elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MGJ.Airport, NY
Weather elements / visibility: 15
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E MGJ
ATC / advisory: CTAF MGJ
Second aircraft: Bonanza 35
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During an approach for runway 03 I entered a left downwind via a 45 degree entry. I determined the runway in use via ASOS and other aircraft in the pattern. Just after making the self-announce transmission on CTAF; my passenger and I both observed a Beech Bonanza opposite direction and descending to pattern altitude; approaching head on. I applied strong forward pressure on the yoke to effect a rapid and immediate descent. We passed under the other aircraft by approximately 50 feet. No other transmissions were heard from the incident aircraft; however two other aircraft on the frequency in the same pattern did answer. As I observed the Bonanza begin a wide; climbing turn to enter the pattern behind us; and still heard no transmissions; I announced their positon for the other aircraft. As I was taxiing to the ramp; I made my last transmission for the other aircraft as I observed them touching down. They finally made a transmission stating; 'We are on the frequency; what is the problem?' I did not reply. My guess; is that the CTAF frequency is one that is not common (122.72); and may have not been known by the other aircraft. The other aircraft descending into the pattern did not make for scanning for traffic easy. It was pure luck that we missed one another.




Synopsis: A C150 pilot reported taking evasive action to prevent airborne conflict with an aircraft entering approach pattern to an uncontrolled airport and not communicating their intentions on CTAF.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: At approximately 25 NM from DAWNA and descending through FL180; we experienced moderate wake turbulence from a preceding G-IV. The airplane recovered initially; however the second blast of disturbed air knocked the autopilot off with some pretty good upsets. I decided to maneuver the aircraft upwind (south of course) with a momentary level off; as the winds were out of that direction and should have helped the situation. I instructed my First Officer to notify ATC immediately but the frequency was pretty tied up. We hit a third round of wake turbulence after now paralleling the course 3/4 dot left; approximately 1.5 miles. Finally getting in touch with ATC and explaining our situation followed by a return to the KAYOH FIVE Arrival and instructing ATC of the need to remain above the glide path of the G-IV; we continued on the arrival and approach for a normal landing.Looking back; the only thing I would have done differently is hit the ID button to flash the ATC scope; possibly alerting the Controller that we needed to break in on the conversation. Maybe even squawking 7700 if we weren't able to reach ATC or get back on course in a timely manner. I didn't execute my emergency authority because I wasn't even a full dot off course and still was able to get back on course and make the altitude and speed restrictions.




Synopsis: CE-750 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence descending through FL180 in trail of a G-IV on arrival into SNA.
Date: 202101
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other All Phases
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
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: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Throughout the nearly two hour flight; customers part of X organization group refused to comply with the mask policy; repeatedly laughing and mocking us when we attempted to enforce the policy. Compliance simply did not occur. FA A and C spoke many times with various members of the group; to no avail. FA A and C also spoke with adult leaders of the group; who did nothing to encourage compliance. We requested leadership meet the flight upon landing; and we recommend the offending customers be denied further transport on our airline. Our request to deny them travel was not granted by leadership in ZZZ. The offending group of customers were allowed to continue on to their next flight.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a group of passengers did not comply with face mask policy throughout the flight.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working R42 by myself. I noticed a red alert on my URET coming from Denver 9. What a shock! I ran the routes out on both aircraft and noticed that they were on collision courses at the same altitude. I called my Front Line Manager (FLM) over. By this time Denver 9 was handing both aircraft off to me. When [The FLM] looked at it he snickered and said; 'Well; I guess you'll have to call Denver 9 and have them turn Aircraft Y to the left. Aircraft Y was south of Aircraft X and the winds were from the south at 70+ knots. Turning Aircraft Y to the north would increase his speed because the wind would be behind him. So if I told Denver 9 to turn Aircraft Y to the north; and he picked up speed; and we lost separation; then it would be my fault. Besides; I thought that the FLM was supposed to call the Denver FLM immediately upon noticing a Denver Special to bring it to their attention! Nope! [FLM] walked away and left it all up to me. I called Denver 9 and professionally told him that Aircraft Y and Aircraft X were coming together at the same altitude. He said; 'OK.' Denver 9 took the hand off back on Aircraft Y and entered '20L' in the fourth line of the data block. I took the hand off on both aircraft. Aircraft Y passed 7 miles behind Aircraft X 10 miles inside our boundary. If I wouldn't have called Denver 9 and alerted them to the situation and I would have had a 'stuck mic' or Aircraft Y went NORDO we surely would have lost separation!Promote all Denver controllers to FLM's or OM's and replace them with all new controllers.




Synopsis: ZMP Center Controller reported an airborne conflict. Communication with ZDV ARTCC was cited as a contributor to the event.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: VGT.Airport, NV
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B LAS; Class D VGT
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Other / Unknown
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 New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Med Sector which is the controlling sector for North Las Vegas Airport VGT. There are two standard instrument departures SID; for this airport; one for each departure direction. VGT is approximately seven miles from Mccarran Airport LAS. There has been a problem with pilots operating to and from VGT straying close and impacting traffic at LAS. In two instances confusion regarding routing out of VGT caused IFR aircraft to stray close to LAS and impact traffic at LAS. On the first instance a flight was given a clearance to depart a runway but given the wrong SID which served the other runway. The pilot did not question the clearance but instead flew a route that was not proper for either SID but instead impacted traffic at LAS. On the second instance a Citation was issued the correct SID for the runway; but instead flew directly toward LAS; until he was finally corrected to fly away from LAS. Upon analysis of the two situations; and considering the history of pilot and controller error at this airport; and considering the risk involved to the pilots at VGT and LAS due to proximity of traffic and terrain this is a problem that needs to be addressed. I do not have an answer or solution; except that more training of pilots and controllers; and an ability to confirm that pilots and controllers are on the 'same page' reference operations at VGT. The current culture at L30 is that you must protect for anything that may happen; because it does! The procedures when followed correctly are very safe; if not exactly efficient. As a Controller I feel that management has dropped the ball of responsibility; and I am put in a no-win position under the current culture. I feel that management owe the pilots and controllers a better system to ensure compliance with the procedures at VGT; and an emphasis on safety is continued.




Synopsis: L30 Controller voiced concern regarding the current SID procedures from VGT; the reporter describing two recent events that indicate the SIDs can be problematic for other traffic being handled by L30.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 8
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Traffic Watch
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Fatigue; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ATC issued a vector of 010 for traffic and ATC immediately issued a traffic advisory of a Citation on approach at my '3 o'clock.' I mistakenly turned to 100. A few seconds later I saw the Citation coming directly at me (not at my 3 o'clock) at the same altitude less than 1 NM away. Quickly evaluated which direction the Citation was flying and took an evasive descending left turn and reported to ATC 'Citation in sight we are making an evasive left turn.' ATC did not respond. During my turn the Citation initiated a climbing left turn and reported to ATC that they 'Received a Resolution Warning and that was way too close' ATC asked if they were abandoning the approach but the Citation decided to continue and contacted ZZZ tower. Later ATC clarified with me that he had issued 010 and I had flown a 100 heading. Fatigue was most likely a factor in the mistake; since we were 10 minutes away from the end of a 3.5 hour morning shift.




Synopsis: A Traffic Watch pilot reported a near-mid-air-collision with a Cessna Citation after making a heading deviation likely due to fatigue.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: S36.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: CTAF S36
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
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; 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: We were doing traffic pattern work and making radio calls in the pattern. After a go-around; we turned into the crosswind after calling the go-around on CTAF. After we turned crosswind for runway 15; we noticed a high-wing plane on the 45 entry; basically on the downwind at that point. No radio calls were made by that aircraft. As I made another radio call; that aircraft called on the downwind for rwy 15. I had to take evasive action to avoid him; and rejoin the pattern. Both aircraft exchanged radio transmissions regarding the incident. That pilot seemed to simply ignore the fact that other planes were in the pattern; refusing to give way to my aircraft; which was already in the pattern. He claims that since some pilots don't use radios that I should keep an eye out for other airplanes. He did have a radio; and chose not to use it appropriately; and chose not to give way to aircraft in the pattern; despite him having the better perspective coming from outside and presumably monitoring the frequency for my transmissions.




Synopsis: C172 reported an NMAC with another high wing aircraft in the pattern at S36.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climb out through 12000 ft. we heard a bang from the left side of the airplane followed by a non-normal vibration. We noticed the number two engine rolling back. Captain assumed flying duties. I worked the radios. The observers handled the QRH. We complied with the non annunciated engine failure checklist in the QRH and secured the engine. We [advised] ATC; leveled at 15;000 ft. and setup return to ZZZ and emergency landing. ATC vectored us to Runway XXR and we had a normal landing. We stopped on the runway. Airport Fire Rescue inspected the airplane for damage as well as a thermal scan for fire. We were given the all clear by Airport Fire Rescue. We taxied to the gate and shutdown without further incident.Crew all performed exactly as expected. We worked together as a team. The airplane flew well with one engine shutdown. We took our time and did not rush. ATC gave us exactly what we asked for and performed flawlessly. Airport Fire Rescue also provided exactly the support we needed. The non-annunciated Engine Failure checklist is hard to find in the QRH; especially during a stressful situation. At a previous airline; we had a catch all Engine Fire; Failure; Severe Damage or Separation Checklist under the immediate action items section in the QRH.




Synopsis: B747 First Officer reported an inflight engine failure caused an air turnback and precautionary emergency landing
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Second aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were conducting a long cross country for the student's commercial pilot requirements. This required us to deviate west and south of course due to not being cleared into the Class Bravo airspace and Class D airspace. We had a near miss with a powered parachute. The other operator was slightly below us; heading westbound. Our altitude at the time was 3500 feet eastbound; with flight following. Weather conditions were VMC; clear and unrestricted. Both I and the student were actively scanning for traffic outside due to the busy Bravo environment and using ADS-B to aid us. Since he was slightly below us; we did not see him until close; less than 1 mile separation and probably closer. I directed the student to immediately turn left to pass behind; but he started turning slowly; so I took controls to avoid the situation. The powered parachute passed behind; and we continued without further incident. The parachute's color caused it to really blended in until we were close. We were attempting to spot all traffic visually; but did not see them until late. I'm unsure if the parachute operator ever saw us; as we would've been coming out of the sun off his roughly 3 to 4 o'clock. I did not report this to Approach; mainly since we ourselves were getting into a high workload environment since we were close to our destination. Additionally; with the traffic was behind us; I was more concerned with flying the airplane and watching for other traffic; especially since it is a busy general aviation airport. That was probably my biggest self recommendation; is trying to report that if able to approach to warn other aircraft. The only other recommendation for myself is to be a little clearer when I need to assume controls.




Synopsis: An Instructor pilot reported a NMAC with a powered parachute.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While taxiing southeast our left wing tip apparently struck the elevator of the aircraft [on the adjacent taxiway]. We taxied back to the gate. No reported injuries to passengers or crew.


Second narrative: During taxiing; we were transitioning from taxiway A to taxiway B via intersection A6. As we approached intersection A7; there was an Air Carrier Y aircraft attempting to transition to taxiway A via A7. We maneuvered to the right to avoid Air Carrier Y and attempt to reposition back on center line of taxiway B. At that point I felt a shudder of our aircraft and we stopped. I told ground that we needed to stop on the taxiway to figure out what caused the shudder. We were then told by an aircraft behind us that our left wing tip and the empennage of the Air Carrier Y plane at A7 had clipped one another. Cause: Lack of training stressing the importance of how much bigger the wingtip is when taxiing when taxiing an A321 aircraft.


Synopsis: A321 flight crew reported their wingtip made contact with another aircraft's empennage during taxi.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Wake turbulence encounter at FL350 7 miles in trail of Boeing 757 at same altitude that resulted in roll up to 15 degrees to left and autopilot disengagement and ROLL AUTHORITY; ROLL AUTHORITY announcement. We were behind [the B757] on the GLAVN2 arrival to ATL with a direct 30 kt tailwind.  We were not informed of type of aircraft we were following and had no reason to suspect wake turbulence would be an issue.  We recovered from unexpected roll by rolling wings level and increased in trail separation; followed by descent clearance to clear the 757 wake.  No injuries or complaints from passengers or cabin crew.  We were not made aware of type aircraft we were following; but asked immediately after the event. Advise 737 aircraft when they are in trail of 757.




Synopsis: B737-900 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence at FL350 7 miles in trail of a B757. Reporter stated they were not advised of possible wake.