roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The vintage biplanes were operating at a private airport that provided airshows and airplane rides to the public. The pilot of the departing airplane taxied for takeoff and was number two behind another airplane that was taxiing ahead of him. At the same time, the pilot of the landing airplane was in the traffic pattern, preparing for landing. Local procedures required landing airplanes to make a low approach to signal airplanes taking off that a landing was imminent; the procedure was implemented because some airplanes at the airport were not equipped with radios. Landing aircraft had the right-of-way over aircraft taking off.The pilot of the landing airplane reported that he performed the required low approach, completed the traffic pattern, and proceeded onto final approach for landing. At the same time, the pilot of the departing airplane taxied onto the runway for takeoff and did not see the low approach by the landing airplane or his subsequent pattern. The pilot of the landing airplane did not see the departing airplane on the runway and landed on top of the departing airplane before the departing airplane became airborne.Both airplanes sustained substantial damage, the two pilots had minor injuries, and two passengers were not injured. Although both airplanes were equipped with radios, neither pilot was making radio calls; instead, they relied on the established visual traffic separation procedures only. A review of the airport’s standard operating procedures revealed that they did not address the use of radios or encourage pilots to use them if equipped. Following the accident, the airport made several modifications to their local procedures including recommending that all pilots of aircraft equipped with radios use them while in the traffic Page 2 of 7 ERA22LA379pattern; and moving the holding area short of the runway to another location that afforded better visibility of the traffic pattern.
The pilot reported that, he performed a soft field takeoff on the wet grass airstrip. The airplane was just below rotation speed as he approached midfield and moments later the airplane lifted off momentarily, then settled back to the ground. The pilot chose to abort the takeoff just past midfield and applied braking action. The airplane did not have enough braking traction due to the wet surface and subsequently ran off the end of the airstrip, collided with a fence and came to rest nose first in a canal. The engine mount and firewall were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
United Airlines flight 1400 encountered turbulence near Pharisburg, Ohio during descent into John Glenn Columbus International Airport (KCMH), Columbus, Ohio. One flight attendant was injured during the turbulence encounter. The airplane was not damaged. The captain was the pilot flying, and the first officer was the pilot monitoring. According to the flight crew, the flight experienced turbulence during the climb out, and areas of moderate to light chop during the first half of the flight, and it then encountered smooth air. The remainder of the cruise portion of the flight was uneventful. The flight crew began the final descent utilizing an RNAV arrival. According to the flight crew, weather conditions for the arrival were visual flight rules (VFR), no pilot reports (PIREPS) of turbulence were relayed to the flight crew by air traffic control (ATC), and no turbulence was forecasted for the arrival in the flight release weather information. The flight crew stated that during the approach, when the flight was at an altitude of about 12,000 ft-msl, they observed a scattered cloud layer with tops at around 10,000 ft-msl and could see the airport through the scattered layer. The flight crew stated they contacted the flight attendants early at around 11,000 ft-msl for final cabin checks and illuminated the seatbelt sign, since they anticipated the potential for some chop at the cloud tops during the descent. When the flight leveled at 10,000 ft-msl in the cloud tops, it encountered two strong jolts of moderate turbulence within seconds of each other. The autopilot system did not disconnect during the encounter. The flight crew stated the duration from the initial bump, followed by the second bump, then exiting the clouds entirely was approximately 8 seconds, and the flight crew requested a lower altitude to exit the turbulence. During this descent from 10,000 ft msl, the flight crew received Page 2 of 6 DCA22LA188an interphone call from the purser, stating that a flight attendant at the rear of the cabin was injured and that two medical personnel onboard were assisting. The first officer made a PIREP to ATC regarding the turbulence, then coordinated with the airport operations and control tower to ensure that an ambulance would meet the flight at their arrival gate. The flight landed uneventfully, and the flight attendant was later diagnosed with a fractured ankle.
The pilot reported that during the landing flare, the airplane seemed to lose lift and the airplane bounced three times on the runway. The nose landing gear collapsed which resulted in substantial damage when the lower engine mount bolts pulled part of the fuselage attaching structure through the firewall. There were no mechanical anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operations.
According to the pilot, while entering the airport’s traffic pattern to land on runway 11, he started the before landing checklist procedure but did not lower the landing gear because the airspeed was too fast. Then, on the final leg of the traffic pattern, he was focusing on maintaining a slip in the crosswind and he did not extend the landing gear. The airplane touched down with the landing gear retracted, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage.   The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. Around the time of the accident, the wind was reported from 140° at 9 knots.
The pilot reported the airplane was not climbing as he expected after takeoff. He elected to return to the airport when the airplane sustained a total loss of engine power. Unable to reach the airport, he performed a forced landing in the salt water near the shoreline. Postaccident examination of the airplane and engine revealed that the left magneto would produce spark intermittently. Three of the four spark plugs that connect to the left magneto would not produce spark. The electric fuel pump was found in the off position. The Pilot’s Operating Handbook states the electric fuel pump should be turned on for takeoff and landing.Examination of the engine did not reveal any anomalies, except for an intermittent left magneto and spark plugs; however, given that the airplane was submerged in salt water, it is likely that corrosion prevented the left magneto and four spark plugs from providing consistent spark during the postaccident examination.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that, the windsock indicated a left crosswind for runway 17. As the airplane lifted off, it experienced a “sudden and extreme right drift”. The pilot attempted corrective action however the drift was uncontrollable, so he turned to the right to avoid a collision with other parked aircraft. The pilot continued the takeoff, however the airplane settled and subsequently collided with terrain. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and longerons. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The accident flight was intended as a test flight after the airplane’s annual inspection. During the preflight inspection, the pilot visually checked the fuel and noted that there was less than he expected.  While operating in the traffic pattern, the pilot experienced static on the radio and departed the airport area to troubleshoot. When he concluded these efforts and turned the airplane back toward the airport, the engine stopped producing power.  Unable to restore engine power, the pilot performed a forced landing to a street. The pilot avoided vehicle traffic and power lines; however, the airplane struck trees and a masonry fence, resulting in substantial damage to both wings. Examination of the wreckage by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed no fuel in the airplane’s fuel tanks. The pilot stated that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot performed an aerial application flight without anomalies, returned to the departure airstrip, and departed on the second flight. An onboard device that recorded the flight track indicated that while en route, the airplane climbed to a maximum altitude of 575 ft above mean sea level (msl) before it began a slight right turn, and then the data ended. The data stopped recording about 1,650 ft south of the accident location. The airplane struck multiple rows of corn at an angle, rather than perpendicular or parallel to the corn which is common practice in an emergency landing. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation before the accident. The emergency chemical dump handle was in the closed position when examined at the accident site, indicating the pilot likely did not perceive an emergency during the accident sequence. The pilot’s medical records show he had a history of recurrent sinusitis. At his most recent primary care office visit, eight months before the accident, he had an acute sinus infection and complained of dizziness. Toxicology testing detected a therapeutic level of the motion sickness medication meclizine in his blood. While sinusitis can cause dizziness, there is no record of a current infection and his daughter reported he was feeling well. Although a sudden onset of vertigo or dizziness would be impairing, the meclizine should help to alleviate those symptoms. Given the available medical information, the lack of evidence that the pilot perceived an in-flight emergency, and the inconsistent way the airplane landed diagonal to the corn instead of with the rows, this investigation was unable to determine if the pilot’s medical conditions or effects from his use of meclizine contributed to this accident.Page 2 of 8 ERA22FA376
The pilot reported that during the landing roll the airplane veered to the left, so she corrected with right rudder, and then left rudder once the airplane was back on the runway centerline. The airplane then veered back to the left and went off the runway into the grass. The nose landing gear collapsed, and the airplane impacted the ground alongside the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot indicated that there were no preimpact mechanical anomalies with respect to the airplane.
The pilot of the single-engine airplane was operating in the airport traffic pattern and had been making position reports on the airport’s common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF). The pilot of the multi-engine airplane made an initial radio call on the CTAF 10 miles from the airport, announcing his intention to perform a straight-in approach for landing. Both pilots continued to make appropriate position reports, but did not communicate with each other until the multi-engine airplane was about one mile from the airport and the single-engine airplane had turned onto the base leg of the traffic pattern for landing. Realizing that the multi-engine airplane was converging upon him, the pilot of the single-engine airplane announced a go-around, and the airplanes collided on final approach for the runway about 150 ft above ground level (agl). Examination of the airplanes revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The multi-engine airplane’s wing flaps and landing gear were both retracted at the accident site, consistent with the pilot’s failure to configure the airplane for landing, and flight track information indicated that the pilot maintained a ground speed of about 180 knots throughout the approach until the collision occurred, which may have reduced the time available for him to see and avoid the single-engine airplane. The toxicology report for the pilot of the single-engine airplane revealed THC, metabolites for THC, metabolites for cocaine, and ketamine; the low amounts of each drug were not considered causal to the accident. The toxicology report for the multi-engine airplane pilot revealed THC, and metabolites of THC; the low amounts of each drug were not considered causal to the accident.Page 2 of 12 WPR22FA309
The accident occurred as the pilot was taking off from an ultralight runway. Portions of the takeoff and accident were captured on a security video. The airplane became airborne and, as seen in the video, it entered a climbing left turn. As the airplane ascended to about treetop level, the bank angle increased greater than 60° as the airplane turned about 90° off the runway heading. The airplane then descended out of view behind trees. The airplane came to rest inverted on top of an airport hangar and was substantially damaged.The pilot stated he had not flown the airplane for years and could not recall what happened during the flight. A witness stated that the pilot told him after the accident that he stalled the airplane and that there was nothing wrong with the airplane. Examination of the wreckage found no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The accident sequence is consistent with the pilot banking excessively after takeoff, which resulted in the airplane exceeding the critical angle of attack at a slow airspeed and stalling.
The pilot reported that, while entering the airport traffic pattern, he became distracted by other air traffic. He stated that he failed to utilize his before-landing check list and did not extend the airplane’s landing gear. The pilot landed the airplane with the landing gear retracted, and the airplane sustained substantial damage to the underside of the fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The airplane had recently undergone maintenance, during which time the mechanic removed the fuel from the wings. The pilot stated that after completing the maintenance, the mechanic told him that he added the fuel back in the wings, so the pilot did not add any additional fuel. The pilot checked the quantity on the fuel gauges, but they were erroneous. He did not verify the quantity by doing a visual check of the actual fluid onboard. After departure, the engine stopped producing power due to fuel exhaustion. The pilot made an off-airport landing on a freeway and the airplane came to rest adjacent to an onramp, about three miles short of the runway.
According to the U.S. Coast Guard, they received a notification of a downed aircraft 15 nautical miles east from Pompano Beach, Florida. They responded to the location and confirmed, debris of an airplane and a deceased occupant. The Coast Guard then received a call from the wife of the pilot regarding a note that she received expressing possible suicidal intentions. She described her spouse and the airplane, which matched the recovered debris and the occupant. The wreckage of the airplane was not otherwise recovered, and the airplane was presumed destroyed.A review of Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) flight track data showed that the airplane departed from Pompano Beach Airpark, Pompano Beach, Florida, before flying northwest for about 10 nautical miles. The airplane then began circling before heading west towards the Atlantic Ocean. While over the ocean, the airplane made a turn to the north before radar/ADS-B contact was lost. Following a death investigation, the Office of Medical Examiner, Palm Beach County classified the manner of death as a suicide.
The pilot and pilot-rated-passenger were conducting an instrument approach when there was a sudden and total loss of fuel flow to the engine as the airplane descended through 1,200 ft mean sea level (msl). The pilot was unable to restore engine power after he increased the throttle and mixture controls, checked both magnetos, and engaged the starter motor. Based on recorded engine data, there was no fuel flow to the engine for the remainder of the flight.The pilot declared an emergency with the air traffic controller and made a forced landing in a grass area short of the runway. The airplane clipped trees and bounced during the forced landing. The fuselage and both wings were substantially damaged during the accident.The engine examination revealed no evidence of a preimpact mechanical malfunction or failure that would have precluded normal operation. There was no evidence of a fuel leak inside the engine compartment or outside on the lower cowl and fuselage skins. The push-pull throttle, mixture, and propeller controls remained intact and functioned as designed. The airframe fuel filter and the inlet screen to the throttle and control unit remained wet with fuel and were free of particulate contamination. Fuel was found in the return lines. Additional examination and testing of the throttle and control unit, engine-driven fuel pump, fuel distribution valve, and fuel flow transducer did not reveal any anomalies that would have resulted in a sudden and total loss of fuel flow to the engine during the flight.The postaccident examination revealed usable fuel in each wing tank. Although the fuel selector was found in the OFF position, it could have been repositioned by the pilot or first responders to secure the airplane’s fuel system after the accident. Additional review of the recorded engine data did not reveal erratic engine operation that is typically associated with a loss of engine power due to fuel starvation or exhaustion. Page 2 of 10 CEN22LA391Alternatively, if the pilot or pilot-rated-passenger inadvertently repositioned the mixture control to cutoff during the descent, it would have resulted in the sudden and total loss of fuel flow that was recorded by the engine monitor. However, based on the pilot’s statement, he attempted to restore engine power by increasing the throttle and mixture controls. With a windmilling propeller, the engine-driven fuel pump would have provided appreciable fuel flow to the engine if the mixture control was forward of the cutoff position.The reason for the sudden and total loss of fuel flow to the engine could not be determined.
The student pilot was performing a short field landing with a designated pilot examiner in the right seat. The student pilot reported that his landing point was at the “top” of the runway numbers. After the airplane crossed over the perpendicular highway that is immediately to the south of the runway, it lost lift and the airplane impacted the edge of the runway. The main landing gear collapsed underneath both wings and the airplane came to rest upright on a grass field. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings. The student pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airframe or the engine that would have precluded normal operation. The student pilot additionally reported that the accident could have been prevented by “proper inflight preparation of the approach” and “energy management.”
The pilot reported spraying several different fields throughout the day. During the accident spray pass, the pilot sighted a power line and attempted to avoid it by lowering the collective. The helicopter struck the power line and subsequently impacted terrain, which resulted in substantial damage to the main rotor blades and vertical stabilizer. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation and that he should made a more complete reconnaissance of the field.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that, the airplane bounced during landing. He attempted to execute a go-around, but the airplane stalled and subsequently collided with the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing 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 reported that he was holding short of the runway for an intersection departure and once he received takeoff clearance, he added power.  After adding power, he reported losing control of the airplane, and exiting the taxiway. The right wing of the airplane impacted a sign resulting in substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
While landing on a wet turf runway, the pilot used 30° of flaps and an approach speed of about 75 knots so he could land softly. A witness observed that the airplane’s speed during rollout was faster than normal. During the landing roll the airplane started to slide to the left. The pilot attempted to keep the airplane in the center of the runway. The airplane then turned violently to the left, departed the runway, and impacted a peanut field. The airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted resulting in substantial damage to the right wing and vertical stabilizer.A postaccident examination revealed the nosewheel tire pressure was low and the shimmy dampener had little resistance in either direction. No anomalies were observed with the main landing gear brake assemblies or tires that would have precluded normal operations. The pilot’s loss of directional control on the wet turf runway was likely due to the higher-than-normal touchdown and rollout speeds on a wet turf runway. It is possible that the low tire pressure and shimmy dampener may have contributed to the pilot’s inability to regain control of the airplane; however, investigators were not able to establish the extent that this would have contributed to the accident.
The pilot reported that, he was using a helicopter to drive horses and misjudged his height above the terrain when a horse unexpectedly turned toward him. He pulled back on the cyclic, the tail rotor struck the terrain, and the helicopter immediately started a yaw to the right. The pilot rolled the throttle off to slow the turn and cushioned the landing by adding collective. Once outside the helicopter the pilot noticed that the tail rotor driveshaft had sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
A video of the accident flight showed the airplane departed runway 35 and became airborne within the first half of the runway. As the airplane reached mid-field, it made a climbing right turn over the trees and disappeared from the camera view. The airplane impacted terrain shortly thereafter.  The sound of the engine running can be heard throughout the video. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of any preexisting mechanical malfunction that would have precluded normal operation.A review of weight and balance information showed that, at the time of departure, the airplane was likely about 229 lbs over its maximum gross weight. Additionally, although the loading and seating positions could not be verified, an estimated calculation placed the airplane’s center of gravity (CG) outside of the manufacturer’s tested/approved CG envelope. Flight track data retrieved from a personal electronic device (PED), showed that the airplane’s speed decreased to 45 knots during the takeoff climb. The airplane's increased weight would have resulted in an increased stall speed. Given the increased airplane weight and the slow airspeed during the takeoff climb, it is likely that the pilot exceeded the airplane’s critical angle of attack, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and subsequent impact with terrain.