elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked; Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was told by our company Chief Pilot; my 61.58 check-ride had lapsed after I had been flying PIC for several flights in our aircraft under Part 91. I was told I had operated the aircraft as PIC outside of my 61.58 requirements. I had received a check-ride which I was told was for my PIC currency under 61.58 with our Chief Pilot/Check Airman. My company says they have no record of a signoff of my completion of the 61.58 flight during my 2 month COVID-19 SFAR put forth by the FAA. I was told by my Chief Pilot I am illegally operating as PIC 3 months after I had been evaluated after the check-ride. My usual check-ride month is X; and fell under the SFAR time period and our training facility was essentially closed due to COVID-19; so an in-house check-ride to satisfy my 61.58 requirements was performed; within the SFAR grace period specifications. Apparently my company never logged/lost the flight training records and put me in a situation where I am in violation of 61.58. In the near future my company is going to perform another in-house check-ride with the same Chief Pilot/Check Airman to satisfy my 61.58 requirements. In the meantime I will not be performing any PIC duties going forward until my new signoff is complete.I had understood my 61.58 requirements were to be met that day; so I continued to operate our aircraft as PIC under normal circumstances. It wasn't until I was to be contracted out by my company to ferry an aircraft that this clerical error was discovered in my records. I have a log book entry of this flight occurring and there is company records of this flight occurring as well as a training flight. My company should be held accountable for any issues that arise from this in the future as I performed the check-ride to satisfaction and was under the false assumption that my Check Airman followed through with his paperwork for company records. Going forward; I will now require a copy of my training record for my own personal files.




Synopsis: Corporate pilot reported the company lost or misplaced SFAR (Special Federal Aviation Regulation) records of the pilot's completed check ride during this pandemic period.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Failed
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Enroute from ZZZ to ZZZ1 noticed oil pressure in right engine had dropped to the low end of the green operating arc and noticed a gradual power loss. Due to this issue I decided to divert from my flight plan and land to evaluate potential oil leak. Chose to divert to ZZZ2 as it had a long enough runway; listed to have maintenance services; and other facilities on the field. Notified ATC of plan to divert and location. ATC approved direct to ZZZ2. Enroute to ZZZ2 oil pressure and engine power on the right engine had diminished significantly. Notified ATC of situation and advised ATC. I was cleared for the straight in visual approach to runway 7. As I switched frequencies from approach to tower the engine began to sputter and the oil gauge was showing in the red arc. I declared to tower that I am shutting down the right engine. Tower cleared me to land. Airplane landed safely and taxied to the FBO. No damage was caused and no injuries were sustained.




Synopsis: Pilot flying C402 aircraft reported engine failure inflight resulting in a divert.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MGJ.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E MGJ
ATC / advisory: CTAF MGJ
Second aircraft: PA-24 Comanche
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Trainee
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Student and Instructor practicing touch and go's on Runway 03 at MGJ. On departure leg; climb was established at 80 MPH; heading 30 degrees. Pattern for Runway 03 is left and calls for left turn to crosswind at 1;000 FT MSL. At approximately 800 FT MSL; a Piper PA24 passed approximately 100 FT to our right at the same altitude as our aircraft; headed straight in for Runway 21. After turning crosswind; we could see the aircraft land on Runway 21 (opposite the traffic flow). We heard no calls from this aircraft on CTAF prior to the encounter and were unable to make radio contact. While on downwind; my Instructor observed the aircraft taxiing the wrong way on a one-way taxiway; toward the hangars/refueling point. Approximately fifteen minutes later (while we were still in the pattern); the aircraft departed Runway 03. This time; the pilot did transmit on CTAF for a straight out departure. After takeoff; upon leaving the runway heading; the aircraft turned right (against the pattern); instead of left; as prescribed. Operations personnel identified the aircraft and said that this aircraft was a former tenant at MGJ. I am not aware of any violation committed by me or by my Instructor during this incident; but am reporting it as I think numerous violations were committed by the pilot of the other aircraft.




Synopsis: An PA-24 pilot entered the CTAF MGJ Runway 3 active traffic pattern incorrectly and created a near miss with a Student and his Instructor before landing opposite traffic direction on Runway 21.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46; Tower SEA
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While I was initializing the FMC; I left the runway blank due to the fact I was unsure of the active runway at that time.  Once I completed my cockpit preflight; and was verifying the route; I mistook NEVJO SUMMA (16L) on the LEGS page instead of NEZUG SUMMA (34R).  After takeoff; while switching to Departure and selecting LNAV; the FD started a right turn.  Pilot flying initially started the turn; but we quickly notice the error and started correcting back.  At that time ATC gave us a vector to join the SUMMA7.




Synopsis: Flight crew entered the wrong takeoff runway in the FMC resulting in an incorrect initial turn after takeoff.
Date: 202103
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: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing Rollout
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was in the pattern practicing take-offs and landings. After my fourth landing; the aircraft suddenly started to veer toward the left. The aircraft left the runway and entered the grass to the left of the runway. After an unknown distance; the aircraft came to a stop. There was no apparent damage to the aircraft.




Synopsis: C-182 Pilot reported a runway excursion during landing due to a loss of directional control.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground DCA
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing on Runway 1 at DCA we were cleared to taxi to the gate. We noticed that there was an aircraft just pushed off of our Gate. I stopped well short to see what the aircraft was going to do. Just as I set the brake the aircraft began to taxi. We stayed put as Company had plenty of room to turn right and make his way to Runway 1. As the aircraft approached we noticed he didn't turn right and appeared to accelerate right towards us! Once my F/O (First Officer) and I were both sure he was not slowing down I quickly turned on all my lights while placing my other hand on the thrust levers to go into reverse. At the same time as I turned on the lights; my F/O got on the radio and loudly said 'Company STOP'!!!!! The Company aircraft did come to a quick stop leaving us just enough room between our wing tip and his nose to make a right 90 degree turn to the ramp.Once we were parked at the gate we asked ATC if there was a problem back there and they said that it was their fault and they should have told us to turn right into the ramp area for the other aircraft to pass. ATC saw no issues or urgency in the matter but it appeared to my F/O and I that we almost had one of our aircraft run nose to nose with us while we were stopped.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported a near-collision with a company aircraft on the ramp at DCA.
Date: 201905
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Approximately 8 miles on visual final for 28R Tower informed us that our gate would be occupied and that we would need to plan long landing and expedite to roll out to the end of Runway 28R.  My comment to the crew was I don't expedite anything with a [heavy] jet. I had my non-flying pilot select Auto brakes 2 for a milder brake application and to assist in the longer landing roll out. As we rolled past D intersection Tower then changed the clearance to exit at R intersection and hold short of 28L. I made a harder brake application brought the aircraft to within 10 kts to exit the 90-degree exit R and hold short of 28L. The reason for this [ASRS Report] is: (1) Gate occupancy/unavailability is becoming the norm in SFO causing a serious trend. (2) ATC is normalizing instructing heavy aircraft to expedite landing rolls and to keep their speed and inertia up to roll to the end of the runways.(3) ATC is using this normalization and assuming the aircraft will expedite and sequencing traffic behind at normal mileage for landing separation. This puts pressure for the aircraft on the runway and increases the go-around potential of the aircraft on short final.(4) [Aircraft] Flight Manual sets 10 kts as the speed in which to make turns. On landing roll-out it is necessary to begin slowing in a timely manner to reduce to this speed.(5) The end of the runway can be slippery even when dry due to painted surfaces and rubberized tire marks causing an additional concern.(6) As we sat between the runways on R; waiting for our gate to open (approximately 15 minutes) we witnessed a B757 landing on Runway 28L who was issued a roll-out-to-the-end clearance and expedite and exit at S. This aircraft passed us at least 50 KTS and really braked hard to make exit.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported on more than one occasion the landing instructions to the aircraft from the Tower are changed to accommodate the needs of this airport. The reporter gives examples/reasons for this report.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: TIST.Airport, VI
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Beechcraft / Beech Aircraft Corp Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: 1st leg of the day; during the phase of after landing on my way to the designated cargo parking area I [experienced] a surface incident with a vehicle. I was taxiing the airplane in the non-movement area at slower speed because there is a narrow turn coming up ahead. I spotted a vehicle (Ford F150 with a yellow strobe on the roof) and he was on a completed stop on the vehicle lane and my understanding since he was on a complete stop he was giving way to me. As I keep on approaching he suddenly took off and passed just front of the airplane. Immediately I slammed into the brakes and turn slightly to avoid the truck. He continued on driving. I reported this event to the Ground Controller and Airport Authorities. After post flight was completed there were no sign of tire flat spot or damage to the airplane.Suggestion: Placing painted stop sign on the pavement on the vehicle lane to create awareness.




Synopsis: Beech 1900C pilot reported a near collision on the ramp at TIST when a truck failed to yield.
Date: 202009
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: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Was advised by Flight Attendant approximately 1 hour prior to landing that passenger was non-compliant with face covering policy. I was not advised of any other malicious behavior.Change mask policy or ban passenger.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a Flight Attendant advised that a passenger was non-compliant with face mask policy.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Was exiting aircraft when I noticed jet bridge extension was at such a steep incline that I had to bend down at 5'3' to keep from hitting my head on plane while exiting. The bottom of jet bridge was clearly way above plane surface. I informed gate agent on my way out gate door that the jet bridge was way too high for our aircraft and someone was going to get hurt. He advised that is policy that bottom of jet bridge should fall at top of cone [but] there was no cone to do proper lining [up] of aircraft. This has been a continued problem with lining up jet bridge at a proper location and we have had several passenger injuries from them hitting their heads entering plane as well as elderly passengers with canes or wheelchairs having extreme difficulty walking down extension safely due to the degree of angle of incline. This placement may work on larger aircraft but definitely needs to be done a different way before we have more passenger or crew injuries. My understanding is that this alignment policy had been changed for our aircraft if that is true; apparently gate agents have not been made aware or for some reason have not gotten update.Gate agents are putting the extension part of jet bridge at such an angle it is making boarding and deplaning a hazard for passengers and crew members.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Flight Attendant reported difficulty safely exiting the aircraft because of the steep jet bridge extension angle.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While on visual approach to Runway XXR at ZZZ; hand flown by the Captain; just below 1;000 feet the Captain emphatically asked for read out of the airspeed. Wondering about the reason; I glanced at his PFD (Primary Flight Display) and noticed an abnormal airspeed indication. After determining that the approach was still stable and on target; I informed the Captain that my indications are normal and I am ready and able to continue the approach. At that point the Captain transferred the controls to me; I accepted and continued the approach to an uneventful landing. After arriving at the gate; it was determined that [the] abnormal reading of the Captain's airspeed indication was due to a bird strike which blocked the Number 1 pitot tube. The Captain followed with maintenance procedure and proper reports. Bird strike.




Synopsis: A321 First Officer reported Captain's abnormal airspeed indications as a result of a bird strike.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I cleared Aircraft X out of the Westover MOA to return to SPS. I put 12;000 feet in the altitude portion of the data block; then pressed S and the aircrafts CID; then enter to hand the aircraft off to SPS Approach. I returned to scanning the northern part of my airspace assuming the handoff was flashed to SPS Approach. CSM Tower; OKC Approach; and END Approach then all called me on the shout lines within 10 seconds of each other as I'm trying to take care of their requests and information; multiple aircraft also call in on frequency. As I'm trying to take care of everyone's request; SPS Approach calls and asks if that target is Aircraft X returning to base; I said; 'Yes.' Then I tried to flash a handoff to them again; this time it didn't take again. So I had to RF Aircraft X's flight plan to SPS Approach. Once I did that the aircraft handed off to SPS Approach without any issues. For what ever reason; automation between our two facilities;(ZFW:SPS) isn't always seamless as it needs to be. I know I handed Aircraft X off the first time; and just didn't have time to get back and check the handoff. It would be great if it would work all the time; but we see this automation issue all the time when it comes to handoffs to SPS.Fix the automation so the flight plans consistently pass; so there will not be any missed handoffs.




Synopsis: ZFW Controller reports of automation problem between ZFW and SPS Approach.