elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While starting our engine; attached to the tug; and stopped only a few feet from [the] Gate; the aircraft parking at [the] Gate (next to us) clipped our wing tip; damaging the aircraft winglet.Make gate entries a straight in procedure instead of angled gate entries that bring the aircraft too close together.


Second narrative: While parked at [the] Gate; we were ready to call for a pushback clearance. I called for a pushback clearance with Ground Control; and we were given clearance to pushback after traffic into [the] Gate had pulled into the gate. I relayed these instructions to the Captain; which he told the Pushback Driver that we were cleared once [the] Gate had pulled into the gate. At this point; the Captain asked if we were clear to 'start two.' The Pushback Driver said he would like to slowly push us back a couple feet in order to start the engines. We rolled back several feet and came to a stop; and I proceeded with the engine start of both engines at the Captain's request. While monitoring the start sequence of the number one engine; we felt several jolts to the aircraft. At this point; we looked at the right wingtip; and noticed that it had been damaged by the aircraft pulling into [the] Gate (adjacent gate). The Captain told the Pushback Driver about the damage and he pulled us back into the gate. We deplaned all the Passengers without any further incidence.


Synopsis: A B737-700 ready for pushback was struck by another B737 taxiing into the adjacent gate and sustained wingtip damage. The aircraft returned to the gate.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: 7M6.Airport, AR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu/Malibu Mirage/Malibu Matrix
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF 7M6
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Landed short at night. About 25 feet short of runway. 2700 feet x 60 feet runway. No lights in vicinity or airport. I know of 2 trees in approach path that cannot be seen at night directly in line with the runway. In my opinion they need to be removed. Not a direct factor in this case.Airspeed was good for the short field approach which I have made many times and several times at night in last few weeks. I pulled throttle as I normally do when I am about to cross the threshold. But for some reason last night we settled quickly; not sure why. Winds aloft even at 1000 feet were cross runway at over 20 knots. I don't recall exact surface winds but they favored Runway 21. I had just landed prior to that for a fuel stop.




Synopsis: PA46 pilot reports landing short of the runway during a night visual approach to an unlighted runway. A short field landing was planned for the 2700 foot runway with a strong crosswind; but the aircraft settled earlier than expected.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAF.Airport, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZAU
ATC / advisory: CTAF LAF
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: The LAF Runway 10 PAPI has a non-standard 'Slightly Low' indication; which is defined in AIM Figure 2-1-5. The slightly low indication should be a sequence of four lights colored WHITE; RED; RED; RED in that order. The LAF Runway 10 PAPI 'Slightly Low' indication is RED; WHITE; RED; RED. I've already reported this to the ATCT once about 10 days ago; but no action appears to have been taken. Tonight; while inbound to this runway; both my student and I observed the indication.




Synopsis: An instructor pilot on approach to LAF Runway 10 noted the PAPI indication for slightly low was RED; WHITE; RED; RED but according to the FAA AIM should be WHITE; RED; RED; RED.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: A320
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Sector 30 and was advised by the adjacent Controller that Air Carrier X was heading towards my sector and that he was having radio problems and could only transmit and receive on 134.57 (and 121.5). Air Carrier X departed ZZZ enroute to ZZZ1. The 134.57 frequency is not a frequency we can transmit or receive on. That meant we could only communicate indirectly with Air Carrier X; using other aircraft to relay to him on 134.57 or 121.5. Apparently the Command Center was aware of this problem; and the Supervisor was coordinating with adjacent facilities. As we weren't busy at the time we objected in principle to the situation but had no real pressing need to talk to the aircraft as it transited ZMP airspace. However; not being in direct communications with an aircraft for extended periods of time; heading to a busy destination such as ZZZ1; creates an unsafe situation; as well as additional workload for the controllers. The aircraft should have been ordered to divert to another airport to fix the equipment malfunction before being allowed to proceed to a busy east coast airport such as ZZZ1.




Synopsis: ZMP Controller voiced concern regarding the decision to permit an air carrier; limited to only one frequency; to transit multiple airspace environments and land at a busy east coast airport.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GSP.TRACON, SC
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E GSP
ATC / advisory: TRACON GSP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Had a VFR aircraft depart GMU; the tower had called down to coordinate a runway change at the next ATIS. I missed the next coordination; and the runway change was completed and I turned the aircraft on course toward the tower owned airspace. I was stressed about the announcement with the government shutdown; and forgot to get a pointout with the tower. I was very concerned about how I was going to feed my three children and continue to be able to afford gas to get to work.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported an airspace violation caused by distractions.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON M03
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading 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 Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure; Manuals
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Our revised PDC clearance was -JTEEE1 ALDAY SGF-as filed. When we searched the EFB; we chose exactly that. Runway 18C JTEEE1.ALDAY. The EFB also had a JTEEE1 RNAV page as well but that didn't match our PDC. When we loaded the departure in the FMC; it had 3 or 4 other waypoints listed which in retrospect were the fixes on the JTEEE1 RNAV SID. Since none of these were on the EFB SID; nor were they in the PDC; we deleted them. On the runway; Tower cleared us [direct] to what sounded like JTEEE. My IOE First Officer read back; 'confirm that was direct to JTEEE?' ATC replied; 'yes.' On climb out we engaged LNAV and headed for JTEEE. Departure said we were cleared to CHETO [one of the deleted waypoints]; and I replied 'negative; we confirmed JTEEE.' No other traffic in the area except for a landing to 18L after us.These new departure SIDS need to be listed with transitions. There should be no guessing with a route change as to which one we should fly. It should be exact. Also; there should be a published document in all trip folders that show how each of these departures are pronounced. I heard JTEEE after confirmation with ATC; and ATC claims they said CHETO. All four of us on the jet--which included another 777 Check Airman as second Relief Pilot--heard the same thing. In the digital aero charts FIV [Flight Information Viewer]; there is only one departure for the JTEEE1. Why are there 2 in the EFB then and how was I supposed to know which one was correct? We clearly thought--as we do now--that we were correct.




Synopsis: B777-200 flight crew experienced a track heading deviation immediately after takeoff while on the JTEEE1 RNAV SID off Runway 18C at MEM.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Aircraft: Embraer Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On flight to ZZZ1 the waypoint HEVAN was in the flight plan. By accident in the FMS HAVAN was typed in. Once we crossed the waypoint prior to HEVAN the plan turned right instead of left. ATC noticed the same time we did and we corrected the problem. ATL Center gave a number to call for the INDY Field Office which the Captain called when we landed in ZZZ1. When the Captain typed in the flight plan on the ground in ZZZ he made a mistake that I didn't catch when we went over the route. Be alert for similar waypoints.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported imputing wrong waypoint into flight management system. Crew realized mistake and continued as instructed by ATC.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Tower, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: During RNAV GPS approach Runway 27R to Chicago; aircraft had erroneous path indication showing almost full scale below. Acquired airport visually and flew below VNAV path to require proper glide path.  And we flown aircraft using auto pilot in the VNAV; I missed approach would've been required.




Synopsis: Captain reported loss of GPS signal and VNAV on GPS approach resulted in change to a visual approach.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Recip Eng
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During cruise flight while en route from ZZZ to ZZZ1 just abeam ZZZ2 we heard a outburst and panic from behind us. We turned to find a passenger in distress and declaring that he was experiencing uncontrollable cramping and he couldn't control or feel his legs or arms and couldn't un-clench his fists. He begged for water and we provided him with water and asked if he was doing ok. My First Officer continued to monitor the passengers conditions as the rapidly deteriorated we observed the passenger going in and out of consciousness and became unresponsive and seemed to stop breathing multiple times. We notified ARTCC but was not met with a response from ATC. We were struggling to gain contact with ATC and advised them of our intentions to divert to ZZZ2 the closest airport and land immediately for a passenger medical emergency. This request was relayed with company aircraft as we were in a communications blackout zone. We transferred controls and I advised dispatch; an ambulance met us on the airfield. Once landing safely on the field we transferred the passenger to the ambulance paramedics. We called Operations Center; and made a maintenance log write up for the aircraft due to the passenger soiling the seat. The aircraft received maintenance and the passenger was taken to the local hospital. Passenger medical conditions; potential pre-existing medical conditions. Complications with asthma/ heatstroke/  panic attack.




Synopsis: Small Transport pilot reported a passenger medical situation inflight.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: ILS/VOR
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Fatigue; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were landing on Runway 18 and it was the First Officers leg. Approximately 80 NM southeast we reviewed the arrival and he briefed the approach to 18. As he read I followed along on my approach plate. Everything was normal as we were cleared for the visual approach to 18. The F/O selected approach mode on the autopilot and it armed. Our intercept angle was approximately 60 degrees (heading 240 to intercept 183 inbound course). We passed through the localizer without a capture; had a short discussion on not intercepting; and then corrected back to the left. Almost simultaneously ATC called asking if we were landing 18 center. I do not know how far we penetrated airspace for traffic landing the parallel runway; but no TCAS events occurred.As it turned out the First Officer had selected the proper ILS frequency but had selected an inbound course of 003 not 183. This was our second identical turn. The first day was an early get-up and departure; and the second day a late morning departure with a late return scheduled for more than nine hours later. I can't speak for the First Officer; but I was fatigued. I would normally double check frequencies and headings. I think due to being tired and this being our home base which we all know extremely well; I was too complacent.


Second narrative: We were instructed to call ATC once on the ground. During conversation controller said traffic was about one mile behind and 1;500 FT above and he had to tell him to stop descent and that he was going to write this up. I said OK and hung up. About 10 minutes later he called back and after further discussions with his Supervisor had decided that it did not warrant a write up.


Synopsis: A fatigued flight crew; complacent by virtue of returning to their home domicile failed to note the PF's ILS was set to the inbound course reciprocal failed to intercept the localizer and experienced a modest traffic conflict with traffic for a parallel runway.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: KOA.Airport, HI
Aircraft: Orion (P3)
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D KOA
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: An Orion P3 was cleared for the LOC/DME BC 35 at KOA. After vectoring the aircraft onto final and clearing it I observed it intercept and track the BC inbound. The P3 then reported established and was instructed to contact KOA Tower. I scanned my other traffic and when I returned to the P3's target I observed it to be east of course. I called KOA Tower and advised the Controller and asked if the P3 was going to execute the missed approach. I was advised to standby while the Controller double checked. The P3 reported the airport was not in sight and that they'd lost navigation. KOA asked me what I wanted to do and because the P3 was below my MIAs (Minimum IFR Altitude) and issued a climb to 5;000 and a heading of 330 away from the terrain. The P3 returned to my frequency and operations continued normally from here. The ambiguity of this whole event really bothers me and my performance could have been better. First; we have an aircraft off course below the MIAs. I rightly queried the Tower and here is where I think communication broke down. Rather than have a longer discussion I felt just issuing a climb above the MIA and a heading to return the aircraft to safe area was the best course of action. I failed to have the Tower Controller tell the P3 they were below the MIA so I do not know if they ever received that warning. What I have determined is that I need to ensure that the advisory is issued next time and to take control of the situation quicker if the Tower doesn't. I've reviewed this over and over and next time I will be sure that I include an instruction to the Tower to issue the safety alert along with any control instructions.




Synopsis: A HCF Controller had a below MVA event with traffic on the LOC/DME BC at KOA executing a missed approach procedure turning in the wrong direction.