elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Trainee; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were a training flight leaving ZZZ after a practice ILS on a 180 heading. We were still monitoring ZZZ Tower; but were not in direct contact with them. Climbing through 3;500 feet I noticed an aircraft 500 feet above us approximately 10 miles to the east of our position on a converging path. I assumed the aircraft was a slow moving aircraft. We usually don't see jets this low around this area. As we were reaching 4;000 feet; I double checked TCAS and noticed the traffic I previously saw was rapidly closing distance. I spotted the aircraft at my 10 o'clock; which was on a course to collide with us. I made a 60 to 70 degree bank turn to the right and began a rapid descent; while keeping the traffic in sight. Nothing else came out of the situation. I called ATC approach after landing at ZZZ1 and talked to one of the controllers who was on duty when the incident happened. He informed us that if we hadn't taken action; the situation could have ended with a grim outcome. He gave me some tips of how they handle their inbound aircraft in that area; and I will pass those tips onto the rest of my company.


Second narrative: On an instrument training flight leaving ZZZ we were cleared for VFR. As we started our climb to cruising altitude; I was under the hood. My instructor notified me as we were climbing through 3;700 feet that we had traffic to our left and proceeded to take evasive action by putting us into a rapid descent/bank.


Synopsis: DA-40 flight instructor and instrument pilot in training reported a NMAC.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: Other Fatigue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Over a period of time
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Our domicile now has red eye or red eye plus one or two legs on all their scheduled lines of flying. Regardless of seniority you will be stuck with cross clock flipping of rest times and red eye flying. I do not do well on the back side of the clock as I find it difficult to sleep midday. Flight duty began at XA15 and ended at XE59. This flight began on time; operated on time and had no issues. I however got more and more tired as the flight went on. I was making mistakes; missing radio frequencies; late to call for checklists etc. By the time we got on the ground I was tired; hungry and very irritable. I flew a trip last week that also had sleep cycle changes in it and even after getting home and having six days to recover; my sleep cycle is now so messed up that on any given night's rest I may get two or three hours of sleep--or a nice full eight hours. I don't know how to fix it or regulate it. I just try to sleep all night when on days off. Sometimes I do; sometimes I don't. Even shift workers stay on one end or the other of the clock. Although licensed dispatchers are required to work 10 hours in a day. I doubt they flop back and forth with shift time changes. Commercial truck drivers are allowed 12 hours. Pilots are allowed 16 hours of duty and anyone who thinks a duty day of 16 hours with a flight day of say 4; or 5 hours is an easy day; is sorely mistaken. Work is work; and starting at XA15 one day and then starting at XH00 on another is not a normal sleep pattern. Sleeping during the night works well; or sleeping during the day; but changing it back and forth within a four day trip is not in the best interest of proper rest or safety.The company should not schedule humans to start one day of work at XA15; and then follow it up with XF10. Here is how that works in real life. I fly from XA15 to XE59. I sleep for 3 hours; wake up at XJ30 local domicile time. Then I am supposed to also sleep again sometime this same day to operate a trip at XF10 local domicile time. I already slept part of this day and now I am supposed to tell my body to magically go to sleep again and sleep for 8 hours. Schedules should keep the clock either on a day time or night time schedule.




Synopsis: An A319 Captain expressed her concerns for the safety impact of her company's flight crew scheduling patterns which force pilots to work on alternating body clock cycles within a single given sequence of flights.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Door Warning System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The thrust was being set for takeoff and just prior to the thrust being completely set; the aft cargo [door] light illuminated. The thrust levers were immediately closed and we were at approximately 75 KIAS. I taxied the aircraft off of the runway; and went to the gate. The mechanics met the aircraft and MEL'd the aft cargo door light annunciator. When we arrived at the gate; I went to look at the aft cargo door and the mechanics were having trouble opening and closing the aft cargo door. The cargo doors should be handled with more care; as they seemed to be pretty beat up for a new -800 aircraft. If we were above 80 knots; we would not have rejected the takeoff.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain experiences a cargo door warning light at 75 knots and rejects the takeoff. The warning is found to be false and the system is MEL'ed.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Night
Aircraft: Piper Single Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Carburetor Heat Control
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Complete loss of power. After setting full mixture and reducing throttle to 1500 RPM approximately; a few seconds later there was complete loss of power. Tried magnetos; mixture and forgot carburetor heat.Pumped throttle which gave some power bursts. Continued for 10 seconds then engine went to full throttle which I left that way until over the numbers. I did transmit I was having an emergency at the outset and ATC had a short debriefing after landing. ATC was helpful and professional. I believe the cause to be carburetor ice. There was a lot of moisture due to storms all day rolling northward. The temperature was approximately 75F.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Piper single engine aircraft experienced a loss of engine power on approach; possibly due to carburetor icing.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Instructor
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was coming in to land. The landing seemed like it was going well until I hit the ground and turned to the left and ended up in the grass right next to the runway. Tower contacted me and I taxied out of the grass.


Second narrative: My student did a solo and went off the runway. Maintenance had said they looked at the aircraft and it was fine to fly back. We flew back and later on [realized I] did [not] have any hard written conformation that the airplane was OK to fly. Currently maintenance department is trying to get a hold of the mechanic that did the inspection to get a written statement.


Synopsis: PA-28 student pilot reported loss of directional control resulted in a runway excursion. Flight instructor reported accompanying the student on the return flight to home airport.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: C83.Airport, CA
Weather elements / visibility: 15
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: CTAF C83
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying from ZZZ to ZZZ1 in VMC/VFR. I was tracking the RNAV (GPS) RWY XX approach from ZZZZZ to the airport. I made 3 position reports that I was on final at various other distances using GPS provided information to Runway XX.I heard Aircraft Y approaching from the north making his announcements; from airport; downwind and then right base for a short approach. At this time I was 3 miles from the runway and made my 3rd report. I expected Aircraft Y to appear ahead of me and that I would spot on base to final or earlier.I am looking for this airplane; but I am not seeing it. At about 1 mile from the airport at approximately 700 feet MSL; I see the other aircraft just to the right; behind; and above my aircraft when he was reporting being on final (looked like he hadn't finished rolling out on final). I said that 'I am ahead of you'; then he replied 'I got you'; and then announced he would do a '360 turn.'I landed uneventfully taxied to the fuel island and shutdown; and a bit pissed at this point. Aircraft Y landed and taxied behind me for fuel too. He never exited his aircraft so we did not speak.I believe the other pilot was trying to beat me to the fuel island with his 'short approach' which must not have been all that short; considering where we met up at. I think he should have used better judgement and extended his downwind. My airplane is equipped with Lo Presti Boom Beam landing and taxi lights; and a precise flight pulse light. The effect is that even during day these bright lights which are alternating on the wings makes my aircraft highly visible. I always fly with these lights on; and they were on.My mistake was trusting the other pilot's judgement; that his short approach would have gotten him to the airport much sooner than reality. I should be more proactive and suggested that he extend his downwind; or just abort my approach.The other factor is another airplane was in the pattern; and was turning crosswind to downwind around the time of the near miss.My aircraft was a bit faster than he may have anticipated; as I was still slowing down with speed brakes deployed; but at time of incident was around 80 knots indicated.




Synopsis: Small aircraft pilot reported experiencing a NMAC when another small aircraft attempted to make a short approach in front of the reporters aircraft.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Enroute
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had just taken the position. One of the aircraft I had was Aircraft X. This aircraft was at 39;000 feet still in the adjacent sector's airspace with a crossing at a intersection at 25;000 feet. I am assuming that the sector had handed off the aircraft with a discretionary descent; but this was not explicitly stated in the briefing. Shortly after sitting down; the aircraft reported leaving 39;000 feet for the crossing. Right after he said this; Conflict Alert activated with Aircraft Y who was in their airspace at 38;000 feet. This was the first I knew of this aircraft. Once CA (Conflict Alert) activated I issued a vector 30 degrees right for the traffic and coordinated. He said he had turned Aircraft Y; but the vector turned out to be insufficient.  We lost separation with approximately 4.8 miles and less than 1;000 feet.


Second narrative: Aircraft Y landing PHL I gave a pilot's discretion descent from 390 to 330 and switched to IRL who issued the crossing restriction of COFAX at FL250.  He did not start his descent until around JST.  Aircraft W was SW from PSB to HVQ at 380.  I saw the confliction and intended to turn the Aircraft X sooner but got busy with other traffic in the sector.  I turned aircraft X but not enough and it took him too long to start and complete the turn.


Synopsis: ZOB Center Controllers working adjacent sectors reported one of them gave a descent clearance to an aircraft with another aircraft on a conflicting route.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As I was taking over for another CPC; less than five years of experience [as a] controller; I was witness to him issuing a clearance to this aircraft off the ground.  The MIA in the area is 140. The controller issued 120 direct to FFU.  I sat back and let him finish the briefing.  I asked him how the 120 altitude clearance will work.  His reply was something to the effect of the departure procedure.  I took over the position and I began to research where the obstacle departure clearance is for the airport.  I was only able to quickly find the departure procedure.  The pilot came off the ground; I radar identified and queried if the pilot was able to maintain his own terrain and obstacle clearance through 140.  The pilot stated he was so I issued the climb to 140.  The pilot later stated 140 would be too high for his airplane.  I told him I was unable to allow the IFR clearance due to terrain and suggested a VFR bearing due west to get in terrain that would allow IFR flight at a lower altitude.  The pilot seemed to like the idea and I asked if there was any issue of cloud avoidance with the plan we were executing.  At the appropriate altitude; I was then able to issue an IFR clearance.  Worth mentioning; the pilot originally filed 100; which is well below MIA altitudes along his route. Published obstacle departure clearance for such mountainous terrain.




Synopsis: ZLC Controller reports of another less experienced Controller issuing a clearance to an aircraft below a useable altitude. The ZLC Controller then took over the position and rectified the situation.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other Destination arrival.
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The Ramp Agent on the ground notified the pilot that there was a person in the back with air; and asked if that was okay. I didn't really know what he was saying and I said it was fine. When we landed and deplaned the passenger ended up having a portable oxygen container. My trust in the Gate Agent knowing what can and cannot be brought on the airplane was misguided. I didn't ask for clarification as to what he was saying. If I had questioned him further about what he was saying it could have been avoided.Proper or additional training regarding what is considered Hazmat for ground crew and more checks before a person with portable oxygen makes it onto the flight. I believe if it was caught at the gate; on the ramp; or if a more clear description was relayed to the flight crew; we could have prevented this situation.


Second narrative: The Ramp Agent notified the PIC that there was a passenger 'with air'. He asked the PIC if this was OK but didn't fully explain what he meant. When we landed it we realized that she was using portable oxygen. The [cause of the incident was] lack of communication between the Ramp Agent and flight crew. Had the flight crew asked further questions after the Ramp Agent stated one of the passengers was on air; it would have been clear what the Ramp Agent meant and the situation would have been avoided.Proper or additional training regarding what is considered Hazmat for ground crew and more checks before a person with portable oxygen makes it onto the flight. I believe if it was caught at the gate; on the ramp; or if a more clear description was relayed to the flight crew; we could have prevented this situation.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported unauthorized transport of a personal portable oxygen container with passenger in passenger cabin.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Jet/Long Ranger/206
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A Bell 206 was inbound from southwest and requesting to land on the north ramp. A Cessna 172 was in the VFR traffic pattern; and I also had two IFR inbounds landing XXR. As the B206 approached the airport; I realized he'd likely become a conflict once the C172 was back on the upwind in the pattern; so I instructed the B206 to turn northbound and advised him there was traffic in the pattern (C172). I observed B206's RADAR target turning northbound; and once I believed he had flown a sufficient distance to get north of XXL departure end; advised he could 'resume on course' to land as he requested on the ramp. I scanned the position of the C172 (on the runway) and then began looking for the B206 to the west and suddenly spotted the B206 near the departure end of XXL with the C172 on the upwind.  I immediately issued traffic to the B206 and he advised he was looking and determining it was a traffic alert situation; immediately issued the helicopter traffic to the C172. I observed the C172 appeared to be maneuvering to avoid the helicopter as the helicopter reported him in sight. It frustrates me that I allowed my desire to expedite the helicopter's approach back to the ramp to result in a traffic conflict that was avoidable with stronger restrictions to the B206. As the event unfolded; I felt I was providing sufficient positive control up until the point where I allowed the helicopter to turn back on course; but in hindsight; more restrictions were needed to ensure the helicopter stayed a sufficient distance away to avoid the fixed wing operation in the pattern. I may have assumed that the pilot knew to stay clear of the active runways (since there was traffic in the pattern) and I was attempting to expedite the helicopter's operation back to the ramp; since he was involved with SAR/relief operations. However; this is a harsh reminder that providing priority to special operations (MEDEVAC; relief flights; law enforcement; etc.) is important but never to the extent that it compromises safety.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a conflict event when he provided expedited service to a SAR helicopter arrival that eventually conflicted with VFR pattern traffic.