roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot and passenger picked up the airplane after maintenance and departed back to their base of operation. A mechanic at the maintenance facility reported that he did not see the pilot and passenger complete a preflight inspection or check the fuel tanks. While  on final approach at the destination airport, about 300 ft above the ground, the engine lost total power. The pilot stated that he moved the fuel selector from the left tank to the right tank. The airplane impacted terrain about 1/2 mile short of the runway, resulting in substantial damage to the right wing. The operator recovered about 4 and 18 gallons of fuel from the left and right main fuel tanks, respectively. The operator further reported that, during postaccident interviews with the pilot and passenger, neither recounted performing a preflight inspection or verifying fuel levels before departure. Both the pilot and operator reported no mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. According to the pilot’s operating handbook for the airplane, “with ¼ tank or less, prolonged uncoordinated flights, such as slips or skids can uncover fuel tank outlets causing fuel starvation and engine stoppage.” Based on the available information, it is likely that the loss of engine power was due to fuel starvation as a result of the fuel in the left tank unporting during the landing approach. Furthermore, the pilot did not move the fuel selector lever to the fullest tank position before landing, as listed in the pilot operation handbook.
United Airlines flight 963 encountered convective turbulence while descending into Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), Newark, New Jersey. As a result of the turbulence, one flight attendant (FA) sustained serious injuries and three sustained minor injuries. The aircraft continued to its destination without further incident. The flight originated at Berlin Brandenburg Airport (BER), Berlin, Germany.The flight crew reported that before initiating the descent, they briefed threats to the approach and arrival phase of the flight and noted pilot reports (PIREPs) in the area of light to moderate turbulence, including a turbulence report from a previous aircraft that had reported turbulence during the descent.  The flight crew stated that the Purser was advised to expect turbulence during the descent, and they recommended that the cabin crew complete their duties sooner than normal. The seatbelt sign was illuminated for the descent.  A significant meteorological information (SIGMET) for moderate turbulence was in effect between 20,000 and 30,000 ft altitude valid from 1200 -1600 local time across the area of the flight’s descent.  A previous SIGMET had been in effect from 0900 – 1200 local time for the same altitude range.  Additionally, there were numerous PIREPs of light and moderate turbulence between 21,000 and 29,000 ft across much of New York state into northern New Jersey in the hour before the accident.The flight crew stated that while level at 23,000 feet altitude and just past the Albany very high frequency omnidirectional range (VOR), they received clearance to descend to 16,000 ft altitude.   They were clear of clouds in smooth air above a much lower broken layer of clouds.  At 22,500 ft altitude, the airplane began an uncommanded roll to the right of about 45°, followed by an uncommanded roll to the left of about 45°. The pilot flying stated he corrected Page 2 of 6 DCA23LA093for the roll with aileron control and reduced thrust to slow the airplane below turbulence penetration speed.  The Relief Officer made a “flight attendants take your jump seats” announcement, followed immediately by “flight attendants be seated immediately” announcement. The flight continued the descent in light to moderate turbulence for about a minute.  After the event the Relief Officer asked the FAs to check in, the Purser reported that there were FAs with injuries in the aft galley in need of medical assistance. No passengers were injured. The flight crew contacted Newark operations via VHF to ensure that they were aware of the situation and to request that paramedics meet the airplane upon arrival.  The flight landed at EWR uneventfully and an injured FA was transported to a local hospital and was diagnosed with a broken clavicle and punctured lung. .
The pilot reported that, while the helicopter was in a stable hover against a mountain slope [toe-in landing], there was suddenly a “big bang”, and the helicopter began to descend and violently shuddered. He attempted to maneuver away from the slope, but the helicopter slid down the slope then came to rest on its left side. The pilot suspected a loose rock may have fell into the main rotor system or the main rotor blades contacted the slope. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, main rotor, and tail cone. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot in the helicopter reported that, he turned final approach at about 100 ft above ground level and the helicopter started settling with power [entered vortex ring state]. The pilot attempted to stop the descent by applying collective and forward cyclic, but the helicopter subsequently landed hard and sustained substantial damage to the aft fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor reported that, during the instructional flight practicing autorotations, the pilot receiving instruction flared the helicopter in a more pronounced nose up attitude, an aft cyclic and higher descent rate, but not excessive enough to require him to take control. During the landing, the main rotor blades contacted the tail boom. The tail rotor driveshaft and vertical fins were substantially damaged during the landing. The flight instructor reported that there were no of preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would preclude normal operation.
A company representative reported that the airplane impacted an unknown object during an aerial application flight. After landing, substantial damage to the left wing was discovered. Following a brief search, a damaged electrical box was found dislodged from its base with yellow paint on one side that was consistent with the color of the airplane's left wing. The operator reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.                                           The pilot did not supply a statement regarding the collision or the circumstances.
The purpose of the flight and the intended destination were not determined. Flight track data showed that the airplane landed at the airport a few hours before the accident flight began. On the accident takeoff, the airplane lifted off and began to climb, reaching an altitude of about 425 ft above ground level (agl), before it descended to about 275 ft agl while it turned slightly to the left. The airplane then began to climb and turned back to the right, reaching a peak altitude of about 450 ft agl before descending. The right turn continued to the end of the data and the airplane was about 230 ft agl when the final data point was recorded. The impact location was consistent with the recorded data and a nose-low, right-wing-low impact. A postimpact fire ensued and consumed a large portion of the airframe, which limited the examination of the airplane; however, no anomalies that would have contributed to the accident were found during the on-scene examination or during a post-recovery examination of the airplane’s engine.The flight path of the airplane suggested that the pilot may have been attempting to turn the airplane in order to land on the runway in the opposite direction, presumably due to a perceived emergency; however, examination of the airplane was unable to determine any defects that would have precipitated an emergency return. Therefore, the cause of the accident could not be determined.
According to the pilot and pilot-rated passenger, they performed one traffic pattern takeoff and landing before departing to a practice area with no issues noted while in the traffic pattern. After arriving to the practice area, the pilot initiated a climb and noted a caution indication for the right cylinder head temperature. The pilot reduced engine rpm and descended, and the cylinder temperatures again indicated normal. The pilot added full power to initiate a climb again and he reported that the engine “stuttered.” The pilot reduced the engine rpm; the engine operated without issue and the pilot added full power again. The pilot reported engine “stuttered” again and the stuttering continued when the rpms were reduced. The pilot elected to return to the airport, where the ground visibility was reducing due to dusk light conditions. The pilot reported that during the return flight to the airport the airplane was struggling to maintain altitude and that he had to fly nose-up to keep from descending. The pilot reported the engine continued to operate in a rough condition. About 20 ft above runway 16, the airplane began to sink, and the pilot added engine power. He stated the engine did not respond, and “we just fell.” The airplane impacted the runway, veered to the right, and nosed over. The pilot and passenger attempted to secure the airplane’s systems and extricated themselves from the airplane.The recorded flight and engine data revealed no anomalies consistent with what the pilot reported had occurred during the accident flight. Examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Based on the evidence and available flight data, it is likely that the pilot failed to fly the airplane at the appropriate airspeed/angle-of-attack during the landing approach, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and hard landing. Page 2 of 7 CEN23LA061
The student pilot was returning the airplane to his home airport following the completion of an annual inspection. Although there were no witnesses to the accident, one person near the airport saw the airplane approach “low and fast,” and another heard the sound of an engine “revving” before hearing the sound of impact. Examination of the wreckage revealed that the airplane impacted a powerline and a tree before contacting the ground. The airplane came to rest inverted about 500 ft beyond the departure end of the runway and was destroyed by impact forces and a post-crash fire. Flight control continuity was confirmed from the cockpit to all flight control surfaces. Examination of the airframe, engine, and propeller did not reveal any mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot’s logbook was not available for review, and his total flight experience could not be determined. Based on aircraft maintenance records, the pilot had accrued about 35 hours in the accident airplane since he purchased it about four years before the accident. The pilot did not hold, nor had he ever held, a Federal Aviation Administration medical certificate.  Given the location of the airplane and the information provided by witnesses, it is likely that the pilot was attempting to conduct a go-around when the accident occurred, and failed to maintain sufficient altitude to avoid obstructions at the departure end of the runway, which resulted in impact with powerlines, a tree, and the ground.An autopsy of the pilot identi?ed extensive natural disease, including severe atherosclerosis of his cerebral arteries, coronary arteries, aorta, and kidney. Given the limited available information about the circumstances of the accident, whether the pilot's cardiovascular Page 2 of 8 CEN23FA059disease contributed to the outcome could not be determined. Toxicological testing detected the potentially impairing antihistamine medications diphenhydramine and cetirizine. Diphenhydramine and cetirizine independently can cause drowsiness and difficulty concentrating; combination use in elderly persons increases the risk of impairment in thinking, judgement, and motor coordination. It is not known whether the pilot’s ability to ?y the aircraft was impacted by his use of these medications as his level of ?ying experience was limited. The contribution to the accident of these medications individually or in combination could not be determined.
The pilot reported that after touchdown, the airspeed decreased, and the tailwheel settled onto the runway. He applied brakes and recalled the airplane’s nose pulled to the left about 20 or 30 degrees. He applied right rudder and right brake to correct the direction, but the airplane exited the runway to the left, traveled up a berm and became airborne. The right wing then impacted terrain and rotated the airplane 180 degrees, before it came to rest on the main landing gear. Examination of the wreckage by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed substantial damage to the fuselage and right wing. The inspector examined the airplane’s brakes and found that both functioned normally. He also examined the tires and saw that neither exhibited flat spots and that the tire marks on the runway appeared to be from a rolling (and not skidding) right tire. Based on this information, it is likely that the pilot lost directional control of the airplane during the landing.
The sport pilot, who was also the owner of the gyroplane, had about 120 total hours of flight experience, all of which was in the accident gyroplane. During the three months before the accident flight, the gyroplane was in maintenance and the pilot had not flown. Surveillance video captured the accident sequence, and showed the aircraft in the initial climb. It leveled off briefly before resuming its climb while displaying a significant left yaw. Shortly thereafter, the aircraft rolled to the right about 360° and impacted the runway. Recorded data from onboard avionics, as well as postaccident examination of the aircraft, did not reveal any evidence of mechanical malfunction or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The rudder trim tab was found undamaged by impact and bent about 30° to the right (left rudder force).  The aircraft manufacturer cautioned that extreme sideslip could result in a loss of control. With the aircraft flying sideways, the side of the aircraft faces the oncoming airflow, creating increased drag that tends to swing the fuselage away from the direction of flight. The rotor disc is subsequently pitched down on the side of the aircraft headed into the oncoming airflow. With the airflow above rather than below the rotor disc, the aircraft can rapidly roll over toward the side of the aircraft facing the direction of flight unless urgent corrective action is taken.The reason that the pilot did not take appropriate recovery action could not be determined.Toxicological testing indicated that the pilot had used cannabis, but the timing of his last cannabis use or whether he was impaired by cannabis effects at the time of the accident could not be determined. It is plausible that the pilot’s overcorrection of the aircraft’s yaw may have resulted, in some part, from impairing effects of delta-9-THC; however, the pilot also had not flown in the three months before the accident. Thus, whether the pilot’s use of cannabis contributed to the accident cannot be determined. Additionally, the pilot’s autopsy findings Page 2 of 9 ERA23FA078were consistent with high blood pressure’s effect on the heart muscle. The pilot’s disease put him at some increased risk for a sudden impairing or incapacitating cardiovascular event such as heart rhythm abnormality. Such an event cannot be ruled out; however, witness accounts and airport video were not consistent with a sudden medical event. Thus, it is unlikely that the pilot’s heart disease contributed to the accident.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that, during the takeoff roll, the airplane drifted off the left edge of the runway. Corrective action was attempted, however the airplane encountered ice off the side of the runway preventing recovery. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and right-side lower fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was departing on a visual flight rules flight from an airport located on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in dark night conditions. Flight track information revealed that the airplane took off toward the Gulf and climbed to a peak altitude of about 75 ft above ground level before entering a descent. During the descent, the airplane accelerated before the track data ended in the vicinity of the accident site, which was located in the water about 1,800 ft past the departure end of the runway. Airport surveillance video from the time of the accident depicted an airplane departing with little to no angle of climb into a dark sky over dark water with no discernable horizon. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the airport at the time of the accident, with a broken cloud ceiling about 5,000 ft above ground level. Although the moon was above the horizon and about 83% of its visible disk was illuminated, it would have been located behind the pilot given the direction of the takeoff and was likely not readily visible due to the cloud ceiling. Examination of the wreckage revealed no pre-impact mechanical anomalies. The pilot began his flight training about 1 year before the accident, received his pilot certificate 4 months before the accident, and did not possess an instrument rating. The pilot had accrued 4.6 total hours of night-flying experience, 1.1 hours of which was accrued about 6 weeks before the accident, and his only night flight since receiving his pilot’s certificate.Since the pilot was not qualified for flight by reference to instruments, he would have been especially vulnerable to the onset of spatial disorientation when departing toward an area of open water devoid of cultural lighting. The flight track data and surveillance video were consistent with the pilot experiencing a form of spatial disorientation known as somatogravic illusion, in which the pilot incorrectly perceives the airplane’s acceleration as increasing pitch Page 2 of 9 ERA23FA079attitude. Such an illusion can be especially difficult to overcome because it typically occurs at low altitudes after takeoff, providing little time for recognition and subsequent corrective actions.
Mesa Airlines flight 6048 encountered turbulence at 10,000 ft during descent into Dulles International Airport (IAD), Chantilly, Virgina. As a result of the turbulence, one flight attendant sustained serious injuries. The airplane landed without further incident.  The flight originated from LaGuardia International Airport (LGA), New York, New York.According to the flight crew, while descending on the HYPER EIGHT arrival, the air traffic controller advised their airplane was following a “heavy jet” and asked if a 7-mile separation would be sufficient. The captain asked for a 10-mile separation, which was granted, and the controller provided vectors to increase the spacing between the two airplanes. The crew could not see the other airplane visually, nor could they determine its location using the traffic collision avoidance system. During the descent, as the airplane crossed the HYPER intersection at 10,000 ft and 250 knots, it encountered moderate turbulence described as a “rapid jolt” while in instrument meteorological conditions. At the time, the seatbelt sign was on, and the two flight attendants along with another commuting flight attendant, were standing in the aft galley. The turbulence resulted in all three of them being “tossed about and hit the floor.”  One flight attendant sustained a broken ankle. The flight crew declared a medical emergency and notified dispatch of the event. The commuting flight attendant assumed the duties for the injured flight attendant. The remainder of the fight was uneventful, and paramedics met the airplane at the gate and transported the injured flight attendant to the hospital. According to the operator, the flight crew was not aware of any forecast turbulence in the area or reports of turbulence encounters by other pilots (PIREPS). Page 2 of 6 DCA23LA090
The pilot reported that while maneuvering the airplane at low altitude to observe sculptures on the ground, he did not see the high-tension wires due to diverted attention and the setting sun. The airplane collided with the wires, the vertical stabilizer sheared off, and the engine seized. Subsequently, the airplane impacted terrain. The empennage and left wing sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operations.
The pilot reported that after applying power during the takeoff roll, the airplane veered left. She attempted to correct by reducing engine power and using opposite rudder and right brake, but the airplane exited the runway and struck a parked airplane and fuel tank resulting in substantial damage to the left wing. A Federal Aviation Administration inspector confirmed the airplane’s rudder control, braking system, and tailwheel steering mechanism functioned correctly. Postaccident examination of the airframe revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, the intention of the flight was to fly over a friend’s property to determine how much snow had accumulated. On a low approach without intent to land, the overcast sky and flat light made it difficult to determine his height above the field, and the airplane’s right wheel touched the soft snow and dug in. The pilot attempted a go-around, however the left main tire then dug in. He decided to land rather than lose directional control, however on rollout the airplane struck a snow drift that he could not see, and the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing, vertical fin, and rudder. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot-rated passenger described the sun as “blinding” during the landing approach, but stated that she and the pilot were uncomfortable landing on the other runway due to the wind conditions. While on final approach, the passenger adjusted the pilot’s sun visor, then looked down to confirm that the airplane was properly configured for landing. When she looked up, she knew that the airplane was going to impact trees. Examination of the wreckage revealed that the airplane impacted 75-ft-tall trees about 300 ft from the end of the runway, then subsequently impacted terrain. The passenger reported there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Review of published airport information revealed that trees were listed as an obstruction for both runways.
The flight crew reported that during a civilian positioning flight to pick up a medical patient, they were cleared to land via a visual approach at night. During the base segment in the traffic pattern, the first officer, who was the pilot flying, lost sight of the runway and transferred the flight controls to the captain at an altitude of about 900 ft mean sea level. The first officer stated that after the exchange of the flight controls, the “aircraft was on short final and passed over the threshold at an angle.” Subsequently, during the captain’s landing flare and touchdown, the stick shaker activated, and the left wing dropped and impacted the runway. The captain completed the landing roll, stopped the airplane on the runway, and all of the occupants exited without incident. The impact with the runway resulted in substantial damage to the left wing. The flight crew did not report any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.