elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I haven't flown in years and just got back in an aircraft with a Flight Instructor. I didn't add sufficient power when realizing I was low on the glide-slope and this led to touching down short of the displaced runway threshold. This can be avoided in the future by aiming for the numbers; pitching for approach speed and using power to control the rate of descent.




Synopsis: Pilot reported they were below the glide slope and did not correct in time to prevent landing short of the runway threshold.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We momentarily exceeded the max altitude of 13;000 feet at ZZZZZ [Intersection].  Upon realizing this; we quickly returned to 13;000 feet as per the departure.The Captain was hand flying the departure; which was new to both of us. In hindsight; because we were both unfamiliar with the departure; it should have been on autopilot for reduced workload. He had also been off for several months; and I had just returned from a week of vacation.We could have verbalized the new departure as at least a minor risk factor and made an initial decision to engage the autopilot sooner after takeoff.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported exceeding the maximum altitude at an intersection during climbout.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Beech 1900
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
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: On approach to ZZZ at 3000 ft msl I gave a position report at 15 nautical miles from the airport with altitude and call sign and proposed landing runway. An aircraft which had departed at about the same time as I had responded that he had me in sight down there and would follow me into runway 25. At 12 miles out I again gave a position report with GPS distance from the airport and altitude. I then heard a CTAF call out from another aircraft that he was looking for traffic. A short time later said that he had me 'on the box'. I immediately responded on CTAF that I was 11.1 miles off ZZZ at 2900 feet MSL. Immediately after my CTAF call an aircraft flew directly over my aircraft at less than 300 feet. The plane continued in a straight un-interrupted line for the runway threshhold. I called out on CTAF that 'you just flew over the top of me.' All indications were that the aircraft never saw me and my communication was not answered.On landing just a few minutes later I walked up to the aircraft and spoke to the Captain. I told him that he almost hit me in midair. He told me that another pilot was playing music on the frequency and he was distracted. He said that he would talk to the other pilot because that behavior was not professional. He told me that the near miss was his fault. I told him that the last thing that we needed was a midair collision that would kill us all. I then ended the conversation and walked back to my aircraft.




Synopsis: C208 pilot reported a NMAC with a B1900 while on approach to the same runway. The pilot reported he made several calls on CTAF announcing his position and intentions.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Heavy Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I found cargo that; as far as I know; it was not properly segregated (a task not easy not to find when we want to run planes on time). Before leaving the crew room in ZZZ; I went over the NOTOC (Notice to Captain) and to see if the cargo was properly segregated; something I don't think I should be spending energy on before a flight. I want to trust everybody is doing their job. I found a Class 3 next to a 5.1 (note 3 on the segregation chart did not apply).Load master went on a long phone call (I assume with dispatch) and then cargo WAS segregated. So I guess I was right. This was the first of many other delays to come. Others were maintenance related and had nothing to do with cargo. The last load plan was how we departed (properly segregated)The next flight was given the same configuration they initially gave me in ZZZ. So basically load masters in ZZZ1 just brought the cargo back to where it was (improper); disregarding what happened on the previous flight. No information was forwarded or I guess nothing was learned.I'm not a load master. But I assume that since the cargo was segregated in ZZZ; it was an actual loading mistake. I would think they would not move the cargo and delay the flight just to keep me happy. This must be on their software. So when they load the cargo they would notice. This way it won't happen again.Suggestions: Load master software should flag improper cargo configurations.




Synopsis: First Officer reported discovering that Hazmat cargo was incorrectly loaded.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DET.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: low ceiling/light rain; 5
Aircraft: Cessna Twin Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground DET
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Ground; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: The Detroit City Airport Coleman Young Ground Control instructed me to taxi to Runway 33. I taxied from the General Aviation ramp at the base of the control tower to Runway 33 via taxiway 'A' with clearance to cross runway 25 on Alpha.The hold short markings and centerline on taxiway A leading to the Runway 25 threshold area are faded and difficult to see. I inadvertently crossed the hold short line and then ground control instructed me to hold my position. The aircraft was just beyond the line one aircraft length. Contributing factor was the wet taxiway surface along with faded paint markings and a dull gray overcast day type lighting.No other traffic was on the taxiway or in position on the runway and no other aircraft landed or departed during the time I was holding just beyond the hold short line waiting for takeoff clearance.The hold short line is in a position not consistent with typical hold short location and I was probably focusing my attention in looking for the hold short line in a typical location.




Synopsis: Air taxi pilot reported a runway incursion due to faded hold short lines on the taxiway at DET.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X was handed off from sector 41 (lower sector working 23;000 feet and below) and we accepted the handoff. Aircraft X checked on with me climbing through 11;500 feet to 23;000 feet. I acknowledged; 'Aircraft X; Oakland Center; Climb and maintain FL 300'. Immediately after that I saw conflict alert activate with a target at 15;500 feet roughly 2-3 miles directly in front of Aircraft X. Subsequently; before I could say anything; the Aircraft X pilot informed me that they had traffic in front at 15;500 feet. I turned on my primary radar and asked if they wanted a vector. I did not see any target on primary at this time. This was about the same time the Aircraft X advised that they had passed the traffic. We began some dialogue around the situation and he said they never visually saw an aircraft BUT they had passed one on TCAS. The pilot said they had to arrest the climb rate in order to avoid an RA. The pilot said they did not get an RA. Thereafter the Aircraft X resumed their normal rate to 30;000 feet. I had my Radar Assist call down to sector 41 and ask about that traffic. My Radar Assist informed me that sector 41 said; 'I didn't see any traffic there; but I do now.' I informed the Aircraft X that my sector was 24;000 feet and above so we didn't use primary radar that high but that we were investigating it. Even with my primary radar on I couldn't see a target in their area. I asked the Aircraft X if he was planning on filing a NMAC report and he said he wasn't; then asked if they needed to. I told them that I was reporting the incident and that they probably didn't need to.I would recommend that we have no communication changes below 18;000 feet. It seems to be a little bit of a gray area. Some feel the higher sectors shouldn't take handoffs below F180 and others say the lower sectors shouldn't issue frequency changes to aircraft below 18;000 feet. It just needs to be re-addressed.




Synopsis: A controller working airspace above 24;000 feet reported taking the handoff of a departure about 11;000 feet. The pilot advised the controller of TCAS traffic in front of them at 15;500 feet and that they were responding by reducing their climb rate. At the same time; the Conflict Alert appeared on the controller's radar display.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DC-10 30
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Descending through FL190 all three of the Captain's DUs [Display Units] went blank. I immediately transferred the airplane to the First Officer whose DUs were fine. I then did the in range checklist and made sure our altimeters were set correctly. The First Officer subsequently lost his FMC. The Captain's side came back but only in the standby mode. We able to get first officer's side [FMC] back but it subsequently failed again. We decided to declare an emergency to get radar vectors to final and receive priority handling since there was mountainous terrain and fuel was starting to be a factor although either at the time was VMC. We determined the landing speeds from the QRH for our weight; [and] then flew a visual approach to a landing runway. The First Officer flew the visual approach since his side had better data when compared to the standby airspeed. We figure we had a dual FMC failure; probably caused by rain at our departure airport.


Second narrative: ...deviating around weather using our on board radar north of the arrival course...FMC data returned after landing. Prior to our departure; heavy thunderstorms were experienced at the ramp. The aircraft's electronics bay may possibly have been contaminated with rain water. After arrival at the ramp; mechanics reported to us that a lot of water was dripping from the underside of the aircraft.


Synopsis: A DC-10 flight crew suffered recurring failures of display units and FMCs during their descent to a safe landing in VMC. Heavy rains at the ramp prior to their departure may have entered the aircraft before takeoff as ramp personnel noted water dripping from the underside of the aircraft as they taxied in the ramp following the incident.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A combination of inclement weather on approach; and ATC keeping flight crew at a higher altitude than comfortable in order to shoot a stabilized approach resulted in the flight crew's decision to execute a go-around. Upon go-around PF (FO) (Pilot Flying; First Officer) exclaimed 'missed approach; toga; flaps 2'. PM (CA) (Pilot Monitoring; Captain) immediately began coordination with ATC. ATC instructed the crew to fly runway heading at an assigned altitude. PM failed to stay within SOP of the go around profile while talking to ATC. Simultaneously PF became task saturated to flying the missed approach. ATC issued a new altitude and heading. PM began twisting new heading and setting new altitude. PF then began flying the turn. During the turn PF noticed the airspeed decreasing and the PLI (Pilot Limit Indicator) appear. PF pushed the nose down and exclaimed 'gear up; speed up!' reaching for the gear handle and twisting the speed bug. At this moment the stick shaker occurred and the PF recovered. Following this occurrence the crew shot another approach and discussed what happened on the ground. From this pilots perspective this was a breakdown in CRM and SOP. As PF I was focused on flying the aircraft and relied on my PM to handle his call outs and secondary tasks. Once the 'positive rate' callout was neglected the system collapsed. I would suggest that because missed approaches are not that common; it would be wise to brief the proper callouts and procedures during the approach briefing; I intend to do so moving forward.




Synopsis: ERJ First Officer reported a deviation from SOP that led to stick shaker activation while performing a missed approach.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Other Fire Extinguishing System
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Upon reaching our cruise altitude while flying south I attempted to use the aircraft sun visor. The visor was loosed at the point where the visor rod attaches to the ball making it swing freely and not very useful. The friction nut that tightens the ball in place was also stripped beyond a certain tightness level. I attempted to spin the visor clockwise in order to hopefully tighten the rod into the ball as to be able to make the visor stay in place. During the rotation; as the visor went around the overhead panel and more specifically the cargo fire detection panel; the visor hit a small c shape metal piece that allows the FWD cargo agent discharge cover to rest. The visor came into contact with this metal tab; bending it under the guard and pushing it against the discharge button causing the agent to discharge into the FWD cargo compartment. We received an ECAM and corresponding light indicating the fire suppression agent was discharged into the compartment. The captain contacted operations and maintenance to inform them of the incident. The rest of the flight proceeded uneventfully and we landed at destination where the aircraft was grounded awaiting maintenance. We followed the ECAM message to not open the cargo hold until all passengers were deplaned. The captain also made the appropriate entries in the aircraft logbook. 1 for the cargo hold fire suppression agent being discharged and 1 for the sun visor not being functional. Me and the captain both noticed that this is a design flaw in the Airbus. My visor is able to inadvertently activate the FWD cargo suppression system and his is able to activate the Ram Air Turbine since the same design flaw occurs with that switch on his side. A suggestion would be to have a rail of other device preventing the window visor from reaching any switch. At the very least inform crew member of this potential scenario.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer experienced difficulties with a balky sun visor and attempted to tighten the attachment ball by rotating the entire visor clockwise several times. The visor came into contact with a metal tab by the forward cargo fire bottle; bending it; and causing the agent to be discharged. The flight continued to destination.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Snow; Turbulence
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: ATC Ground gave us instructions to taxi via 'B' to 'W' cross Runway XXR shortly after landing. Field conditions were icy with building snow. The Captain tried to make the 90 degree turn onto 'W' but the aircraft started to slide about 20 degrees through the turn. He stopped the aircraft immediately. We realized the airplane could not make the turn without leaving the prepared surface due to the icy conditions. We informed Ground that we would need to be towed. Maintenance came with a tug and pulled us all the way to parking. The Maintenance Technician informed us that we never left the prepared surface and we stopped in an easy position to be towed. I think we were safe to the maximum extent possible given the field conditions. Only better grooming could have minimized the event. However; snow removal teams were working as fast as they could.




Synopsis: MD11 First Officer reports the aircraft sliding on the ice and snow as the Captain attempts to exit the runway. The aircraft is stopped on the pavement and a tow is requested.