elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DVT.Airport, AZ
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D DVT
ATC / advisory: Tower DVT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was landing at Deer Valley Airport in Phoenix; Arizona.  I initially contacted the North Runway Tower as advised on ATIS for arriving aircraft.  I reported approximately 10 miles north of the airport and was instructed to enter a right base for Runway 25L as Runway 25R was closed for construction.  When on approximately a 2-3 mile right base to Runway 25R; I was instructed to orbit north of the center line of Runway 25R.  I did not fully understand the request to orbit north of Runway 25R.  I made a left 270 to a heading of approximately 270 to establish a pattern just northeast of Runway 25R. This left turn resulted in a near miss with another aircraft on base to Runway 25L.  At this time the Tower instructed me to fly southwest to approximately the center of Runway 25R.  I then was changed from the North Tower frequency to the South Tower frequency on right base for Runway 25L.  When contacting ground frequency I was instructed to call the Tower.Misunderstanding of orbit North of Runway 25R centerline.  1) Clarify misunderstanding or confusion with Tower as soon as possible 2) Utilize communication via e-mail to local pilots by the Deer Valley Pilot Association to alert the pilot as to the anticipated traffic pattern changes occurring with closure of Runway 25R3) Clarification of phraseology by Tower e.g. 'make right hand turns North of Runway 25R rectangular pattern'   OR 'turn right to enter rectangular orbit with right hand turns North of Runway 25R'.




Synopsis: While on a right base for for Runway 25R at DVT; pilot is instructed to orbit north of the center line of the Runway. A left turn is initiated resulting in a NMAC with another aircraft on base for Runway 25R.
Date: 201309
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: SKC; 10
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Ground Personnel; Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: There was traffic with no communication; we saw them so close. The evasive action was smooth and we continued with our approach. It is important to tell you that ATC advised us about traffic without altitude information in the area. I think that this event occurred because of the distraction of the other aircraft in the communications and in the airspace class that they were flying.




Synopsis: An A320 on approach took evasive action to a near miss TCAS RA east of LAS from ATC identified traffic which did not report altitude information.
Date: 201907
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp; Vehicle Driver
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After ramp was loaded I communicated to Pilot was ready to push. Pilot said brake release clear to push to 6A and double confirmed if 6A is ok I said yes and is clear for push. As I was pushing the plane. Suddenly the move team with [another airline] passed by without noticing we were at 6A. So I stopped the plane; move team was right on our path and stopped for gate acceptance. At this moment pilot decided to change from A to centerline. He confirmed with Tower and relay back to me and he said after the [other airline] passed and got into its gate safely brake release and clear to push. As I was pushing forward and angling the plane; Wing Walker 2 was not visible so I stopped and decided to pull back the plane to the 6 centerline. As I started to move back a stop signal from [Other Airline Crew] said I hit the plane. The [other airline] crew gave the signal stopped after the accident already happened. When I looked back Wing Walker 2 was halfway towards 6 centerline. Wing Walker 1 was by wing side guiding.




Synopsis: Tug Driver reported confusion and loss of sight of wing walkers resulting in a collision with another aircraft.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was performing landing work in prep for a checkride at ZZZ. My Instructor and I took off from a touch and go on XXR. We were instructed to follow the aircraft ahead of us in the upwind and make right traffic. We located the aircraft as it turned to crosswind. I extended upwind and climbed to 1;500 MSL - about 600 AGL - before it was safe to start my crosswind. I made my crosswind and continued climbing; entering downwind about 1;600 - 1;700 MSL. I had an Instructor on board. I was flying right seat. During this time I heard another aircraft cleared for take-off and directed to follow me. [The] Instructor was handling radio calls due to feedback on my radio mic.Once in downwind; I got a traffic alert on the Garmin 650 in my aircraft. Finding that odd I looked to my right and about 100 - 200 ft. below me and 200 ft. to my right I saw an aircraft climbing and turning as if to enter downwind as well. My Instructor was on radios and notified ATC who directed us to turn north. We did so and cleared out of the area; mitigating the traffic conflict.




Synopsis: C-172 Pilot reported encountering a NMAC event during landing practice and performing a successful evasive maneuver.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B JFK
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90; Tower JFK
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were on final outside of ZULAB on centerline of runway 31R and cleared for approach to the runway. We were originally cleared for ILS 31R and later cleared for visual to 31R with no traffic pointed out by ATC. Outside of ZULAB I saw an aircraft to our left on TCAS at 2000 feet while we were at 3000 feet. We had been given a speed assignment till 5 DME. I shortly acquired that aircraft. It was below us wandering into our final approach path. I asked the first officer to ask ATC what their intentions were for that aircraft; still in front and below us. ATC didn't immediately answer but when they did they said they were not talking to that aircraft. Absent any direction by ATC I decided to maintain 3000 feet and slow back to final approach speed to give ATC time to sort out the issue. The aircraft that had wandered into our final continued to turn left and moved out of our approach path and flew toward the 31L final path. Having slowed and configured for landing I waited till the aircraft was visually out of the 31R approach path and then descended to the runway and landed normally. Our safest course of action was to stay in a position that gave us a view of the wandering aircraft. If we had executed a go around we would have lost sight of the aircraft and not been able to react to any of their movements; up; down; left or right. And absent any directions from ATC we choose the safest course of action.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: An air carrier crew on final to JFK Runway 31R reported another air carrier over shot Runway 31L final and flew 1;000 feet beneath them on final. ATC was not talking to that aircraft nor relaying traffic information.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZSPD.TRACON, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
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
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZSPD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We were being vectored for the ILS to runway 17R. While on a west downwind; on a heading of 320 degrees and at an altitude of 4900 feet; (1500 meters); we noticed we had not been given a turn after the last aircraft on final approach had already passed abeam us. We made a radio check with Shanghai approach to see if they had forgotten to turn us. We did not receive a response; so after one more attempt; we switched to the tower frequency posted on the approach plate (124.35) and attempted to call them. We did not receive a response from them either. After two more attempts we attempted contact with approach on 121.5 and for a frequency to contact approach. We were given 123.6 and immediately reestablished contact. We were given vectors to intercept the localizer and then cleared for the approach. When we were switched over to tower frequency; the frequency was different than 124.35; which is the frequency posted on the approach plate for the ILS to runway 17R. It might explain why we did not receive a response on that frequency when we attempted to contact them earlier. The flight proceeded without any further problems after re-establishing contact with Shanghai approach control.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported while on a vector to ZSPD ILS 17R; the crew did not get a response from approach so they switched to the Tower frequency on the approach plate (124.35) and did not get a response either. Captain reported approach gave the crew a different Tower frequency than what was listed on the approach plate.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While being pushed back from the gate; we received a reroute for weather. I was listening to the clearance and writing it down. I heard the ground crew who were on headset with me tell me to 'set brakes'. I complied and set the brakes and read back 'Brakes set' and requested that they stay hooked up because I was in a NEO and wanted to make sure the engines started before they disconnected. We then proceeded to start the engines and during that process I told the ground crew they could disconnect. My mind went back to watching the first officer input the reroute into the flight plan. While I was distracted with that I heard the ground crew ask if they could disconnect and I immediately reached down and turned the parking brake but turned it the wrong way. I thought I was setting it but actually turned it off; but my feet were on the brake petals and the aircraft didn't move. At the same time the ground crew told me to set the brakes as they saw that I had actually released the brake. I apologized and asked if everything was ok and they said it was. Pay more attention to what I am supposed to be watching and think prior to just turning a knob.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported that when asked to set the brakes he turned the handle the wrong way.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: Tower TEB
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were flying the ILS to runway 6 at TEB. I briefed the approach noting the 1500 crossing restriction at DANDY. We were vectored to intercept the localizer approximately 20 miles out of the final approach fix. The localizer captured a false signal causing me to go to heading mode and sort out why we captured a course clearly not our intended one. Instead of reloading the approach to runway 6 the pilot monitoring manually input the fix VINGS for situational awareness; for some reason DANDY was no longer displayed. The altitude select was not changed from 2000 ft to 1500 ft. We were then cleared for the runway 6 approach; at 2000 ft MSL and captured the glide slope. The false localizer earlier caused me to check that we were actually capturing the correct approach. Additionally the phase of flight we were in was cause for me to be focused on flying the approach. As we crossed the location were DANDY was the tower called it to our attention that we were supposed to be at 1500 ft. I realized I was still almost 300 ft to high. I uncoupled the auto pilot and hand flew the aircraft down to the correct altitude. The localizer capturing a false signal started a chain of events that appeared to be at the root cause for the altitude deviation. Because of the false signal we were monitoring and confirming our instruments to the extent that caused us to fly the approach as a normal ILS after capturing the glide slope. The altitude select was never changed from 2000 ft to 1500 ft which could have given us additional awareness of the crossing restriction at DANDY. Not having DANDY displayed on our displays added to the deviation.In the future I'll make every effort to not allow a time compression to compromise an approach. Confirm that the approach is loaded properly and that approach fixes are not manually inserted; also confirm the altitude select is displaying the crossing restriction altitude. If needed ask for a delay vector to insure both pilots have and share a clear mental model of the approach.




Synopsis: CE750 Captain reported becoming distracted after capturing a false localizer signal during the ILS Runway 06 at TEB. The mandatory crossing altitude of 1500 ft at DANDY was forgotten and the fix was crossed at 1700 ft.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Our Clearance out of PHX was to depart on the KATMN5 Departure; climb via the SID. The KATMN5 has a top altitude of 8000 feet and a crossing restriction at VANZZ intersection of at or below 8000 feet. Both were briefed and 8000 feet was set in the altitude window. After takeoff we were handed off to PHX Departure. As we began to turn left towards DAVZZ intersection; PHX Departure gave us the revised clearance to 'climb via the SID; except maintain FL210.' We read back the clearance; I asked for VNAV on the automation; then we put FL210 in the altitude box; and I engaged the autopilot.At this point we had a miscommunication about the clearance and I thought PHX Departure wanted us to 'climb and maintain' FL210. Both the Captain and I questioned each other about the clearance; and then removed the restriction of at or below 8000 feet at VANZZ because of a misunderstanding of the climb clearance. We were then given (by PHX Departure) that we had traffic around 2 o'clock. Traffic was in sight and we were climbing around 3000-3500 FPM because we were light. We then received an RA with the traffic; which we complied with; and maintained visual separation. Shortly afterwards; PHX Departure told us that we needed to maintain 8000 feet at VANZZ. We explained that we believed he had given us a clearance to 'climb and maintain' FL210 which removes all restrictions. At that point we realized that we had made a mistake and misinterpreted the 'climb via' clearance.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported they exceeded an altitude restriction while on the KATMN5 SID.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was practicing a precision landing on Runway 24. The reported wind at the time was 210/13 G17. At 300 FT the approach was stable on the glideslope and runway centerline with an approach speed of 66 KTS. I continued with the approach and glanced at the wind display on the PFD which indicated a wind of 210/11. Upon landing I touched down; main gear first; on the 1;000 FT markers; and then shortly after the nosewheel touched down; I experienced a gust of wind which lifted the right wing. I used aileron control to try to correct this but was unable to prevent the aircraft exiting the left-hand side of the runway. I applied the brakes but was skidding in the dirt. The aircraft came to rest beside the runway facing a heading of 060. I was able to taxi the aircraft to the parking area.




Synopsis: A PA-28 student pilot lost control of the aircraft after touchdown when a gust lifted the right wing which resulted in the aircraft exiting the runway.