elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was on left downwind for ZZZ preparing for the landing. I crossed the point abeam the threshold; lowered my gear and started my descent. The tower called for helicopter traffic nearby. I reported negative traffic and tower instructed to extend downwind and that they would call my base. I complied and continued still slightly descending; expecting to get on the base turn any second.However the controller either got busy with other traffic and forgot about me or decided to re-sequence me for landing. I continued on downwind; but stopped my descent and was holding altitude (at that point it was around 1200 MSL; 300 feet below TPA). After being on downwind until about 3nm from the airport I realized that I was too low because of rising terrain which should be about 600 feet MSL at that point; so I was probably flying about 500-600 feet above the houses; and even higher terrain was ahead of me. At that point I added power and raised my gear in order to achieve a good climb rate. The tower finally called my base about 4.5nm from the airport; and the rest of the flight was uneventful.In retrospect I should have stopped my descent earlier and started my climb as soon as I was beyond normal point when I turn base which is my normal practice when dealing with extended downwind. I think the contributing factor in this case was the anticipation of imminent base turn because I was vectored around much slower helicopter traffic and not some jet on instrument approach which is usually the case for extended downwind; plus not flying much recently also affected my decision making. Also; the normal pattern is right traffic which doesn't put you over rising terrain that quickly.Overall it wasn't a dangerous situation; but it could be if it happened at night; plus I got lower than prescribed by FAR over populated area (although as this was a part of landing procedure; not sure if it applies even though the downwind extended too much).




Synopsis: BE35 pilot reported descending too low waiting for ATC to call the base turn due to traffic.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RAL.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I was conducting multi-engine commercial training for a student in the Lake Mathews practice area (south of RAL and South East of the PDZ vortac) Level at 5;500 feet MSL. Conducted normal clearing turns and started conducting the VMC demonstration. Student then reported an aircraft that flew below us by less than 100 feet. I made several attempts to raise the aircraft on the practice area frequency with no response. This has happened multiple times. When speaking with the owner of the flight school in which I work; he has reported that he's had to talk to the chief pilot of flight school; based out of ZZZ due to the language barrier; and frequent close calls in the practice area.




Synopsis: Small aircraft Instructor reported an NMAC with another small aircraft south of RAL airport.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
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)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Level 6;000 feet with approach control. ATC calls out VFR traffic at 11 O'Clock and less than 10 miles (I don't recall exact range fallout); 500 ft underneath. I reply that we are searching; but internal to cockpit we note the TCAS contact that meets the fallout. PF (Pilot Flying) is flying without any autopilot systems for proficiency; but is stable at 6;000 feet. TCAS TA approx 5 miles and -05 becomes -03 while we are level; suggesting a slight climb by the conflict aircraft. ATC still seeks threat and vectors us 10 degrees to the left. Shortly after the turn we receive a TCAS RA and inform ATC we are climbing in accordance with the RA. Shortly after the maneuver is initiated; we identified what appears to be a twin engine VFR aircraft from left to right on the windscreen but below our altitude and approximately 3-5 miles away. It was unclear if the VFR aircraft maneuvered in response to an RA. We advised ATC that the RA had cleared and returned to our assigned altitude; ATC acknowledged and remainder of flight was without incident.


Second narrative: While on downwind vectors for an approach to Runway 22L at EWR; we were advised of VFR traffic below our altitude. We observed it as a TCAS target that was initially white; then went to yellow. New York Approach assigned us a left turn that seemed to put us more directly in the path of the intruder aircraft. It was observed to be climbing; and then a TCAS RA alert sounded and the recovery maneuver was performed (a climb and level-off at 6;500 feet) The minimum separation observed on the TCAS intruder was 400 feet below our aircraft; and the First Officer visually observed the aircraft passing below us during the avoidance maneuver. New York Approach was advised of the avoidance maneuver; and they cleared us back down to 6;000 feet when we were done with the maneuver. The rest of the approach and landing was completed uneventfully. We also checked with the flight attendants after stabilizing the aircraft to confirm that there was no reaction or damage or injuries in the cabin; and they confirmed everything was fine.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew had a Traffic Alert during approach to land.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CNO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D CNO
ATC / advisory: Tower CNO
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: An aircraft entered the CNO airspace from the west at 1;800 FT MSL. He continued towards the airport for about 2 miles; then turned southbound and appeared to land at AJO Airport. The aircraft conflicted with aircraft in the pattern for Runway 26L. The closest proximity was less than 1/2 mile laterally at the same altitude. At the time; training was in progress and traffic was busy. The OJTI on LC issued traffic advisories to aircraft that were on frequency and ensured separation; but it was definitely an unnecessary distraction and disturbed the smooth traffic flow. CNO airspace is violated from aircraft either inbound or outbound from AJO on a daily basis; usually more than once a day. It has been a problem for years. Usually; the violations are not reported because communication with the aircraft is not established; and filing the paperwork for a pilot deviation on an unknown pilot never seems to produce a result. Since the new QA/QC (Quality Assurance/Quality Control) procedures have been established; 21 MOR's have been filed for airspace violations off of AJO. Sometimes the aircraft do not conflict with anyone; sometimes Local Control is left scrambling to separate his/her traffic from an airplane they are not in communication with. AJO is an uncontrolled airport. It is only a matter of time before we have a safety related incident with one of these aircraft. Some sort of training must be accomplished. Our Manager has reached out to the airport administration at AJO; who has agreed to hang signs around the airport at AJO; but I do not believe this will solve the problem. I would like to see some sort of mailer sent to everyone on the AJO tenant list. At least the combination of the two would help mitigate the problem; though I assume the pilots who fly out of AJO everyday are aware of our airspace. I am not sure how to reach the itinerant pilots inbound and outbound from AJO.




Synopsis: CNO Controller voiced concern regarding the continued CNO airspace violations by aircraft operating to/from AJO airport.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling; Procedure
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: The 757 aircraft was safely pushed out the gate envelope with two wing walkers. Once on the taxiway; when ready to do so the Pushback Driver signaled 'brakes set' which was re-signaled back to the driver by myself. The Pushback Driver assisted me in disconnecting the tow bar. Once the Pushback Driver was back in the driver's seat the Pushback Driver signaled 'disconnect headset' which I re-signaled back to the Pushback Driver. Upon attempting to disconnect the pin and the headset; the aircraft began to move forward. The headset was disconnected from the aircraft. Then the Pushback Driver informed me to get in; but due to the positioning of the pushback with the tow bar and the forward motion of the aircraft; it was unsafe to do so; because I would have been in between the aircraft's landing gear and the tow bar. So for my personal safety; I retreated away from the aircraft toward the gate; during which I witnessed the Marshaller in front of the aircraft still signaling 'stop' to the flight deck. While she was also retreating away from the aircraft a Toyota towing tractor swiftly picked her up. Upon returning to the gate; I informed the Pushback Driver that I was unable to safely remove the pin from the aircraft's landing gear. Once the 757 aircraft had stopped approximately 100 feet from its original position the Pushback Driver promptly went back to the nose gear and removed the pin safely. No employees reported injuries from the incident and no equipment was reported damaged either.




Synopsis: A B757 began taxiing before the Ramp Agent successfully removed the steering bypass pin so the ground crew retreated to the gate and when the aircraft stopped; returned to remove the pin.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 350
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: A couple seconds after power-up on takeoff got a config warning and saw that it was the rudder trim on the EICAS. I've seen this message 3-4 times before and aborted takeoff each time when I was pilot flying. Each time after tapping the trim switch it centers. What's crazy about this is the rudder trim carrot can actually be green but half a millimeter off and you get this warning. That's the way it was today. The last time I saw this message I was non-flying pilot with another captain and he tapped it a couple times while we started to roll and it centered and the message went out.I tried this today and the message went out for a couple seconds. With me however today it came back on as we were accelerating. I took a quick glance and saw the trim carrot was as centered as you can get without being dead center. The rudder trim message came back on. We were accelerating and on a short (5300 foot) runway so chose to continue rather than abort (with 2 passengers) because I knew it was basically centered.We rotated and climbed out uneventfully with no noticeable rudder mis-trim. I was really upset that the message returned with associated warnings after what I saw previously with that other captain. I let this influence my decision to not abort. I also know that the rudder trim can be so little off to even be green sometimes and you still get the message and it takes a millisecond to center it with the switch. In the future I will immediately abort (as I previously have done) and not try any 'techniques' to try to center a carrot etc. I realize this is against SOP and will not let past negative learning experiences influence me.One thing I will say is that it seems like Bombardier could expand the band a little that trips this message and warning. All it takes is a gnats butt off and it trips on takeoff.




Synopsis: CL350 Captain reported that they continued takeoff after receiving a config warning on EICAS.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On the RYDRR 2 Arrival approaching CLIFY at approximately 7;500 ft; a drone passed by our right wing at our altitude. It was close enough that we were able to see it in our landing lights. I initially noticed it when I saw what looked like position lights approaching the aircraft. There was no time to react.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported seeing a UAS pass by their aircraft at 7;500 ft on arrival to LAX.  There was no time to maneuver and the aircraft continued the arrival.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Excessive Cold
Light: Night
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder
Component problem: Malfunctioning; Design
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were assigned this aircraft for a recovery flight. We reported well before sunrise for the ferry flight; preflighted and prepared the aircraft in accordance to SOP and FOM guidance.  We then started the engines and taxied to Runway 33 completing all taxi checks and before checks including the rudder bias system check. The Captain was the pilot flying and did not report any anomalies during the taxi out or rudder bias check.  Immediately after takeoff the Captain informed me that he was having to apply an unusual amount of right rudder in order to maintain coordinated flight. We had flown this aircraft on four previous legs and it had consistently required a small amount of left rudder trim for coordinated flight.   As we continued on the departure and increased airspeed to 200kts he eventually required full right rudder trim for coordinated flight.  We both agreed that we should not continue the flight and that we  should return to the departure airport.  I notified ATC of our situation and they began to give us vectors back to the airport.  As the Captain reduced power to descend he observed that the aircraft required less rudder trim to maintain coordinated flight. The return was uneventful.  The Captain made an excellent landing and there were no control anomalies during the taxi back to the ramp.  After shutdown the Captain immediately contacted the dispatch to inform them that we had returned to the departure airport and then contacted maintenance and described the abnormality.

Callback: The Reporter stated that his Company's maintenance department replaced the Rudder Bias actuator and that action apparently solved the problem.



Synopsis: A CE560XLS returned to the departure airport after takeoff because significant right rudder input was needed at 200 kts as the result of a Rudder Bias Actuator fault.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B STL
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: On approach to Runway 11 in STL; at approximately 2;500 feet crossing just inside HIXOB; we encountered a single engine aircraft that crossed our flight path estimated at 300-500 feet above our altitude. The aircraft was not displaying on our TCAS as it appears he did not have a transponder on. We reported the traffic to ATC on STL Tower 118.5 and inquired about the traffic. The controller stated he had just started intermittently picking up a primary target. Another controller came on and inquired if we knew what type of aircraft it was. Pilot Monitoring (PM) stated it appeared to be a [small aircraft]. No TCAS RA was encountered due to the traffic not being displayed. It appears that the aircraft was near the boarder of; or possibly within the class B airspace; however; ATC was not aware of the aircraft in time to notify us of the potential conflict. The flight continued with no further incident.The VFR aircraft was not displaying a transponder or in communication with ATC.




Synopsis: While conducting an approach the flight crew encountered unknown VFR traffic in close proximity which was not displaying on TCAS; possibly due to no or inoperative transponder. ATC was queried and requested help in identifying the aircraft type. No RA was generated by this event.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ONT.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Procedure
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: Vectors to TAKOE the IAF fix for 26R at ONT. Assigned 4500 ft. to cross TAKOE at or above 4300 ft. We were in IMC approaching TAKOE from the SE approximately 5 miles from fix. Got EGPWS alert with Terrain Pull Up. Started EGPWS maneuver and alert went away immediately. Climbed to approximately 5000ft and continued approach.Cause: We were assigned to descend to 4500 ft from SOCAL after deviating around weather. There is a tower on a hill in that area which is around 3300 ft. I am speculating that tower may have caused the alert. The event was too quick and did not last long at all to analyze all factors. Pass on to SOCAL to use a higher altitude in that particular area until over the IAF. But the chart dictates that 4500ft should have been adequate.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported an EGPWS alert during approach to ONT airport.