elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
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)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I think we have serious safety vulnerability with the current 737-800 Loading Schedule software. The main problem occurs with significant cargo/bag loads and smaller Passenger loads. My latest example was this flight with 80 Passengers and 3600 pounds of cargo/bags. The Agent informed me that she was having the Ramp Agents move all the weight to the front bin. I asked her if she was intending a Zone count. She said no. I asked the Flight Attendants to complete the Zone count for me. The Agent completed the Loading Schedule and put all 79 (later 80) Passengers in Zone 1 (as per Operations procedures). It generated a valid Loading Schedule with 5.5 trim units. I asked her to rerun the software using the Zone count. It came up out-of-limits. We had to move Passengers to make it legal and the Loading Schedule generated 6.4 trim units. The onboard computer increased the computed trim units to 6.9. The FO performing the takeoff reported that it was still heavy nose on rotation. Had we used the initial Loading Schedule of 5.5; or even 5.9 from the onboard computer; the nose would have been excessively heavy; requiring much greater than normal aft yoke travel.I am especially concerned because we have already raised concerns about this and were told that Agents have been instructed to use Zone counts with 120 or fewer Passengers. I have informally polled Agents and discovered that the policy is not clearly disseminated. I fully understand that the current policy/software is deemed legal and approved; but it is questionable on a safety standard. There are cases of short-legged; ample bellied Pilots where aft yoke travel meets belly before takeoff rotation is achieved. The software and policy needs to be changed to require a more even cargo/bag loading and more frequent Zone count so that a larger trim unit setting is generated. In my discussions with respected Agents; they acknowledge this problem and routinely move some of the cargo to the aft bin to solve the problem. My concern is with less informed Agents who doggedly load all cargo in the forward bin and all Passengers in Zone 1. This policy needs to be corrected.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain described improper weight and balance calculations that can occur with specific cargo and passenger loads when passenger zone counts are not used.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BFI.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46; Tower BFI
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Fatigue
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I landed without clearance. We landed on Approach Control frequency. While clearing runway I realized we were still on Approach Control frequency. I heard transmissions that sounded like what an Approach Controller would say - not Tower. I asked my partner 'were we cleared to land?' My partner quickly switched to Tower and we heard him clearing us to cross parallel runway and contact Ground. we acknowledged and complied. Tower Controller then said he tried to call us a couple of times. My partner told him that Approach Control never switched us over. The last thing I remember on approach was the Approach Controller issuing us traffic over the stadium; that was it. I do not recall ever being told to contact the Tower. We were also at the end of two very long days dealing with multiple issues and worn down. in this mental state I was not sharp enough to switch to Tower on my own past the marker without being prompted to do so by ATC. It was quiet and smooth. So many approaches and landings in the last four days - it is hard to keep track because they start running together being so automatic. We were fatigued towards the end of this flight. After listening to LIVEATC.com it sounds like we were forgotten about. The Tower asked us where we were parking close to a short final; queried us again; and then again and issued the taxi instructions. Which is when we switched over and heard them. It does not seem as though they were looking for us long. I take full responsibility for landing without a clearance. I always wondered how you could land without a clearance and now I know. Contributing factors were crew fatigue and lack of ATC Comm. Normally I would query ATC about switching to Tower; or just switch myself past the marker if they are busy; but due to fatigue I did not catch it and we continued. To help prevent this in the future I will monitor my fatigue level better.




Synopsis: Captain reported landing without clearance; citing fatigue as contributing.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Our initial contact with pushback crew had working headsets. After I said in intercom: 'cockpit to ramp' he replied 'Yea'; then I asked: 'is your walk-around complete; all doors secure?' And he responded 'Yea'; I should have realized that this particular ramp agent was insufficiently trained. We pushed from [gate]; and after stopping for about five seconds I asked 'would you like the parking brake?' No answer; I applied toe brakes because I suspected they were finished pushing and again asked 'do you want the parking brake?' At this time I saw the second ramp agent come from underneath the nose to show me the strap. The tug driver then responded 'yea; brakes set'. A bit upset because of the ramp agent's cavalier attitude towards safety; I replied with our proper response of 'parking brake PARK' then I added 'am I to understand you disconnected the strap with the parking brake off?' The tug driver's response to me was 'I decided to use hand signals; the camera will show that' I replied back: ' I never confirmed your hand signal- don't know if the camera on the top of the terminal will show that....the camera will NOT show that from my cockpit position I cannot see you; and once two-way communication is established; then that is the method in which we expect to communicate'. I was then told 'you have a bad attitude; man'. Pushing without proper use of headsets; as I have just illustrated; is a safety hazard. To have working headsets without the proper training/phraseology by ramp is insufficient. Not every ramp agent is this apathetic and lazy about safety. I pay particular attention because of my past experience.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported the ground push back crew deviated from proper procedures and terminology during the push back maneuver.
Date: 201710
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During the screening of this shipment; the screener discovered undeclared lithium and flammable liquids.




Synopsis: Air carrier ramp employee reported that the company Hazardous Material Screener identified undeclared hazardous materials during preflight inspection.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: UNV.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Second aircraft: Sail Plane
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared to 4;400 ft on descent. We punched through a cloud layer at 250 kts with 1000 ft to level off. I observed an object off the nose; slightly right of course. Unsure what it was; [I] looked down at the TCAS to try to ID it. After being unable to; I looked back up to track it and couldn't see it. A few moments later; I identified the object as a glider; which had been flying in and out of the clouds. As we were asked by ATC to ID the field; the glider started to turn into our flight path. At this point I immediately identified the glider to the flying pilot; the First Officer. I told him to deviate around the glider as I contacted approach. The glider was not showing anything on ATC radar either. We passed the glider at less than half a mile at the same altitude. ATIS was reporting glider activity; but did not state an altitude or an exact location.I guess we could ask ATC for a more exact location of the glider. Had the glider not been violating FAR cloud clearance requirements; or had a working transponder; this would have never happened as we could have been more aware of its location and deviated earlier around it.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported an airborne conflict with a glider on approach to UNV airport.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; student pilot & instr
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While heading in to land at ZZZ; a black object was spotted approximately 1 mile from our nose at our altitude of 2;400 ft. Initial thought of both pilots was that it was a bird; then after noticing that it did not appear to be moving I determined it was most likely a drone that was heading straight toward us or hovering; so averted to the right at which point the drone flew past our left wing in the opposite direction approximately 500 to 750 ft. horizontal from our left wing at coaltitude (2;400 ft. AGL). The drone was determined to be a black quadcopter; approximately the size of a soccer ball; with a possible camera mounted underneath. ATC was notified; queried us for further information; and announced to all aircraft on frequency of drone activity in the vicinity of the airspace.




Synopsis: A General Aviation pilot reported a NMAC with a Drone.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZTL
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: The published hold at LIINN intersection on the LIINN3 Arrival into CLT is not depicted on our Jepps plate. It is depicted on the NOAA arrival plate. During our flight from ZZZ to CLT and descending on the LIINN3 Arrival; we were given instructions to hold northwest at the LIINN intersection as published.  We programmed the FMS for a direct path to LIINN and looked up the arrival for the LIINN3 to identify the published hold.  It did not exist on the Jepps plate and we advised ATC.  They reassigned our hold at LIINN on current heading.  During a post flight review; I took a look at the NOAA chart for the LIINN3 and found the missing published hold.




Synopsis: Regional Jet Captain reported issued LIINN published holding on the LIINN3 STAR is not depicted on Jeppesen plates.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MRI.Airport, AK
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D MRI
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on final approach to Runway 25; aircraft in front of me was 100 feet AGL setting up to land on a street. The aircraft in front of me did not have the runway in sight; I started doing S turns to create space in between us. The aircraft realized he was not lined up with the runway and decided to go around; I then did a right 360 to prevent a midair collision. After completion of my 360 I made a straight in approach to land on Runway 25.




Synopsis: C-172 pilot experiences a NMAC during a visual approach to Runway 25 at MRI. The aircraft he was following in the pattern had lined up with a street and realized the mistake at low altitude causing the conflict.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Captain's (CA) departure; noted right bottom rudder failed to test first time during flight control check but tested second time but felt stiff according to CA. During takeoff roll CA rejected takeoff at 130 knots (V1 was 133) and we cleared the runway and complied with the appropriate checklists. CA indicated that rudder felt stiff initially and then was almost non-responsive when speed was increasing.Possible hydraulic issue with rudder.




Synopsis: MD-11 First Officer reported a high speed rejected takeoff due to an apparent unresponsive rudder.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach; flaps 45; the autopilot kicked off so we executed a missed approach.  On the missed we noticed some control pressure irregularity but got the aircraft under control and decided to try it again without the autopilot.  On the second approach at flaps 45 we got a STAB TRIM runaway.  The First Officer (FO) ran the Immediate Action items and QRH for STAB TRIM runaway.  The aircraft was difficult to control in a flaps up configuration.  Weather was starting to move toward the field. At this point we decided to divert and declared an emergency. While enroute we communicated to the Flight Attendant (FA) the situation and time remaining. Landed flaps 20 degrees per QRH with no further issues.


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


Synopsis: CRJ-200 flight crew reported they got a stab trim runaway and chose to divert to a more suitable airport.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach; Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Second aircraft: Champion Citabria Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were inbound on IFR FLT plan; executing the ILS Approach to Rwy 35. I had cancelled IFR at (FAF) and made a radio call on CTAF '4 mi So.; straight in 35; full stop.' I saw the yellow and white Citabria (I think); taxiing to Rwy 35 as I was making that radio call. As we reached ¼ mi. final; he apologized but continued takeoff. We did a go around and as we turned downwind; the Citabria passed under us west bound. On downwind; we encountered a flock of large black birds and while avoiding them failed to make a base turn radio call; so I called 'L. base turning final' instead; just as my student started that turn; within seconds; I observed a Cessna; taxi out onto the Rwy. I called the female pilot; advising we were on final and the plane pulled to the left side of the displaced threshold and stopped; so I told my student to land long and continued. Just as we went over the Cessna; she radioed she was 'taking off 35.' I yelled at her; 'we are right over top of you.' But heard no reply. After landing and as we cleared the Rwy; I heard her advise she was departing east bound (Right turn? In L. traffic pattern?) And then she apologized; she thought she had time for takeoff even though she heard us call turning final.




Synopsis: SR20 Instructor reports a Citabria taking the runway as he is about to land at an uncontrolled airport and goes around. On the next approach a Cessna pulls onto the runway as he is about to land. After words are exchanged the approach is continued to a landing over the Cessna.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Robinson R22
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While hovering in the parking circle on the ramp just southwest of the hangar; my student and I had been cleared by Tower for an RNAV departure from the ramp (this departure flies over the ramp parallel to Runway XX before turning north-west to parallel Runway XYR during the initial climb). We hovered out to the taxi line; did our before takeoff check; and started our ground run (maybe 1 minute between clearance and beginning the ground run). As we rotated for the climb - over the ramp about abeam Taxiway XX - a helicopter crossed the ramp and Runway XZ/XX directly in front of us; at the same altitude; paralleling Runway XYR. My student was on the controls and correctly flew a quick stop maneuver to avoid hitting the other helicopter. We were able to return to a hover and taxi back to the parking circle without further incident.I believe a lack of communication caused this situation. After we were cleared for the departure and before we started our ground run; I heard part of an exchange between Tower and another helicopter I presume to be the aircraft we had to avoid. Due to communication with my student; I don't know what was said in that exchange; though I suspect it was a clearance to take off from the news helicopter's ramp by flying parallel to Runway XYR. I didn't hear tower alert either us or the other helicopter that we would be in close proximity. If tower had alerted either of us; we could have coordinated so that we were not flying departures at the same time in the same place.




Synopsis: Helicopter instructor reported an NMAC during takeoff with another helicopter.