elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Other Aerial applicator
Operating under: Part 137
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Agriculture
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM 122.9
Reporter organization: Other Aerial applicator
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on my last load of the day coming into the ZZZ Airport to land. I did my visual checks to see if there was any traffic. I did not realize there was traffic until I was on final somebody was landing the other direction. I immediately pulled up and veered to the right. I circled around until the airplane got on the ramp and then I landed.




Synopsis: Thrush S-2R pilot reported an airborne conflict after realizing there was opposite direction traffic landing.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
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; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Airspeed was slow to register on airspeed tape; first indication was at 42 knots and it appeared we were faster than 42 knots. At 82 knots the Captain elected to abort the take off. We cleared the runway and ran the Aborted Takeoff checklist. The Captain called Maintenance and informed them of the aborted takeoff. No assistance was required from ARFF. We taxied back to the hangar. Aircraft is currently being inspected by Maintenance.Cross check the standby instruments as well at 80 knots which we both missed.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported rejecting the takeoff after noticing airspeed indicator anomalies.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; 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 working with a student on an instrument lesson; and on our way back into ZZZ we were on a practice approach; awaiting to report my position as I approached the waypoint. My student was flying an approach and I noticed on our traffic page there was an aircraft turning what I believed to look like about a 5 mile base. I went on high alert at this point and took controls from my student. I then see them start to turn final and they start to descend very quickly on top of us. I then radio Tower asking about the airplane; and directly after that the other aircraft immediately turned off course and stated they would do a 360 for spacing. Fortunately no collision occurred but they got within about 20 feet of us; before taking action. I was ready to dive down if the scenario were to continue to escalate; but felt the need to make a report so that this could potentially be avoided in the future.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor providing instruction reported taking evasive action to avoid collision with another aircraft turning base leg while on final approach.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X approached ADW from the northeast. Upon initial contact I informed Aircraft X of the weather at DCA as the ATIS code for ADW was showing 'SW' on my IDS and the METAR information for ADW had expired. I called ADW Tower to advise them of the inbound and the mistake on the IDS. Aircraft X advised me of a layer at 2;500 feet that was not shown on the ADW ATIS and requested the ILS 19L. Prior to switching Aircraft X to ADW Tower; I called ADW Tower again and asked them to verify the ATIS with Aircraft X on initial contact as 5-6 minutes had passed since my initial call and request to update the ATIS on the IDS and it was still showing 'SW' as the current ATIS.  I reported this issue the OM on duty and asked that he add it to the log. The lackadaisical approach ADW Tower consistently takes to updating both the METAR and ATIS codes on the midst continues to be an ongoing problem. This is my second ATSAP report on the issue in 6 months. ADW Tower called after the fact to inform me that due to the way their weather reporting system is designed; the METAR info was in fact correct and current. The Tower Controller stated that the METAR information pushes to the TRACON every hour on the hour. Hopefully this is the case and I'm just confused.If I am confused about the specific process that takes place at ADW to push weather info to PCT then I am sure I am not the only person. I would recommend a briefing to the MTV area focusing on the specific nuances of the weather reporting process at ADW Tower and how they differ from how weather gets pushed from DCA to PCT. If this is a case of ADW Tower falling behind in updating the weather information; then I would continue to push that they be held accountable to do their job and push the pertinent weather in a timely manner. During the [Stated] crash; 4 people lost their lives and the weather pushed to PCT by ADW was 4+ hours old. Current weather may have made a difference in the outcome. My last ATSAP on the mid shift operations at ADW involved an ATIS and IDS that advertised an approach to a runway closed for maintenance. Tonight's report may be an over reaction based on past experience with ADW Tower but I do believe this report and its outcome are worth the trouble.




Synopsis: Reporting Controller states there is a problem with the way the Andrews AFB weather gets disseminated.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This report falls into a gray area from the Flight Operations Manual requirement to report flight control malfunctions. We did not need to get into QRH. However; the elevators had a 'split elevator' condition. The left elevator indicated higher than the right (or vice versa). This required a higher than normal aileron trim (approximately 1.5 - 2 units) to achieve coordinated flight; referencing the slip/skid indicator. (Rarely; does the 757 require aileron trim; and I've never seen a 'split elevator' condition on the 757). Upon landing; we annotated the discrepancy in the logbook and sent pictures of the PFD taken from cruise flight to facilitate Maintenance correcting the condition. These photos were forwarded to Maintenance. It appears that the flight controls we're not rigged correctly and they were fighting each other. As well as burning more fuel than an aircraft properly rigged.




Synopsis: A B757-200 Captain reported a split elevator condition detected because of the unusual aileron trim; then verified by the PFD indications.
Date: 201210
Location: PDK.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground PDK
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: After landing and departing Runway 2L; I taxied onto Taxiway Alpha; an active taxiway; prior to receiving clearance from Ground Control to do so. I saw no clear markings or hold lines that indicated that I had taxied onto Taxiway Alpha. I stopped shortly after departing the runway; called Ground for clearance to taxi to the ramp; and was told that I had already taxied onto the active taxiway. Clearer markings would have stopped the confusion. No issue occurred as I was stopped on the taxiway until receiving further instructions from Ground Control.

Callback: The Reporter stated that after clearing Runway 2L at Taxiway F he did not call Ground Control prior to turning right on Taxiway A and proceeding a short distance. ATC's admonition was apparently because he did not stop on Taxiway A prior to progressing on it.



Synopsis: A private pilot landed on PDK Runway 2L; exited at Taxiway F; then turned on Taxiway A where; after contacting Ground; he was admonished for entering an active taxiway prior to receiving clearance.
Date: 201706
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Workload; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I parked the aircraft without Marshalers. How could that happen?? I'm asking myself the same question now. I had one of my worst landings in a few years on a VFR; no-wind Vegas evening so this matter definitely put me in the Red; although insidiously; my brain was thinking about the landing when it should have been focused on the safe completion of the flight.I was cleared to the gate by ramp and noticed an aircraft waiting to taxi out in the alley so I believe I was thinking about getting into the gate without causing a delay for that flight. I have a mini checklist I use for the gate area; 'flaps up; on the bus; lights out; Safety Zone clear' and verbalized and verified these facts as I do every flight. I entered the Safety Zone with expectation bias of Marshalers when they were never there; cruising in there like an idiot and it did not register until the gate went by; where I stopped one foot from the mark and set the parking brake. When the Ground Crew showed up they said 'you didn't even need us!' Yes I did. The First Officer was a non-Vegas new guy; great attitude; no issues there; just inexperienced.




Synopsis: A B737 Captain reported that his aircraft arrived at the gate with no marshallers present.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Vectored to the usual 35 mile final for ILS. '180 knots to FAF; contact tower at FAF.' Coming down the approach that never ends; I noticed traffic backed up on the [local] expressway and started thinking how it was nice not to be stuck in that. Unfortunately; my mind wondered to other related topics. Although I was watching the runway the whole way down; in my apparent daydreaming; it didn't click how close we were getting to it. At about 800 feet AGL; the First Officer says; 'Oh; do you want Flaps 3?'; followed by a Landing Gear alert from the EGPWS. My mind finally snapping back from LaLa Land; told him 'Oh @&$!; no; let's go around.' We broke off the approach and TRACON was kind enough to get us back in pretty quick. Besides a bruised ego; the second approach attempt was successful and uneventful. A temporary loss of situation awareness by both crew members and insufficient Threat Management on my part. I think some mild fatigue didn't help. Unfortunately; being primarily in the Training Department; I don't fly as much as I used to. I pick up trips to stay current. Otherwise; due to training workload; I would fly even less. I used to be able to get right back in the cockpit and not miss a beat. The day prior to this; I would say that was the case. But; with age and maybe some mild fatigue added to the mix; this event has taught me I can no longer rely on that 'like riding a bicycle' feeling. I will need to make it more of a point to the First Officers to not let the 'CKA' next to my name keep them from watching me.In this particular case; the First Officer stated that he was distracted as well; which was probably the case since he was pretty sharp. It was also a good training opportunity to emphasize to him to not let a Captain (or himself) try to salvage an un-stabilized approach like that. A non-punitive go-around is much preferable to a starring role in a FOQA video.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported they did not configure final flaps in the approach and thus executed a missed approach.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Mustang (C510)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was climbing after takeoff VFR. I had filed an IFR flight plan direct at 13000. Radar services are unavailable under 3000 ft and I obtained contact with Center in the climb at approximately 4100. ATC instructed me to maintain 3500; due to traffic on approach. I began descending to 3500; when TCAS showed me a target at 5 miles; 12 o'clock and 4000. ATC advised me of the traffic as well; and I while I could hear ATC clear the oncoming traffic for the visual approach; I could not hear the oncoming traffic because I was on a different frequency. Both frequencies were operated by the same controller; who later switched me to the other frequency. He began descending on the straight in approach; converging with me (he was on a 160 heading and I was on a 340 heading; he was at 4000 descending and I was descending as well to 3500). TCAS counted down +5; +4; +3; +2 and I called ATC stating that I did not have the traffic in sight and it appeared to be converging. She misunderstood and thought I had the traffic in sight. When +1 became 0 almost a mile from me and the TCAS advisory called out and went yellow; I disconnected the autopilot; and banked hard right to avoid the traffic because I still did not have it in sight. ATC called back and said the traffic was no factor off my left side at 1 mile; and didn't appear concerned. Keep in mind; I'm traveling at 4 miles a minute; or one mile every 15 seconds. I felt this was too close.After landing I looked up both our tracks on flightaware; and it didn't appear either of us were in radar coverage at 3500. I am concerned that ATC had me descend into oncoming traffic rather than continue my climb where I would have been safely away from the traffic. What is a best practice at an uncontrolled airport that has poor radar coverage under 3000 ft and there is not an operative ground communication outlet to pick up a clearance in clear VFR conditions? Should I level off at 5000 (the MOA overlying ZZZ begins at 6000); then call ATC to prevent something like this from happening? The use of two frequencies in the area is also concerning because I could not know if the landing traffic had me in sight. I need to know what to do to prevent this from happening in the future.




Synopsis: Cessna 510 pilot reported an airborne conflict on departure.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BJC.Airport, CO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class D BJC
ATC / advisory: Tower BJC
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was instructed to taxi up to the hold line runway 30R and say direction of flight.  Aircraft X fumbled his words and I was able to catch his direction of flight. Aircraft X was then observed in position with aircraft Y on short final.  I sent aircraft Y around and departed aircraft X.I believed he understood the instructions and did not check on the words he fumbled. Listening to the tape it was clear he read back in position.  Will work on listening closer to poor read backs.




Synopsis: A BJC Local Controller reports on asking an aircraft direction of flight. The pilot reports direction and also says something unintelligible to the Controller. Local observes aircraft in position with another aircraft on final. The Controller sends final traffic around and realizes he did not listen correctly to the read back or receive clarification.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local; Supervisor / CIC; Flight Data / Clearance Delivery; Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had so many departures that at one point I couldn't keep track of the targets on the radar. I had two aircraft that nearly hit because I was so distracted with inbounds; outbounds; aircraft talking on multiple frequencies.I was forced to work ZZZ Tower a level X VFR Tower combined to one position during peak hours on a weekday. I had 7-8 inbound aircraft; 2-3 I told to hold outside the airspace and 5-6 aircraft holding short of the runway. I was working GC; FD; LC1; LC2; and CIC. It was pretty much the most unsafe thing I've done in my career. I would personally like to know who the individual is that feels keeping a Tower open in this situation is more important than people's lives. Clearly they have lost perspective and are out of touch.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported an operational error while working five positions at once.