roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The commercial pilot stated that, during the landing rollout in the tailwheel-equipped airplane, the left wheel axle fractured and separated from the airplane with the wheel attached. The left landing gear leg then dug into the runway surface, the airplane made a sudden left turn, and the left wing and left horizontal stabilizer struck the runway. An examination of the fractured left axle revealed features consistent with a bending overstress fracture. High magnification optical examination of the fracture also revealed several small fatigue cracks within the crack origin area. Although several fatigue initiation sites were present along the fracture origin area, none of them were large enough to have led to the failure or to have significantly lowered the ultimate strength of the axle enough for a bending overstress failure to occur under normal loading conditions. Therefore, it is likely the landing gear axle failed as a result of bending overstress due to a hard landing.
The student pilot reported that during landing the airplane porpoised, subsequently he attempted to abort the landing, but the airplane touched down again, which resulted in a collapsed nose gear, runway excursion, and an impact with terrain.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. According to the student pilot there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he bounced once during the landing touchdown in crosswind conditions, and subsequently ground looped to the left. During the ground loop, the right main landing gear collapsed and the right wing was substantially damaged when it impacted the runway.  An automated weather observing system, about the time of the accident, reported the wind at 080 degrees true at 14 knots, for the landing on runway 17 left.  The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during the landing flare he encountered a left quartering tailwind and the airplane started to drift to the right. The pilot further reported that during the landing roll the airplane veered to the left off the runway and ground looped. The right elevator was substantially damaged. The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot stated that, during the landing flare at the conclusion of a local flight, the airplane's nose "shot up drastically." The pilot "gently" pressed forward on the controls to lower the nose, and the airplane pitched down and impacted the runway. Examination of the airplane revealed that a bolt that attached the left elevator to the control system was not installed, and the FAA inspector reported that&nbsp;the bolt was found undamaged inside the elevator tip. According to the pilot, maintenance personnel had recently removed the left elevator, and it is likely that they failed to properly secure the bolt when they reinstalled the elevator.
The pilot reported that when he aborted the landing due to gusty wind conditions, the airplane drifted to the left of the runway and impacted a fence. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings. According to the pilot there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The sport pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane had completed one touch-and-go landing uneventfully on a 6,201-ft-long, 100-ft-wide asphalt runway. During the second landing, the tailwheel began to "shimmy." Rather than apply forward control stick pressure to reduce weight on the tailwheel and alleviate the shimmy, the pilot held the control stick fully aft as the airplane departed the left side of the runway and impacted an approach path indicator light. Examination of the tailwheel locking mechanism revealed that it was worn and had unlocked during touchdown. The pilot should have been able to compensate for a tailwheel shimmy at touchdown by reducing the weight on the tailwheel. The condition of the tailwheel locking mechanism should have been checked during the last annual inspection; however, it is possible that the locking mechanism could have worn further during the 7 months between the most recent inspection and the accident flight.
According to the student pilot, during his fifth solo flight, he struggled to keep the nose straight during the landing on runway 31. He reported that during the touchdown the airplane porpoised, the nose gear collapsed, and the airplane came to rest on the runway. According to his certificated flight instructor (CFI), the student pilot was endorsed to fly the airplane in a maximum wind velocity of 8 knots. The meteorological aerodrome report (METAR) indicated that the wind at the time of the accident was 310 degrees true at 15 knots, gusting to 22 knots. According to METAR data the wind velocity exceeded the pilot's endorsed limitation at 0747 Pacific daylight time (PDT), and did not subside during the remainder of that day. The student pilot's solo flight commenced at 1259 PDT. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall.The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or anomalies with the airplane prior to or during the flight that would have prevented normal flight operation.
The private pilot stated that, during climbout at an altitude of about 1,200 ft mean sea level, the engine began to run roughly as though it had a partially fouled spark plug. He decided to perform a precautionary landing at a nearby airport with an asphalt runway that was 10,000 ft long and 200 ft wide. During the landing roll, a gust of wind lifted the right wing, which resulted in a ground loop. The airplane came to rest in the grass on the left side of runway. Although the wind conditions at the landing airport were not recorded, the recorded wind at a nearby airport about the time of the accident was variable at 5 knots.
The pilot had departed on the business flight but decided to return to the airport to wait for the weather to improve. He indicated that, on approach, he lowered the flaps to 15° to slow the airplane to within "gear down speed." The pilot noticed that the flaps continued past 15°, and he took his hand off the landing gear lever and raised the flaps back up to the fully retracted position. The pilot overshot the runway on the turn to final. As he attempted to align the airplane with the runway centerline, he heard a warning horn, which he thought was the stall warning horn. He then landed on the runway with the landing gear retracted, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage frame and stringers.After the accident, the pilot stated he had mistaken the gear-up warning horn for the stall warning horn. The pilot also said he did not visually check the landing gear indicator lights or look at the mirrors to verify the landing gear was down.
The pilot reported that during a night visual meteorological condition flight he was about 5 nautical miles away from the destination airport and could see the runway lights. The pilot further reported that he was not able to see the terrain and it was a "black hole approach." As the pilot initiated a descent toward the runway, the airplane impacted terrain in a wooded area about 4 nautical miles west of the runway threshold. The pilot reported that he did not observe the terrain any time before the impact, but could see the bright runway lights. The left and right wings were substantially damaged.  The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The Federal Aviation Administration Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge states in part: "A black-hole approach occurs when the landing is made from over water or non-lighted terrain where the runway lights are the only source of light. Without peripheral visual cues to help, pilots will have trouble orientating themselves relative to Earth. The runway can seem out of position (downsloping or upsloping) and in the worse case, results in landing short of the runway. If an electronic glide slope or visual approach slope indicator (VASI) is available, it should be used. If navigation aids (NAVAIDs) are unavailable, careful attention should be given to using the flight instruments to assist in maintaining orientation and a normal approach. If at any time the pilot is unsure of his or her position or attitude, a go-around should be executed."
While performing an agricultural flight, the pilot of the helicopter heard a loud noise followed by a vibration in the flight controls, and the helicopter began to roll. He noted that the cyclic was stiffer than normal, and his control inputs produced a delayed response from the helicopter. The pilot was able to return the helicopter to level flight and attempted a run-on landing; however, the helicopter began a roll to the left, which he was not able to correct before the main rotor blades impacted the ground and the helicopter rolled onto its side, resulting in substantial damage. Postaccident examination revealed that the pin for the outboard end torque tube, which controlled lateral movement of the swashplate, was fractured.
The airplane departed on a parachute jump flight with the airline transport pilot seated in the rear cockpit and two parachutists standing outside on the lower wing. About 200 ft above ground level, the pilot sensed a loss of engine power and the airplane stopped climbing. The airplane descended, and the pilot conducted an off-airport forced landing to a flat, open, muddy field about 1,600 ft north of the airport, during which the main landing gear separated from the airframe. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no anomalies. Review of weather information for the area at the time of the accident indicated that conditions were conducive to the accumulation of serious icing at glide power settings; however, the airplane was operating at takeoff power at the time of the accident, and the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The accident flight, which was an on-demand air medical flight, was the second flight of the day following maintenance work that had been performed on the helicopter earlier that morning. The commercial pilot reported that the flight was uneventful but that, after landing, he noticed that the left vertical fin cowling had partially separated and contacted a tail rotor blade. Further examination of the helicopter revealed that the right vertical fin cowling remained secured but that 8 of the 11 fasteners on the left vertical fin cowling were unlocked, consistent with maintenance personnel not properly securing them following the maintenance work that was performed earlier that day.
The private pilot and two passengers were conducting a local flight from the pilot's home airport. One witness stated that his attention was drawn to the airplane due to its "very fast" landing approach. The airplane then disappeared from his view; shortly thereafter, he saw a plume of smoke in the area of a golf course on the northwest side of the airport. Several witnesses on the golf course stated that the airplane appeared to be taking off, and noted that it was "struggling," that it was "too low," and was "bobbing up and down." The airplane impacted a stand of 75-ft-tall pine trees and came to rest on the golf course, where it was consumed by a post-crash fire. The rear seat passenger was fatally injured; the pilot and front seat passenger received serious injuries. Neither the pilot nor the passenger could recall the events of the accident flight.Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The landing runway measured 2,700 ft long by 40 ft wide. Given the witness observation of the airplane's fast approach speed, it is likely that the pilot initiated a go-around due to excessive airspeed and/or a lack of runway remaining on which to stop; however, it could not be determined when the pilot began the go-around maneuver. The airplane's low altitude as it climbed away from the runway suggests that the pilot may have initiated the go-around near touchdown or possibly even after touching down. Had the pilot started the go-around earlier, after recognizing the airplane's unstabilized approach due to excessive airspeed, he would have allowed more time to re-configure the airplane, establish a positive rate of climb, and clear the trees near the end of the runway. However, the late go-around placed the airplane in close proximity to the trees, from which the pilot subsequently failed to maintain lateral clearance.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped bi-plane reported that he was performing a short field landing on a rough grass runway. The pilot further reported that he applied the brakes immediately after touchdown, and then felt the main landing gear "grab" and the tail begin to rise. Subsequently, the bi-plane nosed over on the runway. The pilot reported that he "should not have applied the brakes so soon" after touchdown.     The vertical stabilizer sustained substantial damage.The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the bi-plane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was conducting a personal flight under day visual meteorological conditions. Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control (ATC) radar data depicted the airplane about 0.5 mile northwest of the departure airport. It proceeded on a northeasterly course toward the destination airport and subsequently turned to the southeast before becoming established on a southwesterly course. After proceeding about 3 miles, the airplane reversed to a northwesterly course, and ultimately turned to a southwesterly course. The airplane impacted a wooded ravine about 0.5 mile south of the final radar data point. Variations in the airplane's groundspeed and altitude during the maneuvers was consistent with controlled and powered flight. There were no witnesses to the accident. The site was ultimately located about 5 days after the accident following a ground search based, in part, on ATC radar data. An examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any anomalies consistent with a preimpact failure or malfunction. Toxicology testing found no drugs, and the presence of ethanol in urine but not blood suggests that the ethanol was from sources other than ingestion.
The pilot was returning to the airport from a local personal flight. The airplane completed two low approaches and then made a left turn to reenter the traffic pattern. Two witnesses reported that, when the airplane was on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern, the engine sound changed; one reported that the engine sputtered and "cut out." The airplane then banked left and pitched nose down before impacting the ground, consistent with an aerodynamic stall. The propeller governor was examined, and no pre-impact anomalies were noted. The examination noted scrape marks on the propeller governor. According to the manufacturer, the scrape marks were made when the gears were turning opposite the direction of normal rotation, indicating that the propeller was not rotating to propel the airplane forward when the marks were made. An examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of pre-impact mechanical malfunctions or failures; however, extensive thermal damage precluded a detailed examination. Additionally, the airplane's fuel state prior to the accident could not be accurately determined.Toxicological testing identified 0.024 ug/ml of diphenhydramine in heart blood and detected diphenhydramine in urine. The postmortem blood diphenhydramine level was below the therapeutic range, which suggests that the pilot's level was likely below therapeutic and impairing levels at the time of the crash. Therefore, it is unlikely that the pilot's use of diphenhydramine at some time before the accident flight contributed to the accident.
The private pilot had owned the amphibious airplane for 3 weeks, and had performed about 30 water landings in the airplane. The pilot stated that, during takeoff on the accident flight, the airplane was veering "severely" to the left; however, he continued the takeoff. The flight was unremarkable, and the pilot returned to the lake to land the airplane. Upon touchdown, the airplane veered to the left, nosed over, and came to rest inverted. The passenger stated that the airplane bounced during the landing, and a witness stated that the airplane landed "hard" on the water, bounced about 10 ft into the air, then impacted the water again. Examination of the left float skin revealed signatures consistent with overstress failure. It is likely that the pilot's hard, bounced landing resulted in the failure of the left float skin.
According to the pilot, while maneuvering the glider about 2,900 feet above ground level, the pilot determined that the wind conditions were not conducive to sustain flight and turned toward the runway in order to establish an approach. He recalled that while maneuvering toward the runway, he encountered downdrafts and began to lose altitude rapidly. He reported that he issued a mayday call about ¾ of a statute mile from the runway, established a nose up attitude to decrease the airspeed, and the glider impacted the trees. The glider sustained substantial damage to the right wing and fuselage.  The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or anomalies with the glider prior to or during the flight that would have prevented normal flight operation.
The private pilot departed on a cross-country flight in his experimental, amateur-built airplane, which was equipped with an electronic ignition system. The pilot did not detect any electrical system anomalies before departure, but, about 14 minutes into the flight, the avionics switched to internal battery power. The pilot was unable to troubleshoot the electrical system, and about 2 minutes later the engine experienced a total loss of power. During the subsequent forced landing to a road, the airplane's left wing impacted a road sign, resulting in substantial damage. The pilot conducted a postaccident examination of the airplane and found a loose connection at the generator regulator output. This eventually led to the total loss of electrical power and a subsequent loss of engine power.
The light sport pilot was departing uphill from a 2,000-ft-long by 200-ft-wide gravel-covered runway, which was surrounded by trees. He said that, as the airplane approached midfield, it became airborne and the engine "sputtered," so he elected to abort the takeoff. After the airplane touched down, he was unable to stop it before striking a stand of trees at the end of the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. A maintenance technician's postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. An aviation weather reporting station located 2 miles southeast of the accident site reported weather conditions about the time of the accident that were conducive for light to moderate carburetor icing at any engine power setting; however, the investigation could not determine whether carburetor icing caused the loss of engine power.
During a local flight, the pilot noticed a "miss" in the engine, and observed a gradual loss of power. The pilot advanced the throttle, verified the positions of the mixture control and fuel selector, and briefly applied carburetor heat; however, the engine did not respond, and the pilot turned the carburetor heat control off. The pilot elected to perform a forced landing to a nearby field. Examination of the airplane did not reveal any anomalies. Although the airplane was operating in an area that was conducive to the serious risk of carburetor ice accumulation at a glide power setting, the engine was operating at a cruise power setting at the time of the loss of power. However, had the carburetor accumulated ice, the pilot's brief activation of the carburetor heat would have been insufficient to remedy the situation.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during the touch-and-go takeoff roll, he observed the windsock shift direction, the left wing of the airplane lifted very fast, and the airplane rolled to the right. The pilot further reported that when the left wing came back down, the airplane was orientated toward the ground. Subsequently the left wing of the airplane impacted the ground, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing.  According to the pilot there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located on the airport revealed that, about the time of the accident, conditions were wind variable at 3 knots. The airplane was landing on runway 27.
According to the pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane, during the landing roll, the airplane encountered a crosswind gust and he applied right rudder. He reported that a subsequent wind gust lifted the right wing, triggering a ground loop to the right and the airplane exited the right side of the runway. He recalled that the airplane was headed for a water drainage catch basin and he decided to add full power, and attempt to fly out of the ground loop in an effort to avoid the catch basin. The right wheel of the airplane collided with the perimeter of the catch basin and the airplane spun to the right. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing lift strut.According to the nearest meteorological aerodrome report, 19 miles south, the wind about the time of the accident was variable at 3 knots. The pilot landed on runway 27.The pilot reported that there were not any mechanical anomalies or malfunctions with any portion the airplane prior to the accident that would have prevented normal flight operations.
The flight instructor reported that, due to known thunderstorms northwest of the airport, he planned to remain in the traffic pattern during the instructional flight. Automated weather equipment located at the airport also reported lightning in the vicinity of the airport immediately before the flight departed with the student pilot flying the airplane. While on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern, the flight instructor realized that the storm, including heavy rain and possible windshear, had approached the airport more quickly than expected. He noted that the airplane was 300 ft above the pattern altitude, and he told the student to reduce power to descend. The throttle was already at idle power, but the airplane was not descending. As the student turned the airplane onto the base leg, the flight instructor observed a corporate jet execute a go-around before reaching the end of the runway. He then noted that the airplane's primary flight display indicated that was it descending at 1,500 ft per minute. He then took control of the airplane, added full power, and set a climb attitude. Realizing that they would not be able to land on the runway before the heavy rain and possible windshear conditions arrived, the flight instructor chose to conduct a go-around and turned away from the storm and flew to the southeast at full power with the carburetor heat on. He estimated that the airplane was about 200 ft above ground level when it encountered heavy rain, which reduced the visibility to "virtually 0." His priority was to keep the wings level with a slight nose-high attitude to gain altitude. He heard the student pilot say "pull up" about the time that the airplane impacted a plowed field. The flight instructor also stated that there was hail at the time of the accident. The flight instructor reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane.