elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SMO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; Turbulence; 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After takeoff and past SMO airspace; requested Z approach at CMA; and told Controller I could go direct JUREX and requested 4;000 FT. They gave me a squawk code and a frequency change and to request the type of approach with the next Controller. When I did; they approved 4;000 and direct JUREX. They then asked if I was VFR and I said no that I was in the IFR. I assumed when ATC gave me a squawk and direct JUREX I was approved for IFR but the Controller informed me I was to stay VFR which was not possible at that point of the flight.




Synopsis: A C210 pilot reported confusion as to whether he was operating under IFR or VFR flight rules in the weather.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Regarding Pairing (number): if this isn't a textbook example of a 'circadian swap'; then I don't understand the concept (which is possible). I have never felt as sleep-deprived to the point of significant performance deficit as I did on the last leg of this trip - an ETOPS flight arriving in the early; fog-prone; hours of the morning. Thankfully; the weather was good and the flight uneventful. My sleep strategy was to stay active till time to sleep a solid minimum eight hours; getting up early enough to be physically active again till time to go back to bed for a minimum of four more hours.  On this trip that four-hour nap was nearly impossible. This strikes me as a setup for an incident or accident. Is there a scientifically proven strategy for preparing one's brain and body for a graveyard shift after two early morning duty periods? -for shifting one's circadian clock that dramatically over a 35-hour rest period? If so I'd sure like to know what it is.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported he was extremely fatigued on his flight because of the mix of early morning and late night duty periods.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Rejected takeoff. We saw the [transport aircraft] tail [not clear of the runway] and [the Captain] commanded the RTO. [Transport aircraft] tail not clear of runway despite commands to clear by ATC. The takeoff was rejected. We let brakes cool to 'green' range on MFD; taxied back for another takeoff. No further issues.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported rejecting the takeoff when they realized another transport aircraft had not cleared the runway.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 6
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I departed a C206 on runway heading off Runway 21 and coordinated the aircraft rolling with departure. The aircraft had requested a VFR northeast departure; this was included in the rolling call. Approach gave me a flight of military jets on a tactical overhead approach to Runway 21 with a right break. The tactical overhead places the wing man one mile to the left of the lead. The RADAR Controller allowed the departing aircraft to turn left to a heading of 030 and stopped the climb at 5;500; the same altitude as the flight. Nose to nose opposite direction closure rate was about 500 KTS. I called traffic to the military flight and instructed them to climb to 6;500. They missed. I don't know how close it was; they passed out of view over the top of the Tower. I asked the RADAR Controller if he knew what had happened. He didn't. The Departure Controller shouldn't turn departing traffic back into arrivals.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a conflict when a VFR departure was turn back over the airport by Approach Control during a military flight tactical over head approach maneuver.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi; Cruise
Aircraft component: Aircraft Cooling System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Workload; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Passenger; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight; Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We boarded the plane [and] it was oppressively hot. We were told that the left AC pack wasn't working and that once we were up in the air things would cool off. After a delayed take-off on the runway a passenger got over heated and [became] ill. He was dizzy; seeing spots and sweating profusely. We tended to him by giving him cold compresses; juice and water. The CA (Captain) returned to the gate. Paramedics took him off the plane it was very obvious that he was overheating. Most of the vents were not working and when they were they were blowing out 'hot' air. The plane 'never' cooled we got to ZZZ1 and had a mechanical delay of over an hour where the plane sat in the sun and kept on heating. Finally we boarded with almost a full flight a BIA (Baby In Arms) that was so hot he was beet red and screaming; and sweating. We were [calming] the baby with demo cards. All passengers were hot complaining and fanning themselves we served ice and water the ambient temperature in the 'coolest' part of the cabin was about 84 felt like 93 according to my app. In ZZZ we loaded yet another almost full plane and went to ZZZ2 and the conditions were only getting worse. The temperature was at 72-90 in mid-flight 'when it was supposed to cool off'. On the way back to ZZZ yet again with an almost full flight another passenger in mid-flight was having heart palpitations; sweating and dizzy and I had to tend to her my flying partner was vomiting; nauseous having headache and her pupils were dilated. The conditions had gone from worse to worst. The following flight got on and within 30 minutes the aft FA (Flight Attendant) felt faint and paramedics had to be called. The FA crew was sweating and looked awful and had to be given ice and water throughout the day.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Flight Attendant reported exceedingly hot aircraft temperature on four flights resulting in passenger and crew illnesses.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SKBO.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Cleared direct to ISVAT; ISVAT 2E; expect ILS Y 13R. Prior to reaching NOR03 at 17000 feet we were cleared directly to AMVES. Descended to 13000 feet; cleared RNAV 13L. PM (Pilot Monitoring) did not hear entire clearance. I keyed mike 'okay.... you are changing our runway to RNAV 13L; cleared to 13000 direct AMVES?' ATC apologized and stated '[my] mistake; direct AMVES and cleared ILS Y 13R; ILS Y 13R'. I read back this clearance and we continued to AMVES descending to 13;000 feet.We were approximately 15 miles from AMVES approximate heading 200. We could see traffic visually and on TCAS about 2 o'clock and approaching our altitude. I thought traffic would turn right at AMVES and complete approach. Traffic kept going straight and sounded like he was talking to ATC in Spanish and was confused about their position and clearance fix. I believe ATC was clearing the traffic to PAPET fix which you can find on the chart; which makes sense and would put the traffic north of our position. Instead; I believe traffic was going to AMVES.We got a TA and had visual on the traffic. ATC told him to descend and us to turn right heading 240. Never got an RA but I know it was a potential NMAC.Approximately 2 minutes passed and ATC cleared us to UTMAN; 12000 feet; and cleared for ILS Y 13R. Approximately 5 miles from UTMAN on the 13R Approach; ATC told us to climb 12200 feet to get above his MVA. I had terrain [displayed] and never saw green. Captain and I both agreed we were safe above 12000 feet at present location and were aware of terrain around us.We landed uneventfully. I asked Ground Control for more information about the traffic that crossed us. He came back and said it was Aircraft Y. I'm filing this report because even without an RA; this was absolutely a midair near miss. Then ATC descended us below his MVA. I do not believe we missed any clearances or violated any regs. ATC also kept mixing up call signs.




Synopsis: B757 First Officer reported ATC irregularities on approach to SKBO; including clearance below MVA and an airborne conflict.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DVT.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D DVT
ATC / advisory: Tower DVT
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were cleared for takeoff on Runway 7R. Shortly after takeoff; when we were approximately 50 FT above the ground and midway down the runway; I spotted another aircraft about 1 mile ahead of us and higher. This is not uncommon because the airport is very busy. I then realized that the aircraft was not climbing; but was descending. My first thought was that the aircraft suffered an engine failure and was going to have to make a forced landing. Then I realized that the aircraft was now about 1/2 mile ahead of us and was not climbing out of 7R; but instead was landing opposite of us on Runway 25L.At this point the aircraft was below our aircraft and very soon passed about 50 FT below us traveling opposite our flight path. At the time our flight paths crossed our aircraft was about 100 FT AGL and the other aircraft was about 50 FT AGL. The opposite direction traffic landed on 25L and Tower promptly cancelled the takeoff clearance of the aircraft that was given clearance for takeoff after our departure and told them to vacate the runway. To my knowledge; no accident occurred and no one was hurt in this event. Also to my knowledge; the aircraft that landed on 25L was not on frequency and was not talking to anybody within the airspace during the entire event. I am unaware of what type of situation caused the other aircraft to land on Runway 25L while Runway 7R was in use; but to my knowledge the Tower does have radar services and should have been able to see and avoid this situation before it reached such a dangerous level.




Synopsis: A departing PA-28 flight instructor and his student experienced an NMAC with a C-172 landing opposite direction on the same runway; the pilot of which was not in contact with the Tower.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Propeller
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other takoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight was cleared for takeoff on runway 18R from [a] taxiway. Once the aircraft was lined up on the centerline the propellers were set to 'Speeds High.' When power levers were advanced there was no torque noted on the left engine. It seemed as though the left propeller was still on the 'start locks' so I brought the power levers back and brought the left power lever into BETA to release the propeller from the locks. Advanced the power levers again and still no torque was noted. Attempted to release the propeller one more time. When again no torque was noted I advised tower that we were aborting the take off and needed to return to our ramp.Maintenance determined that a feathering valve was stuck and would not allow the propeller to come off of the locks.




Synopsis: Captain reported rejecting the takeoff when one propeller failed to come out of start lock position.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: My original clearance was to depart TEB on Runway 1 via the Teterboro 8 SID but; after receiving taxi clearance; my departure was switched to Runway 24 RUUDY 4 (RNAV). I briefed the SID to myself and noted the altitude restrictions....WENTZ at 1;500 FT and TASCA at 2;000 FT. I am sure I crossed WENTZ at 1;500 FT and then climbed to 2;000 FT. After the Departure Controller radar identified me and gave me a climb to 5;000 FT; he informed me I was supposed to maintain 1;500 FT until crossing a point that I was not familiar with. It was not clear to me if he was referring to a radial of a navaid or a DME fix. All I could make out was 'just so you know; you are to maintain 1;500 FT until 160'. I did not think it was appropriate to debate the Controller at that time; I just apologized and continued on the Controller's instructions. The RUUDY4 SID does not contain any instructions like that of what the Controller said. I think there may have been some misunderstanding between all of the last minute clearance changes. To my knowledge there were no other aircraft affected by my departure and neither myself nor the Controller made a major issue out of it. In the future I will ask for clarification to everything I have not heard or understood 100%.




Synopsis: The single pilot of a CE560 was advised by departure Controller that he had climbed to 2;000 MSL prematurely while departing TEB on the RUUDY RNAV SID although he believed he had maintained 1;500 MSL to WENTZ as charted prior to climbing to 2;000 MSL.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: NHK.TRACON, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E NHK
ATC / advisory: TRACON NHK
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Receiving flight following from Patuxent Approach. [I] was cruising at 3;000 feet when Controller advised that I was about one mile from penetrating a restricted area. I was told to turn to a heading of 090 and vectored away from R-4006. I did not penetrate the restricted area. After landing; I confirmed my understanding that R-4006 begins at 3;500 feet to FL250. As I was cruising at 3;000 feet; I did not understand. I contacted Patuxent via land line and was advised that an 'Altitude Reservation' was in effect; extending the restricted area to the surface. I did receive a standard weather briefing prior to the flight and there was no mention of an 'Altitude Reservation'. If I would not have chosen to receive a standard briefing; I would have been unaware of the Altitude Reservation and would have penetrated restricted airspace.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported confusion regarding a restricted area that was subject to an 'Altitude Reservation' procedure.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Cloudy
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was working Local 2 which controls runway 26L. Aircraft X was on final for RWY26R. The weather was marginally VFR but cloudy and rainy. I saw Aircraft X's data tag show up on the ASDE-X (Airport Surface Detection Equipment -X) as if he was lined up to land on taxiway Bravo instead of RWY26R. Taxiway Bravo is the center taxiway between RWY26R & RWY26L. I yelled 'GO AROUND' to the Local 1 controller without having a chance to say the reason; the call sign or where he was located. The Local 1 controller instantly issued the 'Go around' instructions although at that point; it was clear that Aircraft X was touching down on RWY26R. 1. I would recommend some sort of Tech ops intervention into the situation to help determine why it occurred. It's especially important for Tech-ops to look into the equipment and get it fixed. This is a top priority!!2 Other controllers indicated a similar event occurring to them with the aircraft tagged up and lined up as if to land on taxiway Bravo when instead they landed on the runway.




Synopsis: ATL Tower Controller reported a false ASDE-X alarm causing another controller to issue go around instructions to an aircraft that was touching down.