elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201508
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Staffing; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared to push and had new weights uplink three times. We called to cancel push clearance and Captain told tug driver to stand by while they loaded the FMC. Once ready they called for push clearance and I heard the Captain tell the tug driver brakes released cleared to push. The aircraft started moving with no response from tug driver. The Captain tried to contact the tug driver but there was still no response. We moved back about ten feet before coming to a stop. One of the push crew got on headset and told us there was no one on the tug.




Synopsis: The 777 crew were cleared to push back; released the brakes and moved back about ten feet before realizing that there was no one driving the tug.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While approaching the [Island] airport on a VFR night flight in VMC; I passed Aircraft Y inbound as well to the same airport; on visual approach.  I was in trail of Aircraft Y from departure until few miles west of the [Island] airport.  Within range on the Tower I told Center I had [Island] airport in sight and requested a frequency change.  Center; when informed of my decision to change frequency and terminate flight following; agreed and asked me if I was overtaking Aircraft Y.  I replied yes; and in return told me to change to Tower and advise them that I was in front of Aircraft Y.  I was clear of the other traffic at that time and in front.  The other plane had already left Center prior and was trying to call the Tower.  I made my initial call to the Tower and I was asked to call 5 miles away from the field.  Shortly after the other plane called the Tower; successfully this time; and was told to maintain visual with me and to follow me to the field.  I noticed that the following aircraft was close to me and while I was on a normal approach course seemed to get even closer.  I finally noticed that the plane changed direction to maintain a safe distance.  The approach then went well; I landed first and Aircraft Y second just as planned.  The Captain of the other airplane made the decision to remain very close behind me; he told me; due to the fact that he was on a visual approach to the field and judged that he had priority over all other aircraft.  He strongly believed that I did cut in front of him and was responsible for his evasive action.  We were both on Center frequency and changed to Tower within minutes.  The contributing factors as to why we got so close to each other are the fact that I overtook him while at the same time we were changing frequencies and the interpretation of the rules and regulations.




Synopsis: Captain of a light twin reports a NMAC with another light twin while attempting to be first to land at an island airport.  The reporter was able to establish communication with the Tower first and was cleared to land with Aircraft Y to follow.  This did not sit well with the pilot of Aircraft Y.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Climb
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climb out from ZZZ passing approximately 9;000 ft.; Cabin Pressure System 1 fail followed shortly by Cabin Pressure System 2 fail. Per ECAM reverted to manual control and elected to return to ZZZ. Landed approximately 3;300 lbs. over max landing weight after conferring with Dispatch and Maintenance.


Second narrative: 9;000 ft on climbout; Cabin Pressure System 1 fail; 9;500 ft Cabin Pressure System 2 fail. Return to ZZZ with approval for overweight landing from Dispatcher.


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported returning to departure airport after experiencing loss of both cabin pressure auto control systems.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: It is very unsafe to allow passengers to sit in row XX 4/5/6 on Aircraft X due to social distancing. When the B FA is in their jumpseat; they are touching knees with the person in XX6. Having three people facing directly at the FA with only a foot or two of space is very unsafe; even with masks. At the very least; XX6 and 5 need to be blocked for social distancing.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported social distancing concerns with seat assignments.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CNO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D CNO
ATC / advisory: Tower CNO
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X checked in approximately 12 miles southeast for landing at 025 feet. Aircraft X was issued to enter left base; east of the wash approximately 2 minutes later Aircraft X reported a near miss with an Aircraft Y. Aircraft X stated the aircraft passed behind about 500 feet lower. A target was observed with no altitude indication passing behind Aircraft X speed indicate 140 knots. Target was not observed prior to the report due to other aircraft in the vicinity of the airport. I should better scan for fast moving aircraft departing adjacent airports.




Synopsis: CNO Tower Controller reported an aircraft entering their pattern reported a NMAC.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZKC.ARTCC, KS
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZKC
ATC / advisory: Center ZKC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was pilot flying [and we were] cleared direct to ENL. The FMS was correctly modified and the First Officer created abeam waypoints for fuel tracking. With Kansas City Center; I put into legs page what a direct to CHERI would do for our timing and heading; but did not execute it. The request was made and while waiting for ATC response; the First Officer mistakenly thought we were cleared to CHERI because that's what the legs page reflected. However; it was not our active waypoint.He then created an abeam point off of ENL (for fuel) and executed; thus making CHERI our active waypoint. The sun was in our eyes and it was difficult to see the 'execute' light on the CDU and I was not aware of him creating a new active waypoint (ENL03) which would have put us a few miles north of ENL. I looked at the HSI and thought I saw the magenta line to ENL; but it was really ENL03. I missed the 03 after ENL (abeam waypoint).We were subsequently asked what point we were navigating to and realized the mistake. We corrected back to ENL and moments later were cleared direct to CHERI. The remainder of flight was uneventful. This was simply a communications breakdown by both pilots. I assumed he realized; and should have verbally informed him; that we were not yet cleared to CHERI and what he saw in the CDU legs page was not an active waypoint and it was not executed. It was for informational/situational awareness purposes only.On this occasion; the First Officer forgot to get me to acknowledge this route modification (like he did earlier in the flight) before executing. We discussed at length strict adherence to SOP; the importance of never executing an FMC change without a verbal confirmation from the other pilot; and good cockpit communications. We no doubt learned a valuable lesson from this honest mistake.


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


Synopsis: B767 flight crew mismanaged the FMS in the process of navigating their clearance.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Training flight for a student who needed a 90 day solo endorsement. After doing maneuvers; I gave him a partial power loss and he decided to divert to ZZZ about 10 NM from our position. I had already checked NOTAMs and we got AWOS information twice on the way. Student announced every couple miles where we were and that we were inbound with a simulated loss of power for a straight in on Runway XX. I saw when we were about 2 NM away that the runway looked good but some of the taxiways were snowy and told my student we were not doing a full stop so we planned for a touch and go with a go-around possibility. About 1 NM away I saw a snowplow working on the taxiways. As we were in the flare; I saw the snowplow turning towards the runway. I put the flaps up and my student added power and as we climbed over the runway the snowplow turned onto the approach end of Runway XY and in our direction; we flew over the plow about 100-200 feet overhead.I believe the weather may have contributed as it was hazy on the ground; we could clearly see things on the ground but the haze may have affected the ability of the plow to see us.I think we could have made a safer decision to only do a low approach.I mostly think the situation would have not been an issue if there was any communication from the airport. There was no mention of work being done or the runway being closed in either NOTAMs or the AWOS; nor did the plow ever say anything on CTAF about their intentions. We were broadcasting our location and intentions regularly but heard no one else. We did a double check and volume was good; frequency was correct.




Synopsis: C172 flight instructor reported snow plow on runway during landing maneuver.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: VGT.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30; Tower VGT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I requested a VFR departure and clearance through Class B with Ground control at KVGT per normal procedure. I was issued departure instructions 'As requested' with a vector (210); squawk; and departure frequency. After takeoff from KVGT runway 12R; I turned to a 210 and continued my climb on Tower frequency. Normally; KVGT tower switches VFR departures to LAS Departure control very quickly after takeoff; and LAS departure always informs you that you are cleared through Class B as they pick you up.Today; the tower controller did not pass me off to departure; and I climbed to the ceiling of the tower airspace/floor of Class B while departing. I requested a switch to departure control; expecting my 'As requested' VFR departure clearance and continued my climb while contacting departure. I made a radio switch error; corrected it; and then contacted departure now a few hundred feet into the Class B. The departure controller said I was not cleared into Class B and that surprised me. I apologized and he said it was not a big deal as there was no other traffic for miles.I want to file this report as there were a few human factors; and perceptions which led to this airspace bust. First; I expected the clearance into B airspace as we always get it. I also expected the tower to switch me quickly to departure control soon after takeoff and well before nearing Class B; neither of those things happened today. That; coupled with my radio error and distraction; and expectation for clearance into Bravo; caused the issue. Second; the tower controller who gave me my clearance said something to the effect of cleared 'As requested' and in my mind; I was thinking I had clearance into Class B. That in fact is incorrect and an error on my part. No safety of flight issues occurred as a result of this; however; in the future it could be worse and traffic conflicts could happen.




Synopsis: VFR pilot requested a VFR departure and clearance through the LAS Class Bravo airspace. Controller at Tower approved the request. When handed off to TRACON; the Approach Controller stated the aircraft was not cleared into the Bravo airspace.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System Pump
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: EDP [Engine Driven Pump] 2R was not producing pressure and was entered in the logbook on the previous night. Maintenance Control deferred the depressurization function instead of the pump because deferring the pump involved too much time to remove the pump. Their words; not mine. The number 2 hydraulic system failed the after start self test so the manual after start test was accomplished; and the test failed. The MEL does not mention the fact that the system will fail in the manual mode although it does say the system may fail the test in auto. Maintenance Control said the pump would fail because the MEL means the pump will produce no pressure. This is not stated in the MEL. When the hydraulic system was returned to auto; all indications were normal and all messages disappeared; placing the system back in its previous condition. But if the 2L pump failed; I believe there would be a 'HYD 2' failure. There is definitely confusion on the function of the 'depressurization function' either on my part or Maintenance Control's part. At the very least; the MEL is poorly written if what they were correct in what they were telling me about the pump not producing pressure. It should clearly state the pump will not produce any pressure at all; and the respective system will fail in the event of the opposite pump failing.




Synopsis: An MD-11 Captain addressed concerns about the wording of an MEL regarding dispatch with the 'depressurization function' of a hydraulic system deferred rather than the Engine Driven Pump which was responsible for the 'function' failure. The Captain implies that MEL was utilized because deferring the pump would have required too much time to accomplish.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On a cross country flight I planned a fuel stop. Tower was contacted ten miles north. ATIS Echo current (270/5; Sky clear; landing and departure Runway 22). I was asked to report on south shore of river. As I monitored frequency; no traffic was heard except for [an air carrier] Maintenance crew exchanging communications with Tower; on the ground; doing some taxiing and maintenance. I contacted Tower on south shore of river as directed; and received clearance to land. Right base; final; flare and touch down uneventful; I pull flaps up; and rolling down the runway; I notice an MD80 on the first exit to the right on Taxiway XX facing away from Runway 22. As I planned to continue rolling down Runway 22 to exit on the next exit on the right on Taxiway XY; suddenly; I lost rolling control; became airborne again; and blown off on to the grass on the left side of the runway. I tried to keep the plane level; and applied back pressure. Coming to a stop; more than 30 feet off the runway. Engine cut off; and as I exit the plane; I heard a roaring noise of the engine of the jet on Taxiway XX.




Synopsis: The pilot of a PA28 reported a loss of control and runway excursion due to jet blast from an aircraft during a maintenance engine run on a taxiway.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PVU.Airport, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA42 Twin Star
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E S56
ATC / advisory: TRACON S56
Second aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a routine instrument training flight; my student was flying the PROVO4.FFU ODP under simulated IFR conditions. I was talking to ATC during the flight. As we turned inbound to FFU we were given a traffic advisory of another DA40 that was east of us maneuvering at the same altitude. This is not uncommon in our training environment. I replied to ATC that we were looking for the traffic. A short time after; ATC issued a traffic alert to both aircraft. As I was looking for the traffic; I got a TIS traffic alert inside my airplane that said the other aircraft was at the same altitude and 4 o'clock. I looked and saw the DA40 turning right into our flight path about 50 feet below us and within 200-300 feet. I immediately took the controls from my student; reported traffic in sight and an immediate climb to 9;000 to avoid that aircraft. We were cleared through the bravo airspace by ATC. The other aircraft never altered their course. It appeared they were holding over the VOR at 8;500 but they may not have communicated that to ATC; or at least that information was never communicated to me. If it were; I would have requested a bravo clearance at 9;000 feet and the whole thing would have been avoided.




Synopsis: DA42 flight instructor reported a NMAC with a DA40 while on the PVU PROVO4 SID near the FFU VOR.