roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot was conducting a personal flight in visual meteorological conditions below the minimum safe altitudes and over congested areas when the airplane impacted the center of a water tower. Witnesses observed the airplane in straight and level flight before impact and reported the engine was running at that time. Examination of the wreckage revealed no anomalies that would have prevented the pilot from maneuvering to avoid the tower. The pilot’s toxicology results were positive for an antidepressant and a sedating antihistamine. The pilot was operating the airplane with an expired medical certificate, and his medical records indicated that he had been prescribed an antidepressant to treat anxiety/depression. This medication required the pilot to obtain a special issuance medical certificate before operating the airplane. It could not be determined if the pilot was impaired by his use of these medications or by the underlying conditions that warranted the medication.The reasons that the pilot operated the airplane over a congested area at a low altitude and failed to avoid the water tower could not be determined based on the available evidence for this investigation.
The pilot reported that, after landing on runway 11, he realized runway 5/23 was being used as a taxiway so he back taxied onto runway 23. He saw another airplane taxiing toward him and made several CTAF transmissions to the pilot but received no response. Not knowing the taxiing airplane's intentions, he maneuvered his airplane to the left side of runway 5, and the left wing struck a construction sign. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and aileron. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was departing on the first flight of the day to conduct aerial seeding. After takeoff, he noticed that the engine began to vibrate, but the rpm seemed normal. He made a right turn and the engine started to lose power and then "quit." The pilot conducted a forced landing in a cornfield, during which the airplane nosed over, and a post-crash fire ensued. Examination of the engine revealed the No. 9 pushrod was stuck in the open position and the gland seal was brittle. Review of the maintenance logbooks revealed that the No. 9 pushrod was removed, and the gland seal was replaced on the day of the accident before the accident flight. It is likely that since the No. 9 valve was stuck in the open position, it caused the cylinder to lose compression and power in flight.
The pilot departed on a visual flight rules cross country flight. GPS data revealed that, about 30 minutes into the flight, the airplane began deviating from its previously established on-course heading to the destination. During the last 5 minutes of the flight, the airplane’s altitude and heading varied, and during the last minute of the flight, the airplane climbed about 400 ft and its ground speed slowed from 140 knots (kts) to about 53 kts. The airplane then entered a descent that continued until the end of the recorded data, about 450 ft from the accident site. The fragmentation of the airplane and distribution of the wreckage were consistent with a high-speed impact. Examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Weather reports near the departure airport, along the route of flight, and at the destination airport indicated visual meteorological conditions with light rain, 10 statute miles visibility, and overcast cloud ceilings beginning at 3,300 ft above ground level; however, an AIRMET for instrument flight rules conditions and mountain obscuration was valid for the area of the accident site at the time of the accident. Satellite imagery identified cloudy conditions across the accident region, including the accident site, weather radar displayed light rain in the area of the accident site, and witnesses reported rain and heavy fog in the area near the accident site about the time of the accident; therefore, it is likely that the pilot encountered instrument meteorological conditions. The extent of the pilot’s preflight weather planning and what information he may have accessed before departure could not be determined.The pilot held an instrument rating, and the airplane was equipped for instrument flight; however, neither the recency of the pilot’s instrument experience nor his level of instrument proficiency could be determined. Based on the available information, the pilot likely encountered instrument meteorological conditions in flight, which resulted in spatial disorientation, a loss of control, and subsequent impact with terrain.Page 2 of 11 WPR19FA256
The pilot had planned a cross country instrument flight rules (IFR) flight but had not contacted air traffic control to receive an IFR clearance before departing. He was departing from a coastal airport during dark morning hours, prior to sunrise, and after takeoff made a right climbing turn. The airplane reached an altitude about 400 feet above the ground, about 90° through the turn, before descending in the turn and impacting the water. The airplane’s groundspeed continued to increase, from about 70 knots at liftoff, to 100 knots at the height of the right climbing turn, to 146 knots at the end of the data. Review of airport surveillance video depicted the airplane’s takeoff, initial climb, and turn toward an area of dark open water underneath a scattered cloud layer. Based on the dark night conditions and the lack of visual reference at the time of the accident, it is likely that the pilot became spatially disoriented, which led to the subsequent descent into water. Examination of the wreckage revealed a right-wing-low attitude at the time of the impact, which was consistent with the pilot maintaining the right turn seen in the surveillance video recordings. Examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or abnormalities that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot held an instrument rating, but no logbook information was available from which to determine his level of instrument currency or proficiency. According to medical certification files, the pilot had several eye disorders including chronic macular edema in his right eye and bilateral glaucoma; both conditions restrict visual fields. A year prior to the accident, the pilot had successfully completed a medical flight test and had been granted a statement of demonstration ability (SODA) by the Federal Aviation Administration for his right visual field defect. The medical flight test included, among other abilities, demonstrating the ability to judge distances and to recognize landmarks and the ability to read instrument panels quickly and correctly. The medical flight test is administered during daytime hours; in this accident, the pilot departed the airport under night visual conditions and then flew over the ocean which Page 2 of 9 ERA19FA266would have few visual cues. It is therefore unknown how well this pilot could respond under dark conditions. The challenge with a constricted visual field is not generally the speed to execute the visual scan, but the time to process the visual information. Given the lack of information from no nighttime vision testing as part of his SODA and insufficient information on the pilot’s instrument flight capabilities, the investigation was unable to determine what role, if any, the pilot’s vision restrictions contributed to this accident.
The student pilot was conducting a low-level aerial observation flight with his son to determine the level of water in towers on farms nearby. The time of the student pilot’s departure from his private airstrip and the time of the accident could not be determined. The amount of fuel in the airplane at takeoff was undetermined. After contact from concerned family members, law enforcement located the wreckage the next day about 825 ft from the approach end of the pilot's airstrip.Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Airplane wreckage and impact signatures were consistent with the airplane being configured for landing. Propeller signatures indicated little or no rotation at the time of impact. The impact damage was consistent with a loss of control in flight, followed by the exceedance of the airplane's critical angle of attack and an aerodynamic stall. The reason for the loss of control in flight could not be determined.The student pilot was taught to fly by his grandfather. It is possible the student pilot was teaching his son to fly; however, it was undetermined if that was occurring during the accident flight. The pilot held a student pilot certificate and therefore was prohibited by regulation from carrying a passenger. Additionally, the student pilot's endorsement for flight operations was expired, and he did not hold an endorsement for the accident airplane make and model.
The pilot reported that, during takeoff from a beach, the airplane lifted off and reached about 10 ft above ground level, but he then "felt something holding [the airplane] down." He lowered the nose to build up airspeed and attempted to climb again, but the airplane was unable to climb due to a downdraft. The pilot was unable to abort the takeoff due to increased airspeed and reduced landing area. The airplane was heading toward a 50- to 60-ft-tall bank, so he decided to "pull up" and attempt to fly over it. The airplane continued for about 3/4 mile, aerodynamically stalled, and then the empennage impacted terrain. The airplane continued about 30 ft, struck a big clump of dirt, and nosed over.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot reported that the wind was variable at 27 knots, gusting to 36 knots.
The pilot departed the runway and reported that a door had opened. After clearance to enter the traffic pattern and return to the airport, the airplane climbed to about 100 ft agl and struggled to gain altitude. The airplane turned left and subsequently entered a nose down left bank and impacted the terrain. The airplane sustained substantial damage. As the airplane banked to the left, it likely experienced an aerodynamic stall.Postaccident examination of the propeller blades revealed that the engine was likely operating near high rpm at impact, and examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot’s operating handbook indicated an open door would slipstream and may result in buffeting and that the pilot is to fly the airplane “normally.”The occupants departed earlier the same day in the accident airplane and returned because the airplane was not being able to climb over mountains on their way to their destination. Density altitude was calculated to be 5,437 ft mean sea level at the airport. The airplane was also loaded over the maximum gross takeoff weight and exceeded the aft of the center of gravity limit for both flights. Although the airplane was able to take off, its overweight and aft of CG limit condition and the high-density altitude increased the airplane’s stall speed and degraded its climb performance, stability, and slow-flight characteristics. When the pilot turned the airplane left to return to the airport due to the reported open door, the critical angle of attack was likely exceeded and resulted in an aerodynamic stall at low altitude.
The pilot reported that he was conducting a low-altitude application flight for a gender reveal celebration with one passenger onboard the single-seat airplane. While maneuvering, he dumped about 350 gallons of pink water. The airplane got too slow, aerodynamically stalled, impacted terrain, and then came to rest inverted.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, right wing, and empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the float-equipped airplane reported that, while taking off from a lake, the airplane accelerated, became airborne and that, about 40 ft above the water, he retracted the flaps. The airplane pitched down, and the left wing dropped. He attempted to correct to no avail, and the airplane impacted the water. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, empennage, and both wings. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. He added that he believed P factor caused the left roll because the airplane aerodynamically stalled and would not correct despite his attempts to do so. He also stated that he had accrued 5 hours in the airplane make and model, 2 hours of which occurred in the preceding 30 days.The pilot reported that it was a very windy, gusty day and that the wind was variable. An automated weather observation station located 15 miles west of the accident site reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 300° at 14 knots, gusting to 20 knots. The airplane was departing to the south.
The pilot departed from a field and was climbing the airplane through about 100 to 200 ft above ground level. Witnesses stated, and surveillance video of the accident confirmed, that the airplane entered a left bank that increased to about 60° degrees as the airplane turned about 180°. The left bank continued to increase until the airplane entered a nose-down descent into the ground, consistent with an aerodynamic stall. Both witnesses reported that the engine was operating throughout.Examination of the airplane and engine revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Based on the available information, it is likely that the pilot exceeded the airplane’s critical angle of attack while turning during the initial climb, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and loss of control at an altitude too low for recovery.
The pilot reported that, while landing the tailwheel-equipped airplane on the turf runway, the airplane bounced once followed by a "normal" touchdown on the main gear. The airplane started veering to the left and the pilot applied right rudder to correct, but it had "no effect." The airplane slowed "considerably" and continued veering to the left. The airplane subsequently impacted a tree, resulting in substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions of the airplane. The recorded wind conditions from a nearby airport were consistent with a left crosswind for the landing runway.
On September 6, 2019, about 1600 EDT, Spirit Airlines flight 967, an Airbus A319, N515NK, encountered turbulence during descent into Fort Myers Southwest Florida Airport (KRSW), Fort Myers, Florida.   Of the108 passengers and crew onboard, one flight attendant received serious injuries.  The airplane was not damaged. The flight was operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 as a regularly scheduled domestic passenger flight from the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (KCLE), Cleveland, Ohio to KRSW.  According to the flight crew, the flight was descending through about 12,000 feet when the captain made the arrival announcement on the public address system (PA) “in anticipation of encountering turbulence due to a scattered layer of cumulous clouds.” The seat belt sign was illuminated.  According to the flight attendants (FA), the turbulence was encountered shortly after the captain’s PA, while the flight attendants were conducting final compliance checks in the cabin.  One of the aft flight attendants fell to the floor during the encounter.  She was unable to return to her jumpseat due to her injury and was assisted to a passenger seat in the aft cabin for landing.  The flight crew was notified of the FAs injury and requested that paramedics meet the airplane at the gate.  After landing, the injured FA was transported to the hospital where she was diagnosed with a fractured ankle.Post accident examination of the weather data determined that the turbulence occurred during day visual meteorological conditions when the airplane entered scattered cumulus congestus clouds (towering cumulus) associated with heavy rain showers and a sea breeze front.  There was no lightning detected, pilot reports (PIREPs), or inflight weather advisories current for the area.
The pilot departed with the intent of remaining in the airport traffic pattern. Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) data indicated that the airplane departed and climbed to an altitude of about 1,000 ft above ground level. Near the end of the downwind leg, the airplane entered a brief 50-ft climb, followed by a rapid descent to impact with the ground.Examination of the engine and airframe revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. Examination of the canopy roll bar and the tip-up canopy bow, which are connected in flight when the canopy is latched, indicated that they deformed in a dissimilar manner at impact. The roll bar and canopy bow were located about 12 ft apart at the accident site, and there was little damage to the handle and latch block, indicating that the canopy was likely not latched at the time of impact. Examination of the canopy and latch handle revealed that the handle and washers did not match any of the manufacturer’s drawings. The kit manufacturer issued a service letter about 3 years before the accident advising that, in the event of an inflight opening of a forward opening, tip-up canopy, the airplane would “most likely pitch down abruptly.”The pilot had recently modified the latch on the airplane’s tip-up canopy. The pilot had purchased a latch replacement kit from the airplane manufacturer; however, only the handle from the new latch kit was installed at the time of the accident, and additional washers that were not part of the kit had been added, likely to compensate for the longer dimensions of the new handle assembly. Whether full engagement of the latching mechanism could be achieved in this configuration could not be determined. Additionally, it could not be determined whether the pilot departed with the canopy unlatched or it became unlatched in flight, but it is likely that when the pilot reduced engine power to begin a descent for landing, the canopy opened enough to affect the airplane’s pitch control, resulting in a subsequent abrupt descent and impact with terrain. Page 2 of 10 ERA19FA265
The airline transport pilot reported that, upon landing, he immediately felt a shift to the left. The left main landing gear fractured and collapsed, and the airplane went off the runway. Postaccident metallurgical examination of the landing gear revealed that the fracture occurred from a thumbnail-shaped fatigue crack in the gear spring strut with multiple origins near the inboard attachment location at the forward edge of its upper surface. Final overstress fracture propagation direction was consistent with a downward-and-aft bending failure mode; thus, the fracture was more likely due to overload rather than the fatigue crack. This was consistent with drag loading of the left main landing gear wheel in combination with side-loading of the outboard side of the left main landing gear wheel, such as that encountered during a crosswind landing, ground loop, and/or hard left turn event. The loads experienced by the landing gear during the accident landing could not be determined, and a structural analysis was not performed to determine if the loads exceeded design load limitations.
The student pilot was departing on a local solo flight. Shortly after takeoff, the engine lost power, and the pilot turned toward the closest available field and set up for landing. As she flared for landing, the engine momentarily regained power. The airplane climbed 100 ft, which allowed the pilot to turn left, clear a tree line, and continue toward the runway. The engine lost power again, and the pilot glided the airplane toward the airport, touching down in dirt and grass short of the runway. The nose landing gear separated, and the airplane slid across the runway, resulting in substantial damage to the airplane. Postaccident examination revealed that both fuel tanks were full, and the throttle and mixture controls were still attached. Fuel drained from the carburetor bowl and gascolator was light blue and contained no debris or water. The electric boost pump operated normally. The fuel supply line to the engine was removed and fuel flowed normally when the left tank was selected. When the right tank was selected, only a small amount of fuel would flow. The right tank was the tank the pilot had selected for takeoff. The fuel selector valve was difficult to move. When it was moved, it traveled past the right tank detent, closing the valve to the right tank, and resulting in a loss of fuel flow. Although the selector handle indicated the right tank had been selected, the valve was misaligned, thus starving the engine of fuel and resulting in the loss of power.
The pilot reported that, during the landing roll, he applied "too much brake" and that the airplane then nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the forward right and left lift struts. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, while performing landings for night currency, he misjudged the approach, and the airplane landed short of the runway and then impacted the engineered materials arrestor system, which was about 370 ft lower than the approach end of 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.Archived NOTAMs for the date of the accident reported that the runway's visual approach slope indicator and end lighting were out of service.
The two commercial pilots were conducting a familiarization aerial pipeline flight for one of the pilots, who was newly hired by the operator. Data from an onboard GPS unit indicated that the airplane was completing a 180° turn in a canyon. The last recorded data showed the airplane at a GPS altitude about 5,998 ft; company tracking data showed the airplane about .7 mile closer to the accident site at an altitude of 6,208 ft mean sea level. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of pre-impact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. No significant weather or turbulence was reported or forecast in the area, and the density altitude at the time of the accident exceeded 9,700 ft. Based on the available information, it is likely that the pilots maneuvered the airplane into a canyon at low altitude and were attempting to perform a climbing turn to exit the canyon when the airplane impacted terrain.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, while taxiing for takeoff, a tailwind gust lifted the tail and the airplane nosed over.  The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing, right wing lift strut, and the rudder.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was light and variable, gusting to 15 knots. The pilot was back taxiing to the south.
The pilot reported that, during a three-point landing, the airplane veered left, ground looped, exited the runway, and nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to right wing lift strut and empennage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.