elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were cleared for the approach for the ILS runway 4R when we reached the final approach fix DOOIN intersection we received an RA for an aircraft flying below us coming from our 11 o'clock it passed directly underneath us approximately 500 feet below. The captain and I spotted the aircraft and kept a close eye on it to determine if evasive action was needed. Once cleared I told EWR tower what had happened; they asked if we received an RA and I told them yes. No other action or ATC communication occurred and the flight ended normally. We had been told that a helicopter had us in sight approximately a minute or two earlier and they would maintain visual separation. I am unsure if it was the same aircraft.Communication between air crews and ATC could have been clearer.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported responding to a RA on approach to EWR Runway 4R from an aircraft that passed 500 feet below.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MCF.Airport, FL
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; rain in the area VFR; 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: TBM 700/TBM 850
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: TRACON TPA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post landing
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Myself and three other passengers conducted a flight to TPF on an IFR flight plan. I was PIC and the right seat was occupied by another private pilot (not current) but has over 10;000 flight hours in multi engine aircraft who acted as a safety pilot.Tampa approach cleared us for a visual landing at TPF and cautioned of multiple VFR targets in the area so we switched to TCAS from the GPS screen feeling confident that the field was in sight for the visual approach. As we searched the sky for traffic I apparently locked on to the runway at MacDill instead of TPF and completed a perfect landing to the wrong field. As I looked up from the runway I realized that this was the wrong airport and saw a light gun in the tower as I turned onto D taxiway. I found the ground frequency in my data base and called them for instructions. They said shut down and wait for security to arrive.  We completed all the paperwork with a very professional military and were released on a VFR flight to TPF. I have no real suggestions of how the system could have worked better. It was all my fault in becoming so fixated on the traffic screen that I visually landed at a very close airport with the same orientation on the ground as I expected to see. In the future I would leave an instrument approach up during the visual for a cross check. I have been flying since 1977 and this is the first incident.




Synopsis: Cleared for a Visual Approach to TPF airport; the pilot of a TBM700 mistakenly landed at MCF; a military airport that has a nearly identically oriented runway.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Coalescer Bag
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff/Launch
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After liftoff with a TOGA power takeoff setting; I began to smell a Level 1 dirty sock/metallic odor type smell. After setting climb power and performing the after takeoff checklist; we performed the Flight Crew Operations Manual and Cabin Odor recognition checklists. I donned on oxygen briefly to verify there was no acclimation to the odor as it quickly began to dissipate approximately 5-7 minutes after climb power selection. We queried inflight about the cabin temperature (no mention of odor) to see if they had noticed anything and they said the temperature and cabin was good. Prior to arrival and post-flight we queried the inflight crew directly if they had noticed anything at all in the cabin including odors and they said no. Maintenance was notified via ACARS a detailed logbook entry was made regarding the event and spoke with a maintenance technician directly about our experience during the post-flight workaround.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported a fumes event during takeoff which dissipated after climb power was set. Flight crew continued to destination where maintenance met the aircraft.
Date: 201403
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Other Jet bridge Operations
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Other Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Gate X poses a real safety threat to both equipment and persons. When an arriving aircraft parks at gate the PLB operator is completely blind as to docking the bridge. The PLB operator does not have the ability to have visual contact with the flight deck or crew. Also ramp personnel are not instructed to assist the PLB operator to safely maneuver the bridge for proper docking.




Synopsis: A ramp employee addressed problems associated with safely positioning the PLB (Passenger Loading Bridge) for passenger boarding/deplaning.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: Airbus 318/319/320/321 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Beechcraft Twin Turboprop or Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: An Airbus on vectors to the ILS Runway 30 Approach LGB heading north bound 030. A King Air departed SNA opposite direction on a local VFR code with SBA in his scratch pad. Initial call I ask if he wants flight following to SBA? [It] seemed weird to me that he would come off on a local code to SBA which is out of SCT airspace. He then advised he wanted to pick up his IFR flight plan to SBA. I looked over at the Departure Controller and asked if he would get me his IFR strip to SBA. Since there was no prior coordination; as there usually is when they depart IFR; I had no idea what he wanted. I then realized the Airbus was approaching the final approach course and turned and descended/cleared him for the ILS approach. The King Air was then level at 2;400 FT 2 miles north of the final; I then climbed the King Air and told him to expedite his climb for Airbus traffic 11 o'clock and 3 miles. While I was instructing the King Air to climb; unannounced to me the Airbus started a climb in response to a TCAS RA from the King Air. The King Air; while reading back his climb instructions; advised me that the he had the Airbus in sight and that the Airbus appeared to be climbing. The Airbus then advised that he was responding to a TCAS RA and was climbing. The King Air advised that he was turning right in response to the climbing Airbus. While this was happening; the Towers were opening; the line was ringing from FUL and TOA Tower was calling over the shout line. A heads up would have been nice. It would have saved me coordinating with the King Air.




Synopsis: SCT Controller described a conflict event between a LGB Air Carrier arrival and a VFR King Air departing SNA seeking an IFR clearance; the reporter indicting a heads-up from SNA Tower would have eased the situation.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Climbing through 10;000 FT the FMS would not allow us to accelerate past 225 KTS. We could not figure out why. We reprogrammed the FMS and changed speed in autopilot panel; but we could not get the message of 225 KTS max to go away. Shortly thereafter; we realized we never retracted flaps from flaps 1 position. At this point; we were at 10;000 FT and just under 250 KTS. I completely missed the flaps up call or it was never made.




Synopsis: When their B737-300 wouldn't agree to accelerate beyond 225 KTS; the flight crew discovered they had failed to retract the flaps above the flaps one position after takeoff.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Houston TRACON (I90) airspace is very expansive 200 plus miles wide by 110 plus north-south. There are not enough ASR 9 or 11 RADARs to cover the entire airspace. Fusion has helped integrate long RADARs that allows for standard separation to be applied almost throughout the entire airspace. There is one big safety problem. The lack of weather RADAR displayed on the controller's scopes through the STARS platform. There are large gaps in weather coverage that pose an obvious hazard to the flying public when they ask for vectors around storms that are not displayed. We do not need to have a loss of life tragedy in order to fully understand the problems we have now. This issue needs to be addressed ASAP and made a priority number 1. Is it possible to use the ADS-B weather information from the 12 ground stations that do cover all of our airspace? This seems to be the logical fix and it also would finally provide the pilot and the controller with weather information that is accurate and safe to use all the time.




Synopsis: I90 Controller voiced concern regarding the weather availability on the STARS displays. The reporter suggested the possibility of displaying ADS-B weather information on the STARS displays.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: JAX.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C JAX
ATC / advisory: Tower JAX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were cleared for the visual approach to runway 26 in JAX. We descended to 1600 to intercept the FAF (Final Approach Fix). About 2 miles out from the FAF; we got a G/S* (Glideslope). I followed the glideslope; and just around 1000 ft we got the altitude warning from ATC. I corrected my descent and continued to a visual approach with the VASI (Visual Approach Slope Indicator). I believe we received an erroneous glideslope indication. I was fixated on the glideslope and although I had visual contact with the runway; I couldn't tell we were low until we were coming straight in.


Second narrative: We were cleared for a visual approach to Runway 26 in JAX. We were on a right dogleg to final and proceeded direct DALTN which is the LOM (Locator Outer Marker) and set in 1600' (minimum GS capture altitude) in the altitude window and armed APPR. About 2 miles outside of DALTN the glideslope captured and the pilot flying began to descend with it. As we were descending and still on the dogleg at about 950' Tower gave us an ATC low altitude alert. The descent was stopped and we climbed back to about 1200 feet and rejoined the visual PAPI (Precision Approach Path Indicator) and landed. It appears we captured and followed a false glideslope.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported receiving a low altitude alert while descending on a false glideslope into JAX.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MOB.Tower, AL
Aircraft: Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Other VFR Traffic Pattern
Airspace: Class C MOB
ATC / advisory: TRACON MOB
Second aircraft: Beechcraft / Beech Aircraft Corp Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X in left closed traffic to runway XX.  I gave Aircraft X traffic to follow; an E145; on final. When he reported the traffic in sight; I told him to follow that traffic and additional traffic was Aircraft Y on a 7 mile final.  I was watching helicopter traffic on runway XY.  I looked at Aircraft X and realized the sequence was not going to work.  I cancelled Aircraft X approach clearance and gave him a 050 heading to clear him of the traffic on final.  Aircraft Y called local control stating they are having a near miss with Aircraft X off their nose. I informed Aircraft Y it was Aircraft X; that was on a 050 heading and will continue on it.  I should have extended Aircraft X on the downwind to follow Aircraft Y.




Synopsis: A TRACON Supervisor reported an aircraft declared a NMAC with traffic the reporter had vectored off the final approach course.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: X26.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E X26
ATC / advisory: CTAF X26
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was approaching X26 (Sebastian) VFR from the west. Wind was 090 at 10; favoring Runway 10. Since jumpers were in the air; and their landing spot is directly north of Runway 10; I elected to make a straight-in approach vice a left downwind which would have put me directly over the path of the jumpers. I was attentive to the possibility of other aircraft in the pattern. I called at 15 nm; 10 nm; 5 nm; and 3 nm; each time announcing 'straight in to Runway 10 to avoid jumpers.' On 1.5 mile short final a Cherokee passed approximately 200 feet under me; making a left base for Runway 5. I evaded by pulling up and leveling off. Immediately after the near miss the Cherokee called; 'switching runways to left base; Runway 5.' I called on the CTAF and asked the Cherokee if he saw my aircraft that he had just passed under. He stated 'we saw you at the last second...we thought you were farther out.' After I landed on Runway 10; I saw the Cherokee do a touch and go on Runway 5 then depart the area. Based on the aircraft's severe wing rocking on short final; I assume this was a student pilot performing crosswind training. I never heard a call from the student pilot; and assume the person who answered me was a flight instructor. I had all lights on my aircraft turned on; which included landing light; strobes and position lights.




Synopsis: Pilot of a Velocity reported an NMAC with another light aircraft on approach to X26.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Tablet
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared to taxi from parking ramp to [Runway] XX via Echo and Delta; cross Runway XY.  I began the short taxi out Echo to Delta.  The turn onto Delta is about 45 degrees to the left and that taxiway intersection is about equal distance from XY; which is to the left on Delta and which I was cleared to cross; and XX which was straight ahead on Echo.  I had my iPad in my lap with the taxi diagram displayed.  I believe that as I entered the taxiway intersection; the runway warning activated on the iPad causing me to look down at the iPad taxi diagram right about when I should have been turning.  I looked back up and realized I had gone through the intersection and; I believe; across the runway hold line for XX but short of the actual runway.  I stopped immediately and Ground Control cleared me to continue to taxi onto XX; make an immediate turn to the left onto XY; and then right on Delta to continue to XX.  There was no loss of separation or conflict with other traffic. I should not have looked down at my iPad taxi diagram at that time; but the safety warning of runway proximity with two runways in the immediate vicinity was distracting.  While I should have concentrated on the taxiing; it also does not seem right to not look at electronic safety guidance when it is issuing a warning.  It was further complicated by the fact that I knew I was in the immediate vicinity of a runway that I was cleared to cross.




Synopsis: A BE-35 pilot was distracted to view his iPad's runway warning alert and so as he looked away from his external environment crossed a runway hold short instead of turning onto the taxiway in his clearance.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Communication Systems
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Electronic Device
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Radio static interference was experienced during cruise phase of flight due to a probable cause of a Portable Electronic Device (PED) not set in airplane mode. The forward flight attendant was instructed to check the cabin and verify if any first class passenger was using a PED that may have been the cause of radio static interference. The forward flight attendant refused and failed to comply with flight deck instructions.A PED was not set in airplane mode and the contributing factors are the forward flight attendant may have had her PED not set to airplane mode or a first class passenger may have been using a PED not set to airplane mode. It is unknown; yet highly suspected that this was the probable cause a radio static interference. Ensuring the compliance of flight attendants following policy and procedures regarding the use of PEDs while on duty.




Synopsis: EMB-175 First Officer reported radio static interference which was suspected to be from Flight Attendant or passenger electronic device use.