elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AMA.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C AMA
ATC / advisory: Tower AMA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Intercepting final to Runway 22. Cleared visual just outside final approach fix at 5;400 ft. Clearance a little late and overshot final. As I was correcting back I misread final approach altitude. It was 5;400 ft. For some unknown reason I 'saw' the 4 and dialed in 4;000 ft. and started to descend to 4;000 ft. It was 5;400 ft. The First Officer said I was at 900 ft. AGL 7 miles from the runway. It took me a few seconds to process what he was saying when I realized my mistake. I climbed back to a good glideslope altitude and landed uneventfully. During this process I entered a restricted area located on final. I called Tower Controller and asked about it. He gave me TRACON number and he told me I had indeed entered the restricted area. I briefed the RNAV-Y to Runway 22. As I was being vectored for the visual I realized the aircraft was not certified for RNAV approaches. I pointed that out to the First Officer and said it's VMC and we will just use the approach as guidance. As I look back on the event I realize my situational awareness was not very sharp. When I was cleared the visual I misread the final approach altitude. We started the day in ZZZ. We had an MEL that took us 3 hours to resolve. This lead us to a disconnect and a recovery obligation. We got to ZZZ1 now with 30 minutes to connect to the newly assigned AMA leg. After the debacle that was in ZZZ and the unknown future of our next few days I would have to say my head was not in the game as it should have been. I offer no excuses just stating the facts. I'm not really sure. I did allow myself to not be fully focused on the task at hand. The ACARS reassignment going to ZZZ1; the frustration associated with the MEL situation and the short turn time did not help. I had never been to AMA before and I normally take time to read everything associated with the airport and environment. I did not do that as I felt rushed. Yep; it happened to me. I said it never would. I'm a better pilot than that.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported that unfamiliarity and distraction on approach resulted in a clearance deviation and violation of Restricted airspace.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FFZ.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach; Landing
Airspace: Class D FFZ
ATC / advisory: Tower FFZ
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
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: Drone was spotted approximately 1 NM NE of FFZ. At first I thought it was a balloon; but then realized it was hovering in the same spot as last time; and then I realized it was a drone. It was hovering near the right base turn for runway 22R. A (police helicopter) was nearby; and came to investigate after I reported it to Tower. They did not find any drone; but did investigate a suspicious vehicle near the area where the drone was operating.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reports sighting a drone in the FFZ traffic pattern and reporting it to the Tower.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Other
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Other 103
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: There is a hang glider competition event occurring at or below 10000. ZZZ FCT advises that upwards of 100 gliders are involved and may be airborne at any given time. They are in a huge area that comes within 4nm of the ZZZ airport; encompasses an airway at an altitude that we use for northbound traffic all the time; overlaps the final for Runway XX at ZZZ for the RNAV D; VOR/DME C; and visual approaches while Runway XX is the active runway. The NOTAM didn't even show up under the airport NOTAM's. It was only seen if ZZZ VOR (the NAVAID serving the airport) was checked. I called Center's AM and they called FSS and had the NOTAM issued as a 'pointer NOTAM' under the airport as well at my request. My question is; who approved this? Are gliders allowed on a federal airway? On the final approach course for the active runway in Class D airspace? Are they allowed in Class E airspace? They are not communicating with ATC; not visible on the radar; and due to the way the NOTAM was issued; none of the pilots I asked if they were aware of the activity had any idea it was going on.Give them a much smaller area to operate in. Lower the altitude to take them off the federal airway at the MEA.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reports of a hang glider operation that was affecting his traffic. Controller reported the operations to Center who then issued a pointer NOTAM to advise aircraft of the hang gliders in the area.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Other Traffic Pattern
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying a Cessna 172S to ZZZ. I had established communications with ZZZ Tower on 118.5; and was flying the downwind leg for a right traffic pattern for Runway XX at an indicated airspeed of 75 kts. There was one aircraft; a Piper Warrior; in the right traffic pattern behind me. My aircraft was equipped with a rear window; but the Warrior was not visible to me during traffic scans. Tower instructed the Warrior to make a left 360 because they were getting too close to me. I then looked over my left shoulder and saw the Warrior at my 7:00 position; approximately 100 ft away at the same altitude. The Warrior continued to turn left and separation distance quickly increased. I reported the near-miss to Tower on the radio. My aircraft was equipped with Garmin G1000 avionics; and the Warrior was visible on my ADS-B traffic display.I did not monitor my ADS-B traffic display during the approach to land; relying exclusively on a visual scan. I was flying my traffic pattern at a speed which is perhaps slower than typical. The Warrior pilot did not maintain visual contact with their assigned traffic to follow. Tower did not maintain adequate separation between aircraft in the traffic pattern.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported NMAC with other traffic while on downwind for landing.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Guest noted with mask not over nose. Was asked to bring mask over nose in compliance with policy. He gave some body language he was not pleased; but he appeared to bring the mask up. Requested FA B to check as she worked on compliance to ensure passenger's mask was properly donned. It appeared it came down again. During demo he leaned his head in so I did not have a clear view but requested a third time for guest to adhere to the policy of the nose being fully covered. He expressed concern he had trouble seeing. I apologized but thanked him for adherence to the policy indicating it is not fun for anyone. Prior to taxi FA B and I discussed what the next steps would be as this had been the third request for compliance already. I relayed what appeared to be the root of the issue and we concurred if he had his mask properly donned no further action would be needed.Please have the gate engage with guests before they are allowed to board: 95% of the issues could be resolved if this was followed. Having FA's be the last line is really not great during the pandemic and it appears gate partners are no longer actively enforcing the policy change that occurred on [date].


Second narrative: Passenger was notified by both FA A and B to cover nose with face covering. For final compliance guest had nose covered.


Synopsis: Flight attendants reported a passenger was not complying with wearing a face mask and had to be told three times to wear it correctly.
Date: 202007
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fan Blade
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Maintenance Log pages for Aircraft X (engine 2) fan blades were reviewed by Maintenance Control. During our review; following [the Manual's Operating Procedure] Maintenance Control selected the -8 trackers to be attached to the engine. Aircraft Records Dept are attaching the blades to the individual -9 component not the engine; per the fan map received from the engineering dept. This can be verified using the transaction IES; the next highest assembly displayed is not the engine. If Maintenance Control cannot trust this process; maybe Maintenance Control should be setting up the -8 completely; or eliminating Maintenance Control entirely from determining how to attach the -8 item. Aircraft Records and Maintenance Control are interpreting [the Manual's Operating Procedure] differently. Fan blades should be attached to their respective engine. Maintenance Control does not want to continuously generate [technical inspections] to verify fan blade serial numbers. We need to process the -8 in accordance with [the Manual's Operating Procedure]leaving only one responsible party to determine whether it should be Airframe; engine; gear; or -9 component; this may avoid disassembling the entire fan; to verify a serial number. The fan maps are not reliable for accuracy of the serial number today. [The Manual's Operating Procedure] needs to be clearly followed. Keeping the fan blades attached to their respective engine.




Synopsis: Technician reported disagreement between departments concerning Fan Blade mapping and reporting for tracking purposes.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna 152
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was 8 miles to the southwest when they checked in; I told them to make right traffic to 19R and cleared to land. Approximately 7-8 minutes went by when aircraft Y called ready at 19R for departure. I issued runway heading and cleared him for take off. Aircraft X executed a go around from approximately 1/4 mile final and 300 FT AGL. Aircraft Y was still holding short of the runway and never crossed the hold short line. Aircraft X was issued right traffic to Runway 19R. Aircraft Y then requested another take off clearance which I issued. Aircraft X landed without incident and aircraft Y departed the airspace. I feel that this event happened because I cleared Aircraft X to land 8 miles out that I displaced him from my memory. My scan of the final was not as through as it could have been; along with not looking at my traffic pad. I will be more vigilant of my final and scan my traffic pad for every arrival and departure. From now on; I will wait to give the landing clearance to aircraft on downwind so i'm not inclined to displace them from my memory.




Synopsis: Tower Supervisor described a flawed landing/take off event when clearing an arrival to land 8 miles out and then failing to remember the aircraft when clearing a departure for take off resulting in a go around.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ONT.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ONT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Climbing on the SID; Departure told us to stop our climb at 6;000 ft. instead of 7;000 due to traffic. We complied. Once we leveled off at 6;000 we saw 2 targets on TCAS at 12 o'clock; one at our altitude and one 500 ft. above around 6 miles away. The target at our altitude disappeared off the TCAS screen but the one at 6;500 was still there and caused a TA (Traffic Advisory). The target then got closer but the TCAS showed it at 400 ft. above and then finally gave us a Preventative RA (Resolution Advisory) where the top arc of the TCAS was red. We finally saw the traffic which passed on our right side. Got the 'Clear of conflict' announcement and reported the RA to ATC. VFR traffic transiting the airspace along with IFR traffic at altitudes [is] too close in my opinion. More vertical separation needed.


Second narrative: On departure; ATC issued a level off for traffic. [The] FO (First Officer) leveled off and turned on the autopilot. One aircraft indicated 500 ft. above and one co-altitude on TCAS. [The] FO and [the] Captain had one aircraft in sight when approximately 10 seconds later the TCAS issued a preventative RA (Resolution Advisory) commanding us not to climb; which we did not. One aircraft showed 400 ft. on TCAS. [The] FO initiated RA procedures and maintained altitude. We received [a] clear of conflict and notified ATC. Aircraft in close proximity possibly descending into us.


Synopsis: Flight Crew reported encountering an NMAC event during climb.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I was Captain and non-flying pilot during a night visual landing to Runway 11. ATIS called VMC with ILS 22L and ILS 11 in use. We were told by New York Approach to expect ILS 22L and were then given direct JARIT... when we queried the routing we were then notified to expect ILS 11. Neither ATIS nor ATC made notification of LAHSO in use or else we would not have accepted ILS 11. We were cleared to land 11 with no LAHSO clearance given. The landing was uneventful and as we rolled-out we were given instruction by Tower to turn left on taxiway P. We read back the instruction and at a slow taxi speed with all lights on; we could only make out one yellow lighted exit sign for P with an arrow pointing left. We were unable to determine the taxiway entrance as there was no lead-in line and the lighting was indistinguishable. As we taxied abeam the lighted exit sign it appeared that the taxiway was behind us and that the exit sign's location was nonstandard. I instructed the First Officer to notify Tower that we passed P and that we will need to take Z. Unable to make the radio call due to constant transmissions on frequency; we taxied up to and short of 22L when Tower called a go-around for traffic on final for 22L and gave us instructions to exit on EE. On taxi in we were given a phone number to call for possible pilot deviation. I talked with the ATC manager and explained what had happened and I was notified that a go-around warning indication was activated and necessitated the go-around call. An investigation into the event will be conducted in the morning and my name and certificate number was recorded.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information]


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported difficulty identifying the proper taxi exit entrance during roll out on the active runway due to insufficient markings.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation 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
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was departing runway 22L. It was coordinated that I owned the west departures (MYKIE fix in this event) and that 3LC (28R controller) would coordinate a one time MYKIE departure (Aircraft X) when that aircraft was ready and number one at the runway. Due to reroutes and a tailwind situation; Aircraft X wasn't ready for an extended period of time after this coordination. The 3 Local Controller (LC) then departed Aircraft X on a 270 without coordinating as I departed Aircraft Y on the same heading. The two departures ended up side by side 2 miles away from the airport with less than standard separation.Memory joggers or some way of reminding the 3LC controller to coordinate the departure would have helped in this scenario from the 28R controller's perspective. From my end; I had kept an eye on the 28R departure line so that I would know when their MYKIE departure would be ready.  Unfortunately; due to an extended period of time and heavier than normal workload; I forgot about their departure when I rolled my westbound. A memory jogger would have also been helpful on my end; especially considering the increased complexity of the scenario. This is a scenario that does happen with reasonable frequency at O'Hare.




Synopsis: ORD Tower Controller reports of having a loss of separation due to an extended time period passing before the aircraft was airborne. Controller approved a departure that would enter his airspace; but the aircraft was not ready. Time period passed and Controller let one of his departures go around the same time the other approved departure went airborne. Separation was lost due to both aircraft being on the same heading and close proximity.