roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
During an instructional flight, the flight instructor was demonstrating a normal landing to the pilot under instruction. As the airplane approached the runway, the instructor selected the landing gear down and configured the airplane for the landing. The landing checks were called out, and a landing gear green indictor light was verified, indicating that the landing gear should have been down and locked. The landing flare and initial touchdown were normal. However, shortly after the airplane touched down, it listed right as the right main landing gear (MLG) collapsed. The airplane then entered a 180o skidding turn before coming to a stop. Two witnesses reported seeing the airplane on final approach with its right MLG not fully extended. During a postaccident examination, the airplane was placed on jacks to facilitate a gear-swing test. The MLG were cycled multiple times with no evidence of any preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. Each time the MLG were extended, the landing gear indicator lights inside the cockpit illuminated. The reason for the right MLG's failure to fully extend when the MLG were selected down could not be determined.
During an aerial application flight, the airplane collided with a transmission line during a turn. The line became entangled with the airplane, and the airplane collided with terrain. Examination of the airplane did not reveal any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane.The pilot's medical certificate had expired several months before the accident. The pilot had been diagnosed with depression, diabetes mellitus, diabetes insipidus, hypogonadism, hypothyroidism, and hypoadrenalism; however, he had not reported any of these conditions or the medications used to treat them to the FAA. It is unlikely that the pilot's diabetes insipidus, hypogonadism, hypothyroidism, or hypoadrenalism or their treatments contributed to the accident. However, his poorly controlled diabetes mellitus could have led to high blood sugar, which can result in blurred vision, or low blood sugar, which can slow psychomotor functioning Additionally, the pilot was known to have peripheral neuropathy with decreased sensation in his feet and a foot drop, which could have impaired his physical ability to use the rudder pedals. It could not be determined if the pilot's diabetes mellitus contributed to the accident. Further, the status of the pilot's psychiatric disease, including the severity of symptoms from his depression and any other psychiatric symptoms, around the time of the accident is unknown. Therefore, whether the pilot's psychiatric disease contributed to the accident could not be determined.
The pilot reported that he was conducting a low reconnaissance in his tailwheel-equipped airplane of a potential grass landing site in remote mountainous terrain during the late evening hours. While conducting the low reconnaissance, he engaged the carburetor heat, descended over the landing site, disengaged the carburetor heat, applied full throttle, and then departed from the landing site. As the airplane departed from the landing site, he reported that the engine revolutions per minute (rpm) were "very low" due to carburetor ice. He stated that due to the loss of power the airplane was capable of level flight, but unable to climb. As the airplane approached rising terrain, he turned about 180 degrees, and landed in an area of thick vegetation about 20 miles per hour. During the landing sequence, the propeller and left wing impacted terrain. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and the fuselage.The pilot further reported that the airplane did not have a carburetor temperature gauge installed.The pilot verified that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.In the recommendation section of the National Transportation Safety Board Accident/Incident Reporting Form 6120.1, the pilot stated that the accident may have been avoided if he did not utilize the landing site at that time of the day. The Federal Aviation Administration has published Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin CE-09-35 Carburetor Icing Prevention (2009). This document discusses carburetor icing and states in part:Pilots should be aware that carburetor icing doesn't just occur in freezing conditions, it can occur at temperatures well above freezing temperatures when there is visible moisture or high humidity. Icing can occur in the carburetor at temperatures above freezing because vaporization of fuel, combined with the expansion of air as it flows through the carburetor, (Venturi Effect) causes sudden cooling, Page 2 of 6 ANC16CA056sometimes by a significant amount within a fraction of a second. Carburetor ice can be detected by a drop in rpm in fixed pitch propeller airplanes and a drop in manifold pressure in constant speed propeller airplanes. In both types, usually there will be a roughness in engine operation.The pilot should respond to carburetor icing by applying full carburetor heat immediately. The engine may run rough initially for a short time while ice melts.
Following several uneventful touch-and-go-landings, the private pilot refueled the airplane and returned to his home airport. During the approach for landing, the pilot saw wildlife on the runway, so he conducted a low pass over the runway; however, when he applied full throttle to climb, the engine did not produce full power. The pilot continued to climb the airplane with the intention of staying in the airport traffic pattern and making a full stop landing. Continuing through the pattern, he applied carburetor heat, then turned it off again. The airplane began sinking fast on final approach and impacted terrain short of the runway, resulting in substantial damage. A postaccident examination of the engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.The atmospheric conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to serious carburetor icing at glide power settings. After observing the loss of engine power during the climb out from the low approach, the pilot applied carburetor heat briefly, then, due to low altitude and sink rate, he turned off the carburetor heat to reduce the loss of power. It is likely that the carburetor accumulated ice during the low approach, which resulted in the observed partial loss of engine power, and the brief application of carburetor heat was insufficient to clear the ice from the carburetor and restore engine power.
The student pilot was performing an approach and landing under the supervision of the flight instructor. The flight instructor reported that the student completed a "normal" traffic pattern but that the airplane bounced on landing and that he immediately took control of the airplane. The flight instructor initiated a go-around and established a climb; however, the engine lost power, and the airplane descended into terrain. An air traffic controller who witnessed the accident said that, just before touchdown, the airplane banked left, and the left wing appeared to hit the ground. He added that the airplane then bounced four to five times before it banked "hard" left and departed the runway. The airplane then impacted trees about 1,700 ft past the departure end, and 400 ft left of, the runway. Postaccident examination of the airplane and the engine revealed no preimpact mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation, and cut tree branches located at the accident site indicated that the engine was producing power at the time of impact.
The private pilot departed in the motor glider in day visual meteorological conditions and transmitted over the airport's common traffic advisory frequency that he would be conducting a "right turn out" after takeoff. About 6 minutes later, the pilot transmitted that he was 4 miles east of the airport and climbing. No further radio transmissions were received from the glider. Data from an onboard GPS unit indicated that, after departing, the glider proceeded east-northeast for several minutes, then conducted several climbing 360° turns consistent with circling in thermal activity up to a GPS altitude of about 8,500 ft. The glider then assumed a southerly heading and continued on that heading for about 1 minute before the data ended in the vicinity of the accident site.The wreckage was oriented on a northerly heading in rocky, mountainous terrain at an elevation of about 6,050 ft mean sea level about 7 nautical miles east-northeast of the departure airport. Although it came to rest near powerlines, there was no apparent indication that the glider contacted the lines before impacting terrain. Postaccident examination indicated that the glider was configured for gliding with the engine off and the propeller and landing gear stowed at the time of impact. Examination of the airframe and engine revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. An autopsy and toxicology testing of the pilot and did not provide any evidence of physiological impairment or incapacitation. The investigation was unable to determine why the glider impacted terrain.
The commercial pilot was providing sightseeing rides in a balloon as part of an annual event, which included 17 balloons. He stated that, during a weather briefing for the event, the wind was reported to be between 8 and 10 knots and forecast to reduce to less than 5 knots before increasing again. The pilot added that, after he inflated the balloon envelope, "it was not rocking," which meant to him that the weather "was not excessively windy." He boarded five passengers and departed. The balloon uneventfully climbed to between about 1,200 and 1,500 ft. The pilot then chose a 5-acre field for landing about 6 miles south of the departure point. The balloon landed hard, and the basket momentarily tipped over before righting itself; it then dragged along the ground before coming to a stop at the edge of the field. During the landing, one passenger fell inside the basket and was seriously injured.Before the launch, several pibals (pilot balloons) were released to assess the wind conditions, which were determined to be changeable. Additionally, thunderstorms were moving through an area about 15 miles north of the balloons' planned departure point. Based on that information, the other 16 balloon pilots chose not to launch. The recorded weather at an airport located about 12 miles west of the accident site, about the time of the accident, included wind from 340° at 15 knots.
The pilot reported that during approach, he reduced power and was convinced he had enough altitude to land on the grass runway. The pilot further reported that the airplane impacted a ditch prior to the runway which resulted in a sheared nose landing gear, collapsed main gear, and then slid about 200 feet. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial-rated pilot was conducting a local, personal flight and planned to land on a small private grass runway. He reported that he initially planned to land to the east, but he noticed some people on the ground and then chose to maneuver to land to the west. During the landing, the airplane floated and then drifted right, so he decided to go around. He reported that he advanced the throttle full forward and that the airplane felt "anemic" but that the engine gauges appeared normal. At the end of the runway, he rotated for takeoff, and the airplane started to slowly climb; however, the airplane impacted a building just past the end of the runway. A postcrash fire consumed a majority of the airplane. A visual examination of the engine did not reveal any obvious discrepancies; however, fire/thermal damage to the engine prevented a detailed examination. The weather conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to the accumulation of serious carburetor icing at glide power settings. The pilot would have reduced engine power while maneuvering to land, and it is likely that the carburetor accumulated ice at glide power settings, which prevented the production of full engine power during the attempted go-around.
The flight instructor indicated that, during a simulated soft-field takeoff on an instructional flight, the airplane's climb performance noticeably deteriorated. As the airplane reached about 150 ft above ground level, the engine started to lose power. The flight instructor chose to make an emergency off-airport landing, during which the right wing and firewall were substantially damaged. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the alternate air valve plate was lodged in the air intake and blocked the fuel servo. Further examination revealed that the hinge pin that held the alternate air valve plate was worn completely through, which caused the plate assembly to separate from its mounting location and lodge in the fuel servo. This obstruction likely restricted the intake air to the engine and thus led to the loss of engine power on takeoff. Examination of the alternate air valve plate revealed that it had been altered from its original design, although there were no maintenance records documenting the alteration. The investigation could not determine whether this alteration contributed to the failure of the alternate air valve plate's mounting mechanism.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that during the landing flare she could not see forward beyond the engine cowl, and due to the side-by-side seat configuration of the airplane she lost sight of right side of runway. She recalled that the airplane touched down slightly left of the center line and continued to roll further left. She reported that she applied full right rudder and applied the brakes in order prevent a runway excursion to the left, but the airplane nosed over and partially exited the left side of the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing, the vertical and horizontal stabilizer, and the rudder. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with any portion of the airplane during the flight that would have prevented normal flight operation.
The airline transport pilot reported that the electrical system began to indicate a discharge condition during cruise flight and that he chose to divert to an intermediate airport. He lowered the wing flaps and landing gear, and then the airplane lost total electrical power. Landing gear extension seemed to be normal, which included a green down position indicator light and visual verification of the landing gear in the extended position. The pilot then conducted a visual approach to landing, and after landing, the right main landing gear (MLG) collapsed, which resulted in a runway excursion.A postaccident examination of the electrical system revealed that the alternator was not functioning properly and that the voltage regulator was inoperative, which precipitated the diverted landing. Examination of the landing gear system revealed that the right MLG down-lock mechanism had failed. None of the components were provided to the National Transportation Safety Board for further examination, which precluded a determination of the root cause of the failure of the right MLG down-lock mechanism.
The commercial pilot reported that, before departure for the agricultural application flight, the airplane was loaded with 300 gallons of water and spray solution and an undetermined amount of fuel was added to the left fuel tank. The pilot did not visually check the fuel tanks during the preflight inspection. After departure, he flew 5 miles south of the private strip and proceeded to spray a 130-acre field. When the spray solution was depleted, the pilot flew back toward the private strip and noticed that the fuel quantity indicators showed 1/4 full in the right tank and 1/8 full in the left tank. The pilot stated that, about 1.5 miles southeast of the private strip and about 400 ft above ground level, the engine "sputtered" and experienced a loss of power. He made a forced landing to a field, and the airplane entered a swampy area and then nosed over. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. During a postaccident examination of the airplane, no fuel was found in the fuel lines to the engine or in the fuel tanks. Based on the evidence, it is likely that the airplane was not fueled with sufficient fuel to complete the flight and that this, combined with the pilot's failure to check the fuel quantity before departure and ensure that sufficient fuel was onboard for the flight, resulted in fuel exhaustion.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll in gusty wind conditions, the airplane veered off the runway to the right. The pilot further reported that he "applied full brakes" to avoid a bush, subsequently the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both left lift struts.The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures 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 5 minutes before the accident the wind was 360 degrees true at 7 knots, and wind gusts 13 knots. The airplane landed on runway 36.
On August 4, 2016 at 9:02pm eastern daylight time, Southwest Airlines flight 149, a Boeing 737, N368SW, experienced a failure of the nose landing gear during pushback from the gate at the Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall International Airport (BWI), Baltimore, Maryland.  The aircraft was substantially damaged and there were no injuries to the 6 crewmembers or 129 passengers but the airplane was substantially damaged.  The flight was being operated under 14 Code of Federal Regulation Part 121 as a regularly scheduled passenger flight to Atlanta-Hartsfield International Airport (ATL), Atlanta, Georgia.According to the flight crew, as the pushback tug was maneuvering the aircraft off the gate, the flight crew felt the front of the airplane bounce up and down, and then came to rest on the nose.  The passengers were deplaned via air stairs.The nose gear collapsed in a forward direction, resulting in substantial damage to the gear structure, the nose gear well, and crushing the forward bulkhead.  An airport surveillance camera video was obtained, which showed the tug pushing the aircraft at approximately 6 knots.  The tug specifications indicate that speed could be achieved only in second gear or higher.  The airline general operating manual specifies that pushback must be conducted in low or first gear, and at a walking speed.
As the private pilot was descending the airplane for landing, he heard a loud "bang," and the engine subsequently began running rough. Unable to maintain altitude, the pilot conducted a forced landing to a soybean field, during which the airplane impacted a ditch and nosed over. Examination of the engine revealed that the No. 2 cylinder was completely separated between the flange and the head. Examination of the cylinder revealed a fatigue crack that initiated at a cooling fin valley on the exterior surface. The fatigue crack grew around 40% of the circumference of the cylinder, and overstress led to the eventual cylinder fracture. A metallographic cross-section of the cylinder revealed corrosion pits under the paint and primer. The alloy is not necessarily susceptible to pitting, but crevice corrosion near an unpainted area or exposure to salt environments can lead to similar corrosion features.
Shortly after takeoff, the experimental amateur-built airplane experienced a total loss of engine power, and the private pilot conducted a forced landing to a field. During the landing, the airplane's landing gear impacted a fence, resulting in substantial damage. A postaccident examination and test run of the engine revealed no malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Although the atmospheric conditions present at the time of the accident were conducive to the formation of moderate carburetor icing at cruise power settings and serious carburetor icing at descent power settings, the airplane was operating at takeoff power; therefore, the investigation could not conclude that the loss of power was the result of carburetor ice accumulation. Based on the available evidence, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The sport pilot, who was also the builder of the experimental, amateur-built airplane, stated that, as he was preparing to land the airplane, he reduced the power to idle while turning onto the left base leg, and the engine stopped producing power. The pilot tried to restart the engine several times, but he realized that the airplane was not going to reach the runway, so he attempted to land in a field. The airplane struck a power line and landed hard, which resulted in substantial damage to the wings, firewall, and fuselage. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Although the engine data for the last few minutes of the flight were consistent with a loss of engine power as reported by the pilot, no anomalies were noted that explained the power loss. Therefore, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The commercial pilot reported that while landing on his private airstrip he "misjudged the approach airspeed" and after touchdown the airplane was unable to stop before the end of the runway. The pilot further reported that the airplane exited the runway and impacted a ditch with small trees and bushes, which resulted in a nose gear and left main landing gear collapse, and a nose down. The airplane subsequently sustained substantial damage to the left wing and left aileron.The pilot reported that there were no pre impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot was conducting a local personal flight. About 15 minutes into the flight, the engine power suddenly decreased to idle, and the pilot conducted a forced landing to a field. The airplane impacted a small stand of trees before coming to rest, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing and right wing strut. Examination of the engine revealed that the engine-to-carburetor throttle cable was disconnected. No impact damage was found in the area of the throttle cable disconnect. It is likely that the fastener that connected the throttle cable to the carburetor loosened and fell out during the flight, causing the engine to go to the idle power setting. The fastener was not found, and maintenance logbooks or records were not recovered.
After a local flight, the pilot reported that while taxing in the non-movement area at night he made a left turn and impacted a building door with the left wing.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.