elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On [date]; the runways were reversed in ZZZ. We taxied out to Runway XXL as normal. At this time XYR is closed for construction. Aircraft are taking off from runway XXL and XYL. We were instructed to line up and wait on Runway XXL. We accomplished all checklist up unto that point including the Before Take Off checklist 'to the line.' Because aircraft were landing and departing from Runway XYL; there was a longer than normal wait period. We were cleared for takeoff. I read back our clearance and we completed our before takeoff checklist 'below the line.' As we reached approximately 80 kts. we heard; 'Stop; stop; stop.' At that time we executed the abort procedures on Runway XXL. Seeing an aircraft take off Runway XYL we realized we must have read back the wrong clearance and that our clearance read back was probably blocked. We followed Tower's direction to taxi back to the approach end of Runway XXL. Because of the abort our left brake was higher than that allowed for takeoff. We asked Maintenance for cooling fans; but because of staffing issues they were unable to get to us. We communicated with Dispatch at this time as well. We communicated with our flight attendants and passengers. After about 30 minutes our brakes cooled and we were cleared for takeoff. The rest of the flight was uneventful. After realizing what happened I believe we could have queried ATC after the long wait time before takeoff. Also; there was a lot going on in ZZZ. With construction on runways and taxiways it is very important to remain vigilant through all phases of flight. I am very thankful that we were able to work together as a crew with ATC to keep everyone safe.




Synopsis: Flight crew reported that a miscommunication with ATC resulted in a runway incursion and a rejected takeoff.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PLU.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZSE
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: On take off from PLU; an unsafe condition took place that could have resulted in an aircraft collision.PLU's runway mid-point is higher than both thresholds. There's a taxiway that crosses over the southern threshold of the runway. I was departing from the north to the south. I made routine radio calls. Just prior to the midway point; I was off the runway and climbing; but I was not yet high enough to see the other end of the runway. At that point; another aircraft made a radio call that it was crossing the runway. No more than about a second later; I was high enough to see the end of the runway; and I saw the aircraft. It was passing left-to-right from my point of view. I veered left slightly and continued my climb.I don't know if the operator of that aircraft heard my radio call. The operator did not respond to my follow-up call that I was in the air departing and veering to the left. The operator could not have made the crossing threshold call more than a second or two before actually crossing the runway. I suspect the operator did not make a full stop prior to encountering the threshold.Had I experienced any sort of engine problem on my take-off roll or during the very early portion of the climb; the safest action would have been to land straight ahead on the remaining runway. However; in that case; I consider it likely I would have collided with the crossing aircraft.Threshold-crossing aircraft should listen to the radio before approaching the runway; and then should come to a complete stop before crossing the runway; should then only proceed with crossing after hearing no conflicting aircraft.




Synopsis: Single Pilot reported after take off avoiding another aircraft crossing the runway at the other end.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Second aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 4 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While training a developmental; on a configuration that he had never seen before (landing RWY 14R; departing RWY 28R EE intersection (and full length); we had an international heavy cargo jet; Aircraft Y arrive runway 14R; who needed to get to cargo [ramp].  The aircraft exited RWY 14R; and was instructed to taxi and hold short of RWY 28R on Tango.  After a departure rolled; the developmental issued clearance to cross RWY 28R.  Aircraft X was eventually put into 'line up and wait' and was waiting for the departure gap on RWY 14R as we are required to apply CRO [Converging Runway Operation] rules for converging runways.  Once we had the departure gap; the developmental cleared Aircraft X for takeoff (with my instruction; as I was watching the departure gap) without delay (more than 2 minutes after the runway crossing was issued to Aircraft Y). The pilot questioned the departure clearance immediately; I then looked at the intersection; and immediately cancelled the takeoff clearance. After Aircraft Y had cleared runway 28R; we waited until the next departure gap on runway 14R; and departed Aircraft X in that gap. The developmental has been taught that whenever you are crossing a runway; the departure strip that is in LUAW (Line Up and Wait) status needs to be flipped over; so one cannot read the strip as a memory jogger.  In this situation; I do not recall the strip being flipped over; and neither does the developmental.  The strip needed to be flipped over.




Synopsis: ORD Local instructor reports the Developmental crosses traffic downfield; then clears an aircraft for takeoff. Departing pilot questions clearance and Local Control cancels takeoff until crossing is complete. Reporter does not recall using the memory jogger for crossing aircraft.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departed SFO on the Offshore 5 departure. We were vectored off departure; then vectored and given a 210 heading to rejoin the departure. Because the course needed to be defined with a VOR that was not depicted on the FMS Flight Plan Page (PYE VOR); I opted to step down the automation and type PYE into my green needles and join the appropriate radial. I was not aware I must have hit the chart number at the bottom of the iPad with my hand or arm; and switched from the OFFSH5 TO THE PORTE3 departure. In short; I was now looking at the Porte 3 departure; which is a VERY similar visual depiction. The radial off PYE was 135 on the Porte 3; but 151 on the Offshore 5. We were turning from the 210 heading to join the 135; and never did intercept the 151. I noticed our mistake within a couple of minutes; but by the time we were correcting we were given direct to another fix. I noticed the wrong departure on the iPad. We must be very aware that the iPad can change pages without the pilot knowing. I had a similar experience when the iPad was brand new. That one was a wrong ILS frequency for the parallel runway-- another almost identical visual depiction on the chart. We caught that one on the approach brief and I learned that you can lock the screen from changing while SWIPING the screen. I know of NO way to lock it from changing when the numbers at the bottom are accidentally bumped with a body part.




Synopsis: CE750 Captain reports being vectored to a 210 heading then instructed to rejoin the OFFSH5 departure from SFO. Using the PYE VOR and the required radial with green needles is deemed the best method of doing so; but the iPad chart display is apparently bumped bring up the PORTE3 and the 135 Radial is intercepted instead of the 151 Radial.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: HOU.Airport, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were flying the BAYYY3 arrival into HOU. We were cleared to descend VIA the arrival; but to maintain FL220. We read back the altitude. We were then cleared to now maintain FL230 and we read that altitude clearance back to ATC. Shortly after leveling off we were then cleared to maintain FL200. We the PNF [Pilot not Flying] read back the new altitude clearance; PF [Pilot Flying] set the altitude in the selector and proper call outs were made. Passing FL215 the Controller asked us where are you going? The PNF replied FL200 as cleared. The Controller stated he only cleared us to FL230. (Not correct). We momentarily stopped the descent and shortly thereafter he re-cleared us to continue the descent. The Controller said it was 'not an issue and he had taken care of it.' We have tried and tried again to stress the use of full call signs; but ATC continues to use only the last 3 digits. Multiple times we have had to query ATC when multiple call signs are on the same frequency with the exact same last 3 digits in the tail number. My recommendation: quit using former company call signs and use current company call sign with the full tail number.




Synopsis: Medium Transport aircraft Captain reported an altitude deviation occurred while on the BAYYY3 arrival into HOU airport. It was also reported that ATC's use of incomplete call signs may have contributed to the clearance deviation.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SBGL.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: GPS approach to RWY 14 at GIG has poor vertical guidance and places aircraft well above a normal VDP to land on RWY 15 with displaced threshold...potentially causing an overrun if landing long due to high approach. The RWY has NO PAPI installed at the new threshold and the VNAV path is much too high at minimums.This approach has all the ramifications of a runway overrun because there is no discernible threshold and there is no PAPI guidance system to assist a visual landing. The glide path for the [VDP] is much too high for the display's threshold.Install a PAPI at the new displaced threshold on this runway...also do not call it RWY 14 as it is still the same RWY 15 it has always been. In addition; paint a discernible new threshold with appropriate markings and remove all other markings prior to the threshold.




Synopsis: B777-200 Captain reported the charted minimums on the temporary RNAV (GNSS) U Runway 14 chart; for SBGL; are too high to enable a safe landing from a VDP.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: PFD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing out; Captain lost all indications on PFD of altitude; airspeed; vertical speed; and FMA annunciations. Same indications lost in HUD. First Officer lost Flight Director indications.  Autothrottle disengaged; autopilot would not engage. Yaw damper disengaged. No fault alerts or warning lights were given. I transitioned duties of flying to the First Officer and worked the problem.  Uncertain if the issue was an IRS; FCC or something else; I declared an emergency and returned to the airport uneventfully.

Callback: The reporter stated that follow up on this event determined that the Number 1 ADIRU failed even though no fault annunciation was displayed. The Captain's PFD has the compass rose with tick markers; the speed and altitude tapes were displayed but no data accompanied the tapes. He did recall that even though the First Officer's Flight Director initially was lost; by the time they began the approach Flight Director information was again available. He said there was great deal of activity during the air turn back and he was basically without information to back up the First Officer during the night VMC return.



Synopsis: After takeoff a B737-800 Captain's PFD and HUD lost altitude; airspeed; vertical speed; FMA annunciations; the autothrottle/autopilot would not engage and the yaw damper disengaged. An emergency was declared and the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PDK.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E A80
ATC / advisory: Tower PDK
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Inbound to PDK (frequent visitor); at 7 miles obtained AWOS and at 6.5 made first radio call. Was watching G-1000 aircraft alerts plus iPad 'Foreflight' aircraft alerts. There was no response to call as Tower was very busy. Continued inbound and started slow descent from 3500 feet. At 5.5 miles still waiting for a Comm break finally able to make a second call to Tower; still no response. At 5 miles heard a call for an aircraft but for a different number. At 4.5 miles Tower called me to confirm my call sign and issued an immediate climb to 2900 feet and left 360 as I was above another inbound aircraft. Initiated climb and turn then looked down to see a 172 directly below me. Neither the G-1000 nor Foreflight showed his presence. After 360 I was cleared to follow 172 to left downwind and then landing. Upon contacting ground was asked to call the Tower. Controller was very polite and informally we discussed the circumstances leading up the near miss. He acknowledged hearing my calls but was too busy with pattern traffic to respond. We agreed the best course of action for me would have been to remain outside his area (6 miles) until he could acknowledge.I am a very experienced pilot. I feel my scan is pretty good but was rusty using the G-1000 (focus) and as I was above the 172 never saw him until the Tower call.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reported an NMAC with a C172 approaching PDK.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; Fog; Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
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: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Weather
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Working Cambridge with decent traffic. Was having issues with the frequency; which is a common problem at Cambridge when there is a lot of moisture in the atmosphere; and it was a very foggy morning so that was the case today. A large amount of static made it very hard to hear aircraft; especially north and south over the Hudson Valley and on the east side by Concord. I heard someone check on but did not hear the callsign. I asked the aircraft to say again. Aircraft X checked on; and during his check on there was a loud tone; similar to when a microphone is brought too close to a speaker. I acknowledged the transmission and climbed the aircraft. A similar tone occurred on the readback. I did not advise Aircraft X of the tone; as I believed the issue was on our end due to the aforementioned long-term frequency issues. Looking back; the tone might have been an equipment issue on Aircraft X; I suspect this due to the nature of the tone and its dissimilarity to other tone incidents I have experienced at Cambridge. I was relieved almost immediately after the tone incident; and advised the relieving Controller of the frequency issues.This event; which was a combination of major frequency static and two tone incidents; happened due to the long-term frequency issues at Cambridge; which are a known problem to the Controllers and Tech Operations. Tech Operations has tried for years to fix these issues; to no avail.The tone incident itself may have been caused by interference of some kind on the Aircraft X flight deck; but I am unable to verify this. Regardless of this; it is my understanding the communications equipment is supposed to have volume limiters in it to protect Controller's hearing.The frequency needs to be replaced. Tech Operations has done everything they can think of to my understanding to fix it; to no avail. The frequency has issues most often during weather events with a lot of moisture in the air; which is when we are at our busiest and most complex. This presents a major safety hazard when we cannot hear aircraft. Additionally; the frequent tone incidents stand to damage Controllers' hearing over time; which is also a safety hazard.




Synopsis: ZBW Controller reported a frequency problem related to weather issues.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Aircraft component: ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Departed Runway 25 at DEN. Passing 8;000ft; lost ADSB reporting and GPS NAV. Reported to ATC and continued assigned SID. GPS was recovered at 16;500 ft in addition to ADSB reporting. Continued flight and sent a [maintenance] code.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported failure of ADS-B and GPS departing DEN. Both systems returned to normal later in the departure climb.