roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot and one passenger were departing from an airport located at an elevation of 6,813 ft mean sea level (msl). The pilot determined that, based on the temperature and gross weight of the airplane, the takeoff ground roll distance was about 2,900 ft total distance required to clear a 50-ft obstacle. The runway was 6,300 ft long. The pilot reported that the airplane became airborne about halfway down the runway and climbed to about 150 to 200 ft above ground level when he noticed a loss of engine power and the airplane began to descend. The pilot maneuvered the airplane for a forced landing and the airplane impacted terrain, resulting in substantial damage. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no mechanical malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation, and onboard video revealed that the engine continued to produce sufficient power throughout the flight.Before the accident flight, the pilot determined that, based on his calculation, the density altitude was 8,500 ft mean sea level (msl). Based on the weather conditions reported by the airport’s automated weather observation at the time of the accident, the density altitude was about 9,700 ft msl, which required a takeoff distance of about 3,300 ft. It is likely that the takeoff and climb performance, due to the density altitude, was degraded to an extent beyond that anticipated by the pilot, and the airplane was unable to maintain altitude.
The passenger, a TV news anchor, was filming a documentary on the pilot, which included a local flight in the pilot's aerobatic airplane. The airplane departed and turned onto the downwind leg of the airport traffic pattern. The pilot requested to return to the airport but did not specify the reason for the return. A witness described the airplane as, “unstable” and “wiggling,” and said that the engine was sputtering before the airplane impacted the ground and burst into flames. The airplane impacted terrain in an approximate 45° nose-down pitch attitude and was consumed by a post-impact fire. Examination of the flight controls and engine did not reveal any obvious pre-impact anomalies, although severe fire damage precluded complete examination. The wooden propeller blades were severely fractured and splintered, consistent with powered rotation at the time of impact. The reason for the loss of control and impact with terrain could not be determined based on the available information.
The pilot reported that, during an agricultural application flight, he attempted to fly the airplane underneath power wires, but the airplane struck one of the wires. The airplane descended into a cornfield and then came to rest. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the lower fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, 1 hour after takeoff, turbulence was getting bad, so he decided to return to the departure airport. Subsequently, the airplane ran out of fuel, and he made an off-airport landing in an open field. Upon landing, the airplane bounced, the nose landing gear collapsed, and the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and fuselage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was on a cross-country flight; about 20 minutes into the flight, the oil temperature gauge indicated a red line reading. The pilot reduced engine power, applied full rich mixture, and reduced airplane pitch in attempt to lower the oil temperature. The airplane was midway between the destination and the nearest airport, and the pilot elected to continue to the destination. The engine then started to run rough and lost all power. The pilot landed the airplane on an open area on hilly and wooded terrain where it impacted a rock pile and nosed over, resulting in substantial damage to the empennage and aft fuselage.Postaccident examination of the wreckage did not identify anything that would have caused the engine to overheat or the loss of engine power.
The airline transport pilot receiving company flight training was flying an approach; the airplane was too high and entered an increasing descent rate. The flight instructor told the pilot to go around, about the same time the pilot elected to go around.  However, the pilot’s corrective control and power inputs did not arrest the descent rate, and the airplane impacted the ground, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage. The operator reported there were no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal airplane operation.
The pilot reported that, during landing on an uphill, 4,500-ft-long unimproved airstrip, the airplane bounced and floated. When the airplane touched down again, he applied brakes, and upon reaching the end of the airstrip, he aggressively applied brakes, and the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the empennage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was operating an experimental amateur-built airplane on a personal flight. During cruise flight, the engine lost all power, and the pilot performed a forced landing into a field. During the landing roll, the airplane struck a large rock and sustained substantial damage to the left wing and forward fuselage.The airplane’s engine control unit (ECU)—part of the airplane’s full-authority digital engine control system—managed the engine’s electrically powered ignition system. Review of data from the ECU and the airplane’s electronic flight information system revealed that the engine stopped operating because the ECU shut down suddenly. The battery that operated the full-authority digital engine control system appeared to be providing enough electrical power to the system bus for the ECU to operate; thus, the source for the loss of electrical power could not be determined.Subsequent examination of the airplane revealed no anomalies with the ECU or airframe wiring, although an undiscovered intermittent electrical supply failure to the ECU could not be ruled out. The airplane was not equipped with a redundant electrical power source or a backup ECU system. As a result, when the engine control unit shut down suddenly, no system could provide the ECU with the electrical power that would have allowed it to continue operating.
The pilot of the gyroplane was practicing takeoffs and landings. On the accident takeoff attempt, the pilot initiated the takeoff roll with a rotor rpm less than that recommended by the manufacturer. When he saw that the speed of the gyroplane was higher than normal and the gyroplane still had not lifted off the runway, he applied aft control stick to initiate the takeoff, contrary to the published takeoff procedures in the owner’s manual. The gyroplane then immediately lifted off the runway and rolled to the left. The rotor contacted the left vertical stabilizer and the runway. An examination of the wreckage revealed no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the gyroplane that would have precluded normal operation. It is likely that the pilot’s decision to initiate the takeoff with low rotor rpm and his failure to follow the published takeoff procedure resulted in a loss of control.
The airline transport pilot was taking off from a seaplane base. Once the airplane was on step during the takeoff run to the west, the sun was in the pilot’s line of sight and he was unable to distinguish the lake’s southern water channel or see a small island in the water lane because the glare was too bright. Subsequently, the airplane struck the southeastern side of the island, nosed over, and sustained substantial damage to the empennage, fuselage, and both wings.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
Shortly after takeoff, the pilot of the helicopter transmitted a mayday call over the radio. The helicopter subsequently impacted a building, resulting in substantial damage to the airframe, serious injury to the pilot, and minor injury to the passenger. Neither the pilot nor the passenger provided statements regarding the events that transpired during the flight. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions either, with the exception of the engine’s magnetos. Examination of the right magneto revealed evidence of corrosion and indications of misfiring in the distributor block assembly; therefore, it is likely that the right magneto was not performing optimally during the flight. Additionally, examination of the left magneto revealed a worn cam gear, and functional testing indicated that the magneto could not produce adequate spark for engine operation at any power setting. A review of the helicopter’s maintenance logbooks revealed that the most recent 100-hour inspection was performed about 3 months and 35 flight hours before the accident. The right magneto was installed about 2 years before the accident as a used-serviceable unit, with no previous history or time in service information. The left magneto was installed as a new unit at the same time as the right magneto. There was no indication that the left magneto had been serviced in accordance with the manufacturer’s 500-hour inspection. Given this information, it is likely that the helicopter’s engine at least partially lost power shortly after takeoff, and that the loss of engine power was most likely the result of the failure of the left magneto and the sub-optimal output of the right magneto. Further, it is likely that a lack of adequate maintenance of both magnetos resulted in their degraded performance during the accident flight.Page 2 of 7 ERA19LA245
The pilot departed on a visual flight rules cross-country flight. A review of radar data revealed that the airplane began to climb from its previously established cruise altitude of around 10,800 ft mean sea level (msl) to 13,500 ft msl. During the climb, the groundspeed decayed from about 215 knots to 79 knots and continued to decay as the airplane subsequently entered a rapid, left-turning descent that continued until ground contact. The airplane was largely consumed by a postcrash fire, but examination revealed no evidence of any mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot was not in communication with air traffic control during the flight. Around the time the airplane began to climb, it entered an area of light-to-heavy precipitation and likely reduced visbility. A model atmospheric sounding for the area of the accident site revealed a potential for icing above 14,000 ft msl and the likely presence of updrafts and downdrafts. Witnesses near the accident site reported heavy rain and lightning around the time of the accident. Whether or to what extent the pilot obtained preflight weather information could not be determined, and there was no record of the pilot receiving a weather briefing for the flight from an access-controlled source.Although the pilot was instrument rated and his logbook indicated that he had completed 28 instrument approaches within the 10 months before the accident, he did not record any actual or simulated instrument flight experience during that time, and his instrument proficiency could not be determined. The airplane’s loss of airspeed throughout the climb and its subsequent rapid descent without an associated increase in airspeed suggest that the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall/spin that continued until impact.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during takeoff, the airplane encountered a wind gust and veered left. The airplane exited the runway onto adjacent grass, and the left main landing gear collapsed. 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 airport's automated weather observation station reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 320° at 8 knots, gusting to 17 knots and variable from 290° to 350°. The airplane was departing from runway 3.
The pilot reported that, during his ninth touch-and-go landing and shortly after touchdown, the airplane bounced. He wanted to apply partial power and continue to land, but he heard the safety pilot declare, "I have," so the pilot responded, "you have," and gave the controls to the safety pilot. The safety pilot reported that, during landing, the left main landing gear touched down on the runway first, followed by the right main landing gear, and the airplane "popped up" with a nose-high attitude. The airplane started to climb, continued to pitch higher, and rolled right, so he took the controls, applied power, and lowered the nose, but the right wingtip struck the ground, and the airplane impacted terrain. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the engine mount and truss. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was planning to conduct a touch-and-go landing, and the airplane landed hard and bounced back into the air. The airplane then descended and impacted terrain nose first, which resulted in substantial damage to the airplane's firewall, fuselage, empennage, and wings. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The circumstances of the accident are consistent with an improper landing flare which resulted in a hard, bounced landing.
The pilot reported that, during the landing flare, he was startled by the airplane impacting the runway early and then bouncing. Subsequently, the airplane touched down hard and porpoised. He increased power to abort the landing and retracted the flaps, but the airplane was unable to take off. He reduced engine power, and the airplane rolled to a stop on the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the lower fuselage bulkhead. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
On August 8, 2019, at 1630 eastern daylight time, JetBlue Airways flight 1973, an Airbus A320, registration N505JB, experienced turbulence during cruise that resulted in one passenger receiving a serious injury. There were no injuries to the other passengers and crew onboard, and the airplane was not damaged. The regularly scheduled passenger flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 from Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), Newark, New Jersey to Tampa International Airport (TPA), Tampa Bay, Florida. The turbulence encounter occurred in visual meteorological conditions. According to the operator, while enroute in the vicinity of Charlottesville, VA, the flight crew initiated a climb from flight level (FL) 340 to FL380 due to reports of turbulence at the lower levels.   During the climb, the aircraft encountered turbulence at FL350.  The flight attendants (FA) stated they had just started beverage service when the turbulence began and had started to return to the galley to their jumpseats.  The FA at position #3 stated the turbulence caused the beverage cart to shift, resulting in the hot liquid container toppling over onto a passenger in an aisle seat, causing burns to the passenger’s shoulder.  First aid was provided to the passenger and Medlink was contacted.  Emergency medical personnel met the flight upon arrival and the passenger was diagnosed with second degree burns.
The business jet was climbing through flight level (FL) 335 to an assigned altitude of FL 340, when it suddenly encountered turbulence. The captain reported that the airplane was in smooth air when the turbulence was encountered. The passenger seat belt sign was off. Unsecured objects, passengers, and the flight attendant were thrown about the cabin, resulting in several minor injuries and one serious injury to a passenger. The captain stabilized the airplane and diverted to the nearest airport and landed. Flight data recorder (FDR) data recorded the event that lasted for about 11 seconds. At the time of the turbulence encounter, the airplane was between eight and ten miles in trail of a heavy transport airplane. The transport airplane was level at FL340 and on the same assigned route as the business jet. The flight crew of the business jet was not aware of the preceding heavy transport after the turbulence encounter. It is likely that the business jet encountered wake turbulence from the proceeding heavy transport airplane.
The solo student pilot reported that, during the landing roll, she applied the brakes and pulled back on the yoke, but the airplane was traveling too fast to turn off at the taxi intersection she normally used. She became confused about where to turn off the runway, turned left toward the next taxiway intersection too fast, and the airplane exited the runway to the left and struck a taxiway sign.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the engine mount.The student reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, shortly after takeoff, he reduced engine power to about 1,800 rpm and continued along a valley in a shallow climb. As the airplane approached a ridge, he turned the airplane back toward the valley and felt a “subtle sluggishness” of the airplane during the turn. He applied carburetor heat; however, it did not appear to have an effect, and he turned the carburetor heat off after about 20 seconds. The pilot continued toward an area of rising terrain because the engine was running smoothly and, he believed, producing enough power to return to the departure airport. The airplane descended and impacted trees, resulting in substantial damage to the wings, empennage, and fuselage. The recorded temperature and dew point at the time of the accident were conducive to the accumulation of serious carburetor icing at a glide power setting. Based on the available information, it is likely that the airplane lost partial power due to the accumulation of carburetor ice, which resulted in a gradual descent and impact with terrain.
The pilot and passenger were landing at the destination airport following a cross-country flight. Witnesses saw the airplane on final approach for landing when it entered a right bank followed by a steep, nose-down descent. The airplane impacted the ground several hundred feet short of the runway threshold. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Given the available information, it is likely that the pilot failed to maintain airspeed on final approach, which resulted in an exceedance of the airplane's critical angle of attack and an aerodynamic stall at an altitude too low for recovery.
The pilot and passenger planned to visit a farm by landing on an adjacent dirt road. The pilot had previously been to the farm but had never flown there. The owner of the farm watched as the pilot crossed over the road and made a left turn to parallel the road. The airplane then began another left turn, consistent with a left base-to-final turn, during which the airplane continued past the road before it entered a sharp turn and descended into terrain. Upon impact, the airplane burst into flames.A postaccident examination revealed no anomalies that that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane. The circumstances of the accident are consistent with the pilot exceeding the airplane’s critical angle of attack while maneuvering for landing on the road, resulting in an accelerated stall, loss of control, and impact with terrain.
The flight instructor and student pilot conducted a preflight inspection of the airplane before the local flight. All the indications were "normal" during the run up. At 150-200 ft above ground level, the engine had a partial loss of power. The instructor subsequently took over the controls; he reported that "everything" was good. During a turn to land the airplane on a parallel runway, the engine lost all power and the instructor decided to conduct a forced landing on a corn field between runways, where the airplane sustained substantial damage.An examination of the airplane revealed that the left wing fuel tank contained 16 oz of water. The gascolator bowl and carburetor contained a liquid consistent with water and fuel. It is likely that the flight instructor and student pilot did not conduct a thorough preflight inspection and did not detect and remove the water in the fuel system, which led to the loss of engine power.
The pilots departed on a local flight in the multiengine airplane in visual meteorological conditions. Radar and GPS data showed the airplane maneuvering around the area of the departure airport at an altitude about 2,000 to 1,800 ft above ground level before it turned toward the airport and entered a descent that continued until ground contact. During the descent, the airplane’s speed slowed below its published stall speed. Examination of the airframe and engines did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane. A review of weather information found an area of cumuliform clouds and dissipating precipitation near the accident site. Although no AIRMETs or SIGMET advisories were valid for the area around the time of the accident, scattered thunderstorm activity was forecast for the area of the accident site around the accident time. During the dissipating stage, rain showers and thunderstorms are dominated by downdrafts and outflow boundaries. Although nearby surface observations did not record any gusty wind around the accident time, it is possible that the airplane encountered an area of localized outflow or turbulence that may have contributed to the accident.
The pilot reported that, due to the unimproved airport environment blending in with the surrounding environment, he was unable to identify the runway and decided to land the glider on a dirt road. While concentrating on landing, he failed to extend the landing gear. On short final, he noticed that the landing gear was not extended, and while changing hands to extend the landing gear, the glider drifted right of the dirt road. Upon landing on the dirt road, the glider veered right and impacted a utility box. The glider sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and canopy.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the glider that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during an agricultural application flight, he circled the intended spray field looking for obstacles and noted a "big tower" and saw guy wires. He stated that he then approached the field from the south and began looking for the previously seen wires but that he "must have gotten fixated on the lower wires," and the airplane struck wires he had not seen. The airplane pitched up to the right, the wires broke, and the airplane surged forward. He subsequently maneuvered and landed the airplane on a nearby field.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and engine mounts.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.