roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that following a day visual meteorological condition flight, during the landing roll, two deer jumped onto the runway and he swerved the airplane to the right off of the runway, avoiding both deer. During the runway excursion, the right main landing gear became caught in tall grass and the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, vertical stabilizer, and both wings. The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. During a postaccident interview with the airport manager, he reported that the airport does not a have a perimeter fence.
The flight instructor reported that about 150 feet above the ground during the initial climb, he reduced the power to idle to demonstrate loss of engine power during takeoff. He further reported that he lowered the nose of the airplane to gain airspeed, but after about 2 seconds the airplane settled rapidly. The flight instructor advanced the throttle to full forward, and flared about 20 feet above the ground to arrest the sink rate. He reported that the airplane landed flat, all three landing gear collapsed, and the airplane skidded about 150 feet down the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing.  According to the flight instructor 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 37 minutes before the accident the wind was 200 degrees true at 16 knots, wind gusts 23 knots. A further review revealed that, about 27 minutes after the accident the wind was 190 degrees true at 17 knots, wind gusts 27 knots. The airplane landed on runway 21R.
The pilot reported that during the approach to land the airplane was left of the extended runway centerline on short final approach, and he decided to go-around. When he added engine power, the airplane veered to the left, pitched up, and stalled. The airplane impacted the ground and sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, and the empennage. The pilot added that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot in command (PIC) reported that he executed a normal approach, following an instrument proficiency check. He reported that during the landing flare the flight instructor, "grabbed the yoke and pulled up," and he heard a loud thump. The PIC reported that he thought the flight instructor was performing a go around, however the flight instructor said, "we hit a deer and must not go around."  The airplane settled to the runway, the right wing "dipped onto the ground" and slid to a stop. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right main landing gear attachment point.The PIC reported that he exited the airplane and saw the right main landing gear and the deer on the runway near the intended touchdown point.The pilots reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with any portion of the airplane prior to striking the deer.
The commercial pilot reported that, while conducting a spray pass, he pulled on the helicopter's collective, and the rotor speed dropped. He lowered the collective, applied maximum throttle, and pulled on the collective again, but the rotor speed continued to drop. He then attempted to land in a nearby yard, but the tailboom struck a tree, and the helicopter then flipped on its right side. A witness, who was an experienced agricultural helicopter pilot, reported that he had flown with the accident pilot for about 12 hours in the accident helicopter, which was a piston engine-powered helicopter that did not have a throttle governor, to familiarize him with managing the throttle. He stated that the accident pilot's previous experience was in turbine-powered helicopters that had a throttle governor. The witness stated that he was in the field watching the accident pilot perform spraying operations. The pilot made a downwind pass in the field in a tight area. He said that, when the pilot pulled up to climb above the trees at the end of the pass, he heard the engine "bog down" and that he thought that the pilot had pulled the collective without adding throttle. A postaccident examination of the helicopter and a test run of the engine revealed no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have prevented normal operation. Based on this evidence, it is likely that the pilot failed to apply engine power when he applied collective input, which resulted in a loss of rotor speed and an exceedance of the helicopter's performance capability.
The pilot reported that about 20 minutes after takeoff the engine experienced a total loss of power. The pilot further reported that during the off airport forced landing the right aileron was substantially damaged. A post-accident examination revealed that the fuel line between the fuel transducer and the carburetor had failed. The manufacture and part number for the failed line was Strato Flex, P/N 111-6, respectively.  The fuel line was installed as part of the J. P. Instruments EDM-700 engine monitoring system per the supplemental type certificate SA2586NM on May 01, 2002.
The passenger reported that, about 15 minutes after takeoff on the cross-country flight, the engine began "stalling in and out." Although the pilot attempted to troubleshoot the issue, he could not remedy it, and selected a dirt road as a forced landing site. The passenger stated that the airplane was too fast and too high to land, and the pilot circled the airplane for a second approach. About 150 feet above the ground, the engine experienced a total loss of power. The airplane touched down in an area of tree stumps and immediately nosed over.Toxicology testing of the pilot revealed the presence of diphenhydramine; however, the level detected was too low to quantify and was unlikely to be impairing. No shoulder harnesses were installed, and their installation was not required. Advisory Circular 91-65, in part, stated, "The [National Transportation Safety Board] concluded that shoulder harness use is the most effective way of reducing fatalities and serious injuries in general aviation accidents."Although the spark plugs displayed significant wear, a test run of the engine revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. A carburetor icing probability chart showed the airplane was operating in conditions conducive to serious icing at glide power; however, the airplane should not have been susceptible to carburetor icing at the cruise power setting at which it was operating. The investigation could not determine a reason for the loss of engine power.
In a telephone interview with the NTSB Investigator-in-charge (IIC), the pilot stated that the airplane porpoised during landing, then veered left off the runway and onto an intersecting runway. A postaccident examination revealed substantial damage to the firewall. According to the pilot there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located about 14 miles northwest of the airport, revealed that, about 7 minutes before the accident the wind was 310 degrees true at 8 knots, and wind gusts 16 knots. The airplane landed on runway 02. 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 GAA16CA301The 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.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during the landing touchdown in quartering tailwind conditions the airplane veered to the right, he corrected with full left rudder, and advanced the throttle to full forward. The pilot further reported that the increase in power appeared to exacerbate the situation, so he reduced the power, and applied left brake to arrest the veer. According to the pilot the airplane continued to veer to the right, the right main landing gear lifted off the runway, and the left wing impacted the ground. The pilot further reported that the airplane veered off the runway to the right, began to porpoise due to the rough terrain, the left main landing gear collapsed, and the nose of the airplane impacted the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to left wing.According to the pilot, there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located about 4 miles south west of the airport, revealed that about 15 minutes before the accident the wind was 280 degrees true at 6 knots. A further review revealed that, about 5 minutes after the accident the wind was 300 degrees true at 12 knots, and wind gust 15 knots. The airplane landed on runway 19.
The flight instructor reported that this was her fifth instructional flight with the student and that they were practicing takeoffs and landings in the pattern. She recalled that the previous landing accomplished by the student was "squirrelly." She reported that she reminded the student pilot "how/why not to use the pedals during the landing roll, and to stay off of the brakes." She recalled that the student completed the next approach and landing and both were stable. However, during the landing roll the airplane made an abrupt right turn, and exited the right side of the runway about the midpoint of the 5500 foot long by 100 foot wide runway. The flight instructor reported that she did not believe that she would be able to bring the airplane back to the left and aborted the landing. However, the airplane struck rising terrain, entered a 360 degree turn and struck an embankment. The flight instructor asked the student if he had his feet on the pedals during the landing roll, and he replied "I think so." The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings, horizontal stabilizer and elevator. The flight instructor reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with any portion of the airplane during the flight that would have prevented normal flight operations.
The pilot reported that he was conducting aerial agricultural operations in a helicopter and that he landed on the bed of the service truck to reload with insecticide and fuel. The pilot further reported that he began to lift off and during the transition to forward flight he pitched the helicopter forward to gain airspeed, but helicopter continued to descend. The pilot reported that he "never gained lift from the ground effect" and subsequently impacted the terrain. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the tail boom and fuselage.The pilot reported there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.FAA Helicopter Flying Handbook Chapter 2 "Aerodynamics" defines "In Ground Effect (IGE)" as the increased efficiency of the rotor system caused by interference of the airflow when near the ground. The air pressure or density is increased, which acts to decrease the downward velocity of air. Ground effect permits relative wind to be more horizontal, lift vector to be more vertical, and induced drag to be reduced. These conditions allow the rotor system to be more efficient. Maximum ground effect is achieved when hovering over smooth hard surfaces. When hovering over surfaces as tall grass, trees, bushes, rough terrain, and water, maximum ground effect is reduced. Rotor efficiency is increased by ground effect to a height of about one rotor diameter (measured from the ground to the rotor disk) for most helicopters.
The flight instructor reported that during a night training flight the airplane was high on final approach. He further reported that during the landing flare, the airplane ballooned and then touched down hard. The flight instructor attempted to abort the landing, but the nose gear collapsed during the touchdown and the airplane veered off the runway.The right wing and left elevator sustained substantial damage.The flight instructor did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during landing, as he initiated the flare the airplane began to drift to the left and the left wing dropped. The pilot further reported that he applied full throttle and attempted a "go-around" but was unsuccessful, the left wing impacted the airport perimeter fence and trees, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing. According to the pilot there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located on the airport, revealed that, about 10 minutes before the accident the wind was 290 degrees true at 8 knots. A further review revealed that, about 10 minutes after the accident the wind was 240 degrees true at 5 knots. The airplane landed on runway 02.
According to the flight instructor, he was instructing his student in hovering flight operations. He reported that he instructed the student to execute a right pedal turn at a three foot hover. The instructor recalled that the student complied and during the turn, as the tail came into the wind, the helicopter started to weathervane, and the turn rate increased rapidly and did not subside until the helicopter impacted the ground. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and both rotor systems.The instructor reported that there were no mechanical anomalies or malfunctions with any portion of the helicopter that would prevent normal flight operations. The instructor reported that the wind velocity at the time of the accident was 11 knots gusting to 16 knots.Weathercock stability is defined as a region of loss of tail rotor effectiveness (120 degree - 240 degree tailwind) that will weathervane the helicopter, and if not prevented will result in a loss of helicopter control about the horizontal axis.According to the Helicopter Flying Handbook (FAA 8083-21A): Pilots who put themselves in situations where the combinations above occur should know that they are likely to encounter LTE. The key is to not put the helicopter in a compromising condition but if it does happen being educated enough to recognize the onset of LTE and be prepared to quickly react to it before the helicopter cannot be controlled.Page 2 of 6 GAA16CA296
The commercial pilot was also the owner and builder of the experimental, amateur-built airplane, which was a twin-engine airplane built from a single-engine airplane kit. The accident flight was the airplane's first flight, and it was captured by two airport security cameras as well as an on-board video recorded with the pilot's cell phone. The videos revealed that the airplane performed a shallow takeoff and initial climb. Almost immediately after takeoff, the airplane's track diverged from the runway centerline toward the right side of the runway and over the grass apron. Both propellers were operating at the same speed during the takeoff roll and throughout the entire flight. The airplane stopped climbing at what appeared to be treetop height, the wings rocked, and the airplane's nose continued to pitch up as it descended until ground contact, consistent with an aerodynamic stall.Although the pilot provided multiple statements that differed in their accounting of events after the accident, postaccident visual examination of the wreckage, the cell phone video of the propellers, and an operational test of the right engine revealed no preimpact mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Thus, it is likely that the pilot did not attain adequate airspeed for the takeoff and initial climb, which resulted in an exceedance of the critical angle of attack and subsequent aerodynamic stall.
The airline transport pilot reported that he was flying his experimental, amateur-built airplane about 500 ft above ground level over his ranch when he smelled something burning. About 15 seconds later, the engine experienced a total loss of power, and the propeller stopped spinning. The airplane impacted a ditch and nosed over during the subsequent forced landing. A postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the inline electric boost pump had overheated and burned, which resulted in a loss of fuel supply to the engine.
The operator reported that the commercial pilot was returning to the home base after delivering a load of bulk fuel to a remote village. During climbout, the low fuel warning light started flickering but then extinguished. About 40 miles, or halfway, from the intended destination, the low fuel warning light illuminated again. About 20 miles from the intended destination, the engine lost all power. The pilot performed the engine-out emergency procedure and attempted to restart the engine to no avail. Subsequently, the pilot conducted a forced landing to a remote area, during which the airplane struck several large trees and steep, rocky terrain.The operator reported that, during the recovery of the wreckage, both fuel tanks were found intact, and no usable fuel was found in either tank. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The airplane was equipped with an electronic fuel flow indicator that had no fuel level sensing capabilities. The fuel remaining shown by the indicator relied solely on the pilot's input of fuel added; the fuel remaining shown on the indicator after the accident was 96.4 gallons. The measured fuel used since the last reset of the indicator was 77.4 gallons, which indicates that the fuel flow indicator was programmed with 173.8 gallons of fuel onboard at the last fueling or instrument reset. Given that the airplane ran out of fuel, the starting value of 173.8 gallons of fuel onboard was incorrect. Based on this evidence, it is likely that the pilot did not verify the initial fuel input level on the fuel quantity indicator, which resulted in an incorrect indication of the actual fuel remaining in the airplane and the subsequent fuel exhaustion and loss of all engine power. Page 2 of 10 ANC16LA029
The commercial pilot stated that during a routine aerial application, he circled the airplane around the field to be sprayed to locate obstacles. He sprayed the field from north to south and made passes from east to west. During the third pass, when the airplane exited the field to the west to return for an eastward pass, he felt the airplane shake at the apex of the turn. He said that he corrected for the shake/stall, and the shaking quit for a moment. He then felt the right wing "take a hard dip." The airplane entered a right roll, impacted the ground, and was destroyed. The pilot reported that there was no mechanical malfunction or failure of the airplane. It is likely that, while maneuvering, the pilot failed to maintain the proper airspeed and exceeded the airplane's critical angle of attack, which led to an aerodynamic stall.
According to the pilot of the tricycle landing gear-equipped airplane, he made a normal landing, but the airplane began to veer left of the centerline during the landing roll. He corrected with right rudder and heard a "thump" as if something affixed to the airplane was being dragged, and the rudder steering became ineffective. He recalled that, with constant hard right rudder input, coupled with dynamic braking, he turned the airplane to the right, the nose landing gear collapsed, and the airplane skidded to a stop. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall.Photographs provided by the Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed that the right steering rod end had failed and that the bolts of the nose gear firewall mount were pulled from the firewall. The nose gear assembly had rotated more than 90° to the left and was found underneath the fuselage. The NTSB investigator-in-charge asked that the two additional airplanes in the operator's inventory be inspected. The operator found that the steering rod ends of the inspected airplanes were bent and showed signs of cracking between the threads. The steering bungees were visually inspected; however, they could not be thoroughly inspected without damaging the component.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll the airplane veered sharply to the left, and the left wing impacted the runway. The pilot further reported that the airplane continued to turn to the left off the runway onto loose soil and nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to right lift struts.According to the pilot, there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
On June 5, 2016, about 0930 mountain daylight time, Delta Air Lines flight 341, a Boeing 737-900, N810DZ, encountered turbulence during approach to McCarran International Airport, Las Vegas, Nevada. Of the 186 passengers and crew onboard, one flight attendant received a serious injury. 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 Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport (KATL), Atlanta, Georgia, to McCarran International Airport (KLAS), Las Vegas, Nevada.The captain stated that during the arrival phase into Las Vegas, the flight encountered wake turbulence from another airplane. He said that the wake turbulence was sustained and that he immediately used heading select on the autopilot to exit the wake turbulence. The flight crew checked on the passengers and crew and were told that everyone was ok.  After deplaning, the captain learned that one flight attendant (FA) had lost her balance and may have injured her wrist.The FA stated that the turbulence occurred when she was preparing the galley for landing. She indicated that when she was thrown to the ground, she put her hand out to avoid hitting her head, injuring her hand, wrist and arm. Upon reaching the hotel, she reported her injury to the company, and was sent to the hospital where she was diagnosed with a fractured wrist.