elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ1
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; 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: Approaching aircraft announced it was on low approach to ZZZ on a 3 mile final to Runway XX. (I do not remember the aircraft number. I did not hear an aircraft type.) I was taking off on Runway YY. ZZZ is an uncontrolled airport with no turboprop or jet based there. We never see jets doing low approaches to ZZZ. I assumed I had plenty of time to turn out of the pattern before he reached the airport. I was surprised to see a jet pass overhead. I leveled off when I saw him; but if I'd kept climbing we would not have gotten much closer (Cessna 150 climbs at about 150 feet per min). He was several hundred feet above me. He did not deviate from heading or altitude. Neither aircraft made further radio calls. He exited the area (I did not see him or hear a call on radio after he passed over me.) I continued my climb. There was no turbulence of wake turbulence that I could feel.The problem was caused by my continuing takeoff. It would be safer to abort takeoff until approaching aircraft was past. (Note: wind favored Runway YY. An aircraft took off from Runway YY before me.)The approaching aircraft could have more clearly indicated type aircraft. The approaching aircraft could have turned away to avoid. If I had seen him; I would have aborted.




Synopsis: C150 Pilot reported that during initial climb out a jet doing a low approach from the opposite end of the runway passed directly over the Cessna; requiring evasive action.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CYUL.Airport, PQ
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center CZUL
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: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were assigned by Montreal center to descend to 8;000 feet MSL. We were filed and on the HABBS3 STAR. ATC then queried our altitude and descent rate saying we were above profile altitudes on the STAR. I responded with we were assigned a descent to 8;000 feet and are descending to that altitude. He then said we appeared to be about 4;000 feet above profile on the HABBS STAR. I then said; that we hadn't received instructions to descend via the arrival and he instructed me that in Canada they're not required to issue that clearance like we're used to in the US. It wasn't until we were parked and at the gate that we both looked up and then later saw in fine print on the arrival what he'd told us. I've been to Canada plenty of times without issue; but didn't catch that and usually follow STAR altitudes anyway; but was PM this flight and didn't catch it myself.[ATC] simply instructed us to hustle our descent in which by now we were and to maintain 6;000 feet next. Didn't receive any collision avoidance or off airway vectors. We continued the arrival and approach with no further issues.Maybe we could have that Canada doesn't require a 'descend via' clearance to our 10-7 pages or in the notes section of these arrivals to have that print bolded or blown up instead of in a tiny format that's hard to detect. We continued the arrival and approach with no further issues.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 pilot reported they were advised they failed to meet crossing restrictions on the HABBS3 STAR arrival into CYUL.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground LAX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: The Before Takeoff Checklist is too long and is a distraction. I highlighted this flight because of the short taxi; but it happens almost every flight. Captains always wait until the last minute to call for the checklist; and it turns me into a rote reader; I have to fit in the checklist; talk to ATC; and make sure the Captain is taxiing onto the right runway. The checklist almost always gets interrupted by ATC. I will make a mistake sometime in the future because of the recent changes to this checklist. I will either miss an item on the checklist; or I will miss an ATC instruction or I will accidentally allow a Captain to taxi where we shouldn't be. It is inevitable because the too long Before Takeoff Checklist takes my attention away from much more important tasks. Stop loading up First Officer's with useless tasks. Shorten the checklist.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reports his air carrier's Before Takeoff Checklist is too long and beginning the checklist late into the taxi flow means something is bound to be missed.
Date: 202104
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Taxi
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Vehicle Driver
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had a near missed due to pilots on Aircraft Y did not follow instructions from the ground tower. Me and my partner were towing an aircraft from the terminal to the Super-bay and the tower gave us the instruction to go Alpha; Bravo1; Zulu Charlie and Aircraft Y was going to give us way on Bravo 1 and the pilots did not comply with the instructions of holding short of Quebec and give us way; we saw them not stopping so we proceeded to slow down and communicate with the Ground Tower and told them that Aircraft Y was not stopping  as requested by the Tower; and they told us to hold position which it was very dangerous due to that we were making turn on Bravo 1 and with the momentum it was a close call; the Ground Tower called Aircraft Y and told them that they were supposed to hold short of Quebec and give way and they did not and the continue like nothing happen and we were concern on this near missed.




Synopsis: Tug driver towing an aircraft reported a near miss with a taxiing aircraft when it did not hold short on taxiway as instructed by ATC to give way to the aircraft being towed.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FRG.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D FRG
ATC / advisory: Tower FRG
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After being vectored to the final RNAV approach fix were clear for visual approach Runway 32 at FRG; I desired to continue the RNAV approach already setup with visual condition and runway insight; but about 1.8 miles from the Airport and about 600 ft. Tower call me for low altitude advisory and ask to regain altitude or fix the condition which I did and continue the approach to Runway 32. Reason for this situation I have not clue as I was following approach altitudes according to the approach plate. We were in VMC condition and runway in sight even before got to the Final Approach fix. Thanks for your consideration.




Synopsis: Captain reported on visual approach receiving a confusing ATC low altitude alert.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MGY.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan 208B
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Other Law Enforcement
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G MGY
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
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: While on an approximately 1/4 mile final to Runway 2 at Dayton-Wright Brothers Airport (KMGY); I observed a Piper Cherokee in what I had believed to be the run-up area for Runway 2. My Second in Command (SIC) was handling all radio calls; and had announced our base to final turn at approximately one mile out. At this 1/4 mile distance; the Piper Cherokee taxied onto Runway 2 with no radio calls and proceeded to depart. I immediately initiated a go-around and my SIC tried to establish contact with said aircraft. There was no response from the pilot; and we re-entered the pattern a second time and landed without incident. Upon further observation; where the pilot performed his run-up was already beyond the runway hold short line; thereby revealing that the pilot had already committed a runway incursion as well.




Synopsis: C208 pilot reported he was on approach to Runway 2 at MGY when an aircraft taxied onto the runway triggering a go-around decision.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; 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 Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ZZZ Tower departed Aircraft X on a 040 heading off of Runway XX; with a VFR target southwest bound; basically opposite direct of Aircraft X at 025. I issued the traffic; and told Aircraft X to expect higher once he passed the unknown VFR traffic. I then saw the VFR traffic begin to descend. I called ZZZ Tower to request control of Aircraft X in order to turn the aircraft to the east to avoid conflict. The Ground Controller told me he was answering the line for the Local Controller because he was busy; and gave me control. I issued a 070 heading to Aircraft X; then almost immediately Aircraft Z; departed on a 060 heading off of ZZZ. I turned Aircraft X on a 080 or a 090 heading to give myself divergent headings with Aircraft Z. Called ZZZ and told them to turn Aircraft Z; but they said they already switched Aircraft Z. I then turned Aircraft Y on a northwest heading to avoid a separation loss. I would recommend ZZZ Tower waits to switch aircraft to departure until all conflicts with aircraft appearing to join their downwind are resolved; Aircraft X was departed and switched right into a VFR target.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported that a VFR aircraft departed into the face of an IFR aircraft arrival; inbound to the same airport
Date: 202101
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Physiological - Other; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: During the late afternoon departure bank at ZZZ I noticed several passengers in the X and Y concourse and gate areas who were not actively eating/drinking and were non-compliant with the State X; Worker Union; and Company Face Covering Policy. I did not hear any announcements in the gate areas nor did I witness any of the companies Ground Personnel (Customer Service) reminding the passengers to comply with the policy. I had discussions with airport police; Homeland Security; and CBP [Customs and Border Protection] who all stated they do not enforce the state face covering policy. I spoke with ZZZ inflight senior base manager about the non-compliance issue and she stated that the concourse is not owned by the company and therefore cannot enforce the policy in the terminal. I am advocating for Flight Attendants who are evidently the only ones required to remind passenger's to comply with the face mask policy which sets us up for failure and contributes to the hundreds of reports of passengers non-compliance.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported concerns with many passengers not wearing face masks in the gate area at airport.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A UAV was in the block FL500B650 on a flight. The affected sectors had no prior knowledge of this UAV flying through the airspace and did not receive any specific information on potential lost-link; lost-comm; or route of flight information. I asked the MOS desk if they were aware the flight was transiting our airspace and they informed me that they did not know the flight was occurring and did not have easy access to the control information including pilot phone numbers. In addition; the aircraft type showed a 'ZZZZ.' If we don't know the specific aircraft is a UAV; then it is impossible to know that a lost-link may occur and specifically what routes may be flown should a lost-link occur. After I was off position; I was able to find the information for the flight and I discovered that the route the aircraft flew was also not an approved route. This potentially could put future flights in conflict with other UAV missions in the same vicinity. This event did not cause an OE/OD/etc; but the potential for mishap is great if the needed information is not given to the controllers working the positions. The proponents/users need to ensure coordination with the affected facilities prior to UAV flights. Controllers need to have ready access to lost-link and lost-comm procedures and phone numbers of the remote pilots. ERAM needs to be adapted ideally to show the correct aircraft type but at a minimum ERAM needs to indicate whether an aircraft is a UAV or not.




Synopsis: ZLA Controller voiced concern regarding an UAV operation that was lacking specific operator contact information; ERAM aircraft type designation/s and sector briefings.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise flight approximately 1.5 hours [into flight]; FL340; observed 'RF' indication on center hydraulic system; started clock and determined constant decreasing quantity. Declared emergency [and] diverted to [nearest suitable airport]. Post flight confirmed center hydraulic fluid leak.




Synopsis: B767-300ER Captain reported inflight loss of center hydraulic system. Flight diverted to nearest suitable airport.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Given clearance to descend via the PARQR1. Landing south at CLT 18L/R/C; 23 require two different altitudes. PARQR1 has two different altitudes to descend to; if the controller does not differentiate between 18L/C/R; and RWY 23.Using the language 'landing south' is not enough. RWY 23; or 18 L/C/R should be expressed.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported confusion when ATC cleared him to 'descend via the PARQR1 arrival to CLT; landing south' without specifying the runway; leaving the final altitude in question.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the landing rollout on runway XX at ZZZ; the [tailwheel biplane] I was operating abruptly departed from the paved runway surface onto the grass adjacent the runway. The wheel landing and initial rollout were uneventful and smooth. However; immediately after the tail wheel touched down onto the runway surface the aircraft swerved uncontrollably to the left. I reacted immediately with full right rudder trying to prevent the aircraft from departing the paved surface.As the aircraft began to exit the runway; 'at approximately 25 knots;' the lower right bow wing and lower right aileron scrapped the runway surface; damaging the wings outer edge. I added power to regain control of the aircraft approximately 10 ft left of the runway paved edge in the grass adjacent the runway. I continued maneuvering the aircraft in the grass for approximately 300 feet fortunately missing runway signs; runway lighting; and passing over a drainage ditch. I returned to the runway paved surface shortly thereafter. I taxied the aircraft back to the hangar under its own power. The weather at the field was clear; greater than 10 miles visibility; temp 73 degrees; and winds light and variable.

Callback: Pilot reported they do not know what caused the aircraft to veer left.



Synopsis: GA pilot reported runway excursion after landing; causing damage to the aircraft.