roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The commercial pilot reported that, after dropping off skydivers, he made a rapid spiraling descent back to the airport. The pilot added that, because the wind had changed such that it resulted in a tailwind, he initiated a go-around during the landing approach; however, when he advanced the throttle, the engine initially surged and then lost power. The pilot made a forced landing in a corn field near the end of the runway. After the accident, the pilot drained about 7 gallons of fuel from the airplane. Fuel was present in the carburetor, but the gascolator bowl was empty. No other anomalies were noted. It is likely that the low level of fuel unported during the rapid spiraling descent, which led to the subsequent fuel starvation to the engine.
On June 26, 2016, at about 1300 CDT, United Airlines flight 430, a Boeing 737-900ER, N69806, was about 20 minutes into the flight from New Orleans International Airport (KMSY), New Orleans, Louisiana,  to Chicago O'Hare International Airport (KORD), Chicago, Illinois, when a coffee pot fell off a galley cart and spilled onto a passenger.  Medical personnel were on board and treated the passenger.  The flight crew declared a medical emergency and diverted to Little Rock National Airport (KLIT), Little Rock, Arkansas, where the passenger was taken to the hospital and diagnosed with second degree burns from the hot coffee.  There were 6 crew and 172 passengers on board.  The flight was being operated as a 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 scheduled passenger flight.  The flight attendants (FA) stated that the beverage cart pull out trays were not pulled out for the coffee pots but instead, the metal coffee pot was placed on top of the cart in the center.  In addition, the FAs stated that they could not find the safe-pour lids in their provisioning supplies so they had placed a plastic cup in the opening of the coffee pot.  At the time of the spill, the cart was positioned near seat row 7, with the brakes set.  One FA went to retrieve a meal cart and the other FA had turned their head when suddenly screaming was heard.  The passenger got up and went to the lavatory and was subsequently examined by a doctor and a nurse.  The doctor informed the crew that a diversion was advised.  It could not be determined if the coffee pot tipped over or was grabbed by the young passenger causing the coffee to spill.   United's flight attendant Galley Guide depicts the proper positioning of the beverage cart pull out trays and where to locate the coffee pots. Coffee pots were to be placed on the pull out trays, not in the center of the cart.  In addition, the same guidance had several references throughout the document to, "Use the safe-pour lid on coffee pots anytime they are brought into the aisle."
The pilot of an amphibious float-equipped airplane reported that he departed from an airport with a paved runway en-route to his destination airport, about 21 nautical miles away, also with a paved runway. While en-route he decided to do a touch and go on a lake about 5 nautical miles from the destination airport. The pilot further reported that during the landing touch down, the airplane immediately nosed over. The pilot reported that he did not visually check the position of the landing gear with the landing gear mirrors before the landing and the landing gear were down for the water landing.The firewall sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that he was unsure if there were any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during landing on an uphill runway, the airplane touched down, veered slightly to the side, and then veered the other direction and back. Subsequently, the airplane exited the left side of the runway, the landing gear collapsed, and the stabilizer and elevator were substantially damaged.During postaccident examination, the left landing gear upper trunnion was found fracture separated. The investigation could not determine whether the upper trunnion fracture separation caused the airplane to veer from one direction to the other or whether the trunnion was fractured due to the landing gear collapsing.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that during landing at a private grass airstrip, he touched down long to avoid water on the runway. The pilot further reported that during the landing roll, the airplane encountered a thermal and became airborne again for about 100 feet. Subsequently, the pilot realized he could not stop within the distance remaining so he aborted the landing. During the initial climb of the aborted landing, the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall, the left wing impacted terrain, and the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings.The pilot reported there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during a night landing he collided with a deer on the runway during touchdown. The impact resulted in substantial damage to the horizontal stabilizer and elevator of the airplane. The pilot reported that there were no pre impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot stated that, about 35 minutes into the personal, local flight and while circling a friend's cabin about 550 ft above ground level, the engine began to "sputter," followed by a total loss of engine power. He subsequently made a forced landing in an area of densely populated trees, during which the airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings and fuselage.A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Although the wing fuel tanks had been modified and no Federal Aviation Administration major repair and alteration form nor entry in the airplane's maintenance records were found regarding the modification, no evidence was found indicating that the modification led to the loss of engine power. The reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The private pilot reported that, during an extended absence, a family member checked on his airplane and found that the right wing fuel cap was missing. The pilot ordered a new fuel cap, and it was installed on the airplane. After the pilot's return, about 1 week before the accident, he added fuel to the right tank and then drained it; he repeated the process several times and then performed an extended engine run-up and taxi check; he did not fly the airplane that day. On the day of the accident, he sampled both fuel tanks, performed a prolonged engine run-up, and taxied for about 30 to 45 minutes before departing on the accident flight. Shortly after takeoff, the engine lost all power. The pilot conducted a forced landing, and the airplane impacted terrain 1,000 ft from the departure end of the runway.Postaccident examination of the fuel system revealed the presence of water at the firewall-mounted fuel strainer. Although the pilot reported that he performed a thorough preflight inspection, it is likely that water remained in the fuel system, which resulted in the loss of engine power.
The pilot of a tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll as the tailwheel came down, the left wing "rose up", and he attempted to correct with left aileron. The pilot further reported that the airplane started "yawing, sliding, and turning sideways on the pavement". The airplane veered off the runway to the left, the right main landing gear collapsed, and the airplane impacted the ground.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. According to the pilot there were no preimpact 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 about 1 mile to the southwest, revealed that, about 19 minutes before the accident the wind was variable at 4 knots. The airplane landed on runway 24.
The pilot reported he taxied to the end of the runway for a full length departure and during the initial climb the wind shifted from a headwind to a tailwind. The pilot initially reported that during the initial climb, there were no aerodynamic stall indications, but during a follow-up interview he reported that "the airplane definitely stalled." Subsequently, the airplane impacted terrain in a vacant lot north of the runway and nosed over, resulting in substantial damage to the wings, fuselage, and empennage.The pilot reported there were no preimpact 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 about 4 miles to the northeast, revealed that, about 3 minutes before the accident the wind was 260 degrees true at 13 knots, with gust 17 knots, and wind variable direction from 210 to 280. The airplane departed runway 4. According to a witness on the ground, who was an airline transport pilot with about 22,000 hours of flight time, the airplane taxied onto runway 4 at the midfield point and applied takeoff power. The witness further reported that the he heard the power reduced and then re-applied during the takeoff roll. Subsequently, during the initial climb he witnessed the left wing stall, impact the ground, and nose over after the nose wheel collapsed.
The private pilot was on a local personal flight in the airplane. According to witnesses, the pilot appeared to fly a series of practice approaches at a remote private airstrip and then flew northeast up a nearby canyon towards rising mountainous terrain. The airplane impacted trees on the canyon hillside about 1 mile from the airstrip on a southwest heading, indicating that the pilot had reversed course. It is likely that the pilot realized that the canyon narrowed ahead and that he was surrounded by rising terrain. He likely attempted to turn the airplane around, and while maneuvering in the turn, he was unable to maintain clearance with the trees on the canyon hillside. No significant weather or turbulence was reported or forecast in the area, however wind at the time of the accident may have created some light turbulence, though it is unlikely to have affected the flight.Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of pre-impact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The engine was subsequently test run in a test cell at various power settings with no anomalies noted.  It is unlikely that the pilot's elevated blood pressure, insomnia, or medications used to treat these conditions impaired him or contributed to the accident. Additionally, it is unlikely that the pilot's antidepressant medications contributed to the accident. The pilot had used the potentially-impairing medication tramadol before the accident. However, because of variations in patient tolerance to opioid medications and possible postmortem changes in drug concentrations, the investigation was unable to determine if the pilot was impaired by tramadol at the time of the crash.
The pilot reported that during the landing flare at night he used his peripheral vision to keep the airplane in the center of the runway, but when the nose touched down, the airplane was to the left of centerline. The pilot further reported that the airplane continued to veer to the left and impacted a runway light and a runway identification sign. 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.
During a practice touch and go landing on a check flight for a pilot, new to the airplane, the pilot receiving the check lost directional control of the tail wheel equipped airplane on the landing roll and drifted towards the right. The check pilot did not act in a timely manner to prevent the airplane from departing the runway's edge. The airplane subsequently struck a drainage ditch and sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilots reported no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he performed his pre-landing checklist and that the landing gear selector switch was in the down position. The pilot noted that there was a sun glare on the instrument panel during the landing. However, the airplane landed with the gear in the up and locked position, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage.During the postaccident examination by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the landing gear was cycled multiple times and no abnormalities were noted.
The flight instructor stated that, while taxiing after landing from the instructional flight, the airplane started to veer to the left, and he heard a "metallic sound." Shortly after, the left main landing gear collapsed, and the airplane came to a stop. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the left main landing gear strut separated from the wing attachment; the bolts attaching the landing gear to the spar were sheared in the vicinity of the bolt threads. The fracture features of the bolts displayed signatures of overstress failure. It could not be determined whether the overstress fracture of the bolts occurred during the accident flight or during a previous unreported event.
The commercial pilot stated that, while in cruise flight, the engine began to run rough and that he noted that the Nos. 1 and 5 cylinders were indicating significantly cooler temperatures than the other cylinders. About 12 minutes later, the pilot noticed an "acrid metallic smell" in the cabin. The pilot turned the airplane toward the closest airport as the engine continued to run rough and produce a "metallic clanking" sound. Unable to reach the airport, the pilot made a forced landing in a field about 100 yards short of a road. The airplane continued into a drainage culvert and came to rest on the road.A postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the engine crankcase was cracked at the base of the No. 5 cylinder and the cylinder's rocker box cover exhibited multiple holes. The oil sump contained a large amount of metal debris and damaged components from the No. 5 cylinder. The No. 5 cylinder exhaust valve spring key was worn and damaged. The exhaust valve guide was fragmented and the valve guide bore was worn beyond the specified size, which indicated the valve guide was moving inside the guide bore. The No. 5 piston and cylinder damage were a result of the valve being released into the cylinder during engine operation. It is likely that the valve spring key failed and allowed the valve to release into the cylinder.
The commercial pilot and the pilot-rated passenger departed on a cross-country positioning flight. The helicopter was reported overdue when it did not arrive at the destination, and the wreckage was located the following morning. There were no witnesses to the accident, no recorded radar data, and no recorded radio transmissions from the pilot.Examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of any preexisting anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the helicopter. There was evidence that a mast bumping event had occurred and that the main rotor blades had contacted the airframe, which resulted in an in-flight break-up. There was no recorded information available that could be used to determine the helicopter's airspeed, altitude, or the pilot's control inputs.A weather study indicated that conditions were conducive to the development of significant updrafts or thermals of rising air and dust devils, and people near the accident site reported that there were numerous dust devils in the area.It is likely that the helicopter encountered turbulence due to updrafts and/or dust devils, and the pilot lost control of the helicopter, which resulted in mast bumping.
The private pilot landed the airplane on a 2,100-ft-long, 150-ft-wide turf runway in a 15-knot right quartering headwind and lost control of the airplane after touchdown. The airplane departed the left side of the runway, proceeded in a straight line across a paved taxiway, struck a parked vehicle, and came to rest after impacting a hangar about 800 ft from the approach end of the runway. Examination of the wreckage did not reveal evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation, nor did the pilot report any.
The pilot reported that on his first spray pass of a cornfield during an aerial application, he misjudged the distance of the airplane to a metering loop pole. The right wing of the airplane impacted the metering loop pole, which resulted in damage to the right wing. The pilot further reported that he decided to land to evaluate the damage and that the subsequent landing was uneventful. The pilot reported there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot reported that the airplane was in cruise flight about 500 ft above ground level when the engine surged and experienced a partial loss of power. The pilot attempted to restore engine power, but was unsuccessful, and diverted to the nearest airport. Unable to reach the airport, the pilot conducted a forced landing to a field; the airplane nosed over upon touchdown. During a postaccident test run, the engine performed with no anomalies noted; therefore, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The private pilot was conducting a local personal flight. The pilot reported that, while in the traffic pattern, she applied carburetor heat and extended the flaps to 10 degrees. At this point, the passenger informed her that the engine manifold air pressure had reduced to 4 inches. She added throttle, and the manifold air pressure recovered to between 14 and 15 inches. The pilot stated that she was concerned about having an engine failure and kept the airspeed at 80 knots until she was sure the airplane could reach the runway. She added that she then throttled back and that the airspeed reduced to 60 knots and, as the airplane crossed the end of the runway, she "lost all airspeed." She stated that, shortly after, the airplane descended to 8 to 10 ft above the ground and then landed hard. Based on the available information, the airplane's engine responded to the pilot's control inputs. It is likely that the pilot's concern about the engine led to her failure to maintain a proper approach airspeed during the landing, which resulted in a hard landing.
The student pilot reported that the purpose of the flight was to practice flight maneuvers. He recalled that upon conclusion of the maneuver practice, he made a normal approach to runway 28. He reported that during the landing flare he encountered a crosswind gust, the airplane floated, and the airplane landed hard. He recalled that after the hard landing, he was unsatisfied with his landing performance. The student pilot reported that he decided to takeoff, stayed in the pattern, landed with full flaps and more airspeed, and accomplished "a controlled, more smooth touchdown." However, when he showed up for his next flight three days later, he was informed that the airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall.The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or anomalies with the airplane during his flight that would have prevented normal flight operations.The meteorological aerodrome report at the accident airport about the time of the accident indicated the wind direction was out of 270 degrees true at 9 knots, gusting to 19 knots.
According to the pilot in command (PIC), he was conducting an instructional flight for his "new SIC (second in command)," who was seated in the left seat. He reported that they had flown two previous legs in the retractable landing gear-equipped airplane. He recalled that, during the approach, they discussed the events of their previous flights and had complied with the airport control tower's request to "keep our speed up." During the approach, he called for full flaps and retarded the throttle to flight idle. The PIC asserted that there was no indication that the landing gear was not extended because he did not hear a landing gear warning horn; however, he was wearing a noise-cancelling headset. He added that the landing gear position lights were not visible because the SIC's knee obstructed his view of the lights. He recalled that, following the flare, he heard the propellers hit the runway and that he made the decision not to go around because of unknown damage sustained to the propellers. The airplane touched down and slid to a stop on the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage bulkheads, longerons, and stringers.The SIC reported that the flight was a training flight in visual flight rules conditions. He noted that the airspace was busy and that, during the approach, he applied full flaps, but they failed to extend the landing gear. He added that he did not hear the landing gear warning horn; however, he was wearing a noise-cancelling headset.The Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Safety Inspector that examined the wreckage reported that, during recovery, the pilot extended the nose landing gear via the normal extension process. However, due to significant damage to the main landing gear (MLG) doors, the MLG was unable to be extended hydraulically or manually. He added that an operational check of the landing gear warning horn was not accomplished because the wreckage was unsafe to enter after it was removed from the runway. The landing gear warning horn was presented by an aural tone in the cockpit and was not configured to be heard through the pilots' noise-cancelling headsets. Page 2 of 6 GAA16CA527When asked, the PIC and the SIC both stated that they could not remember who read the airplane flight manual Before Landing checklist.
While en route, about 5,500 ft mean sea level, the private pilot heard a "pop," followed by a total loss of engine power. He unsuccessfully attempted to restart the engine, and then he chose to land in a field. During the forced landing, the airplane impacted trees and the ground, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage, wings, and empennage. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the engine-driven fuel pump was nonfunctional. Metallurgical examination of the fuel pump revealed that it had failed internally; however, the reason for the failure could not be determined due to all the observed damage caused by the failure.