elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LFSB.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We deiced and taxied to Runway 33 as per ATC instructions. Departure Runway was 33 and Arrival Runway 15. ATC issued 'Company Line up and Takeoff Runway 33'. Clearance was read back correctly. I had heard a couple landing clearances given to other aircraft to land Runway 15 during deice and taxi to runway. Upon lining up on Runway 33; I observed what appeared to be another aircraft rolling out on Runway 15. Discussed with First Officer that I think there is an aircraft on the runway. He agreed. We queried Tower about an aircraft still on runway. Tower hesitated with communication; [and] then issued 'Abort takeoff' clearance. We had never started takeoff as we observed an unsafe situation. Tower was very apologetic upon issued takeoff clearance mistake.  ATC needs to be particularly aware of all aircraft locations during single runway operations with landings and takeoffs occurring at opposite ends. Especially during low visibility conditions.




Synopsis: A B757 was cleared for takeoff on LFSB Runway 33; but the takeoff clearance was canceled after the crew notified the Tower that traffic was rolling out after landing on Runway 15.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Robinson R44
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The engine began to overspeed and was uncontrollable. Throttle was rolled to idle and an autorotation with power was made to a safe landing area. Crew was uninjured (single pilot) and aircraft was not damaged.




Synopsis: R44 pilot reported safely executing an autorotation landing after the engine began to overspeed uncontrollably.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Lancair Undifferentiated
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Chain of events:1. How problem arose: Had to disconnect autopilot to comply with speed restriction. During ILS clearance/intercept stage and pre-landing checklist; FMS was incorrectly loaded with altitude bug. 2. Contributing factors: high single pilot workload with fairly new system. Programming complexity led to loss of Situational Awareness. How discovered: ATC alerted of low altitude. 3. Corrective action: applied power and regained altitude within seconds. Human performance considerations: 1. Perceptions: Thought FMS altitude bug was set correctly.2. Judgments: Checked altimeter and applied power immediately to regain 300 feet to proper altitude. 3. Inactions: Failure to program FMS altitude bug and failure to recognize premature descent prior to FAF passage. 4. Factors affecting the quality of human performance: High workload and relatively low time in type. First experience with specific speed restrictions. Solution: spend more time practicing high workload situations with various speed configurations under simulated hood with experienced safety pilot and avoid hard IFR until more experienced with aircraft.




Synopsis: Lancair pilot reported an excursion from altitude and ATC issued a low altitude alert during ILS approach.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DED.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G DED
ATC / advisory: CTAF DED
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Arriving in the Deland (DED) airspace; a radio call was made 5 miles out and entering the upwind leg for a left pattern for runway 5.  A downwind leg call was then made.  3 aircraft are in the pattern and can be heard over the radio and seen by both pilot (I) and passenger. One aircraft was departing to enter the pattern behind us.  One aircraft was in front of us by about 1 mile.  These 2 aircraft were making appropriate radio calls as was I for every leg of the traffic pattern (downwind; base; final).  On short final at approximately 100 feet directly over the airport fence; a Cessna appeared approximately 10 feet below us.  An immediate go around was executed.  After reentering the pattern; we landed with no further incident. The Cessna had made no radio calls and was not visible to anybody else in the traffic pattern upon further questioning.  Later questioning also determined the Cessna was a training flight that had just departed Ormond Beach (OMN).  The lack of lighting and lack of radio usage by a student and flight instructor caused a near collision.  Usage of a radio is a crucial component to safety at uncontrolled airports.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported an NMAC with another light aircraft in the pattern at DED. Reporter stated lack of adherence to radio procedures was a major factor in the incident.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: RV-4
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; 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: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Departing Runway 28; exited pattern on left crosswind to the south. Made position report exiting pattern.A few minutes later; I heard an aircraft call inbound; if it was stated; I did not catch the direction/altitude. I made a mistake here by not directly clarifying with the other pilot. Instead; I reported my position as 5 miles from [the airport]; altitude was given; but I do not specifically recall what I said as I was climbing at this time; I believe I reported 2;700. I had wrongly assumed that this additional position report would prompt the other pilot if there was a conflict.A few minutes later; at roughly 10 miles south of [the airport] and 3;900 feet MSL; I look up from scanning my instruments and from my 2 o'clock see an unpainted; low wing experimental aircraft roughly 50 feet above me on a direct collision course. As a reaction; I pushed forward on the stick enough to bump my head on the canopy; G meter registered 0. I quickly realized that my actions were too late as my aircraft hadn't actually reacted to any measurable change in altitude until the conflicting aircraft had passed overhead.At that close of range; I was certainly in the low-wings blind spot and looked back and noticed that not at all during this time did the conflicting craft alter heading or altitude so I do not believe I was seen by the other pilot at all.I was in a bit of shock immediately following the event and was debating whether I should key the mic and query CTAF to see if the pilot that nearly collided with me was aware of the situation. I opted not to at the time; reasoning that there's nothing either of us could do at that point.The things I see I did wrong1) Heard an aircraft calling inbound; didn't catch direction/altitude. Should have spoken up and clarified their intentions; never assume.2) After the event; I should have queried the pilot to notify him of the occurrence. Not to admonish him; as we are both responsible to see-and-avoid; but just so they could realize the severity of the situation and be given the chance to learn from it as I have.




Synopsis: RV-4 pilot reported that while climbing out of a Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) airport at about 3;900 feet; another aircraft on decent for the same airport came within 50 feet of his aircraft.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: J3 Cub
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On landing on Runway XX; winds nearly calm; departed runway to the right side about 1;000 ft. past threshold. Stopped without damage or injury.Instructor has much time in tricycle gear aircraft; very little in tailwheel aircraft; and got tailwheel endorsement over X years ago. Just prior to this flight; went up with another instructor for refamiliarization in tailwheel operations; performed 3 safe landings. On this flight; instructor had controls for a 3-point landing; had a slight bounce; and put too much attention on pitch and correcting the bounce; not enough on runway alignment; and lost directional control. Went off runway to the right at a slow speed; went 100 ft. into infield. After coordination with tower and rescue; taxiied in without further incident.Instructor will get several more landings in a tailwheel aircraft with another instructor prior to again flying a tailwheel aircraft solo or dual.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a runway excursion while under training for the aircraft.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FRG.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Corporate
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground FRG
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: This was a two pilot flight. We had a current paper taxi diagram out as well as a taxi diagram on the MFD of the plane. We were taxiing out of [the] FBO. We called Farmingdale Ground to taxi. They told us to taxi Golf and cross a runway. The taxi signs made it look like we were already on Golf and we crossed 1/19. What we didn't know at the time was that we went out G5 and crossed 1/19. When we were supposed to taxi south on Taxiway Golf and cross 14/32. We didn't see this because we were at [the FBO] facing north. Taxiway Golf was actually behind us. We notified Ground of our mistake. They gave us new taxi instructions. When we spoke with them over the phone they said what we did was a common event. People mistake G5 taxiway and Taxiway Golf often.




Synopsis: Corporate Captain reported taxiing onto wrong taxiway and incurred onto runway due to poor airport signage.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PAO.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Other ALL
Mission: Other ALL
Airspace: Class D PAO
ATC / advisory: Tower PAO
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight; Routine Inspection
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Manuals; Company Policy; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: While working as CIC (Controller in Charge) I observed Local Control was having a hard time getting departures out; with aircraft waiting for 5-15 minutes. Part of this was due to the closure of a taxiway resulting in an aircraft having to back taxi for a full length departure. Another complicating factor was the adjacent airport Tower was only granting extensions of their airspace for us to use on the South side. The communication line to that Tower was also out of service. The uneven extensions were causing aircraft in the North Pattern to have to turn tightly behind traffic to remain inside our Class Delta; which left final spacing very compressed and no chance for a departure to get out. I called the other Tower via the recorded dial line at approximately to ask for north side extensions due to operational need to get departures out; whom were experience a lengthy delay. The Controller replied negative. I asked if there was anything operational going on that we could observe traffic on as we had aircraft who were experience delays and they said there wasn't anything going on; but they couldn't approve the request because the shout line was out of service and they couldn't coordinate any changes or traffic with us in a timely manner. I would note the phone call; while more work dialing; was not a significant impediment time wise to getting a hold of another facility. Aircraft were getting delayed on the ground when the requested airspace that could have allowed for a departure was denied and not being used.As mentioned in multiple previous reports; there needs to be an effort made to redesign the airspace between the two airports. With intelligent planning and design; it should be easy to give us some more airspace to work our pattern while still protecting for their operations. With a redesigned Class Delta and update to the Letter of Agreement between facilities; it should be possible for both facilities to work their traffic inside the redesigned airspace safely and more efficiently than is currently happening.




Synopsis: PAO Tower Controller in Charge reported the adjacent Tower facility would not delegate needed airspace to them so aircraft experienced departure delays.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We taxied from the ramp for a departure. The weather was VMC. Clear skies; 10 miles visibility; winds 280/03 with an altimeter setting of 30.34. Takeoff weight was 328;400. Fuel onboard was 54;600. All these above conditions are being listed to indicate that this was a very standard and normal takeoff. All went well until about 100 ft AGL; then we developed compressor stalls on the right engine. There were loud popping sounds; vibrations; and a slight yaw to the right. Between 500 and 700 ft AGL the Tower reported there were flames visible from our right engine. Passing approximately 1000 ft AGL; I asked for an immediate return to land. Simultaneously I reached for the Quick Reference Checklist. One or more conditions indicated that we had a compressor stall. The AT (AutoThrottle) Arm Switch was turned off; thrust lever (right side) was retarded to idle. But as I review the events of this flight; I don't remember completing the third step in the checklist for the 767 'Engine Limit or Surge or Compressor Stall'. That step called for the Engine Start Selector (Affected side) to be placed in the FLT position. This omission may have occurred due to the fact that I; as pilot monitoring; was coordinating with Tower to get set up for a return to land. The landing runway and ILS was set up as backup reference. We flew the pattern at outer marker altitude. Landing checklist was completed; and the landing occurred with the rescue vehicles staged alongside the runway. Total time airborne was 7 minutes. One or more of the rescue vehicles followed our aircraft to the ramp. During taxi in; the left brakes heated up to the point that I warned ground crew to avoid them until cleared by maintenance. It was my decision that getting the aircraft safely back on the ground immediately was my highest priority. I didn't feel that I should've requested a longer pattern to allow me to do a more thorough job of troubleshooting. In hindsight; I think I've learned more clearly that time management and checklist review could have caught the missing step in the checklist.




Synopsis: B767-300 Captain reported a compressor stall shortly after takeoff.
Date: 201403
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Distraction; Fatigue
Anomaly: Other fatigue
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: General Work Refused; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I am writing this in the event I made any mistakes that may have impacted operations and to express concern over what led to my fatigue. I had just worked a month of afternoon shifts and was going to be working midnight shifts next month. I was junior manned into a 10 hour long; 0400 start time shift right in the middle of this change over.As a result; my sleep pattern was out of whack and I was unable to sleep well before my shift. I got only about four hours sleep before this shift; although I was alert and felt at the beginning of the shift that I would be okay. However; I tired out quickly. With one hour left in my shift I reached a point that I could not concentrate and noticed I was making mistakes. I had put the wrong altitude on a flight going north bound so I had to fix that. In the process of fixing it I had a hard time just concentrating. On the phone I felt it was hard to listen and absorb what a Load Planner was telling me. I had never had this happen to me in my dispatch career. I was at a point I knew I could not handle the workload. I made the decision to tell my Manager that I was fatigued and needed to be relieved of duty. The Manager was very understanding and helped; I gave a briefing and went home with about 45 minutes left in that shift.I think the problem for me was that I never expected to get so tired into the shift. This kind of fatigue was something I had not previously experienced. I also got very sick that night and I think part of the problem was my body may have been fighting a bug which may have contributed to the rapid onset of the fatigue. The workload on this shift is ridiculous even if you are 100% alert. It is non stop releasing of 45 to 50 flights. Even though in this case it was good weather; I still struggled to keep up.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher reported being required to work unplanned schedules that were inimical to his/her established diurnal body clock; resulting in deteriorated ability to exercise operational control of his/her flights.