elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: 3O9.Airport, OK
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G 3O9
ATC / advisory: CTAF 3O9
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: There is a black crane approximately 300-400 FT AGL erected on the Runway 17 centerline at 3O9 airport approximately 1;500 FT from threshold. The crane was not NOTAM'd and did not display flag in accordance with AC 150/5370-2. Evasive action in form of immediate go-around was initiated. I reported the obstruction to the Flight Data Center; but was told no action could be taken as I was not associated with the operation of the crane or airport. 3O9 is unattended during winter months.

Callback: The reporter clarified that the crane was operating in the vicinity of two silos at a farm north of the runway and may well have been there on a temporary basis. He has not been back since the event that triggered the report.



Synopsis: A C-182 pilot initiated a go-around when he encountered a 300 to 400 FT AGL crane on short final to Runway 17 at 3O9 (Grand Lake; OK) Regional Airport. There was no NOTAM regarding the crane.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BUR.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground BUR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared to taxi to Runway 33 via the ramp. We had pushed off of the gate in BUR and neither crew member had ever taken off of Runway 33 before. We saw hold short markers for the side of the runway and adhered to the taxi line we were on attempting to taxi via the ramp. We were told to stop by ATC and complied. We had crossed the hold short line for Runway 33; but [not any] part of our aircraft crossed the active runway; [nor did we] create a runway incursion. We were told that on the ramp we do not have wingtip clearance for the runway had we continued. We were then cleared to line up and wait on Runway 33 full length. We were both looking and unaware of the Runway 33 hold short line being there and our initial confusion began with the clearance to taxi via the ramp. The flight continued without issue.The markings on the airport page could display where the hold short lines are with that being our primary chart used for taxiing. A reference on the company's tailored airport information page [would be helpful]; since this is a non-standard taxi.




Synopsis: A B737NG flight crew cleared from the terminal to taxi to Ruway 33 via the ramp at BUR failed to note the remote location of the 15/33 hold short line located on the east/west portion of the ramp; north of the terminal and some 800+ feet removed from the departure end of Runway 33.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Human-Machine Interface; Workload
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Dual Flight Management Guidance Computer (FMGC) reset during base leg to CAT III ILS. Total loss of all flight plans and performance; delay vectors from ATC to evaluate. QRH Procedures; because of CAT III weather conditions and unsure if we would recover the FMCG's; diverted to alternate where the weather was VFR. Thales FMS system programming that is to be fixed on the next FMS software release.


Second narrative: We were on a 20 mile downwind when we were cleared for the ILS with touchdown RVR reported as 1;300 FT. I entered 'no star' and inserted; then went to flight plan and started clearing. I believe there was one fix then P Poss. When I pressed clear; we lost both FMGC's. We told approach that we had lost all navigation and that we had to break off approach. We informed ATC that we had to proceed to an airport that was basically VFR. I told the First Officer to run the QRH and I would fly the aircraft. ATC came back and informed us that two nearby airports were down; but a third was up. I informed ATC that we would go there. In about 3-5 minutes; FMGC 1 came back. The First Officer running the QRH got FMGC 2 back. We were not able to get managed speed or weights back. We did a visual approach and landing. This malfunction was caused by entering 'no star' for clearing out the unneeded way points during vectors; a known software fault.


Synopsis: A321 flight crew experiences dual FMGC failures during approach when 'No Star' is used to clear unneeded waypoints during vectors. With CAT III approaches in use; the crew elects to divert to a nearby VMC alternate.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MMTO.TRACON, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON MMTO
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I called Clearance Delivery to get our clearance. I understood the Controller as saying APAN departure flight plan route. The Controller spoke with a heavy accent and I read back APAN departure flight plan route. I looked at the Charts and saw the APAN1E was the only listed departure on the page. I proceeded to load the APAN1E into the FMS. We departed Runway 15 MMTO on the APAN1E Departure. Climbing through FL220 ATC contacted us and said we were deviating from the departure. He then asked us what departure we were on. The pilot not flying stated APAN1E. ATC then stated we should be on the APAN3C and gave us a vector to join the APAN3C departure. The pilot not flying then checked the FMS and saw the APAN3C and reloaded it into the FMS. We intercepted the departure with no further incident. Upon review of the Charts we found the APAN3C was listed under a different tab listed 'DEP Runway 15' it was not listed in the same fashion that we normally see. APAN3C DEP is not immediately listed under the SID tab but instead within a separate tab under DEP RUNWAY 15 and when clearance was apparently read back wrong ATC never corrected me.


Second narrative: 1. Putting the APAN3 departure with the SIDs in the iPad would have initiated a question about the departures. 2. A communication gap was present; the Controller had a heavy accent. 3. Taking the time to look through all tabs on the departure in the iPad.


Synopsis: A flight crew departed MMTO (TLC) on the APAN1E SID but were cleared on the APAN3C which the crew did not see until ATC advised them of their error. The APAN3C was listed as one of six Runway 15 departures on a single page; not as a stand alone.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SGS.Airport, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class G SGS
ATC / advisory: CTAF SGS
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I am a CFII and was coaching an instrument student through the LOC approach to Runway 34 at SGS (South St. Paul; MN). ATC cleared us for the approach. There was another small Skyhawk ahead of us flying the same approach. ATC told us that the plane was 4 miles ahead of us and told us to change to Advisory Frequency. (Winds at SGS were reported calm. The designated calm wind Runway is 16). At approximately 5 NM from the runway we heard an Archer pilot call departure from Runway 16 and staying in the pattern. Just outside the airport traffic pattern; I spotted the Archer coming directly towards us. I banked sharply to the right; as did the Archer. We entered the downwind leg for Runway 16. About mid-field we heard the Skyhawk call and say that we had just flown past him; passing within 100 FT. We never saw the plane. The student and I never expected to see the Skyhawk in the traffic pattern; since he was reported 4 miles ahead of us. The Skyhawk pilot must have slowed considerably upon reaching the airport traffic pattern. My student's airspeed was approximately 20 KTS faster than I normally recommend; but I failed to notice this. This could explain some; but certainly not all; of the diminished spacing between our airplane and the Skyhawk. After calling us; the Skyhawk pilot asked our intentions. I reported we would enter a base leg and land. He replied that he would exit and re-enter the traffic pattern to increase spacing. The Archer pilot reported back farther back on the downwind leg. This situation was caused primarily because I failed to notice the student's excessive airspeed on the traffic pattern and because I did not instruct the student to break off the approach and move to enter the downwind leg soon enough. The student and I both failed to see the Skyhawk ahead of us on downwind.




Synopsis: C172 instructor reports an NMAC with another C172 in the traffic pattern at SGS. The reporter and his student never saw the other aircraft and the NMAC report is second hand; from the other pilot.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Pneumatic System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: R.H. pneumatic pump warning annunciator came on and remained on during the entire flight. I pushed the annunciator to see if that would reset it; but the light would not go out. I contacted dispatch from the air and the dispatcher discussed the situation with maintenance. After that discussion; dispatch asked that I return directly to ZZZ; which I did without any issues. During the flight all pressure-driven flight instruments operated normally and the pressure was normal. De-ice boots were not needed during this flight. Maintenance removed and replaced the R.H. pneumatic pump and told me that the shaft in the old pump had sheared. It was a hard pump failure. I don't know the maintenance and performance history of the pneumatic pumps but if they are like the vacuum pumps typically used on smaller GA airplanes; they can be problematic and prone to failure. Some owners/operators replace vacuum pumps prophylactically at 500 hours time in service.




Synopsis: PA-31 pilot reported the right pneumatic pump failed; so he diverted after consulting Dispatch.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-8
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Upon landing Rwy XXL; RV8 departed runway approx midpoint of runway; passed through grass median and entered Taxiway X. From this point taxi back to parking uneventful. Directional departure occurred at approximately 45KT.  Directional control re-acquired using wheel brakes; at approx. 20 knots. No damage to aircraft or airport facilities. First Flight for this aircraft. Possible contributing factors.- Pilot inexperience in type.- Inadvertent brake application on rollout.- Tailwheel steering mis-adjustment - Excessive airspeed on touchdown.- Failure to maintain full back stick upon rollout; reducing effectiveness of tailwheel steering.




Synopsis: RV8 pilot reported a runway excursion.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PDX.Airport, OR
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Originally cleared JOTBA.HHOOD2 to PDX.  About 100 miles prior to JOTBA received Radar Vector.  Later received [a descent to] FL240.  Started descent.  After about 5 minutes re-cleared direct HHOOD with a frequency change.  Since I did not consider us on the arrival until HHOOD I did not consider the 280KIAS arrival restriction as applicable to us yet.  No mention of speed was given when we were re-cleared direct HHOOD or at any time between Present Position (PPOS) and HHOOD.  About 20 miles prior to HHOOD asked by ATC what our IAS was.  After I told them; we were told that we were in violation of the arrival because we were not supposed to exceed 280 KIAS.  I'm not sure if we violated the restriction on the arrival or not since up until that point we had not crossed any fixes along the arrival due to the Radar Vector and Direct HHOOD clearance previously. It seems vague when we are not actually on the arrival if we must comply with the 280 or not.


Second narrative: Approaching Top of Descent (TOD) for the HHOOD2; we were given a vector that took us off course before initiating the arrival. There was a frequency change and after a few minutes we were cleared direct HHOOD. Our speed was well above the 280 Kt restriction for the HHOOD2 descent but with the vector off course there was confusion as to whether we had to comply with the HHOOD2 since we were never technically on the HHOOD2. In retrospect; we should have conservatively reduced to 280 kts regardless. ATC asked what our speed was and then told us to slow down and indicated what the restriction for the arrival was. I [the pilot monitoring] was in back using the LAV when the Pilot Flying (PF) got the vector and was quite busy as a single-pilot. Misinterpretation of the restrictions of an arrival.


Synopsis: A B737 flight crew reports being vectored off course before actually beginning the HHOOD2 RNAV arrival. They are then cleared direct to HHOOD but do not comply with the RNAV speed restriction of 280 knots since they are not on the STAR until HHOOD. ATC is not happy with this interpretation of the speed restriction.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I filed IFR from ZZZ to ZZZ1. Weather was VMC. Clear sky with unlimited visibility and a light direct crosswind of 6 knots. My plan was to depart ZZZ VFR and pick up my IFR clearance once airborne with Approach Control. I chose Runway XX for departure for direction of flight. I self-announced my taxi plan (on what I thought was CTAF) and taxied to the hold line of Runway XX where I performed my run-up and before takeoff checks. I hadn't heard any other traffic on frequency from the time I had cranked up.I self-announced I was taking Runway XX for takeoff and a straight out departure; and proceeded to take the runway and push the power up for takeoff. This is when I noticed another Cessna on short final for the opposite Runway XY. I immediately aborted my takeoff and made a sharp left turn; promptly exiting the runway at the same taxiway I had entered from. The other Cessna continued his landing uneventfully and taxied to park. I analyzed the situation once clear of the runway and found that I was a digit off when setting the CTAF frequency. I actually had set the UNICOM frequency instead of CTAF. I corrected the error and got a radio check; then proceeded without further issue.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reported transmitting on incorrect CTAF frequency resulted in runway incursion and ground conflict with landing traffic.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BTF.Airport, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E SLC
ATC / advisory: CTAF BTF
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [Aircraft] was on IFR flight plan from BTF. When close to BTF and below the Class B floor; which was 7;500 MSL; I cancelled IFR and I was supposed to switch to Advisory; 122.8.I was looking for runway 34; because although I was only slightly familiar with BTF; my passenger; in the right seat; was also a pilot and was very familiar with BTF.  He told me I could go straight in to Runway 34. We were too close to BTF after the tower handoff; but I got Runway 34 in sight and descended to land.We did not realized that 16 was active; and when I landed; there was a Piper Archer who exited runway 16 to get out of my way.  I should have switched to Advisory and circled over the airport traffic pattern and listened to advisory and would have realized I was planning to land the wrong runway.  Part of the problem was the wind was light and variable and either runway could have been active; and I also put too much faith in my passenger to know what was going on; even though neither of us realized the problem until we landed. Also; during this flight; my right seat passenger was trying to become more familiar with [the aircraft] because he was interested in purchasing one; and this distracted me from my usual procedure to set up a visual approach far ahead and have everything planned and understood in advance.




Synopsis: A pilot neglected to switch to the Advisory Frequency for his intended airfield and landed the wrong way on the active runway.