roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that he was performing a practice autorotation with a power recovery, and was the sole occupant in the helicopter. He reported that the power was introduced at 200 feet above ground level (AGL) and he entered the flare at too low of an altitude. The tail rotor system impacted the soft ground adjacent to the planned landing area. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the tailboom, the tail rotor driveshaft assembly, and the tail rotor system. The pilot verified that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.The Federal Aviation Administration has published Advisory Circular (AC) 61-140 Autorotation Training (2013). This AC discusses the flare portion for autorotation training and states in part:Every autorotational flare will be different depending on the existing wind conditions, airspeed, density altitude, and the aircraft gross weight. This AC also discusses common errors during autorotation training and states in part:Improper flare (too much or not enough).Flaring too low or too high (AGL).
The airline transport pilot stated that he was landing in the experimental amateur-built airplane at his 1,600-ft-long private runway when he attempted a "late" go-around. The airplane impacted trees, a powerline, and terrain, resulting in substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no pre-impact mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during the landing touchdown with a crosswind, the tail of the airplane was "hit with a burst of strong wind" from a nearby lake. He reported that before being able to react, the wind blew the airplane off the left side of the runway. The nose wheel collapsed, the right main landing gear separated, and the airplane impacted terrain in a ditch. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.The pilot verified that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor reported that he had demonstrated the use of the airplane's fuel quantity gauge during the instructional flight. As part of the demonstration, he had changed the position of the fuel selector but did not recall in what position he had left the selector at the conclusion of the exercise. While approaching the airport to land, the engine experienced a total loss of power, and the flight instructor assumed control of the airplane. During the subsequent forced landing to a field, the airplane stalled about 10 feet above the ground and landed hard, resulting in substantial damage. Postaccident examination found fuel in all fuel tanks with the exception of the right auxiliary tank. No mechanical anomalies were found with the airplane. The position of the fuel selector before the loss of engine power could not be determined, as the flight instructor turned the selector to the off position during the postaccident egress. The airplane was operating in an area conducive to the formation of serious icing at glide power, however, it could not be determined if the loss of engine power was a result of fuel starvation with the right auxiliary fuel tank selected, or if carburetor icing had formed during the airplane's descent. It is likely that the stall experienced during the forced landing contributed to the severity of damage to the airplane.
The private pilot reported that, before departing for a personal cross-country flight, he conducted a full preflight inspection, including a fuel check. As the airplane was approaching the destination airport, the engine lost power. The pilot's attempts to regain power were unsuccessful. The pilot conducted a forced landing, during which the airplane impacted ground obstacles. After the airplane was recovered, fuel was found in a fuel gauge; however, no fuel was found in the fuel tanks. An examination of the airplane revealed no preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. A review of data from a video camera mounted in the cockpit revealed that the pilot said that the airplane was new to him and that he "just" ran out of fuel.
The flight instructor reported that during the landing roll, the airplane began an "un-commanded" yaw to the right. The flight instructor further reported that the private pilot receiving instruction stated, "I can't control the yaw." The flight instructor reported that he applied rudder pressure to correct the yaw, but the airplane veered off the runway to the right, the left wing collided with an airport sign, and the nose gear collapsed.The flight instructor further reported that a jack rabbit was found in the runway excursion path and blood was observed on the left main landing gear door. According to a Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Safety Inspector who traveled to the site of the accident, the jack rabbit was not hit on the runway surface. The jack rabbit was found in the grass adjacent to the runway surface.The left wing was substantially damaged. The flight instructor and pilot receiving instruction did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
Two witnesses saw the helicopter circle three times at low altitude. During the third pass, the helicopter descended to about 20 ft above the ground before it entered a climb. As it climbed, the helicopter entered a spin and descended to the ground. Both of the witnesses stated that the engine continued to run after impact. A postaccident examination of the wreckage did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the helicopter, and the reason for the loss of control could not be determined. Review of the pilot's logbook showed he had about 192 hours of helicopter flight time but did not hold a rotorcraft rating.
The pilot reported that the purpose of the flight was to maneuver at low altitude and chase birds away from designated fields. The pilot further reported that he had previously completed about 8 to 10 turns over the target field and during a steep "reversal turn" to the left the airplane impacted terrain. The pilot had no other recollection of the accident.According to a private pilot witness located about 700 feet from the accident airplane, he observed the accident airplane enter a "steep turn" to the left about 50 to 75 feet above the ground. The witness further reported that the airplane "stalled and spun into the ground", and that the engine noise became louder seconds before impact.  The fuselage and both wings were substantially damaged. The Federal Aviation Administration Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge in part states: an airplane will "stall at a higher indicated airspeed when excessive maneuvering loads are imposed by steep turns, pull-ups, or other abrupt changes in its flight path." Stalls entered from such flight situations are called "accelerated maneuver stalls," a term, which has no reference to the airspeeds involved. Stalls which result from abrupt maneuvers tend to be more rapid, or severe, than the unaccelerated stalls, and because they occur at higher-than-normal airspeeds, and/or may occur at lower than anticipated pitch attitudes, they may be unexpected by an inexperienced pilot. Failure to take immediate steps toward recovery when an accelerated stall occurs may result in a complete loss of flight control, notably, power-on spins.The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. Page 2 of 7 GAA16CA166
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll with a quartering tailwind, he lost directional control, departed the runway, and impacted a tree. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.  According to the pilot there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot reported that during his second solo flight he encountered a gust of wind during the landing flare and the airplane ballooned and then bounced twice on the nose wheel. After the second bounce, the student pilot applied full power and aborted the landing. The subsequent landing was uneventful and he taxied to the ramp. A postaccident examination revealed substantial damage to the firewall. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor reported that the student pilot was asked to conduct several solo "pickups and set downs" on a grass area at the airport. The flight instructor exited the helicopter and observed the student pilot pick the helicopter up to a hover and set the helicopter back on the ground without incident. During the second iteration, the flight instructor observed the helicopter achieve a hover at 5 to 8 feet above ground level for several seconds. She reported that the helicopter then slowly yawed to the right and continued turning to the right until it was 270 degrees from its original heading.The helicopter began to lose altitude, move forward, and the skids impacted the ground. She reported that the helicopter bounced back into the air after impacting the ground and rolled slightly to the left. The helicopter then abruptly rolled to the right, the nose came down, the main rotor blades impacted the ground, and the helicopter came to rest on its right side. After the impact, the flight instructor reported that she crawled inside of the cockpit to turn off the engine. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, main rotor system, tailboom, and horizontal stabilizer. The student pilot reported that he did not recall the accident sequence of events. The flight instructor reported that after the accident, while at the hospital with the student pilot, he reported to her that "I should have been able to control it [the helicopter]." The flight instructor verified that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aviation safety inspector who responded to the accident site, reported that he did not notice any mechanical control issues with the helicopter. He also reported that the engine had no signs of any issues and that witnesses stated that after the helicopter impacted the ground, the engine was still running.Page 2 of 6 GAA16CA160As a safety recommendation, the flight instructor reported that her organization will increase the time allotment in their training syllabus to allow more emphasis to be placed on the importance of light control inputs and the catastrophic results that can occur from over controlling and abrupt inputs, particularly at a hover. The FAA has published the Helicopter Flying Handbook FAA-H-8083-21 (2012). This handbook discusses techniques for hovering and states in part:To maintain the helicopter in a stabilized hover, make small, smooth, coordinated corrections.
The solo student pilot reported that during the landing flare the airplane ballooned, and upon touchdown the nose gear touched down first. He further reported that the airplane porpoised. Subsequently, the nose landing gear collapsed and the airplane skidded to a stop on the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to the firewall.According to the student pilot there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during landing in crosswind conditions, the airplane began to drift to the right over the runway lights in the landing flare. The pilot further reported that he determined "it was not safe to land" and applied full power to go-around and subsequently retracted the flaps from 30 degrees to zero degrees. During the go-around, he reported that the airplane was unable to gain airspeed or altitude and touched down in the grass next to the runway and aborted the go-around. Subsequently, the pilot taxied back onto the runway and proceeded to the ramp.A postaccident examination revealed substantial damage to elevator and rudder. The pilot reported that "he did not realize the angle of attack was severe enough" to cause a tail strike during the go-around.The Cessna 172R (180 HP) Pilot's Operating Handbook in part states: "In a balked landing (go-around) climb, reduce the flap setting to 20 degrees immediately after full power is applied. If obstacles must be cleared during the go-around climb, reduce the wing flap setting to 10 degrees and maintain a safe airspeed until the obstacles are cleared." The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during touch down in gusty crosswind conditions, the airplane veered off the runway to the left. He further reported when he corrected to get back onto the runway the nose gear collapsed.  The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.  According to the pilot there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot departed for a local personal flight on a winter day with an outside air temperature of about 6°C. About 1 hour after takeoff, the pilot's brother saw the airplane maneuvering near his home, which was in a rural area about 31 miles from the departure airport. The airplane did not return to the departure airport, and the accident site was located in an open field 2 days later, about 4 miles from the pilot's brother's home. Examination of the accident site revealed wreckage and impact signatures consistent with the pilot losing control of the airplane. Examination of the engine's exhaust muffler revealed cracks in several locations, and the muffler's shroud contained a layer of exhaust residue. Six months before the accident, the pilot and the mechanic who had previously performed an annual inspection on the airplane became aware of a crack in the muffler near a weld that the pilot had performed. The pilot had purchased a replacement muffler, but it was not installed before the accident. A carbon monoxide detector was not on board the airplane.Toxicology testing of the pilot's blood revealed a carbon monoxide level of 40%, which was more than enough to severely impair the pilot. The carbon monoxide likely entered the airplane's cabin because of the cracked engine exhaust muffler. The toxicology testing also revealed several non-impairing medications and two potentially impairing medications (temazepam and buspirone). According to the pilot's medical records, he was being treated for anxiety with temazepam and buspirone, and he may have been fatigued from insufficiently treated sleep disorders (insomnia and obstructive sleep apnea). However, it could not be determined whether the pilot's anxiety, the medications used to treat it, or fatigue contributed to his poor judgment in flying the airplane with known cracks in the exhaust muffler.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that during the takeoff roll the airplane abruptly turned about 25 degrees to the left. He reduced the power to idle, applied right rudder, but reported that he over corrected to the right. He then applied left rudder to correct for the over correction. The airplane veered off the runway to the left, down an embankment and nosed over, which resulted in substantial damage to the empennage.  According to the pilot there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the pilot, after completing the maintenance test flight, he established a normal approach to the runway. However, he reported that he did not extend the landing gear prior to touchdown and the airplane landed with the landing gear retracted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing, left aileron and the bottom of the fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or anomalies with the airplane prior to or during the flight that would have prevented normal flight operation.
The pilot/owner reported that he was departing on his first flight in the experimental airplane he had just purchased. He began the takeoff roll to the west and the wind pushed the airplane towards the right side of the runway. He attempted to correct with left rudder, but the airplane continued to the right. He then added left aileron, but the airplane continued right and the right wing struck a tree limb. According to the pilot, "The next thing I knew I was on the ground."The pilot reported he had 200 total hours of flight experience, and that his experience was divided between both certified and experimental airplanes. He stated that his airplane had no mechanical deficiencies that would have precluded normal operation.
The six-ship formation of vintage World War II airplanes had completed their run-ups on the taxiway and were preparing for departure. A departure clearance was received from air traffic control and the six-ship formation proceeded to the runway for takeoff. The Goodyear "Corsair" airplane was sixth in formation and trailing the Nakajima "Zero" airplane. These tailwheel airplanes required the pilots to taxi in an S-turn pattern due to the limited forward visibility. As the Corsair pilot proceeded with the S-turn taxi to the runway, the Corsair overtook the Zero and collided with its tail. The Zero spun right about 270 degrees and came to rest. The Corsair stopped quickly and its propeller impacted the taxiway. The Zero sustained substantial damage to the empennage and the Corsair sustained minor damage. The pilots conducted an accident debrief and determined that a lack of "vigilance" was to blame.  Both pilots reported there were no pre-impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframes or engines that would have precluded normal operation.
On March 14, 2016, 2156 central daylight time, United Airlines flight 898,a Boeing 737-724, N23708, encountered turbulence during cruise that resulted in one flight attendant sustaining a serious injury near Port Arthur, Texas.  There were no injuries to the other passengers and crew aboard and the airplane was not damaged.  The flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 as a regularly scheduled passenger flight from the George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH), Houston, Texas to the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport (MSY), New Orleans, Louisiana.According to flight crew statements, the captain was the flying pilot and the first officer (FO) was the pilot monitoring.  The airplane was level at flight level (FL) 270, with the autopilot off, in clear air with no convective activity in the vicinity.  Immediately before before beginning the descent into IAH, the flight encountered a momentary pocket of moderate to severe turbulence with the airplane banking approximately 25 – 30 degrees to the right, and the altitude fluctuating from 100 feet up to 60 - 160 feet down.  The flight crew did not recall seeing anything on the onboard weather radar or TCAS (traffic collision avoidance system).  The captain immediately turned on the seat belt sign and made an announcement on the public address for the passengers to fasten their seat belts. Shortly after, the flight crew were informed that a flight attendant FA was injured. The captain called the cabin and was informed that one of the FAs was severely injured.  The flight crew declared a medical emergency and arranged for paramedics to meet the flight at the gate.  The FA was transported to a local hospital and diagnosed with serious injuries.According to a weather analysis conducted by United Airlines, satellite imagery indicated no significant cloud features over the route of flight, with the moisture channel imagery indicating moisture channel darkening or drier air in the middle tropospheric levels across the northern half of Texas and southern Los Angeles with increasing moisture further to the south with the stronger jet stream winds.  A review of pilot reports (PIREPs) across the region leading up to the turbulence only indicated light turbulence being encountered.  Consequently, The Weather Company forecasts only called for light turbulence for the route.  However, several Aircraft Meteorological Data and Reporting (AMDAR) automated reports across Page 2 of 6 DCA16CA181the region indicated that winds were stronger than predicted at higher levels and indicated a strong vertical wind shear at higher levels than originally forecast.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that during takeoff roll the airplane encountered a gust of wind from the left side. He said that he "dipped" the left wing in an attempt to counter the wind gust but lost control of the airplane, flipped over nose first and impacted the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the vertical stabilizer.The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot reported that, during the takeoff run from the 2,100-ft-long soft, unimproved dirt airstrip, he observed that the propeller rpm was 2,600; he did not observe the manifold pressure reading. The pilot reported that the airplane seemed to accelerate slowly, which he thought was likely due to the soft runway surface or vegetation. About halfway to two-thirds down the runway, as the tail was coming off the ground, the pilot added a notch of flaps as the airplane continued to roll on its main landing gear. As the airplane approached the end of the runway, the pilot pulled back on the control yoke, which increased the angle of attack. The airplane then climbed about 2 ft above the ground before settling into sagebrush off the end of the runway. The airplane subsequently impacted a tree and came to rest upright about 50 yards from the tree. The pilot stated that he thought the engine might not have been producing full power and that he should have aborted the takeoff at that time. However, a postaccident examination of the airframe and engine, which included two engine test runs, did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. If the pilot had chosen to abort the takeoff when he noted that he airplane was accelerating slowly, the accident likely would have not occurred.