elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: J3 Cub
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Aircraft component: VHF
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On a high density altitude day; our 65 horsepower Cub wasn't climbing very well; but that was okay because we were planning on cruising to the nearest grass strip for landing practice at 500-1000 ft. anyways. The airplane we were flying had no radios or transponder. We proceeded direct off of our downwind which led us close to the final approach path of the runway we had just taken off of. What appeared to be a Cherokee flew past our window to the right at what seemed like 30 ft. away. My instructor did not notice the airplane. I now have a headset adapter and PTT (Push To Talk) button for my hand held radio in hopes that this will not happen again.




Synopsis: Private Pilot reported NMAC due to not having radios or transponder.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; 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; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had no aircraft on frequency; adjacent sector had two aircraft on frequency; the first of which was Aircraft X; which was cleared for the RNAV Approach. The adjacent sector controller switched communication to ZZZ Tower; and a few miles later; the tower calls over the hot line; adjacent sector controller picks up; and the controller tells her that Aircraft X wants vectors for the ILS. Aircraft X then comes up on my frequency; and in shock that he is below my Minimum Vectoring Altitude and heading due south to a higher Minimum Vectoring Altitude; I immediately issue a heading of 230 and climb and maintain three thousand five hundred feet; which is the Minimum Vectoring Altitude in the area he is currently in. The aircraft was NOT still on the RNAV approach; because then he would have been in a turn. Aircraft X then said he had the airport in sight; and I gave him a visual approach. I asked him if he had a problem on the approach. I forget what he said; but I reissued the visual approach; then gave him the Brasher warning about possible pilot deviation; and then switched him to the tower.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported an aircraft was cleared for an RNAV Approach and switched to Tower frequency. The aircraft broke off from the approach and turned away from the airport below the minimum vectoring altitude. The Controller did not get a clear explanation from the flight crew. The flight crew reported the airport in sight and the Controller cleared them for a visual approach.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On departure while level at 8000 feet I saw what appeared to be a drone at approximately 8500 feet about a mile to our left. It appeared to be somewhat large; dark in color and looked to have two propellers. The First Officer (FO) did not see it. I notified ATC and we continued the flight with no issues.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported a drone sighting after departure.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Mentor/Turbo Mentor (T-34)
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: Tower SAN
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was executing a VFR transition from south to north with approval from Lindbergh Tower. There were two other aircraft doing the same thing; another [military trainer aircraft] with [same squadron] callsign and a helicopter. This was in addition to the regular tower communication for their normal operations (takeoff and landing). Tower cleared Aircraft X into the Bravo airspace; but I think he gave me a restriction. I rogered up the clearance but missed the restriction. I was about to come up and ask but at that time had a near- midair with a helicopter coming opposite direction. After that; I heard the tower talking to someone on VHF about my missed restriction of 1;000' AGL. I'm very sorry about this. I will brief my [team] during our [review] so that everyone is aware of this possibility of happening and the importance of using good CRM with everyone on freq.




Synopsis: Military Pilot reported a NMAC because they missed an ATC restriction.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SGF.Airport, MO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: When approaching SGF and attempting to receive their ATIS on 135.125 it is conflicted with MLC ASOS on the same frequency. This does not allow the crew an opportunity to get the SGF ATIS early enough for their arrival planning. SGF ATIS and MLC ASOS are on same frequency and located too close to each other. Change either's frequency; have digital ATIS available at SGF.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain enroute to SGF reported MLC ATIS interfered with SGF ATIS when approaching from the southwest. The two airports are 183 NM apart.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: VNY.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D VNY
ATC / advisory: Tower VNY
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Right base for 16R at 2;000 FT. Tower pointed out C172 traffic 12:00; 2 miles at 2;500 FT (in sight). Then; helicopter 2:00 1;500 FT (never in sight). Shortly afterward we received the Climb RA; TCAS climb announced to ATC. Moments later we received the stop climb and descend; then maintain VS. PFDs showed red lines above and below with the target box in the middle. ATC advised of dual RAs. No comments or apology from tower. TCAS RAs were followed and ATC was notified. Suggestions; ATC knew of our arrival (IFR) and should have planned accordingly. Tower should not have attempted to thread us through two opposing aircraft who were 500 FT above and 500 FT below our planned path. ATC had told us they would notify us when to turn base. When after we made the base turn; were received the RAs. ATC should have provided more space between us and the other aircraft. ATC could have also held them at a greater distance.


Second narrative: We were on right base to 16R at 2;000 FT MSL. Tower advised us of traffic above us 500 FT; a Cessna 172. We had this traffic in sight. We also had a helicopter 500 FT below us which we never saw. Shortly after traffic was given by tower we received a Climb RA; TCAS which we complied with and advised ATC about. Moments later we received a Stop Climb and Descend RA followed by Maintain VS. PFDs showed red lines above and below with the target box in the middle. ATC was advised of dual RAs. No comments or apology was given from the Tower. Suggestions; I think there was little the crew could do to prevent this. I believe it is a matter of ATC not sandwiching aircraft between two other aircraft with 500 FT separation. We were looking for our traffic as advised by ATC but never saw the helicopter which started the whole RA alert process. I was very happy to have had the Cessna 172 in sight before the RAs started as I new his location.


Synopsis: Corporate jet inbound to VNY experienced a TCAS RA with issued VFR traffic both above and below by 500 feet; the reporter suggesting more separation be afforded by ATC is this circumstance.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: A firefighting TFR recently went into effect south of ZZZ airport. Aircraft X (small aircraft) was overflying that area in a route that kept them clear of the TFR. Firefighter Aircraft Y was in the TFR and briefly flashing conflict alert with Aircraft X. Aircraft Y was in the TFR and I believe it was level at X;XXX feet when I saw it. At this point I suppressed conflict alert believing that it was conducting normal firefighting operations and maneuvering within the TFR. Aircraft X was approximately 7 miles outside of the TFR. Shortly after suppressing conflict alert; I lost sight of Aircraft Y; believing it was operating in a cluster of firefighting aircraft in the TFR; I went to perform other tasks. Less than a minute later; conflict alert went off again; I looked down and Aircraft Y and Aircraft X were separated by 100 feet and less than a mile. Both aircraft were VFR and Aircraft X was receiving flight following. Aircraft Y; a high performance jet aircraft exited the TFR; rapidly climbed and almost ran into Aircraft X that was in close proximity to the TFR. I'm unsure of weather Aircraft Y was lost on the radar at the time; its tracking on system but none of the other firefighting aircraft are. In either case; I didn't see it again until it was in close proximity to Aircraft X.  I called a traffic alert; Aircraft X acknowledged saying he had them in sight.Turbojet aircraft should be legally required to have flight following at all times.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported a conflict between a firefighter aircraft in a fire TFR area and a small aircraft near the TFR.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
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: Workload; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Abnormal; short field departure from ZZZ. TPS (Temporary Protection System) called for a TOGA/APU Off takeoff Flaps 2 at 20c. Wind was calm and it was a 'reverse traffic flow' departure with only 18 minutes from push to takeoff. Because I knew we were at maximum performance I kept the APU on for takeoff. The degraded performance was only obvious due to our proximity to the alternating center line lighting prior to rotation. V1 was 138 [and] Vr was 142. Takeoff proceeded without incident. We could not have stopped on the runway remaining from just prior to V1 speed.This event seems to have occurred due to a combination of factors. Abnormal runway use at ZZZ due to construction; insufficient TPS review by Load Planning; and required trust of TPS data by flight crews. Note: I specifically called Dispatch prior to departure to make sure they knew abnormal operations were in effect; I should have called Loads as well. This was a 'corner of performance envelope operation.' Short field; maximum fuel; transcontinental flight. Abnormal flight operations should require a second look at performance to see if data is valid.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported experiencing an abnormal short-field takeoff and lacking runway to stop prior to V1 speed.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At FL370 noticed an Right 'EEC ALTN' lite. Followed QRH on descent. After following QRH Right engine N1 and EGT began fluxing. Fuel flow slightly higher. As I pushed throttle up fuel flow and N1 continued higher readings than Left Engine. Greater thrust out of left engine evident. With no further relief in QRH and at 13;000 feet getting low on gas and unable to control Right engine ( fuel flow at approximately 11.2 w throttle at idle ) Left engine at idle.  Unable to descend due to high thrust out of Right engine we requested priority handling and shut engine down. Vectored in IMC to ILS Runway XX.




Synopsis: B767-300 Captain found the engine to be uncontrollable so he elected to shut down the Number 2 engine; and made a precautionary landing.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We were cleared direct ZZZZZ and were going to be doing the visual to Runway 28 in ZZZ.  We had the beacon and the airport in sight. I thought my First Officer (FO) had cancelled our IFR clearance and we were cleared to do the visual on our own. I started the descent and was maybe around 3000 when ATC said they had a low altitude alert on us. The FO cancelled our IFR immediately and we were on our own to finish the visual. I am used to the FO cancelling the flight plan when we had the airport in sight; and I really thought he had cancelled. I was wrong and I should not have started the descent. It was a misunderstanding between us; but I should have double checked that we were cleared before I started the descent. There were no other aircraft involved and there were no other issues with the flight.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported they got a low altitude alert from ATC during a visual approach to non-towered airport.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Ramp; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were talking to Ramp Control and were cleared into the ramp to gate via [Taxiways] K3; J; and hold short of spot 10A for further instructions. The taxi was briefed between the Captain and I and we were going along Taxiway J looking for spot 10A. However; there is no depiction on any of the agc or apc charts of where 10A is including the temporary agc and apc charts. Also; along Taxiway J there are multiple construction sites and construction vehicles. We continued on Taxiway J and stopped at the mouth of the gates and inquired Ramp when we saw the reverse 10A spot assuming that we were in the right spot. However; we were told that we had passed it. We then completed a series of 180 degree turns to hold short of the other spot 10A that wasn't clearly visible or centered on the taxi centerline of Taxiway J. This was due to construction and barricades moving the taxi line over from the original. A recommendation would be to add spot 10A to be depicted on the charts to help identify where it would be during construction. This would be helpful because it can be easily missed with the construction traffic and not being centered on the taxi line. There were no other aircraft involved or inconvenienced.




Synopsis: Corporate First Officer reported; during construction; parking location not marked on chart.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground LAS
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We had to taxi from the far west side to the departure end of 26R on the far east side of the airport. During preflight planning I reviewed the taxi chart and NOTAMs. The taxi chart showed that Taxiway C no long exists west of G. The NOTAMs state this as well. I marked up my taxi chart to reflect the closure. We taxied on B across both 19 Runways. As we approached D we anticipated turning right because we anticipated that we would have to taxi on A to get to the departure end of 26R. We were given taxi instructions to turn left on D. We started to turn right when the Ground Controller told us to turn left. We then saw that Taxiway C still exists. We then understood that he wanted us to take C to the departure end of 26R. No runway incursions occurred. Not traffic conflicts occurred. No 'possible pilot deviation' was mentioned. I am writing this because the taxi diagram and NOTAM do not reflect what actually exists. As this is a very busy Class B airport this should be corrected.




Synopsis: Small Transport Captain reported taxi diagram and NOTAMs do not reflect what actually exists at LAS airport.