elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SMO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class D SMO
ATC / advisory: Tower SMO
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: I landed at Santa Monica yesterday. I landed on Runway 21; and turned right to exit the runway to taxi to the FBO. I was pretty impressed with myself that I got stopped in time to quickly dart into the FBO; landing in a record short distance.Unfortunately for me; they have changed the procedures at SMO since the last time that [I] was there. Now; they have specific painted taxiways that they want you to follow.Of course; there's nothing painted to show where NOT to go. I'd suggest striped lines; or green paint in the 'forbidden' areas. San Diego airport has green paint; for example.I'm not aware of any NOTAM concerning the new taxiway arrangement; however in the AFD is the following notes:'ACFT MUST NOW EXIT THE RWY AT DSGND CONNECTOR TWYS. THE CONS RWY EXIT SYS IS NO LONGER AVBL.'




Synopsis: GA pilot reported a possible taxiway deviation and reported not being able to find NOTAMs describing taxi procedure changes at SMO airport.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: West of DSM Iowa and in the vicinity of OMA Nebraska; we encountered severe turbulence while at FL300 with climb clearance to FL320. During the event we were unable to maintain altitude and descended in the downdraft at 1500 - 1700 fpm reaching approximately FL280 before we were able to stop the descent and climb. (The turbulence in the descent was increasingly worse at lower altitude). We then continued to climb back to the previously cleared altitude of FL320 where the turbulence steadily diminished and we were able to re-engage the automatics. During the event; we communicated with Air Traffic Control our condition and actions to the best of our ability. The event lasted approximately 10-15 minutes; with no reported injuries from the flight deck or cabin.


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


Synopsis: B737-800 crew reported encountering severe turbulence at FL300 in the vicinity of OMA.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On downwind in traffic pattern (stage check) at ZZZ; Instructor Pilot (IP) observed traffic on TIS (Traffic Information Service) display that appeared to be closing at a high rate from the rear. IP attempted to visually acquire the target; but was unable. ATC warned the following Aircraft Y that they were getting too close. While the IP's aircraft was cleared to land; Pilot under Instruction (PUI) decided to extend downwind to give sufficient space for traffic that was on final; and was not concerned with traffic to his rear since he had the right of way. With the targets continuing to close on the TIS; IP instructed PUI to turn immediately. As PUI turned base; IP acquired the target on downwind; passing an estimated 170 feet behind his aircraft; close enough to clearly read the registration Aircraft Y. IP continued flight without further incident. The instructor of Aircraft Y proceeded to solo out his student on the next lap.Keeping Situational Awareness (SA) is crucial to maintaining safety of flight; and using all available resources to maintaining SA. IP explained that it does not matter if you had the right of way if you crash; so do what is necessary per 91.3.




Synopsis: Flight instructor reported an NMAC with another instructional aircraft in the traffic pattern.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SVH.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Winds - Calm; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E SVH
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Taxied to west end of runway (Runway 10) followed other aircraft; winds were calm. After several attempts; finally made contact with Atlanta Center requesting IFR clearance. Controller asked that I standby while he called. After a very long wait; Controller asked if I was ready to depart. I said yes and he advised he would again return in a few minutes. Several minutes passed and he then asked if I was ready to copy. I confirmed the clearance instructions and was released. I switched to the Unicom frequency; looked to my right for approaching traffic; looked to my left and saw no traffic and heard nothing on the Unicom frequency. However; the Statesville runway has a huge hill in the middle of the runway which makes it impossible to see any traffic located at the other end of the runway. I announced 'Statesville traffic; Cirrus is departing Runway 10; Statesville traffic.' I then proceed onto the runway and turned left on to the center line. Just as I was about to move the throttle forward; someone on the Unicom started yelling something about they were aborting a takeoff on Runway 28!! I was having difficulty clearly understanding what was being said; but offered to quickly move off if the other aircraft would wish for me to do so. The other aircraft stated that was not necessary since they were now clear of the active runway. I gathered myself and announced my intentions to depart Runway 10. The other pilot was asking me various questions as I was lifting off; which I attempted to ignore and fly the aircraft. I did respond once stating that I did not hear any transmission indicating an aircraft may be departing from the other end of the runway. The pilot seemed very angry and I chose not to pursue the conversation. Corrective action might be to require a double or triple announcement of departure intentions before moving at airports with similar visual limitations....I know I will!




Synopsis: SR20 pilot reports taking several minutes to obtain an IFR clearance and release from ZTL before switching to the CTAF and announcing intentions to depart Runway 10. Before power can be added for takeoff an announcement can be heard and an aircraft seen rejecting a takeoff from Runway 28.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PDK.Airport, GA
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower PDK
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Coordinator
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Cab Coordinator at PDK Tower; Runway 34 and Runway 3R where in use. Local 1 was busy and had Cessna X cleared number 1 to land on Runway 34. Cessna Y was on the right downwind and was cleared to land number behind Cessna X number 2 for Runway 34. Cessna Y turned from the downwind quickly and on a much tighter base leg than the Local Controller had planned. I advised the Local Controller that it was not going to work and to send Cessna Y around; but he did not. I advised the Local Controller again; a second time; to send Cessna Y around but he did not. Cessna X landed and almost came to a complete stop even though Local 1 was advising Cessna X to exit the runway to the left. Cessna Y questioned Local 1 about possibly going around; but Local 1 did not send Cessna Y around. I believe Local 1 thought it was too late in the landing to safely send the aircraft around. Cessna Y landed with Cessna X exiting but still on Runway 34 ahead of it. The required separation did not exist. The Ground Controllers a PDK block the exit points of the active runways on a routine basis; even though our SOP states that they shall keep the exit points open to allow landing aircraft to exit the runway. This is not enforced by local management. Enforce the local procedure and require the Ground Controller to keep the exit points open/unblocked.




Synopsis: PDK Controller described a less than standard runway separation event when a second aircraft landed with the prior arrival still on the runway; the reporter listed non compliance with local SOP requirements as a causal factor.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 6
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
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 Sea; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was doing practice landings (touch and go) and using right traffic; and while on downwind I called midfield and base. I had all lights on and my Traffic System was functioning. When I started my base leg I had no traffic alert from my system TCAS; the other Pilot or the Controller. I started my right base and then I saw another aircraft about 300 feet below me on final. The Controller then told me I 'cut off' another aircraft. I was surprised I did not receive any warnings from my TCAS. I am very diligent announcing my intentions and alert to other traffic at all times. Nothing further was said and I continued with my Touch and Goes until I retired for the day.




Synopsis: C206 pilot experiences a NMAC with another aircraft after turning base at a Tower controlled airport.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Fatigue; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Other Fatigue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Subject of chronic and acute fatigue. Chronic: Worked 10 of the last 11 days. Prior to this; had not flown since May. I was no longer used to the grind of the job and I had become accustomed to 8 hours of great sleep at home each night. I also found wearing a mask everywhere fatiguing and frustrating (layover and airport). Acute: I estimate I got 4 hours of sleep in my hotel the night before my fatigue call. Noise of people could be heard in my room late into the night. I tried earplugs but still was awakened several times. I considered changing rooms but to wake myself up completely at that hour would only have made it worse for me trying to fall asleep. I estimate I finally fell asleep around XA AM only to wake up around XE30 AM and unable to fall back asleep with thoughts of likely furlough on my mind. I decided not to call in fatigued at that point because I had a dead-head my first leg from ZZZ to ZZZ1 so I continued on and tried to sleep on the aircraft which often works for me. I found myself unable to sleep with a mask on. The mask hurts my ears; itches my face; and gives me feelings of claustrophobia when worn for lengths of time. For my scheduled sit in ZZZ1 between legs; I found out that no pillows or blankets were currently being allowed plus a mask is required even in operations. At that point; I decided I was done. I was tired; burnt out; and my mind was no longer in it. This was my first fatigue call ever.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported calling in fatigued due to chronic and acute fatigue.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: RNO.Tower, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C RNO
ATC / advisory: Tower RNO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were conducting a visual approach on Runway 16L which it was backed up with RNAV X RWY 16L. We were on MYBAD RNAV approach and we decided to call the field in sight in VMC conditions and we were cleared for the visual approach. We sequence the flight plan and verified runway; once we intercepted NAV we disconnected the autopilot and started our descent to cross SEKAW at 7;800 ft. During final configuration we descended below the profile momentarily and we got the EGPWS [Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning Systems] 'Caution terrain' and immediately we corrected the profile and continue with the approach.




Synopsis: Pilot reports EGPWS [Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning Systems] alert on approach.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HYR.Airport, WI
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: During preflight planning; the airport was reporting [Field Condition (FICON)] NOTAM of 'Runway 03 FICON 5/5/5 40 PCT 1/8IN DRY SN OBS AT 2010XXXA09' and APRON ALL FICON ICE OBS 2010XXXA12.'  I performed my own inspection of taxiways and runway and observed at least 40% covered in ice which would have resulted in a FICON code of 1/1/1.  These improperly reported conditions are commonplace at HYR. Despite numerous attempts to educate the airport on proper reporting procedures; they have been unwilling to report accurately. This is a very serious safety concern for local pilots; but more dangerous for turbine powered aircraft flying transient into this location without knowing these discrepancies exist between reporting and actual conditions.




Synopsis: Pilot reported incorrect NOTAM's at HYR airport relating to inaccurate runway conditions.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
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: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
When detected: Other unknown
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At the gate we had a passenger board without permission from gate agent; then we had a non-compliant passenger not wearing a mask. That was mitigated when gate agent came and explained to the elderly passenger that masks must be worn. On taxi out Captain and First Officer were discussing mitigation strategies if that event were to re-occurrence on taxi and failed to run pre-takeoff checklist. Cause - Distraction by pre-flight events with gate agent and non-compliance of the passenger.Remain focused on task at hand. Not replay scenarios until the debrief phase of flight.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported forgetting to do the pre-takeoff checklist due to being distracted by a passenger being boarded without permission and another passenger not complying with face mask policy.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During climb out received ATC level off instructions at 5;000 feet and 020 heading. Captain noticed traffic ahead at 6;000 feet and five miles off the nose. ATC then issued a climb clearance to 15;000 feet. Captain took the radio from First Officer and told ATC that there was TCAS traffic at 12 o'clock and five miles and 1;000 feet above us as a safety concern. ATC then came back with a turn to heading of 060 and remain at 5;000 feet. ATC then came back to me asking why I didn't want to do what she instructed me to; and was not used to pilots not doing what she asks them to do. Captain replied with it was a safety concern and the traffic got within 2 miles of us at 1;000 above and that I felt that if I would have started that climb; I would have received a TCAS RA. She seemed very angry at me that we did not climb when asked; but I felt it was a safety concern for my aircraft; that is why I questioned her call with my TCAS information. I don't think ATC should have such a problem with a potential traffic risk that I am seeing right in front of me; especially when it was an easy fix.




Synopsis: Flight crew delayed climb to higher altitude due to traffic.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Human-Machine Interface; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At FL300; the Captain's PFD and ND began cycling on and off rapidly followed by loud crackling noises over the radio and from the circuit breaker panel. Shortly thereafter the Captain's PFD; ND and numerous other instruments lost power and many overhead annunciator lights illuminated. We ran electrical system checklists in the QRH and initially were able to restore the left generator as AC volts and frequency were within normal limits.Shortly thereafter; however; the same problems started again. This time AC volts and frequency were not within allowable limits. First attempts to start APU were unsuccessful. We then declared an emergency and diverted to the nearest suitable airport. At approximately FL200 the APU finally started and we landed without further problems.




Synopsis: An MD-80 flight crew suffered multiple electrical system anomalies and diverted to the nearest suitable airport.