elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PUB.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D PUB
ATC / advisory: Tower PUB
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Recip Eng
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On assigned runway heading was climbing out to the practice area westbound from PUB. Tower notified me that an aircraft was at 2 o'clock 3-5 miles away circling north of my position. Tower informed me that the aircraft would remain in that position. I looked; saw the aircraft and stated 'contact.' Within a minute; said aircraft had proceeded south on an intercepting course with me (I did not know this). All of the sudden the aircraft was seen in my glare shield at about a 1:30 position; and proceeding on a collision course with me. I exchanged flight controls with the student after stating 'I have the flight controls' and executed a diving maneuver under the aircraft. I informed the tower that the aircraft had not remained where they said it was supposed to be. Later; (returning to the airport for a landing) said aircraft was seen about 1000 feet above the crosswind leg at PUB still maneuvering. I told the tower and they said he was doing a survey and was not a factor.I don't believe letting an aircraft doing 'surveys' should be allowed to interfere with an active traffic pattern.




Synopsis: Instructor pilot reported departing PUB for the training area west of the airport when ATC reported an aircraft orbiting north of their path. As they climbed the other aircraft entered above the airport crosswind leg causing a very close encounter. ATC apparently was not aware.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DAL.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 300
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E D10
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Second aircraft: Cirrus Aircraft Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were being vectored for 31R ILS approach into DAL. Approach had notified of us of other traffic 500 feet below us. We never saw the traffic visually we had him on TCAS. As we got closer the TCAS went from 500 feet below to 300 feet below at which time we got an RA to climb; which we complied with and climbed 500 feet at which time the RA went away. We had advised ATC of the RA climb of 500 feet to avoid traffic and continued on vectors to DAL.If the Cirrus had not climbed when we were close; [it] would have been no factor.




Synopsis: CL30 FO reported deviating from assigned altitude in response to an RA on arrival into DAL.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After doing a previous flight in Aircraft X; I was going to conduct another flight. I started the engine with a hot start checklist procedure. After the engine started cranking I applied full mixture and then applied throttle; immediately after that the aircraft started moving to the right and I couldn't reach full brakes. Next to the aircraft it was Aircraft Y; I hit it with the right wing of Aircraft X; on the spinner; this caused that the airplane to do an 180 turn. Next to Aircraft Y it was Aircraft Z; finally; the propeller of Aircraft X hit the right wing of Aircraft Y; the engine of Aircraft X stopped by itself; and the left wing tip of Aircraft X hit the rudder of Aircraft Z.




Synopsis: Pilot reported striking two different parked aircraft while attempting to taxi out of parking.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 425/441 Conquest I/Conquest II
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My routing was to the west taking off Runway XX. I typically set my heading bug prior to getting a takeoff clearance guessing what I will get given the situation as part of my initial avionics settings. I set it to 340. Upon getting cleared for takeoff I was given a turn to 340 as I expected. Climbing through 1500 on a 340 heading I was asked by Tower if I was on a 040 heading. Tower said turn 040 and traffic 12 o'clock; 1600; 1 mile and that he needed an immediate response of in sight. I looked at traffic on my avionics which indicated 100 below; and I then immediately got them visually and gave a quick in sight. I think this stepped on Tower calling traffic to Aircraft Y. They called in sight and descended and turned left and I kept climbing and turned right. I don't think Tower ever heard my in sight call.Thinking back; I likely suffered confirmation bias on the initial heading. Having set 340 I heard 340 instead of 040.




Synopsis: C441 pilot reported an NMAC during initial climb from APF airport due to communication expectation bias.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON LAS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: I was surprised to learn that even in final approach and positive course guidance and on profile; the aircraft will fly a steady slope to the next restriction regardless of terrain and that you have to be on the entire approach segment.  This along with the fact we didn't alter the approach and followed the all users bulletin.  The bulletin gives a false sense of security that the coding will keep us clear of terrain since it says to comply with the all approach segments unless cleared differently by ATC- which we were cleared differently.  Regardless; we always have an obligation to see and avoid; especially in VMC.  Now that I know this thing will drive down to the ground; you can bet I won't be watching it to see how low it will go or what it will do going forward; regardless of ATC clearance.  My only recommendation is continued awareness for flight crews of the RNAV Visual approaches into Vegas and approach characteristics of the RNAV approaches in the airbus.  Also; I really think Vegas needs to not shortcut us on these RNAVs inbound.  Just creates too much hassle with automation and sequencing at times. Clear us to the initial approach fix and leave it at that until we call the field and are cleared for the visual approach.




Synopsis: Captain reported concern regarding visual RNAV approaches.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SBA.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C SBA
ATC / advisory: TRACON SBA
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Initial climb from SBA; ATC assigned 8;000 feet. I was hand flying the airplane and leveled at 8;000 feet per ATC instruction. After we leveled I noticed another aircraft on the ND traffic display showing 200 feet below us; right after that I heard ATC asking another aircraft to confirm they are descending. I'm not sure what they replied because we then got the traffic. As the traffic aircraft warning is going off I then noticed the other aircraft had climbed to our altitude of 8;000 feet then we got the TCAS RA descend descend now; I quickly pushed the nose over into the green band. Because of the high work load I over heard the captain saying I got the aircraft in sight and to follow the guidance; I then quickly saw the aircraft out the captain front window also descending into us from the left (around 7;600 [feet]) then we got another TCAS RA to Climb; Climb now; I started pitching up into the green band. I understood our procedures and did exactly that. It was a bit stressful to know our TCAS is trying to help us by getting away from the other aircraft but now that aircraft also doing what TCAS was initially telling us. I believe the heading we were assigned from ATC and the heading the other aircraft was on; ATC incorrectly assigned to someone and it didn't help that the other airplane wasn't following ATC instruction. After the clear of conflict I returned to 8;000 feet then we went over to departure and continue the climb.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported NMAC during departure climb from SBA airport. Flight Crew took evasive action following TCAS RA guidance.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BOI.Airport, ID
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C BOI
ATC / advisory: Tower BOI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Night landing in BOI runway 10R. Runway edge lights are traditional incandescent while runway centerline lights are new LED style lighting. The intensity and brightness of the LED centerline lighting is inconsistent with the rest of the runway environment; creating a hazard for landing.




Synopsis: CRJ900 Captain stated the difference in intensity and brightness between incandescent runway edge lighting and LED centerline lighting at BOI RWY 10R is hazardous.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While conducting ground reference training; 'S' turns along a road; we encountered a near miss. Visual scanning; practice area radio frequency and ADS-B were all used for situational awareness. This specific event happened in my opinion because the other aircraft was not transmitting an ADS-B signal at the time and our radio was switched to 121.5 momentarily for training purposes. Upon rolling out of a left turn I noticed a close shadow on the ground; for which we continued to turn left while the other aircraft properly also turned left to avoid. We talked on the practice area frequency and they thought it was weird they did not send an ADS-B signal. Their signal appeared on our traffic system a few minutes later after the event. I continued to try to establish communication with them after the event to connect on the ground in [an] attempt to apologize for not seeing them earlier but they did not respond. Our chain of events began with the use of 121.5 while simulating an emergency descent. Within that time frame the other aircraft may have given a position report. This action led [to] a diminished situational awareness of the practice area with a small over reliance on ADS-B traffic awareness. The other aircraft was equipped with ADS-B traffic in as they called out to me by tail number. Corrective action includes only simulating 121.5 frequency changes or tuning only to standby instead of activating and losing possible situational awareness radio calls.




Synopsis: Remos GX instructor pilot reported the lack of an ADS-B signal and a frequency change that contributed to an NMAC in the practice area.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: FAT.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 6
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Other LAW ENFORCEMENT
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower FAT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was issued and acknowledged a takeoff clearance by Fresno Tower for Runway 11L at C12. Part way through my takeoff roll approximately 5 KTS below Vr I observed a White and Green construction truck with an Orange and White checkered flag enter the runway ahead of my location from C10 onto the middle of Runway 11L. I aborted the takeoff and brought the aircraft to a stop between the 1;000 FT and 1;500 FT markers. I advised Tower of my aborted takeoff and the vehicle on the runway at which point I observed the vehicle exit the runway back onto C10. I was advised by Tower that the vehicle failed to adhere to instructions from ground control to hold clear of the runway. I was subsequently advised by Tower that they were in contact with the vehicle which would remain clear of the runway and I was issued a new takeoff clearance. I believe the cause of the event was the failure of the construction equipment driver to maintain and realize the severity of proper communication with FAT Tower. I believe a re-occurrence could be prevented by having a Safety Officer on the ground at locations requiring construction equipment to cross active runways.




Synopsis: C206 pilot reports a vehicle entered the runway ahead as the aircraft nears Vr and rejects the takeoff. The vehicle driver had failed to adhere to Tower instructions.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: During approach to runway 27 right at ORD we encountered a decreasing performance windshear at approximately 700 feet AGL. The windshear computer displayed the red WINDSHEAR display on both attitude indicators and the subsequent WS/WS mode was activated in both FMA windows located above the attitude indicator. I called out 'ESCAPE; SET MAX THRUST!' the first officer set APR thrust and pitched into the windshear guidance bars which while I monitored the radio altitude. We exited the windshear condition after about 9 secs as verified by the windshear annunciation leaving both attitude indicator displays and backed up with increasing radio altitude and increasing aircraft performance. We had saved about 800 pounds of fuel during arrival and had about 3;800 pounds on board the aircraft; so I decided to attempt a second approach. However we did inform Dispatch that in the event of an unsuccessful second approach that we would be [advising ATC] for fuel and possibly diverting to MKE as their runways seemed more suited for the winds that we were experiencing. We landed successfully on our 2nd attempt to runway 27R at ORD without any windshear indications. Gust wind conditions at ORD. Just prior to the windshear computer activating the ORD tower controller reported a momentary gust up to 41 knots. I believe ORD Tower could re-orient the arrivals to utilize runways 22L and 22R when wind conditions favor those runways more. As opposed to utilizing the three parallel arrivals just to suit the arrival rate. I feel like they may have been more concerned about delays and keeping the arrival rate high as opposed to utilizing the runways best suited for aircraft performance.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported encountering a wind shear event while conducting an approach at ORD. An escape maneuver was successfully performed followed by an uneventful approach and landing.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Issued a HAZMAT NOTAC with regard to one package containing a Fire Extinguisher Class 2.2 HAZMAT.  Paperwork was completed and a verbal brief was conducted by the Pilot and Ramp.  Operations Agent was issued the paperwork with applicable signatures.  I made the mistake of not contacting Dispatch to have HAZMAT added to the Release.  I was contacted by Dispatch via ACARS regarding the infraction and we pen/inked the addition at time XA27Z and prior to takeoff.Attention to detail on all parties regarding paperwork and added HAZMAT.


Second narrative: During a late departure taxi out in ZZZ to ZZZ1 we realized the NOTAC wasn't noted on the Release. While we were waiting for our departure sequence; the Captain called and pen/inked it with Dispatch while I monitored Ground Control. We were late and tired from multiple ground stops and airborne holding and diversion planning while trying to get out before we timed out.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reported Final Flight Release was missing required Hazmat notification. Flight Release was amended prior to departure.