elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: L35.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: CTAF L35
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After fueling I taxied to midfield intersection stopped. Made call: 'L35 Traffic Aircraft X to taxi South to North midfield L35.'  Waited 10 seconds checked approach and departure ends and taxied across. About 1/2 way across Aircraft Y passed in front of me at about 15 feet; turned off the runway and crashed on the grass median. I did not hear any radio calls from Aircraft Y. I checked my radios on shutdown. Was on proper frequency and transmitting normally.


Second narrative: We were on approach from the east for Runway 26 at L35 and were making position reports on CTAF; coordinating with the other aircraft on frequency including a helicopter pilot waiting for us to land. On short final I extended the final notch of flaps and began the flare; as our main gear touched down; I noticed Aircraft X quickly enter the runway approximately 40 ft. ahead of me and begin to cross to the other side (almost appearing to accelerate). He was directly in front of us one plane's length ahead and far too close for us to apply brakes without impacting him. I initiated a go-around; raised one notch of flaps and attempted to get airborne; I was able to get enough vertical distance to bank sufficiently to avoid impact (my high wing missing his aircraft by 4 inches). However; due to the high elevation/density altitude and having a loaded aircraft; we could not complete the go-around and I was forced to land in the dirt adjacent to [the] runway hitting a taxiway sign which caused the nose gear to collapse and slammed the nose into the ground. We slid to a stop; I shut off the fuel; mixture ICO; turned off electrical power and we exited the aircraft. We were met by witnesses who congratulated the maneuver and the avoidance of disaster. The other pilot; apparently an experienced military aviator; went to his hangar and drove off only to return shortly after. His failure to either see-and-avoid or listen to CTAF caused this completely avoidable incident. I've had considerable training; including aerobatics and emergency maneuver training (EMT); which likely contributed to the life-saving outcome of our evasive maneuver.


Synopsis: Pilots report of a aircraft arriving and one departing which came close to colliding.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A new First Officer was assigned to [the] flight. [The First Officer] just completed IOE (Irregular Operations Report) and was assigned to this international flight with no previous flight to an international destination in his whole flying career. [The Company] just gave him ground instruction on ETOPS and international procedures. And no IOE to [the Company's] international destination. [The First Officer] was assigned a First Officer's position on my flight. [The First Officer] was trying [their] best to do his job but [had a] lack [of] understanding on how the international procedures [were] done. This is caused because of a lack of hands on experience on an international flight.[The Company] has the responsibility [to] make sure that all crew members that operate aircraft into international destinations are properly trained with ground and flight training. This is not fair to the new hire pilot and the captains that command these trips. Because if any mishaps or incidents occur on an international flight; the responsibility lies on the Captain on that flight no matter what. [The Company] has the responsibility and obligation to make sure that all new hire pilots are properly trained to operate aircraft into international destinations. Just giving a pilot ground school instruction in international procedures is not enough. I have recently expressed my concerns to Flight Division and Flight Standards and Training.




Synopsis: A330 Captain reported that the Company provided insufficient training to pilots for international flights.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DVT.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 55/Cochise
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G DVT
ATC / advisory: CTAF DVT
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After listening to the ATIS and determining the winds were calm; I taxied to Runway 25R via Alpha. The CTAF at that time indicated an aircraft was approaching from the north. No other traffic was heard and a visual inspection of the airport grounds did not reveal any other aircraft. After holding short of 25R momentarily for a second audio & visual inspection of the surrounding area; I called out and took off on runway 25R. At the departure end of 25R; I noticed Aircraft Y ([a] training aircraft) rotate and lift off of Runway 7R in the opposite direction. I was higher than Aircraft Y and initiated my turn to the north away from Aircraft Y per the DVT1 instrument departure at this time (right turn out). There was vertical and horizontal separation at all times; but it was obvious that near-simultaneous departures from opposite parallel runways reduced the margin of safety and was not ideal.In this instance; visual and CTAF monitoring on 118.4 did not work effectively. The rising sun further complicated visual recognition due to glare from buildings and the surrounding environment. I had no issues communicating with departure or approach on both radios in my aircraft and the volume was turned up audibly on both radios. So; I am unsure if the other aircraft were making radio calls or if my aircraft did not receive them. Furthermore; a calm wind runway was not designated in the Airport Facility Directory. I believe this situation could also have been avoided in the future by designating a calm wind runway in the airport facility directory so all aircraft use the same runway.




Synopsis: Baron 55 pilot reported an airborne conflict after taking off from DVT on Runway 25R and spotting an unannounced aircraft taking off from 7R.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Recirculation Fan
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in cruise at FL340 we felt a jolt and; at the same time; the autopilot disconnected; flight director disappeared and an EICAS message popped up (R REC FAN). I concentrated on re-connecting the autopilot (silencing the warning; re-engaging the flight director; and LNAV/ VNAV and autopilot). The First Class Flight Attendant called and advised of a strong burning odor (smoke) in first class and the loss of galley and entertainment system power. As soon as the Captain hung up the phone; we smelled the odor of some kind of fire. We immediately donned our mask and started planning for an emergency descent. Initially we headed for ZZZ but changed our mind to ZZZ2 since it was closer. Doing so did increase the work load for the Captain; [reducing the time available to] notify ATC; re-program the FMS and re-notify the company through ACARS. The Captain handled ATC; FMS and company communications. The Relief Pilot (who came back shortly time after we started our descent) handled the QRH and PA announcements. I concentrated on flying the airplane and staying close to ZZZ2. The fumes/smell did diminish and stopped during the descent and approach. We made an uneventful overweight landing and; after clearing the runway; assessed the situation. The Captain determined it was safe to taxi to the gate/hard stand.




Synopsis: Following a 'jolt' of the aircraft; temporary loss of some autoflight systems and an EICAS R REC FAN message the flight crew of a westbound transatlantic flight declared and emergency; initiated an emergency descent and diverted safely to a nearby airport.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); 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 Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I changed my squawk to VFR and changed to CTAF; reporting 10 miles out and then reporting left downwind for Runway 20. There was a Learjet on the frequency approaching from the west; subsequently reporting right base for Runway 20. A helicopter; not landing at the airport; reported west of the airport and transiting the area. I picked up the Lear visually and extended my downwind slightly in order to follow it to the runway. I reported such over the UNICOM frequency. I thought that the helicopter had reported both the Lear and myself in sight and wrongly assumed that he would cross the airport clear of the traffic pattern. Although I was searching for the helicopter; I did not see it. When I was about 300-400 AGL and established on final my passenger saw the helicopter low and to our right and pointed it out to me at which time I pulled up hard to go above the helicopter. Without the evasive action we would have passed very close. I made a radio call announcing that I was maneuvering to avoid the helicopter. The helicopter announced on the radio that he had me in sight. The helicopter pilot had chosen a very bad location to cross the final approach course. He was aware of the runway in use and that there were at least two airplanes; the Lear jet and myself; approaching the airport.Although I had flight planned for this flight and realized that there was right traffic for Runway 20; by the time I entered the traffic pattern I had forgotten and entered the left downwind. Only three days later when I was wondering why the Lear had made a 'non-standard' right base did I remember that I was the one who was non-standard when flying a 'standard' left hand pattern.




Synopsis: A PA32 pilot; mistakenly flying a left hand vice the published right hand pattern at an non-towered airport experienced an NMAC with a helicopter on short final.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Light: Night
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: This report documents a potential problem with the implementation of the crew 'rest requirement' rule in Part 135.267.d. I was called to fly a mission by the company's Operation Department at [late evening] with a report time [after midnight]. I have been on available status since [midnight] local on [the night before] throughout this period ending [early the next morning]. The operator of this flight has instructed its crews to tell it when it is 'available' to receive phone calls alerting us to new missions. I believe that such time when I am 'available' does not meet the requirements for 'rest' under Part 135.267. Therefore this flight might have been accomplished without the required 10 consecutive and pre-designated hours of rest required by 135.267 in the 24-hour period preceding the end of the mission. I also wish to state that at no time was this mission undertaken with a crewmember fatigued or unfit for duty.




Synopsis: An air taxi pilot reported questions related to company scheduling procedures and FAR rest requirements.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Ceiling and visibility was OVC009 10SM; the advertised approach was RNAV/GPS Runway 26; Runway's 26 and 31 were active. A PA31; called Tower inbound on the final for Runway 26. A Cessna 402; called Tower inbound on the ILS Runway 8 circle to Runway 26. PA31 was on a two mile final for Runway 26 and Cessna 402 was over the ILS Runway 8 outer marker. I called the TRACON Operations Manager; and explained my concern over opposite direction traffic being on a two mile final for Runway 26 with another aircraft over the outer marker for the ILS Runway 8. He didn't see it as a problem. I asked him what plan B was if PA31 executed missed approach. He said the Tower would have to turn one north and one south; but he would go talk to the Controller and tell him to give us more room. I think this is a misunderstanding of procedure and a huge safety issue. Doesn't the Approach Controller have to protect for the missed approach; 7110.65. Clarification Regarding Opposite Direction Operations is needed. I recommend towers and TRACONs receive clarification from regional or national QA/QC on what the separation requirements are for opposite direction approaches. After clarification; I recommend refresher training for everyone for opposite direction operations. I also recommend that any refresher training received be incorporated into our local annual refresher training plans.




Synopsis: Tower Supervisor voiced concern regarding a TRACON's interpretation of the 'opposite direction' mandate that is continuing to cause confusion.
Date: 201703
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I loaded 1000 lbs in pit 3 then 600 lbs in pit 4 as I was doing that. Mr. X was told to get the bags from the bagwell and put bags in pits 3 then 1 then 2. While I was putting the mail in pit 4 he said to me he messed up and scanned the bags in pit 3 and 2 but put only pit 1 and pit 2. So I myself rescanned all the bags in pit 1 and pit 2. The count was 22 in pit 1; 16 in pit 2. But on the new scanners the scan bag area said 0 in pit 3 and the area said 16 bags in pit 3 I tried refreshing it but it did not work. So I tried to close out the flight but an error message said verify the pits. So I went and told the ramp supervisor about it. I told him I need to bring the Flight back to the gate to verify the bag counts in the pits. He said yes. So I drove out to the tug driver and they just disconnected the tow bar and headset cord but the wing walker still had him in the stop signal. So we reconnected the headset set cord and said to the pilot that we will have to bring you back to the gate to verify the bag counts; he said ok. I did not hear anything for a few seconds and then all of sudden the plane started to move forward. I did not have time say anything over the headset. The plane stopped by running over the tow bar and nose cone hitting the top of the tug.




Synopsis: Ramp Agent reported that issues with bag counts required an aircraft to return to the gate. When the Captain was informed; he attempted to taxi back into the gate; ran over the tow bar; and hit the tug with the radome.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: JAN.Airport, MS
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower JAN
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was informed to turn off Runway 34R on [Bravo] then take C3 to C5. There was a sign for C4. We were looking for a sign for C5 and kept rolling down the taxiway and then the next sign I saw was C7. There was no sign for C5 on C.

Callback: The reporter believes that the sign that would normally indicate the location of Taxiway C5 was present; but the surface was blank. Airport refurbishment is underway and may have been responsible for the blank sign but there was no NOTAM.



Synopsis: Flight instructor reports being unable to locate Taxiway C5 while southbound on Taxiway C due to no sign at the intersection. Airport construction is underway.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ZZZ -- Departing XXL on the ZZZZZ departure; we noticed the aircraft not turning right after crossing ZZZZZ1. I intervened to start the turn. At that time; ATC cleared us direct ZZZZZ2. The rest of the SID was flown normally. We talked about this later; and we determined that the airplane was still in RWY Track and had not switched to Managed Nav. I was too slow recognizing that the aircraft wasn't turning. ZZZZZ1 waypoint is an overfly point and I should have been monitoring it closer. I also didn't notice that Managed Nav was not armed. Another contributing factor was that due to the current situation; I haven't flown very much in 2020. I definitely felt rusty. No excuse though. Just part of it.




Synopsis: Pilot reported experiencing a track heading deviation and cited rustiness and lack of flying as a contributing factor.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Night
Aircraft: SF 340B
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Taxiing into parking; I had a Marshaller on the left (the captain's side) and straight ahead. It was challenging to see the parking T spot as the ramp was quite wet with rain and wasn't well lit. As my left wing was nearing the aircraft parked in adjacent spot; it looked as if my wing would clear the other aircraft; and I saw the Marshaller holding the wand indicating I was clear. I focused on the Marshaller straight ahead of me and followed the instructions given to park. After parking; it was discovered that the nav light plastic lens cover was cracked. After inspecting the aircraft parked in the adjacent spot; it also had the nav light lens cover cracked. Neither I nor the ground crew realized that my aircraft had struck the other aircraft during taxi in until once the plane was already parked. Suggest the addition of some sort of auxiliary lighting; and make sure that marshallers are trained to look at the wing the whole time to ensure clearance and are able to signal the flight deck.




Synopsis: SF340B Captain reported the aircraft struck a parked aircraft while taxiing into the parking spot; damaging the navigation light covers on both planes.