roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that he landed on his 2,000-foot private grass airstrip with a slight tailwind shortly after it had rained. The airplane touched down at the mid-point of the airstrip, which was his normal go around point. The pilot further reported that he applied the brakes, but the airplane was not slowing due to the wet grass, so he added full power to abort the landing. The airplane became airborne, cleared some plastic barrels north of the airstrip, but the right wing collided with other farm equipment. The airplane impacted terrain and sustained substantial damage to both wings, the fuselage, and the empennage.  The pilot reported that there were no pre impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he was performing a low approach with full flaps about 30 feet above the runway. He further reported that when the airplane was about 60 feet from the end of the runway, he started to add power to go-around, but the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall. Subsequently, the nose of the airplane "suddenly" dropped, the airplane impacted the terrain, and stopped on the remaining runway surface.  The fuselage and both wings sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped biplane reported that during the landing on a grass airstrip, he landed long and was unable to stop before the landing gear contacted the edge of an intersecting asphalt runway and the biplane became airborne. The pilot further stated that after becoming airborne he aborted the landing, but the airplane impacted the top of a tree(s), descended, and touched down on an adjacent golf course. The biplane sustained substantial damage to both left wing struts.The pilot reported that there were no pre impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, while maneuvering at low altitude over a field during an agricultural application flight, the airplane struck an antenna atop a tower adjacent to the field, and the antenna wrapped around the right wing and landing gear. The pilot added that he attempted an off-airport landing, but the airplane impacted terrain. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, empennage, and both wings.The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.In an e-mail, the tower owner's lawyer reported that the tower was used for internet and two-way communications. He added that the tower was under 200 ft above ground level and "with the antenna attached, the tower was in the mid to upper 100 [foot] range." The lawyer reported that the tower was marked and lit appropriately and was not registered due its height.
The private pilot reported that the experimental, amateur-built airplane inadvertently became airborne during a high-speed taxi test. Two witnesses said that the airplane was in level flight about 200 ft above ground level and heading toward a tree line when the engine lost power. The airplane abruptly nosed straight down, struck a backyard playground set and hickory trees, and impacted the ground. The airplane came to rest upright about 5 ft from the initial impact crater and about 1/2 mile from the departure end of the pilot's private runway. The engine was not examined, and the pilot did not respond to inquiries regarding the accident.
According to the pilot of the glider, he released from the tow airplane at 2,000 feet above ground level and turned to the south toward a ridge in search of orographic lift. The pilot reported that he found "weak lift" in the vicinity of the ridge and when he reached the south end of the ridge, he turned back to the departure airport because he could not maintain altitude. The pilot recalled that while in route back to the airport, he encountered sink, descended below the glide path to the airport and initiated an off airport landing to a large field. The pilot reported that during approach, he over flew a set of powerlines that were perpendicular to his glide path and noticed a second set of powerlines ahead that were also perpendicular to his glide path. The pilot recalled that he turned to avoid the powerlines, encountered more sink, leveled the wings and landed hard in the field. The glider sustained substantial damage to the tailboom.The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies during the flight that would have prevented normal flight operations.
The private pilot and passenger departed on a night cross-country flight using flight following. About 2 hours after departure, the engine suddenly lost partial power. The pilot checked the engine gauges, which were all in the green, and advised air traffic control (ATC) of the loss of engine power. The pilot switched fuel tanks, then activated the carburetor heat. He tried switching magnetos and enriching the mixture for "a few seconds." He then leaned the mixture again and "deactivated the carb heat," all with no changes observed in engine power. The pilot declared an emergency with ATC and used his tablet computer's navigation application to align the airplane over a road. Upon touchdown, the airplane's wing impacted a guardrail, and the airplane subsequently nosed over. Although weather conditions at the nearest weather reporting facility about 50 miles from the accident site were conducive to the accumulation of serious carburetor icing at cruise power, the investigation could not determine whether the loss of power was a result of carburetor ice, and no postaccident examination of the engine was conducted to rule out other causes.
The private pilot and a passenger were conducting a local flight and performing aerobatics. Witnesses observed the pilot conducting "flybys" and "tricks" in the area. One witness reported observing the airplane complete "flips and spins" for about 10 minutes before the accident. Ground-based video footage depicted the airplane flying over the river at low altitude. The airplane pitched up and entered a steep climb. As the airplane reached the top of the climb, it yawed to the left and entered a near- vertical descent and gradual left turn. Shortly before impacting the river, the gradual left turn reversed abruptly into a right, descending turn. The airplane then impacted the river. A post-accident examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any anomalies consistent with a pre-impact failure or malfunction.According to a friend, the pilot was competent in spins and had received instruction in aerobatic maneuvers. However, the lack of a formal logbook training record with respect to aerobatics, the investigation could not determine the pilot's level of proficiency in such maneuvers.Toxicological testing on the pilot was positive for cocaine and its metabolites; cocaethylene, a metabolite formed when cocaine is ingested with alcohol; and levamisole, a drug commonly used to "cut" street cocaine, in urine. Cavity blood was positive for methamphetamine and its metabolites. The absence of cocaine in the pilot's blood suggested distant usage. Accordingly, the acute effects of the drug had likely dissipated. The level of methamphetamine in the pilot's blood sample was low. As a result, the presence of any residual effects of the drug could not be determined. Based on the available information, the investigation was unable to determine whether the pilot was impaired, if at all, at the time of the accident.
The private pilot stated that the experimental light sport airplane experienced a partial loss of engine power during climb after takeoff about 80 to100 ft above ground level. The airplane entered an aerodynamic stall, so the pilot decreased the pitch attitude to recover, but the airplane then impacted power lines. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed numerous items that had not been performed in accordance with the engine manufacturer's maintenance instructions, one of which was the correct installation of a quick release connector in the fuel lines. When the quick release connector was tested, it leaked a substantial amount of air into the fuel system; therefore, it is likely that air entered the fuel system during the flight and resulted in the partial loss of engine power.
The private pilot, who did not hold a gyroplane rating, was conducting a local personal flight in the gyroplane. A witness, who was an experienced gyroplane pilot, reported seeing the pilot make a high-speed flyby over the airport. The witness added that, as the pilot turned the gyroplane onto the left base leg for the active runway, it started to "porpoise" and that the gyroplane then pitched up, nosed over, entered a "power push-over" attitude, summersaulted, and impacted terrain. The witness stated that the pilot had not flown for some time and lacked sufficient proficiency and skills to operate a gyroplane of this type and that the pilot was inexperienced and had low flight time in gyroplanes; no gyroplane flight time was recorded in the pilot's logbooks. He added that the pilot had a "macho attitude" and could not be told anything and that, although most of the gyroplane pilots had landed that day because of air turbulence in and around the airport vicinity and he had tried to talk the pilot into not flying because of the air turbulence, the pilot conducted the flight anyway. The pilot should not have chosen to fly in such conditions, especially given his lack of experience flying gyroplanes, and his decision to do so contributed to the accident.
The pilot of a tailwheel equipped airplane reported that he was landing on a backcountry airstrip. He reported that after touchdown, about two-thirds of the way down the runway during the landing roll, the wind shifted to a tailwind. He further reported that the airplane over ran the runway, impacted a hill, and nosed over.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the empennage. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.According to the pilot the wind was variable at 7-8 knots prior to the accident. The Federal Aviation Administration has published the Advisory Circular (AC) 91-79A. This AC discusses the hazards associated with runway overruns and the effect of a tailwind on landing distance and states in part:The pilot must be aware of airspeed during the approach and of the targeted reference landing airspeed (VREF)/airspeed, plus wind gust adjustments, over the runway threshold. An excessive approach speed may result in an excessive speed over the runway's threshold, which may result in landing beyond the intended touchdown point as well as a higher speed from which the pilot must bring the airplane to a stop.The effect of a tailwind on landing distance is significant and is a factor in determining the landing distance required. Given the airplane will land at a particular airspeed, independent of the wind, the principal effect of a tailwind on operational landing distance is the change in the ground speed at which the airplane touches down.Page 2 of 6 GAA16CA468
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll out with the tailwheel down, the tail of the airplane lifted back into the air, at that time he attempted to abort the landing. The pilot further reported that when the airplane became airborne the left wing dropped, then the right, both of which he countered. Subsequently, the left wing dropped again and struck the ground. The airplane exited the runway to the left and came to rest on its nose. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and aileron.After the accident, witnesses reported to the pilot that a dust devil had touched down in front of the airplane during the landing.The pilot reported that there were no pre impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during the landing flare on a backcountry airstrip he lost forward visual sight due to a sun glare. The pilot further reported that as he was about to perform a go around, the wheels touched down and the airplane veered off the airstrip to the left. During the runway excursion, the left wheel hit a soft spot and the airplane nosed over, which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing strut and fuselage.The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aviation Safety Inspector that responded to the accident site reported that the pilot of the experimental, amateur built, tailwheel landing gear-equipped bi-plane reported to the inspector, that during the takeoff roll the bi-plane drifted off the left side of the turf and gravel runway. The pilot reported that after he had completed his engine run-up and all indications were normal, he lightly applied power and began his takeoff roll from a concrete pad at the approach end of the runway. He reported to the inspector that the bi-plane began to drift to the left and he did not feel as though he had rudder authority, so he added more power with the intent to increase the airflow over the rudder, but the torque from the added power exacerbated the loss of control. The bi-plane drifted further left, exited the runway, and struck a post that supported a satellite dish and subsequently struck a tree. The bi-plane sustained substantial damage to the four wings and the fuselage. The pilot reported to the inspector that in hindsight it would have been better to abort the takeoff.The FAA Inspector reported that during the airplane examination he did not find any evidence of aircraft system or component failure prior to the impact. The NTSB Investigator-in-charge attempted to contact the pilot on multiple occasions to no avail. The pilot did not submit the NTSB Form 6120.1.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll on a grass field the airplane encountered standing water and nosed over.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing, the right wing strut, and the empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot reported as a safety recommendation to conduct a more thorough pre-landing reconnaissance of the intended landing zone.
The flight instructor reported that during taxi the airplane started to lean to the right, so he looked out of his window to see if the right tire was flat. He further reported that "the ramp was opening up into a 2 foot wide dark black hole" underneath the right main landing gear. The flight instructor and student pilot egressed from the airplane without further incident. A postaccident examination revealed substantial damage to the empennage. The flight instructor reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.Photographs provided by Federal Aviation Administration showed that the right main landing gear had broken through the pavement into a sink hole underneath.
The pilot was landing the helicopter on a nose-up slope when he "noticed the helicopter started to tilt aft." As the pilot "immediately" increased collective pitch and applied forward cyclic to abort the landing, three of the four main rotor blades struck the wire strike protection system on the cabin roof, which resulted in substantial damage to the blades. Representatives from the helicopter manufacturer examined the helicopter, replaced the three damaged rotor blades, and then returned the helicopter to service. According to the pilot, there were no mechanical deficiencies with the helicopter that would have prevented normal operation.
The pilot was conducting a personal flight, and his last recollection of the flight was when he entered the traffic pattern for the runway. He stated that he was unsure if he "had a bad landing or tried to go around" when the accident occurred. The airplane came to rest upright in the grass alongside the runway facing southeast; the forward fuselage was crushed aft, which was consistent with a nose-down impact. The flaps were found fully retracted. A postaccident examination of the runway did not reveal any tire skid marks that could be associated with a loss of directional control after the airplane touched down. The initial point of impact was where the left wingtip had hit the ground about 30 ft from the left edge of the runway. The propeller exhibited damage consistent with minimal engine power at impact. The wreckage examination did not reveal any mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. Based on the available information, the pilot lost airplane control, but it could not be determined if this occurred while landing or during a go-around attempt.
On August 31, 2016, at 0210 universal coordinated time, United Airlines flight 880, a Boeing 767-322, N657UA, encountered severe turbulence during cruise that resulted in one flight attendant sustaining a serious injury. Another flight attendant and 10 passengers, including one infant, received minor injuries. There were no injuries to the other passengers and crew onboard and the airplane was not damaged.  The flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 as a regularly scheduled passenger flight from the George Bush Intercontinental Airport (KIAH), Houston, Texas to the London-Heathrow Airport (EGLL), United Kingdom. The flight diverted to the Shannon Airport (EINN), Shannon, Ireland . According to flight crew statements, the aircraft was in cruise at flight level (FL) 340 approximately 50 miles east of 40W on the North Atlantic Track X, when it encountered unexpected severe turbulence that lasted for approximately 45 seconds.  The captain indicated there was forecast turbulence for this portion of the flight and there were no pilot weather reports (PIREP) or air traffic control advisories in the pre-flight weather package.  The flight crew indicated that the flight conditions were smooth and devoid of any turbulence for approximately two hours prior to the event.  The seat belt sign had been off for about 2 hours prior to the event.  They indicated that the onboard weather radar was operating in the AUTO mode and there were no returns observed prior to the event.  After the event, the seat belt sign was immediately illuminated. After assessing the level and number of injuries, the captain decided to divert to EINN to expedite After landing, all injured passengers and one flight attendant were treated for minor injuries and released; one flight attendant was admitted to the hospital with fractures of the left wrist and L3 vertebra.According to a weather analysis conducted by United Airlines, satellite imagery indicated convective buildup/enhancement in the form of an isolated cell in the region of the event.  The Atlantic High Weather Prognostic Chart valid for the period depicted the potential for isolated cumulonimbus clouds over the area, which implied the potential for severe or greater turbulence associated with the convection. The nighttime conditions and lack of lightning in the lower convection, likely did not Page 2 of 6 DCA16CA220provide any visual indication of the developing storms below the flight path. Wind and temperature patterns depicted a diffluent wind flow pattern ahead of a trough over the area of the upset, which supported the development of the isolated convection.  RPM Turbulence did not indicate presence of Clear Air Turbulence.
The pilot had completed a local flight and was landing at his unlighted grass airstrip toward the west shortly after sunset. While landing, the airplane impacted a riverbank short of the runway, about 6 ft below the elevation of the runway, which caused the airplane to nose over and come to rest inverted. The pilot was seriously injured, and the airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and left wing. The pilot did not recall the accident but reported that there were no malfunctions with the airplane that would have contributed to the accident. It is likely that the pilot did not obtain a proper aimpoint during the approach due to reduced visibility from the setting sun, which resulted in a landing short of the runway.
The commercial pilot and one passenger departed in a vintage airplane from a private airstrip. During the takeoff, the airplane would not climb with full engine power, and it collided with trees about 1/2 mile from the end of the runway. An examination of the airplane revealed that the flaps were in the "down" position. However, the Before Takeoff checklist stated, "flaps up," for takeoff. The pilot reported that he normally took off with one notch of flaps. It is likely that the pilot's failure to follow the Before Takeoff checklist and his use of the wrong flaps setting for takeoff degraded the airplane's climb performance.
The solo student pilot reported that the airplane ballooned during the landing flare and touched down beyond the planned touchdown point. He further reported that the airplane porpoised and on the third bounce he felt a vibration. Subsequently, the airplane departed the runway to the left and stopped in grass next to the runway. The firewall sustained substantial damage. The student pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane, during approach for landing the airplane encountered "slight" turbulence, but the wind was reported as calm. He further reported that there were building cumulus clouds in the area. The pilot reported that about 4 feet above the ground, the airplane encountered wind gusts from left to right, so he added power and right rudder. He reported that the airplane landed on the left main landing gear, immediately veered left, exited the left side of the runway and impacted a drainage culvert. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage frame and right wing ribs.The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with any portion of the airplane during the flight that would have prevented normal flight operations.As a recommendation the pilot reported that he should have gone around at the first indication of turbulence and tested the conditions further. He wrote that had the conditions worsened he would have departed the area for a suitable airport.
According to the student pilot, following the first leg of his solo cross-country flight, he entered the traffic pattern to land on runway 17 "because other traffic was using runway 17 even though winds were 050° at 3 knots." He reported that, as the airplane approached the runway, the airspeed was too high, and the airplane landed hard on the nosewheel and porpoised. He conceded, "I knew it was a hard landing, but did not hear the prop strike occur." The student pilot departed the airport and accomplished two approaches and a landing at a third airport before returning to his home airport where he accomplished two approaches, a landing, and then taxied to parking. The student pilot reported that he could have prevented the accident by performing a go-around when he realized that his approach speed was too high. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall.The student pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the engine or airframe that would have prevented normal operation.