elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Clear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This pertains to a small UAV flight near [the] State University. We took all usual protocols & procedures to check airspace and confirm we are clear to safely fly. For this particular flight; we checked to confirm we were outside of the Class C airspace of ZZZ Airport and checked for TFR's in the area - all came back clear. However; we may have flown in or near the Class C airspace during this brief flight and it was discovered after flight was over. Moving forward; we will use https://skyvector.com/ and https://uas-faa.opendata.arcgis.com/ to check instead of B4UFly app.




Synopsis: UAV operator reported possible operation in Class C airspace.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ; Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Physiological - Other; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X [became a priority] due to the onset of hypoxia symptoms. Aircraft X requested to divert and landed without further incident. ARTCC Operations Manager in Charge (OMIC) requested through TRACON to have Aircraft X contact the Watch Desk for further information. Aircraft X contacted the Watch Desk and advised there were 2 pilots with one serving as the instructor and the other serving as the student. Aircraft X also advised both of them were experiencing the onset of hypoxia symptoms; instructor had cold tingling in fingers and student felt air hunger requiring them to activate their emergency oxygen system which would provide them with up to approximately 9-10 minutes of oxygen. Upon the activation of their emergency oxygen system both pilots noticed an improvement with regards to their hypoxia. Lastly; Aircraft X advised the [the military] is experiencing on a national level at least one hypoxia event per week in the trainer aircraft ranging from aircraft in the upper flight levels to aircraft in the tower pattern and as low as 600 feet AGL.Aircraft X advised the [military] is gathering data and providing hypoxia recognition training to their pilots. My concern upon hearing this information is how can you effectively train and actually count on a pilot to actually recognize they are hypoxic and choose a proper course of action when hypoxia adversely impacts reasoning and processing? This issue appears to be systemic across the country according to the instructor of Aircraft X. The nature of this aircraft's mission is a trainer aircraft so there are younger and more inexperienced pilots flying these aircraft and being subjected to this potentially life threatening situation. Can they handle it as adeptly as a more experienced pilot?




Synopsis: An ARTCC Operations Manager reported an aircraft crew detected the onset of hypoxia and landed safely.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Jet/Long Ranger/206
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Traffic Watch
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We landed on Taxiway 1 at ZZZ in front of the FBO hangar. We then began to hover taxi to parking at approximately a 3 foot skid height above the ground. A tug pulling a cargo container was approaching from the south traveling north on the service road. As I neared the service road to cross it; the tug just kept traveling towards us and refused to stop. I had to abruptly stop my taxi and let the tug proceed but; in the process; he passed directly in front of the helicopter and underneath the rotor disk. I reported this incident to my manager and county airport personnel. This is the 5th incident with personnel in the same location within the last 3 months. The others were all very similar. Basically; the tug drivers refuse to give way to moving aircraft.




Synopsis: Helicopter pilot reported that while they were hover taxiing a tug pulling a cargo container passed directly in front of the helicopter under the rotor disk.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the approach to landing; when the gear was extended; the left main gear did not come down. A missed approach was accomplished and vectors were received by ATC as we worked through the QRH procedure. I also elected to declare an emergency at this point. As per the QRH; the left main gear was successfully extended using the alternate gear extension. Once the QRH procedure was completed; we did a low fly-by so the ATC Tower; as well as fellow pilots could observe our gear configuration. Satisfied our gear was down and locked; we entered the pattern again and flew a normal profile to a normal and uneventful landing. After landing; we cleared the runway and taxied to our gate. I do not know why the gear did not come down. Maintenance took the airplane to the hangar for further inspection.




Synopsis: B737-400 Captain reports failure of the left main gear to extend during approach. A go-around is initiated and the gear is successfully extended using the alternate extension method. An uneventful landing and taxi to the gate ensues.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: When event happened; I was training an R-side trainee on their first two sectors. IFR and icing conditions existed throughout the airspace and traffic volume was low. We were just talking through an icing situation that happened; so while traffic was low; we were discussing an event that just took place. We noticed Aircraft X not climbing; and since we knew icing conditions were out there; we solicited why pilot was [not] climbing the aircraft. Pilot stated he was experiencing moderate rime icing; but wanted to continue on his flight path. We further pushed the pilot to make sure he was able to maintain altitude and asked him to state intentions. We gave him a slight turn to the south and assigned a block altitude to help him stay between layers. After a few minutes; the pilot came back and said he was unable to maintain altitude and wanted to change destinations. At this point; he was below the terrain; but was still in moderate icing and unable to maintain altitude. I gave him the minimum IFR altitude and asked the pilot to maintain a SW heading towards lower terrain. Pilot was able to fly southwest; but still could not maintain altitude. At that point; I gave the pilot a 260 heading and asked if he could see the ground. Pilot stated he was able to get ground contact; but it was choppy and was in the bases. I asked the pilot if 'another thousand feet would get him out of the icing'. He stated it would. I then descended the aircraft 1;000 feet below the MIA to get him out of the icing; but to also keep him at a safe altitude. MIA's in mountainous terrain are 2;000 feet above the highest point of terrain; so I felt comfortable that the altitude I assigned would both keep him safe and get him out of the icing. Pilot stated he was VFR as soon as he descended the extra 1;000 feet and the icing was burning off the aircraft. Pilot stated he wanted to cancel his IFR and maintain VFR to ZZZ1.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported descending an IFR aircraft 1;000 feet below the MIA to get the aircraft to VFR conditions and below icing.
Date: 201502
Location: MCX.Airport, IA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G MCX
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; 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: A student and I departed our home airport in a Piper Archer; to practice takeoffs and landings at White County (MCX). Another instructor from my FBO and his student had also gone to MCX a few minutes before us in a Piper Warrior; and I knew in advance I would be sharing the pattern with him.After a few landings; I heard another aircraft on CTAF call in from the northeast. The pilot on the radio had a very thick accent and was difficult to understand; but I understood that he would be entering left traffic for Runway 18 at MCX. Naturally I began looking for the traffic.A few minutes after that; I was on base turning final; when all of a sudden I saw a Warrior ahead of us on a diagonal final to Runway 18. We were lined up perfectly with the runway centerline; but this pilot had come straight in from the east-southeast. I asked the other instructor if that was him on final; and he replied 'No; that's somebody else.' Sure enough; it was the difficult-to-understand pilot barreling down final.I announced on CTAF and executed a right 360 on final to provide us with additional room behind the aircraft that had just cut us off. The other instructor announced he'd extend his downwind for us. On a subsequent position announcement; I was able to make out the offending aircraft's call sign. Since the pilot was actively on the radio; I said 'Aircraft on upwind at White County; you need to pay more attention; as there are two other aircraft in the pattern here besides yourself;' to which there was no response.The pilot made several additional patterns to Runway 18; never making any clear sense on the radio at any point; before departing the pattern for elsewhere. I fail to understand how someone like that could become a solo-authorized student pilot or licensed pilot having no ability to communicate on the radio whatsoever; nor properly join a pattern at a non-towered airport.




Synopsis: PA-28 Instructor Pilot experiences a NMAC with another PA-28 joining the final approach course in a non-standard fashion after not making understandable position reports on the CTAF.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Eagle (F-15)
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: An F15 [was] climbing from FL410 to FL450. Told me he could not hold altitude. I re-cleared him to FL390. He descended through FL390 and kept descending without telling me. I asked him his altitude. He told me he couldn't maintain altitude. I asked him what he needed to descend to. He said FL250. He also lost all speed of the aircraft. Another aircraft was initially 10 miles behind him at 450 KTS climbing up to FL430. The second aircraft was overtaking the first rapidly. I turned the aircraft 90 degrees to the right to try and keep 5 mile separation. They passed with about 4 miles of separation. All this happened with heavy traffic volume and high complexity due to weather. If I hadn't been so busy I could have quizzed the F15 more about the problem. This would have led to a quicker realization of the potential problem of loss of separation due to loss of altitude and loss of speed. Or if the F15 had told me how bad the problem was; or declared an emergency; I would have turned the aircraft sooner. Military aircraft should declare an emergency when they cannot hold altitude and/or maintain speed.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described a loss of separation event when a military fighter initiated an unexpected descent due to aircraft problems without informing ATC of details. The reporter indicated that the aircraft should have declared an emergency.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: APC.Airport, CA
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D APC
ATC / advisory: Tower APC
Second aircraft: Small Transport
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I approached APC from west; and upon contact with APC Tower; I was advised to make right traffic for 19R; and report midfield on downwind.  I read back those instructions.  Upon turning to downwind - before I was at mid-field; APC Tower used my call sign and said 'cleared to land 19R ' and advised there was traffic to the south. I read back all instructions. As I was turning to a right base leg; I heard Tower use my call sign but the call was not clear. As I continued to turn onto a right base I asked for a repeat of the call. ATC advised me to begin an immediate left 360 for traffic separation. I immediately executed a left turn while maintaining about 1;100 feet altitude. At about the same time I heard Tower clear another aircraft for landing on 19R. The inbound aircraft was a south bound business jet.  ATC asked both aircraft if we were had a visual. The jet saw my aircraft and I saw the jet as it passed 400 to 600 feet beneath me. I continued with the turn and ATC cleared me to land on 19L.  After landing; ATC asked me to call Tower. In that call ATC asked why I had turned on a base leg before executing the left 360 as requested. I advised that I was cleared to land on 19R and already started the base turn before advised to start the turn. ATC advised they would review radio transcripts. Tower mentioned that ATC personnel were in training that day. A Tower Controller called my cell phone a few hours later and advised that a transcript review indicated that I was cleared to land on 19R prior the execution of the base leg turn. But [the Controller] indicated my radio was 'fuzzy' and implied my request for a repeat of the instruction for a 360 created some difficulty.At no time was I advised about inbound traffic from the North; and I have to conclude that that when I was making the left 360; Tower thought I was still on a north bound downwind leg.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported an NMAC event in the traffic pattern after an ATC trainee mistakenly cleared two aircraft to land on same runway simultaneously. ATC issued an immediate 'left 360 for traffic separation'.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was level at 110 in a 120 Minimum IFR Altitude (MIA) en-route to FMN. I didn't realize that Aircraft X was below the MIA until it was in my airspace for a couple minutes. ZAB started the hand off about 10 miles south of my airspace and I believe the aircraft was in a 112 MIA when they started the hand off. The MIA changes from 112 to 120 at the ZDV/ZAB boundary. Minimum Safe Altitude Warning (MSAW) was not flashing and I didn't realize the aircraft was about to enter a 120 MIA.Aircraft X didn't check on freq until about 1 mile into my airspace. A minute or two later; I realized he was below the MIA. I asked if he has good visual with the terrain and if he could maintain his own terrain and obstruction clearance for the next four minutes. The pilot responded affirmative to both. Based on the weather conditions; the aircraft performance; and the proximity to lower MIA; I didn't feel it was necessary to climb the aircraft. About 1 minute later; MSAW started flashing. A few minutes later; Aircraft X entered a 100 MIA.No specific recommendations. I'm curious as to why MSAW didn't alert until the aircraft was halfway through the 120 MIA. It was a strong reminder to me not to rely solely on automation. The ZAB controller and I need to stay diligent in paying close attention to routes of low altitude aircraft in reference to MIA's. ZAB shouldn't have handed me the aircraft at 110; but I should have recognized it earlier and called them to climb the aircraft.




Synopsis: ZDV Controller reported receiving an aircraft below the Minimum IFR Altitude.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During pushback ground crew asked me to set parking brake. I complied. They had difficulty releasing the tow bar and asked me to release the parking brake. I did not and told them SOP dictates that I don't. They then told me that they wanted to push me back further to put the tow bar in better position and asked that I release the brake for further push. I complied and they pushed the aircraft back just slightly and stopped. He had a hot mike and I asked him if I could set the brakes.  He said no and I heard him working with the tow bar on hot mike. The aircraft then jerked as he released the tow bar with the brakes not set. He said 'set the brakes' three times very quickly as the aircraft slowly creeped forward. I complied and the aircraft stopped. He disconnected without asking; moved away from the aircraft and the other ramp worker gave me the okay to taxi signal. I flashed the taxi light and they left. Upon running the after start checklist we realized the nose wheel steering disconnect message was still present in Amber. The ground crew had realized their mistake at about the same time and approached the aircraft with our concurrence to flip the nose wheel steering switch. This was accomplished and we safely taxied away.




Synopsis: An A320 Captain reported that a ground crew used improper procedures during the towbar disconnect; which resulted in the aircraft rolling with men and equipment under the aircraft and the nosewheel steering having not been switched back on by the ground crew.