elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Traffic was complex with terrible turbulence and sequencing and a moderate amount of aircraft. The RADAR side had a D-side (Radar Assist). Denver had two aircraft that they handed off to us at 33;000 feet on collision courses. Because of the distractions of bad turbulence; sequencing and other ATC duties we didn't notice until the conflict alert went off that these two aircraft were going to lose separation right at the ZDV/ZMP boundary and collide 9 miles inside our boundary! As soon as both aircraft came over to our frequency and still ten miles inside ZDV airspace; we turned both aircraft in opposite directions to achieve positive separation! Then; we had to call ZDV and get control of Aircraft X to descend him still inside ZDV airspace because the aircraft needed to cross paths. I'm not sure if ZDV intended to put these two aircraft together; because these aircraft would have collided if there was a stuck microphone; NORDO or any other reason we lost communications.   These acts of ZDV putting two or more aircraft together has got to stop before lives are lost! These instances are becoming more frequent.




Synopsis: ZMP Center Controller reported the adjacent Center ZDV sector handed them off two aircraft on converging routes at the same altitude.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MMU.Tower, NJ
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: SVFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Aircraft X departed SVFR off Runway 23 westbound. I noticed Aircraft X tracking back to the airport about 30 minutes later and reached out to him. He told me he would like to try and find a hole in the overcast as he had done earlier for departure. I cleared him on a SVFR clearance inbound for MMU from the west. Aircraft X tried with no avail for about 10 to 15 minutes to find a spot to descend through. At this point he was holding about 5 miles north to northwest of MMU airport just outside the Class Delta. I was keeping him advised of inbound IFR aircraft. At one point Aircraft X wanted to try to get into Caldwell (CDW) but I was told from the working Tower Controller there that he would have to get approval from N90 TRACON for that. After that I tried to have the pilot contact N90 Approach in the hope they would be able to pick up an IFR clearance to MMU. Aircraft X called me back saying they were too busy and could not help him. Me and my Tower CIC tried multiple times to help get this aircraft over to N90 for additional service with no luck. Eventually Aircraft X [notified ATC and declared minimum fuel] and needed to come in now. I relayed this information with the help of my CIC so N90 Approach could take the next arrivals out further for this operation. I cleared Aircraft X into the Class Delta again SVFR from the north and provided services to the ground as best as I could. Upon checking the airfield lighting I found out we did not have control of the airfield lighting as airport ops had taken control of it. I was unaware of this as there were no NOTAMs for this and no notice was given. I later found out that the approach lights were most likely not working as well. This was unacceptable as we were close to minimums at the time of his approach. Aircraft X confirmed he had ground contact and I issued a clearance to land on Runway 23 which he accomplished without incident. [Recommendation would be] having the ability to get ahold of N90 Approach in a timely manner to help an aircraft in distress get an IFR clearance.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported an aircraft declared minimum fuel to be able to get into an airport that was underneath an overcast layer.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Just a busy VFR final with speed 170 until 5 miles and then a scramble to get speed set and flaps configured and landing checklist done.  Seriously compounding the issue is a lack of recency in the jet (over 5 months since last flight and 8 months since having a consistent schedule).




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported an unstabilized approach and cited lack of proficiency after an extended period of time off as a contributing factor.
Date: 202101
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Due to COVID-19 and family issues there has been a considerable limited amount of flying. Flying practice flights to regain proficiency in all aspects.Assigned a heading and altitude of 2;500 feet on departure from ZZZ. If given a change to ATC I missed the call; but do not remember hearing it. I climbed to 4;500 feet which was my flight altitude.I was told by Tower to go to Departure. Departure stated I climbed to an unauthorized altitude as there was possible traffic. Was not allowed above 2;500 feet.Miss-communication and getting back into the system after the layoff. This is why I am practicing in VFR conditions with various phases of flight.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported an altitude deviation during departure and cited lack of flying as a contributing factor.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MXO.Airport, IA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G MXO
ATC / advisory: CTAF MXO
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student and I approached the MXO airport from the northeast and made our initial radio call on the CTAF. From there; we proceeded to fly to the airport to enter the traffic pattern on the left mid-field downwind position. After hearing on the weather frequency that the wind was from 010 at 6 knots; we announced on the CTAF that we would be using runway 33. We continued to update our position on the CTAF frequency all throughout the traffic pattern. Shortly after we turned final to runway 33; my student and I noticed a yellow crop duster flying towards us just a few feet to our left at the same altitude. No radio calls had been made on the CTAF by anyone other than us. After swerving to avoid the crop duster; we were able to finish our final descent and land on runway 33.We proceeded to takeoff; and made another left-hand traffic pattern. On the upwind; we noticed another crop duster taxiing from the ramp to the runways; and during our downwind; we realized that the second crop duster was also taxiing to runway 15. Again; no radio calls were ever made by the crop duster; and the winds were favoring the opposite direction runway. We continued to make our traffic pattern radio calls on the CTAF; but never heard anything from the crop duster; and by the time we were on the left base leg; the crop duster was in the process of taking off down runway 15. Seeing this; my student and I went around; abandoned the pattern; and departed the area to the northeast. These incidents could have easily been prevented by the crop duster pilots monitoring and talking on their radios to the CTAF; and watching for other traffic.




Synopsis: C172 reported NMACs in the pattern at MXO airport with two different crop dusters who appeared to not be using CTAF.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CO15.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Aerobatic
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Aerobatics
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E D01
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While maneuvering near Kelly Airpark on a west heading I noticed an aircraft well below and to my north that would pass below and behind me during my looping maneuver. To facilitate separation and maintain visual contact I continued the climbing portion of the loop vertically to just below a stall. The other aircraft passed greater than 2;500 FT below and more than 2;500 FT west of our position as we passed through inverted. On the way down I rolled 90 degrees to a south heading to maintain visual contact through the end of the maneuver. We leveled at approximately 9;000 FT MSL on the same heading as the other aircraft well behind it. The TIS system in my aircraft never registered a Traffic Advisory. The other aircraft did not say anything on 122.75; the frequency that we monitor in the area known for high intensity training and aerobatics. I possibly encroached on V81 coming less than 4 miles from the center of the airway maneuvering to avoid the other aircraft. The other aircraft did not appear to ever see us as indicated by their unchanging flight path. I finished the flight without incident.In the future to avoid a situation like this I feel like it would help if there was a note on the chart to monitor 122.75 in this area. All of the flight schools do this now but anyone traveling through there would also benefit having an idea of who is there before they come through.That said I will be utilizing Denver Approach Control in the future to know of a potential conflict more quickly while broadcasting in the blind my position and monitoring 122.75.




Synopsis: A pilot maneuvering during acrobatic flight in a high performance aircraft may have entered the V81 confines near CO15 while not communicating with ATC but monitoring the training area frequency 122.75.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Dust
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: 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; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Flying along looking for landing locations during a back country flying. Came across a set of power lines while operating at a very low altitude and airspeed while making an approach to land on a small playa/lakebed. I made the determination that it would be more hazardous to make abrupt control input and try to either climb over the lines or turn to avoid them. I elected to increase power and abort my landing on the small playa and fly under the lines. So I'm reporting this here because I think this was a hazard coming this close to an incident. A contributing factor was the sunlight at the time was at my rear and creating a glare inside my cockpit that made the power lines difficult to see. Also there was wind blowing up playa dust and the dust accumulated on the windscreen causing a distraction reduction in visibility outside the cockpit. As a result of this close call; I terminated my flight early and returned to the flying.




Synopsis: A Carbon Cub pilot reported sunlight and blowing dust obscuring view of powerlines; resulted in taking evasive action.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DAL.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B DAL
ATC / advisory: Tower DAL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Check Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On downwind into DAL the First Officer (IOE) was flying and I was the Pilot Monitoring. We were on a right base to final and he was fast and unable to configure properly. We went around because we were too high to safely land. We went around and were sequenced back into a visual to 31L again. He was very concerned that he might get fast again and began to configure early. We turned final and he started down early. I was watching him to make sure that he was not going too fast. At approximately 1;400 FT MSL; Tower called a low altitude alert and I acknowledged that we were correcting. We had a 13-knot tailwind all the way down final and the glideslope did not come into view until late in the approach. We landed and taxied to the Gate. When we got to the gate; we debriefed what happened and turned the aircraft over to the oncoming Crew. I was so concerned that we might have to go around that I let my guard down and let us get low on the approach.


Second narrative: Cleared visual approach 31L DAL. We got high and could not continue with stable approach. Executed visual go-around and maintained VMC for vectors visual 31L DAL. As I was the Pilot Flying; on right base leg; we got low altitude alert from ATC. About this same time; the glideslope came into view. I corrected the path and landed. Next time; I will try and execute the visual approach from outside the FAF and make sure the aircraft is stable and remains that way.


Synopsis: Medium passenger jet flight crew; with the First Officer on IOE; reports an unstabilized visual approach that results in a go-around. On the second visual approach the aircraft is configured early and allowed to get low resulting in a low altitude alert from the Tower. The approach is continued to a normal landing.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RIC.Airport, VA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E PCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On the SPIDR2 RNAV arrival; ATC gave us multiple step down altitudes; ignoring the altitudes prescribed in the arrival. Green Flight Path Angle (FPA) mode was used to make the descent. Outside of HEMME; we were told to descend via the arrival; so we scrolled the altitude down to 8;000. We then realized that we were at 10;600 just before HEMME; with an altitude restriction of 11;000-12;000. We stopped descending and climbed back up to join the arrival profile.To prevent the airplane from leveling off during our assigned descent; we switched the vertical mode from magenta to green. When told to descend via the arrival later; we forgot to switch it back.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported descending below the SPIDR2 Arrival published altitude depiction on the chart.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZSU.ARTCC, PR
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Center ZSU
Second aircraft: Twin Otter DHC-6
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working the R1 Sector and I had Aircraft Y [a] VFR DHC6 turning right base in front of Aircraft X an IFR A320 that was 4 miles in trail for Runway 10. Aircraft Y reduced speed to 80 knots so I told Aircraft X to reduce to slowest practical speed. When they were 2.5 miles apart the Tower gave me the handoff for Aircraft X because they had sent Aircraft X around. Nobody called me for coordination and when I called and asked I told them to let Aircraft X do the approach and send Aircraft Y around but they switch me Aircraft X for re-sequence. No separation was lost on this event. There have been plenty of issues with SJUT and the biggest problem that we have in approach is the attitude and lack of professionalism in handling this type of situation ending up in compromising safety. This has to change; to be a better system and to provide a better service. They give a poor service to pilots and they don't want to cooperate with us starting with their management. This has to stop; many coworkers are frustrated because no action has been taken. Safety is being compromised!




Synopsis: ZSU Controller described a go around event when the Tower sent an A320 around that was following a DHC6; the TRACON Controller indicating the Tower ignored the TRACON's direction.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: King Air 100 A/B
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Handoff / Assist
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I took the hand off on a BE10 routed direct the VOR. Around the time he checked on our frequency; we realized that he was drifting south of course; possibly due to winds? Although his equipment suffix was (/G) and toward restricted airspace; which was active. The R Controller vectored him 15 or 20 degrees right; to the north of the restricted airspace. I had some land line calls and had missed whatever happened on the frequency and with the R Controller while my attention was on other calls. I noticed the BE10 was turning back toward the VOR and updated the route line. He would be cutting into Sector 27's airspace on his way to the neighboring Center's airspace. I debated for a moment in my head whether to point him out to 27 (and hand off to the neighboring Center) or hand him off to 27. My R Controller looked at me; pointed to the BE10 and said; '27's watching him.' I nodded; and flashed the hand off to the neighboring Center. After the BE10 was in 27's airspace; the R Controller quick looked 27 and noticed they didn't have the full data block pulled up. He asked me if they had ever gotten the point out on him. I was confused and said I thought he had told me that he had pointed him out to 27. A point out was made to 27 at that time; after we had violated their airspace. In retrospect; I now understand that my R Controller had been asking me a question: '27's watching him?' I would recommend; as a Radar Associate; if you believe your R is telling you that he already coordinated something; to question it and to reiterate to clarify that that is what he is actually telling you.




Synopsis: Enroute Assistant Controller described an unauthorized airspace entry event when coordination with the RADAR Controller was confused.