elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ; Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was cleared for the GPS Runway X approach. I broke out beneath the overcast layer at approximately 1;500 AGL. Visibility was 10 miles and I was in good VFR conditions. I cancelled my IFR flight plan but was unsure if the cancellation was received as this is a remote north location with poor radio reception at low altitude.Upon reaching my destination airport; I discovered the runway was shrouded in dense ground fog and unsuitable for landing. Since I was in VFR conditions; I circled the airport at 1;000 AGL for about 5 minutes in an effort to determine if the fog might be dissipating which it was not. I then elected to divert to my alternate. Since I had previously cancelled my IFR clearance; I contacted Center requesting; 'Direct ZZZ;' advising them I was in VFR conditions. The Controller must not have received my earlier IFR cancellation as she wanted to know if I was on the published missed approach since this is a non radar environment. I said I was not and I was proceeding VFR to ZZZ. The Controller gave me an approach clearance and I made an uneventful landing at my alternate.I did not fly the published missed approach once I was in VFR conditions; believing I had cancelled my IFR clearance. If I had flown the published missed approach I would have had to climb and reenter IMC conditions; so this was not an option once I was VFR. It all worked out OK and safety of the flight was never compromised. But the Controller was likely confused by my action and the lesson I learned was not to assume the Controller received your IFR cancellation unless you get a response back from them. Secondly; I learned not to be in a rush to cancel my IFR clearance in an effort to free up airspace as I might need the clearance to be in place in case a landing can not be made.




Synopsis: A BE-20 pilot cancelled IFR in VMC and flew to his destination which he found IMC in fog and so contacted ATC again for clearance to his alternate. The Controller apparently had not heard his IFR cancellation and was confused that he was not on the missed approach.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CCB.Airport, CA
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: UNICOM CCB
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A Cessna had landed and pulled off the runway completely; to the north. I pulled onto the runway; announced on UNICOM I was 'taking off on Runway 24' and; seeing no airplanes on the runway; applied full power. After a roll of about 500 FT; I saw the Cessna start across the runway; north to south. Since I was already at about 80 MPH; and I saw I could more safely climb above the plane crossing the runway than try to stop; I continued my takeoff; passing over the Cessna more than 250 FT AGL. The Cessna made no UNICOM calls. It was clear to me that he started across the runway after I had started my takeoff roll.I can't suggest any remedial measures; except to emphasize that all pilots should look before they cross a runway; and use UNICOM to announce their intentions. There is nothing that I could have done to avoid this situation.




Synopsis: Operating from a non-towered airport; the pilot of a light aircraft had to takeoff prematurely to avoid an aircraft which had previously landed and exited the runway but then turned back and was recrossing the runway despite the reporter's declaration of his takeoff given on UNICOM.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Baron 58/58TC
Aircraft component: Transponder
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Software and Automation
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was cruising VFR at 7;500 ft.; without flight following; but monitoring Center. My ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast) showed traffic 500 ft. below me; 12 miles out at my 1:30 position. This caught my attention because this condition indicates we will pass laterally very close. I heard Center alert the other aircraft about the traffic (my aircraft); but he was unable to get a visual. Center indicated my altitude was 7;200 ft. I turned on my taxi and landing lights to make my aircraft more visible to the other aircraft. We passed with 500 ft. vertical and about 150 ft. lateral separation. The other pilot called me on the phone later that day because he was concerned about a near miss (although he did get a visual on my aircraft just before we passed). His ADS-B indicated 150 ft. separation. My flights showed my ADS-B altitude 350 ft. lower than what it actually was; which was the cause for the other pilot's concern. I am reporting this to my avionics shop for repair; and in the future will pick up flight following earlier in the flight for better communication.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported a NMAC and later discovered that separation from the other aircraft was less than originally thought due to the reporter's ADS-B equipment not indicating the correctly.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Second reporter function: Single Pilot; Trainee; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: My student called me and reported to me that after touchdown on his landing the aircraft had veered off to the left side of the Runway (west) at ZZZ. He told me that he rolled off the runway at 40 mph and came to a full stop about 100 ft. off the runway. The staff of the flight school and I came out to the scene and saw that the student had turned the aircraft towards the runway. I followed the tracks back to the runway and saw that it was a shallow angle leading off the runway with some skid marks leading off the runway in a curving manner suggesting the aircraft was lined up on the centerline of the runway but somehow ended up veering off the runway. Luckily no one was hurt or runway closure.


Second narrative: During the final phase of landing; what I believe to be a wind gust lowered my left wing unexpectedly. I applied right rudder correction and landed with the nose of the plane pointing towards the right edge of the runway. I applied to left rudder to regain centerline and over corrected causing the aircraft to veer to the left and exit the west edge of the runway. Upon inspection of the runway; skid marks were present in an arc leading to the edge of the runway. It appears as though I unintentionally applied left brake which caused a more dramatic movement than desired to the left leading to the excursion.


Synopsis: C172 flight instructor and student pilot reported the student had a runway excursion during a solo training flight.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Cleared to descend via DRLLR 4 arrival. ATC changed runway assignment to 26L. We didn't notice in time that the FMS had DOMNO twice. After passing DOMNO the autopilot went into roll mode. We put it back into LNAV but ATC gave us a heading to fly and told us to go direct the next fix.The FMS puts two fixes in when changing runways. If we don't trap this error; the autopilot will not lead the turn and will instead go into roll mode after passing the fix that was duplicated. Obviously this put us into an undesired aircraft state and possible traffic conflict. The company can fix this KNOWN error. The RNAV arrival is already busy enough as it is and it's unacceptable for the company to allow this to continue and degrade safety by not fixing this known issue. As it is; the company puts more burden on the crew by just emailing us about this known issue instead of just fixing it already. Please compel the company to fix this known issue as soon as possible in their letter of correction as a condition for them to be admitted into this report; as they are equally culpable.




Synopsis: EMB-145 FO reported a track deviation on approach when the FMS reverted to roll mode; apparently related to a known duplicate waypoint anomaly.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft APU was inop for engine starts; I noticed what I thought was exhaust smell from the GPU that was running next to the aircraft at the time crew boarded aircraft; the AC Packs had been selected on when flight crew boarded the aircraft; again the GPU was hooked up and running at this time. As we prepared the cockpit in preflight duties; we had discussed the INOP APU MEL; and it suggested in the notes section of QRH that the PACKS should remain OFF. The AC PACKS were then selected to OFF as directed by the QRH/MEL Procedures. After the takeoff; I asked the First Officer if he smelled anything strange and he concurred with me. I then deselected ECON FLOW from the overhead panel in order to bring more fresh air into the aircraft; [which] seemed to make a difference. I sent [an] ACARS message to the Dispatcher of the flight and advised him that we had fumes/odors in the cockpit of the aircraft and that I would keep him advised. I did not elect to [advise ATC] and since the event seemed to clear up after deselecting ECON FLOW; the flight crew did not don oxygen masks. Upon our arrival in to the terminal area at ZZZ1; we then started to get the same fumes/odors while at low altitude on final approach to the runway; after touchdown we did not notice the fumes/odors. I did not [advise ATC] due to the fact that the event seemed to subside after deselecting ECON FLOW. I was in touch with the Dispatcher throughout the remainder of the flight. I called the Dispatcher immediately after block-in and we discussed a couple items regarding declaring an emergency and use of oxygen masks; I told him we did neither and thanked him for staying in touch with us throughout the course of the flight.




Synopsis: A300 Captain reported a fumes event of varying intensity from engine start until engine shutdown at destination.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; 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
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: The UAS was delaying in M4S; M5S; M6S areas with an EFC of XA00z. When [these type of flights] delay in these 'Mike Boxes' controllers separate aircraft; not airspace like a MOA or ATCAA. When a traffic situation arises I normally leave the UAS type of flight alone and move the other aircraft. Today I tried turning the UAS. I issued a 180 heading to the UAS. The UAS response was that they were on a preprogrammed flight. I questioned the pilot; 'UAS verify that you are not accepting an ATC clearance?' The UAS did not respond. This left me with only the option of moving another aircraft. Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) do have limitations; but accepting an ATC clearance [at the UAV operators own discretion] should not; and can not be one of them.I think that the level of service that our facility and controllers give to UAS flights has allowed the UAS operators to become complacent. I think that they believe that they have a sense of entitlement; knowing that legislation has been passed that the FAA shall integrate UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS). This mind set must change.




Synopsis: ZMP Controller reports of a government agency UAS that did not follow ATC instructions in controlled airspace.
Date: 201908
Location: OMA.Airport, NE
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C OMA
ATC / advisory: TRACON R90
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On descent into OMA at 6;700 feet; an object appearing to be a drone; but possibly balloons; appeared at 1 o'clock and slightly below us. From our perspective it moved from right to left and went right under our left wing. To me it appeared to have lights on it; which is why my immediate thought was drone. It all happened very quickly and there was no time to maneuver to avoid. We immediately made a radio call to Approach; who was currently handling us; to try and pinpoint the exact location. No sounds or evidence of impact noticed. I will add that if this was indeed a drone; we better figure it out quickly; as it would be an obvious easy entry; low cost threat to national security.

Callback: Captain believes object was a drone due to light configuration. Event lasted 3-4 seconds.



Synopsis: B737 Captain reported NMAC with a UAV.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Weather
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: 30 minutes out we checked ATIS via ACARS and it showed the field to have strong gusty winds but nothing excessive. As we leveled off at 8000 ft Approach informed us the field was now experiencing winds out of the west at 44 knots gusting to 58 knots. There was no alternate filed for us nor was there alternate fuel onboard the aircraft. It was at that point the captain [advised ATC] and asked for a diversion to a nearby field which was south of the weather system causing the problem. We began the divert with 7700 lbs and landed with 5500 lbs. We arrived without event.During the preflight the captain called and queried the dispatcher about the weather and asked if an alternate was required. They both agreed it was not required but when the question even arises I'd at least add some extra fuel next time.




Synopsis: MD80 First Officer reported the flight was legally dispatched without a diversion airport or divert fuel. On arrival they encountered adverse weather conditions dictating a divert to a suitable field.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Gear Up Lock
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; MEL; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) called Maintenance Control to MEL a damaged uplock spring on B757 aircraft as per MEL 32-32-01. I reviewed the MEL requirements with the Technician and asked if the spring was removed to comply with the MEL. Technician confirmed the uplock spring was removed and I then issued the MEL.Aircraft departed; upon arrival Local Maintenance reported that there was a missing downlock spring on the right Main Landing Gear (MLG). I asked the Technician to send me a photograph of missing downlock spring to confirm what was reported. I received photo of the downlock spring and took the aircraft out of service.[I] placed aircraft 'Out of Service' once it was reported that the downlock spring was removed instead of the uplock spring. [I then] had the correct spring and tooling sent for installation of the downlock spring. MEL 32-32-01 does not include an illustration [for] the uplock spring for identification purposes.


Second narrative: December 2013; I was inspecting the aircraft per ETOPS Pre-Departure Check (PDC) for flight to ZZZZ. During the inspection; I found a broken spring on right Main Landing Gear (MLG). I referenced the MEL for this item which was MEL 32-32-01 for the MLG uplock spring. I contacted Maintenance Control to place on MEL which was granted and the aircraft departed. The MEL does not contain an illustration which would have clarified the spring.  I have reviewed the GMM; Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC) and Maintenance Manuals (M/M); and also the MEL.


Synopsis: A Maintenance Controller reports he took a B757-200 ETOPS aircraft 'Out of Service' after being informed that a downlock spring had been removed instead of a broken uplock spring he had placed on an MEL. An Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) also reports that a lack of an Illustration in MEL 32-32-01 contributed to his misidentifying the downlock spring as the uplock spring.