roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
On August 3, 2016 at 7:45 pm eastern daylight time, American Airlines flight 1007, an Airbus A319, N9010R, encountered clear air turbulence on descent to the Owen Roberts International Airport (GCM), George Town, Cayman Islands.  As a result of the turbulence, one passenger received  serious injuries and four passengers and three flight attendants received minor injuries.  None of the other passengers and crew were injured and the airplane was not damaged.The operator reported that while over international waters, the flight experienced moderate to severe turbulence for approximately 6-8 seconds while descending through FL180 into GCM.  Both the autopilot and weather radar were on and operating at the time.  The flight was in visual meteorological conditions and the crew had no warning of turbulence.  The seat belt sign was on and had been on for approximately 10 minutes before the turbulence event occurred.  The flight landed safely without further incident.  The injured passenger was taken to the hospital and diagnosed with a fractured vertebra.
Shortly after takeoff on an instructional flight, the pilots heard a sudden change in engine noise. The instructor scanned the engine instruments and observed that the engine rpm was lower than expected. The instructor took control of the airplane and attempted to return to the airport. The airplane was not able to maintain altitude, and the instructor could not restore engine power to full. Unable to reach the airport, the instructor initiated a forced landing to a field. During the approach, the airplane collided with a power transmission line and impacted terrain. An examination of the engine found that the Nos. 1 and 2 exhaust valves displayed excessive wear. While such wear will result in a loss of engine power, it could not be determined what caused the sudden change in noise and engine power that the pilots experienced on the day of the accident.
The commercial pilot was completing a scheduled biweekly patrol of a series of intersecting pipelines. When the helicopter failed to arrive as scheduled, a search was initiated. The helicopter was located partially submerged in a remote, thickly wooded cypress swamp. The damage to the helicopter and to surrounding trees indicated that the helicopter was in a near-vertical descent with a nose-down attitude at impact. Examination of the helicopter and engine revealed no evidence of preimpact discrepancies or anomalies, and damage to the main rotor blades was consistent with the engine producing power at impact. Review of weather information revealed that there was a large thunderstorm complex in the area, but it did not extend over the accident site. The closest weather station, located about 18 miles from the accident site, was reporting visual flight rules to marginal flight rules conditions due to light rain and a broken-to-overcast cloud layer. Due to an overcast layer of high cirriform clouds over the accident site, it was not possible to determine if any low clouds were in the immediate vicinity of the accident site. The circumstances of the accident are consistent with a loss of control by the pilot. The reason for the pilot's loss of helicopter control could not be determined.
The pilot reported that during the final approach to land, about 200 feet prior to the runway threshold, he turned his attention to the airspeed indicator and "must have turned the yoke to the left". Subsequently, the airplane drifted to the left and impacted a tree with the left wing about 10-12 feet off the ground. The airplane spun to the left and impacted terrain.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left and right wings.The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The tailwheel endorsed pilot reported that he was practicing stop and go landing's in a make and model tailwheel-equipped airplane that he had never flown before. During the fourth stop and go, the pilot reported that during the landing roll at 35 miles per hour the airplane began to turn to the right and he attempted to correct. Subsequently, the airplane continued to the right, departed the runway, and ground looped. During the ground loop, the left main landing gear collapsed and the left wing was substantially damaged after the impact with terrain.The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that while practicing stop-and-go landings with a crosswind condition, the tricycle-geared weight-shift control (WSC) airplane "weathervaned" to the right upon touchdown. In an attempt to correct for the weathervane, the pilot applied right pedal, the airplane departed the runway to the right, and tipped over coming to rest on the right leading edge of the wing. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wing keel.A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aviation safety inspector who responded to the accident site reported that he observed no mechanical malfunctions or failures with airframe and engine that would have precluded normal operation and none was reported to him by the pilot.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 had additional training that concentrated on ground handling and crosswind condition operations. The FAA has published the Weight-Shift Control Aircraft Flying Handbook FAA-H-8083-5 (2008). This handbook discusses crosswind landing procedures for WSC airplanes and states in part:When in final approach, the wind correction angle (crab angle) is established by heading toward the wind with the wings level so that the aircraft's ground track remains aligned with the centerline of the runway. This crab angle is maintained all the way to touchdown, when the rear wheels hit first and rotate the carriage and wing around so the front wheel touches the ground with the carriage going straight. However, if in turbulent air or pitched forward during the touchdown, with the front wheel touching the ground first, the pilot should lightly control the steering of the front wheel to be headed in the direction the carriage is going. WSC carriage front landing gear typically has camber that tends to steer the front wheel naturally in the direction of travel, so a light touch on the front wheel as it touches the ground allows it to find its own direction of travel. Once the front wheel is on the ground, lower the nose to keep the WSC on the ground and steer as required down the center of the runway. Page 2 of 6 ANC16CA050The procedure for the wing during the roundout is the same as that for normal and turbulent roundout and touchdowns. The exception is that after touchdown the windward wing should be lowered slightly so the wind cannot get under it to flip the WSC aircraft during later landing roll and taxi.
The instrument-rated commercial pilot departed from an airport adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico with an instrument flight rules clearance for a cross-country flight in dark night, visual meteorological conditions. The flight continued in a south-southwesterly direction, climbing to about 900 ft over the gulf, where it entered a steep right turn. The airplane then descended at a steep rate and impacted the water in a nose-low attitude. Postaccident examination of the recovered wreckage, including flight controls, engines, and propellers revealed no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction.While the outlet fuel line from the left auxiliary fuel pump was found separated and there was evidence that the B-nut was loose and had been only secured by the first 2 threads, recorded data from the engine monitor for the flight revealed no loss of power from either engine. Therefore, the final separation likely occurred during the impact sequence.Although the accident pilot was instrument rated and had recently completed instrument currency training, the dark night conditions present at the time of the accident combined with a further lack of visual references due to the airplane's location over a large body of water, presented a situation conducive to the development of spatial disorientation. The pilot had been instructed by air traffic control to turn southwest after takeoff; however, the continuation of the turn past the intended course and the airplane's steep bank angle and excessive rate of descent are consistent with a loss of control due to spatial disorientation.
The private pilot was conducting the first flight in the airplane after having removed a failed vacuum pump from the engine; the pilot was not a certified airframe and powerplant mechanic. During the flight, the engine lost power, and the pilot subsequently landed the airplane on a highway, and the left wing contacted a road sign, which resulted in substantial damage. The pilot reported that he had recently had a mechanic remove a failed vacuum pump on a different airplane that he owned and that he was able to fly that airplane without the pump. As a result, he thought he could also fly the accident airplane without a vacuum pump. However, the vacuum pumps were mounted on each airplane differently, and the pilot's removal of the vacuum pump on the accident airplane allowed oil to exit the engine through the drive gear opening on the accessory case, which resulted in oil starvation.
The pilot reported that after touching down during landing, he pulled back on the yoke "too far too fast" and the airplane ballooned. During the balloon, the pilot reported that he "failed to push the power to full" and conduct proper aborted landing procedures. The airplane landed hard on the runway and the pilot taxied back to the ramp without further incident.During a postaccident examination, substantial damage to the firewall was discovered.The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during landing the airplane's nose wheel impacted the runway first and the axle broke. The pilot further reported that the airplane continued to slide on the runway bending the nose wheel strut, which resulted in substantial damage to the airplane's firewall.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 solo student pilot reported that during the third landing of his first solo, the airplane was a "little high" on final approach. He further reported that during the landing flare, the right wing was lifted by a crosswind and the airplane bounced nose wheel first on the runway. Subsequently, the nose wheel partially collapsed, the propeller struck the runway, and the airplane skidded to a stop on the runway.The firewall sustained substantial damage.The student pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The automated weather observing system (AWOS) at the airport about 7 minutes before the accident recorded the wind at 020 degrees true at 11 knots, gusting to 15 knots. The AWOS at the airport about 53 minutes after the accident recorded the wind at 330 degrees true at 8 knots. The student pilot reported that the landing was on runway 33.
The private pilot was conducting a cross-country flight when the airplane had a partial loss of engine power during cruise flight. The pilot stated that the engine continued to run but that there was an excessive vibration and significant loss of power. The pilot's corrective actions did not restore normal engine operation, and he made a forced landing in a nearby field. The airplane's nose landing gear collapsed when it impacted a berm during the landing roll, and the airplane came to rest in a nose-down attitude with structural damage to the lower fuselage.A postaccident engine examination revealed a failure of the No. 4 cylinder exhaust valve. About 1/2 of the No. 4 exhaust valve was located during the examination, and the recovered portions exhibited significant impact damage. The failure of the No. 4 cylinder exhaust valve would have resulted in a significant loss of engine power during the flight. The engine had accumulated 2,146.9 hours since its last major overhaul, which was completed more than 27 years before the accident. According to available maintenance documentation, the No. 4 cylinder exhaust valve had not been repaired or replaced since the last major overhaul. According to the engine manufacturer, the recommended time between overhaul (TBO) is every 1,800 hours or 12 years, whichever occurs first; however, the operator was not required to comply with the recommended TBO interval under current regulations due to the type of operation.
The student pilot reported that during the landing roll in gusty right crosswind conditions the right wing lifted and the airplane drifted off the runway to the left. The airplane impacted terrain, which resulted in a collapsed nose gear and substantial damage to the right wing.The pilot reported that 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 7 minutes before the accident the wind was 050 degrees true at 5 knots, visibility 10 statute miles, and sky clear. The airplane landed on runway 15.
According to the private pilot, the engine run-up, taxi to the runway, and takeoff were normal. After establishing a positive climb rate, the pilot retracted the landing gear. Shortly after the gear retraction, the engine lost total power. The pilot quickly tried to restart the engine without success and then conducted a forced landing on the remaining runway. The airplane impacted the side of the runway and came to rest upright. An examination of the engine revealed no anomalies. No fuel was found in the fuel lines from the firewall to the engine fuel system components. The fuel selector valve and gascolator were removed for further examination and testing. A vacuum test of the fuel selector valve revealed no anomalies. The gascolator exhibited fuel staining on the top of the casting. A vacuum test of the gascolator revealed that it leaked severely due to degraded rubber gaskets. It is likely that the leaks in the gascolator allowed air to enter the fuel system and resulted in the loss of engine power. The pilot stated that he typically needed to use the electric fuel boost pump in the low position to keep the engine running smoothly during the run-up and taxi until the engine reached normal operating temperature, which was contrary to the airplane checklist that was provided by the pilot.
The solo student pilot reported that during takeoff the airplane veered off the runway to the left and impacted a wind sock.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.The student pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of a light single-engine airplane reported that while on a taxiway under air traffic control (ATC) instruction the airplane encountered jet blast, originating from a larger turbine-powered airplane being marshaled by ground personnel. Subsequently, the airplane's empennage lifted and the propeller and left wing struck the ground, which resulted in substantial damage to the firewall.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 Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Information Manual in part states: "During ground operations and during takeoff, jet engine blast (thrust stream turbulence) can cause damage and upsets if encountered at close range. Exhaust velocity versus distance studies at various thrust levels have shown a need for light aircraft to maintain an adequate separation behind large turbojet aircraft. Pilots of larger aircraft should be particularly careful to consider the effects of their "jet blast" on other aircraft, vehicles, and maintenance equipment during ground operations."
The pilot reported that he was landing in variable, gusting wind conditions and that prior to initiating the landing flare, his approach airspeed was about 45 miles per hour. About 12 feet above the runway the airplane lost lift, dropped to runway, and landed hard He recalled that the airplane impacted the runway about 150 feet from the threshold, the left landing gear partially collapsed, the airplane veered left and exited the left side of the runway, impacted a drainage culvert and nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings, engine mounts, and the empennage. The pilot reported that during the flight there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with any portion of the airplane that would have prevented normal flight operations. As a recommendation, the pilot wrote that for the conditions he should have approached at a higher airspeed and flared further down the runway.
The commercial pilot was performing an aerial application flight to an area that a ground crewman described as a "wire farm" due to the number of power lines present. The pilot did not complete a circling pass over the target field to identify hazards before descending for the first aerial application pass. The pilot flew over a set of power lines, activated the airplane's spray function, and completed one pass to the north. The airplane then climbed and made a left turn before descending toward the west side of the target field for a pass to the south. The pilot completed a pass on the west side, then impacted power lines on the south side of the field. The airplane continued south and impacted a corn field, where it came to rest upright. The top of the vertical stabilizer and the rudder were found near the power lines. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed evidence of multiple wire strikes to the canopy, wire protection system, and empennage. At least one wire was deflected over the canopy, along the wire deflector cable, and cut through the vertical stabilizer and rudder. At least one wire impacted the aluminum wire protection bar and the cockpit structure consistent with the wire not deflecting over the canopy. The examination did not reveal any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
During the aerial application flight, the commercial pilot was flying at 45 knots when he looked at his navigation system to ensure that he was on course. He felt the helicopter slow down and looked up to see that he had descended into the soybean field. The helicopter rotated 180° and came to rest on its right side, resulting in substantial damage. Postaccident examination of the wreckage did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the helicopter.
The pilot reported that after a hard landing the airplane began to porpoise and he decided to abort the landing. The pilot reported that during the aborted landing, he added power and as the airplane began to climb, he retracted the flaps too soon and too quickly and the airplane settled back onto the runway, landed hard again, veered off the runway to the right, collapsed the nose gear, and stopped in a nose down attitude.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right aileron, fuselage, and empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.The procedures for a balked landing, as provided by Cessna, state:1. Power – Full throttle and 2700 RPM2. Carburetor Heat – Cold3. Wing Flaps – Retract to 20 degrees4. Upon reaching an airspeed of approximately 75 MPH, retract flaps slowly  The pilot reported as a safety recommendation to wait longer for the aircraft to further stabilize, gain speed, and begin climbing before retracting flaps.Page 2 of 6 GAA16CA404
During an instructional flight, the pilot receiving instruction reduced engine power in preparation for an approach to the destination airport. He subsequently attempted to add power and level off; however, the engine was unresponsive and then lost total power. The flight instructor took control of the airplane and performed the engine failure checklist but was unsuccessful in restarting the engine. He was unable to glide the airplane to the destination airport and performed a forced landing in a wooded area about 3 miles from the runway, which resulted in damage to the wings.Examination of the wreckage at the accident site and again at a recovery facility revealed that the right fuel tank was breached and devoid of fuel. The left fuel tank remained attached and was nearly full of fuel. The fuel was clear and absent of water or visible contamination. Examination and testing of the fuel-injected engine, ignition system, and fuel system, including hand rotation of the propeller, did not reveal any evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Thus, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The pilot reported that during the landing in gusty crosswind conditions, the airplane touched down "firm" with the landing gear side loaded. The pilot further reported that the airplane immediately veered off the runway to the left. During the runway excursion, the airplane encountered a steep ravine located about 300 feet from the runway centerline; subsequently the landing gear collapsed. The right elevator and right wing sustained substantial damage. The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The automated weather observation station (AWOS) at the airport four minutes before the accident recorded the wind at 250 degrees true at 10 knots. The AWOS about 56 minutes after the accident recorded the wind at 260 degrees true at 7 knots, gusting to 14 knots. The pilot reported that the landing was on a runway aligned with 170 degrees magnetic.
The commercial pilot was performing an aerial application flight when the airplane struck the ground in a right wing low, 60° nose-down attitude. Flight track data from an onboard aerial guidance system revealed that the airplane had completed 6 previous aerial applications that morning, and was engaged in a seventh application when the accident occurred. During the last application, the airplane made 4 passes followed by shallow turns to reverse direction. During these turns, the airplane climbed until it reached 90° abeam the direction of application, then descended as it completed the turn on the opposite heading. The accident occurred during the turn between the fourth and fifth passes. Postaccident examination of the airframe, engine, and propeller revealed no evidence of any mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The flap actuator was found extended 3-7/8 inches, correlating to a flap extension of 30°. Based on the recorded data, the characteristics of the airplane's last turn before impact did not vary greatly from that of the other turns performed during the accident flight. It is likely that, during the turn, the pilot allowed the airspeed to decay and the airplane exceeded its critical angle of attack, which resulted in an inadvertent aerodynamic stall at an altitude which did not allow for recovery.