elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LIT.TRACON, AR
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Military Transport
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C LIT
ATC / advisory: Tower LIT
Second aircraft: Military
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Airspace Structure; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I had just worked a busy session on Radar East with weather and multiple arrivals. The Supervisor needed me to get Radar West because that Controller was going home. I agreed to a quick break and went to use the bathroom and came right back to work Radar West. The airbase was utilizing the TACAN to Runway 7. The airbase utilizes Runway 25 99% of the time. Runway 7 might be used a total of 3 times a year and never when it is busy or with weather. I had [six military aircraft of the same type] in the radar pattern; all of which were stepping on each other wanting different things. I was also working another plane IFR into nearby SRC that needed an ILS approach. At one point I shouted that I need someone to break off Radar North which is the position that handles the airbase traffic and is combined to Radar West 99% of the time. No one came to break off North but the FLM was watching over my shoulder because the airbase traffic was very busy and in a configuration that we hardly use. I cleared Aircraft X for a transition from the west where they descend down to 2;000 FT. Aircraft Y wanted the TACAN to Runway 7 and I put them on a 090 heading and down to 5;000 thinking they will be at 5;000 and Aircraft X will be at 2;000. Aircraft X did not start their descent and was still at 080 when I noticed Aircraft Y descending out of 078 and only 1.1 NM away. The FLM did not see this either as our attention was on the base arrivals.If Radar North had been split off this would not have happened. Runway 7 have the base is so rarely used that when it is and there are more than two [of these type aircraft] in the pattern Radar North should immediately be split off. On a personal note; I feel that this is not a performance issue. I do not deserve a negative Performance Record of Conference since I asked for help and North was not split off. The FLM was right behind me and didn't see this situation either.




Synopsis: LIT Approach Controller reports of loss of separation while working a busy session at night with weather.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I was on a training flight with an instructor but was PIC.  The ATIS at ZZZ stated that markings were nonstandard.  We landed on Runway XX and I was instructed by the Tower to taxi to the end of the runway.  The airport was nearly empty with no flights going on.  I was instructed by the Tower to taxi straight then to taxiway to the FBO. I never saw any sign for taxiway.  There were no FBO signs and in the past I have been asked to taxi to the parking area.  I thought that the terminal must be where the FBO was so taxied straight ahead well out of the way of Aircraft Y that was stationary on a taxiway 90 degrees to our path. The Tower intended for me to turn left just after departing the runway toward the area that is usually full of airplanes and the opposite of the direction of the general aviation parking. The Controller apparently was trying to communicate both on the Tower and ground frequencies.  He never asked that I switch to ground which made sense with only 2 other planes on the entire airport.  I never heard the Aircraft Y make a call so assume that he was on ground.The area this occurred in is confusing with limited markings and I was requested to do something that was counterintuitive to the direction I had thought I would be going especially in light of the fact that in usual times when the airport is busy I had never been asked to go to the north after departing the runway due to the air tour planes. I failed to follow the taxi instructions that the Tower gave me but it would have been nice if the taxiway signs were better or if he had requested that I turn off one taxiway sooner to avoid any possible conflicts. Interestingly enough I would chalk this one up to the COVID times as if the airport were busy I think this would have been less likely as I would have been more on guard for any potential conflicts and likely listened more closely and asked for progressive taxi instructions if they were unclear to me.




Synopsis: Pilot reported confusing taxiway signs and instructions from ATC resulted in a taxiway incursion.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 E Super 21
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing Roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I took off in the late morning local time; heading northwest to practice turns; climbs/descents; shallow bank turns to get comfortable with airplane. On return to the airport; setup for landing on the runway. After touchdown the landing gear collapsed and props struck runway. There were several eye witnesses; including the airport manager that indicated that the landing gear doors were open and the gear was down. I am not sure what caused the landing gear to collapse. Perhaps the switch that locks the gear malfunctioned.

Callback: The Reporter stated that he felt the gear come down because of the pitch change but he is; after the fact; uncertain that it was actually full down and locked because the gear down indication is a single small green light. The ambient conditions at the time were bright sunlight which may have made the light appear that it was illuminated when in fact it was not. This aircraft has a history of the landing gear actuator motor over loading and popping the circuit breaker. The cause of the gear collapse is still unknown but is being investigated by Maintenance.

Second narrative: Landing gear collapsed after landing resulting in a belly-skid down the runway. Proper procedures and checklists were followed prior to landing; however the gear-down indicator lights are somewhat dim and hard to see in bright sunlight. I believe this resulted in a false confirmation that the gear was in fact down and locked.


Synopsis: A pilot reported his M20E landing gear collapsed after what appeared to be a normal approach and landing with the gear extended.
Date: 201907
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Off Duty
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Fatigue; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We arrived at the ZZZ airport for our flight. The inbound crew deplaned and we boarded to get ready for our flights that day. We were then all told it would be several hours before we could depart as there was a dent in the back of the aircraft and it would need to be properly inspected before takeoff. Knowing we only had a 10 hour overnight we were concerned but had to wait to see what would transpire. When we finally landed in ZZZ1 we were 3 hours late. Crew scheduling said we would have to work the flight and that they couldn't find anyone to work for us to give us proper crew rest. They told us not to arrive 20 minutes later and to NOT touch anything on the airplane and don't even go down the jetway until that time. They said that they were going to give us a 20 minute later departure time in order to keep us legal. BUT when we told them the van time to leave the hotel was still the same time they refused to change it and yelled at our A Flight Attendant!! Then they lied and placed on our work screen the the van time was the 20 minutes later but never allowed us to take a later van time. In turn we only received 3 hours sleep. Our departments did not work together to help to keep us and our passengers safe that day and we felt pressured to not be able to call in fatigued. They do not have any reserves in ZZZ at all to handle this situation when they schedule a 10 hour overnight.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported lack of staffing caused crew to work without mandated rest.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Initial Climb
Aircraft component: Coalescer Bag
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Previous flight was an overnight.  Dark aircraft upon arrival; started APU and used APU bleed and packs at gate. Shortly after takeoff; both the FO (First Officer) and I began smelling a 'dirty sock' odor coming from the vents in the cockpit.  This began faintly and became stronger for a few minutes.   I went on oxygen intermittently and the odor was mostly gone by the time we were climbing through 10;000 MSL.   I asked the inflight crew if they had detected anything in the cabin and they had not.  We notified Dispatch and Maintenance Control and were requested to continue to ZZZ1.  Strong 'dirty sock' odor returned in descent at approximately FL 230.  Persisted for approximately 10 minutes.   PACK 1 was turned off which seemed to help some.  However; odor came back strong again a few minutes later even with PACK 1 off.  The FO and I again used oxygen intermittently.   Odor mostly dissipated prior to landing. Airbus Cabin Odor Reporting Form completed.  The aircraft has a history of APU auto-shutdowns:  no less than five in the last few weeks.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a fume event localized to the flight deck during initial climb which dissipated  and resumed during descent. After troubleshooting and conferring with Maintenance the flight continued to destination.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: T75.TRACON, MO
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: LA-250 (Renegade/Seawolf)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This was a strange situation.My plan was to fly my aircraft VFR north around class B airspace from ALN to SUS. On my last flight; on one radio; I had an intermittant issue and I wanted it looked at. The avionics shop was at SUS and the technician was going to let me put it in his hangar on Sunday (today) and he would look at it.Flight conditions were MVFR over to SUS - 1;300 feet AGL at ALN and 1;800 feet AGL at SUS. It is a short 30 mile flight no tall obstructions. I checked weather at ALN and at SUS.  I then called ALN ground to get a taxi clearance for a VFR flight westbound to SUS. He asked me if I wanted flight following. I hadn't intended on asking for flight following; but with the low ceilings; I said yes and he gave me a squawk. I had not wanted to file an IFR plan because of the radio and the short flight.On departure from ALN; I contacted STL approach to identfy myself for the flight following. The STL approcah controller immediately vectored [me] to Cardinal; which is over Lambert; and told me to climb to 3;500 feet - which was clearly in IMC. I then made the assumption that the ALN tower had filed an IFR flight plan on my behalf and decided to follow the plan an ATC instructions.  Various vectors and altitudes were then given by ATC; which I followed.  About 2/3 of the way to SUS; Lambert ATC asked me about flight conditions and I told him IMC.  He then advised that I was on a VFR flight plan and asked if I was IFR rated and the aircraft was equiped for instrument flight - to which I replied affirmative to both.  He then told me I was converted to an IFR flight plan; was asked to climb to 4;000 feet and then vectored to the ILS 8R at SUS where I landed without incident.I had been unaware the ALN tower had filed a flight plan on my behalf - I thought I was only getting flight following. When I was directed into IMC; I made the assumption that they did file for me and that it was an IFR flight plan. I learned in an instant that it was not an IFR flight plan when I connected the dots of ATC placing me at 3;500 feet and asking me flight conditions. It then became clear to me in an instant that I had been directed into clouds by ATC while on a VFR flight plan.




Synopsis: LA25 pilot reported flying into IMC under a VFR flight plan because of lack of communication with ATC and making incorrect assumptions.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X departed Airport ZZZ climbing to FL230 per LOA.  I climbed the aircraft to FL260 and he requested to stay at FL230.  I advised him to let me know when he wanted to climb; called approach and told him he would be leveling off.  Shortly after he requested to return to ZZZ I asked if he had an emergency and he said no.  I told him to stand by and called Approach because he was still in their airspace to coordinate direct ZZZ.  While on the line the aircraft started a left turn and decent.  I told the other  controller I would call him back on what was going on.  I told Aircraft X that he did not have a clearance to turn and to state the nature of his [situation].  He said flaps.  The aircraft was cleared direct ZZZ and descended to 140 with a [local] altimeter.  The aircraft requested an initial heading; and I issued 075.  The pilot voice sounded very shaky. The aircraft was not able to be handed off to approach; and when I tried to coordinate if Approach had Radar they said just ship him.  I shipped the aircraft to [frequency] and he took it. Approach had called to talk to him again.  I tried the aircraft and he was still on my frequency so I issued [frequency] again.  At the time the controller working the airspace adjacent to me was doing the coordination with approach.No recommendations specifically; except automation was a problem that might need to be looked at.  A reroute to ZZZ did not work.  A reroute to ZZZ and a hard altitude of 140 did not work and the RF command did not work to hand off the aircraft.




Synopsis: Center Controller reports of an aircraft returning to departure airport; which could not be handed off to Approach automatically; and had to be handed off manually.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 100
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I visually checked the fuel level before this flight. It appeared full; on both sides. I had also asked the lineman; a few days earlier; to top the fuel tanks and he agreed to. While the fuel was not touching the fuel caps; I guessed that he had left 'room' for expansion; to avoid it running onto the hangar floor. I flew for approximately three hours; at which point the aircraft lost power. (It should have only burned approximately 27 gallons in three hours. It either burned more than 9 gallons/hour or it was not as full as it appeared; because the usable fuel quantity for this aircraft is 38 gallons. The right gauge even indicated 1/4 full). So; at 3;500 FT MSL; when the aircraft lost power; I immediately turned toward the closest airport and glided as far as possible. I banked back and forth; checked fuel settings; changed tanks; checked mixture; etc. and it then regained power for approximately 30 seconds; then completely quit. I thought we might make it to the airport; but when it was clear that that wouldn't be possible; I selected a field that looked level; without trees. I ended up making a smooth landing; but in a wheat field. No damage occurred to the aircraft and thankfully; no one was injured. While fuel is always the responsibility of the P.I.C.; the reality is the lineman failed to top it off. It was evidently approximately 10 gallons less than full; but the exact amount is impossible to ascertain with a visual inspection. The best lesson here is that if the fuel is not touching the fuel caps; it is imperative to use a fuel stick to get an accurate measurement of the fuel level. It is impossible to know how much fuel is in the tanks otherwise. I will always use a fuel stick in the future if the fuel is not touching the caps.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Cessna 172M had an engine failure after approximately 3 hours of flight and made an off-field emergency landing.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Second aircraft: Sail Plane
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Cleared to descend to cross SWEET at 7;000. Aircraft in front of us reported a glider to ATC. Upon reaching SWEET; glider was spotted just north of our position.


Second narrative: Clearance was to cross SWEET at 7;000 feet. Prior to SWEET aircraft ahead reported a glider just north of SWEET at approximately 7;500 feet. Just as we were crossing SWEET at 7;000 feet I saw the glider just off our left wing. The traffic was approximately 100 to 200 feet above us and laterally approximately 300 to 400 feet to the left of us. The glider appeared to be traveling in a southerly direction. The glider was mostly white with red markings. Once I pointed out the traffic both my First Officer and jumpseat rider got a visual of how close we came. I immediately had my First Officer advise ATC of traffic and how close he was to us. We over heard other traffic behind us getting a visual of the glider as well.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew report a NMAC with a glider over SWEET intersection at 7;000 feet.