elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-8
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Baron 58/58TC
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I called the Tower approximately 7 miles out while near or at pattern altitude for clearance and landing instructions. The Tower instructed me to report entering a left downwind for Runway 28 (the appropriate runway in use).Shortly after my call; a Beechcraft Baron called from some distance to the East and was told to report a three mile final straight in for the same runway (28).I maneuvered into the downwind and made my position report. I was instructed by the Tower that I was cleared to land. I continued onto my base turn at which I recall the Baron reporting his three mile position and I also recall him being cleared to land as well. I started my final approach at approximately 1.5 miles from the runway threshold. At less than a half mile final; I heard the Baron pilot announce his position at 1 mile final. I similarly announced my position on half mile short final (an unnecessary call; but I wanted to make clear my position since I could not see the Baron as he was directly behind me).The Baron was told immediately by the Tower to go around. I could hear the Baron's engines before I could see him (through my canopy and noise cancelling headset). The proximity of the Baron to me as he flew directly overhead was startling. In [all my] years of flying; I have never come that close to being killed in an airplane that I am aware of.




Synopsis: RV-8 pilot reported a near-mid-air-collision with an overtaking Beechcraft Baron on final approach at a towered airport.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0001-0600
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: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was B position; while checking cabin I see a passenger seated in X6 next to the D Jump Seat which was [NAME]. I asked A FA and D FA what's up?  D FA I believe [was] not aware of the rules to social distance us [by] blocking X4 and X5. D FA thought it was OK to offer that seat to a non- rev.  I was not A so again repeated it is not OK; yet we were now pushing back. Later in flight I found out the agent was not the one to request from us but D FA offered it up so they assigned a non rev to X6 . We had many open seats in main cabin. A FA; understanding where I was coming from and he too being here much longer than the two reserves understands we have rules we have a contract it is not up for debate . This is our jump seat. A FA informed us as a whole that he would report this situation and I thanked him and agreed. I want us all to learn from this. As I don't think either of them still understand and shouldn't put another crew or agent in jeopardy of getting in trouble. If I am incorrect and she was in the right and can continue going above and beyond accommodating passenger next to her jump seat in X6 for future flights then please reply. If I am correct; could you please address this to the entire flight attendant group for clarification.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported confusion whether a non-rev passenger could sit in a specific jump seat.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: HOT; 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Fatigue; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Gear up near-landing.Entered traffic pattern at ZZZ for simulated single-engine full-stop landing after 2.5 hour flight. In the traffic pattern; student announced 'Landing checklist' but both student and Instructor were distracted by Tower calling a traffic alert. We were advised that the traffic to follow needed extra room. After locating traffic; we were then advised by Tower that we were approaching a helicopter 200 ft. lower. Student pilot turned base and despite extending downwind; began immediate descent below approach profile. After correcting the profile; I admonished the student to stay on speed and profile. Student struggled with unusually high speed on base and final. Student was showing signs of exhaustion; so I reminded him to keep up his scan and speed control on final approach. Student elected to execute a single-engine go-around from a low height; so I took control reduced power and continued the approach. While flaring for landing; I heard a scraping noise; realized the gear was not extended; applied full power and climbed away from the runway. I then advised Tower we were going around and needed to return for an immediate emergency landing. No unusual vibrations or engine roughness were detected. On downwind; I executed the landing checklist and made a normal landing.I believe the distraction of two traffic alerts resulted in both the student and me failing to complete the landing checklist. The student struggling with speed and profile further distracted us and we both failed to verify configuration and complete our final approach checklist.Contributing factors: High heat; student checkride stress and a long flight.




Synopsis: PA-44 Check Airman reported executing a last minute go around when hearing 'scraping noise' due to a gear up landing.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ATC instructed us to climb and maintain 11;000 ft. at a fix. Prior to this instruction; we were flying a northeast direction towards the fix at 9000 ft. The First Officer read back the instruction to ATC; I set 11;000 ft.; we both verified it; and I established a climb to 11;000 ft. At approximately 10;700 ft. and a few miles west of the fix; ATC stated; I told you to climb to 11000 at XXXXX. I did not realize ATC wanted us to maintain 9000 until reaching XXXXX then climb to 11;000. ATC queried us at approximately 10;700 ft. just prior to the fix. I thought ATC cleared us to 11;000 feet prior to reaching the fix. The First Officer acknowledged ATC's comment to us regarding our altitude. At this point we were crossing at 11000 ft. and continued on course to our destination.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier pilot reported they misunderstood an ATC climb clearance and climbed before they were supposed to.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After leaving the ramp enroute to the departure runway; our right brake failed briefly. The aircraft veered to the left and then we were able to stop. We had the same problem the day prior. This problem was written up 5 times in 13 days. We are seeing a lot of repeat write ups; these planes need to be fixed. This pace can't be maintained.




Synopsis: A CE-560 First Officer reported the right brake failed briefly during taxi; veered left but the crew stopped the aircraft. This is the fifth maintenance write up for the same issue.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D RVS
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Trainee; Dual instruction flight
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The instructor and I were on a checkout flight in a flight school C172. After the training flight; we returned to ZZZ for 1 touch and go and 1 full stop landing. It was VFR conditions; but hazy with scattered clouds about 2000 feet above the airport. The airport was very busy with multiple training aircraft in the pattern using both runways. We were assigned Runway XXR. We completed our touch and go and were instructed to fly runway heading. After several minutes; we advised ZZZ Tower that we were still runway heading; at which point the controller advised us to turn right crosswind for right closed traffic to Runway XXR. While on the downwind; the controller advised us to extend downwind and he would call our base. We read back the instruction.When we were approximately .75 statute miles northwest of the airport; the controller changed our clearance to fly a close approach and we were cleared for the option. We read back the clearance and turned right base. Because we were high; we extended flaps to increase our descent rate. As I was about to turn final; the controller (a different voice this time) advised us to extend downwind; which we read back. I began an immediate climbing left turn. The controller immediately followed that clearance by clearing Aircraft Y to fly an immediate left 360. Aircraft Y was on final to either [Runway] XXL or XXR. There were multiple flight school aircraft with similar call signs in the pattern. Aircraft Y mistakenly made a right 360. I gained a visual contact on Aircraft Y; who was at my one o'clock low. I continued my left turn and climb to avoid collision with the aircraft. We extended downwind and were then given clearance to land. We landed without further incident. I believe that the hazy conditions; busy controllers; controller change or controller training; and multiple aircraft from the same flight school and similar call signs created confusion leading to this incident.




Synopsis: Student Pilot reported a NMAC with another flight school aircraft with a similar sounding call sign which had turned the wrong direction.
Date: 201909
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This shipment in container X of A/C parts was F-stage to the flight X then to flight Y. This shipment had no booking in [Load Program] for either leg of flights. The procedure that is in place to DSTG [Departure Staging Guide] AOGs [Aircraft On Ground] to a flight were not followed.




Synopsis: Airline Ground Personnel reported company 'Booking' procedures not followed in COMAT air shipment.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SMO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EC135
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D SMO
ATC / advisory: Tower SMO
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Loss of GPS reception to a dual set of GARMIN 430/530 receivers while landing at [a hospital pad]. When on the pad; the reception page of the GPS units was referenced and zero satellites were acquired and the strength of reception indicators were zero. [I have] been having this problem sporadically in recent months after three years of never having this problem at this location.




Synopsis: EMS helicopter pilot reports a loss of GPS signal during landing at a hospital pad. The loss of signal has been occurring sporadically over the last three months with no previous problems detected.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MOT.Airport, ND
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D MOT
ATC / advisory: Tower MOT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Airport; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: ILS 31 MOT is FDC NOTAMed to not couple the autopilot below 2;060. That's about 400 AGL. At approximately 500 AGL the glideslope becomes unusable. It fluctuates enough that the command bars start to pitch up and down wildly. How can a flight be operated safely when the ILS at 400 AGL is rendered useless? This approach gets you down to 200 AGL. What is [Company] asking us to do for these last 200 feet when the instrumentation becomes unusable? [Company] cannot use this procedure until it is fixed.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported the MOT airport NOTAM for the Runway 30 ILS does not agree with the Decision Height (DH) for this runway.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Snow; 2
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: My wife and I were cruising at 16;000 feet; using O2 with cannulas.  Because of an aircraft crash [nearby]; the Controller directed us to enter holding; maintaining 16;000 feet.  Entering holding was routine; I started calculating how long I could remain in holding before diverting (approximately one hour); and I selected [a] potential diversion field.  My wife noticed that our O2 was no longer flowing from the portable bottle.  I did some troubleshooting and discovered that we were out of oxygen.  I notified the Controller that we were out of oxygen; we needed an immediate descent to below 14;000; and we needed to divert.  The Controller authorized a descent to 15;000 feet and cleared me direct to [a diversion airport].  I was having difficulty loading any approach into my avionics and even finding the approach plate.  My flight path was erratic; but the Controller did not mention anything due to his workload.  Looking back on my performance; I was clearly hypoxic.  I again mentioned that I needed to get below 14;000 as soon as possible.  I wanted to maintain my then current heading; and turn right to intercept the localizer; but that was not the published approach.  The Controller gave me vectors that mimicked the approach and I succeeded in intercepting the ILS and eventually landed.Pilots who suspect that they might be hypoxic should declare an emergency immediately; but; hypoxic pilots often do not recognize that they are hypoxic.  When a pilot flies erratically; is not abiding by published procedures; or is not communicating well; the Controller should declare the emergency and get the aircraft below 14;000 feet or on the ground ASAP.




Synopsis: SR-22 pilot reported he became hypoxic when his oxygen bottle emptied at 16;000 feet.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: HCF.TRACON, HI
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E HCF
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Initial filed clearance was modified from LIH-V15-HNL-EBBER to LIH-V15-MKK-EBBER taking us more south. Oceanic Track was the Echo Track. When given the takeoff clearance we were assigned an initial heading of 080. After departure and checking in with Honolulu Control Facility (HCF); we were given the clearance to proceed direct to ELOYE. With the noise in the flightdeck we thought it was OLOYE which was the next waypoint ahead of us on V15 (our clearance route). HCF noticed our turn and asked us to verify we were going to ELOYE; not OLOYE. We saw the error; told HCF that yes we were going to OLOYE and were correcting. HCF said that 'a number of you guys have been doing that lately.' We told him it was an easy mistake to make if you were given the Echo Track and that we would pass on the information about the possible confusion.[Review of the reported fix names revealed the reporter may have miss-spelled them; it is highly likely the actual fixes confused were ELOYI and OLOYI.]




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported incurring a track heading deviation after confusing similar sounding fixes ELOYE and OLOYE. [Review of the reported fix names revealed the reporter may have miss-spelled them; it is highly likely the actual fixes confused were ELOYI and OLOYI.]
Date: 202109
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Other BE-400 & 300; CE560XL
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Confusion; Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During after landing taxi; I took a wrong turn on an unauthorized taxiway due to fatigue & confusion with my position on the ground. To prevent recurrence; after clearing the active runway; I will stop the aircraft to ensure I look at the taxi diagram closely to clarify our taxi instructions before proceeding towards the ramp.




Synopsis: Pilot flying reported making a wrong turn during taxi due to fatigue and confusion.