elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: FIN.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON DAB
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying to ZZZ heading to the north at 4500. ATC said aircraft at my 5 o'clock and gaining speed. I turn to the west for a minute so aircraft can pass behind me. When he was no factor turning back to the north I made left hand turn due to cloud build-ups in front of me. About a heading of 060-030 aircraft turned around. ATC told me he made a 180 and said 4000 was clear so I headed nose down instantly and aircraft was on my 9 o'clock. I was already under him but I could see the shine from prop cap and the tires under the wheel fairing. I did avoid the traffic as he passed me over the top. I resumed my flight and landed to no issue.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported a NMAC with another aircraft in cruise flight.
Date: 201911
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground DCA; Tower DCA
Second aircraft: Medium Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were doing the river visual into DCA Runway 19 and upon landing ATC told us to 'contact Ground turn right on J'. I replied with the instructions and the Captain stopped at the intersection of Runway 19 [and] Runway 22. He told me to ask them if he can take Runway 22 to get onto Taxiway J. So I went to ask and somehow we got onto Ground frequency. I don't remember pushing the button to switch; but we were on it. They told us to go back to Tower. We went back to Tower they told us to stay where we are. We did. They sent another aircraft on a go-around due to the confusion and then told us to take Runway 22 and get on J. Once we got back on Ground they told us to call the Tower once we parked. We complied. The Captain said that they were just clarifying the instructions and that it is acceptable to take Runway 22 to get on J. They just want us off the runway.Landing at night with instructions to get onto J with no instructions as to how. Didn't know if we could take another runway to get onto J or how exactly they wanted us to get there.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported communication issues over taxi instructions upon landing.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Second aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On final approach to Runway 36L; we were following an Airbus. [We] were told to slow down final approach speed due to spacing. We did. They were showing about 3-3.5 miles in front of us on TCAS. Tower asked preceding traffic to expedite on touchdown. They said they would. We experienced a wing rock at 200 AGL (possibly due to wake turbulence) and elected to go-around. Cause: Close spacing given by ATC; and differences in approach speeds by aircraft.




Synopsis: Widebody First Officer reported encountering wake turbulence in trail of an Airbus at 200 FT AGL on approach to MEM.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was notified that our flight to ZZZ; had Dangers Goods (DG) in 1L that was not properly documented as being ADG.  It appears that the DG was properly manifested to the Unit Loading Device (ULD); but the [ramp] agent did not manifest that DG to our flight.




Synopsis: Boeing 777 Captain reported dangerous goods on board were not properly documented for the flight.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: A321
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I'm not even sure if this is the correct avenue to go about this; but here goes. While I was working LC today; I had Ops call me to get into the runway safety area for 'wildlife control.' I told him to proceed as requested and asked them to verify remaining clear of the runway at all times. They said they would remain clear. After a while of no traffic; I noticed they had guns. I couldn't tell if they had shotguns or rifles; but it was definitely a gun. Upon watching them further; they were firing at birds on and near the runway. I had an A321 inbound to land on a mile final. He was cleared to land. I verified my Ops was clear of the runway and noticed he had his rifle pointed toward the runway as if he was aiming. I asked him to verify he was remaining clear for traffic on short final and he said he was. I had a B717-200 cleared for takeoff. He was on his departure roll still within the first 1;000 feet of the runway. I again noticed Ops pointing their rifle toward the runway aiming toward a bird. A Cessna 172 was doing a practice approach and as he was beginning his missed approach; I again noticed Ops pointing his rifle toward the runway as if he was aiming toward a bird. We have a 12;000 feet runway. Ops was midway down the runway about 6;000 feet. At no time was a weapon ever pointed at an airplane. However; it seems as if a weapon being pointed at an active runway while being used is unacceptable. Not only is it unsafe; but it caused the birds to scatter midfield over the runway. It seems simple enough to me; firearms of any kind should never be fired when aircraft are on or near the active runway.




Synopsis: Local Controller voiced concern regarding the use of firearms for 'wildlife control' near the operating areas; suggesting no firearms be allowed in the airport environs.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: FCM.Tower, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D FCM
ATC / advisory: Tower FCM
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
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; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had Aircraft X in left closed traffic on 10L and cleared him for the option on Runway 10L ahead of Aircraft Y inbound from the south - IFR - on a visual approach for 10R. In his final turn; Aircraft Y verified that Aircraft X was going to land Runway 10L. I confirmed it and watched both aircraft progress on final. It appeared Aircraft X was lined up for Runway 10L. Short final; Aircraft Y said Aircraft X was right on top of him and lined up for 10R and he was going around. I sent Aircraft X around as well to try and make room for Aircraft Y; but to avoid Aircraft X he had to turn away from the field very low and close to an apartment complex near the field. I kept everyone else out of Aircraft Y's way so he could 360 back to final and land. In his next lap around the pattern; when Aircraft X was on final and cleared for the option on Runway 10L again; I verified that he was lined up for Runway 10L. Again; it appeared that he already was; but having just had the above incident 3 minutes prior I thought it couldn't hurt to ask. The pilot told me that he had; again; lined up for 10R and was correcting back to 10 L. For the hundredth time; we cannot see which runway our aircraft intend to land from the Tower. How am I supposed to ensure separation when I have little to no ability to verify this? We need a new Tower built closer to the runways. Every other mitigation that dozens of people have thought of have been tried; and they've all failed. This is beyond ridiculous.




Synopsis: FCM Tower Controller reported one aircraft lined up for the wrong runway twice causing one airborne conflict. Controller also stated the controllers cannot determine which runway aircraft are lined up for due to Tower placement.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AVL.TRACON, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C AVL
ATC / advisory: TRACON AVL
Second aircraft: RV-8
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During an approach my student was wearing the hood and I was listening in to an aircraft which departed out of Asheville and was on its way towards Greenville. I knew that we would see him sometime in flight and I made that mental note. On approach; flying straight and level; ATC called traffic at twelve o'clock slightly lower than we were and it was an RV-8. From my experience I know what an RV-8 looks like. I looked to my one o'clock and saw an RV-8 about 700 FT below us; opposite direction; and appeared to be cruising at that altitude. I looked at him for about 20 seconds; listened to other pilot say he didn't have us in sight. When I looked forward; I saw another RV-8; the one that ATC really called out for us; cruise right over us and slightly to the left. It had to be about 150 FT vertical and 50 FT horizontal. Unfortunately it happened so fast there was no requirement for evasive action. It was my fault for stopping my scan and I believe ATC should provide traffic advisories more frequently when they know two airplanes are on a intersecting course. From this I learned to keep up my scan!




Synopsis: C172 instructor reports a NMAC at 5;000 FT during vectors for an ILS approach at Asheville; with an RV-8 that had been pointed out by ATC.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As PIC (Pilot in Command) from ZZZ to ZZZ1; I was reviewing the operating flight plan and load sheet prior to flight. I discovered a discrepancy between the two and found the operating flight plan to be 118;989 LBS lighter than the load sheet data. I contacted the Flight Dispatcher on duty and voiced my concerns. New operating flight plan and load sheet was generated with the correct data. I was informed it was confusion between kilograms and pounds that was the cause of the paperwork error.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported noticing a load discrepancy during pre-flight planning.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PEO.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-30
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G PEO
ATC / advisory: CTAF PEO
Second aircraft: Falcon Manufacturer Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After completing a fuel stop at PEO; I taxied from the fuel pump near the FBO to Runway 28 for departure. Prior to taxiing I completed my pre-taxi checks and self announced my taxi on CTAF. The wind was 220@17G23 and I wanted to complete my run up into the wind. Runway 28/10 doesn't have a parallel taxiway to the East requiring a back taxi for approximately the half the runway length. The runway; departure and arrival corridor appeared clear and I announced taking the runway for back taxi with no other traffic heard. I completed a short run up; scanned the runway and announced on CTAF I was taking off Runway 28. I applied power; checked instruments and accelerated down the runway. Shortly I noted something in the distance down the runway; a second later noticed engines rise above the crest of the the runway and I immediately aborted takeoff. I was close to rotation speed; pulled power back and aggressively braked. Once at a safe speed I announced I was aborting and vacating the runway. I was close the the north/south taxi and uneventfully exited the runway at that point. At that time I saw a Falcon jet exit runway 10/28 via the next taxiway about 800 feet down the runway heading to the fuel pumps. I turned my aircraft around announced my back taxi and departure. Concerned that I had an equipment issue or was on the wrong frequency I asked for a radio check while I was departing downwind and received a good check. Due to a significant crown/slope in the runway it is not possible to see the opposite ends of the Runway 28/10. The other aircraft operator should follow the best practices identified in AC 90-66b par 10.1 self-announce their intentions and monitor the frequency for other traffic as well. Additionally; the aircraft was taxiing from the west hangars to the fuel pumps and if there's sufficient wingtip clearance they should use the parallel taxiway instead of the runway as an increased measure of safety.




Synopsis: M30C pilot reported while on takeoff roll; traffic was observed landing opposite direction not on CTAF. Resulted in taking evasive action.
Date: 201206
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were enroute at FL 370. It was night/IMC with a significant area of thunderstorms along our route. The F/As were seated and the seatbelt sign was on due to potential turbulence. The First Officer was PF; and I was PM. We were in process of coordinating/accomplishing weather deviations when the Cabin Altitude Warning horn sounded. We immediately accomplished and verified the appropriate memory items; checked the cabin altitude (it was above 10;000'); and requested an immediate descent from ATC. A cursory check indicated that the air conditioning/pressurization systems were properly configured and no other warning lights were illuminated. We accomplished the Cabin Altitude Warning/Abnormal Pressurization Checklist; and since the cabin altitude was still uncontrollable (now at 12;000'); declared an emergency and requested descent to the highest of 10;000' or minimum vectoring altitude. I contacted the F/As; informed them of our pressurization situation; and advised them that the PSU oxygen masks might deploy. I asked them if there was any abnormalities in the cabin and was told outside of a squeaky door seal everything was normal. During our descent; we encountered constant moderate turbulence due to the convective activity in the area. We leveled off at 12;000'; at which point the pressurization was controllable. We were in constant moderate turbulence due to some low level cumulus clouds. We chose to climb back up to 16;000'; which was on top and the ride was smooth (the pressurization was stable).  We agreed to proceed to [destination] at 16;000' since the pressurization was now controllable. There was no evidence of any structural abnormality; [we] had sufficient fuel; and were past the convective activity. I contacted Dispatch and informed them of the situation and our plan to continue to [destination]. I made a PA giving our passengers an update on our pressurization situation; apologized for the bumpy ride; and updated ETA/weather. Outside of some minor sinus distress; all of the passengers were fine and no one needed any assistance.




Synopsis: B737-300 Captain reported loss of cabin pressure at FL370. Emergency was declared; the flight descended to 12;000 ft where pressurization control was regained.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Maintenance Control wanted this flight to completed. Name in Maintenance Control at Company told me that he can defer the engine inspection up to 25 flight hours after FOD is ingested. This might be true; but the bird that was sucked in was very large according to the crew that hit it. Airport Operations also told me they had been chasing a large bird before the bird strike. I feel that Maintenance Control would have sent this plane flying with passengers had the contract maintenance not have stood their ground. Name in Maintenance Control told me he has flown planes with bullet holes in the engines; and that he has handled FOD and bird strikes hundreds of thousands of times. I do not think that Maintenance Control erring on the side of caution; I believe that they would have sent this plane flying with passengers had the contract maintenance not stood their ground. The airplane is still out of service in ZZZ1 as of Date at XA:27; the event happened on Date1 at about XA:30.Bird strike during landing at ZZZ with reverse thrustMaintenance Control needs to consider the safety of the passengers; when FOD and bird strike are ingested into the engine. When Maintenance tells me that they can defer the inspection for 25 flight hours after a large bird has been ingested it concerns me. I fly these planes multiple times per week moving hundreds of passengers all over the country and it concerns me that they would delay the inspection and fly passengers on the airplane. I suggest that the Company start putting people first; this includes passengers and crew members.




Synopsis: After ingesting a bird during landing roll out; Captain reported undue pressure from Maintenance Control to defer a required engine inspection and fly the aircraft but contract maintenance refused to sign the deferral.