roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that, during the landing flare in gusting crosswind conditions, as the tires touched down, a wind gust lifted the airplane off the ground. The airplane drifted to the left off the runway centerline, and he added full power to initiate a go-around. The airplane suddenly banked "uncontrollably" to the left, and the left wing struck the ground, which resulted in the airplane coming to rest on its belly. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.A review of local weather from an automated weather observation station located on the airport revealed that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 270° at 39 knots, gusting to 51 knots. The pilot landed on runway 21.The Pilot's Operating Handbook stated that, for crosswind landing,        Normal crosswind landings are made with full flaps. Avoid prolonged slips. After touchdown, hold a straight course with rudder and brakes as required. The maximum allowable crosswind velocity is dependent upon pilot capability as well as aircraft limitations. Operation in direct crosswinds of 21 knots has been demonstrated.
On March 6, 2017, about 1010 Pacific standard time, Delta Air Lines flight 429, an Airbus A319-114, N369NB, experienced an abrupt stop after being stopped with the parking break set, while taxiing for takeoff at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Los Angeles, California. Of the 117 passengers and crew onboard, one flight attendant was seriously injured.  The airplane was not damaged.  The regularly scheduled passenger flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 from LAX to New Orleans International Airport (MSY), New Orleans, Louisiana.The captain stated that pushback, initial engine start, and taxi were normal. When the airplane was number 5 in line taxiing for takeoff, he started the second engine.  He then stopped the airplane in line, set the parking brake, and began the "delayed after-start check", when he noticed that the airplane was rolling. He then looked down and verified that the parking brake was set, which it was, and as he was applying the brakes they locked, and the airplane came to a "jarring stop". At the time of the sudden stop, the lead flight attendant (FA) was performing safety checks in the first-class galley and was thrown into the galley. After being informed of the FAs injury, the captain returned the flight to the gate where they were met by paramedics.  The FA was transported to the hospital where she was diagnosed with a broken rib.Maintenance personnel examined the airplane after the accident and found the circuit breaker for the parking brake electrical control valve popped.
The flight instructor and the student pilot departed for a local flight. After performing several takeoffs and landings, they departed the airport area to perform slow flight and stall maneuvers. While recovering from the second stall maneuver, the engine suddenly lost power completely. The flight instructor attempted to troubleshoot and then restart the engine but was unsuccessful. She performed a forced landing to a field and the airplane was substantially damaged when it struck trees. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine was unable to identify evidence of any mechanical anomalies that would have resulted in the loss of engine power. Additionally, the temperature and dewpoint at the time of the accident were not conducive to the formation of carburetor ice, and the flight instructor stated that they had used carburetor heat during the flight. Based on this evidence, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The private pilot was going to practice touch-and-go landings; during the first takeoff, he smelled engine coolant. As he turned onto the downwind leg, the engine lost total power. Unable to reach the runway, the pilot chose to conduct a forced landing in a field. Although the pilot stated that he checked the engine coolant level during the preflight inspection, a postaccident examination of the airplane revealed an insufficient amount of coolant in the reservoir. The radiator did not contain any coolant, and no leaks were detected in the coolant system. No other anomalies were noted with the engine. Given the small amount of coolant in the system and the lack of any leaks, it is likely that the pilot did not ensure that a sufficient amount of coolant was in the engine reservoir before takeoff, which resulted in the engine getting too hot and the engine control module shutting down the engine as designed.
The 69-year-old commercial pilot was making a personal cross-country flight in the newly-purchased airplane. When the airplane was on final approach to the destination airport in night visual meteorological conditions, airport surveillance video showed it pitch up and roll to the right. The airplane then descended in a nose-down attitude to impact in a ravine on the right side of the runway. During the descent over the ravine the right wing came in contact with a powerline that briefly cut power to the airport. Postaccident examination of the airframe, engines, and their components revealed no evidence of mechanical anomalies or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot's toxicology findings identified five different impairing medications: clonazepam, temazepam, hydrocodone, nortriptyline, and diphenhydramine. Although the results were from cavity blood and may not accurately reflect antemortem levels, the hydrocodone, temazepam, and diphenhydramine levels were high enough to likely have had some psychoactive effects. While the exact effects of these drugs in combination are not known, it is likely that the pilot was impaired to some degree by his use of this combination of medications, which likely contributed to his failure to maintain control of the airplane.
According to information provided by the Federal Aviation Administration, the private pilot was conducting touch-and-go takeoffs and landings when the airplane became uncontrollable during the landing roll and departed the side of the runway. Due to the airplane's position, the landing gear could not be examined on scene. After recovery to the owner's hangar, and without coordination from the investigator-in-charge, the airplane was sold for salvage before an examination could be conducted; therefore, the reason of the loss of directional control could not be determined.
The pilot was conducting a local personal flight. The pilot said he developed "unnecessary anxiety" and hurried his landing due to approaching traffic. He failed to brake aggressively and, as a result, was unable to turn in time to exit the runway. The airplane rolled off the taxiway and became bogged down in the wet grass from a previous rain. Instead of shutting the engine off, the pilot closed the throttle to idle, exited the airplane, and tried to push the airplane with the left strut. "Without thinking," the pilot walked toward the nosewheel to inspect the airplane and walked into the rotating propeller.
The pilot of the twin-engine airplane and the pilot-rated passenger reported that, during a missed approach in instrument meteorological conditions, at 2,000 ft mean sea level, the right engine seized. The pilot attempted to feather the right engine by pulling the propeller control to the feather position; however, the engine did not feather. The airplane would not maintain level flight, so the pilot navigated to a known airport, and the passenger made emergency communications with air traffic control. The pilot was unable to maintain visual reference with the ground until the airplane descended through about 100 to 200 ft and the visibility was 1 statute mile. The pilot stated that he was forced to ditch the airplane in the water about 5 miles short of the airport. The pilot and passenger egressed the airplane and swam ashore before it sank in about 89 ft of water. Both the pilot and passenger reported that there was postimpact fire on the surface of the water.The airplane was not recovered, which precluded a postaccident examination. Thus, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The pilot reported that, during final approach in gusting wind conditions at night, he reduced power and initiated a flare when he then heard the stall warning horn. He added that a "gust of wind caught [the] left wing," which he attempted to recover with left aileron inputs. The nose landing gear bounced during touchdown, and he applied full power to go around when a gust of wind "pushed [him] right into desert." The airplane bounced, impacted a fence, and came to rest inverted on the right side of the runway.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing, fuselage, and empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident 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 5 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 130° at 9 knots and that, about 15 minutes after the accident, the wind was from 140° at 10 knots, gusting to 17 knots. The airplane landed on runway 19.
The pilot reported that, after a normal landing in gusting headwind conditions, he turned onto an intersecting runway, which resulted in gusting crosswind conditions. He added that he positioned the flight controls to compensate for the crosswind but that, after taxiing about 150 ft on the runway, the left wing lifted, and the airplane veered to the right and then nosed over on snow-covered terrain.The vertical stabilizer sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The automated weather observation station at the accident airport, about the time of the accident, recorded wind from 300° at 13 knots, gusting to 28 knots. The pilot reported that he was taxiing on runway 3.
The pilot stated that he was conducting spray operations to a pasture with power lines on its north border. As the pilot approached the pasture from the north on his fourth pass, he intended to descend after flying past the second of two cables. The pilot initiated a descent, but the airplane struck the second cable. The airplane subsequently impacted the ground and a postimpact fire ensued. Following the accident, the pilot stated that he misidentified the first cable as the second cable.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, while landing on a road in gusting crosswind conditions, the right wing lifted to about a 60° angle. He immediately initiated a go-around and added full power and right aileron and lowered the nose. The airplane had drifted off the center of the road to the left heading toward power lines, and the pilot chose to go under them. After the airplane cleared the power lines, the left wing tip struck the ground, and the airplane cart-wheeled. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings, the fuselage, and the empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
During approach, the airline transport pilot observed a cockpit indication that the landing gear was down and locked; however, the left main landing gear collapsed during the landing roll. The left propeller struck the runway, and the airplane veered off the left side of the runway and came to rest in the grass. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the left main landing gear downlock link had separated. The airplane experienced a previous landing gear collapse about 3 years before the accident. However, it had been flown about 6 hours uneventfully after extensive repairs from the previous accident and two subsequent annual inspections. It could not be determined if these events are related.
The solo student pilot reported that, during his first solo flight, on the second landing of three, the airplane porpoised. His flight instructor was observing the airplane and reported that the nosewheel impacted the ground first. Subsequently, the student pilot added power and performed a go-around. The flight instructor added that, on the third landing, the touchdown was soft and on the main landing gear. Once the nosewheel touched down, the airplane veered off the runway to the right into grass and then nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the empennage. The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The airline transport pilot reported that, after takeoff, while the airplane was about 150 ft above ground level, the engine experienced a total loss of power and that he then chose to land straight ahead in a field. The airplane touched down on soft terrain and skidded about 60 ft before coming to rest in the upright position. The firewall and engine mounts were substantially damaged. Examination of the engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. During the engine disassembly, fuel was noted in the throttle body; however, no fuel was found in the fuel manifold. In addition, no water was noted in the fuel system. The pilot stated that he washed the airplane the day before the accident, so it is possible that water entered the fuel system and resulted in a total loss of engine power on takeoff. However, since no water was found in the fuel system (the pilot washed the airplane the previous day), the reason for the loss of power could not be determined.
The airline transport pilot was conducting the airplane's first flight after about 1 1/2 years of inactivity and the completion of an annual inspection. A witness reported that the airplane took off normally, but the retractable landing gear remained extended. As the airplane neared the end of the runway, about 300 ft above ground level, the engine sounded as though it "decreased to idle." The airplane entered a right, 180o turn and descended rapidly before impacting the ground.During a postaccident test run, the engine operated normally at both idle and full power settings and during abrupt changes between idle and full power. However, it operated inconsistently at 2,100 rpm for about 30 seconds before stabilizing at that power setting. During this time, the fuel pump pressure fluctuated. Following the test run, the fuel manifold valve was disassembled, revealing rust on the screen, lower housing, and plunger, consistent with exposure to water. The diaphragm was removed and a small amount of fuel was found on the "dry" side of the valve; the vent extending from this section was examined and clear of debris. Examination of the airframe and engine maintenance logs revealed that the airplane flew a total of 73 hours and underwent 3 annual inspections in the previous 8 years. It is likely that water accumulated in the fuel system sometime during the airplane's prolonged periods of disuse, resulting in corrosion of the fuel manifold valve's internal components. Because the corrosion was internal, it would not have been detected without disassembly of the fuel manifold, which is not part of the annual inspection procedure. It is likely that this corrosion caused the manifold valve plunger to temporarily stick, which restricted fuel flow to the engine and resulted in the anomalous operation during the postaccident test run as well as the loss of power on the accident flight. Following the loss of engine power, the pilot initiated a turn back to the runway, during which the airplane exceeded its critical angle of attack and experienced an aerodynamic stall.   Page 2 of 7 WPR17LA072
The sport pilot reported that he was landing on an airfield and overflew the runway multiple times searching for a wind sock. He watched another airplane land to the south, and he made his approach to the south also. He reported that his altitude was too high during his first approach, so he aborted the landing. He asserted that, "This should have alerted me that there was a tailwind." He flew one traffic pattern and made a second approach with the power at idle and full flaps. He established his approach, but the airplane sank quickly and touched down short of the runway and nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the canopy, the vertical stabilizer, and the rudder. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. According to the Airport Facility Directory, the airfield was equipped with a wind indicator. However, no wind indicator could be located on or near the airfield by the National Transportation Safety Board investigator-in-charge.
The commercial pilot of the helicopter reported that, while conducting an aerial application flight, he heard a loud bang followed by a total loss of engine power. The pilot initiated an autorotation to a plowed field; however, during the landing sequence, the main rotor blades struck the tailboom. Postaccident examination revealed that, when power was applied, the fuel quantity gauge indicated about 15 gallons of fuel when the actual amount present was about 6.5 gallons. This erroneous fuel level indication led the pilot to believe that more fuel was available than was actually in the fuel tanks. The helicopter flight manual indicated that, due to possible fuel sloshing in unusual attitudes or out-of-trim conditions, and one or both fuel pumps inoperative, the unusable fuel is 10 gallons.The engine was subsequently installed on a test stand and several test runs revealed no anomalies. Further testing revealed that the aft fuel boost pump was inoperative. The thermal fuse was found open, consistent with overheating due to the lack of fuel being transferred through the pump. It is likely that, during the flight, the attitude of the helicopter was slightly nose-down. This allowed the fuel to transfer to the forward portion of the tank, which resulted in a lack of fuel flow through the aft fuel pump; the subsequent overheating triggered the thermal fuse, which caused the aft fuel pump to become inoperative. It is likely that the total loss of engine power was the result of fuel exhaustion.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during takeoff in gusting tailwind conditions, as the tailwheel lifted, the airplane drifted to the left and off the runway. He aborted the takeoff and applied "maximum braking" and reverse thrust. During the runway excursion, the airplane impacted a ditch and spun 180°.The pilot added that, as he exited the cockpit, he observed "dark smoke coming from the exhaust and cowling with smoldering burning grass." He reported that he discharged the onboard fire extinguisher into the engine exhaust, main landing gear, and grass. He added that hydraulic fluid leaking from a severed brake line and fuel leaking from the cowl and lower right wing were feeding the postimpact fire. Shortly thereafter, the local volunteer fire department arrived and extinguished the fire.The fuselage and both wings sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot reported that the wind was from 180º at 15 knots, gusting to 28 knots. The closest automated weather observation station, located about 38 nautical miles from the accident site, recorded wind from 180° at 14 knots, gusting to 22 knots. The airplane took off from runway 30.
The sport pilot, who was the owner and builder of the experimental, amateur-built airplane, had not flown the airplane in over 4 months due to a fuel leak. Two days before the accident, he reported that he had corrected the leak by repairing a fuel outlet connection near the fuel shutoff valve in the cockpit. The pilot departed and remained in the airport traffic pattern with the intent of performing touch-and-go takeoffs and landings. During final approach for the first landing, several witnesses observed the airplane on fire before it suddenly entered a nose-down descent and impacted a residence.Examination of the wreckage revealed evidence of an inflight fire in the engine compartment; the bottom oil line where it attached to the oil filter by a blue aluminum nut was not secure. In addition, the fuel regulator fuel intake line at the regulator attach point had little torque and spun freely on the threads. Both connections were inside the engine compartment and shared no commonality with the pilots previously reported fuel leak at the outlet connection in the cockpit. It is likely that, while performing engine maintenance, the pilot failed to properly torque the oil and fuel regulator fittings. Normal engine vibrations during the flight likely resulted in one of the fittings becoming loose and introducing flammable liquid into the engine compartment. Upon contact with hot engine components, the fluid ignited and resulted in an engine compartment fire. Because both the oil and fuel systems were compromised by loose connections, whether the fire was caused by fuel or oil could not be determined.Although an autopsy of the pilot identified severe coronary artery disease, which would have placed him at high risk for an acute cardiovascular event, it is unlikely that symptoms from his heart disease contributed to his inability to manage the inflight emergency. The rapidly developing emergency caused by fire and smoke, distracted the pilot who had little recent experience in the airplane. The pilot's diverted attention likely resulted in his failure to recognized that the airplane was going to exceed its critical angle of attack and enter an aerodynamic stall.
The flight instructor reported that, during an introduction to soft-field takeoffs lesson, upon switching to the tower frequency, he and his student received the updated wind and altimeter setting. He noted that the wind was a "rear quartering crosswind" and that "I have done these before so thought I would be fine, though in retrospect [it's] been a long time since I have done [a takeoff] with similar conditions." During the takeoff, he held the yoke back with right aileron, and as the airplane began to lift off, he reduced back pressure on the yoke. After becoming airborne, the airplane drifted to the right and then settled back on the runway. He added more right aileron, rudder, and "back elevator," which reduced his forward visibility. The airplane became airborne again about 45 knots and drifted to the right of the runway centerline. He reduced power, landed, and came to a stop off the right side of the runway. The airplane was taxied back to parking with no further incident. A postaccident examination revealed that the airplane sustained substantial damage to the rear carry-through wing spar.The chief flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The flight instructor reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 300° at 10 knots. The airplane was departing from runway 7R.