roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The flight instructor reported that, during the instructional flight, the pilot under instruction was practicing an instrument approach. The pilot started the flare about 30 ft above ground level (agl) which caused the airspeed to decrease. The airplane subsequently landed hard, and the airplane bounced. The flight instructor took control of the airplane and applied full power. However, the airplane banked left, the left wing struck the ground, and the airplane exited the left side of the runway. The airplane’s left wing and aileron were substantially damaged. The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot stated that he noticed a slight hesitation in the engine, followed by backfiring and a large drop in engine speed while in cruise flight at 2,000 ft above ground level. He was able to regain partial power for a few minutes before the engine lost additional power. The pilot performed a forced landing between two corn fields, where the airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage due to impact with terrain. Postaccident testing of the engine revealed a stuck exhaust valve on the No. 2 cylinder that resulted in the loss of engine power during cruise flight. No other anomalies were noted with the engine or related systems that would have precluded normal operations of the engine. Thus, the stuck exhaust valve likely resulted in the partial loss of engine power.
The pilot stated that after an uneventful flight he decided to land to the south. He was unable to maintain a stable approach and performed a go-around immediately after touching down. He then made an approach to land to the north. The airplane touched down about 1/3 down the runway with about a 5-knot tailwind. With about 2,300 feet of runway remaining, the pilot immediately applied heavy braking and retracted the wing flaps. The brakes did not respond, and he attempted to rapidly depress and release (pump) them several times. Despite his attempts, the brakes did not function adequately, and he was unable to stop the airplane. The airplane continued off the end of the runway, went down a hill, and collided with trees. A postaccident examination of the brake system revealed no evidence of pre-impact mechanical malfunction or failure. There were no skid marks on the runway surface or flat spots on the tire. There were no signs of hydraulic leaks, and the brake master cylinder had adequate fluid. The right brake was non-operational due to damage to the brake line at the caliper as a result of it striking rocks at the runway's end; the left brake operated normally.
The instructional flight was returning to the airport when the engine rpm began to fluctuate, followed by backfiring. The pilot completed the emergency loss of engine power checklist. Unable to maintain altitude, the flight instructor assumed control of the airplane and performed an off-airport landing on open desert terrain. During the landing roll, the nosewheel collapsed, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage’s undercarriage. The engine and various instruments and components were removed from the airplane before the airplane was recovered, which prevented examination of the engine and related systems to determine the cause of the loss of engine power.
While the pilot was conducting an aerial application flight, he felt a small jolt, the main rotor mast failed, and the helicopter collided with terrain. Four days before the accident, a mechanic performed a dye penetrant inspection on the rotor mast; the helicopter had only flown 9 hours since the inspection.Attempts to retrieve the rotor mast parts from the operator were unsuccessful and when contact was reestablished with the owner, he had already disposed of the parts. Photos of the broken rotor hub were reviewed by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Materials Laboratory, which determined that several preexisting, progressive cracks were present.
The pilot reported that he was maneuvering the helicopter at low altitude over a cherry field in light rain conditions. As he air taxied about 30 ft above the ground and about 15 knots, the helicopter struck a power line and landed inverted on a tractor. The helicopter was destroyed by the postcrash fire. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that she and the passenger departed from a beach, but after taking off, the pilot determined that the weather in the intended direction of flight was not favorable, and she chose to return to the beach to land. While maneuvering onto final approach, the left wing stalled and the airplane descended into the beach, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane.
The pilot reported that, after landing, the nose landing gear began a “severe shimmy” and subsequently fractured. The propeller contacted the runway, and the engine mounts sustained substantial damage.The airplane was not made available for examination following the accident, and the source of the shimmy could not be determined based on the available information.
The pilot described the takeoff from the 2,000 ft-long turf runway surrounded by tall trees. He stated the airplane was making “takeoff power” and that all instruments were “in the green.” At the departure end of the runway the airplane encountered “windshear or a downdraft” and that the leaves in the treetops were being “pushed down.” The 6,000-hour pilot said he had never encountered windshear or a downdraft like it before. He said he adjusted the pitch attitude to best angle of climb, but that the airplane settled into the trees and descended to the ground while substantially damaging the wings, fuselage, and the empennage. The Federal Aviation Administration inspector who responded to the accident site discussed the forecast and PIREPS for low-level windshear with the pilot. The pilot said he had reviewed the weather, but as it was “nothing he hadn’t flown in before,” he elected to depart. The pilot reported that there were no pre-accident mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot stated she landed hard and the airplane bounced. During the landing the airplane’s nose landing gear tire blew out and the left propeller struck the ground. The airplane’s left wing was also substantially damaged. The pilot reported there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot fueled the airplane before takeoff on the last leg of the cross-country flight. As he began the descent toward his home airport, the pilot noted that the fuel gauges were indicating lower than he had ever observed them to be. Shortly after he turned to a nearby airport to purchase additional fuel, the engine stopped producing power. During the forced landing, the airplane’s landing gear impacted trees, and the airplane descended nose-first to the ground, substantially damaging the fuselage and right wing. Examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of fuel in the fuel tanks, fuel lines, or carburetor. No preimpact anomalies or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation were observed. Fuel calculations for the takeoff and cruise portions of the accident flight revealed that between about 2 and 6 gallons of fuel could have remained at the time of the accident; however, these calculations did not account for improper fuel mixture leaning or fuel used during start, taxi, and run-up. Given that the pilot did not lean the mixture during the cross-country flight, it is likely the airplane’s fuel supply had been completely exhausted, resulting in the total loss of engine power. Had appropriate preflight fuel planning and inflight fuel monitoring been performed by the pilot, the fuel exhaustion likely would have been prevented.
The pilot stated that after departing for local area soaring, he found himself in “dying lift”. He attempted to recover altitude but was unsuccessful.  He said that the glider encountered additional “sink” and did not have sufficient altitude to reach the airport.  During the forced landing on rough terrain the left wing sustained substantial damage.  The pilot reported that there were no pre-accident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the glider that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot stated that during a takeoff from a wet grass airstrip, he glanced down at a point down the runway that had a reduction in elevation. When he looked back up, his perception of the tree height at the end of the runway increased. He stated that he aborted the takeoff even though the airplane attained rotation speed. The airplane slid about 1,200 ft down and off the runway end and impacted trees and terrain. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage. The pilot stated there was no mechanical malfunction/failure of the airplane that would have precluded normal operations.
The pilot was established on final approach for landing in night visual conditions. The airplane tracked inbound along the approach course until, about 0.40 mile from the runway, it impacted trees and terrain. A witness reported that the airplane seemed to be right overhead when he first heard it, and about one second later he heard it impact trees. He noted that the engine sounded like it was at maximum power.The outboard portion of the right wing was located at the initial tree strike, and the inboard portion of the right wing was located within the debris path. A ground impact path began about 160 ft from the tree strike, and the main wreckage, which consisted of the fuselage, left wing, empennage, and engine, came to rest about 320 ft from the initial tree strike. An examination of the airframe and engine identified no anomalies consistent with a preimpact failure or malfunction.The runway was equipped with precision approach path indicators (PAPI). During the onsite investigation the day after the accident, the PAPI lights were illuminated.A review of airplane position data revealed that the airspeed was about 78 knots while on final approach. The aerodynamic stall speed was 62 knots with the wing flaps retracted and 55 knots with them extended. The descent rate during that period was within the capabilities of the airplane.
The pilot reported that, he obtained automated weather before landing at the destination airport, which indicated the winds to be variable from 270° at 11 knots gusting to 16 knots. The pilot stated that he flew a stabilized approach to runway 29, and the windsock indicated a crosswind upon landing. After touchdown a gust “pushed the airplane to the right”, and the pilot elected to initiate a go-around and added power. When the airplane became airborne, the nose yawed left, and the pilot was unable to avoid a collision with an airport hangar. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and fuselage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot, who was also a mechanic, purchased the airplane after it had been involved in an accident. The pilot completed major repairs and a conditional inspection on the airplane and planned to complete the first test flight from a soybean farm field near his residence. He taxied the airplane to the field and completed a normal run-up. He then operated the electric horizontal stabilizer trim, via the rocker switch on the control stick, to the takeoff position (full nose up) as indicated on the primary flight display (PFD). When the trim indicator reached the takeoff position, he removed his thumb from the trim switch and initiated the takeoff roll. The airplane accelerated normally, and he moved the control stick aft to rotate however, a heavy nose down pressure was felt. He immediately aborted the takeoff and, in his effort to slow the airplane, it nosed over. The left wing and empennage sustained substantial damage.Examination of the horizontal stabilizer trim position found that it was set to a full nose down position, as observed at the control surface and on the PFD trim indication.  Examination of the trim rocker switch found that it would operate the trim actuator; however, when the switch was released, it would not return to the neutral position as designed. In order to stop the trim movement from continuing to run until it reached its maximum nose up/down limit, the switch was required to be moved to the center position, which would stop the trim movement.It is likely that the stabilizer trim continued to operate towards the nose down position during the takeoff roll, after the pilot had released his thumb from the switch, which resulted in the pilot feeling a heavy nose down force during the takeoff. There was no evidence that the pilot/mechanic evaluated the rocker switch’s proper operation during the major repairs and recent conditional inspection. Had he inspected the switch for Page 2 of 6 ERA22LA310proper movement, it is likely that he would have detected the faulty condition of the switch, and the accident likely would have been prevented.
The pilot of the experimental airplane reported that the engine lost total power shortly after takeoff. The pilot decided to perform a forced landing straight ahead to a flat cornfield which resulted in substantial damage to the engine mount and lower fuselage. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed a piece of black plastic material lodged in the carburetor throttle body. The foreign object debris (FOD) was similar to the material used with common trash bags. The pilot reported that he did not know where the FOD may have originated.It is likely that the FOD blocked the engine’s air intake, which resulted in a total loss of engine power. The airplane’s carburetor heat valve provided heated air forward of the air filter; thus, the carburetor heat air flow did not bypass the air filter. While is it possible that the FOD may have been left in the carburetor heat system during previous maintenance work about 60 flight hours before the accident, the source of the FOD and when it was introduced could not be determined based on the available evidence. It is likely that the FOD, which was lodged in the carburetor throttle body, blocked air intake for the engine, which resulted in a total loss of engine power.
The private pilot entered the base leg of the airport traffic pattern for landing, then he turned left onto the final leg of the airport traffic pattern, with no reported discrepancies of the aileron flight control system at this time. He “overshot” the extended runway centerline and reported the airplane was low. Airport surveillance video depicted the outer portion of the right wing impacting the ground. The pilot further indicated, “…he was not ready…” for the first touchdown and bounced a couple feet adding that the airplane touched down, “hard”, resulting in the right main landing gear wheel separating. He knew the airplane was right of the runway centerline, so he added full throttle to go-around reporting both engines responded. During the go-around he could not raise the right wing despite left aileron and rudder input. Surveillance video captured the airplane completing nearly a right 720º turn while climbing and then descending. The airplane impacted the runway while in a nose and right wing-low attitude and rolled inverted resulting in substantial damage to the right wing, cockpit, and nose section of the airplane.Postaccident examination of the flight control system for pitch and yaw by an inspector from the Federal Aviation Administration revealed control continuity with no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction. Examination of the roll flight control system revealed a rod end for an aileron pushrod inside the right wing exhibited bending overload with no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction; no other separations were noted. Since there were no reported issues while banking left prior to the first touchdown, it is likely that the aileron flight control system was damaged as a result of the right wing contact during the first touchdown, which resulted in an uncommanded right roll that the pilot could not correct.Page 2 of 6 ERA22LA299
The pilot was conducting an aerial application flight. Surveillance video footage showed that the airplane entered a steep right turn from a straight and level attitude consistent with a course reversal. Shortly thereafter, the airplane entered a steep, nose-down, right-wing-low descent. The airplane subsequently impacted terrain in a nearly flat, upright attitude. A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any mechanical failures that would have precluded normal operation. Flight control continuity was confirmed from the cockpit to all corresponding flight control surfaces. Contact signatures and fractured surfaces from internal components of the engine were consistent with the engine developing power at a high range at the time of impact. Based on the available information, it is likely that the pilot exceeded the airplane’s critical angle of attack during the turn and the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall at an altitude too low for recovery.
The airplane was topped off with fuel on the day of the accident. The airplane was flown to an intermediate airport then back to the original departure airport. After returning to the departure airport, the pilot and a pilot-rated passenger took off to practice full-stop takeoffs and landings. They performed five uneventful takeoffs and landings; during the last takeoff climb, the airplane sustained a loss of engine power. Witnesses reported that the airplane’s right wing dropped and the airplane rotated clockwise, as viewed from above, before it impacted the ground. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no useable fuel in the wing’s fuel bladder tanks. Both fuel bladders were collapsed and the attachment hardware for the bladder was not properly attached to the wing. Examination of the fuel system revealed that the fuel sending units had bends on their float arms inconsistent with their design and did not meet airplane maintenance manual specifications for resistance values. Additionally, the fuel selector valve did not contain detents for the position of each fuel tank selection. Examination of the engine, engine accessories, and airframe revealed no other mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal engine operation.The last maintenance entries that were provided, including the annual inspection, were not part of the airframe and engine logbook(s), and did not show date of maintenance, time-in-service, and signature. Investigators were unable to determine who performed the most recent maintenance of the airplane.The collapsed fuel bladder would have reduced the fuel capacity when the airplane was last serviced with fuel. The fuel sending units likely provided incorrect fuel tank indications on the fuel gauges in the cabin. The pilot likely would have performed fuel calculations based upon Page 2 of 10 CEN22FA298the designed fuel tank capacity. Both the diminished fuel bladder capacity due to the collapsed bladders and the improper fuel level indications  likely led to the loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion. The pilot had cardiomegaly with left ventricular wall thickening and moderate atherosclerosis in two coronary arteries. He also had asthma and the bronchodilator albuterol was detected in his blood in urine. While these medical conditions can result in a sudden impairing or incapacitating event, there was no evidence that this occurred. The pilot had opportunity to discontinue the flight if he felt ill, he was actively flying the airplane, and there was a pilot-rated passenger aboard who could assist. Thus, the pilot’s medical conditions were not a factor in this accident.
The pilot was performing an aerial application flight over a nursery. As he pulled up at the end of a pass, he crossed over an area of trees and heard a “loud bang.” He attempted to maneuver the airplane to land in an open field; however, the airplane “ran out of altitude and airspeed” and impacted the ground, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage and wings.Postaccident examination of the airplane’s vintage radial engine revealed that when rotating the propeller, the drivetrain would rotate freely, and no binding was noted. All the engine cylinders were intact. The supercharger impeller was intact, but further examination revealed that it was not rotating when the propeller was moved by hand. The rear accessory/diffuser housing was removed to expose the supercharger impeller and no damage was noted on the external impeller blades; however, the rear splined impeller shaft ball bearing spacer and supercharger impeller splines were found to have sheared, allowing the impeller to freewheel. Based on this information, it is likely that the failure of the supercharger resulted in at least a partial loss of engine power, and that the failure occurred while the pilot was performing a low altitude maneuver. The pilot was subsequently unable to recover from the resulting loss of airspeed before the airplane impacted the ground.
The pilot reported that after takeoff, as the airplane climbed above the height of the nearby houses, the airspeed and altitude began to decrease. Unable to climb, he allowed the airplane to drift to the right to avoid “putting anything in danger.” As he began a right turn, he lowered the nose to remain under transmission lines, but the airplane seemed to immediately “fall out of the sky.” The airplane subsequently impacted the ground and slid to a stop, which resulted in substantial damage to both wings and the fuselage.A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. A calculation of the weight and balance revealed that the airplane was within both weight and center of gravity limitations.
A flight attendant was injured when Southwest Airlines Flight 2029 landed at the John Wayne-Orange County Airport (SNA), Santa Ana, California.According to the flight crew, they were flying a visual approach to runway 20R at SNA. They were aiming for the touchdown zone due to its short runway and trying to fly the aircraft onto the runway with minimal floating. However, it ended up being a firm landing. Shortly after exiting the runway, the flight crew were informed that the “B” position flight attendant (FA) seated in the aft jump seat had injured her back on landing and required medical assistance. Data from the operator’s Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA) and Aircraft Health Monitoring (AHM) programs indicated the landing did not meet the hard landing criteria set by the airplane’s manufacturer.   According to the FA, after securing the galley and cabin for landing, she sat down in her jumpseat, secured her seatbelt harness, and got into the brace position. She indicated that the plane hit the ground with such force that she thought the plane had crashed. She immediately felt pain in her back, neck and she could not move. Paramedics evaluated her and transported her to a local hospital where she was later diagnosed with a compression fracture to her T3 vertebra.