roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that during the initial climb in night visual meteorological conditions the airplane "was not climbing well." The pilot further reported for about 15 minutes he maneuvered the airplane over a highway, and the airplane still would not gain altitude. Subsequently, he reported that was "unable to maintain adequate terrain separation" and landed on the highway. During the landing roll on the highway, the pilot swerved to avoid a car and struck a road sign, which substantially damaged the left wing.During postaccident correspondence with the pilot, he reported that the airplane was "160 lbs. over gross with high estimates on bags, likely closer to 140 over gross." The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (PHAK) in part states: "The pilot should always be aware of the consequences of overloading. An overloaded aircraft may not be able to leave the ground, or if it does become airborne, it may exhibit unexpected and unusually poor flight characteristics. If not properly loaded, the initial indication of poor performance usually takes place during takeoff." The pilot also reported that a cold compression check was performed on the engine after the accident. He reported that the "compressions were 25/80, 42/80, and both rear cylinders were 72/80." The Service Instructions for cylinder compression checks provided by Textron Lycoming in part states: "Operate the engine until normal cylinder head and oil temperatures are attained; then shut down the engine making sure that magneto switches and fuel supply valves are shut off. Proceed with the test as soon as possible after shut down." The cylinder compression measured was not completed in accordance with the manufacture's service instructions.The FAA provides guidance on how density altitude affects aircraft performance. The density altitude about the time of departure was 8,202 feet, the pressure altitude was 6,217 feet, and the temperature was Page 2 of 7 GAA16CA32020 Celsius (68 Fahrenheit). According to the FAA Koch Chart, the airplane would have likely experienced a 145% increase to the "normal takeoff distance" and a 65% decrease in a normal climb rate. The FAA PHAK in part states: "In extreme conditions, such as high gross weight, high density altitude, and high temperature, a deficiency of airspeed during takeoff may permit the aircraft to become airborne but be incapable of sustaining flight out of ground effect."The pilot also reported that he had been on a four day trip and had worked more than 12 hours each day, including the day of the accident. He reported that, "fatigue significantly affected decision making as [the] pilot had opportunities to attempt to land back at [the] airport, abort [the] takeoff, or land closer on [the] highway avoiding the vehicle." The FAA PHAK in part states: "Fatigue is frequently associated with pilot error. Some of the effects of fatigue include degradation of attention and concentration, impaired coordination, and decreased ability to communicate. These factors seriously influence the ability to make effective decisions."
During a telephone interview, the pilot of a tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll on a private agricultural airstrip, a piece of concrete from the runway chipped off and hit the right brake. The pilot further reported that he applied the brakes to stop on the runway and then ground looped to the left. During the ground loop, the fuselage sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.A postaccident mechanical inspection revealed that the hydraulic line on the right main landing gear was severed, which would have made the right brake inoperable.
During the initial climb on an instructional flight, the light sport airplane experienced a total loss of engine power. The flight instructor initiated a 180-degree turn back toward the airport; however, the airplane impacted trees to the right of the runway. Postaccident examination revealed that the mechanical fuel pump diaphragm had deteriorated and was leaking fuel. A serviceable fuel pump was installed, and the engine operated normally and produced full power during a subsequent test run. The fuel pump was subject to a mandatory service bulletin (SB) issued by the manufacturer about 3 years before the accident. The SB required replacement of the fuel pump at the next scheduled maintenance due to instances of mechanical failure. Although the accident airplane had received three annual inspections between the issuance of the SB and the accident flight, the fuel pump was not replaced at any of these inspections.
The private pilot departed on a cross-country flight with two passengers onboard the helicopter, which had been filled with 110 gallons of fuel (88 gallons of which were in the aft tank) before departure. The pilot reported that, after encountering headwinds that were about 15 knots greater than anticipated and turbulence for more than 2 hours, he saw that the helicopter was low on fuel and decided to land at a nearby airport. He began a descent from 12,000 ft mean sea level (msl), but as he passed through 10,000 ft msl, he heard a "violent explosion in the engine compartment," followed by the illumination of the engine-out indication light. The pilot immediately initiated an autorotation and made two unsuccessful attempts to restart the engine during the descent. He flared the helicopter at 2,000 ft to avoid settling into a crater, and it subsequently impacted terrain hard. Paint transfer signatures on one of the main rotor blades indicated that they likely contacted and severed the tailboom during landing. The pilot stated that he did not pull the fuel pump circuit breakers before or during the accident flight; however, the unbreeched aft fuel tank was void of fuel when first responders examined it shortly after the accident, and the fuel pump circuit breakers were found in the "off" position. Further, operational tests of the fuel system and engine did not reveal any blockages or mechanical malfunctions. Fuel computations showed that the engine consumed 88 gallons of fuel, the quantity that would have been in the aft tank at the time of departure, and the pilot reported that he customarily disengages the fuel pumps after each flight. It is likely that the pilot's improper fuel management, possibly from departing with the fuel pumps in the "off" position, prevented fuel trapped in the forward tanks from reaching the engine and resulted in fuel starvation. The pilot had planned the flight around 15-knot winds despite multiple weather forecasts issued before his departure that indicated the presence of about 30-knot headwinds along his flight route. It is likely that the pilot's poor preflight weather and fuel planning resulted in greater-than-anticipated fuel consumption, which led to the low fuel state and the pilot's decision to divert to a closer airport. Page 2 of 9 WPR16LA125The pilot did not experience any control issues throughout the long autorotation from 10,000 ft, and weather reports indicated that he would not have encountered any visibility restrictions during the descent, so he should have had sufficient time to properly flare the helicopter and land. However, he chose to initiate a flare at 2,000 ft, which likely reduced the rotor rpm and led to hard impact with terrain.
The pilot reported that about 15 minutes after takeoff he smelled something burning and the cabin filled with smoke. The pilot further reported that the engine lost power and that he was forced to maneuver for an emergency landing. After the loss of power, he heard a "clanging noise" from the engine. While landing in a field, the airplane impacted blueberry bushes and a fence, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage.During a postaccident examination by the local law enforcement, it was revealed that the oil filler cap was not in place on the oil filler tube. The oil filler cap retaining chain was still attached to the oil cap and the oil filler tube. Upon further examination of the oil cap and the oil filler tube, no evidence of damage was noted.The pilot reported there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of a skid equipped helicopter reported that after landing on a volcanic rock hill top, the pilot exited the running helicopter. The pilot further reported that he heard an audible change in the sound of the main rotor and observed the ground under the right skid of the helicopter give way and the helicopter rolled to the right.The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the tail boom.According to the pilot there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has published FAA-H-8083-21A Helicopter Flying Handbook (2012). This handbook discusses pilots at the flight controls and states in part:"Many helicopter operators have been lured into a "quick turnaround" ground operation to avoid delays at airport terminals and to minimize stop/start cycles of the engine. As part of this quick turn-around, the pilot might leave the cockpit with the engine and rotors turning. Such an operation can be extremely hazardous if a gust of wind disturbs the rotor disk, or the collective flight control moves causing lift to be generated by the rotor system. Either occurrence may cause the helicopter to roll or pitch, resulting in a rotor blade striking the tail boom or the ground. Good operating procedures dictate that, generally, pilots remain at the flight controls whenever the engine is running and the rotors are turning".
The pilot reported that during the takeoff rotation the airplane started to drift left and he immediately applied more right rudder, the left wing dipped, and the stall warning horn sounded. The pilot further reported that he decided to abort the takeoff and pulled the mixture to idle cutoff. The airplane collided with a fence, and sustained substantial damage to the firewall and left aileron.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 commercial pilot was attempting to take off from a 1,750-ft-long tall grass runway with a 4-knot tailwind. About one-quarter of the way down the runway, a witness heard the engine sputtering and observed that the airplane seemed slow. The witness radioed the pilot and asked him if he was going to reject the takeoff, but the pilot did not respond. The airplane rotated and climbed briefly, then descended and impacted downward-sloping terrain about 500 ft below and 250 yards beyond the departure end of the runway. The airplane came to rest inverted in a wooded area and was mostly consumed by a postcrash fire, the damage from which precluded an engine examination.
On June 12, 2016, about 1645 eastern daylight time, American Airlines flight 117, an Airbus A321, N104NN, encountered turbulence in cruise flight at FL170 that resulted in one flight attendant receiving a serious injury.  The other 109 passengers and crew members onboard were not injured. The airplane was not damaged. The regularly scheduled domestic passenger flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 from John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), New York, New York, to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Los Angeles, California.The captain stated that after takeoff the he advised the cabin crew to remain in their jumpseats due to possible turbulence.  A few minutes later, he announced it was safe to move about the cabin.  The captain further stated that seat belt sign was still illuminated at the time of the event, and there were no visible indications of any convective activity in the area.  The Captain said that he did not think of this event further, until he was later contacted by a flight attendant who stated that she had been thrown sideways during the turbulence event, and had been injured as a result.The Flight Attendant stated that she did not think much of the incident or injury and she flew for another four days. She then went to her doctor since her ankle was not getting any better and was diagnosed with a fractured foot.
The pilot of the amphibious airplane reported that during the 4th water landing of the flight, during touchdown, "the nose pitched down aggressively" and the airplane nosed over. The pilot further reported that he and the passenger were able to perform an emergency evacuation before the airplane sank. The fuselage sustained substantial damage. During a postaccident interview with the National Transportation Safety Board investigator-in-charge, the pilot reported that boat wake developed in the landing area and the nose of the airplane "may have been a little low" during the landing. According to a police report, the passenger reported that "we misjudged the wave and the plane flipped onto its back."   The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during the takeoff roll from a soft field turf runway, "I was not as aggressive as he should have been." He reported that the airspeed increased, the airplane began to rotate, but without enough airspeed to sustain climbing flight. He reported that he "pushed the nose over", the airplane settled to the runway and bounced. The airplane overran the end of the runway, struck a fence and sustained substantial damage to both wings. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or anomalies with airframe, flight controls or the engine that would have prevented normal flight operations.According to the manufacturer pilot operating handbook, for Soft-Field Take-off: Hold full back pressure as you taxi and as the takeoff roll is begun. If the surface is marginal or too narrow for gradual turn on to the runway, align the airplane with the runway, apply full brakes, and build up takeoff RPM before starting the takeoff roll. As you apply full power, move the control wheel to neutral and allow the airplane to accelerate to 65-70 MPH. Lift off with a light back pressure. After lift-off release enough of this back pressure to permit the airplane to accelerate to its best angle- or rate of climb speed as required by obstructions.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that during the takeoff roll, the airplane "pulled hard to the left." He recalled that he applied full right rudder pedal and realized that he was approaching the end of the runway. He reported that he applied both brakes, he applied reverse thrust, the airplane exited the runway to the left and ground looped.  The pilot reported that he did not confirm that the tailwheel pin was locked, prior to the takeoff roll. He further reported that in the future, he will confirm that the tailwheel is locked by working the tail back and forth, and he will check the tailwheel for inhibiting buildup of fertilizer, grease and dirt that would prevent tailwheel pin actuation.  The right wing sustained substantial damage.Per the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Safety Inspector that arrived shortly after the accident occurred, the airplane was dispersing fertilizer as part of a 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 137 operation. The prolonged use of fertilizer coupled with dirt, will inhibit the tailwheel pin from locking in place. A photograph was taken shortly after the accident by the FAA Inspector revealing a canted tailwheel. The FAA Inspector reported that the mechanic that performed the inspection on the tailwheel assembly noted that the assembly was, "gummed up with fertilizer and the pin was not in place at the time of the ground loop.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that during landing the airplane bounced, subsequently the leaf spring on the tail wheel broke midspan. The pilot further reported that the airplane veered to the right despite full left rudder deflection and brake application, which resulted in a ground loop, left main landing gear collapse, and substantial damage to the left wing.The pilot reported there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot stated that while attempting to assess the suitability of a gravel-covered ridge top for future landings in his tail-wheel equipped airplane, he attempted a full flap landing on the main wheels. After bouncing twice, he aborted the landing and adjusted the flaps to 40 degrees and applied full power. During the subsequent takeoff, he felt something hit the airplane, but elected to continue the takeoff and proceed to his final destination. During a postflight inspection, the pilot discovered substantial damage to the lower cross member structure of the fuselage.The pilot stated there were no pre-accident mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
At the end of the second leg of a cross-country flight, the private pilot made an approach to runway 3 at the destination airport and subsequently performed a go-around. A flight instructor, who was about 3 miles from the airport and preparing to land on runway 21 did not hear any radio communications from the accident pilot. He observed the airplane in a climbing left turn near the departure end of runway 3, about 80 to 100 ft above the ground. The airplane then made a steep 45° to 60° bank to the right, with a nose-high attitude. As it progressed through the turn, the airplane's nose dropped, and it began a slow 270° rotation at a high descent rate. The airplane impacted the ground and came to rest upright on a grass area adjacent to the east side of runway 3.Data from an onboard GPS confirmed the flight path described by the flight instructor and showed that the airplane's groundspeed was about 74 mph during the right turn. The airplane owner's manual indicated that the airplane's stall speed in a 60° bank varied from 90 to 96 mph indicated airspeed depending on flap setting.Examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. Based on witness information and recorded GPS data, it is likely that the pilot failed to maintain airspeed while maneuvering after the go-around, which resulted in an exceedance of the airplane's critical angle of attack, an aerodynamic stall, and subsequent loss of control.
The pilot reported that during takeoff in crosswind conditions, after rotation and about 6 feet above the ground, a gust of wind from the right pushed the airplane to the left of the runway toward a group of peach trees. The pilot further reported that he applied additional correction for the crosswind drift but was unable to give full deflection due to the proximity of the airplane above the ground,  the left wing impacted the tree(s), and subsequently the airplane spun  to the left. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. According to the pilot there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located about 10 miles to the south east, revealed that, about 36 minutes before the accident the wind was 270 degrees true at 8 knots. A further review revealed that, about 24 minutes after the accident the wind was 290 degrees true at 10 knots. The airplane landed on runway 18.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll in crosswind conditions, the wind lifted the left wing, and the right wing impacted the ground. The pilot further reported that he attempted to regain control of the airplane, but it continued forward, and the propeller impacted the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. According to the pilot there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located on the airport, revealed that, about 7 minutes before the accident the wind was 260 degrees true at 10 knots. The airplane landed on runway 32.
The flight instructor reported that he was providing simulated engine failure (SEF) training, with a left 180 degree turn, to the student pilot. He reported that during the second SEF, he cut the power and the student pilot slowly made a left turn from downwind to base. The flight instructor recalled that the student "cut the base leg short" and turned toward the end of the runway. He reported that the airplane was about 25 degrees to the left of the runway centerline, the sun was setting and they failed to see the powerline wires. The airplane struck the wires and fell to the ground sustaining substantial damage to both wings and the fuselage.The flight instructor reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with any portion of the airplane that would have precluded normal flight operations.As a recommendation the flight instructor reported that due to the calm wind, he should have switched to the reciprocal runway to mitigate the sun's position during landing.
The 80 year old pilot usually flew with his son and not by himself. On the day of the accident, he intended to fly solo around a lake and then return to the private landing strip to pick up his son for an additional flight together. The pilot took off from the landing strip and flew over some property that he used to own. The pilot stated that he blacked out and did not recall the accident. The last thing he remembered was turning back to the lake. He then heard voices and people were helping him into a boat. According to a witness, she observed the airplane flying south over the lake behind her house and then strike a power line that extended from the lake bank near the rear of her house, across the water to the island. After striking the power line, the airplane "nosedived" into the lake. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The airline transport pilot reported that the accident flight was the airplane's first flight following completion of an annual inspection. He added that there were no issues with the brakes while taxiing to fuel the airplane or to depart. After performing two touch-and-go landings and a go-around, the pilot approached the runway intending to conduct a full-stop landing. He stated that the airplane touched down at the normal point/location and that he then retracted the flaps during the landing roll but waited to apply brakes until the airplane approached the end of the runway. Upon applying the brakes, the left brake did not work, but the right brake did, which resulted in the airplane drifting right. The pilot realized that the airplane was going to exit the right side of the runway, so he secured the engines and attempted to maintain control while applying right braking in an effort to slow the airplane. The airplane travelled off the right side of the runway and impacted upsloping terrain. Initial postaccident operational testing of the brakes revealed no discrepancies with the left brake. No brake system leaks were noted, and the fluid levels in both brake master cylinders were at correct levels. However, during subsequent operational testing of the left brake master cylinder, the left brake worked satisfactorily once but failed during subsequent testing.