ZZZ1 via ZZZ2. The flight was uneventful through Indiana however after checking in with ZZZ3; north of ZZZ4; at 6;000 ft.; intermittent radar reception was noted and the transponder was recycled. Transponder recycling had been requested approximately two times earlier from South Bend and on. After communicating with ZZZ3; radios flickered and then all instruments went dark related to electrical instruments.Six thousand feet altitude was maintained and headings were continued using Compass headings as well as iPad GPS. IMC conditions were noted; and course deviations were kept as minimal as possible through ZZZ4 airspace. Transponder was switched to 7600 as communication was not possible. Master switch was left in the off position and recycling of the master after approximately 10 minutes gave a 5 to 10 second source of power which then was gone again. It was evident that likely issue was alternator failure and now battery failure.It was elected to land as soon as practical and expected conditions ahead of us towards ZZZ5 would keep us in IFR and possibly icing conditions; therefore practical landing plan was to ZZZ6. A left hand 90deg turn was made directly to ZZZ6 and altitude was maintained at level 3;000 ft. to be in VFR and until the field was visually located. Green light signal from the tower indicated landing permission. A no flap visual approach to Runway XX left was performed without incident. Landing gear was extended manually per protocol. The tower was immediately called after arrival to cancel IFR and explain the mechanical situation. The plane was transferred to [FBO] for evaluation and likely repair of suspected alternator failure. IFR clearance and flight plan was formally canceled with ZZZ6 Tower.ZZZ6 Tower verified that ZZZ5 Approach had called them and they were expecting our arrival.




Synopsis: C182 Pilot reported that an alternator failure resulted in a loss of communications and a diversion.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: DC-10 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; 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: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure after contacting Departure Control and given climb to 14;000 FT; flying an RNAV Departure in NAV we lost ATS and NAV. First Officer flying first noticed problem when he lost his course and pitch bars in his PFD. Concurrently I noticed the loss of the ATS with N1 exceeding Climb Thrust Limits on all three engines. Meanwhile First Officer called for flaps retract while I continued to troubleshoot. Soon after retracting flaps ATC gave us a left turn to 090 and level off at 6;000 FT. We then realized we had gone past a waypoint on the departure; which was why ATC gave us the vector and level off. We then informed ATC that we had lost our NAV and was having issues with other systems. Within a short period we regained all systems; retracted the slats and returned to normal procedures to continue on our way uneventfully to our filed destination. Communicate the NAV problem right away and ask for vectors.




Synopsis: A DC-10 on an RNAV departure climb lost both the autothrust and navigation capabilities for a short period time which caused a track deviation.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TOL.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 33
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C TOL
ATC / advisory: TRACON TOL
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Departed Traverse City (TVC) with Toledo Express (TOL) as destination with alternate Jackson; MI. Ultimate destination was New Jersey after fuel stop and an opportunity to look at and assess updated weather. En route from TVC to TOL; we contacted Flight Watch for update on Akron (CAK) weather which would have been closer to a half-way point between TVC and New Jersey destination but still behind a line of thunderstorms east of that location. Current and forecast weather at Akron had improved from an earlier briefing we received so we requested a change of destination from Toledo to Akron with Lansing Approach. While en route; we monitored XM weather and at the top of the hour (13:00); METARS showed ceiling at CAK had dropped to 600 overcast. We elected not to continue and requested diversion back to original destination Toledo Express (TOL). This request was made to Toledo Approach and we advised that we were electing to go to the better weather conditions in Toledo; take on fuel and within 90 minutes or so; make a decision about continuing the flight. Storms strengthened into a line that was in central PA between our location and home airport so we elected to stay overnight in Toledo and continued the flight the following day.




Synopsis: BE33 pilot describes using XM weather in flight to determine that continuing to destination was not advisable and that deviating to TOL to spend the night was the best option.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MMV.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 100
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: CTAF MMV
Second aircraft: Cessna Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student pilot appeared to freeze; pull up slightly; and bank right slightly. I looked at her; then looked where she was looking since she did not say anything. A Cessna was nearly dead ahead; opposite direction; close enough to see the faces and sunglasses on the occupants. If she had not reacted; small as her evasive action was; we may have collided. It was a clear and beautiful day. We were both looking at the scenery and looking for traffic on a continuous basis. No idea why we did not see the other aircraft until it was just a few hundred feet away with a 200 mph closure rate. I think our rental aircraft has ADS-B out; but not in. No idea what the other aircraft has. Needless to say; it appears they did not see us any sooner than we saw them; perhaps even later because I do not think they took any evasive action. Perhaps I spend too much time looking left and right; trying to see who is hiding above the high-wings whenever the aircraft banks even slightly; rather than also focusing more in the forward direction.




Synopsis: Instructor pilot reported the student took evasive action due to a NMAC.