elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As a pilot I landed the airplane at ZZZ and experienced a potential head on collision with an Agriculture airplane. Luckily I saw the other plane. The root cause of this event is the 2 way radio communications. Based on discussions with the ground crew; portable hand-held radios were also not used in the spray planes. Events: Aircraft X approached the airport from the west. The windsock was observed at 3;000 feet MSA altitude with wind blowing east to west; therefore it was decided that the landing would be against the wind on Runway XX. The pilot announced on CTAF that Aircraft X would be landing on Runway XX. This pilot also announced that Aircraft X would enter a 45 degree approach to the downwind left traffic Runway XX. Before turning to left base; I announced the turn and again announced base to final to Runway XX. On final approach the incoming airplane was a yellow spray plane taking off 'downwind' and observed in the windscreen of Aircraft X. The spray plane veered to his right and did not communicate at any time. After landing; pilot inquired with the spray plane ground crew as to whether their yellow spray planes have radio communication; or whether those pilots also carry portable radios; and the answer was no! At a minimum for safety and liability reasons; all aircraft entering and leaving ZZZ should have 2 way radio communications to minimize the possibility of a mid-air collision. It is inherently dangerous to operate an aircraft so carelessly in the following ways:1) To take off downwind which is against other incoming air traffic.2) To takeoff with no announcement; including no communications with other incoming or outgoing air traffic. Conclusion: [Spray plane] Company should not be allowed to operate at ZZZ without maintaining 2 way radio communications. To do otherwise greatly increases the risk of midair collision and opens up ZZZ and their operators to serious questions of liability. These spray plane takeoffs occur several per day during spray season. Your attention to this matter would be appreciated.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reported a NMAC on final approach with a crop duster taking off in the opposite direction.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HCF.TRACON, HI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower HNL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
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; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [I was the] Captain [pilot] flying [for] Runway 8R departure. Release and PDC both showed the Molokai Four Departure (MKK4.) The commercially provided SID Routing text reads: 'Turn right/left to heading assigned by Tower....' Initial Climb for 8L/R reads: 'Must complete right turn to assigned heading within 2 NM of departure end of runway (HNL 3.6 DME)' PDC showed filed departure and routing; with this note: 'cleared to destination airport right heading 140; comply with SID altitude restrictions....' Captain thoroughly briefed MKK4 departure with a right turn to 140 within 3.6 HNL and climb to 5;000 feet. HNL was hard tuned in Number 1 VOR for cross check. NADP2 was selected. We departed straight out; accelerated; began clean up and started a right turn at 2.5 miles. After right turn commenced; ATC said turn right to 170; complied. Then ATC said turn to 140; turned back to 140. ATC asked if we were aware we needed to make a right turn after take off. We said 'yes.' We were quite confused at that point. After considering ATC's remark; I believe they expected an immediate right turn after takeoff (this would totally avoid the beach area.)We completely complied with the SID; albeit we flew straight out for a mile or so prior to commencing the turn. We stayed inside the 3.6 mile restriction of HNL VOR. I rarely fly out of HNL. I believe both the SID and the PDC should clearly state; 'Immediate right turn after departure' OR 'on departure; turn right to heading....' That is MUCH different than; 'must complete right turn within 2 NM of departure end of runway (HNL 3.6 DME).' So...semantics are important. What is written is not what they seem to expect. This is a miscommunication between the chart's depiction of the SID; the ATC/PDC phrasing and the pilots understanding of what is being requested. Let's be clear to keep from misunderstanding.


Second narrative: [No additional information was provided in the secondary narrative].


Synopsis: An MD-11 flight crew; cleared via the Molokai SID from PHNL from Runway 8R; was chastised by ATC for not turning right to 140 degrees in a timely fashion despite completing the turn prior to the HNL 3.6 DME as charted.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SNA.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beechcraft Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C SNA
Aircraft component: Cowling/Nacelle Fasteners; Latches
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During standard takeoff following a B737; engine cowl cover came unlatched and popped open. No event. Notified tower; entered right downwind and cleared to land. Returned to airport; landed and verified latched. Subsequent take-off uneventful.




Synopsis: Pilot reported that an engine cowl popped open during takeoff; resulting in a return to the airport.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: EVB.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D EVB
ATC / advisory: Tower EVB
Second aircraft: Cessna 152
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on an instrument flight plan on the RNAV 2 final approach after the final approach fix for Runway 2 EVB with instructions to enter midfield downwind Runway 7 after a Cessna 172 at our 2 o'clock; we reported in sight; at this time the Cessna was still 3 miles away from us. Tower instructed the Cessna to turn for the right downwind Runway 7. [The Cessna] instead of turning to a right downwind turned to a heading that was almost directly towards my aircraft that was still on final for Runway 2. Tower instructed [the Cessna] to turn 30 degrees to the right to rejoin downwind 4 times with no response. At the same time I took controls from my student and initiated a 70 degree right banking turn pitching 20 degrees nose down to avoid being hit by [the Cessna]. Upon recovery from that maneuver; we proceeded to follow [the Cessna] for a base to final for Runway 7. There was another plane still on Runway 7 after landing who was turning off the runway for Taxiway C but was moving slowly due to not being familiar with the airport. Tower then told [the Cessna] to go around; no response; repeated 4 times before [the Cessna] responded almost landing on a runway that was still in use by another aircraft. He then proceeded to turn crosswind halfway down the runway and enter a left downwind for Runway 7. While this is going on; I've told my student to slow down to our approach speed; and start a descent to landing now seeing that the other aircraft is now off the runway. Tower cleared us to full stop Runway 7 3 times; due to [the Cessna] blocking the frequency while he was trying to give us his clearance. Once we were able to accept the full clearance we landed without any other problems; I did however take the controls from my student again to clear the runway quickly before [the Cessna] turned final to avoid any further complications with him.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported an NMAC with another Cessna in the pattern at EVB.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: STL.TRACON, MO
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B STL
ATC / advisory: TRACON T75
Aircraft component: Altitude Hold/Capture
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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: Workload; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Captain was Pilot Flying and I was acting as right seat support. ATC completely changed our filed route of flight when we requested our clearance. Captain called Dispatch and informed them of the changes. We took off from Runway 30L on the JHART six departure. The takeoff weight was extremely light at approximately 232;000 pounds. LNAV was armed for takeoff and the VNAV and autopilot was engaged at 1000 ft. After lift off the plane climbed extremely quickly and did not track our course very well. The plane steered right of course. But not a lot. Our first level off was at 5;000 ft. but the plane did not appear to be leveling off quick enough and Captain disengaged the autopilot and flew the plane. I saw the VNAV ALT in the FMA window. The plane was manually leveled off at 5;000 ft. It was an extremely busy time in the cockpit. About that time ATC cleared us to 15;000 ft. and direct JHART. After the clearance was received everything in the cockpit went back to normal and the auto pilot was re-engaged.This is the second time this week this is happened to me in a very light weight takeoff. The 767-300 auto pilot does not appear to be strong enough to handle light weight takeoff. I suggest we remove auto pilot must be used on RNAV one departures from our FCOM. And give the Captain the option to hand fly these departures if it is allowed by the FAA.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported that an autopilot malfunction during departure resulted in a clearance deviation.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Taxi
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: My aircraft had just come out of maintenance to correct the problem of slewing to the left. I was going to fly it around the pattern to check the work. After startup; I eased forward out of the parking tie down and turned left onto the taxiway line toward the active runway. I estimate I was perhaps moving at 2-3 mph as I depressed the left rudder and turned left. I straightened the pedals but the aircraft continued turning left and was slowly heading in a circle toward the aircraft parked next to mine.  I applied right pedal and brake and emergency brake but to no avail as the aircraft continued slowly towards the other plane. At that point I was almost 180 degrees from my original position. I attempted to shut the engine down but the plane continued to coast into the spinner of the second plane; so that we were almost nose to nose. I sustained prop damage and the other aircraft had spinner damage from my prop; which evidently was still turning when it hit. I estimate the collision speed was perhaps 2 mph. The same maintenance shop had worked on the brakes a couple of weeks ago as well as yesterday on the problem of flying left. I do not know how this problem could have been avoided from the cockpit as the plane simply would not respond. Obviously this was a maintenance error. I hope we find the exact cause.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a slow speed ground collision occurred when he was unable to stop his aircraft from turning left.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: CSA [Customer Service Agent] approached me shortly after arrival in ZZZ with a question about an item a passenger wanted to bring onboard. I went into the boarding area; to view a motorized skateboard. At first I was not to concerned; he indicated that he has had no trouble getting through security and had flown with this skateboard several times. He had flown to ZZZ1-ZZZ on (airline) with this skateboard. I returned to the flight deck; retrieved my iPad and started to research Lithium Ion batteries and found information on restrictions to carrying this skateboard on the plane. He could not remove the battery without specific tools. Long story short; I apologized and told this passenger I would be unable to put this skateboard on the airplane. The reason I'm reporting this is my concern that he was able to get the skateboard on the ZZZ1-ZZZ flight.  Get a message out to CSA and crew members to be on the lookout for these kind of items.




Synopsis: B737-900 Captain reported concerns regarding gate agents lack of knowledge of approved Lithium Ion powered devices on passenger aircraft.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SMO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower SMO
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Fatigue
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Inadvertently entered LAX Bravo airspace on initial approach to SMO. Realizing mistake; I corrected heading; but came too close to a helicopter in vicinity during infraction.Contributing factors1. Long day (nearly 5 hrs.) flying. Early in the AM. PIC tired.2. Low ceiling and marginal VFR conditions at night adding to mental load.3. Handheld moving map crashed and was unable to use. Was attempting to troubleshoot.4. Too hasty correction of heading potentially causing a collision.5. I know the area very well and took that for granted. Was visually following roads instead of flying known headings from avionics. Followed an incorrect freeway; I think; due to being tired. 6. Distracted by talking passenger.After correcting my heading I landed safely at SMO.




Synopsis: C172 pilot arriving SMO at night in marginal VFR conditions; experiences a failure of his moving map display. This results in inadvertent entry into LAX Class B when the wrong freeway is chosen as the route to SMO. When the error is detected the hard turn away results in an airborne conflict with a helicopter.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Banner Tow
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was flying with a banner when I saw 2 parasails in the ocean when I was heading southbound. I was at 600 feet keeping them on my right side; right after I passed abeam the first one I made a 180 degree turn to the right to come because I needed to be on time to drop the banner. Right after I landed I was communicated that my banner touched one of the parasails; nobody got hurt; the parasail has minor damage and they were able to land safely. I noticed that the parasails were flying a little bit higher than the usual in that day; I was flying at 600 feet the whole flight and keeping visual separation.




Synopsis: Banner tow pilot reported the banner came into minor contact with a parasail.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Relief Pilot; Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At FL350 MACH .80 VMC got EICAS message 'R ENG FUEL FILT' accomplished QRH procedure and contacted dispatch via SATCOM. Captain and dispatch agreed a divert was necessary and a divert was coordinated. Dispatch advised us to land overweight as opposed to dumping fuel. The crew agreed. Landing was normal and uneventful. Due to airport protocol we were instructed to exit the runway and be inspected by [Grounds Crews]. Gear and brakes were inspected with no abnormalities and we taxied to parking with no issues.


Second narrative: I was the [Relief Officer] on this flight. At approximately 2 1/2 hours into the flight we received a 'R ENG FUEL FILT' EICAS message. Referenced the ETOPS Systems Failures section in the QRH which directed a divert. Coordinated with Dispatch/Maintenance Control who also recommended the divert. Coordinated a divert and uneventful landing.[Grounds crew] checked the aircraft for hot brakes at the end of the runway.


Synopsis: B767-300 flight crew experiences an EICAS message 'R ENG FUEL FILT' at FL350 during an oceanic crossing. After checking the QRH and contacting Dispatch a diversion to the nearest suitable alternate is coordinated.
Date: 201601
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other All
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The permanent iPad mount installation is unsafe and impractical. The permanent mount interferes with the use of the only available chart holder and does not fit the iPad with the company issued protective cover. Additionally; the mount does not hold the position of the iPad. The friction lock is difficult to tighten and is ineffectual. Even with the friction lock tight; the iPad mount rotates freely. Of more concern is that the permanent iPad mount contacts the outboard armrest during window operation. This brings into question the airworthiness of this installation as the permanent iPad mount could interfere with the operation of an emergency exit. This permanent iPad mount should be removed and its use discontinued. Please certify that the interference between the permanent iPad mount and the emergency exit sliding window is acceptable.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported concern that the iPad mount used on the aircraft could interfere with the cockpit window operation.