roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The 76-year-old commercial pilot was making a personal cross-country flight in the airplane. Video from the departure airport's security camera showed the airplane taking off about 38 minutes before sunrise. Shortly thereafter, a witness 4 miles southeast of the airport reported hearing the airplane fly over at a low altitude followed by the sound of impact.The ground scars and wreckage distribution at the accident site indicated that the airplane likely impacted terrain in a near straight-and-level attitude and at an airspeed within the normal flight envelope, suggesting that the airplane was under control at the time of impact. During examination of the airframe and engine, no anomalies were found that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane.The pilot's autopsy revealed that he had severe coronary artery disease but no evidence of an old or new heart attack. An acute cardiac event would leave no evidence on autopsy; however, given the indications that this was controlled flight into terrain, it is unlikely that the pilot's coronary artery disease contributed to the circumstances of the accident.The pilot's toxicology findings included two potentially-impairing sedating antihistamines, chlorpheniramine and diphenhydramine. However, due to limited specimens, blood drug levels were not available, and the investigation was unable to determine whether the sedating antihistamines or the conditions being treated by the medications contributed to the circumstances of the accident. Finally, the pilot had recently been diagnosed with early dementia of the Alzheimer's type, and the cognitive and visuospatial deficits resulting from this disease likely impaired his ability to safely control the airplane. However, the investigation was unable to determine if the cognitive impairment directly contributed to the accident.
During initial climb on an instructional flight in the experimental amateur-built airplane, about 200 ft above ground level, the engine began running rough. The flight instructor immediately decreased the airplane's angle of attack and the engine subsequently experienced a total loss of power. The flight instructor tried to land on the remaining runway; however, the airplane landed hard and struck an embankment.Examination of the airplane revealed wiring that contained mismatched wire gauges and splices throughout the wiring harnesses. The ground wire for the master arm solenoid was disconnected from the back of the ignition switch. Without this ground wire, the battery was disconnected from the airplane's electrical system. The airplane's rectifier kept the fuel boost pumps running per the wiring diagrams; however, a postaccident engine run revealed that the rectifier was weak and only displacing 12.3 volts, rather than its nominal output voltage of 13.5 +/- 0.2 volts. It is likely that, during takeoff, the ground wire became disconnected from the ignition switch and the weak rectifier could not adequately supply the high electrical load requirements imposed by the fuel boost pumps, the landing gear motors retracting the gear, and the strobe lights. This degraded the performance of the fuel boost pumps, resulting in fuel starvation and a total loss of engine power.
According to the pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane, he made an approach to a dirt runway. The pilot reported that the airplane bounced during the touch down, and when it settled back to the runway the airplane's heading was not aligned with the runway heading. He recalled the airplane ground looped to the right, the left main landing gear collapsed, and the left wing struck the ground. The left wing ribs and aileron sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with any portion of the airplane that would have prevented normal flight operations.
The solo student pilot reported that after he had landed he taxied to get fuel. He was waved around behind two parked airplanes. After he passed the first airplane, the left wing of the airplane impacted a hanger.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage.The student pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The student pilot reported that this accident could have been prevented if he had remained focused "on the task of taxiing the airplane, rather than looking at the person/parking spot".
The pilot reported that during landing the wind sock at the airport indicated that the wind was variable, about 5 knots, and predominately favored runway 1. According to the FAA airport facility directory, runway 01/19 was 1,850 feet long, and soft gravel. However, 1,000 feet of northern portion of the runway was closed indefinitely. The pilot recalled that about 500 feet down the 1,850 foot runway, and just before touchdown the airplane encountered, "a pretty rapid shift in the winds in both direction and velocity." He reported that the airplane touched down momentarily, and then went airborne again. After the second touchdown, the speed did not decline as expected, and although the airplane did start to slow as it got a better grip on the gravel (which was wet from rain that had occurred earlier), he ran out of runway. He reported that the airplane overran the runway at a groundspeed of about 10 knots, went down a small embankment, had a propeller strike and the airplane sustained substantial damage when the left wing struck a post. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies during the flight that would have prevented normal flight operations. The pilot reported that he considered going around, but due to the wind and terrain rejected the idea.
The commercial pilot was conducting an agricultural spray run in the helicopter when he felt a "bump" in the cyclic. The helicopter began to shake violently, and the pilot tried to conduct a forced landing; however, the skid caught on bushes and the helicopter impacted terrain. A control rotor cuff was located about 150 ft from the main wreckage. Examination of the component at the NTSB materials laboratory found a fatigue crack starting at the cuff's bolt hole and progressing until the part separated from overload. A review of maintenance records revealed that the cuff was overhauled at 988.7 hours and had accumulated 131.9 hours since overhaul. The rotor cuff was subject to an airworthiness directive (AD) which required repetitive inspections, though the investigation was unable to determine whether the AD had been complied with. The investigation also noted ambiguity with the wording used in the AD; it was unclear whether the part was subject to replacement at 225 hours total time in service, or if the 225-hour replacement was only applicable to components without known service history. The accident is consistent with an in-flight separation of the control rotor cuff due to fatigue failure.
The pilot reported that after takeoff, and about 150 feet above the runway, the engine had a total loss of power. He further reported that a clear liquid sprayed from the upper cowling onto the windscreen. He aborted the takeoff, landed on the runway remaining, but was unable to stop prior to the end of the runway. The airplane skidded off the runway and impacted the airport perimeter fence, which resulted in substantial damage to both wings. During a postaccident examination, the cowling was removed, the electric fuel pump was actuated, and fuel was observed leaking from the fuel input line fitting at the fuel flow divider. After further examination, it was revealed that the torque strip had been disturbed and the fuel line B-nut was found to be loose. After the B-nut was tightened, no fuel leaks were observed. A review of the airplane's engine maintenance log revealed that no recent maintenance had been performed involving the fuel pump, fuel flow divider, or associated fuel lines.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll with a crosswind the airplane drifted to the left. He further reported that his control inputs to correct created a "swerve," which resulted in a ground loop to the right on the runway. During the ground loop, the left wing was substantially damaged after an impact with the runway.  An automated weather observing system near the time of the accident at the airport recorded the wind at 340 degrees true at 8 knots. The pilot reported he landed on runway 30. The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunction or failure with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he flew a straight in approach and opted to use 20 degrees of flaps for the crosswind landing. The pilot further reported that upon touchdown the airplane bounced twice and the nose landing gear collapsed.A post-accident examination of the airplane revealed 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 flight instructor of a light single-engine airplane reported that while he and the student pilot were on a taxiway under air traffic control (ATC) instruction, the airplane encountered prop wash, originating from a larger (four engine) turbine-powered airplane performing a maintenance engine(s) run-up. The maintenance run-up was performed in a location adjacent to the active taxiway that was authorized for parking as well as 80% engine(s) power run-ups. The larger turbine-powered airplane was the third in a row a five, of like model airplanes being parked at the location. The light single-engine airplane was not on frequency when the larger turbine-powered airplane was given the clearance, and was not told by ATC at any time during their taxi of the larger turbine-powered airplane's intentions. Subsequently, the light single-engine airplane was blown approximately 80 feet from its original location while taxing behind the larger turbine-powered airplane, which resulted in substantial damage to the firewall.The flight instructor reported that there were no pre impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.As a safety recommendation the flight instructor stated that the incident could have been prevented with better communications between the tower controllers and the larger turbine-powered airplane's ground personnel.
The student pilot was conducting a solo cross-country flight and filled the airplane's fuel tanks before departing on the first leg of the flight. While descending from 4,500 ft mean sea level approaching the destination airport, engine power decreased from 2,500 to 1,300 rpm. The student advanced the mixture to full rich and applied carburetor heat; however, there was no change in engine performance. Soon after, the engine experienced a total loss of power and the student performed a forced landing to a field.About 10 gallons of fuel were drained from the airplane during recovery. Examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any evidence of preaccident mechanical malfunction or abnormalities. A review of a carburetor icing chart revealed that the atmospheric conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to icing at glide and cruise power; however, since engine performance did not improve after the application of carburetor heat, it is unlikely that the loss of engine power was the result of carburetor ice.
According to the pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane, she over flew the sand bar that she wanted to land on, in order to ensure that the area was free of hazards. She reported that she executed the approach, touched down, and during the landing roll, "I hit the brakes too hard" and the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the rudder and vertical stabilizer.The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies during the flight with any portion of the airplane that would have prevented normal flight operations.
The pilot receiving instruction in a high performance tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that during the initial touchdown the airplane porpoised, then settled onto the ground in a three point landing attitude. The pilot further reported that during the landing roll the airplane veered to the left. He "applied moderate right rudder to compensate", then he applied "heavy" right rudder, but he was unable to arrest the veer. The airplane ground looped to the left, the right main landing gear collapsed, and the right wing impacted the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The Federal Aviation Administration has published the Airplane Flying Handbook FAA-H-8083-3A (2004). This handbook discusses porpoising and states in part:In a bounced landing that is improperly recovered, the airplane comes in nose first setting off a series of motions that imitate the jumps and dives of a porpoise—hence the name. The problem is improper airplane attitude at touchdown, sometimes caused by inattention, not knowing where the ground is, mistrimming or forcing the airplane onto the runway.Ground effect decreases elevator control effectiveness and increases the effort required to raise the nose. Not enough elevator or stabilator trim can result in a nose low contact with the runway and a porpoise develops.Porpoising can also be caused by improper airspeed control. Usually, if an approach is too fast, the airplane floats and the pilot tries to force it on the runway when the airplane still wants to fly. A gust of wind, a bump in the runway, or even a slight tug on the control wheel will send the air plane aloft again. Page 2 of 6 GAA16CA443The corrective action for a porpoise is the same as for a bounce and similarly depends on its severity. When it is very slight and there is no extreme change in the airplane's pitch attitude, a follow-up landing may be executed by applying sufficient power to cushion the subsequent touchdown, and smoothly adjusting the pitch to the proper touchdown attitude.
During an instructional flight in a multiengine airplane, the pilot receiving instruction had just completed a right turn at an altitude of 3,300 ft mean sea level when the flight instructor heard a loud noise and saw something separate from the right engine. The flight instructor took the controls but was unable to maintain altitude with one engine operating and performed a forced landing into a swamp. Examination of the wreckage revealed that the right engine had separated from its mounts, one propeller blade was missing, and the right propeller hub was fractured. Metallurgical examination of the propeller hub revealed a fatigue fracture along a grease-fitting hole. An airworthiness directive had been issued about 8 years before the accident that required initial (within 50 flight hours) and repetitive (every 100 flight hours) eddy current inspection of the area around the lubrication holes of the propeller hub blade sockets. The right propeller had been overhauled about 14 months before the accident and had accrued about 440 hours at the time of the accident. The airplane's most recent 100-hour inspection (which included inspection of both propellers) occurred about 3 months before the accident. Review of maintenance records did not reveal any documentation that the airworthiness directive was complied with on the overhauled right propeller hub.
The commercial pilot was conducting his sixth low-level agricultural application flight of the day. One witness reported that the airplane made a turn, appeared to stall at the top of the turn, and spiraled to the ground. Witnesses who responded immediately to the scene found the pilot unresponsive and assisted in removing him from the wreckage. Examination of the accident site indicated that the airplane impacted a wheat field in a vertical, nose-down attitude. Postaccident examination of the airplane did not reveal any evidence of preimpact failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot's cell phone records indicated that the pilot was texting at times that coincided with some of the application flights, including the accident flight. However, there was insufficient information to determine whether airborne PED use played a role in the accident flight.The toxicology testing on the pilot was positive for diphenhydramine, which is potentially impairing; however, it is unlikely that the pilot was significantly impaired by the small amount of drug found in his system. Exposure to the chemicals that the pilot was applying on the day of the accident can lead to various topical, airway, or neurological symptoms; however, there were no reports that the pilot complained of anything or displayed any unusual behavior on the day of the accident.
The commercial pilot was conducting an agricultural spraying flight in the airplane. GPS data recovered from a Satloc system on board the airplane indicated that the pilot made 16 north-south spray passes over the accident field. Three northbound passes went directly over an approximate 200-ft-tall tower located near the southwest corner of the field before the airplane descended into the field for spray runs. Following the north-south passes, the pilot completed a perimeter pass along the north border of the field on a westerly heading and entered a left turn. Due to buffering of the data by the Satloc unit, the final portion of the recorded track did not extend to the accident site; however, the final portion of the track was consistent with the pilot setting up for a perimeter pass along the south border of the field on an easterly heading; the last recorded location of the airplane was about 0.7 mile from the tower.Examination of the accident site revealed that the airplane struck a guy-wire of the tower near the southwest corner of the field and came to rest about 600 ft east of the tower. A section of the guy-wire was wrapped around the right wing of the airplane. No evidence of any preimpact mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane was found.The evidence is consistent with the pilot failing to see and avoid the tower guy-wire during the final spray pass. The pilot was aware of the tower and its location as evidenced by previous passes that were made over the tower before descending into the field. At the time of the accident, the sun was 16.3° above the horizon and 88.1° east of north; the GPS data indicate that the airplane would have been heading toward the sun on the final spray pass; however, there was an overcast layer that would have mitigated the effects of the sun on the pilot's visual capability.
The private pilot stated that, before takeoff, he waited with the engine running for about 10 minutes while other traffic departed. While waiting, he unlatched the canopy to allow air into the cockpit; however, he failed to re-secure the canopy before takeoff. Just after the airplane lifted off the runway, the canopy tilted up, and, while attempting to close it, the pilot "got distracted and neglected to fly the airplane." The airplane experienced an aerodynamic stall and impacted terrain. The pilot reported there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the pilot of the skid-equipped helicopter, he was practicing landing on an 18 foot by 18 foot transport dolly. The pilot reported that during his second landing on the dolly, he landed on the aft end of the dolly and the helicopter slid backwards. He recalled that he heard and felt a thump, pulled pitch, and the helicopter ascended about 5 feet, yawed to the right and he initiated an autorotation and landed. He reported that the bottom of the skids showed scrape marks, "so I must have slid back off the dolly and hit the tail stinger." The tailboom and the vertical stabilizer sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with any portion of the helicopter during the flight that would have prevented normal flight operations.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during landing the airplane touched down and veered to the left. The pilot further reported that he applied right rudder, but accidentally caught the right heel brake and the airplane veered off the runway to the right and subsequently nosed over.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.
On August 17, 2016, about 1215 central daylight time, United Airlines flight 1945, a Boeing 737-924, N37408, encountered moderate turbulence near Waco, Texas, while on the approach to land at George Bush Intercontinental Airport (KIAH), Houston, Texas. Of the 142 passengers and crew onboard, one flight attendant received a serious injury. The airplane was not damaged. The flight was operating under the provision of 14 CFR Part 121 as a scheduled domestic passenger flight from Seattle-Takoma International Airport (KSEA), Seattle, Washington.The captain was the pilot monitoring, and the first officer the pilot flying. About 40 minutes from landing, the captain called the cabin and asked the flight attendants to prepare the cabin early and be seated because he anticipated light chop/turbulence. As the flight was descending from FL330 feet to FL240 on the GUSHR2 RNAV arrival the airplane and was in and out of cumulus and stratus clouds. The seatbelt sign was illuminated, and the weather radar was on but there were no indications of turbulence depicted in front of the airplane, though the crew could see that the weather was building rather than dissipating with scattered cumulus clouds all around. As the flight entered one small cloud, the airplane encountered a very brief duration of moderate turbulence. The autopilot did not disengage. Shortly after, they received a call from the cabin informing them that one of the flight attendants had been injured.At the time of the turbulence, the flight attendants (FA) were finishing their passenger compliance checks and securing the galleys. One of the aft FAs was in the process of securing the final latches in the galley when she was tossed about the galley, seriously injuring her right ankle.  The other FAs assisted with stabilizing her and the flight landed without further incident. Paramedics met the airplane at the gate and the FA was transported to the hospital where she was diagnosed with a broken ankle.Page 2 of 6 DCA16CA214
The pilot reported that during the landing flare at an unpublished dirt airstrip, he entered a "low level [aerodynamic] stall." He further reported that due to the aerodynamic stall, and a "small rise" on the runway, the airplane touched down hard. During the landing roll, the pilot reported that the fuel "belly tank" installed under the fuselage separated from the airplane and the fuselage sustained substantial damaged.  The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunction or failure with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The solo student pilot reported that he was on final approach for a full stop landing when he observed another airplane waiting for the active runway. He intentionally landed long to accommodate the traffic and then "made [the] decision to keep up speed" in order to exit the runway quickly. He misjudged his speed and the airplane departed the right side of the runway, continued across a taxiway, and then down an embankment before nosing over. He later reported that the wheel brakes were less effective because he had full flaps selected. Also, he had applied aft yoke inputs, which minimized the effectiveness of the nose wheel steering system.A Federal Aviation Administration inspector examined the wreckage and reported that the airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, empennage, and both wings. The pilot reported there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane.