elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DRT.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E DRT
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: My aircraft is involved in a project [under a government] contract. We drop small packets of vaccine out of the aircraft for wildlife vaccination. Flights are flown in a grid over a large area. Before beginning the dispersal near Del Rio; flights were coordinated with the Air Force; Border Patrol; any controlling towers; and multiple other agencies. All flights are conducted at 500 AGL to facilitate a machine operator to cut off the machine whenever we pass over any buildings or populated areas.On the day of the incident; flights began at sunrise; and my drop area was right along the Mexico/US border. After an hour of flight; I was north bound and saw an aircraft about 3-5 miles off my nose. I continued to watch the aircraft; and pointed out the aircraft to the machine operator in the front seat beside me. The aircraft was at least 500 feet above me; and seemed to be on a constant heading. I tried raising him on Del Rio's frequency; since I had heard an aircraft depart just prior to seeing this aircraft. I was not able to raise him. Seeing no conflict; and believing (due to their trajectory) there would be more conflict if I turned north (right); and I could not turn south into Mexico; I continued the line and passed underneath the aircraft well below his altitude. I did not see any conflict and was not worried in the least.Upon reaching the ground; I found out that the aircraft was a Civil Air Patrol (CAP) aircraft that had a border patrol agent on board. The agent had not been informed of our activity in the area; even though his supervisors had been notified. The pilots of the CAP aircraft were very unhappy about the situation and asked for my name. They had not seen my aircraft until we were underneath them.




Synopsis: A pilot reported an airborne conflict during a government contracted animal vaccine dropping flight that required grid pattern operations. Notification of the operation had not been disseminated to an associated agency.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B JFK
ATC / advisory: Tower JFK
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On approach in JFK for ILS 22R (may have been 22L); just past the Outer Marker (probably MATTR) I saw something small that didn't appear to be moving up ahead in the windscreen. We were descending on the glideslope. Once I determined the object appeared mostly stationary; while staying at the same altitude; I didn't feel that a course change or attitude change was necessary. I also only had several seconds to identify the object; determine its size; and even consider evasive action. The object appeared to be a small; quad-copter drone. It was grey in color with the rectangular body that seems ubiquitous to many designs. It appeared to fly 100 to 200 feet above our altitude of 1600 feet MSL. We were on about a 4-mile final. I don't think the First Officer (Pilot Monitoring) ever saw it. We immediately reported it to ATC. We gave JFK Ground a more exact description than Tower received. If I had been scanning the flight instruments rather than looking outside; then I may have never seen the drone. There was nothing we could have done differently. Perhaps drone sightings and suggested procedures could be mentioned in one of the manuals.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a NMAC with a Drone on a four mile final to JFK.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Equipment / Tooling; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: This was my first time performing a Bleeds OFF takeoff using the new checklist. I had previously bookmarked the electronic version of the checklist; so I had it ready to go. However; this meant I was unable to have the SID up on my iPad during departure; as I normally would. Also; the placement of the iPad in the cockpit meant more heads down; away from monitoring low to the ground during a critical phase of flight. During a Bleeds OFF takeoff as pilot monitoring I am busy! We typically do a flaps 25 takeoff when departing this airport Bleeds OFF. I am reconfiguring the bleed system while contacting Departure Control and bringing up flaps on schedule. Meanwhile; I am expected to monitor the flight to ensure we are flying the correct lateral mode and making crossing restrictions and look out for the plethora of VFR traffic buzzing around just off the coast. Having that checklist printed out makes our jobs significantly easier and makes the whole procedure much safer.




Synopsis: B737NG First Officer reported new checklist procedures increased their workload while conducting a Bleeds Off takeoff from a busy airport.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu Meridian
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During normal descent for landing on RNAV GPS approach a landing gear malfunction occurred. A missed approach was declared with request direct to published hold. While in the hold the gear extension checklist was run three times without any change in the unsafe indication. ATC did not call back at the EFC so we contacted them for a visual approach to the runway for a gear examination by ATC and Maintenance. En route to the airport we declared an emergency [due to a] landing gear problem. ATC queried as to souls onboard and intentions. Proceeding to the inspection point; the final emergency landing gear extension checklist was completed. Due to the airspeed restriction of 90 knots and the unusual flight control inputs 'yaw' specified [by the checklist] the autopilot and alt hold [were] disconnected and a loss of altitude [occurred and] was uncorrected for 30 seconds. The alert ATC Controller requested correction which we could not perform immediately due to the slow airspeed and aircraft configuration: gear down; flaps down; airspeed less than 90 knots. A slow climb back to altitude was commenced. While climbing; the Tower Controller requested lower altitude for gear inspection and the climb was stopped and a descent was initiated. Given the circumstances and the configuration and airspeed restriction some loss of altitude would occur. In order to not have a loss of altitude; a more serious condition of decaying airspeed with a possible stall loss of control in close proximity to ground might arise. A loss of 200 feet did not seem to be an unreasonable expectation given the emergency.




Synopsis: While troubleshooting a gear extension problem on a PA-46; the pilot lost 200 feet of altitude.  This was pointed out by ATC and the pilot corrected for it.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft were not issued appropriate STAR. ZOA should comply with the letter of agreement.




Synopsis: ZLA Center Controller received multiple aircraft from an adjacent Center on the wrong STAR.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: VFR; 15
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Run up satisfactory after seven circuits in traffic pattern at approximately 600 feet shortly after passing the end of Runway 20 engine began running rough; backfired and lost power. Executed a 180 degree turn to return to Runway 2 and landed safely.




Synopsis: A PA-28 Instructor took the aircraft at 600 feet and returned to land after the engine began running rough and lost power.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Second aircraft: Heavy Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Wake turbulence encounter: The weather was VMC with smooth atmospheric conditions. We had been assigned a speed of 300 KIAS in the climb. The autopilot was engaged. The seatbelt sign was off. Climbing through approximately FL200 the plane very suddenly started shaking followed by a severe jolt and a 45 degree bank to the right. The pilot flying in the right seat disengaged the autopilot and returned the plane to level flight and turned back on course. He continued to hand fly the plane for the next minute to ensure it was once again smooth and safe to reengage the autopilot. The whole turbulence encounter lasted only about 2 seconds and another 3 seconds to assess the situation and regain manual control. There were no meteorological reasons for turbulence and no PIREPS of turbulence had been reported.We suspected wake turbulence and a look at the TCAS confirmed that was another aircraft about 12 NM ahead of us and 2;000 FT above us going the same direction at the same speed and climb rate; thus maintaining the same relative position to our aircraft. ATC had never told us about the other aircraft; we just kind of figured it out by listening to radio communications and observing our TCAS display. I queried ATC if we were trailing a heavy aircraft because we had just encountered what appeared to be a wake turbulence upset. ATC confirmed that we were indeed '10 miles in trail of a heavy' and offered a vector off course. I forgot to ask what type of aircraft it was and never found out but there were several European carriers headed home that direction at that time of the day. As pilots we need to be alert to surrounding aircraft; even in Class A airspace. While the ATC provided separation may be legal it may not always be safe. Pilots and ATC alike need to realize that separation is more a matter of time than distance. Because we had been assigned a very high rate of airspeed; the time to catch up to the preceding aircraft's wake was around 1.5 minutes rather than the 2+ minutes it would have been if we had been climbing at our normal climb speed...Less time for the wake turbulence to dissipate. Higher speeds require greater separation distance.




Synopsis: A BAE-125-850XP Captain reported encountering wake vortex during climb from an aircraft about 10 miles ahead.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CMH.TRACON, OH
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Recip Eng
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZID
ATC / advisory: TRACON CMH
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was flying on a direct route to AGC through the Columbus Approach; I asked for a deviation due to weather.  The controller did not want to issue a deviation.  I again requested and he provided a short time deviation.  He stated that I would need to return to the heading of 090 for the remaining flight.  I responded that I could not due to weather.  He demanded that I return to the heading of 090. I was looking at a very large thunderhead and headed directly into it. He stated that his radar was showing nothing and I must maintain the given heading.I have both WX weather on board; ADS-B in weather and on board RCR 150 weather radar.  All indicated that I would encounter a rain storm and possible a thunderstorm.  He again demanded I return to the heading of 090.  At this time I was VMC and canceled the flight plan for IFR.  He responded to display the VFR code.  That was the last transmission from the controller. I then proceeded VFR through the area of weather and maintained VFR all the way through although at lower.I have never in all my flying for almost XX years had a controller demand that I maintain a given heading when I'm looking at a very large thunderhead.  I think that the flight safety was compromised due to the proposed heading I was given.  I was given no other alternate than that heading.  I was very glad to have VFR weather to continue.  Had I been solid IMC; there would have been no other alternate to a safe flight.  I consider the controllers' actions a compromise of safety.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of requesting a deviation for weather. Controller did not want to give the deviation but did. Controller let aircraft deviate for a while then told pilot they had to return to the previously assigned heading. Pilot stated this would put aircraft back into the storm and did not want to. Controller demanded the aircraft return to the heading. Pilot was in VFR conditions and cancelled IFR.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Tower, 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: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Enroute on IFR flight plan; I was VFR over a cloud deck at 11;000 ft direct to [destination airport]. Center wanted to reroute me to the [an enroute] VOR then direct [to destination airport]. I was running a little late; and so to save time I chose to cancel IFR and continue VFR as I knew it was clear conditions at [destination airport]. After canceling IFR; I stayed with Center for traffic advisories. Getting closer to [destination airport] they handed me off to approach as I started my descent. Approach called traffic at my 11 o'clock and 2 miles. I told them I had the traffic in sight at which time they told me I could switch over to the tower. Keeping an eye on the traffic while continuing my descent; it looked like I would pass behind the traffic. As it turned out I passed just in front and above the traffic. At the time it never crossed my mind that I needed more separation than we were going to have. It was totally my fault for not keeping the proper separation between us. I really don't have an excuse; other than to say I will never let it happen again.




Synopsis: The pilot of a C182 reported operating within close proximity to another aircraft while on VFR approach.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization Control System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I [performed] the noise abatement Flaps 3 Improved takeoff and upon climbout the aircraft failed to pressurize. We ran the ECAM and flight manual procedures for: Pressurization Failure SYS 1; 2; overweight landing non-normal and diverted to a nearby Maintenance Station using Captains Authority to autoland at 148 knots. ATC; Dispatch and Station Operations were all advised; flight attendants and passengers were informed.




Synopsis: After departure an A320 ECAM alerted CABIN PR SYS 1 + 2 FAULT so the flight diverted to a nearby airport for maintenance.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp CLT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Pushing back at CLT the ramp cleared us 'cleared to taxi to 25S; stay with me.'  There was no guidance on what routing to take; there are trucks; tows; planes everywhere. I tried to find and use line; so I faded to south line; only to have that blocked by some construction; so now I have to cross country to north line but it's not painted to get around construction. There are some very faded temp lines that do not reflect any light and are impossible to know they are there unless you are based there. I basically got to 25 South and never was on a taxi line until aligned with 25S.  Someone is going to damage an aircraft or people. This ramp is dangerous and it's more dangerous when there is a lack of proper lines and direction by Controllers. A disaster waiting to happen.Ramp Controllers [are] letting pilots figure out how to get there. Lines [are] not painted to avoid construction. No lights; and assuming everyone knows where the obstacles are.[We need] better Ramp Controllers; paint temporary [routings] with reflective paint to go around obstacles. Give precise taxi instructions to get to spots; i.e.; use North Line; switch to South here; etc.; there is a general sloppiness of direction.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported it was difficult to taxi due to the poor condition of painted lines; obstacles on the ramp and the airport construction at CLT.