elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Operated Aircraft X. During the preflight exterior inspection of the aircraft I noticed some temporary repairs were made to some delamination in the area of the ADG door. I noticed aluminum 'speed tape' was applied to the area of the ADG door and the speed tape had been applied so that the door would not be unobstructed from opening. The door was taped over so that it may have been prevented from opening up successfully. I notified Maintenance Control. Contract maintenance was brought to the plane and reapplied the tape so that it wouldn't tape over the door. The Flight was then signed off and flown to ZZZ1 without issue.Improper maintenance procedures were performed on this aircraft day(s) earlier that allowed the ADG door to be taped over. Not only was the aircraft returned to service and operated an unknown amount of flights with improper maintenance performed; it also went undetected by at least one flight crew who flew this aircraft to ZZZ the night before. This situation was a safety issue that needed to be fixed before departure. Adding to the stress of managing this event in terms of coordination; making announcements; continuing to contact Dispatch and keep everyone informed; Duty Pilot and ZZZ2 Chief Pilot decided to try and intervene and force me to board the aircraft before Maintenance had arrived. I made the Pilot in Command decision to hold boarding the aircraft until Maintenance had arrived because I know it wouldn't take long to board; and COVID-19 concerns with keeping people confined to an aircraft longer than necessary. We knew we weren't departing immediately and there was no sense in boarding an aircraft in the middle of summer in the south with a pandemic going on until I knew when we would be able to depart. It was distracting to my duties as PIC to have management continuously interrupting my situation and duties with their concerns. That's not the time and place for those to be brought up. Pushing captains against their PIC decisions when they're making sound decisions in the interest of safety and health should be addressed as well as the maintenance repair issues.




Synopsis: Pilot reported questionable maintenance procedures regarding the temporary repair of delamination in the area of the ADG door.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were inside DYLIN on the PHLBO Arrival at 6;000 feet. Approach was vectoring is on downwind for 22L at EWR. Were given traffic at 10 o'clock; not sure of the distance but it was at least several miles. Traffic was a VFR Cherokee at 5;500 feet heading from our left to right. [We] had traffic on TCAS first; altitude showed 400 feet below us. Picked up traffic visually then received a 'monitor vertical speed' RA (Resolution Advisory). We were above the TCAS pitch area and in level flight so we maintained pitch and altitude. Traffic passed beneath us. ATC said traffic was 500 feet beneath us; TCAS said 400 feet. Received 'clear of conflict.' Continued to EWR. I did not notify ATC of the RA as we did not have to deviate from our clearance.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported receiving a Resolution Advisory caused by VFR traffic during approach.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PAO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 15
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D PAO
ATC / advisory: Tower PAO
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was acting as a CFI on a training flight with a student returning to our home base PAO when we flew past a drone in the traffic pattern.  My student was flying.  We were entering the left downwind for runway 31 at PAO from a standard 45 degree entry when I spotted an unmanned drone 2-3 feet in size at our altitude; which was the standard left pattern altitude for 31 at PAO.  We passed within approximately 100 feet of the drone and took no evasive action.  It appeared to be hovering with no discernible motion.  My student indicated that he did not see it.  There were no prior traffic advisories from PAO tower or PAO ATIS regarding the drone or drone activity in the area.  I reported the drone to PAO tower and tower made a broadcast to all aircraft of our drone report.By the time I saw the drone and recognized it as such; we had nearly flown past it.  Such a small vehicle is difficult to spot until very close in.  I usually focus on traffic scanning at distances that are further away.  I had recently attended a meeting at PAO for CFIs where reports of nearby drone activity was mentioned and I think this helped me recognize it as a drone more quickly.  Some pilot awareness of local drone activity may help facilitate close-in visual scanning and faster recognition of these small vehicles.    Legislation requiring firmware in these commercially manufactured drones that prevents operation outside of the FAA limits would improve safety.  The distribution of information to drone purchasers regarding local flight restrictions; airport locations; etc. may also help prevent this incident from occurring. To put this event into some context; bird activity also creates hazards at PAO and I have had several near collisions with birds there and elsewhere flying over many years.  However; birds usually dive out of the way while the drone did not.  This drone also likely weighed significantly more than a bird.




Synopsis: An instructor with his flying student was entering a 45 degree left downwind for PAO Runway 31 at 1;000 FT when he detected a UAV about 2-3 FT wide; approximately 100 FT beneath his aircraft.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: During landing the wind drifted my aircraft off the runway into the grass. I applied full opposite rudder. I could have applied more aileron into the wind in my ground roll. There was no damage to the airplane. I pulled back onto the runway and taxied aircraft to parking.




Synopsis: C182RG pilot reported a runway excursion following a crosswind landing.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Small Transport
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Second aircraft: Large UAS; Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Aircraft X departed ZZZ en route to ZZZZ Center. Aircraft Y was orbiting in the special use airspace area. Sector X was having equipment issues and was having trouble communicating with the aircraft on frequency. I was trying to get the supervisors attention to see if he needed me to take the sector. I looked back and realized that Aircraft Y was still eastbound heading towards Aircraft X. It was too late to stop Aircraft X from climbing through. I tried to turn Aircraft Y to a 340 heading; given how slow Aircraft Y is he should have been able to stay clear if he had turned at that time. Unknown to me; Aircraft Y was monitoring VHF guard. Sector Y only has the capability to monitor UHF Guard.  His voice indicator was still on; leading me to believe that I could communicate with him. I was unable to turn the aircraft to the east away from Aircraft Y because of the restricted airspace. The aircraft were 4.66 miles apart laterally and 700 ft. vertically at the time of loss.I believe when UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) are operating in the [named] portion or any other area of the special use airspace area that could be problematic; they should be monitoring a frequency that is available on the controlling sector.  If they are not; the voice indicator should be off.




Synopsis: Air traffic controller had trouble communicating with aircraft on frequency and experienced difficulty maintaining separation between a UAS and fixed wing aircraft.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLE.Airport, OH
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B CLE
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On descent into CLE on CXR (CHARDON) arrival aircraft deviated from cleared route due to FMS error. Flight crew and ATC simultaneously detected the deviation and ATC reassigned original clearance. Flight crew programmed the intended fix which was published on [charts] page but not in FMS; and proceeded to fix without further incident. Subsequent reloading of arrival regardless of which runway was selected revealed that the LEBRN fix never showed in FMS despite being on published chart. Program FMS to include LEBRN fix on CXR arrival. Also reiterate to flight crews the importance of verifying AND CORRECTING FMS fixes and restrictions on arrival and departure procedures.


Second narrative: I think the FMS database needs to be looked at; and corrected; if necessary. With so much focus on altitudes and waypoints on complicated STARs; I think it is easy for us (or at least me) to get complacent when it is a simple STAR with one crossing restriction. An equal amount of focus needs to be placed on all STARS (and SIDs; for that matter); when verifying altitudes and waypoints.


Synopsis: An A319 flight crew reported deviating from cleared arrival into CLE when the FMS failed to load all the required waypoints.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Second aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Oceanic
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was coordinated inbound with SJU Center at FL340 his altitude options were FL340 or FL390 and they chose FL340 initially; then called and re-coordinated him at FL390; then called back and asked to coordinate him at FL370 climbing to FL390 which I approved reference the Aircraft Y at FL370 which was already coordinated from myself to SJU Center.A minute or two later I received a message from ARINC that the Aircraft X that he was responding to a TCAS alert which he said was 150 feet; not sure if it was above or below him. Not sure what to recommend.




Synopsis: ZNY Controller reports of an NMAC due to poor coordination of altitudes between two aircraft and possibly a slow climbing aircraft.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SOP.Airport, NC
Weather elements / visibility: CAVU; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G SOP
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was flying Aircraft X; had flown locally for slightly over an hour. Set up for the GPS 5 into SOP on the Garmin; with the ILS/DME 5 in the #2 and SOP in the #2 GPS. There was Aircraft Y; doing touch and go landings flying extremely; extremely tight traffic; landing about once every one and a half minutes. There was no other traffic in the pattern.I intercepted the GPS 5 about 11 miles from the airport; called a 'Moore County traffic; Aircraft X on a 10 mile final GPS 5; full stop landing; Moore County'. I repeated this call at 5 miles. Aircraft Y called turning downwind. Momentarily thereafter I repeated my position report at 2 miles. Aircraft Y immediately called turning base. I immediately transmitted 'Aircraft X on less than a 2 mile final'. Aircraft Y responded 'lots of room' and cut me off; maybe 1;500 feet in front of me. I was flying my approach profile at 120MPH; 105K; so I pulled the throttle to idle; applied full flaps. The distance decreased to about 1;000 feet. I was about to initiate a go-around but Aircraft Y landed and immediately took off again and I was so low and slow that I thought it safer to continue with the landing. I have no idea who was flying Aircraft Y or riding as a passenger.Dangerous non-towered operations are common at SOP and I have so previously reported and something needs to be done before someone gets killed. The airport manager could care less about this kind of behavior and the airport authority is clueless.




Synopsis: GA Pilot flying an approach at SOP non-towered airport reported being cut off in the traffic pattern by another aircraft and stated this type of operation is common at the airport and poses a safety hazard.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 8
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 180 Skywagon
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Arriving runway 25 (the active runway); there was a crosswind from approximately 180; that was transitioning at times to a quartering tailwind. Landing started nominally with a 1 point landing on the front left wheel; transitioning to a 2 wheel landing. As the plane slowed; the wind began to push the tail to the right; causing the airplane to swing to the left. Correcting to the right; the plane came too far to the right and ground looped. The left wing touched the runway; as did the left elevator; causing damage to both; as well as the rim of the left wheel. No occupants were injured; and the plane was able to be taxied safely off of the runway.




Synopsis: C180 pilot reported losing directional control after landing resulting in a ground loop.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: GSO.TRACON, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E BUY
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While in route to Burlington Airport (BUY) descending from 11;000 feet to 4;000 feet and approximately 20 miles to the south of the field on a very clear VFR day; the Co-pilot and I both had the Burlington airport in sight and informed ATC (Greensboro Approach). We were then cleared for the visual approach for BUY and told to contact the advisory frequency 122.97; we then descended to 3;000; we were on an extended downwind for Runway 24 in BUY; I had spotted traffic off my left wing which was indicating 200 feet below our altitude. In an attempt to ensure there would not be a conflict with the traffic; I promptly climbed up to 4;000 momentarily until the conflicting traffic was no longer a factor. At that point descended back down to 3;000 feet and began our final approach into Burlington (BUY).


Second narrative: While in route to Burlington Airport (BUY) descending from 11;000 feet to 4;000 feet and approximately 20 miles to the south of the field on a very clear VFR day; the co-pilot and I both had the Burlington airport in sight an informed ATC (Greensboro Approach). We were then cleared for the visual approach for BUY and told to contact the advisory frequency 122.97; we then descended to 3;000; we were on an extended downwind for Runway 24 in BUY; I had spotted traffic off my left wing which was indicating 200 feet below our altitude in an attempt to ensure there would not be a conflict with the traffic; I promptly climbed up to 4;000 momentarily until the conflicting traffic was no longer a factor. At that point descended back down to 3;000 feet and began our final approach into Burlington (BUY).


Synopsis: Corporate flight crew reported NMAC on approach to land.