roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
According to the pilot, he performed a wheel landing in the tailwheel-equipped airplane. As he lowered the tailwheel, the airplane turned right, and he applied left rudder to continue straight. As soon as he applied the rudder pressure, he “felt something pop” and the airplane continued to turn right, resulting in a ground loop. In the accident sequence, the left main landing gear collapsed, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing. Post accident examination of the tailwheel steering system noted that the left tailwheel steering cable separated.
The flight instructor of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that the airplane swerved slightly to the left during landing roll on an instructional flight with a pilot receiving instruction at the controls. After the tailwheel touched the ground, the pilot receiving instruction attempted to control the left swerve with the right rudder. This resulted in the airplane veering to the right side of the runway and colliding with a snowbank. The airplane subsequently nosed over substantially damaging the fuselage, right wing strut and vertical stabilizer. The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot stated he went flying in windy conditions and that during landing, a crosswind “blew” the airplane to the left side of runway 19. He attempted to realign the airplane with the runway centerline, however, the nose “dropped sharply.” The pilot tried to bring the nose up again, but the nose landing gear struck the runway “hard.” The nose landing gear collapsed and the airplane came to rest off the left side of the runway. During the accident sequence, the main wing spar was substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The recorded wind 9 nautical miles southwest of the airport, three minutes after the accident was from 120° at 4 kts.
The pilot reported that he had recently completed his initial training, and the accident flight was his first flight in the airplane. The pilot entered the traffic pattern with the autopilot engaged and was told by the co-pilot to “keep it tight.” The autopilot did not command a steep enough bank, and the pilot disconnected the autopilot in an attempt to align with the runway centerline. On final approach about 50 ft above ground level (agl), the airplane was aligned to the right of the runway centerline. The airplane landed hard, bounced multiple times, exited the runway, and impacted a runway sign. The pilot then executed a go-around and landed without further incident at an alternate airport. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing spar. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot reported that prior to and during the flight, challenge-response checklist reading was not utilized between he and the co-pilot, and callouts were not used below 1,000 ft agl.
The pilot reported that the airplane encountered a crosswind gust during the landing roll and subsequently departed the right side of the runway pavement onto snow covered terrain adjacent to the runway. The nose landing gear sunk into the soft ground adjacent to the runway and the airplane nosed over coming to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the empennage and left wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.According to the pilot, at the time of the accident, the airplane was landing on runway 27 with winds 18 knots gusting to 48 knots from a south-southwest direction.
The pilot reported that following a local flight, the approach to landing and touchdown were normal, however, as he applied wheel brakes, the airplane veered to the right. He attempted to correct with left rudder and brake application but was unable to stop the right veer. Subsequently, the airplane exited the runway to the right and impacted a drainage ditch about 175 ft from the runway’s edge, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage and engine mounts. The pilot reported that this was the first landing of the flight, and no anomalies were noted with the brakes or flight controls prior to the landing. He recalled that during the runway excursion, shortly before impacting the ditch, the airplane straightened out and stopped the right turn.Shortly after the accident, the wings were removed for recovery which prevented the investigation from determining whether air was present in the brake lines. Photographs of the main landing gear wheels, brakes, and brake lines revealed no evidence of catastrophic mechanical failures or evidence that brake lines had become disconnected. Review of maintenance records found no evidence of recent brake work, and the endorsements showed that the brake fluid reservoir was serviced routinely.The operator and pilot both submitted a National Transportation Safety Board Aircraft Accident Incident Report (6120.1) and neither party reported that there were mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane. About the time of the accident, the automated weather observing system reported wind 220° at 9 knots, gusting to 15 knots, which was a direct crosswind for the landing runway 13. It is likely that the airplane encountered a crosswind gust during the landing roll, which resulted in the airplane veering right toward the direction of the crosswind. This conclusion is further supported by the pilot’s report that the airplane straightened out, once the crosswind became a headwind, shortly before its collision with the ditch.  Page 2 of 5 ERA23LA165
The pilot reported that while on final approach, the right wing of the airplane struck the top of a tree about 40 feet above ground level. This resulted in an aerodynamic stall and loss of airplane control at an altitude too low to allow for recovery. The airplane impacted the ground, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation.
The non-instrument-rated pilot was on his second day of a long cross-country flight. The first night of his trip he slept in a pilot lounge at an en route airport. He departed the following morning and made one stop for fuel. During the fuel stop, pilot spoke with an airport employee, who said the pilot appeared tired. The pilot said he had been fighting a strong headwind the entire trip. The pilot checked the airport’s automated weather observation system (AWOS) and told the employee that he might stay the night and wait out the approaching weather; however, he ultimately decided to continue his flight. After takeoff, the pilot climbed to 1,600 ft mean sea level (msl) and told air traffic control that he wanted to stay low to maintain visual flight rules (VFR) and avoid any clouds. A short while later, the controller observed the airplane in a descending right turn, and asked the pilot if he was maneuvering to stay below the clouds. The pilot responded, “Mayday Mayday…in the clouds…I’m going down.” The airplane impacted swampy terrain in a nose-down attitude. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation of the engine or airframe.A review of archived information revealed the pilot did not obtain a documented weather briefing on the day of the accident. However, he was aware that the weather conditions along his route of flight would deteriorate and expressed that he may have to delay the trip. A postaccident review of weather information indicated the pilot encountered an area of clouds with tops about 3,500 ft msl.The pilot decided to continue with the flight, and based on available evidence, was unable to maintain visual conditions and entered a cloud layer, losing visual reference to his surroundings. As such, the pilot likely became spatially disoriented and lost control of the Page 2 of 9 ERA23FA164airplane. It is also possible that the pilot was experiencing some level of fatigue at the time of the accident due to the long flights over the preceding days and the less-than-optimal sleeping conditions the night before. Fatigue has been shown to reduce one’s judgement and degrade performance, and it is likely that fatigue contributed to the pilot’s decision to continue the flight into deteriorating weather conditions.
The pilot reported that light rain and trace clear air icing were forecast along his intended route of flight, and he encountered those conditions during climb out. As the airplane was climbing through 14,000 ft mean sea level (msl) in instrument meteorological conditions, he noticed the airspeed had decreased 10-15 knots. He checked the wings for ice and did not notice any accumulation but activated the pitot heat at that time as a precaution. After the pitot heat was activated the Primary Flight Display (PFD) and Multi-Function Display (MFD) displayed a red X and went black. Subsequently, the autopilot commanded the airplane to descend. The pilot reported that he was unable to read his standby instruments due to the violent shaking of the airplane during the descent. As the airplane emerged into VMC conditions, the airplane was in an unusual attitude. He disconnected the autopilot and was able to recover the airplane to a level attitude. At this time, the PFD and MFD operation returned. An air traffic controller reported to the pilot that he had lost about 5,000 ft in altitude and airspeed had increased over 200 kts. The pilot responded that his avionics were working again, and that the aircraft was operating normally. He continued with the flight and landed without further incident. Substantial damage was discovered to both wings following the flight.The airplane’s “Before Takeoff checklist” calls for the pitot heat to be activated for flight into icing conditions when visible moisture below +5° C, is anticipated or encountered. A Federal Aviation Administration inspector examined the airplane after the event and verified the pitot heat was operational. The circumstances of the accident are consistent with the pilot failing to activate the pitot heat in a timely manner, which allowed ice to accumulate on the pitot static system. The PFD, MFD, and autopilot subsequently malfunctioned and the pilot lost control of the airplane. Page 2 of 5 WPR23LA236
About 15 minutes after takeoff during an instructional flight, the engine backfired several times and 5 to 10 seconds later the engine lost total power. The flight instructor assumed control of the airplane, maintained a 75-knot glide speed, and attempted to restart the engine, but without success. The flight instructor landed in a recently plowed field and, while at a slow groundspeed, the nose wheel settled into the mud and the airplane nosed over, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage and both wings.The postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the single-drive dual magneto was not delivering power to the spark plugs. The examination of the magneto revealed that, while the left and right contact assemblies of the magneto were properly secured, neither of them opened during rotation of the rotating magnet assembly. Thus, with rotation of the magnet and the contact assembly points closed, the electrical path was shorting to ground, and not the normal path to the ignition leads, which likely resulted in the total loss of engine power. The left and right breaker cam followers, which would open each contact assembly after contacting a lobe of the breaker cam, was worn to less than the minimum specified for a new part and was insufficient to open the contact assembly points. Both cam followers exhibited accelerated wear and heat signatures consistent with lack of lubrication. Each felt pad, which provided lubrication to the oil-impregnated breaker cam, was dark and dry consistent with lack of lubrication. The magneto had operated satisfactory for nearly 40 years and 1,362 hours and then underwent a 500-hour inspection about 112 hours and 3 years before the accident, during which each cam follower was in satisfactory condition and displayed no abnormal wear. During that inspection the mechanic likely improperly cleaned the breaker cam and used incorrect oil to lubricate the felt of each cam follower. Thus, the improper servicing of the Page 2 of 8 ERA23LA162magneto likely resulted in the accelerated wear and heat signatures observed, both of which were consistent with lack of lubrication of each cam follower.
United Airlines flight 1091 sustained a tailstrike while landing at George Bush Intercontinental Airport (KIAH), Houston, TX. The flight was a regularly scheduled international passenger flight from Mexico City, Mexico to KIAH.According to the flight crew, the captain was the pilot monitoring, and the first officer (FO) was the pilot flying when they were cleared for the visual approach to runway 27 at KIAH. The airplane was in the landing configuration and on a stabilized approach at 1,000 ft. above ground level (AGL).  About 60 ft AGL the captain noticed the airspeed begin to decay and stated watch your speed. The FO subsequently pitched the nose of the airplane down and added a little thrust. About 30 ft AGL, due to a higher-than-normal rate of descent the captain commanded flare, flare, flare. The FO flared the airplane which resulted in a firm landing. As the airplane rebounded from the firm landing the spoilers deployed resulting in a nose high attitude. In an effort to correct for the nose high attitude, the captain and FO pushed forward on their respective sidesticks. The FO stated that the ground spoiler deployment coinciding with the firm touchdown resulted in an airplane nose-up pitch attitude. As a result, the pitch attitude increased until the tail struck the runway. After the tailstrike, the remainder of the landing and landing rollout were normal with no risk of runway overrun or excursion. The tailstrike resulted in abrasion damage over an area of about 19 feet long by 1 foot wide along the aft lower fuselage.An inspection revealed substantial damage to the aft pressure bulkhead and frames. Page 2 of 6 DCA23LA221
After obtaining fuel at a land-based airport, the pilot noted a small leak in the amphibious airplane’s hydraulic landing gear extension/retraction system. He subsequently departed for the accident flight. While the pilot was landing the airplane on a lake, he noticed that the landing gear were still extended; the airplane flipped over immediately upon touchdown and the airplane’s right wing was substantially damaged. Examination of the hydraulic system after the accident confirmed the small leak, but otherwise did not reveal evidence of a failure of the system. Additionally, the airplane was equipped with landing gear position indicating lights that should have alerted the pilot that the landing gear were not fully retracted before touchdown.  Had the pilot observed this indication prior to landing, he would likely have aborted the landing attempt and prevented the accident.
The pilot reported that while on final approach to the destination airport the airplane unexpectedly began to descend. The pilot added power, pitched up, and arrested the descent. Seeing no obstacles in front of the airplane, the pilot elected to continue the approach and subsequently impacted power lines; the impact resulted in substantial damage to the right aileron. The pilot reported that he never saw the powerlines and therefore did not make any attempt to avoid them. The pilot reported that there were no known preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation during the flight.
The pilot was conducting a low-altitude pipeline patrol flight in day visual meteorological conditions when the airplane descended and impacted terrain. According to the flight track data, the airplane overflew Casper, Wyoming, and then turned to a southwest heading for about 30 miles until radar contact was lost; the airplane’s altitude was about 600 ft above ground level (agl) and about 950 ft northwest of the accident site. Postaccident examination of the airplanerevealed no evidence of any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.A search of archived weather information from Leidos Flight Service and ForeFlight indicated that there were no flight plans or weather briefings requested by the pilot on the day of the accident. It is unknown what weather information, if any, the accident pilot checked or received before departure and through the time of the accident. The weather forecast information applicable for the accident time indicated an AIRMET TANGO advisory was valid for the accident location and time. Supplemental turbulence information in the form of Graphical Turbulence Guidance (GTG) also indicated light to moderate turbulence for aircraft the size of the accident airplane within 500 to 1,000 ft agl at the time of the accident. A cold front was identified near the accident site, and mountainous terrain environment, with recorded wind of 20 to 30 knots between the surface and 10,000 ft agl, which made for the potential of low-level wind shear (LLWS) and low-level turbulence. At Casper/Natrona County International Airport (CPR), Casper, Wyoming, recorded wind gusts were as high as 31 knots. Page 2 of 9 WPR23FA137These conditions were likely also present above the terrain at the accident site, and it is likely the accident flight encountered light to moderate turbulence and LLWS.
United Airlines flight 194 encountered convective turbulence while climbing through 19,000 ft after departure from San Francisco International Airport (SFO), San Francisco, CA, and a flight attendant was seriously injured. Upon being notified of the injury, the flight crew declared an emergency and diverted to Denver, Colorado for medical assistance.The flight crew reported that before departure, the purser (lead flight attendant) was asked to have the flight attendants remain seated until the 10,000 ft signal due to weather conditions at the departure airport. After departure, airspeed fluctuations and turbulence were encountered with a smooth ride once the airplane was above a cloud layer. About 12,000 ft the captain gave the 10,000 ft signal that it was safe for the flight attendants to begin the initial service. When the flight was about 32 miles northeast of SFO the flight crew established communication with Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) while climbing through flight level (FL) 175 [17,500 ft]. The controller advised them to expect occasional light turbulence up to FL 260 and instructed them to climb to FL350.  Shortly thereafter, as the airplane climbed through 19,000 ft, the flight encountered unexpected turbulence for about 5 seconds. The flight crew then received a call from the cabin advising them that a flight attendant had fractured her leg. At the time of the turbulence event, one of the flight attendants was in the aft galley preparing her cart for the initial service when she felt “violent up and down jolting turbulence”. She attempted to move towards the nearest jump seat when another “intense bump” occurred. She was thrown into the air and impacted the floor fracturing her leg. Page 2 of 6 DCA23LA213Airmen’s Meteorological Information (AIRMETs) were in effect at the time of the accident for moderate turbulence below 12,000 ft and moderate turbulence from FL220 to FL360. A convective Significant Meteorological Information (SIGMET) was issued at 1455 PDT and in effect at the time of the accident for the area with areas of thunderstorms forecast with tops to FL290. A convective SIGMET implies severe or greater turbulence, severe icing, and low-level windshear. Numerous pilot reports (PIREPs) reporting moderate or greater turbulence were issued for central California (including the accident area) within two hours of the accident time.
Shortly after landing, while taxing to get fuel, the pilot was being guided by a marshaller who was not using correct hand signaling techniques and appeared to wave at the pilot in a “follow me” fashion. As the pilot continued to taxi straight ahead, the marshaller stopped giving hand signals and watched the pilot continuing to taxi straight ahead before executing a sharp right turn directly into a parked airplane. During the turn, the taxiing airplane’s left wing impacted the parked airplane’s left propeller resulting in substantial damage to the taxiing airplane and minor damage to the parked airplane. The taxiing pilot reported she did not see the other airplane because her attention was focused on the marshaller.
During a practice autorotation with a tail wind, the pilot began the maneuver and the helicopter initially lost airspeed; the pilot immediately corrected with forward cyclic input, which also increased his descent rate. The higher than normal descent rate continued, and he began the power recovery earlier than normal. Shortly before touchdown, the pilot noticed a slope in the terrain with the rising side to his aft. The helicopter continued to descend and the helicopter’s tail rotor contacted the ground during the landing flare. The resulting impact resulted in a loss of control and substantial damage to the tail boom and tail rotor. The pilot stated that there were no preimpact malfunctions or failures of the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot/owner of the newly-acquired tailwheel airplane reported that he hired a flight instructor to help him gain proficiency landing on short, narrow runways. He admitted that he was not proficient in this area, although he was current in tailwheel airplanes. He set up for landing on runway 8 with a left crosswind prevailing. He stated that he “arrived too high for the runway.” He stated that the flight instructor did not want him to go around, so the instructor took the controls to demonstrate a slip to lose altitude. The pilot/owner stated that the flight instructor entered a ground loop to the left after touchdown, damaging the airplane. The flight instructor provided a contrary account of the accident sequence. He reported that the pilot/owner had a bad habit of flying with his feet high on the rudder pedals, and he provided guidance prior to the flight to avoid this. Following airwork and takeoff/landing practice at another airport, the pilot attempted a landing at his home airport, which was 2,250 ft long and 40 ft wide. He reported that the pilot/owner, who was at the controls the entire time, overcontrolled the left rudder at 1 ft above the ground during landing, and this occurred so quickly that he was unable to intervene. The right wing contacted the runway, the right main landing gear separated, and the airplane skidded to a stop. A shutdown and egress were then performed.The pilot/owner reported that there was substantial damage to both wings and the fuselage. He also reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation, and the flight instructor did not report any mechanical anomalies in his written statement.Page 2 of 6 ERA23LA160A Federal Aviation Administration inspector reported that the flight instructor had no experience in the aircraft make and model prior to the accident flight.
The pilot reported that after the airplane touched down on the runway, it “unexpectedly” veered to the left. He tried to keep the airplane on the runway by applying full right rudder, but the airplane continued toward the left side of the runway. The pilot said that the airplane was about to pass a taxiway, and he tried to increase the turn to stay on the asphalt. But, due to the airplane’s speed, it went off the runway, into the grass and struck a ditch. This resulted in substantial damage to the left wing. Postaccident examination of the airplane’s braking and rudder system revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.