elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Mooney Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared to land Runway 34R by Tower. While on short final Captain (pilot not flying) noticed Mooney aircraft; who was cleared by the Tower to land on Runway 34L; drift quickly into and above our flight path for Runway 34R. There was no communication from the Tower or from the PIC of the Mooney aircraft; and within seconds the Mooney aircraft came within 100 FT (estimated) or less above our aircraft and continuing his descent for the wrong runway. The Captain (pilot not flying) communicated this to the First Officer (pilot flying); and the First Officer (pilot flying) immediately initiated a go-around to the left to avoid collision with the Mooney aircraft. The Captain (pilot not flying) communicated the go-around decision to the Tower; who then eventually cleared us back for left base traffic for Runway 34R. A second attempt for landing was accomplished without incident.There was no communications from the Mooney PIC to anyone about whatever the reason was he/she drifted away from their assigned runway and into ours. Keep a sharp scan even at Towered airports; and especially those with parallel runways. The Tower communicated to us that the Mooney was in the complete wrong and a Tower Supervisor was investigating the incident.




Synopsis: Near mid-air collision by two single engine aircraft on parallel approaches.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: Pilot Seat
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [We were] on departure from Teterboro on the RUUDY 4 departure off Runway 24. On departure the Captain's seat slid back one position on the seat tracks. Things continued normally. Once airborne the pilot not flying selected gear up and selected NAV on the FMS. What happened thereafter to him is a mystery. As we entered the cloud conditions he announced and selected engine/inlet anti ice on as I proceeded outbound to WENTZ at 1;500. Upon arriving at WENTZ I turned toward TASCA and started a climb to 2;000. As I did so I thought I had reached up and selected the autopilot on; however rather than level I noticed the airplane had continued to climb. I immediately reduced power; disconnected the autopilot and started descending back to 2;000. It was at this time that I noticed that the altitude selector was still selected to 1;500 feet; so I questioned the pilot not flying; was it not supposed to be 2;000? I selected the autopilot and it started toward 1;500 and again I disconnected the autopilot and adjusted the altitude to 2;000 in the altitude selector. It was at that time that I next noticed that the flaps were still in takeoff position. There was no 'flaps up' call so they remained in the takeoff position. I told the pilot not flying to select flaps up at that time and he did so. Shortly thereafter we were cleared to either six or seven thousand feet and there were no further issues. The altitude excursion was a maximum of 2;700 on the high end and 1;700 on the low end. Aside from the seat track issue it's one thing to fly single pilot if that's what you are prepared to do; however if you are part of a crew; then the pilot not flying is there to keep the pilot flying on track. I'm not sure where my pilot not flying was; but I suspect initially; NOT with me on the departure.




Synopsis: A CE680 Captain reported difficulty maintaining 2;000 FT on the RUUDY 4 departure from TEB due to the altitude alerter being set to 1;500 FT while attempting to engage the autopilot.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MMUN.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the Pilot-in-Command of a Flight to CUN and return. Both flights concluded uneventfully.  My First Officer; was a tremendous asset during both legs.  His experience and knowledge with international travel to CUN; and points beyond; was an enormous asset.  However; it was during these flights; and one previous turn last month; that I realized what a completely different experience this new international flying can actually be. As you would expect; and as many of us have already experienced; there are various nuances connected with international travel in general; airspace; linguistic; procedural; severe weather. And at each of our destinations specifically local procedures; communications; customs; etc.   To that end; it is abundantly clear to this Captain that the average Company Pilot; perhaps only now and again assigned to such international duties; will NOT have the 'recency' of experience necessary to negotiate the many 'gotchas' and 'getchas' attached to this complex assignment. Therefore; as a Company Captain with recent Company international experience; it is my belief that our Pilots must either fly into and out of our international destinations frequently at least once per month or not fly into and out of them at all.  The negative implications to our Crews; if unprepared and unfamiliar; and to our Passengers; are enormous and could be costly.  Furthermore; it is my strong view that henceforth; Company should assign ALL international flying; however complicated that process may be; to a subset of Company Pilots who share the 'recency' of experience necessary to complete such duties competently; to do otherwise is inconsistent with the Safety component of Flight Operations.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain believes that his company should assign international flying only to crews who are specifically trained to fly these routes.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Twin Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after departure I noticed a rough running left engine. No indications of malfunctions from flight instruments or controls. As a precaution; I requested a return to my departure airport; and mentioned possible problem with left engine. Approach asked if an emergency would be declared; and I did; in fact; declare an emergency. I was vectored back towards and handed off to the Tower and landed without incident.




Synopsis: When the left engine started to run rough; the pilot of a Cessna twin declared an emergency and returned to his departure airport.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Luscombe (Silvaire) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On short final to [Runway] XXR; the windsock displayed a quartering left crosswind. I wheel landed left main first; left aileron into wind. With the mains planted; the nose began veering left. I applied right rudder input but it wasn't enough even with max deflection; so I brought the tail down abruptly to get directional control back via the tail wheel. Unfortunately; by the time the tail was down and I regained control; I was already off the runway going into the grass 45 degrees off of the centerline. Thankfully I avoided all taxiway lights and taxied in without damage to the plane; myself; or property. During taxi in; I noticed the windsock was varying between a quartering headwind and a quartering tailwind at about 7 knots. It is likely that as I was getting just slow enough for the tail to be about ready to stop flying but too fast to bring the tail wheel down; the wind shifted to a quartering tailwind which brought my nose to the left (weathervane). Bringing the tail wheel to the ground; even though my speed was higher; seems to ultimately be what allowed me to regain directional control and come to a safe stop clear of objects or other aircraft.




Synopsis: Luscombe Pilot reported loss of directional control during landing resulting in a runway excursion.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: Tower IAH
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Landing runway 27 IAH at 1500 ft AGL called for 25 flaps. Setting was gear down and flaps 15. FO (First Officer) inadvertently set flaps past intended position and immediately reset the flaps to 25. This caused a flap lockout. Flaps approximately 20-22. Quick discussion of flap setting; ref speed; landing distance on a dry runway. We both agreed it was safe to land with flap setting and repositioned flap handle to 15 in case of inadvertent movement; used flaps 15 ref plus 5. Unforecast thunderstorms were a threat as they were encroaching the field. After landing we were able to successfully move flaps to zero then back to 30. We did not communicate with the tower that we were less than landing flaps. We decided not to make a logbook entry since the flaps operated normally.


Second narrative: Factors that led to our decision to land with current flaps: Long runway with auto-brakes set to 3 and max manual braking available; no other aircraft systems problems; no flap asymmetry annunciators; flaps were adequate for safe landing (at least as good as single engine landing flaps); no alternate fuel; and storms building over the field. Numerous weather deviations inbound. North runways already had cells right overhead. Rwy 27 was clear overhead at time of approach.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported landing with less than planned flaps when the flaps locked out because of non-SOP operation.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CBF.Airport, IA
Aircraft: Learjet 55
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Enroute
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Flight Service called for a clearance off of CBG (Cambridge; MN) on a Learjet 55. I did not have a flight plan on this aircraft; so I added the call sign to my flight list and saw the Flight Plan. I issued a clearance to the Learjet 55 from Cambridge to GXY via direct. Flight Service read back cleared from Cambridge to GXY via direct. It was not until after I hung up the line did I realize that the aircraft might be departing a different airport (CBF); which is Council Bluff; IA. I tried to call Flight Service ASAP but got the normal run around of no idea who talked to me; what was the call sign again; where did he depart. I contacted the sector that CBF lies in; and advised them of the situation; and at the same time saw the aircraft code pop up off of CBF; not CBG. OMA Approach works this airspace and said that everything was fine; no aircraft loss of separation happened. [We need to] have a way to contact FSS when this happens; or for any other manner. It is almost impossible to get a hold of the FSS specialist that you had talked to previously; and when time is critical; as was the case here; it would be helpful to know who called you and how to get a hold of them again.


Second narrative: I was working the desk when the Sector 10 Controller appeared to have an anomaly. He had issued a clearance through Flight Service off of CBG; when in fact the flight plan was off of CBF. The Controller caught the error after hanging up with Flight Service and quickly realized the Flight Service person's mistake and did some very quick internal coordination with the affected sector; well outside of our airspace at CBF. There was no loss of separation. Flight Service needs to be careful of its identifiers!!


Synopsis: ZMP Controller described an unsafe condition report when Flight Service failed to note the correct departure airport on the Flight Plan and the aircraft departed in another Controller's airspace.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: NCT.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 SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X departed OAK on the CNDEL3 Departure. Leaving 2500 feet the aircraft turned left to a 200 heading.  Luckily I caught it right away and there was no aircraft departing SFO.  That turn puts the aircraft into a head on position with aircraft departing SFO. It would not take long for a midair to occur that way. The southbound departures off OAK need to be reviewed.




Synopsis: NCT TRACON Controller reported an aircraft on the OAK CNDEL3 Departure turned into the SFO departure path.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: OKC.Airport, OK
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
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: Aircraft APU start valve was placarded closed; needed an air start. I asked the tug driver if the start cart was located on the right side [since we would be starting the left engine first]. He said yes it was. We started the number 1 engine as per the checklist. During the start process he said something garbled over the headset; when I asked again if the start cart was on the right side and again he replied yes. A few moments later I saw the start cart being removed from the left side of the aircraft. My concern is if the people are not trained properly; someone is going to get killed.This event occurred because the rampers were not trained on positioning the start cart for a cart start on a B737 aircraft. Also I believe the tug driver was not understanding that the right side is aircraft right not his right.In the future I will visually check the position of the cart and use the phrase aircraft right or aircraft left.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported that the ground crew improperly positioned the start cart on the left side of the aircraft; exposing personnel to possible injury during the engine start.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HGR.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D HGR
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Practice ILS in VMC. Talking to HGR Tower but outside their Class D. Responsible for own separation. We were aware of glider activity in the vicinity but all had previously been below 4;000 MSL. Was inbound in the published hold to the IAF (HAIGS) at the published altitude (4;000ft) centered on the localizer. Safety observer spotted glider under tow at same altitude nearly opposite direction right at HAIGS intersection. Started evasive action but had to climb and turn left as glider was banking slightly left into our path. Did not appear that tow plane ever deviated. Tow plane not using landing lights and it was difficult to see the two white aircraft on a white background at nearly a head on aspect angle. My landing lights had been on continuously. This was my fourth practice Runway 27 ILS and there had been two other aircraft also in the same instrument pattern in the prior hour.Very surprised that the soaring club based [at a nearby airport] is operating directly in conflict with the published instrument approach; was not coordinating with HGR tower or Potomac approach (although they are outside the HGR class D); was not monitoring the HGR tower or Potomac frequencies that would provide situational awareness to their glider operations; not operating the tow plane with their landing light on; nor did they seem to have any situational awareness about numerous ILS aircraft that had been operating on the published instrument approach for hours.




Synopsis: Aircrew encountered a tow aircraft with glider attached while practicing an ILS approach. Evasive action was taken. Tow aircraft flew through holding fix for the ILS.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other Post Shipping
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was asked to ship out a tool from ZZZ To ZZZ1.  I located the tool and began the process. During the process I failed to identify that the tool was a hazardous tool and shipped the tool to ZZZ1 without declaring the tool Hazmat. One of the reasons I failed to identify the tool was hazardous was because I was beginning to develop a fever that afternoon which was making me feel drowsy.  Moving forward I  will monitor the items being shipped out closely to make sure this error does not happen again.




Synopsis: Airline Maintenance Personnel reported hazmat inadvertently shipped hazmat tool without following procedures of documentation.