elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Lever/Selector
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload; Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon landing on a touch and go on runway XX at ZZZ airport; I verbalized 'flaps up'; but the student immediately raised the gear lever. Upon seeing this I immediately reached for the landing gear lever and returned it to the down position; however they had brought the lever half way up before I could stop them. The nose gear then collapsed onto the runway and the aircraft came to a stop on the center line. I then secured the aircraft and all occupants vacated the aircraft safely with no injures.I believe what causes the issue was the student's lack of experience and apparent confusion about who was controlling the flaps and landing gear. Factors that I feel could prevent a recurrence:Don't practice touch and goes in a complex multi engine aircraft. Be more clear as to who will be operating what controls because the student was instructed to feel the movements of the yoke only during the touch and go and essentially 'watch and learn'. On second thought; I would also be more clear on what the student should not operate. Additionally; more ground training on the operations of a complex aircraft and landing gear lever / system could be given to ensure the risks involved in such operations and how to mitigate them during flight training.




Synopsis: Instructor pilot reported that during a touch and go training evolution; when flaps up was verbalized; the student raised the landing gear selector lever and the aircraft settled on the runway.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: 71J.Airport, AL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; 6
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E 71J
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I and my student were doing an IFR training XC to 71J. Upon descent through the overcast layer we were direct to the field for the visual approach to land. We announced our position and intentions for Runway 12 at ten miles out; on base; and on final. During the initial turn to final; we announced that we were going to execute a right 360 degree turn (for spacing and altitude adjustment; as well as sightseeing on a construction sight). An Apache helicopter passed within 200 feet below us while we were mid turn. We continued the turn to realign with the runway. The Apache continued on his heading; then turned momentarily to parallel our path before resuming course.




Synopsis: PA28 instructor with student on visual approach to 71J reports a NMAC with an Apache helicopter which passes 200 feet below the reporter. The reporter was executing a 360 degree turn at the time to loose altitude and gain spacing on other traffic.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-34-200 Seneca I
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was at 4;000 IFR talking to approach when my SkyView display started giving me a 'Traffic Warning'. The ADS-B indicated I had traffic 3 miles out; approaching me; head on at my same altitude. When the alert showed the traffic at 1 mile; still approaching me head on and still at my altitude I turned to the right and firmly pulled the nose up. A few seconds later I saw a twin engine airplane; about 100 ft below me; right where the ADS-B was showing pass by. When I got over the 'scare' I told the controller what had just happened. The controller sheepishly told me it was a Seneca maneuvering in that area. Needless to say I let the controller know I was a little upset about what happened. I don't know if I would I have seen the traffic without the ADS-B 'point out' but being able to know where to look for traffic is a significant safety enhancement. In this case I didn't actually see it until it was extremely close. I am so glad I have this in my airplane.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a near-mid-air-collision with a Seneca that was detected by the onboard ADS-B system; but ATC had not advised of the conflict.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Staffing; Environment - Non Weather Related; Weather
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: Throughout the last several weeks at least; communication with ATC has been difficult on many occasions throughout the day due to ATC saturation.  More than usual; Controllers are working multiple sectors; combining multiple frequencies; and overall being task-saturated far more often than I am used to.  It is my perception that ATC staffing was adjusted several months ago to match decreased traffic counts associated with the COVID downturn; and now that traffic counts have largely rebounded; ATC staffing has not increased anywhere nearly as quickly.  A great example was on this flight leg; inbound to ZZZ - as far as we could tell; one Controller was working all ZZZ of Approach/Departure; leading to his absolute saturation trying to handle IFR inbounds/outbounds to/from ZZZ and several satellite airports; and being compounded significantly by a handful of VFR aircraft operating in the area.  We tried for quite some time to request a heading deviation for towering cumulus buildups in the vicinity of the STAR course; and were glad to finally get a word in before we would have needed to choose to either accept worse turbulence than we needed to or deviate from a clearance.  There is no doubt that the ATC saturation was at a level which compromised Safety several times over the last few days of flying.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported difficulty receiving a revised clearance for weather deviation because ATC was saturated with traffic.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GUP.Airport, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Strong Headwind; 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF GUP
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Airport; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: A flight was planned and conducted with a planned fuel stop at SNJ before proceeding onward. The route included …TAS; ZUN; a distance of 437 nm. Weight and balance allowed for 80 gallons of fuel onboard. Winds aloft were forecast to be from the southwest over the route allowing for the flight to SNJ to be completed in 3.7 hours using 58 gallons of fuel at a flow of 14 GPH leaving 22 gallons in reserve.Midway along the 216 nm leg from TAS to SNJ; GPS ground speed had decreased considerably due to a much higher than forecast wind aloft. Ground speed was reduced at times to below 70 kts. I was aware the fuel station was becoming critical and as the closest airport was GUP; a deviation was made to this airport. Upon nearing the airport the ASOS indicated the runway was closed. Communication with an employee of the FBO indicated the construction was about 1;000 ft from the far end of the 7;316 ft runway 24. Inspection of the landing environment while making 2 circles revealed there was no personnel or equipment near the runway on this afternoon so I declared to any traffic in the area that I would be making an emergency landing on runway 24 due to a low fuel situation. The landing was uneventful and I exited the runway at the first turnoff; approximately 2;300 ft down the runway; which was still more than 3;700 ft before the construction area would have been reached.On the ground; the fuel remaining was measured and found to be 6 gallons. It would not have been possible; once the strong headwinds and resulting fuel situation was evaluated to fly back to base or forward to ZUN or RQE. Although this airport was not on my route; and I had no intention of needing to use a facility with a closed runway; it was the only alternative when compared to making an off field landing in the desert while attempting to reach a more suitable airport. In the future; I will adjust my route to be more closely aligned with airports where a landing could be made should strong un-forecast winds present themselves.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported diverting to GUP due to stronger than forecasted headwinds; but the airport was closed for construction. The runway was clear and the reporter elected to land due to his fuel situation.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Q400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Lubrication System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: First flight of day for crew on a day trip. On time departure. Twenty-five minutes into flight at FL250. After pushing MCT button and adjusting cruise power. 2 minutes later speed was still a little fast so I adjusted power again and noticed that the Number 2 Oil PSI gauge was fluctuating rapidly. It was going high into the yellow and low into the yellow. I advised the Captain and we watched the gauge while checking for other abnormal indications. We decided to call Maintenance Control and get their opinion. While talking to Maintenance the pressure started to fluctuate lower now dipping down into red; and causing the Master Warning to illuminate intermittently and the PTU was turning on and off. We decided to divert. While descending through about FL240 the Master Warning was now illuminated continuously and the PSI was fluctuating but trending lower. We discussed shutting the engine down per the checklist that we had in hand but decided not to think it was an indication problem only. The oil temperature did not increase at all; all other engine indications showed normal. The divert airport was VFR and we got approval for a visual approach. On downwind to base we got our first indication that it was more than an indication problem. The Number 2 RPM was fluctuating. It came back to 1020 and then on base to final it was variable again. We landed and shut down the Number 2 engine once clear of the runway. We taxied to the gate and deplaned normal. We thought it was just an indication problem and should have been more cautious and shut down the engine per the checklist.




Synopsis: A Q400 oil pressure began fluctuating in cruise so the crew diverted assuming an indication issue because other indications were stable. However; they shut the engine down on landing because of RPM fluctuations.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 6
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was on Local and had Aircraft X inbound to Runway 2L (the runway in use); and Aircraft Y was taxied opposite direction to Runway 20L. I had Aircraft X in sight; and recognized that there was plenty space for Aircraft Y to depart and turn on course before Aircraft X arrived. I did not scan the D-Brite to determine spacing prior to clearing the Aircraft Y. Both aircraft were VFR. The separation between the two aircraft did not meet the separation standard for opposite direction operations between VFR aircraft that is lined out in our SOP (3 miles or 1;000 feet). When I looked at the D-Brite after clearing Aircraft Y for takeoff; I realized that I did not have the 3 miles or 1;000 feet between my two VFR aircraft as required by our SOP. I felt that both aircraft were safe and did not issue any instructions to Aircraft X to regain the required distance. Aircraft Y had Aircraft X in sight and turned on course before becoming a conflict with Aircraft X.  I felt that issuing additional instructions to Aircraft X to regain 3 miles of separation would have been less safe than allowing him to continue to the airport when no serious incident would occur. Had something unexpected happened with the departing Aircraft Y that could create a conflict between the two aircraft; there was still time and space to adjust the pattern of the Aircraft X to de-conflict him with the Aircraft Y.  My actions were just a poor lapse in judgment. I should have scanned the D-Brite to ensure 3 miles or 1;000 feet separation instead of visually determining that it was safe to clear Aircraft Y for takeoff. I fully intend to comply with the SOP.My Supervisor reviewed the incident with me and wrote a record of conversation.  He said that separation was not ensured and there was no positive control because I did not give the Aircraft X additional instructions to regain 3 miles of separation between my two VFR aircraft. Again; I felt it was less confusing and safer to allow him to continue to the airport knowing that the situation would not result in a serious incident. He also said that management has decided to conduct an [System Service Review] SSR to determine if my actions resemble a systematic problem within our facility. I am not sure why this one incident has warranted a review of the entire facility.




Synopsis: Controller violated facility SOP for opposite arrival departure minimum separation.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: 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 Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The Pilot Flying and I had a normal push back; taxi; and take off. No deviations from training or FOM/AOM SOPs were noted by me at anytime during the flight. After turning to a heading of 190 degrees; it seemed like we were on the Tower frequency for a longer than usual time (no quick hand-off to departure). I thought I missed a radio call; and more than likely switched to departure without direction from the Tower. This was my second sequence since being released from IOE. I was displaced from ZZZ1 to ZZZ and I'm still learning how the ATC system works in ZZZ . Prior to joining [Company]; I flew out of ZZZ2.  I'm still learning ZZZ's operation. I should have asked the Pilot Flying if he thought I missed a call. This would have been an opportunity for me to learn how ATC works in ZZZ.




Synopsis: Airline First Officer reported lost com; NORDO; with ATC due to being unfamiliar with the local operation.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Observer
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: While taxiing out to 08L at A8; we were number three or two for departure. We heard a Company aircraft tell Tower that with the current winds they are stating to other aircraft in their takeoff clearance that they are unable to depart. Tower then came back and said the airport winds were now variable at 6 kts. and 'Is that OK?' They said 'It is;' and from then on Tower cleared (I think) two aircraft to takeoff and called the winds variable at 6 kts. They then cleared us to takeoff; and either didn't state the winds or called them variable at 6 kts too. I can't remember; but I do remember I was paying attention to what she was saying; especially about the winds. We departed uneventfully. The next day I wake up to a text from another Company Pilot telling me I may have departed illegally. I told them I was number two or so in line when I heard that conversation take place about the winds. They said it may have been someone else then. I felt the best action is to fill out this [report] just in case; however; I don't believe we departed illegally based on the Tower's advisement of the winds.


Second narrative: While about number four for takeoff; a Company pilot on a different flight notified ATC that with the winds the Tower was reporting; they could not legally depart. I had not noticed what the Tower had been reporting. Right after; the Tower Controller stated the airport winds were variable at 6 and asked if they could depart. They stated they could depart with those winds. I noticed the last ATIS winds we had were 210 at 9. Both the Captain and I felt that with those winds we were legal to depart. At the time we received our takeoff clearance; the winds were still variable at 6.The following day; the Captain received a text from another Crew Member stating they believed we took off illegally. While the Captain and I both disagree with that assessment; we decided filing an [report] would be a good idea. Looking back; when we heard the winds being variable at 6; we should have requested new numbers from [Weight and Balance] with the most conservative number (260 at 6) just to be completely sure. Simply requesting [Weight and Balance] data with the new wind report would take out any question regarding this type of event.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported they may have departed LAS with illegal winds.