elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Clear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I started engine with improper throttle setting engine fired plane lunged forward striking a parked 172 with outer portion of my left wing; resulting in minimal damage to both aircraft. Better adherence to the checklist may have prevented this incident.




Synopsis: C152 pilot reported the aircraft lunged forward while starting; contacting another aircraft parked nearby.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, 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
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a training flight; I was making routine calls as we were entering a local practice area and visually scanning as I was teaching my student steep turns. After our first steep turn; I had noted a landing light very close to us when we rolled out and realized there was a [light twin] on a collision path with us. I made a descending right turn in order to avoid a collision. We descended to 2;500; did clearing turns; made a call and continued maneuvering. After my student performed another steep turn; we had an issue with the same [aircraft] at the same altitude heading straight towards us. I had to make another evasive turn and asked the [other aircraft] to report on frequency. A pilot responded from the aircraft saying 'Yeah; we have you in sight.' My student got too worked up to continue maneuver so we continued flying towards a local non-towered airport in order to practice landings and non-towered entry. I was monitoring the practice area frequency and making calls on both the CTAF and the practice area as we descended. I noted an aircraft behind us at the same altitude; not making any calls. As I begun to visually scan; the same [aircraft] was about 100 feet above us and within 1;000 feet of us. They were so close that I could see the Instructor. I made an evasive descending right turn and after I rolled out I heard the same [aircraft] report at our same altitude heading towards the same airport (first CTAF report was 2 miles from downwind). My student and I followed the [aircraft]; made a full stop and watched him do a touch and go.




Synopsis: A flight instructor and student pilot observed another aircraft in the area while performing practice maneuvers. After encountering the same aircraft again; they exited the area; only to find that the subject aircraft close behind them. The close proximity along with the lack of communication on the practice area frequency and the CTAF frequency made the instructor uncomfortable with the situation.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Executed a Go Around at about 200ft.We got hit by the wake turbulence which pushed [us] off the center line making the approach unstable.Captain called [the] go around. We executed the go around. Tried a second approach on the same runway without any other incident.


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


Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew reported executing a go-around at CLT after encountering wake turbulence at 200 feet on the approach.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Tank Cap
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [We were] on takeoff; experienced partial power loss due to fuel venting overboard because fuel caps were not reinstalled. [We] turned back for immediate return to field. [We] continued to experience power reduction and altitude loss. Did emergency landing but failed to activate gear-down.




Synopsis: During takeoff following a refueling stop; the pilot of a Piper PA32 experienced a loss of power due to the failure to properly install the fuel caps. The return to the field was sucessful; however the pilot neglected to lower the landing gear; resulting in a gear-up landing.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: It was our last leg of a three days trip. One of the contributing factors to this event was a wake turbulence encounter we had on final approach. It was very intense and it took most of my attention even after the recovery and safe landing. We were taxiing into the gate and the ramp personnel gave us guidance to park the airplane. As we were given the signal to stop; I pressed the brakes and reached for the parking brake handle and raised it upwards.Looking up at the MFD; I verified that the APU was up and two minutes had gone by. I shut down the engines and did my parking flow. I am not sure whether or not the parking brake was actually set.After parking; I got this weird feeling and I was looking up and I saw the ramp personnel signaling at me. I realized the airplane moving slowly backwards and I looked down at the parking brake handle and realized it was not set. I immediately pressed the brakes and set the parking brake. Ramp wanted us to move forward. I asked for a tug and was towed back in.I let the wake turbulence encounter distract me. When an event like this happens; I should put it aside and concentrate on the next task at hand. In addition; I should not fall into complacency when performing my flows and make sure that each items is performed and executed correctly. This is a human and procedural error that should have been avoided.




Synopsis: E175 Captain reported that distraction resulted in failure to set the parking brake and caused the aircraft to roll backwards several feet.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Manuals; MEL; Human Factors; Logbook Entry
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: Upon arriving at the airplane we were told by Maintenance that the backlight for the Rudder Trim Indicator was inoperative. Maintenance proceeded to troubleshoot and chose to MEL the backlight. Maintenance completed the MEL process and I wrote the MEL as well as our Dispatcher's time and initials on the Master Flightplan but I do not recall if I wrote the same information on the Station Flightplan. Out of an abundance of caution I decided to file a [report] in the event that I did not properly annotate the Station Copy.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported possibly completing MEL process paperwork incorrectly across different platforms.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ; Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: I was training my trainee at Sector X only.  We had all of the airspace combined as well due to COVID traffic (normal).  My trainee pointed out Aircraft Y to Sector Y in ZZZZ center.  They were combined with Sector Z as well.  They approved the point out on Aircraft Y and then started a hand off on an aircraft we did not know about or see yet (Aircraft X).    Neither of us said anything because we did not know what aircraft [in] Sector Y was talking about.   After about 3; 4 seconds of silence from my trainee; Sector Y said 'disregard.'  So we never took the hand off.  A couple minutes later; Aircraft X checked on out of about 160 for FL230.  Sector A airspace was hot FL180 - FL230 with 4 drones delaying.  There was no data block displayed; but we eventually found the limited data block and pulled it up and stole track control and immediately my trainee told Aircraft X to descend and maintain 170 to miss the airspace. Prior to stealing the track; the status of who had track control was listed 'Unknown.'  My trainee said it was OK if he was already above 170; but to descend anyways.  He was climbing really well and got up to about 185 before starting back down.  Aircraft X may have clipped the Sector A airspace for a hit or two while descending.  Safety was never compromised because we had clear radar on all 4 other type aircraft and the closest one was well south of where Aircraft X was 15-20 miles.  I would have intervened if safety was at risk and vectored the aircraft away from danger.Just [need] better coordination and more timely hand off from the north.  Maybe a heads up prior to departure on ZZZZ departures entering our airspace due to proximity to our airspace.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported a hand off issue with adjacent airspace resulting in an airspace violation.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EBBR.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 129
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After a normal takeoff and departure out of Brussels; we received a chilling message from Paris ATC; asking if our aircraft was OK. They had received a message from Brussels stating that one of our aircraft wings was not deiced correctly. A radio call to BRU station revealed that one of our wings was sprayed with 100 percent water instead of the 50/50 type II Echo Wing that was relayed to us during the deicing report. The airplane had a covering of snow and ice on both wings before departure which was the reason we requested deicing. We also received several ACARs messages from our Dispatcher confirming this potentially disastrous situation. There is an obvious problem with the BRU new deicing procedures. Why did the ground personnel deicing our aircraft wait so long to relay their concerns to us? We could have rolled the airplane on takeoff if the conditions had been worse. BRU deicing personnel did not follow the new deicing procedures or were not trained properly. From now on I will be doing a cabin inspection of the wings after being deiced. I have no confidence in these new procedures.




Synopsis: A Captain reported he was notified from EBBR after takeoff that they had been improperly deiced on the ground.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: P50.TRACON, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E P50
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: On the arrival into IWA; we were descending towards SHOCK intersection when we were promptly given holding instructions 15 NM prior to the fix to hold as published. We complied and entered the hold. While holding we were told that PHX TRACON had to evacuate due to a fire alarm. PNF updated the passengers and alerted dispatch via an email. Our Expect Further Clearance (EFC) then got extended while holding. We then decided to ask to continue to our destination via VFR. We were currently at 11;000 feet and 200 KTS. We could see IWA airport and proceed visually and safely under the Class Bravo that was closing due to the fire alarm. Center gave us this clearance and then passed us off to IWA Tower as we were about 40 NM to the north. While transitioning to the field; Tower updated us that PHX approach was back on line. So for a brief couple minutes; we were back on an IFR clearance to then join a base for a visual approach and re-contact IWA Tower.I'm not sure how to avoid this situation again. As per our SOP; we can't fly VFR. But common sense was to get help via Center and fly VFR while talking to Tower as we approached. Because as they continued to extend our EFC; it didn't seem right to jump through all the hoops to remain IFR that could have led us to an unneeded diversion; costs; and delay to our passengers.




Synopsis: EMB-145 FO reported the flight crew decided to proceed to an alternate VFR when PHX TRACON shut down because of a fire.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying a VFR cross country to ZZZ. After an uneventful flight I smelled fumes in the cockpit approximately 5 minutes before landing. I contacted the tower and advised them of a small issue on board and that I would like to land as soon as practical. The fumes started making me dizzy and I got disoriented. I notified tower of my disorientation and they vectored me to land. They later switched me to a different runway; so I could make a straight in approach. Once I was situated on final I made a normal landing on runway XX and taxied to the FBO where I shutdown and vented the aircraft.I believe contributing factors to the incident events was an unfamiliarity with the airport I was flying into. While I had an airport diagram on board and had studied the airport layout in my pre-flight planning I was unfamiliar with the various landmarks around the airport. Had I been more familiar with those landmarks I believe I would not have been disoriented. ATC's vectors helped get me oriented to the point I could make a normal landing. In the future I could be quicker to notify ATC of any issues. The second I started feeling dizzy from the fumes I should have told the Tower that we had fumes in the cockpit and I was feeling dizzy. This could have prevented the disorientation that followed. I also should have opened my cabin windows the second I smelled fumes to get cross ventilation. I also should not have been afraid of declaring an emergency if I felt the situation warranted it. I believe that this incident was a learning experience for me and I have learned steps to mitigate these issues in the future.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported cockpit fumes causing dizziness prior to landing.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As we approached SLIDR on the EAGUL 5 Arrival into PHX; the Captain was pilot flying and was rapidly making changes to the arrival and executing without giving me a chance to verify the changes. At one point as we were about five miles from SLIDR; there was a discontinuity after SLIDR and no arrival loaded. I suggested that the Captain at least put the next fix so that we stay on the correct course for the arrival. The Captain didn't want to do this and kept making changes in the CDU. As we passed SLIDR and the plane continued on its heading due to the discontinuity; the Captain then entered the EAGUL 5 on the Arrival page and this time included the GUP transition. The Captain then put GUP in line select L1 position and executed again without verifying with me. GUP was behind us and the plane began making a 180 degree turn back to GUP. I suggested heading mode; but the Captain was still trying to enter it in the CDU. I reached up and selected heading mode while I announced my action and turned the heading toward the next fix which was TINIZ. The Captain then brought TINIZ up to line select L1; executed; and LNAV was re-engaged. Procedures need to be followed that mandate that all entries to the CDU are verified by the other pilot before executing.




Synopsis: B737-700 First Officer reports the Captain making rapid changes to the FMC without waiting for verification before executing. A track deviation occurs on the EAGUL 5 arrival due to an incorrect entry.