roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
According to the pilot of the experimental amateur-built gyroplane, during a solo cross-country flight, he became lost and decided to follow a nearby highway. Unfamiliar with the area, he exhausted the gyroplane's fuel supply and landed on a highway. The gyroplane's nosewheel struck a passing car, but the gyroplane was able to touch down and stop on the right shoulder of the highway. A passing semi-truck struck the rotor blades of the gyroplane. The gyroplane sustained substantial damage to the rotor system.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the gyroplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that the airplane yawed right, and he experienced a loss of aileron control effectiveness while on final approach for landing. He applied engine power to go around, which he perceived to worsen the problem, then chose to reduce power and land. The airplane touched down on the runway about 45° off runway heading, continued off the runway, and impacted a water retention pond.Examination of the aileron flight control system revealed no evidence of a mechanical failure or malfunction. There was evidence that the right wing contacted the runway during landing, and aileron control cable tension could not be measured due to the damage to the wing. The reason for the reported aileron flight control malfunction could not be determined.
The private pilot was nearing the destination airport at the conclusion of an approximate 1,100 nautical mile cross-country flight; the accident occurred about 5 hours 26 minutes after takeoff. During the visual approach for landing, the pilot performed a constant left turn for about 3 minutes from the downwind leg to the final leg of the traffic pattern. About the time the pilot rolled out of the left turn and onto the final approach leg, he reported to the tower controller that he had an issue and was losing engine power. The airplane subsequently impacted a gas station pump canopy and parking lot about 1 mile from the end of the runway, where it was destroyed during a post-impact fire. Several witnesses near the accident location observed the airplane at a low altitude with the wings rocking back and forth, and they heard no engine noise. A postaccident examination of the airframe and a functional engine test revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.The fuel selector was found on the left tank position. The total fuel quantity of fuel on board the airplane at takeoff and the quantity remaining in each fuel tank at the accident site could not be determined; however, the airplane would likely have been low on fuel as it neared the departure airport. It is likely that the pilot's extended left turn from downwind to final approach moved fuel away from the fuel tank pick up point, which resulted in fuel starvation and a total loss of engine power.
The pilot reported that, while landing off airport, the helicopter landed slightly harder than normal. The pilot flew the helicopter back to the airport without further incident.A postaccident examination revealed that the helicopter had sustained substantial damage to the tailboom.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
On December 6, 2017, about 2207 eastern standard time, Spirit Airlines flight NKS265, an Airbus 321-231, N670NK, encountered turbulence during approach to land at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (KFLL), Fort Lauderdale, Florida. One flight attendant received a serious injury and the airplane was not damaged. The regularly scheduled domestic passenger flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 from Atlantic City International Airport (KACY), Atlantic City, New Jersey, to KFLL.According to the flight crew, the flight encounter the severe turbulence while descending through about 12,000 shortly after entering instrument meteorological conditions.  There had been no reports of turbulence in the area and the seat belt sign was activated. At the time of the turbulence encounter, the flight attendants (FA) were conducting their final cabin checks when all five FAs were thrown to the floor.  One FA sustained an ankle injury and remained on the floor for the remainder of the flight.  After landing, all five FAs were transported to the hospital where the FA was diagnosed with a medial and posterior malleolar facture.
The pilot was conducting an instrument flight rules cross-country flight. While descending out of 8,000 ft, the airplane's engine lost total power. The pilot attempted to divert to a nearby airport; however, there were strong headwinds and the airplane would not glide all the way to the airport, so he attempted to land in a field. The airplane collided with treetops and a fence during the off-airport landing, which resulted in substantial damage to the airframe. Postaccident examination of the wreckage revealed that the intact left-wing fuel tank only contained about 20 fluid ounces of fuel, while the impact-breached right-wing fuel tank was about 1/2 full. The fuel selector was found in the left fuel tank position. The examination did not reveal any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation of the engine. Given this information, it is likely that the pilot exhausted the airplane's fuel supply in the left fuel tank and did not switch the fuel selector to the right tank, which resulted in the total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation.
According to the pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane, the airplane approached runway 10 in a "significant right crosswind," which diminished when the airplane touched down. The airplane touched down first on the right main wheel and the tailwheel about 70 knots airspeed. When the left main wheel touched down, the airplane veered to the right. The pilot applied left rudder and left brake and maintained aft stick pressure; however, the inputs were ineffective.The airplane exited the right side of the runway and nosed over.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing, the vertical stabilizer and the rudder.The METAR at the accident airport reported that about the time of the accident the wind was from 180° at 7kts.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The helicopter pilot reported that, while hovering to land on a helipad, the tail struck the ground. He added that the helicopter landed hard and rolled over onto its left side.The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, main rotor blades, and tailboom.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located on the airport revealed that, about 20 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 130° at 10 knots.
According to the pilot, during approach to runway 28, he noticed that the vertical speed indicator showed an increase in the decent rate so he applied full power.He reported that the airplane landed hard, and he heard a "pop" and believed that the main landing gear tires had failed. The airplane exited the right side of the runway and struck a runway light. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the aft bulkhead, stringer, and skin.According to the METAR at the accident airport, about the time of the accident the wind was from 230° at 28 kts gusting to 42 kts.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor reported that, during touchdown, the left wing "dipped" and the instructor initiated an aborted landing. After determining that the airplane would not climb, the instructor reduced engine power and attempted to stop the airplane, which veered off the runway surface, impacted a sign, and came to rest in the dirt adjacent to the runway. The instructor later reported that the left main landing gear had "malfunctioned" upon touchdown.  Examination of the accident site revealed that the airplane landed left of the runway centerline with all three landing gear extended; the first indication of the collapsed gear was visible in a dirt area on the left side of the runway behind a runway distance marker. Although examination of the left main landing gear revealed a small area of fatigue, the majority of the fracture surface exhibited signatures consistent with overstress failure; therefore, it is likely that the gear fractured due to overstress following the runway excursion and impact with a sign.
The private pilot departed on a cross-country flight in his high-performance, turbine-powered airplane with full tanks of fuel. He landed and had the airplane serviced with 150 gallons of fuel. He subsequently departed on the return flight. As the airplane approached the destination airport, the pilot asked for priority handling and reported that the airplane "lost a transfer pump and had a little less fuel than he thought," and he did not want to come in with a single engine. When asked if he needed assistance, he replied "negative." The pilot was cleared to perform a visual approach to runway 19 during night conditions. As the airplane approached the airport, the pilot requested the runway lights for runway 25 be turned on and reported that the airplane lost engine power in one engine. The controller advised that the lights on runway 25 were being turned on and issued a landing clearance. The airplane impacted terrain before the threshold for runway 25.During examination of the recovered wreckage, flight control continuity was established. No useable amount of fuel was found in any of the airplane's fuel tanks; however, fuel was observed in the fuel lines. All transfer pumps and boost pumps were operational. The engine-driven fuel pumps on both engines contained fuel in their respective fuel filter bowls. Both pumps were able to rotate when their input shafts were manipulated by hand. Disassembly of both pumps revealed that their inlet filters were free of obstructions. Bearing surfaces in both pumps exhibited pitting consistent with pump operation with inadequate fuel lubrication and fuel not reaching the pump. The examination revealed no evidence of airframe or engine preimpact malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane.Performance calculations using a flight planning method described in the airplane flight manual indicated that the airplane could have made the return flight with about 18 gallons (119 lbs) of fuel remaining. However, performance calculations using a fuel burn simulation method developed from the fuel burn and data from the airplane flight manual indicated that the airplane would have run out of fuel on approach. Regulations require that a flight depart with enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, at night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes. The Page 2 of 11 CEN18LA047calculated 45-minute night reserves required about 56 gallons (366 lbs) of fuel using a maximum recommended cruise power setting or about 37.8 gallons (246 lbs) of fuel using a maximum range power setting. Regardless of the flight planning method he could have used, the pilot did not depart on the accident flight with the required fuel reserves and exhausted all useable fuel while on approach to the destination.
According to the pilot, he took off at night, and during the initial climb about 800ft above the ground, the airplane ran into a flock of birds. The pilot declared an emergency with the tower and landed the airplane without further incident.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wind screen and the windscreen frame.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 cruise flight, he saw flickering from below his seat and that he observed a fire had started when he looked under his seat. He made an emergency landing to an open field and exited the airplane before it burst into flames. The cockpit was thermally damaged, and the airplane sustained substantial damaged to the undercarriage of the fuselage. Examination of the fuel selector valve trim panel with attached wires, a fuel flow valve with fuel lines, and a portion of electrical wiring revealed a pin hole in a fuel line near the fuel selector valve as well as damaged electrical wiring. Damage to the fuel line was consistent with electrical arc corrosion.
When the airplane was about 5 miles from the airport, the commercial pilot lowered the landing gear and noted that the right main landing gear (MLG) was slow to extend, but within a few seconds, all three gear down indicator lights illuminated. The airplane descended normally, and when it was above the runway about to flare, the right MLG indicator light extinguished. The pilot initiated a go-around, increased engine power, pitched for climb, and retracted the MLG and flaps. The airplane likely settled after the flaps were retracted, and the pilot heard a noise similar to a propeller blade contacting something. The pilot decided to abort the go-around and landed the airplane straight ahead. The airplane came to a stop on the runway with the MLG retracted. Postaccident MLG retraction tests were performed satisfactorily, and no defects were noted. Based on the available information, the reason that the right MLG did not fully extend and lock could not be determined.
On December 3, 2017, about 1825 eastern standard time, American Airlines flight 1531, an Airbus 319, N9011P, collided with American Airlines flight 1613, a Boeing 737-800, N344PP, on a taxiway at Miami International Airport (KMIA), Miami, Florida. There were no injuries to the occupants of either airplane and N344PP was substantially damaged. Both flights were scheduled passenger flights operating under the provisions of Title 14 CFR Part 121. N9011P originated from Toncontín International Airport (MHTG), Tegucigalpa, Honduras, and had 126 passengers and crew onboard. N344PP originated from Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport (TJSJ), San Juan, Puerto Rico, and had 168 passengers and crew onboard. According to flight crew statements, N344PP had landed on runway 09 and was instructed to turn onto taxiway N5 from taxiway M.  The captain set the parking brake as they waited for preceding traffic to clear.N9011P was following N344PP along taxiway M and observed N344PP stop on the taxiway N5 with its tail partially blocking taxiway M.  After several minutes of waiting, N9011P requested permission to taxi past N344PP, which was granted. As the Captain of N9011P slowly taxied, the first officer (FO) attempted to visually monitor clearance between their airplanes wingtip and N344PPs horizontal stabilizer.  The FO stated that he was temporarily blinded by the glare from the ramp lights and the airplanes collided. N9011P received minor damage to its right wingtip and the lower spar of N344PP's horizontal stabilizer was fractured.
While the commercial pilot was lowering the landing gear for the approach to landing, the left main landing gear (MLG) did not indicate down and locked. The pilot cycled the landing gear three times and then used the manual landing gear extension procedure, but the gear did not extend. After airport personnel reported that all three landing gear appeared to be down, the pilot continued the approach for a full-stop landing. After touchdown, the left MLG collapsed. The airplane turned 90° to the left and then came to a stop in the grass adjacent to the runway. The left wing sustained substantial damage.Postaccident examination of the left MLG revealed that it remained partially retracted in the gear well. The other landing gear were down and locked. After the airplane was raised with a backhoe and the left MLG was manually pulled down, the down-lock hooks would not engage, and the drag links would not allow full extension. When a mechanic ran his finger through the drag link mating surfaces, a small stone fell out. Once the stone was removed, the left MLG extended and locked normally. It is likely that the stone had become lodged in the left MLG drag link and prevented the left MLG from locking.
The private pilot stated that, after a smooth landing, the left main landing gear tire failed, and the left wingtip struck the runway. A witness reported that the airplane made a "shallow" bounce when it first touched down on the runway. When the airplane touched down again, the left main tire blew. The airplane's left wing then dipped down and dragged on the runway surface for about 20 to 30 ft before the airplane nosed over, which resulted in substantial damage to the firewall and an engine mount. Examination of the left main tire revealed features consistent with a progressive fracture through the rubber due to the overload failure of the underlying cords. Examination of the tire revealed no evidence of any preexisting damage or material deficiencies. Therefore, based on the witness statement and the left main tire examination, it is likely that the pilot failed to properly flare the airplane, which resulted in a bounced landing and the tire failing.
According to the flight instructor, after conducting a local, instructional flight, he and the student pilot returned to the airport to practice touch-and-go landings. After successfully completing one touch-and-go landing, they switched to another runway. During the approach, the airplane was high on the glidepath, and the student subsequently initiated a go-around. The instructor reported that, during the go-around, when the airplane was about 150 ft above ground level, the engine “sputtered” and then lost all power. Realizing that the airplane would not be able to reach the runway, the flight instructor chose to conduct a forced landing in a nearby field, during which the left wing stuck a utility pole, and the right wing struck a tree, which resulted in substantial damage to both wings. During postaccident examination of the airplane, the fuel tank sumps and strainer were drained, and a large amount of water was observed in the fuel. During a test run, the engine had difficulty starting. The carburetor was removed, and the examination revealed no evidence of any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation, and no debris or other contaminants were found. After the carburetor was replaced, the engine started with some hesitation but then ran smoothly at various power settings. Given the evidence, it is likely that the fuel lines and carburetor were contaminated with water because the instructor failed to ensure that water was sufficiently drained from the fuel system during the preflight inspection, which resulted in a total loss of engine power.
The sport pilot of the experimental, amateur-built airplane was returning to the airport after a 30-minute flight. A witness saw the airplane on final approach to the runway about 500 ft above ground level when he heard a total loss of engine power. The airplane banked left and right and entered a nose-down descent consistent with an aerodynamic stall condition. The airplane impacted terrain short of the runway. Although the witness, an acquaintance of the accident pilot, estimated that the pilot had accrued about 10 hours of flight time in the airplane since purchasing it about 1 year prior, the pilot's logbook was not located during the investigation, and his experience level in the accident airplane could not be determined. Additionally, it could not be determined if the pilot had obtained transition training in the accident airplane, which was classified as a low-inertia/high-drag airplane. Low-inertia/high-drag airplanes rapidly lose energy (airspeed and/or altitude) when there is a loss or reduction of power, and are particularly susceptible to unintentional aerodynamic stalls due to their low cruise speed to stall speed margin and their tendency to experience significant airspeed decay with increased load factor (such as during a turn). Examination of the airplane and engine revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation; therefore, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined. It is likely that the pilot failed to attain a proper airspeed following the loss of engine power, which resulted in an exceedance of the airplane's critical angle of attack, an aerodynamic stall, and impact with terrain.
The pilot reported that the tailwheel-equipped biplane bounced during the initial touchdown of a three-point, touch-and-go landing. He added that the biplane settled back onto the runway and that he continued to maintain the runway centerline. Subsequently, when he raised the tail for takeoff, the biplane veered sharply to the right, and the lower left wing struck the ground. The biplane sustained substantial damage to the lower left aileron.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the biplane that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot added that he may have "accidently hit the right brake" during the landing roll.
The sport pilot and pilot-rated passenger departed in the gyroplane at an unknown time. A hunter in the area of the accident site heard a loud sound similar to a gunshot, but dismissed it as another hunter. He left the area shortly thereafter and while walking, saw a grass fire; authorities who responded found the wreckage, which was about 0.17 miles from the departure airport.The gyroplane descended through trees at a steep angle and the left main landing gear impacted the ground first; the gyroplane came to rest on its right side and was destroyed as a result of the postcrash fire. Examination of the flight controls, engine, and engine systems revealed no evidence of pre-impact failure or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation.A mechanic familiar with the gyroplane reported that the pilot had repaired a fuel tank leak several months before the accident. The day before the accident, the owner reported smelling fuel while in the cabin, but stated that he had not observed any fuel leaks. Whether the pilot identified the source of the fuel smell or made any repairs before the accident flight could not be determined. Autopsy and toxicology testing of the pilot revealed no evidence of physiological impairment or incapacitation. The reason for the gyroplane's steep descent and impact with terrain could not be determined based on the available information.
The pilot reported that, while making a straight-in approach to a private airport just after dusk, but before dark, he attempted to activate the pilot-controlled lighting (PCL) but was unsuccessful. He added that he continued toward the airport, and while maneuvering for landing, he lost sight of the airport. The pilot did not regain visual reference of the airport during the landing descent, and the airplane impacted a fence adjacent to the runway.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The airport owner reported that the PCL antenna required line-of-sight with the aircraft to operate the PCL system. Due to the antenna's position and hangars on the airport, the antenna did not receive signals from the southeast, the direction from which the accident airplane was approaching. He added that, because the airport was private, he could not issue a NOTAM to describe the operation of the runway lights.