elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DAL.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: It was a very busy day coming into DAL. We were being vectored from the northeast for a Visual Approach. We had Company traffic in sight and were told to follow them and cleared for the Visual Approach. We ensured clearance from them and began maneuvering for the runway with a more direct path to ZZZZZ.  It was about that time I noticed a TCAS target ahead. I cannot remember if we had already been switched to Tower or not at that point; but ATC told us about the traffic ahead. I responded; 'looking for traffic.' Shortly after that we heard ATC tell Aircraft Y [the traffic ] to turn east immediately. We were given no more instruction and weren't sure which way would be best for avoidance. I told the Captain that we may get an RA here and he prepared. We then got a climb RA. The Captain responded immediately and we avoided the conflict.We were able to regain approach stability and land uneventfully. We have no idea why a small aircraft was in Class B airspace between us and our line to the airport while we were cleared for a Visual Approach; or why we were given no instruction by ATC other than a traffic notification. By the time the traffic was noticed by us as a threat; the rate of closure was so fast we only had a few seconds to process what we may needed to do. We never got Aircraft Y in sight; but I noticed on the TCAS indication that he was 300 feet below us at what looked like our position on the 2.5 NM display.I am not sure what needs to happen to prevent this from happening again because I'm not sure why this happened. I'm hoping this report brings some attention to this event so we can find out why something like this happened. I know they were busy but I feel this incident should have been prevented by either keeping us in their control until we were clear of Aircraft Y or keeping them out of Class B at such a busy time.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer on a Visual Approach in DAL airspace reported a NMAC and TCAS/RA alert for a VFR small aircraft.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft Y passed over 1 mile behind Aircraft X; and though both aircraft were clearly separated and heading away from each other; the conflict alert (CA) activated. When working busy traffic; erroneous conflict alert alarms are distracting and take the controller's focus away from actual traffic situations. This problem seems to have gotten worse with the implementation of fusion radar processing at NCT. These situations should be documented and reviewed to identify problems in the system; and then those problems should be fixed.




Synopsis: NCT Controller reports of false alarms on non conflicting traffic possibly due to fusion radar.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PMV.Airport, NE
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E PMV
ATC / advisory: CTAF PMV
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; 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: Approached Plattsmouth airport (PMV) from the west at 2;200 MSL with intention to practice landings with student. AWOS reported wind direction from 240; which slightly favored runway 16. Announced on CTAF (122.7) intention to enter left downwind to Runway 16 by crossing runway at midfield. An unidentified voice came over CTAF stating 'Active Runway is 34.' I replied on CTAF 'Winds favor 16.' I then saw Aircraft Y holding at the approach end of Runway 34. I announced on CTAF we would switch to Runway 34. I instructed my student to continue across the airport and climb to 2;700. We turned south approximately one mile east of the runway and turned south. We turned back to the west and passed one mile south of the airport. We then heard the Aircraft Y pilot report 'Aircraft Y...departing the pattern to the south.' I immediately announced my position 'Aircraft X...south of Plattsmouth at 2;700 feet.' About 12 seconds later I spotted Aircraft Y below our altitude on an intersecting course. At the same time Aircraft Y pilot came on the radio and said 'Aircraft X at Plattsmouth; I'll fly under you.' I replied; 'I see you; Aircraft Y; have a good flight.' He passed under and slightly behind us. To prevent a recurrence I would query the departing aircraft as to direction of flight and plan pattern entry accordingly. Had Aircraft Y been showing a landing light; I would have seen him much sooner. A contributing factor to this occurrence was the wind direction being nearly perpendicular to the runway; making runway selection somewhat ambiguous.




Synopsis: GA instructor reported an NMAC near PMV.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E D01
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Took over PUB (Pueblo) sector and COS (Colorado Springs) called for a handoff on Aircraft X. I accepted the handoff - datablock was indicating VFR; and like normal - displayed no type aircraft or destination. I didn't have a strip on the aircraft; so assumed aircraft was on a local code - because the data block appeared to be a local code since it was void of any information.When the pilot checked in; I asked his type aircraft and destination. Pilot responded with 'DHT'. I then inquired if pilot wanted flight following all the way to DHT. Pilot replied; 'We have an IFR on file'. I said oh; you have one on file? And pilot instructed me he was currently IFR at 10000 and had already received IFR clearance after departure. I called COS to ask if the aircraft was IFR and they said YES. Aircraft was on the IFR code that was in the NAS (National Airspace System) after I had flight data look for information on him. There was no strip at the PUB sector or in the strip basket next to PUB. Since the code was correct; the aircraft should have been able to be handed off to ZDV without issue since flight plan was IFR in the NAS. However; when I initiated a handoff to ZDV; it flashed 'Local Flight plan'. So; I had flight data remove the flight plan and put a new one in so that the automation would work correctly down the road. This is a HUGE problem with the automation between COS and PUB. No one seems to have any answers but this automation issue has been happening for months. It is UNSAFE; and NEEDS TO BE FIXED IMMEDIATELY. We can't possibly work traffic when one controller thinks an aircraft is IFR; the pilot thinks he is IFR; but the next controller takes the handoff; has ZERO information on the flight plan; and the datablock is indicating VFR. This is DANGEROUS.




Synopsis: Certified Professional Controller; CPC; at Denver TRACON (Pueblo Sector); reported a recurring automation failure between D01 (PUB Sector); and Springs departure; COS.  Automation handoffs received; do not transfer necessary aircraft data to provide required service. Further interfacility automated handoffs to Denver ARTCC; ZDV; do not display and transfer correct data.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Saab 340 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Smoke and fumes in the cabin; fumes in the cockpit. During the final stage of cruise the First Officer and I smelled a strong odor at the same time. Just as we noticed the odor the Flight Attendant called us on the interphone and reported smoke and fumes in the cabin. I told him to don his mask and have the fire extinguisher ready and available. I asked if he saw fire; he said no. He reported the smoke was coming from a lower air vent mid cabin. I told him to update me of any status change and that I will get us down quickly. Being the pilot not flying I put on my mask and goggles followed by the First Officer. I declared an emergency with ATC told them we have smoke and fumes in the cabin and needed immediate vectors to [a nearby airport]. I chose [this airport] because of our altitude and speed with reference to where we were. We asked to keep max speed and start our descent to the airport. I interphoned back to the Flight Attendant that we declared an emergency and that we should be on the ground in less than 20 minutes at the time. He reported that the smoke and fumes were pretty bad. The QRH was pulled and followed with closing of bleeds and fans. After decreasing cabin pressure enough; we opened the outflow valves which helped with smoke removal. After touchdown and taxing to the Customs ramp I called for an evacuation out the main cabin door as soon as engine shut down. Fire rescue was there and ready to assist. My crew worked very well in this emergency situation and communication was very clear. We worked quickly and professionally and were complimented on a job well done in the Customs line by passengers.




Synopsis: SF340 Captain experiences fumes in the cockpit with smoke reporter in the cabin and diverts to the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 4
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Confusion; Distraction
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were dispatched to our destination in Spain with VMC forecast for arrival. The company provided NOTAMs that all approaches were out of service. During the cruise portion the weather went below VMC and we asked what they wanted us to do. They told us an ASR approach would be available. Upon descent the Dispatcher informed us that no ASR was available. We held then diverted to a nearby military field and eventually timed out. The Captain looked up the military NOTAMs [while there] and found that the ASR was NOTAM'd out from [the middle of the previous month to the end of this month]. The company Dispatcher failed to give us that information in our paper work.


Second narrative: Why was I told that an ASR was available; in light of such a NOTAM? Why weren't the FOM procedures for Dispatch to an airfield without instrument approach available used? It was clear the Spanish controllers were confused by our intentions and inability to fly an approach. This event certainly disrupted service and caused confusion for the crew as the SATCOM failed once we arrived.


Synopsis: An MD11 crew dispatched to a forecast VMC European airport for which all approaches were OTS had to to divert to a nearby military field when low ceilings emerged and the promised radar directed approach proved to be fictitious.
Date: 201310
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Flight Dynamics Navigation and Safety
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Avionics; Maintenance Repairman; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was co-signing for a Mechanic that had installed a rack. When checking out the install; I believed it to be good. I missed a connector that was not fully engaged as did the Quality Assurance (QA) Inspector. Due to the circumstances; I personally; time constraints or not; will be more thorough with my inspection of work performed before signing for anyone.




Synopsis: An Avionics Technician was informed a B767-300 aircraft had returned to field (air turnback); after he had co-signed for the work performed by another Mechanic. He had missed a connector that was not fully engaged on an avionics rack.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RSW.TRACON, FL
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E RSW
ATC / advisory: TRACON RSW
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We have another problem with aircraft being routed over LBV VOR at 10;000 FT as an established procedure. This is a dangerous and immanent safety issue that must be dealt with now! In the latest situation; we have a B717 and an A320 at 10;000 FT on the SHFTY STAR crossing MOEMO (ZMA LAL SECTOR) direct LBV VOR. A Sovereign was direct LBV VOR from the northeast. No coordination accomplished by ZMA and we had to take evasive action on the B717 and A320 in order to maintain standard separation. ZMA LBV finally climbed the Sovereign back up to 11;000 FT. However; the closest proximity was about 8 miles apart with a 350 knot closure rate. Again; this situation can not; and has not; been taken care of and needs to be addressed immediately. Feed either LBV traffic at 11;000 FT or LAL traffic at 11;000 FT. Having a procedure that allows two different sectors to feed the same fix at the same altitude is absurd!




Synopsis: RSW Controller expressed concern regarding an existing procedure that allows simultaneous arrivals over the same fix at the same altitude from different sectors.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BIS.Airport, ND
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D BIS
ATC / advisory: Tower BIS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Time Pressure; Fatigue
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Weather; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Late evening our flight was approaching BIS. We had both listened to the ATIS; and with a more or less direct crosswind to 13/31; both thought we heard Runway 13 was the active runway.  We briefed it; and set up for it. When we checked in we thought the Controller had said Runway 13 as well.  When the Controller assigned a direct to fix to get us to the airport under VMC conditions it sounded like it was a fix for [Runway] 13. The fixes in question were Runway 13's JEKAN; where we thought we were cleared to; vs. Runway 31's JADAN (NDB) where the Controller thought we [were] going to. After flying to the fix for about 3 minutes; the Controller queried our course. We told him and he advised us that we needed to go to the fix for Runway 31. We advised him we had read back to him the JEKAN fix. [We] then re-entered the JADAN fix and flew to it. We requested Runway 13 from Tower; and adjusted our pattern for [Runway] 13; which was no issue whatsoever. There was no other traffic in the airport area; no other traffic was affected; and safety was not compromised; just a bit of confusion; I believe partly by the easy confusion of runway numbers 13 vs. 31; the close sounding fixes; and a long day that was to be a FAR 117 extension as well. We landed without further incident.




Synopsis: A pilot reported confusion while approaching BIS from the east having heard ATIS report Runway 13 in use and then the Controller's clearance to proceed to JEKAN thirteen miles northwest of Runway 13 for a visual. The Controller actually cleared them to the NDB JADAN; 5.5 miles southeast for a Runway 31 visual.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 K (231) / Encore
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Embraer Legacy 450/500
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft; Ground Incursion Runway
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 executing a GPS approach and made 3 position reports on the UNICOM frequency; including the final call during short final. An executive jet taxied to the hold short line and then; without warning and without any announcement on the UNICOM frequency; pulled onto the runway. He then broadcasted 'rolling Runway XX with IFR departure.' This action necessitated immediate evasive action to avoid collision. Airport has an RCO. I spoke to the Supervising Controller who checked the transcript and there was no clearance void time issued for [departing airport]; hence no urgency for him to become airborne. If this event has occurred at a towered field; other aircraft would have been cited for a runway incursion. I have never experienced such a blatant disregard for established procedures and safety in my 18 years of flying.




Synopsis: An executive jet departed non-tower airport while M20K aircraft was on GPS approach; causing M20K to take evasive action.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Other 101
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After thorough review of new Part 107 I believed that no notification of uncontrolled airports was required. I reviewed charts and knew I was well away from B; C; D and E airspace and solidly within Class G. No people were around and no aircraft were anywhere to be seen. I did a few takeoffs and landings and hovering at low altitude. Only after later reading online blogs and further review did I understand that my operation had probably been under Part 101 and that prior notification had been required. Some parts of the FAA website are clearer than others. On the FAA.gov website I saw that no pilot license was required for recreational drone flying. And I reviewed the airspace requirements on the FAA summary of Part 107. I had registered and marked my drone with my UAS Certificate number.




Synopsis: A UAS pilot discovered during a postflight FAR review that his takeoffs; landings; and hover flight near a private uncontrolled airport may have violated FAR 101.41(e).