roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The commercial pilot reported that, about 2 hours 40 minutes into the aerial observation flight, he landed on a remote gravel bar to take a break; he departed a few minutes later. During the climb, he noticed the oil pressure had redlined. To correct for the high oil pressure, he reduced the engine power while slowly climbing the airplane to about 1,000 ft above ground level and applied the carburetor heat. Shortly thereafter, smoke began filling the cockpit. The pilot indicated that, while maneuvering for an emergency landing to a frozen lake, the engine lost total power, and the pilot made a forced landing in an area of tundra-covered terrain, during which the airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.  A detailed examination of the propeller revealed torsional "S" twisting and minor chordwise scratching on both propeller blades, consistent with the engine producing power at the time of impact. An examination of the engine revealed a displaced crankshaft oil seal and an engine breather tube that was not insulated and lacked a whistle slot. The examination did not reveal evidence of any other engine  malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.  The mechanic who maintained the airplane stated that the engine breather tube had been replaced about 2 years before the accident during an engine conversion and that he must have forgotten to put the hole (whistle slot) in the tube at that time. The engine manufacturer's website indicates that a whistle slot is one method that is often used to prevent freeze-up of the crankcase breather. Thus, it is likely that the engine breather tube froze, which pressurized the crankcase and caused the crankshaft oil seal to be displaced, which resulted in a loss of oil, smoke in the cockpit, and the pilot's incorrect belief that the engine had lost total power, which led to his selection of a less-than-ideal landing surface for the forced landing. Page 2 of 7 ANC17LA007
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that he was cleared to taxi to the departure runway. He added that, while taxiing, he was doing S-turns to see over the nose of his airplane, and "must have missed a call to the aircraft [airplane] ahead of him," which had been instructed to hold short of the upcoming taxiway. His airplane impacted the empennage of the stopped airplane that was holding short. His airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing, and the stopped airplane sustained substantial damage to the empennage. Both pilots reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with their airplanes that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot stated that, during the takeoff roll, the engine was not producing full power and the airspeed was fluctuating, so he chose to abort the takeoff. He reduced power and applied full braking, but the left wing became airborne, and the right wing struck the runway. The airplane veered right, and the propeller struck a grassy area. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the right wing and the engine mounts. Postaccident engine examination found that the engine's magneto timing was set incorrectly; no other evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures were found that would have precluded normal operation. During a subsequent test-run of the engine with the magneto timing set to its preaccident state, the engine started immediately and ran continuously at all power settings without interruption. Performance data downloaded from the on-board recording devices revealed that the pilot did not add full power until the airplane was about 15% down the runway. The engine performance data also revealed that associated engine parameters moved in response to rpm increases and decreases. Although the pilot reported that the engine was not producing full rpm and that the airspeed was fluctuating during the attempted takeoff, the recorded performance data revealed that the engine was achieving close to full power, and there was no evidence of a power loss. Further, the airspeed was sufficient for takeoff with no fluctuations noted before the pilot chose to gradually reduce power. Therefore, given the evidence, it is likely that the engine and airplane were functioning adequately before the pilot decided to abort the takeoff. After the pilot decided to abort the takeoff, he failed to maintain directional control of the airplane.
The pilot stated that, during landing, he was too fast on the approach and touched down long. Subsequently, the airplane overran the runway and nosed over. A postaccident examination revealed substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.After multiple requests, the pilot did not return the NTSB Form 6120.1 Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report.
On November 20, 2016, about 2223 eastern standard time, Delta Air Lines flight 1982, a Boeing 717-200, N930AT, a flight attendant was seriously injured while the airplane was in cruise flight to LaGuardia International Airport (KLGA), Queens, New York. The remaining 114 passengers and crew were not injured. The regularly scheduled domestic passenger flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 from Miami International Airport (KMIA), Miami, Florida, to KLGA.According to crew statements, the airplane was in cruise flight at flight level 330 with no turbulence.  The lead flight attendant (FA) stated that as she stood up after stooping to retrieve and item from a lower shelf, she struck her right middle ribcage with "full force" on edge of the galley retractable table, which had been pulled out without her awareness. The injury caused her excruciating pain and made it difficult to breathe.  The captain was immediately informed of the injury and he arranged for paramedics to meet the airplane at the gate. Because the FA could not complete her duties, the crew enlisted a nonrevenue "deadheading" FA to take her jumpseat position during landing. After landing, the FA was transported to the hospital where she was diagnosed with a broken rib.
The on-demand passenger flight was approaching its destination airport when the commercial pilot noted that the two main landing gear extended, but the nose landing gear did not extend and lock. The pilot diverted to a larger airport, where ground personnel verified that the nose landing gear was not down and locked even after the pilot completed the manual gear extension procedure. The pilot elected to land the airplane with the engine off, and he stated that the touchdown was uneventful. He held the airplane's nose off the runway for several hundred feet; the left main landing gear then collapsed and the nose wheel extended. The airplane slid about 200 ft before coming to rest. A witness reported that the touchdown was smooth and when the left main landing gear collapsed, the airplane gradually slowed to a stop on the runway.An examination of the airplane revealed that the alternator became inoperative during the flight, and, due to the cold temperatures, the battery was unable to accommodate the electrical load required by the system. In addition, the grease on the nosewheel was thick, which, combined with the cold temperatures, can increase its viscosity and reduce its effectiveness. Because the nose landing gear extends into the relative wind direction, it would be more difficult for it to extend and lock with the low battery power and increased viscosity of the grease. Further, because the landing gear was not in the "up" position when the emergency extension control was activated, the hydraulic fluid had already been released, thus rendering the emergency procedure ineffective. After landing and with a reduction in the relative wind, the gear was able to lock in place; however, the reason for the collapse of the left main landing gear could not be determined. When the alternator and battery were replaced, the airplane was placed on jacks and all three landing gear actuated as designed.A review of the passenger's injuries revealed that the fracture of the transverse process of L2 vertebrae was "age-indeterminate," which means that it could not be definitively determined when the injury occurred.Page 2 of 7 ANC17LA014
According to the student pilot, the single-engine airplane was configured in a crab profile during the landing. After the flare, the airplane settled into ground effect and a deer then approached the airplane from the left and struck the left main landing gear. The pilot initiated a go-around, but the left wing struck the ground. The airplane landed hard on the nose landing gear, the nose landing gear collapsed, and the airplane slid to a stop after exiting the runway to the right. The firewall sustained substantial damage.The airport facility directory stated that deer were present on and near the airport.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot was conducting a personal cross-country flight. The pilot's friend reported that he provided weather information to the pilot about 1 hour before the flight; no record was found indicating that the pilot or the friend obtained a formal weather briefing before he departed for the night cross-country flight. A review of weather information revealed that, about 1 hour 20 minutes into the flight, as the airplane was nearing the destination airport, it encountered a strong cold front boundary with associated severe wind shear and turbulence. Review of radar data revealed that, during the following 13 minutes, the flight completed numerous course deviations, including three complete left circuits and two right circuits, before impacting wooded terrain. Review of the last 3 minutes of radar data revealed that the airplane's altitude oscillated between 2,100 and 200 ft mean sea level (msl) as it completed the two right circuits and one of the left circuits before it impacted terrain. The last target was recorded about 2,000 ft southeast of the accident site at an altitude of 525 ft msl. Examination of the wreckage did not reveal any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Based on the evidence, it is likely that the airplane encountered wind shear and turbulent conditions upon encountering the strong cold front boundary and that the pilot subsequently lost airplane control.
The noncertificated pilot stated that he was unfamiliar with the accident aircraft, a light sport trike; only intended to do a high-speed taxi; and had no intention to fly. He indicated that, during the taxi test, the airplane "must have experienced a gust of wind," and the airplane lifted off, turned hard to the left, and crashed into the trees alongside the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wing. The postaccident examination did not note any mechanical anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operations. The pilot reported that he had received some flight training and had some experience flying ultralights but that the controls in the ultralights were different than the controls in the accident aircraft.
The solo student pilot reported that during the landing flare, the airplane encountered a wind gust and began to porpoise on the runway. The student pilot further reported that the nose wheel collapsed, the airplane skidded off the runway to the left, and nosed over. The fuselage, vertical stabilizer, and both wings sustained substantial damage.The student pilot did not report any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane would have precluded normal operation.An automated weather observing system 14 nautical miles from the accident airport, about the time of the accident, reported the wind at 160 degrees true at 12 knots. The student pilot reported that he landed on runway 13.The student pilot failed to submit the National Transportation Safety Board Form 6120.1 Pilot/ Operator Aircraft Accident/ Incident Report.
The airline transport pilot departed in the twin-engine, turbine-powered airplane on an air ambulance flight with two medical crewmembers and a patient on board in night visual meteorological conditions. According to a witness, during the initial climb, the airplane made a left turn of about 30° from the runway heading, then stopped climbing, made an abrupt left bank, and began to descend. The airplane impacted a parking lot and erupted into flames.In the 2 months before the accident, pilots had notified maintenance personnel three times that the left engine was not producing the same power as the right engine. In response, mechanics had replaced the left engine's bleed valve three times with the final replacement taking place three days before the accident. In addition, about 1 month before the accident, the left engine's fuel control unit was replaced during trouble shooting of an oil leak.Postaccident examination revealed that the right engine and propeller displayed more pronounced rotational signatures than the left engine and propeller. This is consistent with the left engine not producing power or being at a low power setting at impact. Further, the abrupt left bank and descent observed by the witness are consistent with a loss of left engine power during initial climb. The extensive fire and impact damage to the airplane precluded determination of the reason for the loss of left engine power.
According to the pilot of the tailwheel-equipped gyroplane, he landed on the right main landing gear. The gyroplane began rolling to the right, but the gyroplane's heading was aligned to the left of the runway heading and continued in a left direction of travel. He attempted to correct the gyroplane's right roll by moving the control stick to the left; however, the aileron movement did not subside the roll. He reported that in hindsight, opening the throttle and applying right rudder may have subsided the roll, "but my mental preparedness was biased to preventing a ground loop, not a dynamic rollover." The gyroplane continued to roll right and impacted the ground. The gyroplane came to rest on the runway and sustained substantial damage to the main rotor system, right wing, and the empennage.The pilot reported that his lack of experience in the gyroplane model contributed to the accident because the critical angle was exceeded in this gyroplane more quickly than in other gyroplanes that he was accustomed to flying.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the gyroplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The co-pilot reported "a flock of buzzards" passed in front of the airplane while en-route, and "the PIC [pilot in command] took evasive action." He further reported a buzzard collided with the airplane at the top of the windscreen and there was a "loud bomb like bang/thump" followed by a loud rush of air. Subsequently, the pilot in command declared an emergency with air traffic control and landed at the nearest airport without further incident.The windscreen was substantially damaged. The pilot did not report any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot and a passenger were approaching the airport to land with a 70° right crosswind at 10 knots (kts) with gusts to 14 kts. The pilot reported that, on final approach, the airplane was configured with full flaps (30°) at an airspeed of 60 kts, and an altitude of 500 ft mean sea level (msl) when it began to encounter turbulence. The pilot then elected to conduct the landing approach at a higher airspeed and subsequently retracted the flaps from 30° to less than 20°. Immediately after reconfiguring the flaps, the pilot reported that he experienced strong turbulence that violently rocked the airplane and simultaneously felt a "strong downdraft" as the airplane entered a right bank. The pilot was unable to correct the airplane's attitude, and the airplane subsequently descended into terrain, where it impacted a paved road, several vehicles, and two houses before coming to rest.A weather study revealed that, at the time of the accident, a weak temperature inversion was present between 400 and 600 ft msl. The stable layer of air produced by the temperature inversion trapped any updrafts or downdrafts created by the wind flowing over nearby terrain. This created an environment favorable for the development of low level wind shear and turbulence below 600 ft msl. Although airplane performance data revealed that the pilot maintained an airspeed above the airplane's stall speed throughout the landing approach, his decision to retract the flaps likely resulted in a sudden loss of lift. This loss of lift, combined with the low level wind shear and turbulent conditions, most likely resulted in the pilot's loss of control during the approach for landing.
A tow plane pilot on the ground reported that he watched the glider fly for about 20 minutes after it was released from the tow plane. After the glider turned onto the left downwind approach to land and while about 300 ft above ground level (agl), he saw the glider enter a right 360° turn while on the base leg, followed shortly after by a 180° right turn. The glider then entered an aerodynamic stall/spin from about 100 ft agl and descended into trees. Although the glider pilot stated that he was unable to recall the sequence of events that occurred after entering the traffic pattern, he did not believe that there were any mechanical anomalies with the glider that would have precluded normal operation. It is likely that the pilot did not maintain adequate airspeed and exceeded the glider's critical angle of attack, which resulted in the aerodynamic stall/spin.
The student pilot reported that during the landing roll of a touch-and-go the airplane was off the centerline and he added right rudder, but he "overcompensated". The flight instructor reported that the airplane drifted to the right and was about to exit the runway, so he pushed in the throttle, applied left rudder, and pulled back on the yoke to initiate a climb. The student pilot reported that as the airplane became airborne they heard a "slight bang" and thought the landing gear had struck a runway light. The flight instructor further reported that they conducted a full-stop landing to examine the landing gear, but there was no damage noted.During a postflight inspection at their home airport, it was revealed that the left horizontal stabilizer had sustained substantial damage.The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The experimental amateur-built airplane was landing after an uneventful personal flight. While landing on a runway, the retractable nose landing gear collapsed, the rudder that was mounted on the bottom of the fuselage contacted the runway pavement, substantially damaging it. Postaccident examination of the nose landing gear system revealed that the bottom of the down lock was worn (beveled). When the nose wheel landing gear was extended, the bottom of the down lock, which hooked over a pivot shaft to lock the landing gear down, contacted the pivot shaft around the area of the centerline and did not extend past the centerline of the pivot shaft. Drawings of the assembly’s normal functions indicated that the down lock could move and unlock the landing gear when the assembly was under load. At the time of the accident, the airplane had accumulated about 1,338 landings. Given this information, it is likely that the wear to the nose landing gear down lock allowed the nose landing gear to collapse during the landing.
The airline transport pilot and passenger departed on an expected 30-minute visual flight rules flight that was destined for the pilot's private helipad and residence on the southeast side of a neighboring Hawaiian island. Before the flight, the pilot's mechanic asked the pilot not to fly due to the weather at the intended destination, but the pilot insisted on flying. The National Weather Service forecast products that were available before the flight indicated a trade wind pattern that would bring bands of rain, low visibility, and mountain obscurations to the eastern slopes of the islands, but it is unknown if the pilot reviewed these products or any other forecast of expected weather conditions along the flight route. One witness stated that the pilot routinely flew at night to his helipad and that she had previously seen the pilot's helicopter operating in dark adverse weather conditions. Several witnesses reported seeing the helicopter fly over their locations in dark conditions with wind and rain. Two witnesses reported that they saw the helicopter make an approach to a ridgeline near the pilot's helipad, but then the helicopter disappeared from view because of a cloud or terrain.Meteorological data revealed that a line of rain showers moved over the accident site at the accident time. The reduced visibility and ceiling as the line of rain showers moved east to west over the rising mountain terrain likely resulted in instrument meteorological conditions and mountain obscuration conditions. The helicopter wreckage was discovered 0.75 mile upslope of the intended destination. Tree and ground impact marks indicated a relatively level descent to the ground at an approach angle of about 18° on a 310° heading, which is indicative of impact with terrain in controlled forward flight. The helicopter was destroyed by impact forces and a postcrash fire. Examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of any preimpact failures or malfunctions of the engine, drive train, main rotor, tail rotor, or structure of the helicopter. Damage to the mast support structure, main rotor hub, main rotor blades and upper flight controls is consistent with power-on main rotor blade impact damage.Page 2 of 12 WPR17FA021Given the weather conditions and witness observations, the pilot encountered dark instrument meteorological conditions and rain while flying in an area of rising terrain as he likely searched for the helipad at his residence, which was outfitted with various lights that would have been difficult to see in reduced visibility. The pilot did not have the visual cues necessary to maintain clearance above the ground, resulting in geographic disorientation, which subsequently led to controlled flight into terrain.
The flight instructor was demonstrating straight-in autorotations to a power recovery over the runway. He stated that the wind during the flight was generally from the north, but shearing horizontally to the northeast/northwest. He began to flare the helicopter about 40 ft above the ground. About 20 ft above the ground, a large wind gust with a horizontal wind shear resulted in a drift to the right and loss of tail rotor effectiveness. He corrected the drift and heading with flight control inputs, returned to the runway area, and continued the flare. During the last portion of the flare, the helicopter encountered a vertical wind shear and climbed about 20 ft. At that point, "all wind stopped," and the helicopter descended. The instructor attempted a power recovery; however, the helicopter landed hard on the skids with some lateral motion. The helicopter bounced, the left skid broke, and the helicopter rolled and came to rest on its left side. The flight instructor did not report any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation. Postaccident examination of the wreckage confirmed substantial damage to the airframe and main rotor blades; there was no evidence of a preimpact mechanical failure or malfunction. Additionally, the flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunction or failures that would have precluded normal operation.