elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on extended downwind; right traffic for Runway XX; approximately 3.5 miles south of the runway. Controller had told me he would call my base. It was a busy pattern. I heard him clear another aircraft further south of my position for landing XX; traffic ahead was a Cessna on 3 and a half mile final. The other aircraft said they had no traffic in sight. Controller asked me if I was on final. I responded; 'Negative; you didn't call my base.' Controller responded: 'Cessna 182 turn left to north heading; fly to the highway; then re-enter right pattern at midfield.' I confirmed the instruction; then turned left to a north heading and started flying to the highway. Within 10-30 seconds; I saw oncoming traffic; another Cessna flying directly toward me at what seemed to be a very similar altitude. I veered to the right; but noticed oncoming traffic did not veer right.  I immediately called: 'Tower; Cessna 182 almost collided with another aircraft.' I don't recall my exact words; I was very flustered at the time. When my radio transmission ended; I heard the other aircraft calling Tower asking if they had mistakenly flown their course too wide. It appeared my transmission had been 'stepped on.'  Controller asked my position. He then gave me the same instruction as before; to fly to [the highway]; then re-enter the right downwind at midfield. I did that; and this time was able to land with no issue. This is a great airspace to fly in. The controllers are always courteous; and even forgiving. This is the first time I have been in a situation as PIC that made me feel uncomfortable flying in their airspace. I didn't recognize the Controller's voice. I don't want to cause trouble for anyone; just want to make sure this kind of thing can be prevented in the future.




Synopsis: VFR pattern traffic instructed to re-enter the downwind experienced a NMAC with other traffic entering the pattern.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: Tower SEA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: 'GLIDE SLOPE' Annunciation at 500 ft. on approach below cloud deck. Deviation was due to a gust or possible wake turbulence. Aircraft was approximately one dot low on GS (glide slope); and we got the aural warning. By the time we would have executed a go-around; aircraft was back on glide slope and all other parameters. We continued the approach; as a go-around would have complicated the situation; as the deviation had already resolved.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer reported a momentary excursion below the glide slope on approach; due to possible wind gust or wake encounter.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DPA.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground DPA
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Aircraft taxiing eastbound to Runway 28 sometimes get issued taxi instructions as simply 'taxi via Echo' instead of the full and seemingly proper 'via Echo; Hotel'; which is the complete taxi route. Failure to miss the turn at Hotel will immediately result in an aircraft entering Runway 33.Because of this potential; I think the Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) should issue such taxi instructions as 'Via Echo; Hotel'. It would be a very easy mistake for a solo student or non-local pilot to make. Additionally; the area in the vicinity of Runways 33; 28; and Taxiway Echo should be a hot spot because of the possibility of a runway incursion.

Callback: The reporter indicated that a clearance to cross or hold short of Runway 20R on Echo is being provided; and is not the area of potential confusion.



Synopsis: A local pilot is concerned that ATC instructions that are incomplete or unclear may lead to a less experienced or unfamiliar pilot into a runway incursion.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I just learned that there was an issue; that some people were injured. Aircraft X was handed-off to ZTL (T08) and switched to their frequency without any reported issue.Several minutes later; T08 called back to relay that Aircraft X had reported severe turbulence on their frequency at the ZME/ZTL boundary (near JANES intersection); with no other information; no injuries reported. (Of course; injuries are not required to make the report serious; any severe turbulence report is dangerous). For the next hour I relayed the PIREP to pilot's heading anywhere near the area regardless of altitude. During the same time frame; I received severe turbulence reports (if I remember the specifics correctly) [near] BHM at FL370 [also at the ZME/ZTL boundary] and over MON at FL340. Aircraft eastbound and westbound near these areas received the PIREPs but reported no ill effects.ZTL did a great job; calling me to ensure I received the PIREP. We all forward PIREPs to our local Center Weather Service Unit (CWSU) for facility dissemination but that does not ensure the information gets passed to adjacent facilities. Controllers should verbally coordinate PIREPs occurring near their facility boundary. I've found this more commonly occurs near Approach Controls; but the need is the same for adjacent ARTCCs. Turbulence is especially difficult because it can develop and then dissipate so quickly; with preceding and following aircraft not finding it.




Synopsis: ZME Controller reported of an aircraft that encountered severe turbulence on its route. Controller then took steps to advise others of the turbulence.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ELP.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-500
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ELP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Clearing Runway 22 after landing; I thought the Controller stated; 'Exit the runway at Hotel.  Remain this frequency and taxi to the gate.'  I thought; 'Cool;' and changed pages on the EFB IPad to the airport page to reconfirm the location of our gate. Next thing I know the Controller says; 'Company Flight Number; STOP!' I hit the brakes and saw that another aircraft was lifting off on Runway 26. The Controller intervention had prevented what would have been a runway incursion. I looked at the First Officer and asked; 'I thought he said taxi to the gate?' The First Officer replied; 'No; he said to hold short of the approach end of 8.'  The Tower Controller then cleared us to the gate.Beyond the obvious failure to communicate intentions and verify; the lack of signage and standard hold short runway markings at that end of the airport has always been a problem.




Synopsis: After exiting Runway 22 on Taxiway H in ELP; a B737-500 Captain believed he had been cleared 'to the gate.'  Instead; as they approached the lengthy overrun of Runway 8/26; Ground Control alerted they had been cleared to '...hold short of [the approach end] of runway eight.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Landed at the airport on Runway XX. Winds were reported 090/18 KTS. I judged the crosswind to be in aircraft limits with 30 degrees of flaps. The left main tire blew out upon landing and the aircraft departed the runway to the left. It is my impression that no excessive side loads were imposed on the landing gear. The blow out appeared to happen immediately after touchdown.I will be more cautious landing with any crosswind in the Pilatus.




Synopsis: While landing in a crosswind the downwind tire of a PC-12 failed and the aircraft exited the runway to the left.
Date: 201904
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: None
Aircraft component: Attitude
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I have the following questions about the Landing Attitude Modifier:1. How will the Flight Crew know if this system has failed? Will the Spoiler light illuminate?2. What action is necessary by the Flight Crew if this system fails? I understand this system gives additional nose wheel clearance during landing.3. In light of the poor design of the new MCAS system can we be sure a single component failure or poor software design in the LAM system will not cause an erroneous spoiler deployment; or deployment of the spoilers on a single wing? I believe it would be prudent to review the design and implementation of this system.




Synopsis: B737-800 MAX Captain reported questions about the Landing Attitude Modifier.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MHT.Airport, NH
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower MHT
Aircraft component: Central Warning/Master Caution
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Taking off of Runway 35 at MHT; at approximately 110 KIAS (V1 was 134); the Takeoff Configuration Warning horn sound began. My abort briefing has always included the statement that the only things that meet our abort criteria above 80 knots will have some kind audible warning or indication; with the exception being; aircraft unsafe or unable to fly. With this in mind; and hearing an audible warning; I instinctively began to retard the thrust levers to abort the takeoff; and looked at the flap indicator; which correctly read flaps 1. I immediately decided that I did not want to perform a high speed abort for a Takeoff Warning horn. I immediately increased the thrust levers back to the Max Thrust N1 bugs; and completed the takeoff uneventfully. The Takeoff Warning horn only sounded for two; or maybe three beeps; and then stopped. I had only slightly retarded the thrust levers when I decided not to abort (I estimate approximately 10% N1). I know; from years of human factors education; that indecision can often be your own worst enemy; however; I did not have any concerns about the airworthiness of the aircraft; and felt that the decision to continue; even though the takeoff performance data was now invalid; was of considerably less risk than a high speed abort for an erroneous takeoff configuration Warning horn. All checklists were properly completed; to the best of my knowledge. We were not rushed. The warning horn did not sound during the thrust lever check.I messaged Maintenance through ACARS to meet us at [destination]; however; nobody showed up. Enroute I had confirmed in the FOM that an 'Info Only' entry in the logbook was the correct course of action with no Maintenance notification required. Upon arrival at the gate; I completed the 'Info Only' entry in the logbook; and briefed the next Flight Crew about the incident.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported they elected to continue the takeoff after receiving a momentary takeoff warning horn at approximately 110 kts.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ROA.TRACON, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ROA
ATC / advisory: TRACON ROA
Aircraft component: Altitude Alert
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Software and Automation; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Visual landing into ROA with airport in sight; the Captain was in a left base for Runway 24 and while approaching the course between PROSE and HIBAN above 3700 ft. with a shallow descent of about 600 ft. per minute; we were approaching the mountain range under visual conditions and the terrain caused an RA to go off. The RA lasted about 5 seconds and we did not overreact because we could visually see that we were clear of the mountain or any terrain. Terrain page was up on FO (Flight Officer) side as well.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported that while on a visual approach to ROA over mountains; they received a terrain RA while visually being clear of terrain.
Date: 202202
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: FCC (Flight Control Computer)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise flight at FL350; FLT CTRL SYS B became inoperative. We completed QRH procedures which directed us to place the FLT CTRL B switch to RUD STBY. This also created additional failures in Diff Feel and Yaw Damper Fail. We also noticed that 'A' system hydraulic fluid appeared to be decreasing. Since we were not yet halfway and about to go on a portion of our trip completely over water for approximately 500 miles; we elected to turn around to divert back to ZZZ. We considered diverting 300 miles to ZZZ1 and looked at other potential diversion points on the return to ZZZ. We were going to be approximately 2;000 pounds overweight; so we [requested priority handling] in accordance with the FOM and company policy. During the approach the flight controls were sluggish. The approach and landing were completed per the 737 QRH Overweight Landing Checklist; and an overweight landing entry made in addition to the SYS B Failure in the a/c logbook.Suggestions - I think the 737 QRH needs to be reviewed for additional steps on this item. Very brief. Doesn't mention that follow on failures will occur including loss of Yaw Damper and Feel Diff. Additionally there is no information in QRH Overweight Landing Checklist that indicates[requesting priority handling] is required per company policy.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported a flight control system malfunction and hydraulics system quantity decreasing made flight control sluggish during cruise. The crew decided to return to the departure airport.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C SNA
ATC / advisory: Tower SNA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: A drone/object passed overhead our position as we descended on the glidepath for [Runway] 20R. I saw the object for only a few seconds. We reported it to Tower. It was about 100 feet above us as we descended through 2;500 feet on final approach to [Runway] 20R.




Synopsis: B737-700 First Officer reported a NMAC with a UAV while on approach.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The adjacent Center was handing us two aircraft off on collision courses at the same altitude. We called the sector that was responsible for the two aircraft and in communication to advise them we weren't going to accept the aircraft on collision courses. The adjacent Center 'Controller' said; 'Roger.' Then he called back and told us 'he didn't know what to do about it.' We had to issue control instructions to him because he didn't know what to do! We told him to turn Aircraft X 20 right. Without this turn Aircraft X and Aircraft Y would have collided 15 miles inside our airspace. I'm not sure what to say. We brought to the attention two aircraft that were going to crash in less than three minutes and the Controller didn't know how to separate them! The Supervisor was on scene and watched everything transpire.




Synopsis: ZMP Center Controller reported the adjacent Center handed two aircraft off to them on conflicting courses at the same altitude.