roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
According to the pilot, the landing gear and flaps failed to retract after departure. After verifying that the hydraulic pump circuit breaker had not opened and noting that the hydraulic pressure gauge indicated zero, he was able to successfully retract both the landing gear and wing flaps using the emergency hydraulic hand pump. Upon arrival at his destination, he again used the hand pump to extend both the landing gear and wing flaps. After touchdown, he applied the wheel brakes in an effort to slow and steer the airplane, but the airplane did not slow down. The airplane exited the side of the runway, proceeded down an embankment, and came to rest on its left wing and hull sustaining substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage. Postaccident examination of the brake and flight control systems revealed no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Although the pilot reported the failure of the airplane's landing gear and wing flap hydraulic system, it was independent of the brake system and therefore was not examined.
The pilot reported that, during preflight preparations, he filled the fuel tanks with 50 gallons total fuel and planned to switch between the fuel tanks 1 hour and then 3 hours into the flight. He stated that each fuel tank contained 24 gallons of usable fuel and that the estimated fuel burn was 10 gallons per hour. He departed with the fuel selector on the right fuel tank. One hour into the flight, he switched to the left fuel tank. The pilot stated that, while descending to land at the destination airport, about 3 hours 10 minutes into the flight, he set the mixture to full rich and turned on the fuel pump, and the engine "immediately lost power." He then began an emergency checklist, turned on the carburetor heat, and cycled the fuel pump and throttle, but the engine did not respond. Subsequently, he conducted an off-airport landing on a road. Upon landing, the right wing impacted brush and weeds, and the airplane then veered right and came to rest in a ditch. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing.A Federal Aviation Administrator inspector reported that the fuel selector valve was set to the left fuel tank. The propeller and engine cowl sustained minimal damage, and no fuel was found in the engine fuel sump. The left wing appeared undamaged, and less than 1 quart of fuel was found in the tank. The right wing exhibited extensive aft crushing damage to the outboard leading edge, and the fuel line was crimped and broken by impact forces, and no fuel was found in the fuel tank. The airplane manufacturer's Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH), Chapter 3.3, "EMERGENCY PROCEDURES CHECKLIST," contained an Engine Power Loss During Flight checklist, which stated, in part, the following:Fuel selector: switch to tank containing fuelPage 2 of 6 GAA19CA534Electric fuel pump: ONMixture: RICHCarburetor heat: ONEngine gauges: check for indication of cause of power lossPrimer: check locked. If no fuel pressure is indicated check tank selector position to be sure it is on a tank containing fuel.Although no fuel was found in the right fuel tank, this was likely due to the break in the fuel line caused by impact forces. Given the fuel burn rate and the length of the flight, the right tank likely had sufficient fuel onboard for flight, and the pilot's failure to move the fuel selector to the right tank, as called for in the POH, likely led to fuel starvation and the subsequent loss of all engine power.
The student pilot was conducting a solo cross-country flight. Upon arriving at the destination airport, he overflew the runway to determine the wind direction from the windsock then performed a normal approach.  He stated that, during the landing flare, a gust of wind came from the right side and lifted the airplane. The airplane then landed hard, bounced once, then came to a stop, resulting in substantial damage to the firewall and a collapsed nose landing gear. Review of the wind conditions revealed a light right crosswind around the time of the accident. The pilot reported there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane. The circumstances of the accident are consistent with an improper flare and hard landing.
The pilot of the float-equipped airplane had performed several takeoffs and landings before the accident takeoff. During the accident takeoff, he perceived a reduced climb performance that was exacerbated by turbulence. He maneuvered the airplane to avoid power lines, the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall, and impacted terrain. A postimpact fire ensued. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the empennage, fuselage, and both wings. The pilot stated that the floats were pumped before the flight, and that the engine did not show any indications of a malfunction. An examination of the wreckage did not reveal any anomalies. The airplane was operated near maximum gross weight, assuming no more than 8 gallons of fuel were onboard, and no water was in the floats. Although atmospheric conditions were conducive to the development of carburetor icing at glide power settings, whether carburetor icing contributed to the accident could not be determined. The reason for the reduced climb performance could not be determined.
The pilot reported that, while landing, the airplane encountered a sudden crosswind and drifted left. The airplane bounced on touchdown and then veered left, exited the runway, impacted a runway light, traveled through a ditch, and the main landing gear collapsed.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and the right wing.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The airport's automated weather observation station reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 360° at 11 knots. The pilot was landing the airplane on runway 26.
The pilot flew to another airport to pick up passengers. After refueling and loading the passengers, the pilot started the engine, which he stated was still warm and ran rough, but he was able to resolve the roughness during the engine run-up. During the initial climb after takeoff, the engine lost power and began to surge. The pilot turned on the vapor suppressor to clear vapor from the fuel lines; the engine then lost total power. The airplane impacted trees and terrain during the forced landing which resulted in substantial damage to both wings, the fuselage, and the empennage.Examination revealed some fibrous contamination within the left fuel tank pick up screen; however, there was no fuel system contamination downstream of the fuel tanks. Disassembly examination of the engine and subsequent accessory testing did not reveal any anomalies that would result in a loss of engine power. The airplane flight manual contained numerous sections pertaining to fuel system vapor, and the circumstances of the accident, including the warm ambient temperature, were likely conducive to the formation of fuel system vapor; however, whether the loss of engine power was the result of fuel vapor could not be determined based on the available information.
The private pilot reported that he flew a normal approach; however, he initiated the landing flare too high. The airplane subsequently stalled and dropped about 10 ft, which caused the nose landing gear to collapse and damaged the forward pressure bulkhead.  The pilot stated that he had verified that the landing gear were down and locked before landing, and reported that the accident was "not caused by any apparent mechanical failures."
The student pilot reported that, during landing with a crosswind, the airplane veered left. He then applied the brakes, but the airplane continued to veer left. The airplane exited the runway, impacted precision approach path indicator lights, and came to rest in grass.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.The student reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The airport's automated weather observation station reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 130° at 10 knots. The student was landing the airplane on runway 06.
The pilot of the helicopter reported that he was departing over a river in dark night conditions when, shortly after takeoff, the helicopter yawed severely to the left. He applied full right anti-torque pedal and the helicopter subsequently impacted the water. The helicopter was not examined after the accident, and the reason for the loss of control could not be determined based on the available information.
The flight instructor reported that he instructed his student to perform a soft-field takeoff.  During the takeoff roll, the instructor had his hands on the flight controls while the student pilot released the yoke back pressure and the airplane began to climb, but the airplane's nose was too high. The flight instructor pushed forward on the control stick to correct the nose high attitude, "and the plane started to pull to the right." The flight instructor does not know whether the stall warning horn sounded, as the airplane flew over the right edge of the runway, but he does recall being on the flight controls when the airplane descended and impacted the grass safety area on the right side of the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the lower fuselage composite structure.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot and two passengers departed on a multi-leg cross-country flight. Video from a camera affixed to the airplane’s right wing indicated that, as the airplane approached a ranch near the destination airport, the pilot overflew a set of power distribution lines, then descended to a lower altitude to overfly the ranch. The airplane impacted a second set of power lines, severing the left wing, left aileron, and the upper sections of the rudder and vertical stabilizer, then descended to the ground. Multiple witnesses reported hearing the airplane approaching the ranch, then seeing the airplane impact the power distribution lines. One witness stated that the pilot often overflew the ranch to announce his arrival but that he had never seen him fly that low. Examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The circumstances of the accident are consistent with the pilot’s decision to fly at low altitude and his failure to maintain clearance from powerlines, which resulted in impact with power lines and, subsequently, terrain.
The pilot was conducting a cross-country business flight of the newly manufactured airplane when during initial climb the airplane’s thrust began to oscillate every 1-2 seconds between what the pilot perceived as idle and full engine power. He was unable to resolve the malfunction and a forced landing was made in a rough pasture. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, wings, and empennage during the forced landing.The investigation determined that a combination of the propeller design and the airplane’s nose-high angle while on the ground likely resulted in trapped air in the propeller’s external piston cavity. Air is present in the piston cavity of new or overhauled propellers before installation, is introduced during maintenance when a propeller is separated from an engine, or replaces the oil that gradually drains from the external piston cavity while the engine is not operating. Trapped air in the external piston cavity can act as an unintended spring in the system and confuse the interaction between the propeller and governor, which can result in an undamped oscillation event.While the airplane is operated on the ground, it is unlikely that all trapped air is purged from the external piston cavity when the propeller is cycled between maximum speed and feather. The pilot stated that he cycled the propeller 3 times before takeoff. The airplane manufacturer’s test pilots typically cycle the propeller 4 to 5 times before takeoff in a newly-manufactured airplane. Although the airplane flight manual states to feather the propeller twice before takeoff, it does not address propeller surge behavior, how to avoid it, or how to respond when it occurs during flight.The airplane manufacturer’s chief test pilot stated they do not change the engine power lever in the event of a propeller surge; they slightly retard the propeller speed lever. Implementing a small, less than ¼ inch, aft movement of the propeller speed lever changes the propeller speed Page 2 of 10 CEN19LA29510-20 RPM and stops the propeller surges. However, this slight reduction of propeller speed as a resolution to a propeller surge is not discussed in the airplane flight manual.The airplane manufacturer stated that although their flight test department has used a slight aft change of the propeller control lever to resolve propeller surge events, they have not conducted a formal evaluation to determine how or why this resolves the propeller surge event or if it could be implemented in an effective way that also ensures pilots do not inadvertently exceed the engine’s maximum torque limitation.
The student pilot was completing a solo cross-country flight when he noticed the low voltage warning light illuminate; however, since the voltmeter continued to indicate about 28 volts (v), he continued the flight to the destination airport and completed a touch-and-go landing before proceeding back to the departure airport. The pilot later stated that he was “not confident that he completely understood how an electrical system failure may affect the aircraft.” As the pilot attempted to lower the flaps before landing, the airplane experienced a complete loss of electrical power, and the flaps did not extend.The student pilot conducted a no-flap landing to the 3,600-ft-long runway, during which the airplane bounced multiple times and continued off the end of the runway and over a retaining wall, resulting in substantial damage. The pilot reported that he had not received training in no-flap landings. Examination of the alternator revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Some wiring associated with the alternator displayed areas of broken insulation and exposed wire; however, it could not be determined if this was due to preaccident chafing or the result of impact damage. Based on the available information, the reason for the loss of electrical power could not be determined.
The pilot reported that, during landing, shortly after touchdown, the airplane bounced. The airplane then touched down hard, and the propellers struck the ground. The pilot was unable to maintain directional control, and the airplane exited the runway and came to rest upright on grassy terrain. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and right wing. The pilot did not report any preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, while landing on an unimproved airstrip, the airplane landed hard and veered left. He added that he "dumped [the] flaps and attempted to arrest the leftward direction with braking" and then applied full power to go around, but the airplane impacted a tree. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing, rudder, and left-wing lift strut.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, after landing the helicopter on the landing platform, he decided to reposition it on the platform. He said that he increased the collective and that it "felt as if the nose was turning or yawing to the right." To correct the right yaw, he applied left pedal, but the helicopter continued moving right. The helicopter rolled to the right, the main rotor blades struck the ground, and the helicopter came to rest on its right side. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the main and tail rotor drive systems. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
On August 27, 2019, at 0650 am mountain daylight time, Frontier Airlines as flight 461, an Airbus A320, N328FR,  encountered turbulence while on descent to the Denver International Airport (KDEN), Denver, Colorado. As a result of the turbulence, one flight attendant was seriously injured. There were no other injuries to the remainder of the passengers and crew onboard and the airplane was not damaged. The flight was operating under 14 CFR Part 121 as a regularly scheduled passenger flight from the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (KMSP), Minneapolis, Minnesota to KDEN. Visual flight conditions prevailed at the time of the accident.According to the flight crew, as the flight was approaching 15,000 feet, the captain, who was the pilot monitoring, identified a single cumulus cloud in front of them with the tops at about 15,000 feet, and informed the first officer (FO) of possible turbulence.  The FO reduced airspeed to 250 knots in anticipation of the turbulence and the captain advised the flight attendants to take their seats. The airplane then entered moderate turbulence for about 10 seconds.According to the flight attendants (FA), very shortly after being notified by the captain, the turbulence was encountered.  The aft flight attendant was returning to her jumpseat when the turbulence occurred and she was thrown to the floor. After the encounter, she was helped back to her jumpseat by another FA and they informed the flight crew. The flight was met at the gate by medical personnel and the FA was transported to the hospital and diagnosed with a broken left ankle.An NTSB Weather Study indicated likely mountain wave conditions between 11,000 and 14,000 feet with cloud formation near the accident site and points eastward, and cloud tops near 15,000 ft.
On August 26, 2019, about 2037 central daylight time, Delta Airlines as flight 805, a Boeing MD-88, N911DL,  encountered turbulence during descent to the Chicago O'Hare International Airport (KORD), Chicago, Illinois. Of the 152 passengers and crew onboard, one flight attendant was seriously injured and there was no damage to the airplane.  The flight was operating under 14 CFR Part 121 as a regularly scheduled passenger flight from the Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport (KATL), Atlanta, Georgia.According to the flight crew, during initial descent, they heard reports of moderate turbulence from preceding airplanes on arrival.  The captain contacted the cabin crew and informed them of the upcoming moderate turbulence and instructed them to be seated. Shortly after, while deviating around an area of weather, the airplane encountered approximately 10 to 15 seconds of moderate turbulence.According to cabin crew statements, they had finished service and had stowed everything they needed to in the galley. The captain notified them that turbulence "was coming in three to five minutes." The aft flight attendant was returning to his jumpseat when the turbulence was encountered and was unable to maintain his balance and fell to the floor.  After the turbulence had subsided the injured flight attendant was able to make it back to his jumpseat and immobilize his ankle. The flight attendants informed the flight crew of the injury and medical personnel met the airplane at the gate. A subsequent x-ray indicated the flight attendant sustained a fractured distal fibula.
During the final leg of a cross-country flight, the flight crew heard a loud popping noise and a loud bang. Simultaneously, the torque gauges provided unusual and fluctuating readings. A crew member in the cargo compartment announced misting hydraulic fluid mixed with smoke. The crew donned their supplemental oxygen and the cockpit crew turned off the bleed air from the four engines. The crew subsequently diverted to a nearby airport and trouble shot multiple anomalies, including engine fire warning lights from the N0s. 3 and 4 engines and the loss of normal hydraulic pressure. The captain elected to feather the No. 4 engine but did not shut down the No. 3 engine at that time to retain three-engine performance. During landing, the captain was unable to maintain directional control and the airplane departed the runway. The captain then intentionally ground looped the airplane to avoid hitting the main terminal building and airplanes that were parked on the ramp. The airplane undercarriage, right wing, and nose area were substantially damaged.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the No. 3 bleed air duct had failed. Further examination of the bleed air duct revealed stress corrosion cracking preceded by corrosion pitting on the interior surfaces. The microscopic features observed were consistent with pre-existing cracking prior to the final circumferential fracture of the duct. When the duct failed due to corrosion, hot air was directed onto surrounding electrical wires and hydraulic lines, which subsequently resulted in numerous system failures. The captain was subsequently unable to maintain directional control during the landing roll.
The pilot and passenger were en route on a multi-leg cross-country flight when the pilot noticed oil on the side window and the oil pressure gauge indicated a loss of oil pressure. The pilot was not sure that the engine would continue to run if he diverted to the nearest grass strip, so he executed a precautionary landing to a field, which substantially damaged right wing ribs and spar. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the oil cap was missing; it was later located at the last departure airport. The pilot stated that he was in a hurry to depart and did not properly reinstall or secure the oil cap. The did not reveal other mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operations.
While the pilot was descending toward the destination airport near the conclusion of the cross-country flight, the engine lost total power. The pilot subsequently performed a forced landing to a field, during which the right wing sustained substantial damage.During postaccident engine test runs, the engine lost power at high rpm settings. When the carburetor bowls were resealed, the engine ran with no anomalies noted. Both carburetor float bowls displayed contamination that likely affected the fuel flow to the engine; however, the extent to which the contamination contributed to the loss of engine power was not able to be determined during the investigation.
Following a cross-country flight, the pilot overflew the area to familiarize himself with the destination airport and elected to land to the south. The weather was clear, and the automated weather observing system reported the winds were calm. The pilot flew the final approach with an airspeed "in the mid 70s" and configured the airplane with full flaps. During the landing flare, the airplane developed an uncontrollable sink rate and landed hard, collapsing the nosewheel and resulting in substantial damage to the airplane. The pilot reported that the airplane likely encountered a tailwind during landing, causing the airplane to stall. The nearest weather reporting facilities recorded gusty wind conditions from variable directions about the time of the accident. It is likely that the airplane encountered an unexpected tailwind during landing, and the pilot's lost airplane control, resulting in a stall.
The pilot and passenger onboard the glider could not recall the events of the accident flight due to their injuries, and there were no witnesses to the accident. The glider was found substantially damaged among trees east of the runway. The landing gear and airbrakes were found in the extended positions, and the engine and propeller were stowed. An examination of the wreckage did not reveal evidence of a mechanical malfunction or anomaly that would have precluded normal operation.