elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were in cruise flight at FL340. I was the pilot flying. Both pilots 'heard' clearance for [Air Carrier] XXXX to descend to FL330. The First Officer read back the clearance and a descent was initiated for 330. Almost immediately after starting the descent; I heard ATC call an [Air Carrier] XXYX with a descent to 330. I immediately stopped our descent and started back up to 340. We had descended about 400 FT below 340. We then verified our cleared Flight Level as 340. The flight continued without further incident.1. Primary threat in this case seems to be two extremely similar call signs on the same frequency. As of this writing neither pilot not flying nor pilot flying is sure if we misheard the call sign or not. Also; when we read back the clearance there was no correction from Center; the Controller may not have heard the call sign correctly either. Clearly there was a comm issue between the flights and ATC; both of us believed we heard the appropriate callsign for the clearance.  This is a reoccurring issue with multiple callsigns all starting with '[Air Carrier] 4XXX or 5XXX. It seems absurd that we continue to create this call sign confusion simply because of the way a reservations computer categorizes flights.I am already very vigilant with ATC comm and altitude verification; however; it would appear that even more scrutiny is required; especially near hub airports. 2. We have a four digit call sign. Why we have to have '[Air Carrier] XXXX' and '[Air Carrier] XXYX' in the same airspace at the same time is beyond me. This threat is created and perpetuated by the current system of numbering flights.


Second narrative: We are not sure if we read back another flight's clearance or if the Controller had us switched. We read the clearance back as our own and ATC did not correct or change what we read back.


Synopsis: A CRJ-700 accepted a descent clearance intended for another company aircraft with a similar call sign. The error was detected and corrected after less than a 500 foot excursion. ATC did not recognize the readback error.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: With First Officer (FO) flying on final approach for the ILS level at 2;500 feet MSL; 180 knots assigned to the marker; gear down and flaps 20 set; both pilots realized we were too fast. The FO announced: 'We're not going to be stable' and I said: 'You need speedbrakes'. The FO did not immediately react; and; I pulled the speedbrake handle back. The aircraft slowed toward the flap 20 speed; and I quickly reset the speedbrake handle and set flaps 30 without direction from my FO. The FO was flustered by my manipulating 'levers' and literally threw his hands up in the air; in my estimation; quit flying the aircraft and said: 'I'm not flying this; you've got it'. I had not expected to assume the controls. I had simply been trying to help him get our speed under control.Now; I am Pilot Flying on the glideslope attempting to get familiar with the aircraft and get our speed under control. The FO called 'Unstable; Go Around' and I did not go around at that exact time. I was still processing all the information (I had been at the controls maybe 25 seconds) and believed we were still above 1;000 feet' AGL and that the FO had called Unstable early. Believing we would not be stable at 1;000 feet; the FO called 'Go Around' a second time. I evaluated the situation that we were at 147 KIAS; exactly 10 knots above approach speed (ref of 132) and realized that we were; in fact; below 1;000 feet AGL and felt that my FO had mentally 'checked out' on me.I executed a controlled go around at 850 feet AGL. I feel very strongly that was the exact altitude of the go around based on what I believe was my delay of execution trying to figure out exactly what was going on around me. I never saw approach lights and believe we broke out on the second approach from 700 to 800 feet AGL. My go around and second approach to an autoland was considered to be 'textbook' by my FO.




Synopsis: First Officer was unable to complete approach in IMC conditions. Captain assumed flying the aircraft; executed a missed approach and landed on the second attempt at the destination airport.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C BUR
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors

Narrative: On final approach to runway 08 at BUR; approximately one mile south of BUDDE intersection; a stationary drone was spotted at approximately 3;000 ft MSL and ATC was notified.


Second narrative: Established on localizer and glideslope with zero deviation; the First Officer observed an unreported drone hovering to the south of BUDDE FAF on the approach to Runway 08. The drone was at our altitude as we passed BUDDE. We immediately reported this to Tower and after we landed the Tower Controller asked us to report additional information to the Ground Controller; which we did right after completion of the Parking Checklist.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew was on an initial ILS approach when they noticed a UAS. Flight crew notified ATC.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: G2 Heritage (Glasair II) / G3 Heritage (Glasair III)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After spending the day performing maintenance on the COM antenna I taxied my plane out to the active runway at the airport where it's based to verify the radio issues I'd been having for the last 2 months had been fixed in flight before returning to service. The mission was traffic pattern work. That day there was little other airport traffic. I flew my first circuit without retracting the gear as intended to verify operation gradually and safely. My second circuit; the gear was retracted on upwind; a normal pattern was flown; and the gear retracted again on downwind abeam the runway numbers with 3 green lights confirming. On the third circuit I forgot to re-extend the gear and was across the runway threshold before noticing the landing gear buzzer going off. Before having time to react to the problem the nose began to vibrate from the propeller striking the runway and I could hear the scraping sound accompanied by a sight picture uncharacteristically low for a normal landing that made me realize my error.I quickly pulled the mixture all the way out to kill the engine and shut off the master switch while the belly of the plane slid down the middle of the runway. After coming to a stop shortly after I announced my gear-up landing on the active runway not realizing that the COM antenna was scraped off the bottom of the fuselage by that point. Then I shut off the fuel selector and magnetos and egressed the plane to head towards the FBO. The aircraft was put back on its wheels and towed to a hangar by airport management. The radios performed acceptably throughout the flight; but multiple occasions of extended downtime caused by mechanical needs over the last several months of ownership made staying proficient difficult. Had I been more fastidious about the landing checklist and not have gotten rusty from the setbacks; I believe this incident could have been avoided.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a gear up landing.
Date: 201901
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Other Load Planning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Other Person; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While conducting a physical search screening for a shipment that was scheduled; we found a Bluetooth speaker in one of the packages. Looking at the package; the Lithium Ion Battery sticker was missing as well as the declaration on the MAWB (Master Airways Bill). As per the web site on this product; it contains and internal Lithium-Ion Polymer battery.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported incomplete Hazmat cargo documentation.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 15
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Seaplane or Amphibian
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Trainee; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While On a VFR practice approach to RWY XX in ZZZ; traffic that we had in sight and had been advised about from ZZZ approach encroached on our final approach course; they suddenly swung under our aircraft after we crossed the final approach fix. the IP took flight controls and executed a missed approach. On the missed; we heard tower advise the other aircraft that they had lined up for the wrong runway. We climbed out uneventfully and returned to ZZZ.


Second narrative: I was doing another flight of practice approaches while working on my instrument rating. On this particular flight; the first approach I flew with my CFI was the RNAV approach to runway XX at ZZZ. Before getting handed off to the tower by ZZZ Approach; they point out traffic at our 10-11 o'clock and below us. My instructor had the aircraft in sight; and approach indicated that they might be talking to ZZZ tower. We then swapped to ZZZ tower and checked in on the approach; and ZZZ tower gave us no information on the amphibious aircraft that was at out 10-11 o'clock and below us. My CFI watched the traffic; and I glanced at it occasionally on ADS-B to have a general idea of where he was. About 3 miles from the runway; ADS-B indicated that the aircraft was directly below us at an altitude 200 feet lower than our altitude. At that point; my CFI took flight controls and did a rapid climb and executed the missed approach with no further conflicts; and informed ZZZ tower. While we were on the MAP; the amphibious aircraft reported a 3 mile final from runway XX; and ZZZ tower informed the amphibious aircraft that he was supposed to report a 3 mile final for runway XY.


Synopsis: C172 instructor and student pilots reported taking evasive action to avoid an aircraft that had lined up for the wrong runway.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While performing the flow for the taxi checklist; I forgot to turn on the probe heats. I read the taxi checklist I stated 'Anti-Ice - Set.' The probe heats remained off for the duration of the flight and I didn't notice until we landed and were taxiing in. It was a clear VFR day and we flew at 13;000 feet for our short flight. Luckily; the probe heat was not critical for this flight; but nonetheless it was an unacceptable error.This was my first flight in nearly 3 months. Due to COVID-19 I have taken leave and bid for reserve which has led to the long period of not flying. Because I had not flown in a few months I was rusty on my flows. I felt that my recollection was strong enough; but in reality I should have taken some time to review SOPs.Everyone knows that flying skills and company policies/procedures are highly diminishable. In order to prepare for a flight following a period of inactivity I should have dedicated more time to review my duties. I placed too much confidence in assuming that it would all come back to me as 'second nature.' I pride myself in being highly standardized; but this time I was too lazy to put in the effort to review. My previous hard work and the excellent training programs within company allowed for a mostly successful flight despite being away from the plane for so long; however I know that more is expected of me and I will strive to be better and more professional.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported forgetting to turn on the probe heat and stated lack of flying was a contributing factor.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I received a handoff on this aircraft on an assigned heading to the northeast destined for ZZZ airport. The aircraft was above a 5000 foot MVA. I vectored the aircraft to the east to set them up for an instrument approach. The vector clipped the northern edge of a 5600 foot MVA. My instructor caught the MVA violation but the aircraft had already entered it. I issued a climb to 6000 feet to get the aircraft above the MVA. The aircraft continued onto ZZZ without issues. I should keep the MVA map displayed until I am very well versed on the MVA's in and adjacent to my airspace.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported turning an aircraft into a higher MVA.
Date: 201708
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuselage Skin
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Manuals; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After working full shift; I was dispatched to ZZZ to recover aircraft. I was told it was a lightning strike event and was told to inspect aircraft and map out damage. During [the] drive I was contacted by maintenance control to confirm we were to document any damage and engineering was prepared to give 40 hour limit for each rivet damaged if needed. Contract maintenance found approx. 10 damaged rivets. I inspected aircraft on and off through the night into early morning due to periods of rain and wind. After completion; our duty time was nearing; so I documented that the inspection was completed and also documented additional damaged rivets totaling 50 in the aircraft ELB (Electronic Log Book). I was told by the maintenance controller that he would defer all damage himself and also release the airplane into service. It was my knowledge that the aircraft was to ferry [out] for repair. After rest period; I learned that the aircraft was currently flying subsequent flights around the country. When returning to work from days off; I was approached by my [Union Representative] that the aircraft was down in ZZZ1 for maintenance addressing the damaged rivets.

Callback: The reporter stated that he is an A&P mechanic and was called out to perform an inspection of an aircraft that had a lightning strike. The reporter stated the local FBO was used for a preliminary inspection and he completed the inspection and found numerous damaged rivets. He then confirmed with Maintenance Control the completion of all the required documentation. The reporter also stated the aircraft continued in service for a few more days until it was routed into a maintenance station where the required repairs were made.



Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported that over 50 rivets were found damaged on an A320 due to lightning strikes. The aircraft continued to fly without proper maintenance action.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Eurocopter AS 350/355/EC130 - Astar/Twinstar/Ecureuil
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning Compressor
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Other After Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After making a precautionary landing due to a burning smell in the cabin (with no passengers aboard).  I inspected the aircraft for the source of the smell; which turned out to be the air conditioner compressor bearings.  I called my Supervisor of flight to see how to proceed.  I was advised that I could cut the air conditioner belt and fly back to a Maintenance facility.  The next day; I was told that to disable the airconditioning system was a MEL item and only a Mechanic was supposed to disable the system before flying.




Synopsis: AS350 pilot reported making a precautionary landing due to a burning odor in the cabin caused by air conditioning compressor.  Pilot cut the drive belt on the advice of company personnel and flew to a Maintenance facility where it was learned that the procedure could only be performed by a qualified Mechanic and that it was an MEL item.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Other 107
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was operating a hobby racing drone in proximity to a moving freight train. I am a very experienced manual drone operator; and I decided to fly closely to; land on; fly under; and fly inside of; a passing cargo train. I wasn't aware; ahead of the flight; that there were strict rules about what you can and cannot do near railroad property. The flight lasted about 3 minutes; and I landed safely; putting nothing but the drone in jeopardy. It will not be happening again.




Synopsis: UAV operator reported unauthorized operation of a drone in close proximity to a moving freight train.