roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The private pilot reported that he was checking weather conditions every hour during the personal, cross-country flight. While approaching the destination airport, he had to maneuver around convective activity about 10 miles northwest of the airport. While the airplane was on approach and about 4 miles from the airport, the local fix-based operator announced on the UNICOM that the winds were from 170° at 7 knots. The airplane crossed the runway 20 threshold about 85 knots and with full flaps. About 15 ft from touchdown, the airplane began to sink rapidly. The pilot attempted to arrest the descent, but the airplane impacted the runway and bounced, and wind began to push the airplane hard to the left. The pilot then initiated a go-around with full throttle and pulled back on the stick. The airplane climbed to between about 15 and 20 ft above ground level, the stall warning sounded, and the right wing stalled and then dropped. The airplane then struck an embankment off the right side of the runway and rolled onto its right side. A review of weather information showed that a wind shift occurred about 2 minutes before landing, at which time, the reported winds were from 180° at 12 knots. The pilot reported that he believed that there was wind shear.
The commercial pilot was conducting external load operations in the helicopter to assist power line construction. While maneuvering the helicopter away from a tower at low altitude, the pilot flew the helicopter to the right while planning on backing up at the same time. The helicopter's speed to the right was faster than he had planned. Subsequently, the helicopter's main rotor hit a tower before it came into the pilot's view, and the helicopter then impacted terrain.The pilot reported that the helicopter did not have any mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Given the pilot's statement, it is likely that he was not adequately monitoring the environment during low-level maneuvering among power line towers and failed to see a tower before the main rotors hit it.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped biplane reported that, during the landing roll, the biplane started to veer right. He attempted to regain control, but the biplane continued to veer right and ground looped. Subsequently, the bottom of the left wing impacted the ground, and the left main landing gear collapsed.The biplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the biplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot and observer were conducting an aerial observation flight of a pipeline. The pilot reported that, while maneuvering at a low altitude toward an airport to refuel, he heard a "significant boom" and noticed a reduction in engine rpm. The pilot unsuccessfully attempted to regain engine power and then initiated a forced landing to a space between trees. During the forced landing, the airplane impacted rolling, uneven grass terrain and a barbed wire fence.Examination and disassembly of the engine revealed a large hole on the top of the engine crankcase inboard of the No. 4 cylinder. The examination revealed that the No. 4 connecting rod had failed due to the installation of a nonconforming small end connecting rod bushing. Five days before the accident, the engine manufacturer had issued a mandatory service bulletin indicating that the accident connecting rod bushing may not have met engine specifications and may require followup action. Six days after the accident, the Federal Aviation Administration issued an airworthiness directive that required inspecting the connecting rods, replacing affected connecting rod small end bushings, and accomplishing the instructions in the engine manufacturer's mandatory service bulletin.
The airplane touched down during landing with the landing gear retracted and skidded to a stop in grass about 140 ft past the end of the runway threshold. The pilot reported during a telephone conversation with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator-in-charge that, "it was a simple gear-up landing, I forgot to put the [landing gear] switch down." He added that he was not wearing noise canceling headphones, and he reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The left wing sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported in the NTSB Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report, "no accident, as specified by NTSB for gear up landing, is admitted."
The flight instructor, who was providing tailwheel instruction, reported that, after several dual landings, he exited the airplane to allow the pilot receiving instruction to conduct a solo flight. The flight instructor further reported that, during the pilot's third solo landing, he observed the pilot make a wheel landing. During the landing, the airplane exited the runway to the left and impacted a hangar.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was on an agricultural flight when the engine lost total power. The pilot completed a forced landing in a nearby field, but he was unable to maintain directional control of the airplane after it landed in the dense soybean crop. The outboard portion of the right wing and aileron were substantially damaged during the forced landing.A postaccident engine examination revealed that a single 1st stage compressor rotor airfoil had fractured near its root. The fatigue crack originated from a thinned leading edge due to significant erosion at the bottom of the airfoil pressure side; however, the exact location of the fatigue origin could not be determined because it had been obliterated by the erosion. The observed fracture features were consistent with a crack that had progressed in highcycle fatigue. Dimensional measurements of the fractured airfoil and the two adjacent airfoils revealed that they were under the minimum requirement for an airfoil. The airfoils also exhibited evidence of fine wear scratches, characteristic of fine abrasive particles impacting the airfoil, and thinning of their leading edges. The underlying cause of the airfoil erosion could not be determined with certainty; however, based on the observed damage, it was possibly the result of environmental conditions. The engine had accumulated 4,349.3 hours since new and had never been overhauled. The engine manufacturer’s recommended time between overhaul (TBO) was 3,000 hours; however, the operator was not required to comply with the recommended TBO interval under current regulations due to the type of operation.
According to the pilot in the tailwheel-equipped, experimental, amateur-built airplane, he attempted to land in shifting wind conditions. He reported that, during the landing flare on runway 8, a wind gust from the south caused the right wing to rise. He reported that he made the approach with full flaps applied and about 60 knots airspeed and corrected with right aileron, but the airplane landed with a left sideload. During the landing roll, the airplane veered to the right, and the left main landing gear wheel separated from the airplane. The airplane then veered to the left and sustained substantial damage to the lower left side of the fuselage.The pilot reported that he "knew the winds were swirling and should have taken another look at it or found another runway for the newer developing wind conditions." METARs at the accident airport are issued about every 20 minutes. Ten minutes before the accident, the METAR indicated that the wind was from 080° at 6 knots. About 10 minutes after the accident, the METAR indicated that the wind was from 140° at 5 knots.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot and passenger were departing on a local flight in the experimental, amateur-built airplane. The pilot reported that, during the takeoff roll, he pulled back on the control stick, but instead of rotating off the runway, the airplane bounced, then pitched straight up. Once airborne, the airplane did not respond to the pilot's control inputs. The pilot reduced the engine power and the airplane stalled. The nose dropped, and the airplane subsequently impacted terrain. Examination found that the control stick was not connected to the elevator bracket. A search of the wreckage did not locate any nut that would have secured the bolt. The pilot reported that he would have used a castellated nut with a cotter pin to secure the bolt; however, he could not remember installing the nut. The airplane had been flown 6 or 7 times before the accident flight and it is likely that the nut backed off during that time. The accident is consistent with a loss of elevator control due to the pilot's failure to properly secure the control stick to the elevator bracket.
The student pilot owned the airplane and intended to conduct a 20-minute night, cross-country flight to a nearby airport for avionics installation. During a circling descent to the destination airport, the airplane collided with trees and terrain, which resulted in a postcrash fire. Examination of the wreckage did not reveal any evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The student had a total flight experience of 105 hours, of which 5 hours were at night. He had not flown during the 90-day period preceding the accident.
On August 5, 2017, at 1435 eastern daylight time, an Airbus 330, N276AY, operated by American Airlines as flight 759 encountered turbulence at 28,000 feet about 25 miles east of East Hampton, NY.  One flight attendant suffered a broken arm and there were 10 minor injuries among the passengers and flight attendants.  The airplane was not damaged.  The flight was a regularly scheduled passenger flight from Athens, Greece, to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (PHL).According to the operator, the flight passed very close to a small, but rapidly developing convective cell with tops near FL300. A steady increase in lightning reports was noted immediately after encountering the cell. The cell was most likely dominated by updrafts at the time of the encounter and dissipated 30 minutes after the report. Other isolated to scattered areas of convection were developing along a cold front over Eastern Long Island at the time. ATC radar depicted an area of moderate to extreme precipitation returns along the airplane's route of flight.  ATC did not advise the flight crew of the returns until after the crew reported the turbulence encounter. The flight crew reported that the seat belt sign was on at the time of the turbulence.
The pilot of the glider stated that he made a mistake during his before takeoff checks and forgot to latch the canopy. During takeoff and climb, he heard air noise in the cabin and attempted to check the canopy handle while still under tow. He stated that, after climbing a "few hundred feet," the canopy came open. While he was trying to close the canopy, he lost sight of the tow airplane, so he released the tow line and made a turn to the right. A witness reported that the glider's left and right wing spoilers were extended during the flight and were visible from the ground. The glider pilot released from the tow airplane around 150 to 200 ft above ground level (agl) and tried to make a 180° turn back to the runway with the spoilers still extended. The glider's wing clipped a tree and crashed in a bean field.The examination of the glider at the accident site revealed that the spoilers were found in the open, or deployed, position. With the spoilers deployed, the glider and tow airplane would be unable to climb normally. The canopy attachment pins and the surrounding composite material were torn from the fuselage at impact. The canopy attachment handle and bayonet pins showed proper operation. The damage to the canopy was consistent with it being in the latched position at impact. The pilot stated that the glider had no mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the pilot, while the airplane was in cruise flight about 20 minutes after departure, the engine lost total power. He made a forced landing to a field; after touchdown, the airplane went over a fence and down a hill before impacting a creek, which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing and fuselage. Postaccident examination of the engine and airframe did not reveal any evidence of a mechanical malfunction or failure that would have precluded normal operation. Thus, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that he and the flight instructor were conducting touch-and-go landings as part of a flight review. During the eighth landing, the airplane veered to the right, the flight instructor applied the brakes, and the airplane nosed down. The empennage sustained substantial damage.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, during the initial climb, the airplane aerodynamically stalled and impacted terrain.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.
According to the private pilot, while landing at a remote, unimproved airstrip, the right main landing (MLG) tire impacted a rock. The airplane then began to veer right, and the MLG collapsed, which resulted in substantial damage to the empennage and horizontal stabilizer. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the right MLG separated near its attachment point. Visual and magnified optical examinations of the fractured surfaces revealed features consistent with a bending overstress fracture. Due to the pilot's selection of unsuitable terrain to land, the right main tire impacted a rock, which resulted in the subsequent loss of directional control and collapse of the right MLG.
The pilot was conducting parachute jump operations near the airport. After climbing to altitude, he released his jumpers and returned to land. The pilot reported that, during the landing flare, the airplane struck the runway nosewheel first. He added that the airplane bounced, floated down the runway, and then settled to the right of the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the engine mount and right elevator. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.After multiple requests, the pilot did not submit the National Transportation Safety Board Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report Form 6120.1.
According to a witness who was part of the ground crew for this flight, this was the first flight of the experimental, amateur-built airplane. The pilot conducted a "high speed" taxi test during which the airplane became "light." He then taxied back for takeoff from the turf runway. According to the witness, the airplane accelerated well, and liftoff occurred about 300 to 400 ft down the runway. About 2 seconds after liftoff, the airplane pitched up to a "fairly nose high attitude" of about 15° to 20°. When the airplane was at an altitude of about 150 ft and less than halfway down the runway, another witness observed it descend rapidly. The airplane landed hard and sustained substantial damage; the pilot was seriously injured. Evaluation of the airplane flight control travel ranges and weight and balance information did not reveal any anomalies. The pilot reported that the engine performed normally and that he intentionally attempted a steep climb to ensure that he cleared trees at the end of the runway; however, due to the mid-wing configuration, he lost sight of the horizon in the initial climb and then had difficulty judging his pitch attitude due to the lack of a cockpit attitude indicating instrument. Ground personnel had radioed him about the excessive pitch attitude, and the pilot likely overcorrected due to his uncertainty regarding both pitch attitude and ground proximity, which resulted in the airplane impacting the ground.
After takeoff for the agricultural application flight and when the commercial pilot reduced engine power to climb, the engine "surged." He increased the throttle, but the engine "surged" again. He subsequently applied full throttle, but he was unable to maintain a positive climb rate. The airplane gradually settled into a bean field off the end of the runway. The airplane impacted a fence before coming to rest in an adjacent field. The pilot stated that the airplane seemed to be "sagging" after takeoff but that the engine instrument indications appeared to be normal. Postaccident engine examination did not reveal evidence of any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The reason for the engine surging reported by the pilot could not be determined. According to the pilot, the airspeed indicator was inoperative at the time of the accident. It is likely that the pilot's inability to monitor the airspeed due to the lack of an operative airspeed indicator led to the pilot's failure to maintain adequate airspeed, his exceedance of the airplane's critical angle of attack and the subsequent aerodynamic stall/mush and degraded climb performance.
The student pilot reported that he had departed with the intent to perform touch-and-go takeoffs and landings. After takeoff, he realized that the canopy was not latched. He struggled to maintain airplane control in the pattern, but he was able to land normally. The student pilot then checked the latch handle, and he believed that he had secured the canopy correctly. He took off and flew one pattern but just before landing, the canopy opened and obstructed the pilot's view of the runway.The airplane landed hard and bounced, and the pilot aborted the landing.The student pilot flew a third pattern and made an approach over the runway centerline, "slightly above stall airspeed." The airplane landed hard on the runway, and the right main landing gear (MLG) and the nose landing gear separated from the airplane. The airplane skidded to a stop on the runway.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right MLG attachment points and the right-wing spar.The student pilot asserted that the canopy latch was down during the takeoffs but was not seated correctly. For the latch to seat correctly, "the canopy itself needed to be pushed up so that gravity seated the canopy."The airplane was equipped with a full-width clear canopy, hinged in the front and tipped forward for entry to the cockpit. The manually operated canopy was supposed to be closed by the pilot by reaching above their head and grabbing the handle identified by the manufacturer's illustrated parts catalogue as SF0730N. Per the photographs provided by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aviation safety inspectors, the handle was not installed on the canopy. Page 2 of 5 GAA17CA465The canopy security latches consisted of two metal claw-type latches that were mechanically moved forward to secure the canopy to the fuselage. The canopy latches were moved forward to the secure position when the pilot lowered the canopy "T" handle. The "T" handle was affixed to the baggage compartment front wall in the cockpit between the left and right seats just above the arm rest and just below the pilot headset audio input jacks. The student pilot's head set control unit was about 4 inches long by 1 inch in diameter. Photographs taken shortly after the accident and provided by FAA inspectors revealed that the control unit was lodged underneath the "T" handle. The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the pilot, he and his passenger were waiting in the fixed-base operator building for the storm system to pass. When the storm system appeared to have passed and the wind had calmed significantly, the pilot checked the Automated Surface Observing System and took off from runway 21. During the initial climb, the pilot observed "just beyond the end of the pavement was the obvious sign of a small microburst developing with blowing dust curling up in several different directions centered just to the right of the centerline, and it was growing spreading out quickly."The pilot was able to climb the airplane to about 400 ft before encountering wind at the departure end of the runway. He made a slight left turn to avoid power lines and performed a forced landing. The airplane landed hard and sustained substantial damage to both wings, the fuselage, and empennage.The Special METAR reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 280° at 23 knots, gusting to 34 knots. The visibility was 10 statute miles with light rain. There were few clouds at 3,500 ft, and the ceiling was broken at 9,000 ft and 11,000 ft. The temperature was 84°F, and the dew point was 45°F. The altimeter setting was 30.06 inches of mercury. The peak wind was from 10° at 40 knots at 1903, and the wind shifted direction at 1910. The rain began at 1958 with trace precipitation. The density altitude was 7,164 ft.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the float-equipped airplane reported that, during landing, after observing what he thought were ripples on the water, the airplane touched down sooner than he had expected. Subsequently, the left float skipped on the water, the right float's toe contacted the water, and the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted.The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings, the fuselage, and empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot departed on a visual flight rules cross-country flight in his turboprop-equipped experimental airplane. Onboard data indicated that, upon reaching about 6,500 ft mean sea level, about 5 minutes after takeoff, the airplane pitched down about 25° and entered an approximate 35° left bank; the engine power reduced to idle with a simultaneous decrease in fuel flow. Several seconds later, the voltage began to slowly decrease, consistent with the generator turning off. The airplane continued to descend toward the nearest airport and ultimately impacted powerlines and terrain about 1.3 nautical miles from the approach end of the runway. The pilot made no radio transmissions that indicated that he was experiencing an emergency. Examination of the fuel system and engine revealed no mechanical malfunctions or failures, and the reason for the reduction of engine power could not be determined. The propeller was found in a low pitch position. The propeller was not equipped with a feathering pump; therefore, unless the propeller control was moved to the feather position immediately following a loss of engine power, the speed of the counterweights and the aerodynamic loads on the blades would quickly degrade to a point where feathering would become impossible. It is likely that, had the pilot immediately placed the propeller control into the feather position following the loss of engine power, significantly less drag would have been produced by the propeller and the airplane would likely have been able to reach the intended runway. The first responders reported that the pilot stopped breathing shortly after being extricated from the wreckage. Given that the pilot diverted the airplane and initially survived the impact, it is unlikely that he experienced sudden incapacitation during the flight.