roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The commercial pilot reported that the tailwheel-equipped airplane veered to the left during takeoff on the fourth flight of the day. He applied full right brake and rudder to correct; however, the airplane veered off the runway and the right main landing gear separated from the airframe. The pilot stated that the wind conditions at the time of the accident included a 7 to 10 mph left quartering tailwind with occasional gusts to 12 to 14 mph. A postaccident examination of the right brake revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The airplane incorporated a free-swivel, non-lockable tailwheel assembly; directional control on the ground was accomplished by application of differential braking until adequate airspeed was attained for the rudder to become effective. It is likely that, due to the quartering tailwind, the airplane had not yet attained an adequate airspeed for rudder effectiveness and that the pilot's braking action was insufficient to overcome the left yaw.
The pilot in the tailwheel-gear-equipped airplane reported that he was practicing takeoffs and landings and had accomplished a wheel landing on runway 27. During the landing roll, the tailwheel contacted the ground, and the airplane encountered a wind gust from the right. The pilot recalled that the right aileron was into the wind with left rudder and no power applied. The right wing rose, and the airplane began to weathervane. He added full engine power and full left rudder. The "right main" descended back to the ground, but the airplane exited the runway to the right. The airplane encountered a berm and became airborne. The airplane descended to the ground and spun about its nose to the left. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing spar and the left main landing gear attachment points.The pilot reported that, when he checked the weather before he began practicing takeoffs and landings, the wind was from 320° at 10 knots but, about the time of the accident, the METAR reported that wind was from 350° at 15 knots gusting to 22 knots. The crosswind component was 18 knots. Per the National Transportation Safety Board Pilot Aircraft Accident Report, the pilot remarked that the accident could have been prevented by setting "personal limitations" and by checking the Automatic Terminal Information System "every two pattern practices."The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, "about half way through the [landing] rollout I lost control of the aircraft and ground looped to the right." During the ground loop, the left main landing gear collapsed, and the left wing impacted the runway.The left wing sustained substantial damage.The pilot failed to submit the National Transportation Safety Board NTSB Form 6120.1 Pilot/ Operator Aircraft Accident/ Incident Report after multiple requests. An automated weather observation station, 5 nautical miles from the accident airport, recorded that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 120° at 20 knots, gusting to 28 knots. The pilot reported that the landing was on runway 30.
At the end of a personal cross-country flight, the private pilot terminated radar services with an air route traffic control center and entered the traffic pattern to land on runway 16 at an uncontrolled airport as a line of rain showers approached the airport. An airline transport pilot (ATP) who had just landed on the runway said that the wind was from 240° to 270° about 40 knots, and he had used full aileron deflection to maintain control. After the ATP landed, the wind increased, and it began to rain. The ATP knew the accident pilot was behind him in the traffic pattern and warned him over the radio about the wind. The pilot acknowledged and continued with the approach. When the accident airplane was over the runway, an airport employee heard the airplane's engine go to full power and saw the airplane in a vertical climb before it rolled left onto its back and descended out of view. The employee drove to the accident site and found that the airplane had crashed just east of the runway. A review of weather information indicated that a downburst/microburst/gust front was moving eastward across the airport at the time of the accident. Postaccident examination of the airplane and engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical deficiencies that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane or engine at the time of the accident. The airplane's flaps were observed at 100% (fully extended) postaccident. The airplane likely entered an uncontrolled descent and impacted the ground before the pilot was able to raise the flaps to 50%, as required during a go-around.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing, "about 4-6 ft" above the runway, the airspeed decreased, and the airplane aerodynamically stalled. He added that the airplane landed hard, veered off the runway to the right, and came to rest with the nose down.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing in a crosswind, a strong wind gust lifted the right wing. Subsequently, the airplane exited the left side of the runway, traveled down an embankment, and came to rest nose down.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.A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located on the airport revealed that, about 15 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 280° at 11 knots, gusting to 17 knots. The pilot landed on runway 22.
The flight instructor and private pilot were conducting a personal flight in the tailwheel-equipped, experimental, amateur-built airplane. About 10 minutes before landing, the flight instructor, who had no previous experience flying the airplane, took control of the flight from the pilot and continued flying the airplane to landing. Due to his lack of prior experience flying the airplane, which had foot pedals that were raised off the floor, he inadvertently applied pressure to the toe brakes, which resulted in the airplane nosing over immediately on touchdown.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the vertical stabilizer and wing attachment fittings during the accident. Both the pilot and flight instructor reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot in the weight-shift-controlled aircraft reported that he was performing a maintenance flight about 40 ft above ground level. He recalled that he remained in the pattern and that he was in a level flight profile when the left wing struck a tree. The aircraft fell to the ground and sustained substantial damage to the left wing strut and trailing edge tubes.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the weight-shift-controlled aircraft that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot reported that he flared the gyroplane too high and landed hard and that the gyroplane subsequently tipped over on its right side. He added that he evacuated the gyroplane before a postimpact fire ensued and destroyed the gyroplane.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the gyroplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the gyrocopter reported that, during the takeoff roll, the rotor rpm was not increasing. He continued the takeoff and kept the gyrocopter on the ground to gain airspeed by not moving the stick to the full-aft position. He added that this was an "old existing airplane habit." Subsequently, during the takeoff, the gyrocopter developed a "rotor flap," and he lost directional control. The gyrocopter came to rest on its side to the left of the runway. The pilot added that not having the stick full aft prevented the rotor rpm from increasing and that the appropriate corrective action would have been to apply full-aft stick.The gyrocopter sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and rotors.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the gyrocopter that would have precluded normal operation.The gyrocopter's Flight Manual stated that, during the takeoff roll, the pilot must "bring the control stick fully aft."
The commercial pilot of the aerial application flight reported that he had flown several flights in the morning and the airplane was operating normally. Before the final flight of the day, while the airplane was being loaded with product, he heard a noise, but all engine gauges appeared normal. He taxied down the runway and took off. About 30 ft above the ground, the airplane started making more noise and the engine was surging. The pilot attempted to add more power, but the engine did not respond. As the pilot was about to dump the chemical load, the airplane veered to the left and impacted the ground. After the pilot exited the airplane, a postcrash fire ensued. Detailed examination of the engine was not possible due to the severe fire damage.
The pilot reported that, during the landing flare in gusting crosswind conditions, he realized that the descent rate was a "little fast/ heavy," so he "reached to [the] left to add power and smooth out [the] flare." He further reported that he mistakenly grabbed the "red knob" (the mixture control), instead of the throttle, to arrest the descent rate. Subsequently, the airplane continued to descend, bounced hard on the runway, and became airborne again. When the airplane settled back onto the runway, the nose landing gear collapsed, the propeller struck the runway, and the airplane veered off the runway to the left and nosed over. The fuselage and vertical stabilizer sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.An automated weather observation station at the accident airport recorded that, about the time of the accident, wind was from 360° at 8 knots, gusting 15 knots. The pilot reported that the landing was on runway 28.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during a right turn from the runway to the taxiway, he "exited too fast," and the airplane ground looped to the right. He added that he taxied the airplane to the ramp without further incident.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located on the airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 050° at 7 knots. The airplane landed on runway 21L.
The commercial pilot departed on a planned 1-hour cargo cross-country flight in the autopilot-equipped airplane. About 3 minutes after departure, the controller instructed the pilot to fly direct to the destination airport at 2,000 ft mean sea level (msl). The pilot acknowledged the clearance, and there were no further radio transmissions from the airplane. The airplane continued flying past the destination airport in straight-and-level flight at 2,100 ft msl, consistent with the airplane operating under autopilot control, until it was about 100 miles beyond the destination airport. A witness near the accident site watched the airplane fly over at a low altitude, heard three "pops" come from the airplane, and then saw it bank to the left and begin to descend.  The airplane continued in the descending left turn until he lost sight of it as it dropped below the horizon. The airplane impacted trees in about a 45° left bank and a level pitch attitude and came to rest in a heavily wooded area. The airplane sustained extensive thermal damage from a postcrash fire; however, examination of the remaining portions of the airframe, flight controls, engines, and engine accessories revealed no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction. The fuel selector valves were found on the outboard tanks, which was in accordance with the normal cruise procedures in the pilot's operating handbook. Calculations based on the airplane's flight records and the fuel consumption information in the engine manual indicated that, at departure, the outboard tanks of the airplane contained sufficient fuel for about 1 hour 10 minutes of flight. The airplane had been flying for about 1 hour 15 minutes when the accident occurred. Therefore, it is likely that the fuel in the outboard tanks was exhausted; without pilot action to switch fuel tanks, the engines lost power as a result of fuel starvation, and the airplane descended and impacted trees and terrain.The overflight of the intended destination and the subsequent loss of engine power due to fuel starvation are indicative of pilot incapacitation. The pilot's autopsy identified no significant natural disease: however, the examination was limited by the severity of damage to the body. Further, there are a number of conditions, including cardiac arrhythmias, seizures, or other causes of loss of consciousness, that Page 2 of 10 ERA17FA172could incapacitate a pilot and leave no evidence at autopsy.The pilot's toxicology results indicated that the pilot had used marijuana/tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) at some point before the accident. THC can impair judgment, but it does not cause incapacitation; therefore, the circumstances of this accident are not consistent with impairment from THC, and, the pilot's THC use likely did not contribute to this accident. The reason for the pilot's incapacitation could not be determined.
The solo student pilot reported that, during a touch-and-go, the airplane veered off the runway to the left and impacted a culvert. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The student reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot reported that she was practicing touch-and-go landings on an asphalt runway. She initiated an approach and bounced the landing and then she initiated a go-around. She was airborne when she pushed the carb heat in and applied full throttle "but mistakenly put flaps up, all at once." The airplane descended to the runway and landed hard. During the landing roll, she pulled the throttle back to idle, gained her bearings, and then initiated a takeoff. She noticed a binding and restriction in the elevator and yoke control movements while remaining in the airport's pattern. She declared an emergency and landed the airplane on the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the elevator control column.The manufacturer's Pilot's Operating Handbook identified the Balked Landing procedure as:1. Throttle – Full Open2. Carburetor Heat – Cold3. Wing Flaps –20° (Immediately)4. Climb Speed – 55 KIAS5. Wing Flaps – 10° (Until obstacles are cleared) Retract (After reaching a safe altitude and 60 KIAS)The student reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
On May 2, 2017 at 7:30pm eastern daylight time, JetBlue flight 1317, an Airbus A320, N595JB, encountered turbulence resulting in a serious injury to a flight attendant. The flight was a regularly scheduled flight from Boston Logan Airport (BOS), Boston, Massachusetts, to the John F Kennedy International Airport (JFK), New York, New York.  There were no other injuries, and no damage to the airplane. According to the flight attendant statements, the #3 flight attendant (FA) stated that because the ride was "slightly bumpy," she remained seated for an additional 5 to 10 minutes after the cabin received the double chime indicating that the flight had passed 10,000 feet.  Once it seemed to have smoothed out, she stood up and began to prepare for cabin service. Shortly after standing up, the airplane shook violently and she was tossed off her feet and into the air and landed on her right ankle, ending up on the galley floor. According to the flight crew statements, they had just completed a flight into BOS on a different airplane with nothing more than light turbulence on descent. Prior to the accident flight, the captain briefed the #1 FA that they had just flown in and didn't expect anything worse than light turbulence during climb out.  During climb out, the flight crew indicted they were in and out of the clouds and only experience light chop. The weather radar was on but "was not painting anything." Just prior to leveling off at 14,000 feet they encountered a strong jolt of turbulence and then received a call from the cabin about the #3 flight attendant injury. At the time of the turbulence, the fasten seatbelt sign was illuminated.The injured FA was assisted into a rear customer seat for the remainder of the flight with her foot elevated and ice applied. Because the injured FA was incapacitated, the #2 FA crewed the #3 FA position and a nonrevenue FA crewed the #2 FA position. The flight was met by emergency medical personnel and the FA was transported to a local hospital where she was diagnosed with a broken right ankle.Page 2 of 6 DCA17CA111
The pilot reported that, during the initial climb, about 1,000 ft above the ground, he "saw the engine power winding down." He added that he "turned on" the boost pump, checked the magnetos and fuel mixture, and then switched the fuel selector to the other fuel tank. The engine experienced a total loss of power and then impacted the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. The Federal Aviation Administration inspector reported that he traveled to the accident, and while on-site, he observed that the fuel selector knob set screw was loose and that the knob turned freely on the shaft. The set screw doesn’t keep the knob keyed; it just stops it from coming off. A roll pin keeps the shaft in position and was observed in the selector well. The pilot did not submit the National Transportation Safety Board Form 6120.1 Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report.
The commercial helicopter pilot had completed 25 to 30 water drops in a fire zone using a firefighting bucket on suspension cables. After refueling, he completed three or four additional drops and then filled and pulled the bucket from the water and immediately felt "a severely out of CG [center of gravity] condition to the right." He assumed that the bucket cables were entangled in the right landing skid, so he released the water from the bucket. The condition persisted, so he rocked the helicopter to attempt to free the cable without success. He then released the cable with the cargo release button and heard the "clunk" sound typically heard when the bucket was released, but then he heard another "clunk." The helicopter then began to spin violently and crashed into the water.Examination of the wreckage revealed 6-inch long cable marks on the right rear landing skid tube and a torsional fracture of the tail rotor short shaft. Based on the pilot's statement, the cable marks likely occurred initially when a cable became entangled on the skid tube, followed by the fracture of the tail rotor shaft due to cable or bucket contact with the tail rotor assembly. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot reported that, during the initial climb shortly after takeoff, the airplane lost partial engine power. He tried a series of troubleshooting steps, but with limited time available, he then performed a forced landing onto a street just beyond the runway. The airplane impacted power transmission cables and traffic lights during the descent, rupturing both wingtip fuel tanks and spraying ignited fuel onto cars at the intersection below. The airplane sustained substantial damage when it collided with the ground and came to rest on the street. The airplane had been fueled almost to capacity just before takeoff and postaccident examination did not reveal any anomalies with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. Examination of the carburetor revealed multiple maintenance-related discrepancies, all of which could have resulted in a loss of engine power. One of the discrepancies was related to the float, which appeared to have been touching the wall of the carburetor bowl. A witness reported visible exhaust emissions coming from the engine during flight, and the spark plugs were coated in black soot. Both observations were indicative of an excessively rich fuel-to-air mixture, consistent with a stuck carburetor float. As such, the loss of engine power was likely the result of a stuck carburetor float.Based on atmospheric conditions, carburetor icing could not be ruled out; however, the airplane began the takeoff ground roll almost immediately after the pilot performed the engine runup, which included the application of carburetor heat, and it is unlikely that the loss of engine power was the result of carburetor icing.The pilot accepted an intersection takeoff due to a passenger jet performing taxi tests at the approach end of the runway. Had he chosen to use the full runway length, he likely would have had enough runway available to safely land the airplane following the loss of power.Page 2 of 9 WPR17LA096
The flight instructor reported that he and his student were practicing landings. He reported that his student's approach was unstable and left of the centerline as the airplane approached the runway numbers. The instructor called for a go-around and applied full throttle, and the student pitched for a climb, but the airplane stalled. The instructor pushed the nose down to increase the airspeed, but the airplane impacted the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and the empennage. The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.