elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201507
Location: SFF.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground SFF; Tower SFF
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During taxi on ground control I crossed the hold line to runway 04R at SFF without clearance. This occurred as I was changing to tower frequency as instructed by ground. After crossing the hold line I immediately stopped and turned around. There was no other traffic at the airport. I believe that I was distracted by changing radio frequencies while taxiing. In the future I will stop taxiing to set radios to requested frequencies. I am an instructor and will review this with students and pilots getting flight reviews.




Synopsis: Instructor pilot reports crossing the hold line for Runway 4R at SFF (a complex intersection and HS1); while changing frequency to the Tower at Ground Control's request.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on a VFR cross country to ZZZ. Upon reaching the area of ZZZ I was in contact with Center for VFR flight following. Once getting the airport in sight; I tried several times to get [Center] to release me to squawk VFR and change to the CTAF. I was told to standby 3 times over a several minute period. I announced my intentions one more time and that I was switching to CTAF and squawking VFR; which I then did. Once on the CTAF; I was at 3;500 MSL (1;300 feet above pattern altitude); I announced that I was going to enter a left downwind for Runway XX. The winds were calm at the time of my arrival. I then proceeded to make the proper calls in the downwind; base and final legs for Runway XX. I never [saw] any other traffic or heard any response on the CTAF. Upon touchdown; I was preparing to initiate a touch and go when I looked up to see a tailwheel Cessna on a short final for Runway XY. I then announced again that I was still on the runway. The Cessna continued with no response. I slowed the airplane rapidly and exited onto the parallel taxiway at the nearest connector. The airplane then landed on XY. No further event occurred and I departed the area to continue my cross country. I would like to repeat that I made all the appropriate calls and never heard anything from the Cessna neither before or after the event. I contacted Center upon my departure for VFR flight following and continued my trip.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot on landing rollout at a non-towered airport reported an aircraft landing in the opposite direction on the same runway.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PWK.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: While being vectored at 6;000 ft was instructed direct PMPKN; climb to 11;000. I entered in the GPS data base PUMKN and turned and climbed. Within minutes controller said 'Where are you going?' I said; 'PUMKN.' He said; 'Turn to 360 and descend immediately to 6;000'.The PUMKN point is an actual fix; though different than PMPKN. I feel Chicago Controllers need to be careful assigning this fix if anyone else has done this. It was however totally my error.




Synopsis: Beech 90 pilot reported of similar sounding fixes. The pilot entered PUMKN; located to the west in Iowa; rather than PMPKN; north of PWK; which made Chicago TRACON question where they were going.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MCO.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: When checking in with MCO final Approach Control we were given speed reduction 190 to mkr (Marker Radio Beacon); Drones reported near ORL Executive; all traffic now arriving Runway 17L and R. Cleared visual Runway 17L maintain GS on approach slow to 170. Caution traffic on right to Runway 17R; contact Tower on freq. We received our landing clearance for Runway 17L. Second birds on path siting. We were on ref and GS. About 1;100 ft. I realized we weren't fully configured. Called for gear/F3 then F Full/Landing checklist. Landing checklist completed by 800 ft. We were still at ref and on GS fully stable; we landed normally and taxied off at Taxiway F. We received no alerts during approach.I believe we were distracted more than usual as well as feeling a little tired that afternoon. I will most assuredly use this experience as a learning example of avoiding potential complacency by carefully applying our procedures to prevent any re occurrence going forward.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported failing to properly configure for the approach due to distraction and fatigue.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Second aircraft: Light Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; 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: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I shortcut Aircraft X; going to PHL; direct DQO at 11;000 because traffic was light.  This flight path took the aircraft over the top of R4001C which is active continuously up to and including 10;000 to contain the JLENS Aerostat (Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System).Upon passing over the restricted area; the Aircraft X pilot reported the Aerostat was less than 500 feet below him.  That report was confirmed by Aircraft Y pilot who was vectored around the restricted area but was asked to observe the altitude.  In fact the Aircraft Y pilot said it appeared to be at his altitude. This means the [operating agency] is not remaining within the confines of the restricted area with the Aerostat.  The safety concerns of this cannot be overstated.  The Aerostat is essentially an antenna; and the military is raising it above the restricted area.The military needs to keep the transponder on the Aerostat turned on so we can at least be aware of the altitude of the JLENS.  At least then we'll know when they are raising it above the restricted area without coordination.




Synopsis: A Potomac TRACON (PCT) Controller reports of a tethered balloon [Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System] that is above the altitude is should be at as reported by an aircraft in the vicinity.  Balloon does not have a transponder on it to show altitude.
Date: 201303
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I failed to issue a new clearance limit to an aircraft. The aircraft landed without incident. A C182 had been in my airspace for about 20 minutes. During that time; he requested tops; altimeter; and other weather several times. I noticed him deviating from course and asked him. He came back and requested a reroute. He then deviated again a bit; and it seemed like he was having trouble with his GPS. He asked the wind at the airport; and I issued it. He told me he was iced up and wanted to land. I gave him a heading and altitude to maintain; gave him an approach to expect; and asked him to report the ATIS. My Coordinator and I began to have a disagreement on the next action; so we argued a bit over it. The pilot started asking several questions about the approach; and it became clear that he was confused and not really sure what was going on. He did know approaches or runways; couldn't find the ATIS; etc. He was deviating wildly from the headings I gave him; so I started focusing on that while reading him the weather; explaining in more depth which approach to expect; and coordinating with another Controller. At that time; we started a runway change. In all the time I talked to him; I forgot to actually clear him to the airport. Again; he landed without incident.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described a confused navigation event when an aircraft experienced icing and had difficulty complying with ATC clearances.
Date: 201905
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
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; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight; Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: FOM (Flight Operations Manual) ACARS message at initialization says no DG (Dangerous Goods) planned. Service Info Summary says DG IS planned. Confirmed with station DG is in-fact on board. I then request Planned DG Summary be sent to aircraft. ZZZ Operations says they can't do that as everything is now automated and they can't send manually. A few minutes later a representative from the [Operations Control] arrives in the cockpit. He tries to explain that this is a known anomaly and that we are OK to continue. He explains our DG falls under the 'exemption' referenced in the FOM. I ask him for a documentation that shows the DG on board is exempt. He cannot produce one. He talks over me and tries to appeal to the rest of my crew to take the aircraft over my concerns. I inform [the Operations Control] Representative we will need a reference or the DG will need to be removed. He leaves the cockpit. I then call Ramp and ask the status on the DG Summary form. They say to call Operations. I call Operations; they say to call the Ramp. I then decide we are getting nowhere; we have a line of thunderstorms bearing down on us; and a [Out of Duty] time to monitor; and the quickest solution is to have the DG removed from the aircraft. I call Operations again and tell them I am refusing the DG and to remove it. Operations tells me they are 'not doing that today'. I then notice I have a missed call on my cell phone from my Chief Pilot. I try to call him back and that goes to his voice mail. I then call the [Duty Manager] and that call goes to voice mail. A short time later I get a return call from the [Duty Manager] who is already aware of the situation. She explains she understands the issue and supports my decision to remove the DG 100%. Finally Ramp unloads the pallet of DG and we get underway.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported refusing Hazmat cargo due to a communications breakdown between flight crew and Dispatch; Load Planning regarding erroneousness Dangerous Goods Hazmat documents.
Date: 201812
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This is the 3rd time I have been presented with cargo containing lithium batteries out of ZZZZ. The load manifest states that the items are 'accepted' yet when I have inquired with both load planning and DG hotline; no one can tell me what we're carrying. There is no guidance in the FOM other that a discussion about what lithium batteries may not be carried in the cargo hold. Until there is some sort of guidance I will continue to refuse this cargo.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported refusing Hazmat cargo containing Lithium Ion batteries as cargo shipment.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other pushback
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On pushback from gate; ground crew asked me to set brake because they had an issue with the tow bar. It was difficult to understand what they were saying outside of normal communication procedures because the tug operator spoke poor English. The ground crew was in the process of switching tow bars when I selected the external horn and informed the crew to remove all equipment and provide me a wing walker for the turnout as I had plenty of room to accomplish the taxi out. I watched the upper ECAM and waited for the 'NW STRG DISC' message to extinguish as confirmation of pin being removed. I also received a 'wand up with pin flag in hand' signal/salute. Taxi out was normal. On climbout; Center called and said the ground crew asked them to inform me that the nose wheel steering disconnect pin was still in the nose gear. I immediately knew this was false as I had confirmed before taxi out that it was removed and also the aircraft would not be able to be taxied with the pin installed. I contacted ops on company frequency and informed them that no pin was in the nose wheel. Again; I had a hard time understanding them as their English was poor.  I then received a message from Dispatch and my understanding was they had lost the pin; assumed it was on the nose gear and then later found the pin. As a precaution; on arrival; I inspected the nose wheel and found no discrepancies. As a side note; it appeared that the tow bar being used was much smaller than normal. The tow bar they were going to swap it with was much larger.Cause - Poor English and communication.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported communication issues with the pushback crew resulted in the flight crew being advised during flight there was confusion as to whether or not the tow bar pin had been left in. It was later determined the ground crew had lost the pin after removal.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Yankee AA1
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Beechcraft King Air Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While doing my run up at on Runway 27R I heard a King Air call ground and say he was ready to taxi; but needed a few minutes before departing. The Ground Control cleared him to cross 27R and hold short of 27L for his 'run up'. Meanwhile; I was departing on 27R for touch and goes.On final I saw the King Air in the short part between 27R and 27L. Just as I was about to touch down on the numbers on 27R I experienced a severe crosswind from the left that lifted the left wing to about 45 degrees. I was able to recover without the right wing touching the surface. I then heard the Tower clear the King Air to taxi for takeoff.While climbing out I called the Tower and said the King Air caused a lot of turbulence during my touchdown. He said 'sorry about that'. Chain of EventsThe problem arose when ground control placed the high-performance twin engine plane perpendicular to the runway only 100 feet from the numbers. The prop wash from the King Air was strong enough to disrupt my flare on Runway 27R and cause a severe hazard.Corrective ActionsI suggest the tower controllers refrain from holding twin engine planes and jet aircraft between the two runways when 27R is in use. This runway has extensive training activity and would this scenario would be a hazard to students.




Synopsis: AA1A pilot reported experiencing an uncommanded 45 degree bank on short final from prop wash associated with a taxiing turboprop aircraft.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: 4M3.Airport, AR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G 4M3
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student and I were doing practice landings on Runway 27 at Carlisle Municipal Airport (4M3). 4M3 has two Runways; 9-27 and 18-36; with the arrival ends of Runways 36 and 27 crossing each other. We made our appropriate radio calls downwind; base; and final. There was no other traffic observed or heard over the radio. Upon reaching short final for Runway 27; the following occurred.My student and I were on short final to Runway 27; approximately 100-200 yards from the threshold at about 100-150 feet AGL. A crop duster was on a path to cross the threshold of Runway 27 on an approximate heading of 020; 200 feet AGL; and 300 yards to our southwest. He was to our left. Due to his approach and speed to the airport and our traffic pattern position; we were unable to spot him earlier. Upon spotting the crop duster; the only feasible maneuver to avoid collision was to keep flying the approach; descend below the crop duster; and have him fly over us. We landed without any further incident or issue. The crop duster never reported its position around the airport; and it did not do any evasive maneuver to avoid us. After flying directly over us; he continued to drop his product on the field directly east of the airport. Based on the crop duster's position and speed in relation to us; continuing the descent seemed like the only reasonable option to avoid collision. If we climbed; we would cross over him; if we turned left or right we would go straight into his path.I believe this type of issue can be prevented in the future if all airplanes working in and around airports give timely position reports over the radio. Requiring radio communication around airports; regardless of the class of airspace; will greatly improve safety. If radios cannot be mandated; then ADS-B for all airplanes regardless of airspace can also be beneficial.




Synopsis: Small aircraft flight instructor reported an NMAC with a crop duster on approach to 4M3; a non-towered airport.