roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot of the gyrocopter reported that, after flying over his passenger's house to take pictures, he headed back to the airport. He added that, while in level flight, he noticed that "the trees on the ground under [him were] rapidly getting closer." He initially presumed something was wrong with the engine, so he reduced throttle and then successfully applied full throttle in an attempt to troubleshoot the situation. He made a left 180° turn, and the gyrocopter struck trees and impacted terrain.The gyrocopter sustained substantial damage to the empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the gyrocopter that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot reported that he had presumed the terrain he was flying over was flat but later realized he had flown into rising terrain.
The pilot reported that, during the final approach to land, the airplane encountered a "swirling wind due to [the] high trees on final approach." Subsequently, the airplane impacted terrain about 10 to 12 ft short of the runway threshold, the nosewheel collapsed, and the airplane skidded to a stop as it continued forward onto the runway. The engine mount sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.An automated weather observation station, about 12 nautical miles from the accident airport, recorded wind from 130° at 7 knots. The pilot reported that the landing was on runway 27.
The private pilot (the owner of the airplane) was landing at the airport following a local flight. Witnesses reported that the airplane made several landing attempts, but, each time, the airplane was too fast or too high to land. On the last attempt, the airplane touched down hard and fast about halfway down the 2,495-ft-long runway. The airplane continued off the end of the runway, across a road, through a field, and struck several small trees and a tractor before coming to a stop. An examination of the airplane's systems revealed no pre-impact anomalies that contributed to the accident.   A flight instructor who had previously flown with the pilot told the pilot that he should fly only with an instructor on board, and that he was not ready to fly the airplane alone. Thus, it is likely that the pilot did not have the necessary experience to conduct a successful landing in the airplane.
The pilot and passenger were searching for an overdue boat with the intent of landing at a remote unimproved airstrip located near the boat's intended destination. A witness reported strong wind conditions as she observed the airplane circle the airstrip. While the airplane was circling, its nose suddenly dropped, and the airplane descended in a near-vertical attitude to ground impact. She stated that the engine continued to run, and the airplane did not make any unusual sounds, other than an increase in engine rpm, during the descent.A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The observed damage to the airplane indicated that it impacted the ground in a nose-down, near-vertical attitude. The witness account and the damage to the airplane were consistent with the pilot failing to maintain sufficient airspeed while maneuvering, which resulted in the airplane's wing exceeding its critical angle of attack and a subsequent aerodynamic stall. The airplane's estimated gross weight at the time of the accident was about 130.5 pounds over its approved maximum gross weight of 1,650 pounds, and the airplane's estimated center of gravity was about 0.1 inches beyond the approved aft limit at gross weight. As excessive weight increases stall speed and an aft center of gravity decreases controllability, it is likely that the pilot's decision to operate the airplane over gross weight with an aft center of gravity contributed to the loss of control.
The private pilot, who was the builder of the airplane, stated that the purpose of the test flight was to obtain rate of climb data on the airplane, which had recently been completed. Following the sixth climb of the flight, the engine began to run rough. The pilot turned back toward the airport and entered the traffic pattern, and the engine experienced a total loss of power. The pilot determined that the airplane would not reach the runway and performed an off-airport landing in a field. The field was soft and contained high vegetation, which resulted in a ground loop during landing.The pilot noted that, during the flight, the No. 1 cylinder exhaust gas temperature and cylinder head temperature had dropped, indicating that the No. 1 cylinder was not firing properly. It was after the No. 1 cylinder quit firing that the No. 2 cylinder also quit firing. A postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the wire in the No. 1 cylinder connector between the engine control unit and the fuel injector was not properly crimped at the connector, which allowed the wire to be pulled back. In addition, a wire to the No. 2 connector was found broken where the wire had been spliced. This wire most likely separated at the spliced area due to engine vibrations after the No. 1 cylinder ceased operating.
The private pilot of the glider received a tow to 3,000 ft above ground level. Recorded data from an onboard GPS device showed that the glider proceeded in a general westerly direction until it was about 15 nautical miles from the departure airport. It then turned and tracked eastward for the remainder of the flight. The data ended about 9 miles west-northwest of the departure airport. During the 43 minutes of recorded data, the glider reached a peak altitude of about 8,500 ft, slowly descended to about 3,900 ft, then entered another gradual descent that continued until ground contact. During the last 8 minutes of recorded data, the glider's speed was recorded slowly decreasing from about 76 to 40 knots. The glider came to rest in a dry, plowed field slightly northwest of the last GPS target. The engine was stowed and secure, and examination revealed no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies of the glider that would have precluded normal operation.  The pilot received his private pilot certificate about one year before the accident and purchased the accident glider a few days later. The pilot's first flight in the glider occurred about 3 weeks before the accident from the accident airport. The accident flight was the pilot's second flight in the accident glider. It could not be determined whether the pilot obtained training specific to the accident glider or in motorglider operations. The flight track data was consistent with normal glider operations and a slow descent to land. However, the on scene impact marks, the contained debris field, and the damage to the wreckage were all consistent with a stall. Therefore, it appeared that the pilot was attempting to make an off-field landing when the glider stalled and impacted the ground. It is unknown why the pilot did not use the airplane's engine; however, it was noted that very little fuel was removed from the glider at the accident site.
The student pilot reported that the purpose of the flight was to practice landings. The takeoff was uneventful, but when the airplane was on the base leg, the engine suddenly quit without warning or making any abnormal noises. The pilot attempted to restart the engine several times without success. He initiated a forced landing onto a roadway, during which the left wing impacted a light pole. The nosewheel collapsed, and the airplane then crossed an intersection and slid to a rest. Postaccident engine examination revealed that the carburetor was fracture-separated at the attachment flange, and the air box exhibited heavy impact damage. The carburetor was disassembled, and the needle valve and floats were observed stuck in the "up" position. Slight force was applied to the float assembly, and it moved freely. No contaminants or obvious bends in the float system were found. Although a stuck needle valve can restrict fuel from entering the carburetor bowl and lead to a loss of engine failure, impact damage precluded a determination of whether the needle was stuck before the accident or during the impact sequence. No other mechanical anomalies were found with the engine that would have precluded normal operation; therefore, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
During a local orientation flight, the pilot turned to final approach with "a little too much altitude," but the pilot did not perform a go-around. The airplane landed long down the runway, overran the end of the runway, and impacted a ditch, which damaged the forward fuselage. The pilot reported no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The airline transport pilot and a private pilot-rated passenger departed in an aerobatic airplane to perform a fly-by over a local raceway. About 10 minutes after the fly-by, one witness saw the airplane flying level when its engine stopped producing sound. The airplane continued level flight for several seconds before it suddenly entered a nose-down, descending spiral and impacted the ground. However, two other witnesses saw the airplane conduct a vertical climb before entering what they described as a "corkscrew" and a "fast spin." Both of these witnesses described engine sound anomalies and that they thought the pilot was trying to restart the engine.The airplane came to rest inverted on plowed terrain. Signatures on the propeller were consistent with the engine not producing significant power at the time of impact; however, examination of the wreckage did not reveal any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded operation of the airplane and engine.Weight and balance calculations were produced using occupant weights at various fuel loads. Even at minimum fuel, the airplane was operating above its maximum gross weight of 1,500 lbs for approved flight in the acrobatic category at the time of the accident. Additionally, the airplane's calculated center of gravity was outside the envelope for the acrobatic category. It is likely the airplane's gross weight exceedance and operation outside the weight and balance envelope for aerobatic flight contributed to the pilot's difficulty in adequately controlling the airplane.The investigation could not determine which occupant was manipulating the controls at the time of the accident. Regardless, the pilot was responsible for maintaining flight control.
The commercial pilot reported that, while conducting an aerial application flight, he performed a 180° turn at an altitude of about 40 to 50 ft above ground level and heard a growling noise, which was followed by the sound of a loud bang and a subsequent loss of power. The pilot lowered the collective, likely to initiate an autorotation to a nearby open field, and the helicopter landed hard. Postaccident examination of the helicopter airframe and engine revealed that the middle portion of the engine-to-transmission drive shaft was separated between the engine and transmission KAflex couplings. No additional evidence of any preexisting mechanical malfunction was observed.Metallurgical examination of the shaft and couplings revealed that the shaft had failed from a pair of fatigue cracks at a bolt hole in one element of the flexure coupling (flex frame). This bolt hole exhibited rotational wear severe enough to cause material loss on one face of the bolt hole wall. This circular-wear depression was consistent with repeated rotational contact with an adjacent washer. It is likely that, once the fatigue cracks at the bolt hole propagated deeply enough, the remaining flexure element cross-section fractured from overstress. The failure of this flexure element led to multiple and subsequent overstress failures in other flexure elements, eventually compromising the entire drive shaft assembly.The circular-wear depression and the longitudinal wear inside the flexure element bolt hole were both consistent with a loose bolt assembly. Because the bolt assembly was loose, the washer would have been able to rub on the flexure element. In addition, the bolt shaft would have been able to rub or gouge the inner wall surfaces of the bolt hole. The bolt and associated washer were not located in the wreckage. None of the maintenance performed on the helicopter about 1 month before the accident involved the flex frame bolt assemblies, so the investigation could not determine how one of the bolts became loose.
The pilot of the helicopter reported that, after fueling the helicopter with the engine running, the ground crewman opened the front passenger door on the opposite side from the pilot. Upon unlatching the door, the ground crewman released the door, and it was blown open. The door separated from the door strut and struck the main rotor, damaging the blades.The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the main rotor blades.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the twin-engine, turbine-powered airplane reported that, while providing flights for skydivers throughout the day, he had a potential new hire pilot flying with him in the right seat. He added that, on the eighth flight of the day, the new pilot was flying during the approach and "approximately 200' [ft.] south from the threshold of [runway] 15 at approximately 15 feet AGL [above ground level] the bottom violently and unexpectedly dropped out. [He] believe[d] some kind of wind shear caused the aircraft [to] slam onto [the] runway and bounce into the air at a 45 to 60-degree bank angle to the right." The prospective pilot then said, "you got it." The pilot took control of the airplane and initiated a go-around by increasing power, which aggravated the "off runway heading." The right wing contacted the ground, the airplane exited the runway to the right and impacted a fuel truck, and the right wing separated from the airplane. The impact caused the pilot to unintentionally add max power, and the airplane, with only the left engine functioning, ground looped to the right, coming to rest nose down.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and right wing.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The automated weather observation system about 8 nautical miles from the accident site reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 280° at 7 knots, visibility 10 statute miles, few clouds at 20,000 ft agl, temperature 86°F, dew point 45°F, and altimeter 29.81 inches of mercury. The pilot landed on runway 15.
The pilot of the float-equipped airplane reported that, during a water landing, he "misread the size of the swell." He added that, immediately after touchdown. the airplane jumped a swell, which resulted in a tail-low hard landing. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot reported that the flight was concluding at the end of his 17-hour duty day. He stated that he did not confirm a safe landing gear indication before landing and that the airplane subsequently landed with the landing gear retracted, which resulted in substantial damage. The pilot also stated that fatigue and self-induced distractions contributed to the accident, and that there were no mechanical anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during takeoff from a grass airstrip, he applied full power, and the airplane veered to the left "more than normal," and he "was late" to correct with right rudder. The airplane impacted a tree, the left wing separated, and the airplane came to rest on its left side.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot reported that, after landing at a remote, unimproved off-airport landing site, he taxied the airplane to the end of the strip, and he turned around while raising the flaps. Immediately thereafter, he felt heat on the left side of his face. Subsequently, he saw flames in the aft cabin near the right cargo door. Both the pilot and passenger immediately exited the airplane. The cockpit, baggage area, right wing, left wing fuel cell, fuselage section forward of the vertical stabilizer, and the contents of the airplane were mostly consumed by fire. Due to the extensive thermal damage, the source of the fire could not be determined.
After another company pilot returned to base due to deteriorating weather conditions en route, the instrument-rated commercial helicopter pilot flew to a remote glacier to pick up passengers. Upon departing from the glacier, the pilot encountered deteriorating visibility and flat light conditions. She decided to turn back to the departure point and land to wait for conditions to improve; however, during the turn, the helicopter impacted the featureless, snow-covered terrain and came to rest inverted. The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation with the helicopter, and the accident is consistent with the pilot's failure to maintain clearance from terrain while operating in poor visibility and flat light conditions, which obscured features of the terrain and resulted in a loss of visual clues regarding the helicopter's distance from the ground. The operator assigned different weather minimums to each of its pilots depending on their experience level. The accident pilot was classified at the highest experience level and was permitted to fly in conditions as low as 1/2 mile visibility, cloud ceilings 300 ft above ground level (agl), and from remote sites with the potential for white out conditions. The estimated conditions reported from the landing site shortly before the accident included 1 1/2 miles visibility with fog and ceilings about 1,500 ft agl, though previous observations indicated that fog had begun developing about an hour before the accident occurred and that conditions had continued to deteriorate since that time. Though the reported weather conditions were above the minimums specified by the company's operations manual, it is possible that the pilot felt pressure to complete the flight given that she was classified as more experienced; it is also possible that the pilot and/or operator felt pressure to conduct the flight because there were no formal procedures in place in the event that passengers were required to remain on the glacier for an extended time due to a contingency such as weather conditions that prohibited flight. Page 2 of 7 ANC17LA025
The flight instructor in the helicopter reported that the student pilot was practicing autorotations from a hover while pointing the helicopter into the wind over tall grass from about 1 ft above the ground. He added that the student "rolled off the throttle, the helicopter descended to the ground, appeared to bounce, moved slightly to the right and began a quick roll to the right." Subsequently, the helicopter pivoted on its right skid, the main rotor impacted terrain, and the helicopter rolled over to the right. The main rotor and windscreen sustained substantial damage.The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, while en route, about 1,500 ft, he saw a goose approaching the airplane. He added that he attempted to turn and avoid the goose, but the goose impacted the windscreen. The pilot landed the airplane at a nearby airport without further incident.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the windscreen and fuselage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
On May 20, 2017, about 1930 central daylight time, Spirit Airlines flight 330, an Airbus A319-132, N512NK, encountered turbulence while in cruise flight at flight level (FL) 360. Of the 146 passengers and crew onboard, one flight attendant received serious 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 Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport (KMSY), New Orleans, Louisiana, to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (KDFW), Dallas, Texas.During cruise, as the flight was approaching a line of weather, the flight crew made a public address announcement for the passengers to be seated because they expected turbulence.  In addition, the captain called the lead flight attendant (FA) and instructed that all the flight attendants be seated. The seatbelt sign was illuminated for the entire flight. About 10 minutes later, the flight penetrated a line of weather and the airplane had a short encounter with moderate turbulence. The autopilot did not disengage during the encounter.When the turbulence occurred, one of the FAs was seated in the aft galley without her seatbelt fastened and was thrown upwards, hitting her head on the ceiling before landing on the galley floor. She was assisted by medically qualified passengers and remained on the floor for the remainder of the flight due to numbness in her extremities.  Emergency personnel met the airplane after landing and the injured FA was transported to the hospital where she was diagnosed with number 1 lumbar fracture.
The private pilot reported that, about 20 minutes into a cross-country, personal flight, he noticed a loss of oil pressure, Subsequently, he attempted to divert to a nearby airport. The pilot stated that, a few minutes later, the engine began to "shudder," making it difficult to control the airplane, and the oil temperature had increased, so he decided to shut down the engine. The pilot was unable to glide the airplane to the diversionary airport, so he conducted an off-airport landing at a nearby field, during which the airplane struck a utility pole, which resulted in the left wing separating from the airplane.Examination of the airframe revealed oil streaks along the fuselage belly aft of the engine breather tube. Metal fragments were found trapped in the oil suction screen. About 1/4 quart of oil was present in the sump. Examination of the engine revealed that the crankcase and oil sump were intact, and no indications of oil leaks from the crankcase were found. Thumb compression and suction were established on all cylinders except for the No. 6 cylinder. The No. 6 connecting rod was separated from the crankshaft, and the connecting rod journal and rod end were discolored, smeared, and had gouges, consistent with thermal damage. Remnants of connecting rod bearing material were found loose inside the crankcase. A borescope examination of the remaining cylinders did not reveal any damage or unusual marks. Based on this evidence, it is likely that an engine crankcase overpressurization occurred, which resulted in the ejection of nearly all the engine oil through the breather tube; the reason for the overpressurization could not be determined. The engine likely began to shudder after the overpressurizaton as a result of the No. 6 cylinder connecting rod failing due to a lack of lubrication.