roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The commercial pilot reported that he had recently purchased the experimental, amateur-built airplane and was returning home after completing a prepurchase inspection and an uneventful test flight. During the landing, the nose landing gear (NLG) started "shaking violently," and he responded by pulling back on the yoke, which resulted in a tail strike. The airplane subsequently veered off the runway, and the NLG collapsed. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall, the left wing's leading edge, and the NLG. Examination of the NLG revealed that its lower bearing was fractured, which likely resulted in the pilot's inability to maintain directional control.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that he performed a precautionary landing in a bean field due to a rough-running engine. The pilot then had an airframe & powerplant mechanic look at the airplane and perform multiple engine run-ups. The rough-running engine was determined to be caused by carburetor ice.The pilot then loaded his two passengers into the airplane and attempted to take off from the bean field. He added that, as the airplane began to gain altitude, it approached the end of the open bean field. Subsequently, the landing gear contacted corn stalks in an adjacent field, descended into the corn field, and came to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings, the fuselage, and empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot in the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that the purpose of flight was to meet takeoff and landing requirements necessary to carry passengers. During the pilot's second landing, during the landing roll, the airplane veered right, and he attempted to correct with left rudder. The rudder input was ineffective, and he attempted to gain directional control using differential braking. However, during the brake applications, the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the horizontal stabilizer and the rudder.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the float-equipped airplane reported that he aborted the takeoff after the airspeed dropped 3 knots before coming up on the step. He added that, as the airplane approached a bend in the river, he applied left rudder but could not overcome the crosswind and current. The right float impacted the beach, the airplane turned perpendicularly, and then the left wing impacted the beach.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the experimental, amateur-built airplane reported that he was unfamiliar with the airplane and that, during a prepurchase flight, he was accompanied by an aircraft mechanic/pilot familiar with the airplane.The mechanic, seated in the right seat, instructed him to anticipate adding right rudder when increasing power during takeoff. During takeoff, the pilot applied right rudder; however, he reported that, once full power was applied, the airplane continued to veer to the left. The pilot added that he and the mechanic verbally communicated that they "both were applying right rudder and simultaneous aileron."The pilot then pulled the mixture control to shut off the engine; however, the airplane continued off the left side of the runway. The pilot heard a loud "pop," and the airplane then veered to the right, the landing gear collapsed, and the airplane came to rest off the right side of the runway.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and rudder.The pilot reported that he believed a "mechanical" failure caused the airplane to not respond to inputs from the right rudder, right brake, and right aileron and that the left brake or bearing seized, causing enough friction to overcome the control inputs. The mechanic stated that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.According to the mechanic, the airplane was not equipped with rudder/brake pedals on the right side, and before the flight, the pilot had used the brakes effectively to taxi for takeoff. He further stated, "all brakes were in good shape, and everything was in good operational condition."The automated weather observation system on the airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 190° at 7 knots. The pilot was departing on runway 17L.Page 2 of 6 GAA17CA435
The pilot reported that, during the landing roll, the tailwheel-equipped airplane encountered a wind gust and subsequently veered off the runway to the left. The pilot overcorrected to the right, and the airplane ground looped to the left. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot reported that the automated weather observation system indicated that the wind was from 270° at 10 knots. The airplane landed on runway 34.
The private pilot reported that, during takeoff from the 2,500-ft grass- and dirt-covered runway, the airplane lifted off the runway normally, and he flew the airplane at a low altitude to gain airspeed before he pitched the airplane upward to initiate a climb. The pilot stated that the airplane initially climbed before it started to settle toward the runway. The pilot attempted to gain airspeed and began a second rotation to climb but realized that the airplane would be unable to clear the trees at the end of the runway. The pilot aborted the takeoff and landed on the remaining length of the runway. However, the landing flare was late, which caused the airplane to porpoise, resulting in ineffective braking. Subsequently, the airplane overran the departure end of the runway and impacted trees before the airplane came to rest upright within an orchard. Both wings sustained structural damage. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of a preexisting mechanical malfunction that would have precluded normal operation. According to the reported weights of the pilot and passenger, the reported fuel load, and the airplane's empty weight, the airplane was within its weight and balance limitations. On the basis of the airplane's performance charts, the airplane would have required about 1,366 ft to clear obstacles and thus should have been able to successfully depart from the private grass/dirt runway. However, when the airplane did not begin to climb after the initial liftoff, the pilot should have rejected the takeoff rather than attempt to climb a second time. The pilot's delayed decision to abort the takeoff resulted in an improper flare, a bounced landing, and a subsequent runway overrun.
The pilot of the float-equipped airplane reported that, during a water takeoff and about 50 knots, the airplane encountered boat wake, which caused the airplane to become airborne prematurely. He added that the airplane landed on a swell and became airborne again. During the second touchdown, the airplane struck another swell and touched down hard. The pilot aborted the takeoff.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the empennage.The director of operations for the company reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The Chief of Safety for the operator reported that the student pilot was on a solo flight in a glider and on the return leg to the airport when he noticed that he "seemed to be sinking quickly." While talking with his instructor over the radio and scanning for an open field, he decided to land on a street in a nearby neighborhood. While on approach, the glider struck tree tops and then a power line. Subsequently, the glider rolled to the right and the right wing struck the ground. The glider came to rest on the right side of the fuselage and the student pilot exited the glider.The glider sustained substantial damage to both wings and fuselage.The Chief of Safety reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the glider that would have precluded normal operation.The automated weather observation system about 8 nautical miles from the accident site reported, about the time of the accident, wind calm, temperature 91°F, dew point 75°F, and altimeter setting 30.04 inches of mercury.
The pilot stated that he was departing on a postmaintenance flight check in a float-equipped airplane from a short water lane at a remote, unimproved seaplane base. While taxiing for departure, he left the wing flaps in the "up" position to aid in turning the airplane on the water. After aligning the airplane for the takeoff run, he applied full power, and the airplane accelerated onto the step. While attempting to rotate, he realized that he had forgotten to reset the wing flaps to the "takeoff" position. He attempted to reset the manually operated, hydraulically actuated wing flaps, but the incorrect flap setting led to a longer-than-normal takeoff run, and the airplane subsequently impacted the water lane's far bank, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing and left-wing strut. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
During a cross-country flight, the airline transport pilot chose an en route stop to refuel. During the landing roll, the airplane started to drift left, so the pilot applied the right brake and rudder to correct the turn; however, the brake "went to the floor." The pilot was unable to correct the turn, and the airplane continued off the edge of the runway. An examination of the braking system confirmed that the right brake was not functional, likely due to a failed seal.
According to the helicopter flight instructor, he was demonstrating simulated 180° right turn autorotations. He reported that, during the entry of the third autorotation, the helicopter attitude was excessively nose low and the descent rate was high. He initiated a power-on recovery; however, the flare was initiated too late. He applied forward cyclic to level the skids and increased collective to its mechanical limit, but the helicopter touched down hard, and one of the main rotor blades struck the tailboom. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the tailboom.The pilot reported in the National Transportation Safety Board's Pilot Aircraft Accident Report, "The event could have been avoided by recovering the autorotation sooner and doing a go-around." The operator reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the flight instructor, the student pilot performed a preflight inspection of the airplane before their training flight, and she observed him sample fuel from the left fuel tank four times to get water out of the tank. After the last sample, she observed no water. She did not observe fuel from the right fuel tank being sampled; however, the student pilot told her there was "a little water" in the right tank. She then performed her own preflight inspection and found no anomalies. They departed with the student pilot flying. During the first steep turn to the right, the engine lost total power; the student pilot leveled the wings, and engine power was restored. The flight instructor decided to return to the airport immediately. During the return flight, the engine lost total power again. The flight instructor performed a forced landing to a levy, during which the airplane flipped over and sustained substantial damage. Postaccident fuel samples taken from the lower fuselage drain and gascolator were contaminated with significant amounts of water. It is likely that this water contamination in the fuel resulted in the total loss of engine power.
The pilot was landing the tailwheel-equipped airplane when it veered into the grass left of the runway and the left wing impacted a windsock pole. The airplane ground looped to the left and the right main landing gear collapsed, resulting in substantial damage. Examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction that would have precluded normal operation of the rudder pedals or brakes. The circumstances of the accident are consistent with the pilot’s failure to maintain directional control during landing.
The sport pilot was conducting a cross-country flight when the experimental amateur-built airplane experienced a loss of engine power; the pilot then conducted a forced landing to a field, and the airplane sustained substantial damage. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed a broken wire to the airplane's alternator; this specific wire supplied electrical power to the alternator field coil. Because the wire was broken, the alternator was rendered inoperative. The pilot would not have been able to detect the broken alternator wire without removing the engine cowl, which is not normally part of a pilot's preflight examination.The airplane's engine had been modified to use an ignition system that operated from the airplane's electrical system, which included a battery and the alternator to maintain the battery's charge. Once the alternator field wire had broken, the ignition system relied completely on the airplane battery's reserve power as the source of ignition power. Once the battery power was depleted, the ignition system could not operate, and the engine lost power due to the lack of ignition.
The commercial pilot was performing an agricultural application flight and completed two reconnaissance passes and orbits of the field he was about to spray. The pilot reported that he did not see any power lines that posed a danger for the flight. While maneuvering at a low altitude during a pass turn, the helicopter struck a wire that the pilot did not see. After the helicopter struck the wire, the helicopter windscreen failed, and the helicopter violently shook. The pilot entered an autorotation to the field, and the helicopter impacted terrain and came to rest on its right side. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, tailboom, and main rotor blades. The pilot reported no mechanical failures or malfunctions of the helicopter.
On July 19, 2017, about 2245 central daylight time, Republic Airlines flight 4678, an Embraer 170, N427YX, encountered turbulence at about 13,000 ft, during descent to Minneapolis International Airport (KMSP), Minneapolis, Minnesota.  Of the 49 passengers and crew onboard, one flight attendant received serious injuries and three passengers received minor injuries.  The airplane was not damaged. The regularly scheduled passenger flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 from Miami International Airport (KMIA), Miami, Florida, to KMSP.The captain stated that as the flight neared Minneapolis, he turned on the seatbelt sign, just before top of descent, for the arrival into KMSP. He contacted the flight attendants (FA) and briefed them on the weather around Minneapolis and told them to be seated within “about 10 to 13 minutes of the weather”. The first officer then made the descent announcement on the public address system, instructing the passengers to be seated and to fasten their seatbelts due to possible turbulence. Subsequently, during the descent, the airplane entered a cloud and encountered “one swift jolt of turbulence followed by moderate turbulence for a few seconds”. The airplane radar was on but there were no returns in front of the airplane. The captain disconnected the autopilot and maintained positive control of the airplane. Shortly after, the flight crew received a call from a flight attendant reporting injuries to passengers and a FA.The FAs indicated that after the captain informed them of the expected turbulence, they prepared their gallies for landing and made their compliance checks in the cabin.  As the aft FA was sitting down in her jumpseat, the turbulence was encountered, and she was thrown into the air and down to the galley floor, injuring her right wrist and left arm.  In addition, several passengers were thrown into their passenger service units and one lap-child was thrown several rows away from her mother.  The injured FA and passengers were attended to by the uninjured FAs for the remainder of the flight.  After landing, the airplane was met at the gate by emergency medical personnel and the injured FA and several passengers were transported to the hospital.  The FA was diagnosed with a fractured right wrist and left arm.Page 2 of 6 DCA17CA155
According to the pilot, during takeoff, when the agricultural application airplane was about 15 ft above ground level, he noticed a decrease in engine performance, verified that the engine controls were full forward, and turned the fuel boost pump on. He dropped the hopper load; however, the airplane's performance continued to decrease. The pilot chose to land the airplane straight ahead, and the airplane impacted trees before coming to rest inverted in a bog. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the fuselage and wings. Further, after the airplane was removed from the bog, the Federal Aviation Administration inspector who responded to the accident found feathers associated with a Canada goose near the engine and damaged propeller. According to the pilot, there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the airplane reported that, during the landing roll, two deer ran onto the runway and that one impacted the airplane's left side. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The Federal Aviation Administration Chart Supplement airport page for the destination airport, in part, stated: "Deer and birds on and [in the vicinity of the runway]."
The pilot reported that, during the landing, the airplane "landed short and hard." Subsequently, the main landing gear collapsed.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing lift strut.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The solo student pilot reported that he entered the downwind leg to set up for the helicopter's first landing of the day. When abeam the touchdown location, he conducted the prelanding checks with no anomalies noted. Before turning onto the base leg, the pilot lowered the collective, reduced the throttle, and started to descend about 100 ft per minute. During the descent, he observed that the engine rpm was slightly above 2,900 rpm. He reduced the throttle, and the rpm reduced slightly; however, it again increased to 2,900 rpm, and the manifold pressure was about 10 inches of mercury. When the helicopter was about 400 ft above ground level, the pilot heard the engine sound increase, and he observed that the engine rpm had increased to between about 3,300 and 3,500 rpm. The helicopter was unable to reach the runway, so the pilot continued to descend it toward a pasture, and it landed hard in the dirt. A postaccident airframe and engine examination and subsequent engine run revealed no preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The observed damage to the main rotor blades was consistent with blade coning, a condition indicative of low main rotor rpm. It is likely that the student pilot mismanaged the main rotor rpm during the descent, which resulted in a low rotor rpm and a high descent rate during landing.
The commercial pilot was performing an aerial application flight. He had just completed his first pass spraying a field when the airplane struck a set of power lines and impacted a field adjacent to the field that he was spraying, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage and both wings. The pilot stated that he had no memory of the accident. Review of data downloaded from an onboard GPS unit was consistent with the airplane operating normally as it made a pass over the field and then initiating a climb near the power lines. The recorded data ended shortly after the airplane was on the opposite side of the power lines.
The private pilot of the experimental, amateur-built helicopter reported that he returned to the airfield after a local flight and was preparing to land. While flying about 4 ft above ground level at an indicated airspeed between 16 and 24 mph, he felt a shudder, and the helicopter yawed to the right. He straightened the helicopter with antitorque pedal inputs and did not recall hearing any engine noise, although the doors were removed. The next thing that he recalled was lying on the ground, with the helicopter leaking fuel. Examination of the wreckage revealed that the helicopter's main rotor blades were bent and the tailboom was severed. Postaccident examination of the helicopter, which included an engine run, did not reveal any evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Although the pilot reported 46 total hours of helicopter flight experience, all in the make and model of the accident helicopter, he did not possess a rotorcraft rating at the time of the accident.
The pilot reported that he was practicing short-field, touch-and-go landings on the private grass airstrip. The final leg of the approach was over a cornfield and a road perpendicular to the approach end of the airstrip. During final, the main landing gear (MLG) struck corn stalks that were about 6-ft tall. The airplane then landed short and struck the road. The right MLG collapsed, and the airplane slid across the road and onto the grass airstrip. The airplane's nose dug into the grass and dirt, and the airplane nosed over.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right-wing strut and the rudder.The pilot reported that "this accident was pilot error" and that he believed that he became "fixated on the beginning of the grass and was oblivious to the height of the corn."The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.