elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201411
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While approaching gate under direction of marshaller to area for tug hook up for tow-in; a ground vehicle sped very close across in front of aircraft; and appeared briefly to turn toward aircraft on a collision course. I immediately stopped the aircraft hard to avoid collision and turned on additional exterior lights. We had navigation; anti-collision; and logo lights on at the time. The vehicle corrected course slightly; sped up and away. The marshaller never gave us a stop signal; nor did the wing walker attempt to stop the vehicle as it entered the clear zone. I don't think they saw them. Don't know where they were looking. If we had not been taxiing slowly and applied brakes; turned on lights I believe we would have had a collision. It was very close. I remained stopped until after checking with cabin crew for possible injuries. There were none reported.




Synopsis: B757 Captain experiences a near ground collision with a vehicle that cuts in front of the aircraft while being marshalled into the gate.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Fatigue; Training / Qualification; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: 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 Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Soon after departure from ZZZ; we were given a lower cruise altitude. All of these changes spanned the climb; cruise and descent segments; so PF accomplished numerous FMS program changes. Prior to ZZZZZ; we were given a vector for spacing - heading 290; I think - and subsequent descents and speed changes. At some point during the changes; PF lost track of things and turned toward ZZZZZ waypoint without clearance. ATC issued a turn back to heading 300. PM noticed the turn; but was in third leg since returning from five months leave; so did not intervene or call out the discrepancy as he; also; was not certain the turn was incorrect. Crew was subsequently cleared to ZZZZZ and to descend VIA ZZZZZ arrival and landed XXR without incident.  I think even the Controller lost track of all of the instructions. I attribute the error to task saturation; hunger and some dehydration. I was also a little distracted by some personal issues going on which I started to think about while we were waiting during flow control from ZZZ-ZZZ1. I think we will have lots of issues going forward as pilots come off of extended leaves of absence. I should not have let myself get distracted and dehydrated.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a track deviation and cited task saturation; hunger and lack of flying as contributing factors.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: M-20 G Statesman
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the descent I switched the fuel selector from the left to right tank and experienced engine failure due to loss of fuel pressure. I returned the fuel selector to the left tank and never regained fuel pressure. At this time I turned towards [the airport] and notified ATC of engine problems and stated my intention to land at [the airport].  We made a safe landing on Runway 18 with no damage or injuries. The next morning we discovered that the fuel selector handle had separated from the fuel selector stem that extends into the fuel valve which was stuck in the off position.




Synopsis: An M20 pilot deadsticked to a safe landing at a nearby airport when the engine failed while switching tanks. A malfunctioning fuel tank selector valve was reponsible.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TMB.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D TMB
ATC / advisory: Tower TMB
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While on visual approach to Runway 09R at 2;000 MSL on right downwind per clearance; I was instructed to extend my downwind by the Tower Controller and that he would call my base turn. He called traffic to me at 3 miles; 2 o'clock position at same altitude and converging from right to left. I did not immediately establish visual contact with the traffic. The Controller called the other aircraft 3 times to alert him as to my position. The other aircraft never gained visual contact with me. Almost immediately after another call to me to point out the traffic I gained visual contact and received the RA to 'monitor vertical speed.' I informed ATC that I had traffic and was immediately descending to avoid conflict. Controller called the other aircraft and instructed them to maintain 2;000. I passed approximately 300 feet below the other aircraft. I resumed my assigned heading and upon clearance to land resumed visual approach and landed without incident.




Synopsis: Corporate Captain reported an NMAC during a visual approach to TMB airport.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: S-70/UH-60 Blackhawk/Seahawk/Pavehawk/Knighthawk
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ; Special Use ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: Trainee; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We had just finished a training mission and we were returning to [base]. We were on a southeasterly heading; 1000 FT MSL approximately 10 NM NW of ZZZ. Both pilots were on NVG (Night Vision Goggles). We had just tuned up the CTAF. We didn't hear any CTAF traffic. A few minutes later the pilot in the left seat called traffic. The other helicopter was difficult to break out from the cultural lighting and resulted in a delay in maneuvering to avoid. Once the pilot at the controls broke out the traffic; he turned left to avoid. The other helicopter was heading north and was about 100 FT below. The aircraft had approximately 200 FT of lateral separation.




Synopsis: MH60 student pilot at 1;000 feet on a Night Vision Goggles training exercise reports an NMAC with another helicopter at 900 feet.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Two passengers in XX1 and XX2.  I was having to remind them to put their masks on. Next; I had to remind them to cover their nose. One passenger seemed like he would escalate; so we opted out of the warning.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported having to remind two passengers about the face mask policy. FA backed off for fear the situation would escalate.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Result: General None Reported / Taken

Narrative: Working a slow but steady local session with Supervisor working GC/CD combined. Very low staffing due to COVID. Steady traffic all day; I wouldn't call it too busy though. Very last transmission of my shift was to Aircraft X.Aircraft X called on about a 7 mile final (new pilot). I cleared it to land on Runway XX right and then started my position relief briefing within seconds of my transmission.Finished the brief and my 2 minute overlap; said bye to my fellow coworkers and left. Aircraft X was probably on a 2 mile final by then.I was paged at the bottom of elevator and Supervisor asked 'Did you give Aircraft X Runway XX right or Runway XX left'? I told him I didn't remember.Turned out aircraft landed on Runway XX left instead of Runway XX right. No separation issues luckily.All they said was 'cleared to land' I didn't even realize it at the time.I was distracted; ready for the briefing to be done after a long; busy day with a skeleton crew.Expectation bias all the way; I just assumed they said XX right in their transmission.All controllers tend to get complacent in this job when everything goes right for some time; I need to stay vigilant and listen to every transmission. If I would've just listened to that pilot's readback instead of thinking about getting off position and being done for the day; I would've noticed it and I would've got verification that she was cleared to land on runway XX right and all would've been good.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported communication issues with an aircraft resulted in a wrong runway landing.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Door
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in the initial climb phase of flight after retracting the gear and flaps; myself and the acting second in command noticed an audible rumble and vibration in both the yoke and rudder pedals. The decision was then made to return to ZZZ in an effort to ensure safety. After an uneventful landing and return to the FBO; we discovered the right main landing gear door had separated from the landing gear itself. It appeared that a bolt had sheared off that holds the actuator between the landing gear and the landing gear door. The separation allowed the gear door to hang on the point that appropriate clearance could not be maintained between the ground and the gear door. The contact between the ground and the gear door caused the door to warp and show visible signs of contact on the end of the door.




Synopsis: Citation 525 Captain reported failure of a bolt retaining the main landing gear door causing the door to impact the runway.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Just before departure; the gate agent called me out to the jetbridge to talk. She relayed a story of verbal abuse to her by one of our passengers. I asked that the passenger be paged to the front of the aircraft. I wanted to visit with him about his actions away from earshot of the other passengers. I also wanted to assess his willingness to comply with the flight crew going forward. Two PAs were made asking him by name to come forward. He did not respond or comply. Now that he has been abusive and non-compliant I went back to his seat to inform him I needed him to step off of the aircraft. With some protest he finally did.In the jetbridge he was contrite; apologetic; and soft spoken. He related that his father was on his deathbed and that he was upset and trying to get to [destination] in time to see him. I told [him] to wait a moment while I conferred with my crew. Flight Attendant Number 1 was in the front galley. As I approached her she immediately related that; while I was counseling [the passenger]; his sister in [seat next to him] had come up and spoken offensively to her. The Flight Attendant tried to reassure her that the Captain was working things out and to return to her seat. She would not; but only grew more obstinate. The Flight Attendant told her 4 times to return to her seat but she would not listen. Upon hearing this I decided that neither one could ride on our flight. They both failed to follow crew directions and had used abusive language toward the agent and Flight Attendant. Following in this pattern; they also refused to leave the aircraft until an [airport] police officer arrived on the scene.What sparked the exchange was the agent requiring the male passenger to put his rollaboard bag in the bag sizer. He reacted in anger and initially refused. He finally gave in but roughly shoved his bag in and called the agent a degrading name. When the agent relayed this to me later she was trembling. I think we can all sympathize with a passenger racing to be near a dying family member. But the reason for their travel does not justify the behavior. It may be that efforts to diffuse the behavior were not successfully deployed. Also; it would have been better to deny boarding than to remove him after the fact.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported the removal of two passengers who used abusive language toward the flight attendants and a Gate Agent during boarding.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed 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 Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: The OAPM RNAV arrival into IAH from the southwest corner post is the Tejas2 arrival and has a NOTAM for turbojets pilots to maintain mach number until descending via the arrival and then maintain 280kts when transitioning to IAS. When asked Aircraft X claimed to be at 300kts. I asked if Aircraft X was aware of the 280kts restriction and he said I had not issued it so he was not flying at 280kts. I explained the speed restriction was in the NOTAMS and the pilot then keyed up to explain to me that he was not required to reduce his speed until GMANN. I stated the NOTAM for the pilot and asked him to reduce to published speed. Upon frequency change to approach control the pilot again began to explain to me in length that he was not required to reduce speed until transitioning to IAS and that he hadn't transitioned until FL270. This is a common occurrence with pilots on the southwest corner post and creates a hazard to flight safety as is causes unnecessary frequency congestion while aircraft are in a situation of rapid congestion. Pilots have complained that the NOTAM is in a list of roughly 40 or so NOTAMS for the airport; however; that should not negate responsibility. I recommend that the speed reduction is more clearly stated or restated (to include a distance from fix to begin speed reduction or altitude) since different aircraft types transition at different altitudes. I also highly suggest the speed restriction be added to the actual STAR and not just as a NOTAM.




Synopsis: ZHU Controller describes problems with various aircraft inbound to IAH that are not clear with a NOTAM that has speed restrictions on it that relate to a STAR for IAH.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: VAY.Airport, NJ
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZOB
ATC / advisory: CTAF VAY
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: There was aerobatic show at my home base airport. I was returning from a short cross country and switched from approach to CTAF and called pattern entry left base Runway 8 and final. Another plane took the runway while I was on short final without [broadcasting on CTAF].I climbed for a go around and [made a] left turn at mid field. I saw the departing plane on TCAS only during the go around while climbing. The departing pilot advised me over CTAF that we were within 50 FT of each other prior to my left turn. I never saw the other plane after initiating my go around.




Synopsis: A BE36 pilot; returning to his home airport during an airshow; suffered an NMAC with an aircraft departing the runway as he was on short final. He initiated a go around and was advised by the other pilot on CTAF that they were separated by as little as 50 FT vertically during the event.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Given line up and wait instructions on 26L in ATL after Boeing 737 had just started to roll. After lining up was given takeoff clearance and proceeded with takeoff. After rotation and on climb out at around 400 feet received a windshear message; Captain was flying and complied with command bars and after about 5 seconds windshear message disappeared. Weather was clear skies; no weather in the area and had not been for at least 12 hours. Believe message was due to wake from heavy aircraft that had just taken off.Felt situation was handled properly and aircraft was not put in an undesired state.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported receiving a windshear message shortly after takeoff from ATL that he believes was caused by a wake from preceding aircraft.