roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
According to the pilot, after landing he taxied the tri-cycle landing gear-equipped airplane on a rocky, soft sand beach and the nose wheel bounced off of a sand berm. He reported that when the nose wheel bounced, the tail section contacted the ground. He recalled that he parked the airplane, inspected the empennage and determined the damage to be minor, and departed on a subsequent flight. However, a subsequent inspection of the empennage by the company's mechanic revealed that the aft fuselage bulkhead had sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that prior to the taxi there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane or any of its systems that would have prevented normal flight operations.
According to the pilot, during landing with fifty percent flaps, in gusting wind conditions, the airplane was too fast as she approached the runway and she aborted the landing. She reported that during the second approach with flaps in the same configuration, she touched down normally, applied the brakes during the landing roll, but could not stop the airplane before exiting the departure end of the runway. The airplane crossed a highway and collided with an embankment. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.The pilot reported that there were not any mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with any portion of the airplane that would have prevented normal flight operations.According to the Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) that was available to the pilot for the accident airport, the weather at the time of the accident was reported as: K6A2 221855Z AUTO 34008G14KT 10SM CLR 25/12 A2995 RMK AO2. The pilot landed on runway 18.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during landing on a grass field on a farm, when he applied the brakes the airplane immediately pitched forward and nosed over. He further reported that "the combination of long grass and braking created a forward momentum that he could not recover from." A postaccident examination revealed substantial damage to the empennage. According to the pilot, there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during a touch-and-go landing on a dirt airstrip, he encountered crosswind gusts during the landing flare. The pilot further reported that the flare was too high and during touchdown the airplane began to porpoise. Subsequently, the nose gear collapsed and the airplane nosed over.  The vertical stabilizer and left wing sustained substantial damage.The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he was conducting a low reconnaissance flight prior to helicopter aerial application operations; during the low reconnaissance, the helicopter came in contact with a power line which caught on the left skid. The pilot further reported that, while under tension, a section of the power line "snapped" into the main rotor system resulting in a loss of control. Subsequently, the pilot performed an emergency autorotation to a wheat field which resulted in a hard landing followed by main rotor contact with and consequent separation of the tail boom.  The fuselage and the tail boom were substantially damaged.The pilot reported there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.  As a safety recommendation, the pilot reported that a more thorough high reconnaissance flight prior to the low reconnaissance flight would have decreased the probability of this accident occurring.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll, as soon as the tailwheel touched down a "significant shimmy" developed, but he also reported that the shimmy was not uncommon. He further reported that he attempted to "momentarily unload" the weight from the tailwheel, but the airplane suddenly veered off the runway to the left. The pilot reported that to avoid hitting a "wind indicator" he applied hard brakes, subsequently the airplane nosed forward, and the propeller impacted the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. According to the pilot there were no pre-impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of a tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during landing touchdown, with gusty crosswind conditions, the left wing lifted and the right wing dragged on the runway. Subsequently, the airplane veered off the runway to the right into a ditch and nosed over.The vertical stabilizer and both wings sustained substantial damage.The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
Following an instructional pattern flight of about 2 hours, the solo student pilot took off and remained in the traffic pattern. During the first landing touchdown, the student pilot reported that he landed in a flat pitch attitude and the nose wheel tire blew. Subsequently, the airplane started to porpoise and the propeller struck the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to the firewall.  The student pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
While approaching the airport for landing at the conclusion of a local flight, the airplane's engine experienced a total loss of power. The pilot selected a field as a forced landing site, but noted a "ravine" in the middle of the field. Although the pilot attempted to "bounce" the airplane over the ravine during the landing, the airplane impacted the ravine wall and was substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane, and that the loss of engine power was due to fuel starvation, because he forgot to open the left fuel tank shut-off valve.
The pilot reported that during the landing roll the airplane rolled over an uneven crest on the runway and the airplane became airborne. The pilot further reported that he encountered a crosswind gust and the left wing rose and the airplane veered to the right. Subsequently, the airplane departed the runway and ground looped.The left wing rear spar was substantially damaged. An automated weather observing system at the airport, about the time of the accident, reported the wind at 120 degrees true, at 7 knots, gusting to 16 knots, for the landing on runway 16. The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
During an instructional checkout flight, the pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that after the tailwheel came up during the takeoff roll, the airplane yawed to the right. The pilot further reported that the flight instructor took over the flight controls, but the airplane continued off of the runway to the right and impacted a ditch. According to the flight instructor there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.
The solo student pilot reported that during the landing roll he encountered a wind shift and quartering tailwind gusts. The student pilot further reported that he lost directional control within the last 200 feet of runway remaining and the airplane departed the runway to the left. During the runway excursion, the airplane nosed over after rolling down a steep embankment. The fuselage and elevator were substantially damaged.The student pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll on runway 10, the airplane encountered a wind shift and gust. He stated that he added aileron flight control input to "counteract the wind shift" but that the airplane "veered/looped" to the left, exited the runway, and continued into a ditch. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing structure. 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 14 minutes after the accident, wind was from 00° at 5 knots, gusting to 14 knots. Given the evidence, the pilot likely lost directional control during the landing roll in gusting crosswind conditions.
The pilot of an experimental amateur built airplane reported that he felt pressured by a trailing airplane while in the traffic pattern; he further reported that this pressure caused him to turn base, and then final sooner than expected, which resulted in an increased airspeed and higher than expected altitude on final approach.  The pilot reported that he decided to proceed with the landing with the intent of utilizing the length of the runway to reduce the airspeed. He further reported that the landing flare was effected by the higher than normal airspeed, and resulted in a hard landing. During the landing roll, the pilot reported that the airplane began to veer to the left and right which progressively increased, resulting in a runway excursion to the left.  During the runway excursion, the airplane impacted a taxiway sign, which disabled the brake(s). The airplane continued across the airport until it impacted a parked airplane on the ramp. As a result of the impact, a post-impact fire ensued and the airplane was destroyed.
The airplane collided with trees about 1 hour into a night cross-country flight. The weather was clear, with nearly a full moon and unrestricted visibility. The airplane was not reported overdue, but air traffic control began receiving reports of an emergency locator transmitter shortly after the accident. The wreckage was subsequently located 3 days later in a wooded area about 6 miles north of an airport. Examination of the wreckage did not reveal any preimpact mechanical malfunctions. While purchasing fuel prior to the flight, the pilot stated that he would be away for 1 week, but did not specify a destination. Autopsy and toxicological testing did not reveal any medical anomalies that would have affected the pilot's performance. It was unlikely that the pilot became incapacitated as the airplane's track was consistent with control inputs during the final descent.
The private pilot stated that, while on a cross-country flight, he noted that the airplane was losing electrical power and decided to make a precautionary landing. The pilot attempted to extend the landing gear and advised air traffic control of the emergency before all electrical power was lost. Since electrical power was lost before the landing gear extension cycle completed, he was unable to verify that the landing gear was down and locked in place, as the gear position indicator light would not illuminate due to the loss of electrical power. The pilot also referenced the manufacturer's emergency checklist for "Landing Without a Positive Indication of Gear Locking" and visually confirmed that the gear appeared to be fully extended. Upon touching down on the runway, the main landing gear collapsed, and the nose gear remained extended.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the cause of the electrical power failure was the main electrical contactor, which had shorted out internally and burned. The part was original to the airplane and had accrued about 3,235 total hours.The landing gear was extended and retracted by hydraulic actuators operated by an electrically-driven hydraulic pump. It is likely that, when the pilot moved the landing gear selector to the down position, the extension cycle did not complete due to the loss of electrical power, resulting in insufficient hydraulic pressure to fully extend and lock the gear. The airplane was equipped with an emergency gear extension handle that would have allowed the pilot to manually complete the extension; however, the checklist that the pilot used did not instruct the pilot to manually lower and lock the gear. If the checklist had included the use of the emergency landing gear extension procedure, the pilot would likely have been able to manually increase hydraulic pressure in the system and avoid a gear collapse on landing.
The airline transport pilot was taking off in the turbocharged reciprocating engine-equipped airplane for a personal flight. One witness reported seeing something fall from the airplane as it departed. Shortly after departure, the pilot notified air traffic control of smoke in the cockpit. The airplane then made a left, westbound turn back toward the airport, about 500ft above the ground and then it turned back toward the approach end of the departure runway while descending. Two witnesses also reported seeing fire and smoke coming from the bottom, left side of the airplane before it impacted terrain.After the accident, airport personnel found the exhaust tailpipe and fractured v-band coupling on the runway. A support clamp, which was intended to support the exhaust tailpipe, was not found. Examination of the v-band coupling revealed stress rupture features at the edge of a spot weld that attached the outer band to the retainer, which led to the v-band fracturing, the exhaust tailpipe separating from the airplane, and an in-flight fire. Review of the maintenance records did not reveal when the v-band coupling was installed or last inspected.There is a longstanding history of accidents and incidents resulting from v-band coupling failures on both fixed-wing aircraft and rotorcraft. Although before the accident the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had issued six v-band-specific airworthiness directives (AD) and other guidance materials and recommendations related to v-band failures, none of them were specific to the accident airplane make and model. Subsequent to the accident, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to obtain public feedback regarding a proposed AD that would require a repetitive annual inspection of, and would impose a 500-hour life limit on, the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling on the accident aircraft make and model.
The private pilot was completing a personal cross-country flight. After flying a visual pattern, the pilot conducted a night landing to the 5,003-ft-long asphalt runway. During the landing roll, the airplane began to shake and veered left. The pilot applied right rudder but was unable to stop the left turn, and the airplane departed the runway surface. Examination of the airframe, nose strut assembly, and tires revealed no evidence of malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot reported that he had noticed the airplane shaking on previous landings and that he should have applied more back-elevator control during the landing roll. The pilot's insufficient use of elevator control likely caused the airplane to wheelbarrow and led to the loss of directional control.
The pilot of the glider reported that due to the lack of thermals, he decided to land on an off-airport field. The pilot further reported about 20 feet above the ground on final approach he encountered turbulence behind obstacles. Subsequently, the glider entered an aerodynamic stall and impacted terrain in a nose low attitude.The right wing, fuselage, and canopy were substantially damaged. The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the glider that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot and passenger had just departed for a personal flight. The pilot reported that the takeoff roll required "a good bit of runway." The pilot reported that, during the initial climb, he noted that the exhaust gas temperature (EGT) was "pegged," so he reversed course to return to the airport. He was not able to find a "responsive power setting" and adjusted the mixture in attempt to cool the engine. The pilot attempted to troubleshoot the high EGT without result, and he subsequently conducted a precautionary off-field, gear-up landing, during which the right wing and fuselage sustained substantial damage. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the No. 6 fuel injector nozzle was partially obstructed. It is likely that the partially obstructed fuel injector nozzle and the high-density altitude, which was calculated to be 5,750 ft at the time of the accident, resulted in less-than-expected engine performance. During a postaccident engine run, the engine ran normally; however, the EGT was providing anomalous indications. Therefore, the information provided to the pilot by the EGT during the flight was likely anomalous; however, the pilot had no way of knowing this, and it likely contributed to his decision to perform an off-field landing. The decreased engine performance was not supported by any of the other engine gauges.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported about 4 seconds into the landing roll the airplane veered to the left despite full rudder deflection applied to the right. The pilot further reported that he added power to correct for the deviation, but the airplane continued to the left, departed the runway, and ground looped. During the ground loop, the right main landing gear collapsed and the right wing was substantially damaged.The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he encountered a sudden wind shift during the landing flare, the right wing rose, and the airplane bounced during touchdown. The pilot further reported that he applied full power to abort the landing and became airborne. During the initial climb, the airplane continued to the left despite the pilot's full aileron application to the right, the left wing impacted terrain, and the airplane cartwheeled to a stop next to the runway.The fuselage and right wing sustained substantial damage.The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
On May 14, 2016, at about 1900 EDT, American Airlines flight 762, an Airbus A320, N103US, during descent into Philadelphia International Airport (KPHL), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a flight attendant received a serious injury while trying to put his jump seat down during turbulence.  Of the 136 passengers and 5 crew members on board only the flight attendant was injured.  The flight was operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulation part 121 as a scheduled passenger flight from Chicago O'Hare International Airport (KORD), Chicago, Illinois.   During the descent into KPHL, the flight crew notified the flight attendants and made a public address announcement that there might be possible turbulence.  According to the flight crew, there were no pilot reports of any turbulence ahead and there were no cells noted on the weather radar.  Shortly after making the announcement,, the flight experience moderate chop for a minute or two and the flight crew reduced airspeed and advised ATC of the moderate chop.  The C flight attendant was sitting down in his aft jumpseat when the turbulence was encountered, and was tossed him into the air and back down, causing him to crush his left hand in the jumpseat. The fight crew was informed of his injury and they coordinated to have medical personnel meet the airplane upon arrival in KPHL.  The injured flight attendant was transported to the hospital and diagnosed with a broken left hand.
The pilot of the Pitts was performing air show maneuvers as part of a flight of two with the other show pilot flying an MX2 airplane. After uneventful departures and performance of a low altitude pass, both pilots initiated a pull-up into a half Cuban-8, with the intention of simultaneously positioning the airplanes on 45º down angles toward show center in preparation for another low altitude pass. The MX2 pilot stated that he rolled out near the show line, and he expected the Pitts to be established over the show line and to his left. Instead, the Pitts was still above him on the 45º down line and well to his right. It is apparent that the Pitts pilot put himself out of position by not adjusting to the crosswind conditions or he did not correctly identify the show line. The evidence indicated that he never lost control of the airplane.An examination of several spectator videos indicated that, during the half Cuban-8 maneuver, the Pitts pulled over the top, rolled 1 1/2 times to the left, and was then established upright on the 45º down line. The extra roll during the half Cuban-8 was not normal and put him further out of position. The wings of the Pitts then rocked back and forth, first to the left about 45º and then to the right approaching 90º. The airplane remained in a descending right bank and then appeared to level off immediately before ground impact. After ground impact, the airplane caught fire and burned.Postaccident examination of the wreckage did not reveal evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or anomalies. The wind at the time of the accident was about perpendicular to the show line, blowing away from the spectators, with gusts up to 25 knots. When asked about the wind conditions, the MX2 pilot acknowledged that they were significant; however, he added that airshow pilots know how to adjust for wind and that the wind did not adversely affect their maneuvering.Toxicology detected the potentially-impairing medications diphenhydramine and dextromethorphan in urine but not the blood. Since these medications were not detected in the blood, it is unlikely that the pilot was feeling any significant effects from these medications at the time of the accident. Additionally, although pseudoephedrine and ephedrine were detected in urine and blood, these compounds are generally not considered to be impairing and are unlikely to have contributed to the crash. However, Page 2 of 9 ERA16FA182these medications are found in combination in many over-the-counter cough and cold medications used to help decrease head congestion. Head congestion can degrade the vestibular system (the body's balance and orientation system) and impair a pilot's ability to control an airplane during flight. The investigation was unable to determine if the pilot's underlying medical condition at the time of the crash affected his ability to safely control the airplane during low altitude acrobatic flight.
According to the pilot, shortly after he climbed above the tree tops during the takeoff initial climb, he determined that he was uncomfortable flying in the gusting wind conditions. He reported that he completed one traffic pattern and made an approach to runway 31. He recalled that during the landing flare, the airplane encountered a wind gust and was blown to the right, and off of the runway. The pilot reported that the airplane touched down in the safety area on the right side of the runway and the airplane impacted a drainage culvert where it came to rest. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall and the right wing spar.The pilot reported that there were not any pre-accident mechanical failures or anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation prior to the accident. The meteorological aerodrome report at the accident airport reported: KJGG 141915Z AUTO 28013G18KT 220V300 10SM CLR 28/12 A2972 RMK AO1
The pilot reported that during the landing flare the airplane impacted the ground in a slight nose high pitch attitude, which resulted in a tail strike. The pilot further reported that he taxied to the ramp area without further incident. A postaccident examination by the pilot revealed substantial damage to the rudder.According to the pilot there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.