elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Balloon
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Slow descent to land a hot air balloon in a golf course parking lot. A power pole hidden in a tree prevented me from determining there was a power line in the area. I had briefed my crew member as an observer. He shouted power line to our left but in our path. I hit both blast valves but balloon did not respond quickly enough. We struck the line with the suspension cables above the basket and were hung up for about 5 seconds when the line snapped with a very small electric arc. We then proceeded to a gentle landing on the golf course.




Synopsis: A balloon pilot reported striking a power line that was not initially visible. He took evasive action; which snapped the power line; and was able to land safely.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SAN
ATC / advisory: Tower SAN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Dispatched to SAN with no alternate required. Upon arrival; conditions on the ATIS stated MVFR. Started nonprecision approach to Runway 27. Went missed approach due to low ceiling. ATC offered Runway 09; but the tailwind component was greater than our limits would allow. Contacted dispatch and mutual agreement to divert to ZZZ. Landed at ZZZ.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported flying a missed approach while attempting the SAN RNAV Y Runway 27 due to weather.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1801-2400
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: Ramp
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was advised by Person X that I had loaded an unidentified Hazmat parcel on Aircraft X with no NOTOC. I was the only one involved.Apparently; the event occurred because I supposedly loaded a Hazmat PPS without a NOTOC on Aircraft X. After discussing this with a manager I went back in the NOTOC System and saw no NOTOC was planned for that flight for that date.Once the event was identified even though it was exactly a week later; I spoke with the manager and advised him I was filling out a report.Suggestion - Double checking boxes for DG labels [since no NOTOC was issued].




Synopsis: Air Carrier Ramp Personnel reported being notified of loading a Hazmat labeled parcel without required documentation.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Generator Drive Indicators and Warning System
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff Roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [We] rejected takeoff at about 80 KIAS for a Level One 'GEN 1 OFF' and Level One 'GEN 2 OFF.'  Both warnings went out as soon as I rejected. We complied with Rejected Takeoff QRH procedures. After discussing generator warnings with Maintenance Control; they agreed it would be OK to try another takeoff. On second takeoff at just over 80 KIAS we got a Level One 'GEN 3 OFF' for about one second and then it went out. I continued takeoff with no other problems to our destination and entered this same information in the logbook. After talking to Maintenance in our destination; the Mechanic said the Constant Speed Drives (CSDs) should have been serviced prior to leaving our departure airport.


Second narrative: On takeoff; received Master Caution and Captain called for a reject. I noticed a Gen-1 and Gen-2 'Off' Level One alert that went out very quickly as we were stopping. We did Rejected Takeoff QRH and contacted Maintenance. They advised that if the warnings had gone out we could attempt another takeoff. We also reviewed brake temperature requirements and waited for appropriate time. We attempted another takeoff as there were no warnings or malfunctions displayed. On takeoff roll; we received a momentary Master Caution again. This indication seemed to have happened slightly later in the roll. (We were accelerating very rapidly however since we were a light MD-11). As pilot flying; I never saw the cause and the Captain elected not to reject. After takeoff; he advised we had a Gen-3 'Off' alert flash on and off.We cannot eliminate all rejected takeoffs. The Rejected Takeoff QRH has a lot of verbiage. I did notice that I originally started to pass through it rather quickly to get to the brake temperature information (I had just done a reject in training the week prior). In real time; there is plenty of time to read everything carefully as you wait for the brake temps to peak. I suppose this wasn't something I noticed in training due to the ability of the simulator to be repositioned.


Synopsis: Two pilots report about an initial rejected takeoff of their MD-11 aircraft due to a Level One 'GEN-1' and 'GEN-2 OFF' alert and Master Caution warning. Alert went out before aircraft stopped. During second takeoff attempt 'GEN-3' alert flashed on and off. Maintenance noted the Constant Speed Drives (CSDs) should have been serviced prior to departure.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Ground LAX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Procedure
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: Taxiing in on C at C-6 a fast moving tug crossed C without looking and caused us to immediately and firmly brake to avoid impact. The tug driver did not notice or acknowledge. Incident reported to Ground Operations through Ground frequency.




Synopsis: A B737 first officer reported that while taxiing in; a fast moving tug crossed without looking. The tug caused them to brake firmly and immediately avoid impact.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This occurred on a midnight shift during which I was working the airspace that is designated to Clarksburg Approach during the day. A CRJ-200 was an IFR flight from ZZZ to CKB. He arrived from the West and requested vectors for the ILS Runway 21 at CKB. I vectored him to the northwest of CKB; descended him to 3;800 feet which is the minimum for the ILS; and turned him on a 110 heading to set up for a turn to intercept the CKB ILS 21 final approach course. At that time he reported; 'We have the airport in sight.' I said; 'CRJ-200; Roger; 18 miles from Clarksburg; cleared visual approach Clarksburg airport.' I then informed him he could switch to advisory and asked for his IFR cancellation on my frequency or on the ground through Flight Service. He quickly descended to 2;300 feet which I thought was a little low for that early in the approach and slowed down to a very low approach speed. If he had been on the ILS; I would have questioned his quick descent; but since it was a visual approach I did not question him. About 9 miles from CKB; I saw the CRJ-200 climb back up to 3;200 feet. He then called back on the frequency and informed me that he had set up to land at the wrong airport but did have CKB in sight at that time. I informed him he was 8 miles from CKB and he acknowledged me. The airport he was set up to land at was 4G7. The 4G7 airport is about 9 miles northeast of CKB; almost exactly underneath the localizer; with a similar runway orientation. Within the past 2 years another air carrier accidentally landed at 4G7; but was a small enough aircraft to deal with its short runway. I do not know what kind of measures can be taken to ensure these airports are not mistaken for each other. I do know if the CRJ-200 had tried to land at 4G7 the runway length would not have been sufficient for that aircraft.




Synopsis: ZOB Controller described a confused event when an air carrier was cleared for a visual approach to CKB; but started to line up with 4G7; the reporter noted an actual wrong airport landing occurred in the recent past.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Lubrication Oil
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Relief Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Soon after takeoff noticed decling oil pressure and oil quantity in number 1. As soon as practical; reviewed checklist and shut down the engine. Dumped fuel and returned.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Relief Pilot reports decreasing oil pressure and quantity on the number one engine shortly after takeoff. The engine is shut down; fuel is dumped; and the flight returns to the departure airport.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
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: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approaching the fix on the STAR; the controller told us 'Heading 100;' which we queried; but she repeated '100 heading;' so we turned east. The normal STAR would have turned us WEST at this point. Thinking there might have been some flow control issues; we complied. After a few minutes; the controller states 'you have deviated from the arrival; cleared direct [fix];' so we turned direct to that fix. Minutes later she states; 'cleared 100 heading;' and again we queried the instructions; and she states emphatically again; 'heading 100;' so we turn. We noticed departure traffic coming in our direction; and suddenly the controller again states; 'cleared direct [fix]; to resume the arrival.' The controller then states she had cleared us to Flight Level 100; to which we state; 'no; you cleared us to head 100.' At this point we have visual on proximate traffic 1;000 feet below us; so we level off at 14;000 as the TCAS alerts us 'traffic-traffic.' The aircraft is on a turn back to the west; and a few seconds later it gives us a 'TRAFFIC CLIMB' command; which I hand fly away from the threat aircraft complying with the TCAS advisory. The TCAS then announces 'DON'T CLIMB;' then 'CLEAR OF CONFLICT;' all with 5 seconds. Then I stabilize; re-engage the autopilot; and head towards the arrival fix. At this point; we hear [another aircraft] state; 'No; you told XXXX (us) to head 100.' The controllers now swap out because we hear a new voice; and things calm down and seem to be more efficient and organized. I think the [original] Approach Controller confused her terminology; and gave us a Heading; when she meant Altitude or Flight Level; resulting us being placed in the path of departure traffic flow.




Synopsis: A330 First Officer reported Approach Controller confused terminology; which placed the aircraft in the flight path of departing aircraft; creating an RA.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RAC.Airport, WI
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 4
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E MKE
ATC / advisory: TRACON MKE
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Enroute to Racine; WI an IFR flight plan was filed to Gary; IN since IFR ATC services were not available from Chicago tracon.  I proceeded up the Chicago lakefront in marginal VFR conditions and entered instrument conditions without a clearance to do so.  When passing Kenosha; WI I contacted Milwaukee approach control and requested a pop up IFR clearance to Racine. Weather at RAC was reporting 800 overcast and 4 miles visibility. The MKE controller declined the request for IFR clearance stating they were not capable at that time.  The controller recommended landing visually since IFR services were not available. I stayed in contact with MKE approach control and explained I was intercepting the 04 ILS at RAC while flying the approach.  While intercepting and flying the approach I entered instrument (IMC) flight conditions without a clearance to do so.  Once in visual contact with runway 04 I advised ATC and switched to CTAF.  Phone call to MKE approach after landing indicated they could only accept phoned in flight plans due to the Chicago ARTCC facility outage.  They explained flight plans could only be entered manually and pop up clearances were not available.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reports being unable to obtain an IFR clearance enroute to RAC due an ATC equipment outage. The reporter elects to fly an instrument approach to RAC in IMC without a clearance.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B767-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Relief Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The flight was en-route to ZZZZ from ZZZ. The flight was a crew of 4 pilots; and I was to be providing relief in the second half of the flight. I was awakened from rest to be brought back to the cockpit within the first hour or two to find the LE SLAT ASSYM message displayed on the EICAS and the working crew already taking the necessary steps. From this point; multiple calls placed to Company/Dispatch were made to decide the next course of action; and a Company/Crew decision was made to divert to a known maintenance facility: ZZZ. The applicable weather; NOTAMs; and fuel requirements were acquired from Dispatch for ZZZ and ZZZ1. Checklist procedures were followed and steps were taken to ensure the flight occurred within aircraft limitations. We ultimately made a safe; uneventful landing at ZZZ. LE FLAP ASSYM indication over ZZZZZ prompted to run checklist to solve the problem. Since the issue would not go away; a coordinated decision between flight crew and Company was made to divert to ZZZ.


Second narrative: During cruise; the leading edge slat asymmetry EICAS message and leading edge status lights illuminated. The aircraft handling and performance was normal in all respects. Close coordination with Company resulted in a company-directed diversion to ZZZ. We obtained weather; NOTAMS; and fuel requirements for ZZZ and ZZZ1; our new alternate. Landed uneventfully at ZZZ.


Synopsis: B767-200 flight crew reported that during cruise; they received a Leading Edge Slat Asymmetry message. Flight crew diverted and landed without incident.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Other Post-Flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I took off to fly a solo cross country with touch and goes [enroute]. I filed a VFR flight plan using the ForeFlight app. The app calculated my time enroute between the airports; and after takeoff I contacted [the] FSS and activated my flight plan. I continued to get flight following through ATC and the app was giving me information that was correcting for the winds. I was under the impression that while on the ground; the enroute time was corrected for my headwind. I later found during the cancellation of the flight plan on the ground that I was 45 minutes late at my time of arrival. Search and rescue procedures had been started due to the delay. While the ForeFlight app was giving me information with the winds correcting my ETA; I don't believe the app accounted for landing at each airport that was filed on the route. As to my understanding; the app assumes that with every point filed; airport or anything else; you are flying over it at cruise airspeed and not taking account for the time spent landing; taxiing and taking off at each airport.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported that search and rescue personnel were looking for them because their filed arrival time was delayed when he made some practice touch and goes enroute.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium 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 B NYC
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: While being vectored to the LOC 31 at LGA in the vicinity of the DIALS intersection; I spotted a drone operating near us. We were at 4000 ft MSL headed NE to overfly LGA. The drone appeared to be a white quadcopter operating at or slightly below our altitude approximately 2000 ft off our right side heading west. No evasive action was required by us; we continued on our assigned heading and altitude and reported the sighting to ATC. The FBI has since followed up with me.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer spotted a drone near their altitude of 4000 feet while on vectors to LGA Runway 31 near DIALS intersection. No evasive action was required.