elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B IAD
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We were on final for ILS [Runway] 19C at 3;000 feet and cleared the approach. The weather was moderate rain at night in IMC. The FO was flying. The radar showed green and yellow precipitation ahead and we were in sequence following other aircraft on the approach. The aircraft was gear down and flaps 3 as we were intercepting the glide path in light turbulence with autopilot on. As we approached the glideslope intercept point; a huge radar echo appeared in front of our flightpath and ATC cancelled our approach clearance and told us to maintain 3;000 feet. At this point we encountered severe turbulence and heavy rain and had a very difficult time controlling the aircraft through the autopilot. As the FO cleaned the aircraft configuration up; we encountered a severe downdraft and lost about 500 feet. I commanded the FO to turn the autopilot off and recover the altitude. I requested a climb from ATC and a turn. The radios were very congested and hard to understand and ATC denied our request. We exited the heavy rain and turned north to hold at Martinsburg VOR. In holding we decided to try another approach after the storm front passed and came up with a bingo fuel for our alternate. We headed for another approach to 19C at IAD; but the weather had not improved enough for another approach so we diverted. When we got to [our alternate]; I contacted the dispatcher and was told that IAD airport had been shut down for weather while we were on the first approach but IAD never informed the airlines.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported deviating to an alternate after encountering heavy rain and severe turbulence on approach to IAD.
Date: 202004
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was approached by [a] Supervisor and he told myself and the crew on gate that it is now mandatory for all crew members to wear the wireless headsets including the wing walkers.  I communicated to Supervisor about the concerns of sharing equipment that touches my face; ear and mouth area due to the current crisis of the COVID-19 virus.  It was communicated by him in the past to the work group that wearing the headsets by the wingwalkers was optional and only mandatory for the push back driver.  The headsets come in sets of [X]; they are all stored in the same box and can come in contact with the other users on the team.  I voiced my concern of the sharing of equipment and was told there is enough time in-between flights to sanitize.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported concerns about having to wear commonly shared wireless headsets during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Passenger
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying to Phoenix; AZ. Upon passing North of the Taos; NM area (Ski area visible from airplane) shortly thereafter; our Aircraft (I believe a Boeing 737) had an aircraft pass directly above it with my approximate estimated distance of about 200 vertical feet between aircraft and ZERO feet horizontally between aircraft. We had been flying in a westerly direction (my guess looking out the window at the ground is somewhere in the approximate 35;000 - 40;000 Ft range when an unidentified airplane passed over the top of us from a north - northwest direction toward a south - southeast heading having a double contrail and a blue body to the jet aircraft. The aircraft passed so quickly and its contrails were so close I consider it a near miss and in no way in line with FAA regulations that normally require miles between aircraft. The pilot and crew of [my flight] had been flying their aircraft in a steady and deliberate manner and did not veer in any way prior or after the other aircraft passed overhead which did so without turning; ascending or descending. I believe the crew of [my flight] was likely not even aware of the other aircraft due to the other aircraft's sideway directional path toward us; the other Jet was likely not visible to the crew or radar of [my flight]. However; I would find it very hard to believe the other aircraft would not have been able to see us.




Synopsis: B737 passenger alleges an NMAC occurred during a flight to PHX.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I; along with 2 passengers; flew over and circled the fireworks show for 10-20 minutes. We entered the area at 3500 MSL adjusted for local altimeter. We then circled and descended to 2000 MSL over the area; watching the fireworks. Knowing [the airport's] field elevation was 1000 MSL; I thought to be within safe limits during the entire time. Using Foreflight and visual references; I noted there was no TFR over [the area] and that the location I circled was sparsely populated. I then descended to 1700 MSL with my final pass over the fireworks display and climbed to 2500 MSL departing back to the west; towards ZZZ. While circling the area; I noted there was other traffic in the area; as well as 5-6 drones circling the area. My radios were tuned to ZZZ's CTAF the entire time. I at no point felt I was being reckless or endangering anyone's life. I noted several open and unpopulated areas I could attempt to land at if my engine had failed. Two days later an FBI agent came to talk with me and asked if I was aware of a regulation that stated one could not fly below 3000 AGL over a crowd of 10000 people or more. I informed him that I wasn't aware of any such FAR and he informed me it was not a FAR but a DHS regulation and that my act could be conceived as terrorism. I told him everything to my knowledge what had happened and that I did not go below 500 AGL because I deemed it to be a sparsely populated area. From the air; I and anyone flying that night would have been unable to determine that it was a densely populated area or that there was a crowd of 10000 or more people. This situation can possibly be avoided in the future if a TFR were to be set up during the time of the firework display. That way all future operators and pilots would know not to descend below 3000 AGL. If in the future there were to be no TFR; I see how no one would know not to descend as low as I did.




Synopsis: Cessna 172 pilot reported flying below 3;000 feet over a crowd of 10;000 people or more; claiming no TFR was published.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Other 107
Mission: Utility / Infrastructure
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying; Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I am part of a research team. For this research project; we use [UAV] aircraft to measure atmospheric conditions. For our flights; the [UAV] climbs vertically from the takeoff point to 2;500 feet AGL. It then descends back to the takeoff point to land. As Pilot in Command for these flights; my responsibility is the same as PIC of a manned aircraft. I ensure that the aircraft is operated according to procedures; I ensure that safety is considered at all times; I watch the aircraft and scan the area for other air traffic. I have full authority under 14 CFR 91.3 to end the flight or take any other action I see fit at any time. I do not; however; manipulate the controls. A separate [UAV] operator does so under my supervision and under my authority. The incident in question occurred during descent from the 8th flight of the day. The previous 7 had gone perfectly; without incident. On this flight; during descent; the rotors and motors sounded different than they usually do during this phase of flight. Believing this to be nearby air traffic; I quickly scanned the area. Seeing no traffic; I returned my line of sight to the [UAV]; which was descending more quickly than normal. Suddenly; a large cloud of smoke emanated from the [UAV]. All personnel on the ground moved away from the [UAV]; which fell to the ground and landed in a patch of grass.




Synopsis: UAV Operator reported losing control of the aircraft following an undetermined significant failure that resulted in the UAV crashing to the ground.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Aircraft: Cessna Single Turboprop Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was working the Satellite and Arrival Sectors and took radar on Aircraft X level at 4000 feet on a 250 heading. After some time; I vectored Aircraft X to a 310 heading to put the aircraft towards its course. An arrival was coming inbound that I needed to descend; so I put Aircraft X on a 280 heading to create divergence. Once the arrival was no longer a factor; I issued a 340 heading to Aircraft X and received no response. I tried again and received no response and saw no change in the course of the aircraft on the Radar. I gave an instruction to the arrival; and observed that the frequency was still working well with the other aircraft. Aircraft X was approaching an area of terrain with an MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude) of 5000 feet while level at 4000 feet. I attempted on 121.5 several times and included instructions to turn away from the terrain and a frequency change. I also attempted the standby transmitter for the frequency assigned and asked other positions to attempt contact and turn Aircraft X north if they had him. Calls were made to neighboring facilities to try as well. Aircraft X went into the 5000 foot MVA and shortly after contacted me. I issued a turn to heading 010 to get away from the higher terrain; and a climb to 5000 feet. When possible; I put Aircraft X on course and descended back to 4000 feet. I issued the brasher statement to the pilot prior to a frequency change to the next sector. I could have told the pilot when to expect a vector back to the north; and it's possible they may have realized earlier that their radio had failed when they didn't receive an instruction.




Synopsis: A Center Controller reported an aircraft on a vector went NORDO and flew below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-24 Comanche
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Selector
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying [third] flight of the day. All three run-ups of the day had been normal. Lost power on takeoff from runway at ~400ft AGL and could not reestablish it. Landed straight ahead and landed hard on runway surface and departed runway to left and beyond the runway end in the sagebrush and soft soil. Prop was still wind-milling. Pilot and passenger were unharmed. I shut down the engine with mixture; turned off the master switch; fuel pump. Turned the fuel selector to off; closed the throttle; then exited the plane. The left main landing gear was damaged with the skin above it punctured by it. The prop appeared to be fine; indicating no prop strike. No obvious damage to the rest of the plane based on cursory exterior looks. No one was harmed. It appears that the left main tank was run dry on this take-off run; based on looking in the fuel tank after the plane was secured at the airport. There was plenty of fuel in the remaining tanks. I knew this tank was lower than the rest and thought I was on the right main on this takeoff. Since I turned the selector to off just after landing before exiting the plane; I can't recall definitively whether the fuel was on the left or right main. This incident is not an accident within the meaning of the NTSB definition.




Synopsis: PA24 pilot experiences engine failure at 400 feet AGL and lands on the runway remaining; resulting in a runway excursion and damage to the wing and left landing gear. Fuel exhaustion was thought to be the cause as the left main tank was dry.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MDT.TRACON, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 425/441 Conquest I/Conquest II
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E MDT
ATC / advisory: TRACON MDT
Second aircraft: Twin Otter DHC-6
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was maneuvering in the practice area conducting a routine maintenance check flight in Cessna Conquest II at 6;500 feet. This flight was conducted using radar flight following services from Approach Control. While on an east bound heading south of the airport and north of the mountain ridges; a DHC6 Twin Otter appeared at my 12 o'clock position in a steep climb west bound. I made an immediate left turn to avoid impact as the Twin Otter was just slightly to the right of my centerline of travel. If I would have made a right turn; impact would have been imminent. From the time the Twin Otter appeared in my sight; there was less than five seconds to impact of the two planes. As I made the left turn I was still concerned that the Twin Otter might strike the belly of the Conquest II. The Twin Otter made no attempt to maneuver to avoid the converging paths. I immediately advised Approach of the near miss and was advised that it is not their responsibility to avoid collisions during VFR operations. The Twin Otter was in contact with Approach and receiving VFR flight advisories. At no time did Approach notify either aircraft of collision advisory warnings. I called Approach and spoke with a Supervisor who was very helpful in reviewing the incident and assured me he would be filing an incident report through the ATC system.There were three individuals responsible for ensuring safety of flight during these operations. There was a failure in two of these three individuals. Though very traumatic; luckily no one was hurt. If these failures occur again; it could be very deadly and not restricted to small aircraft. I am willing to speak in detail about this incident.




Synopsis: Twin Cessna pilot reported an NMAC while receiving VFR flight following but not advised of conflicting traffic.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise over we noticed an acrid burning smell and immediately detected thin white smoke in the cockpit. We donned the oxygen masks and smoke goggles and the First Officer (FO) began working the checklists. We began a descent and quickly decided to divert to a nearby airport; as it was directly ahead of us. We messaged the company; informed the Flight Attendant and passengers; and requested CFR. As ATC got us down to 9;000 feet fairly quickly; I had some time and thought there might be a closer airport but the smoke had dissipated and we decided it was better to stick with the current plan. We removed our masks to preserve oxygen in case the smoke returned; proceeded to the airport and landed unremarkably.Obviously smoke in the cockpit is a big threat. Just after deciding to go to ZZZ I noticed the flight time was 15 minutes but; because we descended to 9;000 feet it took a good bit longer at 250 KTS. We did discuss going back up to 10;000 feet to accelerate. Instead we used the time to set up the approach and discuss the plan upon arrival with the CFR crew. I did not have good situational awareness as to the distance to the diversion airport.After seeing smoke I think the most important consideration is getting on the ground as quickly as possible. It would have been faster to have an alternate airport in mind from the onset; but I did not at that moment. If the smoke had increased we might have headed to the nearest 5;000 foot runway. We could have decreased the flight time by flying [faster] at 10;000 feet or choosing a closer runway. The FO was well trained and did a good job. The company could disseminate these reports to all maintenance personnel to better avoid such events. Also; Dispatch; upon hearing the event could send suggestions of close alternate airports.




Synopsis: Upon sensing smoke and a burning odor the flight crew of an EMB-145 diverted uneventfully to the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Failed; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Immediately after takeoff from ZZZ all communication was disrupted by extreme static which inhibited the ability to transmit or receive any communication by either VHF 1 or VHF 2 radio through headsets; hand mics; or speakers. The static continued throughout the entire flight with brief periods of communication possible for 1-5 minutes. Crew elected to continue normal departure and climb and adhere to our filed route clearance while squawking 7600. Dispatch was notified via ACARS and was requested to coordinate down link ATC communications. During brief periods of open communication we informed ATC of our intentions to fly our filed route; arrival STAR and land on runway XXC at destination ZZZ1. Captain and FO discussed and agreed that the safest course of action was to fly our filed and comply with lost communication procedures and not complicate the current flight plan by returning to departure field or an unplanned alternate. FO flew the aircraft from takeoff to landing and captain handled the communication and ATC coordination issues. Arrival landing; taxi and parking at ZZZ1 were uneventful and flight was completed safely.




Synopsis: Captain reported loss of all VHF communications and elected to continue the flight to destination airport.