elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The flight originated and was planned VFR. At 20 NM west of [destination] Approach Control was contacted with information 'L' and a discreet squawk code was assigned. The Approach Controller said to 'expect a straight-in to Runway 11' and indicated that current speed of 200 KIAS was to be maintained. The Approach Control directed a switch to Tower frequency at about 8 NM. After the switch; the Tower Controller sounded confused about my location and asked for an Ident. At 7 NM; he asked for my ground speed which was verified. Then; he said to report 3 NM final and said to slow to approach speed. This appeared to directly contradict what the previous Approach Controller told me. I extended my speed brakes and started an early speed reduction at six miles from Runway 11. At 4.5 NM; the Tower said 'turn left to the North immediately' and again referred to the ground speed he saw on the repeater radarscope. Obviously; in a hard left turn and decelerating the ground speed that he saw would be inaccurate (due to delay) and irrelevant. While other aircraft made his turn away from the assigned Runway 11; it became apparent that the Tower Controller was placing two-much-slower airplanes in front of him for landing. The Tower Controller also referred to one of airplanes by a first name. I was NOT impressed by this nonprofessional and improper conduct.The Tower Controller improperly directed an 'immediate left turn and reduction to approach speed'. This is fatal recipe in three [same-type aircraft] accidents and controllers were contributing factors in two of the three fatal accidents. No Tower Controller should be permitted to issue such commands unless he has the endorsement after completion of High Performance Aircraft Training. I strongly suggest remedial training for this Tower Controller with emphasis on better coordination with the local Radar Approach Control. I have saved the video-audio from the onboard camera system.




Synopsis: General aviation pilot received less than ideal handling from tower during approach to landing.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Other ALL
Operating under: Other ALL
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other ALL
Flight phase: Cruise; Descent
Airspace: Class A ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: I was called in to work a sector. My D-side was told to go to another sector that had more traffic. I was OK for a little while to work without one. Traffic started picking back up and I needed a D-side; I asked for one and was told there was no one available to work my D-side. I was spacing for two airports. I was forced to spin aircraft in order to get the spacing. I needed a D-side and there was not enough Controllers. I was overloaded and I felt it was unsafe to work that many aircraft. We need more people or the traffic slowed down to help keep our airspace safe.




Synopsis: ZJX Center Controller reported needing a D-Side Controller but none were available due to a lack of staffing creating an unsafe workload on the sector.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZTL
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Software and Automation
Primary problem: Software and Automation

Narrative: Compiled with TCAS RA. Twin engine piston Aircraft was at 14500 ft. and we were level at 14000 ft. Twin engine target on TCAS fluctuated between 14500 ft. and 14400 ft. We descended to 13500 ft. to comply with TCAS RA. Incident happened on departure from Atlanta.TCAS event caused by twin engine piston aircraft flying at 14500 ft. on the departure corridor. Aircraft was not talking to Atlanta Center.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported descending in accordance with a TCAS/RA alert for VFR traffic above them.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Thunderstorm; Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was traveling direct and under ATC. I was descending from 7000 feet to 4000 feet in IMC to avoid weather buildups. During the descent ATC contacted and I understood told me to turn west to 290 degrees. I started the turn and the controller continued to say turn but they were very excited; repeating the instruction. I kept reporting back that I was turning 290. I began and completed my turn to 290 as I was descending to 4000 feet. I thought that I understood their instructions correctly as I was just west of Class 'B' airspace and it made sense to me to turn away from it. If there was any aircraft near it did not show up on my TCAS so it would have been a few miles away and not in direct conflict. I later found out the controller was saying turn left to 090. The 'to' caused me to understand 290. I did not hear the '0'. The controller was very busy and hard to understand; was very excited and talked very fast.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported turning to the incorrect heading due to misunderstanding ATC instructions.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-500
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the pilot flying. We were cleared direct to DAG and to FL180. Passing 17;300 FT we set the altimeters to 29.92 in anticipation of leveling at FL180. Shortly after this I heard ATC clear us to FL190. I changed the altitude in the autopilot window and verbalized the altitude assignment. The Captain acknowledged FL190. As we climbed through FL180; the Captain said we were only cleared to FL180. I disconnected the autopilot and started to level the aircraft passing FL183. ATC; during this time; asked if we were leveling at FL180. The Captain told him we had overshot the altitude and were descending. The aircraft topped out at about FL185 and I expedited a descent back to FL180. ATC gave avoidance vectors to another aircraft and turned us right to 090. At no time were any TCAS alerts given. After he verified we were at FL180; he cleared us back to DAG. The rest of the flight was uneventful. I obviously misheard ATC instructions. Thinking back; he may have told us of traffic at FL190 and somehow I interpreted it as a climb to FL190. The Captain automatically repeated my FL190 call without thinking; as the Captain knew we were only cleared to FL180. Attention to detail on both of our parts needs to be emphasized. I give the ATC Controller a lot of credit for seeing the situation and quickly vectoring aircraft to avoid a conflict.




Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew climbed above ATC assigned altitude. The Controllers referenced the altitude of traffic which may have contributed to the misunderstanding.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PIE.Airport, FL
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D PIE
ATC / advisory: TRACON TPA
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was vectoring Aircraft X for a VFR practice approach to Runway 36 at PIE. As I went to turn the aircraft onto final at 2;000 I saw a VFR target westbound off of SPG at 2;000. The aircraft would have merged at 2;000 one mile south of the FAF. I delayed the turn and told the aircraft to continue through the localizer as I called traffic. Recommendation - VFR aircraft need to be restricted to an altitude that de-conflicts them with IFR inbounds to Runway 36 at PIE.




Synopsis: TPA TRACON Controller reported a conflict between an aircraft on final approach Runway 36 at PIE airport and a VFR aircraft departing from SPG airport.  The Controller stated VFR aircraft need to be restricted to an altitude that keeps them away from aircraft arriving Runway 36 at PIE.
Date: 201904
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was midfield left downwind for [Runway] 20 at ZZZ. Aircraft Y made a report for an 8 mile left base for [Runway] 20. A couple of seconds later; Aircraft Y reported close base. I then proceeded to announce I was just going to turn base and asked where they were at. As soon as I asked; he was less than 400 feet away on a collision course and made an immediate descending right turn to avoid. I was trying to get in communication with the pilot with no response.




Synopsis: Cessna Pilot reported a NMAC while on base leg.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) 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: Pressurization Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon leveling off at FL310 we got a CABIN ALT annunciation along with the aural warning. The cabin altitude was 9;500 when I looked up. The Captain immediately donned has oxygen mask and declared an emergency descent. At the same time; as the pilot flying; I began an emergency descent with idle power; full speed brakes and accelerated to just below barber poll. Once established in the descent I donned my mask. When I looked up the cabin was at 8;500 and descending. The masks in the cabin did NOT deploy. We got clearance to descend to 10;000 FT and asked for a clearance direct to the airport. Upon reaching 10;000 FT we removed our masks; the Captain referenced the QRH; contacted the flight attendants and made a PA. At this point pressurization seemed to be operating normally again. The Captain decided that we should hold well east of the airport to burn down fuel to avoid an overweight landing. When we finally descended into the airport; in VMC conditions; we noticed the cabin would was starting to over-pressurize as I added power. The cabin was showing about -500 FT at 3;000 FT. We were descending on a base leg so we decided it would be best to use manual pressurization to slowly bring the cabin up and then simply open up the outflow valve and operate unpressurized. The landing was uneventful and we taxied to the gate. The Captain did a great job handling the situation and keeping all parties informed. Also; there was never a time during the flight when I had discomfort in my ears as all pressurization changes where gradual.




Synopsis: MD80 First Officer experiences a cabin altitude warning upon leveling off at FL310 with the cabin altitude showing 9;500 FT. An emergency is declared and descent initiated to 10;000 FT and the cabin altitude is noted to descend as the aircraft descends. The crew elects to return to the departure airport and the cabin altitude is noted to be below sea level at 3;000 FT. Manual pressurization is used to depressurize for landing.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Autel Robotics Evo II
Operator: Government
Operating under: Public Aircraft Operations (UAS)
Flight plan: None
Mission: Public Safety / Pursuit (UAS)
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flight Control System (UAS)
Component problem: Malfunctioning; Failed
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Person Manipulating Controls (UAS); Remote PIC (UAS)
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Remote Pilot (UAS)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fly Away (UAS); Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person UAS Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Lost Link (UAS); Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Software and Automation; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During a [public safety] operation; drone began to drift. Upon landing / reboot / battery change; drone was launched again to support [public safety] operation. Drone immediately took off and crashed into a nearby wall; not responding to inputs from the pilot. Flight log showed near continuous downward input but aircraft would not descend or regain control. Disguised cell tower discovered to be less than 50 feet from location (non traditional tower). It is unknown if this caused interference; or if there was some type of equipment/IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit) failure.




Synopsis: Reporter stated a UAS had the battery changed and software rebooted after flight issues. Upon launching again the Crew was unable to maintain control of the UAS and it crashed.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MMID.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center MMID
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were level at FL350 and in communication with Merida Center on 125.80. At 16 NM north of DUSLO intersection on UB753; we noticed traffic on the TCAS.  Almost immediately; the traffic icon changed to amber and was climbing into our altitude. ATC had not issued any notice and we poised ourselves for corrective action while trying to identify the target visually as it was clear and VMC. The intruder aircraft was traveling from east to west. Upon receiving the TCAS RA; we responded per Company procedure and climbed according to the TCAS direction.  We reached 35;520 feet at which time we were alerted that we were clear of the conflicting aircraft. We then notified ATC and returned to our previously cleared altitude of FL350 and re-established the proper level of automation for the phase of flight.


Second narrative: While in level cruise flight (VMC) at 35;000 on UB753 North of DUSLO intersection; converging traffic was noticed on TCAS just 400 feet below at our 11 o'clock position. I was the pilot monitoring and both the first officer and I noticed the TCAS traffic at the same time. I verbally stated 'get ready; this one is real' to the first officer. Two seconds later; as the aircraft continued to climb; we received the Climb resolution advisory. The first officer disconnected the autopilot and smoothly climbed to 35;520 feet as the aircraft passed below us. The execution was flawless and smooth enough that it went unnoticed by cabin crew and passengers. I announced our intentions to MMID Center (125.8) and received an unconcerned 'Roger.' The MID Center controller was working this commercial traffic but the conversation was in Spanish. No explanation was given and our flight progressed with no further incident.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew experiences a TCAS RA at FL350; 16 NM north of DUSLO Intersection on UB753. A climb is initiated in compliance with the RA and the event reported to Merida Center.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FCM.Airport, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 400
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D FCM
ATC / advisory: Tower FCM
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prior to arrival I briefed the runway diagram to FCM. After initial contact with Tower at 10 miles out; I was told to expect Runway 28L; and to report at three miles out. I could see both runways at this point; the light-colored Runway 28L; and the dark-colored Runway 28R. At 4 miles out; while flying a heading of about 310; the Controller told me to fly north and to expect to land instead on Runway 28R; as the was now other traffic bound for 28L. Shortly after turning north; I was told by Tower that I was cleared to land on Runway 28R. At this point I had a strong tailwind. I looked left to reacquire 28R visually; and I perceived that I had overshot 28R by a small amount; which I attributed to the tailwind on base. I continued the turn to final to realign with what I perceived to be 28R; and continued on to land on the runway. During the rollout; I informed Tower where I would like to park; and the Controller requested that I turn right on Taxiway G and hold short of 28R. She then informed me of a possible pilot deviation. It was at this point that I realized that I had landed on the wrong runway. Factors that may have contributed to this could have included: 1) the relative infrequency of my flying to this airport; 2) the last minute request to change from 28L to 28R; while so close to the airport; 3) the fact that I apparently lost visual perception of 28R during turn from base to final; which I suspect may be related to it's darker color; and its blending into the surroundings; 4) my preconception that with a tailwind on base; I might overshoot the runway. In the future; especially with parallel runways; I will: 1) be particularly vigilant to confirm visually that I am aligned with the correct runway; 2) load the instrument approach; if available; so that I can have a localizer reference to either runway; 3) be sure to make a lasting mental note to runway variations in color or other visual cues; 4) be sure to confirm visually that I actually see the numbers; and R or L; when on short final.




Synopsis: Confused by the Tower's changes in landing runway assignments and experiencing difficulty in maintaining visual awareness of the two parallel runways as distinct from long; more clearly defined parallel taxiways; the pilot of a Cessna 400 landed on Runway 28L at FCM instead of 28R as cleared.