elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had not been flying much due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  I was out flying locally to get familiar again with the airplane (just needed to go out and practice).  Departed from ZZZ and flew out west over the lakes.  Then decided to go to ZZZ1 to practice some touch and goes.  In my mind; I was thinking about doing the Touch & Goes.  However; I actually did not say that after I got passed over from ZZZ Approach to ZZZ Tower.  So; in my head; I knew what I was planning on doing; but I allowed my mind to think about other things like the new injectors we had just installed; getting the gear down; looking for other traffic I was to follow; etc.  Then ZZZ Tower told me I was; 'Cleared to Land.'  To my mind; I just ticked off the box - 'have permission;' without carefully thinking about what he said.  He said 'Cleared to Land;' he did not say 'Cleared for the Touch and Go;' but my brain did not pick up on that.  I continued the approach; landed; continued the roll; advanced the throttle and then began to take off again.  I knew I had messed up when the controller asked; 'What are your intentions?'  That is when it sunk in; I had made a mental error and not told him I was planning on doing a Touch and Go.  I was thinking it; but I didn't say it.  I think the best thing I can do is try and make sure I am spending more time flying; so I stay more proficient and more tasks become 'automatic' so that I can focus more of my mind on carefully thinking about each phase of flight; and paying more attention to the phraseology with ATC.  I did apologize to the Controller; a couple times; and he was very nice about it; but pointed out that bad things can happen when they don't know what we pilots are planning on doing - which I completely agree with.




Synopsis: Pilot reported thinking they were cleared for a touch and go; but were given a clearance to land.
Date: 201708
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Lubrication System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The crew sent initial ops control report. [Maintenance control] and power plant were notified about low oil QTY in right engine. Initially the temperature and pressure remained stable. Once the oil pressure began to drop the decision was made to make a diversion. We turned the aircraft towards ZZZ for possible engine failure. The crew was alerted to shut down the right engine. The flight landed safely with no further issues.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported that a B777 flight crew shut down the right engine due to loss of oil quantity and pressure and diverted without incident.
Date: 201403
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Aircraft component: VHF
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: It is insulting to have received notice that the Company is studying the passenger losses created by WiFi being turned off rather than asking why it is being turned off.  The truth of the matter is it frequently must be turned off in order for communications in the cockpit to continue because it frequently creates static/interference/feedback on VHF radios to such a degree that safety is compromised.  I personally suspect this happens when a passenger tries to transmit outgoing messages from a device hooked up to WiFi.




Synopsis: An air carrier flight crew member describes the reasons why crews turn off passenger WiFi access during flight. Static; interference and feedback during VHF communications were listed as some of issues.
Date: 201707
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: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a simulated soft field takeoff from paved runway; on rotation the aircraft veered left and rolled off the side of the runway on to grassy area. Engine power was immediately cut and I used brakes to slow the aircraft to a stop. After shut down and departing aircraft no observable damage took place to the aircraft or airport property; and there were no injuries. Loss of directional control was the result of insufficient right rudder to compensate for left turning tendency during high performance take off. Contributory was lack of recent experience performing this procedure and my resulting slow response to the developing runway departure.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reported departing the paved runway surface while practicing a simulated soft field takeoff.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: HS 125 Series
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Picked up Aircraft X out of maintenance written up by another crew for various items; but none related to avionics. When preflighting the aircraft; in cockpit on Circuit Breaker panel behind co-pilots seat; found the Avionics Master Feeders PS1 CB popped and on the Avionics Master Bypass switches; found the PS1 and PS2 switches selected on. These are items normally not used by pilots. I am concerned this situation may have be done when a 3rd party vendor located out of ZZZ1did when working the airplane and didn't reset the condition they were doing. Either way; with no history on the airplane; we wrote it up for maintenance to troubleshoot.




Synopsis: Hawker 900 Captain reported that an outside vender did not properly return the aircraft to a serviceable condition after completing maintenance.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: PA-38 Tomahawk
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Taxiway; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A Piper 38 Tomahawk was cleared to land Runway 28 following a C172. The Tomahawk landed without incident; but when he turned off the runway at intersection TYA3 and the crossing Runway 31; he ended up in the middle of a paved surface that was between Taxiway's A and A3 and Runway 31. The aircraft came to a stop against the 2;000 feet remaining sign for Runway 31. When I noticed the aircraft was not on a taxiway and headed for the wrong area; I asked if he needed any help and the pilot stated that he thought he just hit a sign. There was no injury to the pilot and he thought there was no damage to the aircraft; but since he thought he hit the sign; we called the airport authority to check out the situation and once they determined that he had indeed hit the sign; we proceeded to make the proper notifications and collect the necessary data. FDSO release the aircraft over the phone and allowed the aircraft to be moved to the FBO. I should have paid more attention to the aircraft as he rolled out and been prepared to give runway exiting instructions sooner. I did not recognize the callsign to be local and therefore could have better prepped the pilot about the confusing intersection. I allowed myself to be caught up writing up the recent arrival strips and should have been more vigilant in my scan to help catch the pilot's error. Additionally; this intersection over the years has had similar incidents at night; because of the confusing set up; I would recommend that the airport authority review the current set up at this intersection and try to determine if there is a better solution than the current one. All in all though; if I had spent just a few more seconds watching the aircraft exit the runway and ensured that the pilot was familiar; there would most likely have not been any incident.




Synopsis: Local Controller described an emergency event when a landing aircraft hit a sign when exiting the landing runway at a reported confusing intersection.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
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 Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft was not flying assigned heading given by ATC. As aircraft was inbound from the northwest; Approach was giving us vectors to provide more separation from the aircraft ahead. We were eventually given a 180 heading and [slow] to 180 knots. Approach then directed us to slow to 160 knots. Pilot Flying (Captain) twisted the heading knob on the Mode Control Panel (MCP) to 160 vs the airspeed knob. The aircraft turned to 160 and the PM queried the PF. PF seemed confused so PM intervened and reached up and turned MPC knob back to 180.Meanwhile; ATC called the crew out and asked; 'Why aren't you heading 180?' PF responded he 'turned the wrong knob.' Of note; the PF (Captain) was utilizing callouts he used at a previous airline.Ensure the newly minted Captains from a former airline are better trained and are held to the highest of company standards. Require them to eliminate all former airline callouts. Using these non-standard callouts is distracting and could and does result in a bit of cockpit confusion. I can only imagine what a new hire FO might think when he/she hears these non-standard callouts.




Synopsis: Pilot flying selected a heading mode vice speed. ATC intervened to put aircraft back on course.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Evacuated; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Pilot left ZZZ with 2.5 hrs. fuel and .5 hr. reserve. Navigated to ZZZ1 and completed 3 TO/LD (Takeoffs/Landings). Navigated to practice area and did turns across road. Navigated to square field to practice square turns around a field. Ground reference maneuvers conducted at 800 ft. AGL. Leveling off out of second turn engine died. Pilot glanced at fuel gauges and noted left tank over half full and right tank empty. Applied full power; mixture rich; carburetor heat on. Engine revived a few times while approaching suitable landing field. Landed in soft mud. Momentum carried tail over. Aircraft came to rest inverted. Pilot sustained no injuries.




Synopsis: C-152 Student pilot reported a forced landing due to an inflight fuel issue resulting in landing loss control and no personal injuries.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Citation II S2/Bravo (C550)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Super King Air 350
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A C550 was descending north east bound from FL210 down to FL180 because I had a B350 level at 170 north east bound as well. The B350 had pilot discretion descent to 110 issued but wanted to remain at 170. As the C550 was descending through FL194; I realized I had low altimeters all around me (I believe 29.86) and I instructed the C550 to amend altitude and maintain FL190. He advised he had just went though FL190 and asked should he go back up. I told him it wasn't necessary since he seemed to have leveled off. I then decided to descend and turn the B350 to avoid any closer conflict. I descended the C550 to 160 and turned him 20 degrees left. I am not sure if I ever broke altitude separation but lateral separation was around 4 miles. I should have had some visual indicator to remind myself FL180 was unusable and non-assignable.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described a loss of separation event when he/she failed to note the fact that the surrounding low altimeter settings precluded the use of certain flight levels.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing in ZZZ and clearing the runway; I performed my after landing flow and started the APU. When the APU was up and running I placed it online. On the taxi in; and after the appropriate cool down time; the Captain went to shut down the number two engine in accordance with our SET procedure. He inadvertently placed his hand on the number one engine start lever and just barely began to move it toward cut-off when he realized his mistake and brought it back to IDLE. The engine seemed to be stable; so he proceeded to shut down the number two engine as intended. As soon as the number two engine was shut down we noticed number one also shutting down. The Captain instructed me to restart the number one engine; so I moved both pack switches to off; closed the isolation valve and restarted the number one engine; which started normally. We continued safely to the gate and parked without further incident. There was no impact on safety; and we were the only ones aware of the anomaly.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported shutting down the wrong engine on taxi. The situation resulted in both engines shutting down during taxi to the gate.
Date: 201910
Location: CMH.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 125
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C CMH
ATC / advisory: Tower CMH
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On final approach to Runway 28L at CMH and 300 feet AGL; we encountered a large drone just off the left front of the cockpit and slightly above us. We did not have to divert from course; but the drone was significantly close. No incident. Reported immediately to the Tower.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a drone encounter during approach that did not require evasive action.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: UGN.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E C90
ATC / advisory: TRACON MKE
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Passed by a quad copter drone off right wing tip. In sight for roughly two seconds. Amazed to see one at this altitude. Was monitoring Chicago approach but changed frequency to Milwaukee approach to report this as Chicago radio was far too busy in my estimation. One passenger (of two) on board also saw this briefly but was not sure what he saw as he observed it after I had snapped off the autopilot and turned left briefly. Distance estimated based on object observed; four horizontal props; long silver and dark body with camera mounted on end facing our opposite direction. Observation time was very brief. No aircraft hit; no injuries. Just a tad alarming.




Synopsis: BE35 pilot reported sighting a UAV (drone) near UGN in very close proximity to his aircraft requiring evasive action.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PDK.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Turbulence; 3
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: TBM 700/TBM 850
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climb out in hard IMC/turbulence/rain I had a complete airspeed indicator failure on pilot side. I misdiagnosed this as a pitot failure (since glass instruments were still reporting altitude and the indication 'seemed to make sense' for stage of climb out) and began to operate off copilot airspeed but otherwise pilot side instruments for altitude and heading. Autopilot kicked off when airspeed on G600 failed. Unfortunately it was still reporting altitude and I believed what I saw. I leveled on heading 270 at indicated 5;000 feet and began to diagnose/debug. Checked pitot heat; checked power settings; etc. while hand-flying to maintain altitude [and] heading. High workload environment to say the least. After several other steps; I pulled the alternate static - immediately restored airspeed indicator on pilot side but; to my surprise; altitude also immediately wound up to approximately 7;500-8;000 feet. Apparently it was not a pitot tube problem but a static problem. I cross checked to GPS altitude and began correcting; while hand-flying and maintaining 270. ATC no doubt saw same as me - a near instantaneous altitude gain of 2;500-3;000 feet - and contacted me for an immediate course change to 360. I complied and we worked together to get back to assigned altitude.Learnings: Cross check constantly in IMC even when instruments seem to make sense but especially if one fails. Do not just cross check the failed instrument as there may be cascaded problems and the initial diagnosis may be incorrect.




Synopsis: TBM7 pilot reported an altitude deviation resulted from a pitot static system anomaly.