elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HNL.Airport, HI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower HNL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing on Runway 26L and exiting at the high speed taxiway RM; Honolulu Tower provided the following taxi instruction. 'Taxi RB; B; S; Hold Short Runway 26R.' Upon turning onto taxiway S; I overshot the hold short line. About the same time I noticed I had overshot the hold short line; both the First Officer and the Jumpseat observer; said 'Hold Short'! I stopped well short of the runway; but clearly beyond the Hold Short line. ATC issued a go-around clearance to an aircraft on final to 26R.Momentary distraction and loss of situational awareness. I brought the aircraft to a complete stop; well short of the runway; but over the hold short line. Better situation awareness and vigilance regarding becoming distracted in the vicinity of an active runway.In over 30 years of flying; this is the first time; I have become distracted in the vicinity of the runway; and not stopped at the correct time and place. I am completely mortified. The fault was mine; and mine alone. Both of the other pilots reacted in an exemplary manner and time.


Second narrative: When approaching an active runway; the flight crew should verbally confirm with each other the current ATC instructions (Hold Short vs. Cross) and do better at alleviating any distractions.


Synopsis: An A330 flight crew reported crossing the hold short line for HNL Runway 26R when they became distracted during the taxi.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Aircraft component: Air Data Computer
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Encountered wake turbulence on short final into LAX; Runway 24R; north of the new stadium. This resulted in several EICAS messages. Crew discussed missed approach. Decided to continue to land; as the airplane was being hand flown in visual conditions. After landing; in-flight EICAS messages disappeared and new EICAS messages appeared (ADS Probes Fail). Error messages probably caused by disagreeing readings between the ADS probes caused by wake turbulence. Greater spacing on final into airports.




Synopsis: EMB-175 First Officer reported encountering wake turbulence on approach to Runway 24R at LAX; and recommended increased spacing.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RIC.Airport, VA
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C RIC
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Training / Qualification; Fatigue; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Two arrivals into RIC got very close to each other during the first couple minutes of training. There were very tough winds today. The first aircraft turned into the wind and immediately slowed down 100 knots. The second aircraft was turned on final behind him and separation was lost.The trainee recognized it and turned the second aircraft out. However; when turning the aircraft back to final the aircraft took an extremely long turn and broke separation with Aircraft Z who was also inbound to RIC.I am extremely stressed and tired today. I barely slept last night due to the government shutdown. But I am required to come to work because no leave is available. I tried to plug in to get my trainee some time on position training; but I should have refused to train him due to lack of sleep/stress.Shut down all of the NAS or fund the government. I am not the only stressed and tired controller. Loss of sleep is impacting my reaction time.




Synopsis: Potomac TRACON Instructor reported a loss of separation while training due in part to fatigue and distractions.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: FFZ.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D FFZ
ATC / advisory: Tower FFZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Taking off from FFZ; I was cleared for takeoff on Runway 4R and to maintain runway heading. I lifted off and accelerated to Vy speed and rotated and continued climb at Vy speed of 80 MPH. At the midfield point I was advised of crossing traffic and I spotted traffic to my left and I pushed the nose down and had crossing traffic pass directly over me by a few hundred feet; shortly after I was cleared to proceed on course.I think the Controller used poor judgment in allowing traffic below pattern altitude to pass over an aircraft taking off. Lacking timely action; there would have been a mid air collision midfield over the runway.




Synopsis: A pilot departed FFZ Runway 4R and was advised of crossing traffic from which he took evasive action at 1;700 FT allowing conflicting traffic to cross directly above at about 300 FT.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: While working a routine/normal sequence to the LAX 'North Final 24R' which is considered the 'Stadium' position; I vectored Aircraft X from the DARTS way point to the downwind to follow another aircraft. While on the modified downwind vector; I noticed Aircraft X 'data tag' or 'secondary' go into 'coast' or 'CST' mode. I also noticed that the primary target disappeared. Even though I noticed it; I didn't give it much attention because I figured the secondary would re-acquire and go back to normal. But that's not what happened; within 5 seconds of going into 'CST' mode; the secondary completely disappeared along with the primary target.I was totally caught off guard by this and began to question the pilot about his transponder status. With prompting from a fellow controller; I told the pilot; 'radar contact lost'. The pilot responded by saying he was; 'climbing back up to five thousand.' Not sure why he did that; but I acknowledged by saying 'roger' and I continued to work my sequence while also trying to figure out what type of non-radar service I was going to provide the pilot. But within 15-20 seconds; the primary target began to reappear and within another 10 seconds; the secondary re-acquired. From there I had the pilot 'ident' and I radar identified him and continued to work him into my flow. Once I vectored him onto the final I asked the pilot what happened to his transponder and he responded by saying; 'the number one transponder failed'. I guess that's why we lost the secondary target; but it doesn't explain why we would lose the primary target as well for as long as we did.With limited knowledge on what could have caused this issue; my instincts tell me this was a Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) malfunction of some sort. Even if an aircraft loses their secondary radar capabilities; our radar equipment should still provide us with a primary return and in this case; it did not.




Synopsis: SCT TRACON Controller reported losing the data tag; secondary beacon and primary target on an aircraft on downwind. Pilot reported transponder failure when questioned; Controller wondered why all contact was lost and an assumption that it had to do with STARS Radar was made.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: WSJC.ARTCC, FO
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center WSJC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Similar call signs continue to be a problem after years of complaining about this. Singapore ATC pointed out confusion over similar call signs both on frequency. This is something that consistently happens out here. I have written safety reports in the past about this problem. With a language barrier already; why is this practice continued? Stop assigning similar call signs in the same area at the same time of day.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported they routinely encounter aircraft with similar sounding call signs.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical/Electronic Panel & Parts
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon liftoff; numerous failures occurred nearly simultaneously. They included both transponders; both VHF NAV Control Transfer switches; and the number 2 COMM. We initially concentrated on flying the aircraft to a safe altitude so we could troubleshoot the issue. We did not find any popped CBs. ZZZ was good; and this time we were half way there on this short flight. After an uneventful approach and landing; we called ZZZ Maintenance. When they removed the failed components; they found evidence that liquids had been spilled on the center pedestal. This came to a surprise to us as we had not spilled any.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported simultaneous; multiple communication and navigation equipment failures. The flight was able to continue to the destination airport where it was discovered that a liquid spill had caused the failures.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Turbulence
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft was enroute VFR; pilot stated they started to encounter mist and decided they better go IFR. Pilot requested and received an IFR clearance from Center Sector XX. A relief briefing then took place at RXX. Ten minutes after the pilot requested IFR and requested direct [their destination]. A minute later; the pilot stated they needed to divert. At this point the aircraft was at [FL]130. Controller issued direct [a nearby airport]. The Controller asked the pilot what type of icing he was getting; the pilot stated it was just a trace of rime. A short time later the Controller asked [the C172] if he wanted lower. The pilot stated he did and the Controller gave the aircraft [FL]110. As the aircraft started the descent the MSAW alert activated the aircraft was a mile north of a 128 TAV (ERAM Terrain Alert Volume) heading towards pilot peak a 10;716 FT mountain. As the aircraft passed into the 128 TAV the Controller asked the pilot to climb to 130. The pilot stated he would rather not but accepted the clearance. The Controller did not issue a low altitude alert. A minute later the pilot stated he was unable to climb and was in a descent. At first the pilot stated it was icing. The Controller issue a 180 turn to exit the 128 TAV. At this point the aircraft is one mile north of pilot peak at [FL]108. The aircraft then experiences mountain wave and pilot stated he was in an uncontrolled climb and then descent aircraft was observed at 096 in a 128 TAV. The pilot regained control of the aircraft and the further north he got from the peak was able to climb back to [FL]110. The Controller then vectored the aircraft around the 128 TAV. The aircraft exited the snow and was in the clear just north of [the divert airport]. The pilot stated they had [the airport] in sight and the Controller issued a visual approach. The aircraft was still over restricted airspace hot from SFC to 100. The aircraft did not enter the restricted airspace on the visual but did in the mountain wave event earlier. Controller knowledge of TAV's and requirements of actions needed when aircraft below MIA.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described a below MIA event involving an aircraft encountering icing and a controller issuing an incorrect routing.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 80
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 6
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Climb
Airspace: Class G ZBW
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
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: I loaded our Cessna 206 for a 20 minute scenic air tour. When I was taxiing out another pilot flying a C-182 asked if he could follow me down to the end of the runway and take off behind me. I said yes. On takeoff I flew straight out for about 1.5 miles and started a left turn out of 2700 ft. southbound on a heading of 185 degrees. At some point the pilot in the C-182 took off and made a left climbing turn inside my turn. I did not hear him call his departure. We met up at the same place about 2.5 miles west of the airport. I saw him at about 50 ft. above me as I was heading south. I pushed the yoke forward to miss him. As I continued on a southerly heading now at 5300 ft. I looked to my right and I watched the C-182 heading toward me at the same altitude; this time on my right side. I called the pilot to make sure he saw me the second time. After a short hesitation he said he spotted me. I also pointed out another float plane to him at his 12 o'clock. This all took place in a matter of 8 minutes.




Synopsis: C206 pilot reported an NMAC with another light aircraft in the vicinity of airport.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation; General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A green laser was emitted from the ground to the cockpit of Aircraft X. The flight conducted was a night flight for personal reasons. The green laser was emitted to the cockpit multiple times from the location. The SIC (second in command); reported blurry vision within the first few seconds and PIC reported a very bright flash. The aircraft was around 4;700 ft MSL (mean sea level) at the time. I tried contacting Approach; ZZZ1 UNICOM; flight services and 121.5 for assistance. Unfortunately; we were not being received on any of those frequencies. Therefore I called 911. I was advised by the operator that deputies would be dispatched. Moments after the laser was emitted into the cockpit; SIC diverted and flew away from the location. At this time; we headed back to ZZZ and contacted Approach. After contacting approach; we advised them of the situation and reported injuries from the incident. I still have blurry vision as I'm typing this report; but will try to 'sleep it off.' The altitude was approximately between 4;500 ft and 5;000 ft MSL. Please let me know if any other information is required for this report.




Synopsis: Private Pilot reported green laser emittance inflight which resulted in affecting the vision of a passenger.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
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: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were on the ZZZZZ5. The previous frequency gave us an altitude clearance to cross ZZZZZ at FL 240. In the descent; we were given a frequency change. Upon checking in; we gave our clearance limit to cross ZZZZZ at FL240. A little later; ATC gave us the clearance 'Descend to Flight Level 200.' The Pilot Monitoring read back 'Descend to FL 200.' Using VVMI; Pilot Flying verbalized 'Descend to FL 200;' as 200 was set in the MCP. Pilot Monitoring verified 200 in the MCP. To keep the aircraft from leveling off early; the Pilot Flying verbalized using the Altitude Intervention button to get rid of the altitude restrictions ZZZZZ FL 240; ZZZZZ1 FL 230; and ZZZZZ3 FL 220. Pilot Monitoring verified. Both Pilot Flying and Pilot Monitoring verified VNAV PATH. As we got closer to ZZZZZ; ATC queried if we were going to cross ZZZZZ at FL 240. Pilot Monitoring stated that 'Negative; we were given Descend to FL 200.' ATC stated that 'The descend to FL 200 was after ZZZZZ and to expedite to FL 200 for crossing traffic.' Pilot Flying expedited to FL200. We crossed ZZZZZ at FL 264. We landed at our destination without further incident. Using RRM and ABCD; we debriefed that we heard and read back 'Descend to FL 200.' Which deleted any previous altitude restrictions. We also discussed that we believed that the Controller may have intended for the ZZZZZ restriction; but did not used the terminology 'After ZZZZZ; descend to FL 200.'




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported a communications breakdown between flight crew and ATC which resulted in a crossing altitude misunderstanding due to a 'descend to' clearance.