elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: T6A Texan II / Harvard II (Raytheon)
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Training in progress on LC1 position. Aircraft X was in the right closed traffic pattern along with 2 other aircraft. Aircraft Y called inbound 9 miles NW of the field and was instructed to enter right downwind for XXR. The pilot requested to fly overhead to enter a left downwind for XXL. The trainee instructed Aircraft Y to overfly midfield at or above two thousand feet; the pilot replied 'Roger;' acknowledging the instructions. Pattern altitude for closed traffic is one thousand four hundred feet. Aircraft Y; abeam midfield reported Aircraft X in sight as he flew southbound to cross overhead midfield. Aircraft X then reported that he had to perform an evasive turn to avoid a 'near midair incident.' At the time of that report; Aircraft X indicated 017 and Aircraft Y indicated 018 on the radar display. The aircraft both continued on and landed on their assigned runway. This incident occurred because both aircraft involved flew in a manner other than what was instructed and expected of them. Aircraft Y descended well below his altitude restriction and Aircraft X was flying well above pattern altitude without notifying the tower of his intentions to do so. Both aircraft placed themselves in a position to create a conflict with each other. Due to the lag in radar display; the proximity of the aircraft was both unrealized and unexpected until the pilot had reported it to us.Pilots must be familiar with standard procedures as well as follow any instructions given them by ATC; if both of those had taken place; there would have been no incident.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported an NMAC requiring evasive action to avoid a collision.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: VHHK.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center VHHK
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After just reaching our low initial cruising altitude due to our heavy weight; Hong Kong departure control informed us of an opposite direction unidentified aircraft primary radar return he was painting ahead of us along our airway. The aircraft was either not transponder equipped or the transponder was off so the controller was not able to provide accurate altitude information but instead passed along an estimate of the aircraft's altitude from another aircraft as being in the vicinity of 40;000 feet and he estimated its speed to be 350 knots. The aircraft was not displayed on our TCAS; but we saw its contrail directly ahead and determined that a collision was not imminent because of our low altitude. I had a clear view of what I believe was a small non swept wing single engine military drone making a single contrail; and had we been at the same altitude as this aircraft it was highly likely that that the near miss would have been measured in tens of feet or it would have been a collision. Unfortunately neither of us had the presence of mind to photograph it. When I queried the controller as to his guess of the country of origin of the drone; he did not speculate but theorized its mission was to photograph the Spratly Islands south of Hong Kong; an island group with disputed ownership claimed by China; Taiwan; Brunei; Malaysia; the Philippines and Vietnam. Based upon my observation; Taiwan was the origin of the drone if it had flown a straight line after being launched and passing us. The disturbing fact is that whomever was in control of this drone made no attempt to avoid civilian airways. I am grateful that we were heavy and not at its altitude; and also grateful that the controller was vigilant and noticed the small radar return; but I consider this to be a flagrant disregard of human life and ICAO rules of aviation; and I will be contacting ICAO and filing a protest with them directly.




Synopsis: B777 Captain was informed by Hong Kong Departure of an unidentified aircraft with primary radar only; opposite direction; and at an estimated altitude of 40000 feet and 350 knots. A straight wing military drone was sighted passing overhead.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LMO.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Clear Skies; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class G LMO
ATC / advisory: CTAF LMO
Second aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
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; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student and I were practicing landings for an upcoming check ride in a Cessna 172. After our touch-and-go; we departed Runway 11 for a left traffic pattern. Shortly after departing the runway surface an Experimental aircraft announced his departure from Runway 11 behind us. Upon reaching 700 ft. AGL (Above Ground Level); about half a mile off the end of the runway; my student began his left turn onto the crosswind leg. Seconds later we hear the experimental make his crosswind call. I could not see the traffic at the time and upon searching the area realized the experimental to be at my 9:00 position. I realized at this time the experimental had began his crosswind turn almost immediately after takeoff for a northbound departure. As my student and I were beginning to prepare for our downwind leg. Another aircraft; a Lancair Legacy 2000; departed from Runway 11. Just as my student completed his turn to downwind the [Lancair] announced his turn to crosswind. Seconds later my ADB (Automatic Dependent Surveillance) alerted me to traffic at my 10 and same altitude. I caught sight of [Lancair] as it passed through the downwind at my altitude from the left to right. The aircraft was within 500 ft. of our aircraft. Shortly after crossing our path the Lancair met up with the Experimental aircraft for formation flight departing to the North.   Longmont has been plagued with a series of these events. Local pilots of this airport as well as surrounding airports need dire retraining on how to determine the proper traffic pattern direction as well as the proper means for departing the traffic pattern. Careless and reckless flying such as this which results in a near mid-air collision is unacceptable especially in an environment were there is a high volume of traffic as well as a high number of student pilots. Factors such as impatience; or disregard for the published recommendation may have played a cause in both pilots flying the pattern as they did. Regardless; to fly a pattern within other aircraft and to depart the pattern by crossing in front of them is unacceptable.




Synopsis: C-172 Flight Instructor reported a near mid-air collision with another aircraft while maneuvering in the airport traffic pattern.
Date: 201404
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA; TRACON L30
Second aircraft: Cirrus Aircraft Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: During the TYSSN 3 arrival to LAS; we were given KADDY at 12;000 feet and 250 by LA Center. Out of 13 000 feet; LA Center called traffic ahead; VFR at 11;500 feet; a Cirrus. As we went through 12;500 feet; we received a TA quickly followed by an RA to climb. We followed the procedure; climbed to 12;500 feet before we were clear of the conflict. The TCAS display indicated the traffic was at 11;800 feet; not 12;000 [11;500 feet]. Advised LA Center and was switched to Las Vegas Approach. Landed uneventfully.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reports a TCAS RA approaching KADDY on the arrival to LAS. Evasive action is taken.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E PCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: I filed [an] IFR flight plan from ZZZ to DMW for a training flight with student and was PIC in VFR conditions. From east of BINNS Intersection; I was cleared for the RNAV (GPS) 16 approach direct BINNS.  I flew [the] approach starting the procedure turn and Controller informed me procedure turn not authorized.  I was in VMC conditions; cancelled IFR flight plan; and flew direct to DMW after partially completing the procedure turn.What confused me was on my approach plate; there is a note 1 stating: 'procedure not authorized for arrival at BINNS on V265 northbound.'  I was not on V265 northbound but had been cleared direct BINNS from the east.  I falsely concluded that the procedure turn was authorized given location and the published approach.I think what would have helped are 4 things. 1) The turn from BINNS to NISPL on the approach plate (eliminating the procedure turn) is about 120 degree turn.  Being greater than 90 degrees a procedure turn seems appropriate and again the note indicates no procedure turn if on V265 Northbound which I wasn't on.  If the approach plate; like others I've seen; had 'NoPT' showing note and sectors of the approach course; I would have readily understood 'NoPT' from my heading. 2) I should have asked for procedure turn given the potential confusion on the approach plate and will always do so going forward. 3) Like many other situations; controllers working sectors get accustomed to potential confusion in their sector and can help; when able; with pointing out these circumstances ahead helping pilots staying safe and in authorized areas. 4) I should have put 'practice approach' on notes section of flight plan which might have indicated to controller flight instruction and helped them help me in the approach.




Synopsis: Flight instructor reported a confusing note on the RNAV (GPS) RWY 16 approach at DMW that informed the decision to make a procedure turn; however ATC subsequently advised the procedure turn was not authorized.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During push things proceeding normally. After the aircraft was pushed aft; it was pulled forward slightly then stopped. The wing walker to my left (abeam) signaled an X with the wands; but the tug crew never said to set brakes. There was a hot mic; from the tug; so it was clear nothing was said. I was very focused on the marshaller to the left; as this seemed nonstandard. The aircraft smoothly; slowly started moving forward. I asked on the interphone if he wanted me to set the brakes. There was no response. I didn't immediately set the brakes because I was not sure if it was the tug pulling us forward. The marshaller to my left then pointed at me; and I was sufficiently concerned that this was not the tug pulling me forward; so I slowly applied the brakes and brought the aircraft to a stop; simultaneously asking if he wanted me to set the brakes. This time he (tug operator) answered set brakes. The aircraft was not moving then. Subsequent actions were to SOP.This was frightening in the opportunity for injury. An incident was prevented due to two things; something triggered my mind that this was nonstandard so I was hyper-focused on the wing walker that was abeam. The second was her attention and gaining my attention as the aircraft started rolling. My First Officer was very new and focused on the engine start and not aware until after. But had he had a question or issue drawing me inside; I would not have seen the wing walker point to me and there could have been tug contact or injury.All totaled; the aircraft probably rolled less than 3 ft.; but that is not the point. There was no communication and an opportunity for a worse outcome.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported communication breakdown between flight crew and pushback crew during pushback.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Leading Edge Flap
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Distraction
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On pushback; ATC issued a runway change. After pushback; we re-ran the numbers for new runway assignment and re-ran the Before Push Checklist. Because we ran a checklist; we failed to run the next checklist because we are not in the habit of running two checklists. While taxiing; the Captain did the throttle burst [check] and noticed an incorrect flap configuration. We stopped the plane and correctly ran all flows and checklists. We took off without incident. 'Don't reply to ATC until engine is started and all flows and checklists are completed.'


Second narrative: Lengthy narrative contains no additional pertinent information.


Synopsis: B737-300 flight crew distracted by an ATC runway change; overlooked the After Start Checklist and neglected to extend the Slats/Flaps.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On short final to [LGA] RWY 22; we overflew a quadcopter (drone) at 700 feet AGL. I was PF and the drone passed underneath us at what I estimated to be 200 feet below the aircraft or 500 ft AGL. It was traveling from the SW to the NE under the nose of the aircraft.While several miles out on final I noticed a white 2 story boat in the East River about 1 mile from the approach end of RWY 22 directly on the centerline; and not moving. I spotted the drone at 700 ft and reported it to Tower. Immediately after making the call; the boat started its engines and began to move off centerline at a rapid pace. The boat traveled in a NE heading. Shortly after this; the boat disappeared under the nose of the aircraft and we landed at LGA.Upon landing I reported what we observed with the boat; and aircraft directly behind us confirmed our sightings as well. Which was that the boat began to move immediately after I reported the drone sighting. I received the Tower number; called them after we parked at the gate; and was informed that the drone operators had been apprehended by law enforcement.




Synopsis: CRJ Captain reported sighting of a nearby UAV while on short final to LGA Runway 22.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ROA.Tower, VA
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
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: In the turn from base to final; the Captain and I discussed the probability of the EGPWs sounding off due to the fact of the terrain we were about to fly near. ATC asked if we seen the terrain and we responded yes. The EGPWs went off and we continued to the airport with no danger to the aircraft since we maintained visual separation with the terrain and aircraft. I should have turned earlier onto final and maintain a few hundred feet more of altitude on base to final.




Synopsis: First Officer reported visual terrain contact to ATC followed by an uneventful landing after EGPWS warning.
Date: 201308
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Prior to takeoff; while looking for something I dropped; I shone a flashlight beyond the rudder pedals (First Officer side) and discovered a 3/4 full water bottle beyond the rudder pedals. Someone must have dropped a water bottle on the floor and it rolled past the rudder pedals toward the aircraft nose. I have no idea how long it had been there. (It was not my bottle.)This event causes me alarm. It is not the first time I have found objects beyond the rudder pedals; but most of the time they are small items; like pens; paper; etc. What might have happened had the water bottle begun rolling around; potentially lodging in the rudder pedals? It could be especially catastrophic on takeoff (or landing). And in the event of a catastrophic event; would crash investigators ever discover the cause? I suggest some barrier be mounted on the floorboard to prevent recurrence.




Synopsis: An A320 First Officer reported finding a partially full water bottle behind the rudder pedals. The bottle could have interfered with rudder movement and had apparently been in that location for a period of time.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Called for push at X1; got the cleared to push and thought ramp said go to metering.  Contacted metering and received taxi instructions.  Received a call from the chief pilot making me aware that ramp wanted us to call them for taxi before contacting metering.Long day after a 3 hour sit and I believe that I just miss heard what was said on the push back. I have had only a handful of flights since being off and I should have questioned the Ramp Controller.I should have questioned the contact metering part that I thought that I heard and called Ramp again for taxi regardless.


Second narrative: I was on the intercom with the push crew while the first officer was communicating with Ramp on VHF2 to request push clearance. After pushback and disconnect I received a salute. With the engine start and checklist complete; I called flaps 1 taxi. The first officer contacted Ground metering who then told us to monitor Ground. I taxied about 100 feet up  the ramp but short of the taxiway. Ground Control cleared us to taxi to XXL. The first officer failed to call ramp control prior to contacting metering and I didn't catch it since I was monitoring VHF1. The first officer was fresh off of a 3 month leave of absence which could have contributed. Also; we just had a 3 hour sit in the airport between flights.  11+ hour duty day. Better frequency monitoring when using multiple radios.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported a deviation from the ramp taxi procedure and cited lack of flying as a contributing factor.