elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BKX.Airport, SD
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E BKX
Second aircraft: Sail Plane
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Second reporter function: Trainee
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon completing a full-stop landing on Runway 12; we began to taxi back to the end of the runway. The wind was calm; and traffic was favoring Runway 12. During our taxi; a Cessna 172 did a touch-and-go on the same runway behind us with no conflicts. About 3 minutes later; we checked for traffic; made our radio call; and taxied onto the runway for takeoff. Both myself and my student looked down the runway and could not see any traffic. As we began to rotate; my student remarked about something on the runway ahead of us. As we began to climb; we could clearly see a glider and tow-plane stationed just off center on the runway about 4;000 from the end of the runway we took off from. Neither aircraft appeared to be moving or occupied. We got no response to our radio calls. We then exited the pattern and waited for the traffic to take off before returning to land around 10 minutes later.On our part; I should have paid more attention to checking for traffic on the runway; however; the position and length of the runway makes it difficult to see small aircraft on the other end of the runway. Had I not been so focused on what was going on inside the plane while my student took off; I may have noticed the aircraft sooner on the takeoff roll and aborted. That said; I believe the main contributor to this incident was the choice of the glider and tow-plane pilots to position their aircraft in the center of an active runway for an extended period of without making this clear to other traffic on or around the airport.


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


Synopsis: GA instructor pilot and student reported observing aircraft on the opposite end of the runway during takeoff.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger CL601
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B LAS
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On departure out of LAS there was an altitude limit that was overflown.  The pilot not flying misread the chart and set the wrong altitude in the Alt select window.  Neither pilot caught the error till after the altitude limit was exceeded.  Contributing factors were that the non pilot flying was new to the flight program learning call outs and other duties; while familiar with the airplane; he also was learning the avionic set up for this particular aircraft. He was also used to using NOS charts and was using Jeppesen for the first time on this procedure.  There was a last moment change in runway departures.  On takeoff and climb out we encountered considerable wake turbulence and the pilot flying hand flew the airplane to stay over the departing aircraft's wake.  Because of this 'vertical nav' was not engaged.  There were multiple distractions during the initial setup and review of the procedures during the pre-flight phase so that a complete review did not happen.Crews should brief together the departure from busy airports once they have sat down and strapped in so the limits are fresh on the mind.  A request for an initial higher altitude should have been made to be above the preceding aircraft's wake or request a delay on takeoff for more spacing.  This deviation is taken very seriously and both pilots are working with the chief of operations to implement changes in policy; and improve the processes used in operating the aircraft.  I deeply apologize for the situation and with the concern and discussion already happening on this subject; I know our operations will be better going forward.


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


Synopsis: CL601 Captain reported climbing through an altitude restriction on departure from LAS. Wake turbulence distraction and a newly qualified First Officer were factors in the event.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GFK.TRACON, ND
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E GFK
ATC / advisory: TRACON GFK
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were flying inbound to East Ponds (VFR reporting point for aircraft) nearing the end of our descent and we were in contact with GFK Approach. Approach instructed [another aircraft] to 'execute a right 360 for sequencing.' Approach had to repeat that instruction before [the other aircraft] responded. Approach then told us; 'Traffic is 11 o'clock; 1 mile; southwest bound; 2;200 feet; traffic will be doing a right 360 to get behind you.' I responded that we had the traffic in sight. I also adjusted our heading to the right (more west bound; instead of southwest bound) to increase spacing from [the other aircraft]. Approach then told [the other aircraft]; 'Traffic northeast of your position; 1 mile; southwest bound; 2;800; has you in sight; you'll be following them into East Ponds.' [The other aircraft] responded that they were looking for traffic. I looked back up from setting the new heading; and couldn't find [the other aircraft] outside. I asked the PNF if he still had the traffic in sight and he wasn't aware that we had even been issued traffic advisories. At that point; I glanced at the ADS-B and saw [the other aircraft] disappear. I went back to scanning for traffic outside; and then noticed [the other aircraft] re-appear from behind our left wing still in the right 360. They were approximately 300 feet from us horizontally and about 200 feet below us. I immediately disconnected the autopilot and initiated a climb and banked away from [the other aircraft]. Approach did not issue another traffic advisory until [the other aircraft] had completed their 360 turn; then they were told; 'Traffic is west of your position; 2 miles; southwest bound; 2;100; follow them into East Ponds.' [The other aircraft] reported us in sight; and then Approach had us contact Tower. We completed the remainder of the flight without incident.As for corrective actions; listen to ATC's instructions for other aircraft; and speak-up if something doesn't sound right. GFK Approach should have instructed the traffic to make a left 360; rather than a right 360. Also; make sure the PNF is maintaining visual contact with the traffic or is at least scanning for the traffic.




Synopsis: Pilot reported an NMAC with another light aircraft during arrival into GFK airport.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was in route and called ZMP to request to return to RDR. The Controller cleared them back to RDR and I assumed the sector. About 15 minutes later I noticed Aircraft X off course and headed south. I questioned the aircraft and asked if they needed assistance and the reply from the pilot was 'Correcting'. I informed my Supervisor and was told to inform the pilot off a possible pilot deviation and instructed them to call ZMP Operating Manager in Charge (OMIC). This event happened again a few minutes later with the Controller to the north of me. The [UAV] aircraft have difficulty holding altitudes and headings. The radios are not efficient enough with the lag time to communicate with the pilots when we need to. They are not safe to be flying in the NAS with other aircraft.




Synopsis: ZMP Controller reports of an aircraft that turns off course and then is put back on course by ATC. Reporter then states aircraft has difficulty holding correct altitude and headings later in the session.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Recip Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying my last leg of the day. Traffic was landing Runway XX and departing XY. I was on Taxiway Charlie and was asked if I could accept an intersection departure on XZ from Charlie. My performance data allowed for this departure and would not have violated any of the requirements for intersection departures. I told them I could accept. I was told to taxi into position and hold. Unfortunately; I was confused and saw traffic landing Runway XX and accidentally lined up facing XA [the wrong way on XZ]. The Tower cleared me for departure and then immediately said 'stop; you are lined up the wrong way; make a 180 on XA to face XZ.' I never advanced the throttles for takeoff; but did see my error. I then turned around on XZ and was cleared for takeoff. After departure I thanked the controller for his diligence and catching my mistake. He then said not to worry and that's why we're all here.All of my ASAP reports have one common problem that draws a line through every mistake I've made; fatigue. Every incident has happened on either the last flight of a 13 hour duty day or the last flight of my week. It is my personal opinion that 13 hour duty days are simply too long. In this example the duty day was 14 hours. I fully understand that some guys like working those long days and that's good for them; but unless you're willing to work a 13 hour day; you cannot work at this company. I can't understand why some schedules couldn't be built for 10 hour days. I know the response is to call out fatigued if you're getting too tired; but I say why must I be constantly put in a position to fail; and call out fatigued? Is there no responsibility of the company to give their employees schedules to help them succeed? I don't want to have to call out fatigued; although I have in the past. I feel a responsibility to my passengers and there is a lot of pressure to fulfill the day when they're standing there expecting you to fly them somewhere and you're too tired. Furthermore; although the company itself would never pressure me into flying beyond my capabilities there is still a culture of push through among the pilots. Again I feel that there should be shorter schedules offered to pilots who don't want to work 13 hour days and I feel that the company should take more responsibility than just saying 'call out if you're too tired'.




Synopsis: C402 pilot reported fatigue was a factor in a departure runway incursion.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While climbing through 9;000 ft. MSL out of ZZZ; we experienced two VERY loud bangs from the #2 engine. We immediately suspected a compressor stall. Scanning the engines; I noticed the #2 engine decreasing in RPM. I immediately pulled the #2 engine to idle and it stabilized there. We coordinated a level-off at 9000 ft. with ZZZ Departure and flew an extended downwind. We ran all appropriate checklists and determined that the engine appeared to be performing normally. Following the checklist; we pushed the power up on the effected engine to approximately 80% with no adverse indications; there was no need to push it up any further. No [priority handling was requested] and we elected to return to ZZZ and fly a flaps 15 approach and landing to Runway 28R. Flight Attendants and Passengers were advised of the situation. After all checklist items were complete; we accomplished an uneventful approach and landing. Weight or brake energy was not a factor.


Second narrative: Departed [runway] XXR; from ZZZ; radar vectors made a turn to south-southeast; passing through MSL 8;000 ft. deleted thrust reduction at Captain's request; and around MSL 8;500 ft. two loud bangs came from #2 engine followed by vibrations. Contacted ATC; leveled off at MSL 9;000 ft.; and ran QRC 'Engine Surge or Stall' followed by the QRH as directed. Engine seemed to run normally after checklist. We returned to ZZZ.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported compressor stalls during climb and elected to return to the departure airport.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cowling
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other During Maintenance
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [I] received gate call about a possible fastener being loose on a B737-800 aircraft at the left engine inboard pylon. I searched all gate areas for a ladder to use; but could not find a suitable one. There was a Belt Loader [vehicle] nearby; and in thinking I could avoid a delay searching further for a ladder I opted to use it. In my hurry to get to the fastener and to avoid a delay; I accidentally hit the nose cowl with the corner of the loader. Lighting was poor in the area; and I was nearing the end of my Graveyard shift and work week. Suggest don't use improper equipment for job; and don't worry about delays.




Synopsis: While trying to avoid a departure delay because he could not find any available ladders in the gate area to reach a loose fastener on a B737-800 aircraft; a Line Mechanic decides to use a Belt Loader vehicle and accidentally strikes the engine nose cowl.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MRY.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C MRY
ATC / advisory: Tower MRY
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Weather
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: ATIS reported VFR; clouds 3;500 feet and broken. Sunrise was in minutes; so the clouds were not visible. After takeoff; upon turning right crosswind; I flew straight into IMC. I was only at 1;500 feet when this took place. I placed the aircraft on autopilot and continued direct with a 500 fpm climb as I knew this route was the safest way to handle the situation as turning back to the airport would have been dangerous as MRY is located at the base of a mountain. Several minutes later I broke through the unexpected cloud layer and leveled out at 5;500 feet which was the best altitude with VFR conditions and 10 plus mile visibility. The ATIS and weather reporting was not congruent with actual weather conditions.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reported; on a night takeoff; entering IMC when ATIS reported VMC.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the pilot monitoring. We flew the RIIVR 2 STAR and were cleared for the ILS to 24R into LAX. We were on a very long final having previously completed all our checklists and briefings and after we reviewed the waypoints in the FMS crosschecked with the charts. All of a sudden the aircraft rolled to the left with the autopilot on in a way that was deliberate. We were in LNAV and VNAV performing 'VNAV to the feather.' Prior to the roll we were centered on the lateral course and centered on the vertical path. I noticed that the aircraft banked to the left and I saw the 'noodle' or white lateral course indicator curve in a circle to the left on the map display. I said something to the Captain and then almost immediately ATC asked us if we were on course. I replied that our RNAV system banked to the left on its own. Then the Captain went into heading mode and armed the localized to capture. That put us back on course and we continued the approach and landed normally. It all happened very quickly but I would guess that we were still 'established' on the LOC course the entire time especially considering how far away from the runway we were.I don't know why this occurred. The roll was not associated with an automation mode change and the FMS points had been verified using the appropriate charts. I was impressed by how fast ATC noticed a slight course change and asked us about it. It may have been wake but it was so smooth and deliberate of a roll that my impression is that this was not wake turbulence.




Synopsis: B757 First Officer reported a track excursion while on autoflight for unknown reasons.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Aircraft component: Squat Switch
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The previous crew reported problems with the A autopilot and with the pressurization system. The A autopilot system was deferred. The pressurization controller was swapped. As a result we departed uneventfully approximately two hours late.During the climb we noticed the TCAS started to intermittently fail. Shortly thereafter; while climbing through FL320; we heard the Cabin Altitude Warning horn. We quickly accomplished the memory and QRH items; declared an emergency and began an emergency descent. On the descent and approach we received additional warnings such as 'Low Idle' and 'Speed Brake Do Not Deploy.'As soon as we could; the Captain called the flight attendants to advise them of our situation. Fortunately we were able to get to a lower altitude before the passenger masks deployed. We transferred control of the airplane and discussed making a PA. However; we were at 2000 feet; and decided to do it when we landed. Once landed; the First Officer made a PA explaining what had occurred. We landed overweight uneventfully and taxied to the gate. Finally; the Captain called Dispatch; SOD; Maintenance Control; and the Chief Pilot on call. During a conversation with Maintenance Control the Captain was advised that the most likely cause of our pressurization controller fault and other multiple failures was a faulty air/ground sensor.


Second narrative: No additional substantive information was provided in the secondary report.


Synopsis: A B737-300 flight crew experienced a loss of cabin pressure climbing through FL320.  They declared an emergency; descended and diverted to a nearby airport.