elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: AMA.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C AMA
ATC / advisory: TRACON AMA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared for the VOR 31 Approach into AMA. In the FMC; there are two points called CF31 and FF31. On the approach plate; only FF31 is listed. We mistook CF31 for FF31 and descended too early. We broke out of the clouds about the same time ATC advised us of our mistake. We continued on in and landed uneventfully but embarrassed and much wiser. Spending more time briefing this approach might have helped. Renaming points CF31 and FF31 to something not as similar would help.


Second narrative: Captain briefed and flew the VOR to 31 in Amarillo 1;100 overcast. We both talked about not shooting a VOR approach in a long time. FMC had two points; CF31 which was 11 DME and FF31; which was 6 DME. Captain started down from 5;000 FT to DDA at CF31. We should have started down at FF31. [We] broke out visually with runway in sight. ATC called low altitude alert. We had the runway in sight and continued on visually and landed. No GPWS Warnings. This was a VOR DME approach. We did not back up the fixes by DME. This would have alleviated us starting down too early. Crew briefing should have put more emphasis on DME position.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported descending early on the VOR DME 31 to AMA; when the CF31 fix is confused with the FF31. The error is detected at about the same time ATC issues a low altitude alert. DME was not used to define the waypoints.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Metroplex (OAPM) was implemented recently. This was my first session in dealing with the new airspace and procedures. I generally familiarize myself while on the assist position. 30 minutes into working traffic and still orientating myself to the new SIDS; I had Aircraft X and Aircraft Y situation develop. Aircraft X was on the DOTSS and Aircraft Y was a Go-around. Aircraft X target acquired off the departure end and checked in. Local 1 called and said Aircraft Y was a go around and will be on a 200 heading. I rogered him. Went back to Aircraft X and issued a turn to heading 210 which is a typical routine that I was taught and did so for concern of a departure off the north complex.Immediately after I issued the turn to Aircraft X I issued a clearance to cancel the heading and remain on the route/departure. Aircraft Y checked in at 2000 feet. I went back and asked Aircraft X what his heading was and I believe he said he was heading 215. I told him to expedite climb to 3000 feet. In concern for the separation I over separated the Aircraft Y by turning him to heading 160. I tried a couple of times to issue a clearance to Aircraft Y to expedite his climb to 3000 feet and eventually to 4000 feet to get above the MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude) without proper acknowledgement. I restated the command to expedite and turned Aircraft Y to heading 070. I am unsure if I had separation between Aircraft X and Aircraft Y and unsure of Aircraft Y's clearance in the MVA.I think significant thought went to dealing with the SIDS which caused me to flail on other aspects of thought like not turning Aircraft X when Local 1 called on the go-around. The pilots seemed to lag in response to my instruction which probably could have bought me a few hundred feet. I just won't turn my planes off the departure unless it's necessary.




Synopsis: SCT Developmental Controller reported a loss of separation with a LAX departure and an aircraft going around.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DFW.Tower, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: Tower DFW
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was on final to runway 36L at DFW while I was working. I heard final monitor key up and slow him up. I realized then that we probably would lose 2.5 miles spacing but had seen other aircraft before his arrival on final and thought for sure I would see him. I was in a relief briefing at the time and during that time when we began to lose the 2.5 miles of separation we could both see both aircraft out the window and let it continue. The previous aircraft got off the runway fine prior to Aircraft X landing. The final needs to be monitored more closely by final monitor and not rely on local control getting visual at the last minute. Also I should not have tried to give the position to another controller before this issue was solved.




Synopsis: DFW Tower Controller described a possible loss of separation between two aircraft on final approach to Runway 36L.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CHS.Airport, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Gust Lock
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [Early morning] 'show' for a one hour airline flight. Multiple mechanical delays with the airline. Arrived one hour prior to departure. Arrived plane side and started preflight. Multiple issues: Aircraft coming out of maintenance; switches in wrong position; panels open or unlocked; temporary cable supporting cabin door; wings over lapped with another aircraft on the ramp; etc. Noticed controls were not locked. Observed that the yoke control lock mechanism was properly secured. Became distracted. Failed to check that the rudder gust lock was secured in its proper location on the bulkhead behind the copilot's seat. I completed the interior & exterior preflight and the power on checklist. When my SIC arrived; I advised that we were power on; checklist complete and preflight complete with some exceptions. I briefed those exceptions and stated that we needed to be careful about switch positions due to maintenance. Operated [as a] ferry. Operated [next leg as a] revenue [flight]. While performing the securing checklist [after landing]; I observed that the rudder gust lock was not in its usual stowed location. Notified [Operations and Maintenance]. Completed discrepancy [report]. [Aircraft] AOG for the missing item.Classic set up and the classic failure. Multiple issues and distractions with [the aircraft] coming out of maintenance. As the PIC; I made the mistake and failed to spot the missing rudder gust lock. In our aircraft; this rod also serves as the handle for the auxiliary hydraulic system pump. Fortunately; we did not need the aux hydraulic system. The 'aux hydraulic pump handle - stowed' is on the cockpit preparation flow. While indicating that I had only completed the power on checklist; I sent a mixed message to my SIC by saying that we were preflight complete (with some exceptions). Instead; I should have emphasized the necessity for a thorough cockpit preparation check using standard terminology/language to increase the likelihood of discovering the issue. While this mistake is totally on me; sound maintenance practice should include leaving this rod/gust lock on the flight deck unless it is absolutely necessary to do otherwise. However; such a practice would not relieve the flight crew of its preflight responsibility. I made a mistake.




Synopsis: HS-125-900XP Captain reported operating several legs with the rudder gust lock not on board in its proper stow position.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the cleared visual approach ARTCC had switched us from enroute to Tower Control at 6.6NM. My co-pilot; Pilot Not Flying (PNF); was making radio calls and was unable to make a transmission until 5NM out from the field. Incident aircraft a PA-28 was indicating that he was inbound to the field 3.3NM and was going to circle for spacing. We were still inbound and made a call at 3NM with traffic ahead of us in sight. We did not receive a direct acknowledgment from Tower; however Tower told the Cherokee to now follow the Pilatus and to acknowledge he had Pilatus traffic in sight; to which he replied traffic in sight. Shortly after this call the PNF quickly took control to avoid an impending merge from the traffic (on a right base) and initiated an immediate left-hand descending turn. The controls were then reverted back to Pilot Flying (PF) shortly after traffic was in sight to the PF. The PF continued with a descending left turn and leveled the aircraft at approximately 700-800 feet. Once PF decided incident aircraft was not a factor the PF then elected to continue the approach once he knew we were ahead of the traffic.PNF told Tower that 'the Cherokee must of not had us in sight and that we needed to conduct an evasive maneuver'. Tower replied that he thought the two aircraft were parallel. The Cherokee then told Tower that 'I thought I was following the Cessna; sorry'. PNF inquired Tower for landing clearance as the aircraft was now inside of a mile final; we were then cleared to land. TCAS did not show any threats nor did we get a TA warning. EGPWS did issue a sink rate and terrain pull up warnings. At no time were we at a bank angle or pitch angle that would have provided a potential for CFIT or loss of control. PF called the Tower land line approximately 20 minutes afterwards to give a recollection of events and categorized the event as a near miss.


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


Synopsis: Flight crew of a corporate turboprop aircraft reported a near miss while on 3 mile final approach.
Date: 201901
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; 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 Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: While at 8000 feet enroute to ZZZ; we entered an area of IMC. Several minutes after entering the area of IMC roughly 100 miles NE of ZZZ; my first officer and I began to hear and observe rain droplets roughly the size of quarters impacting our aircraft. OAT was -10 C and the SLD's (Super-cooled Large Droplets) froze upon impact. The ice accumulated rapidly; building to approximately 2' in less than 30 seconds. Upon entering the area of freezing precipitation; I disengaged the autopilot and descended to 7000 feet. While doing so; we also communicated with ATC: was cleared down to 7000 feet and made a PIREP. Once at 7000 feet; we were out of the area of icing conditions. I then activated the de-ice boots which cleared the wing of most contaminates. The flight continued without issue until approximately 20 miles outside of ZZZ were we once again encountered icing conditions. The ice accumulating was light to moderate continuous mixed and the de-ice boots were able to adequately keep up. Knowing that the aircraft was contaminated with ice; I chose to keep power up while landing and also keep my landing attitude relatively flat to avoid a main wing stall; though the aircraft did begin to buffet just before touchdown. I would like to add that there were no PIREPS made prior to our departure regarding icing and the region had light to moderate ice forecasted throughout the region at all altitudes we are able to legally operate at.There was patchy areas of precipitation dense clouds all over [the area] that day. Aircraft; including our own aircraft experienced ice intermittently throughout the day; although nothing other than light mixed was reported. It just so happened that we unknowingly entered a cloud that was extremely moisture dense and flew into an area of SLD's. We quickly took evasive action to address the issue and in less than a minute; we exited the icing and continued to ZZZ without further disruption.




Synopsis: Air taxi Captain reported rapid onset of moderate continuous icing while in cruise and on initial approach.
Date: 202012
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
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); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; MEL; Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We went to Aircraft X to further review deferrals. We found 2 deferrals on the Mode Control Panel. The MELs described LNAV; VNAV; HDG HOLD; FLT CH; ALT HOLD; VS; all possibly affected by the MELs. I asked the mechanic to have someone come out and describe what we'll have available after departure. I called Flight Control and asked if we were RVSM legal. I was told we can't fly the SID; that we would have to get direct all the way to ZZZ. This very degraded state was concerning to the First Officer and me especially with the winter storm warnings at our destination. We were also told that the aircraft would not be legal to return to ZZZ1 with deferrals. We were also concerned about having an inflight emergency and diverting to an airport with only RNAV approaches available as we weren't capable of that approach. After discussions with Maintenance Supervisor; Flight Control and the Assistant Chief Pilot someone decided to tail swap the trip.




Synopsis: Pilot reported misgivings from degraded navigation systems place on MEL and obtained an aircraft tail swap to complete the flight
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Uncontrolled field; UNICOM frequency. Runway XX in use; 2 other aircraft announcing in the pattern. One landed; the other; a C-172 was turning base leg. Heard no other aircraft announce; scanned final approach area; saw no aircraft; so entered runway to begin take off. Just as takeoff roll commenced; heard heavily accented voice on UNICOM saying something like don't take off. No aircraft ID or position was stated. Saw nothing in front of me on the runway or in view; so continued take off. Heard same voice saying something like; on final; but no aircraft ID or airport and runway ID. Cannot see behind me and cannot tell anything about voice; so continued take off. Just as lifting off and clearing end of runway; saw a small low wing aircraft pass off my right at a higher speed. It continued to parallel me until turning left across my nose; barely climbing. It appeared to be some type of homebuilt; low wing; small and faster than me. Never heard that aircraft make any position reports in the pattern; and did not see it while scanning prior to entering the runway. Cannot avoid what you don't hear or see; and cannot determine much from a general statement on the frequency; with no ID or position. Other airports in the area with same UNICOM frequency and aircraft can be heard at those airports; so unless a pilot identifies his airport location; it's impossible to know where they are. Lesson; be as vigilant as possible at an uncontrolled field; and hope other aircraft in the pattern; announce themselves properly. Not sure how to avoid what you don't hear or see. The other pilot should not have continued down the runway at a high speed and low attitude so close to a departing aircraft. If they see a conflict in front of them; it's easy to perform a go around and not continue to fly toward another aircraft. The departing aircraft cannot see behind it; and the pilot cannot make decisions on not knowing what is happening with other aircraft not announcing their ID; position and intentions.




Synopsis: C182 Pilot reported a Near Mid Air Collision while departing a Non-Towered airport due to conflict traffic aircraft not following standard UNICOM radio procedures.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 B/C Ranger
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D RNT
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was distracted by an outside object; a balloon (maybe); a potential flight risk/ hazard.  Near north end and slightly west of Lake Sammamish. I exceed the floor of Seattle's class Bravo airspace by about 300 ft. or so; the floor is 3;000 ft. After clearing potential conflict; I descended to a suitable altitude below Seattle's Class Bravo airspace.




Synopsis: Mooney M20C pilot reported an airspace incursion while being distracted by a UAV (balloon).