roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot of a tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during the taxi after landing, he "applied the brakes to slow down further" and suddenly the airplane nosed over. He further reported that he recently replaced the 29 inch Alaska Bushwheels with smaller 6.00x6 tires. According to the pilot, this made the Cleveland double puck brakes "very sensitive."  A postaccident examination revealed substantial damage to the right wing and vertical stabilizer. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during landing following a postmaintenance test flight, the airplane suddenly veered to the right and struck a taxiway sign. Postaccident photographs revealed that the right main tire blew; however, the investigation was unable to determine why the tire failed because the owner discarded the tire before the investigation was complete.
The private pilot stated that, while in cruise flight at 7,000 ft mean sea level (msl), he began a descent to a lower altitude to prepare for arrival at the destination airport. Just after he began the descent, he retarded the throttle slightly, and the engine power dropped dramatically. The propeller continued to rotate, and the pilot attempted to divert to the nearest airport. During the glide, the pilot adjusted the mixture, switched magnetos, and moved the throttle to full and then back to idle again with no effect. When he determined that the airplane would be unable to reach the diversion airport, he deployed the airframe parachute system about 1,000 ft msl. The airplane came to rest upright in the backyard of a residence. Examination of the airplane revealed that both wing fuel tanks were about half full of fuel. After recovery, examination of the engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions that would have precluded operation, and a successful engine test run was conducted. Additionally, review of engine monitor data did not reveal any anomalies before or after the partial loss of engine power.
About 3 minutes after takeoff, the engine started to run roughly. The private pilot contacted the tower controller and advised that he was turning back to the runway. While on short final, he pulled back on the power, and the engine lost total power. The pilot was able to restart the engine, but it again lost total power. The airplane was unable to reach the runway, and the pilot subsequently initiated a forced landing to a street, during which, the airplane struck a moving car and numerous parked vehicles.A postaccident engine test run did not reveal any evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The flight instructor reported that the student pilot was briefed on the procedure for an engine failure after takeoff and that the student pilot had performed the maneuver previously with another flight instructor. The student pilot performed a short field takeoff, and after rotation and the retraction of the flaps at about 200 feet above ground level, the throttle was retarded to idle to simulate an engine failure. He reported that the student pilot was instructed to lower the nose of the airplane, which he brought to a "level pitch attitude." The flight instructor reported that the student was again instructed to lower the nose of the airplane as the airspeed was about 55 knots as "I applied forward pressure to the yoke."The flight instructor reported that the sink rate "remained high" and he "moved the airplane to a flare attitude for landing" and applied full throttle. He reported that the airplane "touched down hard in a slightly tail low attitude" and the nose wheel "struck the runway hard." The flight instructor continued with the landing and taxied without further incident. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall and rudder. The flight instructor verified that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.As a safety recommendation, the flight instructor stated "demonstration of the maneuver by the flight instructor prior to allowing the student to perform the maneuver."The Federal Aviation Administration has published FAA-H-8083-3A Airplane Flying Handbook (2004). This handbook discusses engine failure procedures and states in part:"In the event of an engine failure on initial climb-out, the pilot's first responsibility is to maintain aircraft control. At a climb pitch attitude without power, the airplane will be at or near a stalling angle of attack. At the same time, the pilot may still be holding right rudder. It is essential the pilot immediately lower Page 2 of 6 GAA16CA139the pitch attitude to prevent a stall and possible spin. The pilot should establish a controlled glide toward a plausible landing area (preferably straight ahead on the remaining runway)."
The commercial pilot reported that, while taxiing for takeoff, he felt "softness" in the brakes; however, they operated satisfactorily when he applied them to test their operation. The flight was cleared for takeoff, and the pilot thought that he had to expedite the takeoff due to traffic on final approach. After entering the runway at an angle and with a crosswind from the right, the right brake failed, causing the airplane to veer to the left. With runway lights and signs ahead, the pilot stopped braking, added power, and cleared the signs, then reduced power and collided with a berm. The airplane was equipped with a castering nosewheel, and ground steering was accomplished using differential braking. A discrepancy was noted with the o-ring of the right brake caliper during postaccident operational testing, which could correlate to the pilot's observation of "softness" in the brakes; however, the effect of the anomaly on brake operation could not be determined because the right brake was not functionally tested before the system was opened to the atmosphere.The pilot reported that factors contributing to the accident included the pressure he felt to expedite the takeoff given the airport traffic, his desire to return home quickly, and a perceived lack of maintenance facilities to troubleshoot the brake issue given that it was a weekend evening.
The private pilot was landing the experimental, amateur-built airplane at a residential airpark. Immediately following the accident, a state trooper interviewed the pilot, who stated that the landing was his first one at the residential airpark and that he thought that the side road was the runway. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical or weather issues as he was attempting to land. The airplane struck three mailboxes, a basketball hoop, phone lines, and a car and then came to rest inverted. In a later statement, the pilot reported that, during landing, he noticed a car off the side of the runway on a parallel access road. He was concerned with the proximity of the car to his intended landing area, and he executed a go-around. With dusk approaching, he decided to make an "abbreviated" traffic pattern and "circle back around" to land on the runway. He applied full power, began the turn, and reported that the engine "backfired." The airplane did not climb normally, and as the pilot turned the airplane, it was unable to gain sufficient altitude for the pilot to maintain sight of the runway. Given the pilot's statement, it is likely that he misidentified the parallel access road for the runway and, upon landing, hit multiple obstacles.
According to the student pilot, he was performing his third stop and go landing, during his first solo flight. He reported that during the landing flare he heard the stall warning horn, and he bounced the landing while traveling at a ground speed of approximately 45 knots. The student pilot remarked that he was not able to control the airplanes lateral direction during the landing roll and the airplane exited the right side of the runway subsequently impacting a drainage culvert. The airplane sustained substantial damage to right wing and the fire wall.The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or anomalies with the airplane prior to, or during the flight that would have prevented normal flight operation.
On 17 February 2016, at about 0610 central daylight time, a B737-800, registration N925NN operated by American Airlines, contacted a Southwest Airlines B737-700, registration N784SW, that was stationary on a deice pad with engines stopped and was being deiced at Detroit Metropolitan Airport (DTW), Detroit, MI.  The American Airlines B737 was taxiing to an adjacent deice pad when it struck the Southwest Airlines B737.  N925NN incurred damage to the right winglet, and N784SW sustained substantial damage to its right elevator, elevator tab, stabilizer leading edge, and APU exhaust.  There were no injuries on either airplane, and both airplanes taxied back to gate to deplane passengers. Both airplanes were operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 as regularly scheduled passenger flights. According to the Southwest flight crew, N784SW was stationary on the deice pad 3 with the engines shut down and was being deiced.  According to the deice ground crew, N784SW and a United airplane on deice pad 4 were not fully pulled into their respective parking spots on the deice pad.  N925NN passed behind N784SW and turned to enter to an adjacent deice pad, and its right winglet contacted the right elevator, horizontal stabilizer, and APU of the Southwest B737.
On February 14, 2016, about 04:35 central standard time, American Airlines flight 476, an Airbus A319, N827AW, encountered turbulence during the initial descent to Minneapolis International Airport (MSP), Minneapolis, Minnesota. Of the 100 passengers and crew onboard, one passenger 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 Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX), Phoenix, Arizona, to MSP.The flight crew stated that at FL350, prior to their planned top-of-descent, Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) informed them to expect light turbulence during the descent through about FL280. The captain made a public address announcement to the passengers and cabin crew to expect light turbulence so to fasten their seatbelts. The seatbelt sign was on at that time, and had been on most of the flight due to light turbulence.  As the flight was descending through about FL310, the nose of the airplane dipped down and the airspeed increased, and to avoid an overspeed the pilot flying pitched the nose up and deployed the speed brakes. Subsequently, they received a call from the flight attendants that a passenger had been injured after having stood up "to stretch" just before the turbulence.  After arriving at the gate, the passenger was transported to the hospital and diagnosed with a broken leg.
The pilot was on a personal cross-country flight to a remote, off-airport site, in a tailwheel-equipped airplane. The pilot said that before landing he intended to fly a low pass over the snow-covered site to determine the condition of the snowpack, a maneuver commonly known as dragging the landing site. He said that as the main landing gear wheels touched down atop the frozen layer of crusty snow, the wheels broke through, and the airplane subsequently nosed over sustaining substantial damage to the left wing and vertical stabilizer.  The pilot stated there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of a tailwheel equipped biplane reported that during takeoff he encountered an "unexpected wind gust." Subsequently, the airplane departed the grass runway to the left into "muddy" terrain. The pilot reported that he reduced the power to idle during the runway excursion, but the airplane sunk into the mud and nosed over. A postaccident examination revealed substantial damage to the top left wing.About the time of the accident 8 nautical miles northwest of the destination airport, an automated weather observing system reported wind conditions of 170 degrees true at 15 knots, gusting to 25 knots. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot was practicing takeoffs and landings to a taxiway. The pilot reported that, during his fourth landing attempt and as he was transitioning to a hover, he noticed that the helicopter's main rotor rpm was slightly low, and he attempted to increase the rpm by adding power. However, the helicopter did not respond and settled onto the taxiway. The pilot then raised the collective to bring the helicopter back to a hover, but the rotor rpm was still low. The pilot continued to try and add power, but the helicopter drifted right, and the right skid then contacted the ground off the side of the taxiway, which resulted in a dynamic rollover and substantial damage to the airframe and rotor blades.The pilot stated that he was new to this type of helicopter, and it is likely that he allowed the main rotor rpm to decay to a point from which he was unable to recover. He stated that there were no preaccident mechanical anomalies with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the taxiing pilot, during taxi to the run-up area in order to perform a maintenance check, he attempted to maneuver around an airplane that had stopped in the non-movement area. He reported that the left wing of his airplane impacted the tail of the stopped airplane.  According to the pilot of the stopped airplane, he had taxied out of the refuel station in order to allow other aircraft to refuel. He reported that he taxied south and stopped in the non-movement area next to the aircraft tie downs, where he remained stopped for approximately five minutes as he set up the radios and received the ATIS information for his flight. He reported that he felt an impact from the rear of his airplane; he shut down his engine, and exited the airplane. The taxiing airplane sustained minor damage to the left wing and stopped airplane sustained substantial damage to the aft fuselage and vertical stabilizer.Both pilots reported that there were no mechanical failures or anomalies with the airplane prior to or during the taxi that would have prevented normal flight operation.
The private pilot was landing the airplane on a dry, hard-surfaced runway. He stated that the approach and touchdown were normal. Just after touchdown, he felt "something similar to a bump," and the airplane started to drift to the left. He thought that the airplane possibly had a flat tire and tried to compensate with rudder input, but the airplane continued drifting to the left, exited the left side of the runway, and ground looped, resulting in substantial damage to the right wing and fuselage.An on-scene examination revealed that the left main landing gear axle had fractured, resulting in the separation of the wheel assembly. A detailed examination revealed that the axle was fractured near the inboard end, just outboard of the axle attachment flange. Portions of the fracture surface at the upper and lower sides of the axle had relatively smooth features oriented perpendicular to the outer surface, consistent with fatigue. The fatigue cracks initiated at a fillet corner at a change in the axle's outer diameter. The manufacturer specified inspection intervals to check for cracks and corrosion of the main landing gear axle; however, the accident airplane's maintenance logs were not located, and the airplane's maintenance history could not be determined.
The commercial pilot was making an approach to a field for landing at the end of the sightseeing flight. During the approach, he misjudged the wind, which pushed the balloon near a metal fence and resulted in the balloon's basket striking the fence. The pilot then landed the balloon safely on an adjacent road. The balloon sustained minor damage, and a child passenger, who was sitting down in the basket, sustained serious injuries.
The pilot reported that during takeoff in gusty crosswind conditions, the wind changed from a left crosswind to a left quartering tail wind. The tail of the airplane was pushed to the right; the nose turned to the left. He further reported that the left wing lifted, which caused the airplane to wheelbarrow off the runway to the left/right and impact an airport sign. Following the impact, the right fuel tank ruptured, the wing caught fire, and the airplane came to a stop. The right wing sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot was flying along a shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico in dark night conditions, with a tailwind, on an extended left base leg for landing at the airport. Witnesses reported the pilot announced a go-around on the airport's common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF). Radar track data depicted the airplane crossing the approach end of the runway and then turning upwind on the far side of the runway. The airplane continued in a left circuit around the airport, and its altitude varied between 500 and 700 ft above ground level.Radar then depicted a left turn in a location consistent with a left base turn for a second attempt at landing; however, the airplane stopped its turn early and flew through the final approach course a second time as it tracked parallel to the coast. Instead of completing another left circuit around the airport, the airplane turned right, away from the lighted airport and out over open, dark water with no visible horizon. The last radar targets showed the airplane over the water in a descending right turn toward the airport, with the last target at 175 ft above the water, and 128 knots groundspeed.A witness, who was monitoring the CTAF as he approached the airport in his own airplane, reported that he heard the accident pilot announce his positions as he circumnavigated the airport. The pilot's last radio call announced he would be "circling somewhere." There were no further communications from the accident airplane.A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no preimpact mechanical anomalies that would have prevented normal operation of the airplane.The tailwind encountered on the base leg of the traffic pattern likely contributed to the pilot flying the airplane through the final approach course on two consecutive approaches. The rapid turn and descent at low altitude away from the lighted airport at night, over dark water, with no visible horizon, was consistent with the noninstrument-rated pilot experiencing spatial disorientation and a loss of airplane control. Page 2 of 9 ERA16LA106
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that, "Due to the restricted visibility from the rear cockpit," he "failed to the see the C-150 that stopped on the taxiway." Subsequently, the propeller of the tailwheel airplane impacted the vertical stabilizer of a stationary Cessna airplane. The student pilot of the Cessna airplane reported that he was preparing for the engine run-up and never saw the tailwheel airplane until after the collision.  A postaccident examination revealed substantial damage to the vertical stabilizer of the Cessna airplane. The pilot of the tailwheel airplane and the student pilot of the Cessna airplane reported there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with their respective airplanes that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he was conducting an instrument approach in instrument meteorological conditions. Upon reaching the decision altitude, the front seat passenger reported the runway was in front of the airplane. The pilot looked up from the instruments, but could not see the runway out the windscreen or the side window. Referring back to the flight instruments, the pilot noted that the airplane was level, but he was unable to determine the airplane's altitude and did not know where the airplane was in relation to the runway. The pilot then applied full engine power and began to climb the airplane; however, the airplane's right wing impacted a light pole. The airplane immediately pitched nose-down and descended into terrain. The pilot reported there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation, and that the accident could have been prevented if he had immediately executed a missed approach at the decision altitude.
The pilot reported that on his second landing he felt a "small" impact just before touchdown, and then the airplane pitched down and skidded to a stop. The pilot further reported that after the airplane came to a stop, he observed smoke coming from the lower left side of the cowling just forward of the firewall. As a result of the post-impact fire that ensued, the airplane was destroyed.The pilot reported that he observed evidence of where the airplane's nose wheel impacted a snow berm located on the approach to the runway. He estimated that the snow berm was about five feet high and about twenty feet wide.The airport manager reported that about four inches of snow accumulated on the ground prior to the accident, but that almost all of the snow had been plowed from the runway. He further reported that the accident airplanes nose gear impacted a snow berm that was about 10 feet off the end of the runway, and about 28 inches high. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The airplane suffered a rupture in the forward pressure bulkhead canted web causing a rapid depressurization during flight. The crew declared an emergency and diverted to the nearest airport where they landed safely. The accident airplane was manufactured in 1975 and had accumulated 35,421 flight cycles.Examination of the fractured canted web revealed multiple fatigue cracks that initiated at the forward and aft surfaces of the web adjacent to a vertical line of rivets at the airplane centerline. The fatigue cracking from the aft face propagated through 85%-90% of the thickness and the fatigue cracking from the forward face propagated through the remaining thickness. The fatigue cracking was present near 21 consecutive rivet holes. Dark staining determined to be aluminum oxide was noted on the mating fracture faces in areas that contained the larger fatigue cracks indicating the larger fatigue cracks were present for some time prior to the accident flight. The aluminum oxide contained trace evidence of chlorine. Chlorides are known contaminants that promote corrosion in aluminum alloys. The investigation did not determine the source of the chlorine contamination. Detailed examination of the fatigue crack initiation sites revealed the presence of isolated areas that contained evidence of intergranular cracking. Intergranular cracking and chlorine contamination typically are associated with stress corrosion cracking in aluminum alloys. There were no material discrepancies noted on the fractured web. Areas between fatigue cracks and at the upper and lower ends were due to overstress separation. A fatigue crack striation study indicated that the cracks likely initiated about 5,000 cycles prior to the accident flight.The manufacturer released a Service Bulletin based on the findings of the investigation to provide more detailed instructions and updated intervals to inspect for cracking of the forward pressure bulkhead canted web.