elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: While working as Controller in Charge I had a sector quicklooked behind the desk as it was the busiest sector. Another sector controller had a question to which I told him to standby as I noticed an MSAW alert on the quicklooked scope. By the time I noticed there was an aircraft below the MIA(Minimum IFR Altitude); there was nothing I could say to the Controller working the aircraft as the aircraft was climbing. I do not think the controller working the sector ever issued a lower altitude alert. I think the controller did not understand that we are required to avoid MIAs while the aircraft is climbing to the MEA(Minimum Enroute Altitude).




Synopsis: ZSE Controller in Charge reported observing a sector with an aircraft below the Minimum IFR Altitude.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: UNV.Tower, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D UNV
ATC / advisory: Tower UNV
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was practicing touch-and-go's in the pattern at UNV. Prior to flight; a briefing was obtained from DUATS; and no weather issues were apparent. Winds were light. A preflight inspection of the aircraft did not identify any issues; and the run up and taxi to Runway 24 were unremarkable. Four approaches were performed; three of which were touch-and-go and the other was a practice go-around. All three landings were normal. While accelerating for the fifth takeoff; all appeared normal; and when the aircraft was close to rotation speed it suddenly deviated to the left of the centerline; pointing towards the left edge of the runway; and an attempt to correct with right rudder suggested to me that I would not be able to get back on the centerline without significant rudder input and further loss of control. The airplane became airborne after rolling into the grass off the left side of the runway near the 2;000-foot marker. After achieving a positive rate of climb; I immediately communicated with UNV Tower indicating that I was OK and that I wasn't sure if there was an unexpected wind on the runway or something else had happened. I entered a left downwind for Runway 24; and did a check on the rudders and other flight controls; and concluded that everything was fine. I landed normally on runway 24; requested a taxi back to the hangars; and the taxi procedure appeared normal. Upon returning to the hangar; I did a full inspection of the airplane and did not notice anything unusual except for a few tufts of grass on the left and right brakes. Several days later; another pilot noted dents to the underside of the tail; on the passenger's side. Discussions with others including flight instructors failed to conclusively identify the issue that led to this event; but perhaps it was caused by a temporary lapse of attention in which deviation of the airplane from the centerline was not noticed until it was too difficult to recover. It is believed the damaged tail was caused by striking a runway light.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported loss of directional control on takeoff roll. Control was regained after liftoff.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Aircraft with passengers to land on a 5;000 foot runway. Pattern saturated with 5 small aircraft flying orientation flights for students and one airborne aircraft with jumpers: no control tower. We were on vectors to do an RNAV approach to Runway 31 talking with ATC on IFR clearance. Trying to monitor UNICOM and talk to ATC at the same time became complicated so we told ATC we would cancel on the ground and received a phone number from them.Small aircraft pilots reported gusty winds with wind shear on final. Pilot flying executed a go around in the flare for a wind shear; and subsequent climb out was on UNICOM. About that time the jump aircraft reported jumpers in the air so we began to coordinate with them on UNICOM and climbed to a VFR altitude and flew back to the 10 mile point to avoid jumpers. In the rapidly changing situation with the winds; other aircraft and jumpers we spent the time coordinating with them on UNICOM rather than contacting ATC again and executing the published missed approach. Honestly; we were so busy we just didn't think about it as we should have. In retrospect we should have just cancelled in the air and ATC would have been relieved of the responsibility of us; but we didn't. When we called to cancel; they advised us to call another number to discuss our not contacting them.The winds; extreme unusual pattern activity; and a balked landing all contributed to additional tasking in the cockpit leading to safety focus first allowing the IFR regulation to contact approach control lapse.




Synopsis: Corporate jet with passengers attempted a landing at an uncontrolled airport with heavy traffic in the pattern. Additionally; windshear conditions existed prompting a go-around. Because of the heavy workload there was a lapse in the coordination with ATC.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HCF.TRACON, HI
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class E HCF
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was on approach to the airport. He later called the airport in sight for a visual approach; which I gave him. At some time before or after that; Tower called and asked for a clearance from the ground for Aircraft Y; VFR to an intersection; then to [destination] airport. I tried to give him a clearance from over the intersection; but he wanted a clearance from the ground. I told the Tower Controller that I was unable to issue a clearance from the ground; as I had inbound IFR aircraft. He said no; VFR to the intersection; and I again stated that I could not issue the clearance; whether or not it was an Instrument Departure Procedure (IDP) or VFR conditions to the intersection; as both clearances start at the airport; and require IFR separation. I told him they can wait on the ground until the aircraft on approach arrives; or get his clearance from over the intersection.The clearance he got was from over the intersection. I waited until I got the call of the arrival of the first of my two aircrafts; Aircraft X; then I cleared Aircraft Z for the approach. As Aircraft Z was maybe 15 miles northwest of the airport; Aircraft Y popped up on radar; and after taking radar; I called traffic between the two aircraft.Some people think this is not a problem in our facility; and this situation was covered in an interpretation binder; but that binder was removed from the floor years ago; and out staff and management fail to issue any direction on this matter. To me this is not a VFR climb on course; where you can climb through another IFR aircraft; and being on a VFR flight plan is different from being on an IFR flight plan; whether or not you are in VFR (OR VMC) conditions or IFR conditions. One is about protecting IFR aircraft from other IFR aircraft; and the other is VFR VS IFR flying conditions; i.e. the weather!Whether the aircraft choses or is issued the instrument departure procedure; or gets to the intersection; where his routing starts; matters not; if he has a clearance from the ground; he is IFR; from the ground!




Synopsis: A Center and Tower Controller disagreed whether an aircraft with an IFR clearance including an initial VFR leg could be released with simultaneous IFR arrivals. The Tower departed the aircraft with an aircraft on approach.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SKBO.Airport, FO
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Preflighting A319 MCDU at SKBO. Assigned SID was the GEPKI 2B from 31L. The Jeppesen EFB plate depicts a left turn direct GEVRO at ISESA.  The GEPKI 2B in the database depicts that after ISESA (shown as a flyover waypoint); continue heading 314 for radar vectors. We made the database SID mimic the Jeppesen SID.My concern is that rising terrain exists approximately 13 miles straight out from from both 31L and 31R in the vicinity of BOG VOR and if this inconsistency between the Jeppesens and the Airbus database is not trapped during preflight; an incident may occur. This is an ongoing problem with the Airbus FMS database and the inconsistencies are evident at other airports as well; most notably at San Salvador.  The FMS database should mirror the Jeppesen plates in every respect; every time. In addition; every SID; STAR or Approach that is included in our EFB should also be available in the FMS database.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer assigned the GEPKI 2B departure from SKBO reports that the FMGC database procedure does not match the charted procedure. The FMGC is altered to match the chart.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C SJC
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared to our destination via the LOUPE THREE Departure; BMRNG transition. After departure we were handed off to NorCal Departure and checked on. NorCal advised us to expect a left turn (the SID makes a right turn). We acknowledged; but continued to fly our assigned SID. At 1.8 DME northwest of the SJC VOR; we started the right turn heading 120 as published. Within a few seconds of being fully established in the right turn; NorCal issued an instruction to turn left heading 120. I immediately started the turn in the opposite direction. At this point NORCAL thought we had made a mistake; because we had already started the right turn; but we were never instructed to do anything other than the assigned SID. Obviously; you cannot immediately turn left while already fully established in a right turn (which was our clearance).The controller seemed frustrated. We were doing nothing wrong; but were treated as if we had just committed a pilot deviation. We politely advised NorCal that we were never given an actual clearance to turn left until we were already in the right turn.The previous departure before us was not on the correct frequency and caused a lot of extra work for the controller. I feel this was the contributing factor.At no point during the event did I feel safety was compromised. We could see the traffic conflict the controller was trying to have us avoid. At no time did we have a TCAS TA or RA.




Synopsis: Corporate jet Captain reported that on the LOUPE3 Departure from SJC Controller advised expect a left turn (SID shows a right turn) but did not issue the clearance until after the crew had established the right turn.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cirrus Aircraft Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My company president and I were taxiing out for an IFR departure to pick up a passenger. We were instructed to hold short of Runway XX at taxiway C; which we did and then remained there for a few minutes. The airport was fairly busy on this night. The ground controller then instructed us to cross Runway XX at (C); then (L) to Runway XY. I was sitting in the right seat and reported the right side as clear. The pilot flying (a non-instrument rated private pilot) began to roll and then raised a question about an aircraft he observed approaching the airport. I looked left and spotted a Cirrus on short final to runway XX. I immediately applied the brakes from my side and said; 'Stop!' I alerted ground to the fact that we were instructed to cross a runway with landing traffic to which I received an apology. We were able to remain clear of the runway; though we may have moved inches beyond the hold short line; and the other aircraft landed uneventfully.I [later] observed a similar scenario with the same controller; now working tower; issuing a line up and wait instruction to another aircraft on Runway XY with an airplane on short final. The controller caught the error and canceled the instruction; although the aircraft did cross the hold-short line by several inches.




Synopsis: Pilot reported they were cleared to cross a runway with another aircraft on short final.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: CAVU
Aircraft: PA-23-250 Aztec
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Attitude Indicator(Gyro/Horizon/ADI)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While being vectored for a visual; I was cleared to 3000 and descended to 2500 while trying to figure out a gyro failure which shut down my HSI; RMI; Autopilot and Flight Director.....I was highly distracted!




Synopsis: PA23 Pilot reported he descended below his assigned altitude while troubleshooting a gyro failure.
Date: 201402
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Relief Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During Hazmat inspection one of the DG pallets was loaded horribly unsecured. Multiple Liquid flammables; corrosives; 'this side up's'; were not properly secured to prevent falling or tipping. The hazmat rep was asked to properly secure loose items for re-inspection. It took THREE (3) re-inspections (total of 4 inspections) before the pallet was suitable. Whoever loaded the pallet paid no attention to securing loose items on the pallet. Feedback to the hazmat pallet build up that DG must be properly packed secure. Also; the hazmat rep on the plane did not have good tools to adjust the loading. Spare ropes; nets; packing materials; etc; would have made his retying down much easier.




Synopsis: B777 First Officer reports discovering an improperly packed dangerous goods pallet during preflight. Three reinsertions are required before the pallet is acceptable for flight.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OMN.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D OMN
ATC / advisory: Tower OMN
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I reported to Tower 5 miles north; inbound to land. The Tower instructed me to report mid-field downwind; 'your choice right or left downwind.' I said I would report right downwind. I heard no other traffic on the frequency. Just as I was approaching mid-field downwind and about to report downwind; a small aircraft flying opposite direction flew directly overhead; approximately 100 feet above me. At that point the controller cleared me to land. The controller then told the other aircraft; 'sorry about that.' I spoke with the other pilot afterwards; he said he was breaking in an engine and flying orbits near the airport as cleared by the controller. As far as I know; we were the only aircraft in the Class D airspace at the time. The other aircraft was close enough that I could hear his engine as he passed overhead.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported a NMAC during final approach to ONM airport.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
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 A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While cruising at FL370; our routing took us from MCB to MUURY. Upon reaching MCB; I noticed the aircraft turning beyond the proper course. The reason for this came from the pilot's side FMS navigating to MURRY. The pilot's FMS was coupled to the autopilot. We took corrective action immediately and returned the aircraft on course to MUURY. In the turn; we disconnected the autopilot to expedite our return to the flight planned route; and we lost about 100 FT in the process. As we started our corrective turn back toward MUURY; ATC queried us to make sure we were heading to MUURY and not MURRY. The copilot's FMS was programmed properly; showing a course discrepancy in the turn over MCB which wasn't obvious because of the close proximity of the courses to MUURY and MURRY from MCB. The flight plans on both FMSs were checked against each other but the misspelling of one waypoint was overlooked.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier crew cleared from SWB to MUURY had erroneously entered MURRY in the FMS during preflight; so after passing SWB the aircraft turned northeast toward MURRY verses southeast. The distance from SWB to MUURY is 133 NM; to MURRY is 482 NM. The MUURY to MURRY distance is 381 NM northeast. Two other MURRY waypoints exist; one in Australia; another in the Hong Kong FIR.