roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The two multiengine-rated pilots departed in the multiengine airplane for a local personal flight in gusting crosswinds. The left seat pilot reported that he wanted to get current on his takeoffs and landings and that he performed the taxi and takeoff procedure. During the climbout, the left engine began to lose power. The left seat pilot gave the right seat pilot control of the airplane, and the right seat pilot conducted the landing. The left main landing gear struck the runway hard, which resulted in the collapse of the gear. A postaccident examination of the left engine and the fuel system revealed no anomalies that would have prevented normal operation.
The solo student pilot reported that he had not flown for 45 days before the accident due to inclement weather. He added that, during the touch-and-go takeoff roll, the airplane drifted to the left. He further added that he attempted to correct for the drift by using the control yoke instead of the rudder. Subsequently, the airplane impacted a snow bank on the south side of the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and empennage. The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor in the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll, as soon as the tailwheel touched the runway, the airplane veered to the right. He added that he attempted to recover by applying full left rudder, left brake, and right aileron, but the left wing impacted the ground as the airplane exited the runway to the right. Subsequently, the airplane nosed over.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing lift strut, both wings, and empennage.The flight instructor reported that skid marks on the runway indicated that the tailwheel was not rolling freely. He added that, during a postaccident inspection, the left brake pedal went to the lower limit on an initial depression, but later held brake pressure during a second depression. He reported that he would not have been able to recover the airplane back to centerline because of the initial brake pressure response.Further, the flight instructor reported that, about 10 minutes before the accident, the wind was 310° at 13 knots, gusting to 19 knots.In a followup e-mail, the flight instructor reported that there were no brake or tailwheel anomalies noted during the run-up or departure. He also reported that the student pilot did not make any noticeable control inputs during the landing sequence.The Federal Aviation Administration inspector reported that, during a postaccident examination of the airplane 2 days after the accident, he "saw nothing abnormal with the brakes," and he added that the tailwheel was turning. The airplane landed on runway 26. An online commercial weather service provider reported that a nearby station, about 2 minutes before the accident, reported wind 010° at 21 mph, gusting to 24 mph.Page 2 of 6 GAA17CA141The passenger in the rear seat provided a video showing the landing roll from the rear seat looking forward. Both the right and left control yokes can be seen, but the rudder pedals cannot be seen. During the beginning of the sequence, the instructor, in the right seat, had his right hand on the control yoke, and the student, in the left seat, had his left hand on the control yoke. Right aileron was applied. During the landing roll, the student added his right hand to the control yoke, and as the airplane veered to the right, left aileron was applied. The camera panned to the left as the right wing lifted and the left wing impacted the ground. The airplane veered left, then nosed over.
On February 13, 2017, at 1115 eastern standard time, a Bombardier DHC-8, operated by Commutair as a scheduled flight from Fayetteville, North Carolina, to Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD), encountered turbulence resulting in a serious injury to the flight attendant.  The airplane was not damaged and there were no other injuries.According to the operator, the flight was in smooth conditions during the cruise portion and initial descent.  The Captain stated that as he finished the before-landing checklist at 4,000 feet, approximately 50 miles south of IAD, the flight encountered a "pocket" of moderate turbulence resulting in a descent rate of about 600 feet per minute and an altitude loss of about 400 feet.  The Captain called to the cabin to check on the passengers and the flight attendant reported she injured her leg and could not walk.The flight attendant reported that she was in the final stages of preparing the cabin for landing when the turbulence occurred.  Passengers assisted her until landing and paramedics met the aircraft at the gate.  The flight attendant was diagnosed with a broken ankle.
The airplane departed on an instructional flight with a flight instructor in the right front seat, a student pilot in the left front seat, and a passenger in the right rear seat. They completed maneuvers in a practice area, flew to a valley located in mountainous terrain, and performed a simulated engine failure maneuver. The flight instructor and the student pilot provided differing accounts of the events that followed the simulated engine failure maneuver. According to the flight instructor, after performing the simulated engine failure maneuver, the student pilot advanced the throttle to full power and turned east toward rising terrain. The flight instructor reported that the gauges all read normal, but the airplane would not outclimb the approaching terrain. He took over the controls but could not turn left or right due to the rising terrain on both sides of the airplane. According to the instructor, he had no choice but to crash the airplane. According to the student pilot, the flight instructor told him to turn east towards the rising terrain and then took control of the airplane. The student reported that the flight instructor made a comment about demonstrating the airplane's performance, added full power, leaned the mixture, flew straight for 5 seconds, and then said an expletive shortly before the airplane crashed into a mountain.Flight track data recovered from a personal electronic device onboard the airplane showed that, after the simulated engine failure maneuver, the airplane climbed and turned east entering terrain that rose in front and on both sides of the airplane. The track continued to climb for about 1 minute 5 seconds before reaching the accident site.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. According to the pilot's operating handbook for the airplane, at its maximum gross weight, under standard conditions, with no flaps and full throttle, the airplane was capable of climbing at a maximum rate of 625 ft per minute, at 73 knots indicated airspeed, at 2,000 ft mean sea level (msl). Page 2 of 9 WPR17FA063The flight track data for the final 1 minute 5 seconds of the flight indicated that the airplane climbed about 584 ft, corresponding to a rate of climb slightly less than the published maximum rate of climb. During the climb, the left turn towards the east would have decreased the rate-of-climb performance, which likely accounts for the rate of climb being less than the published maximum. During the impact sequence, a tree penetrated up through the center of the cabin floor just behind the front seats and exited through the cabin roof. The airplane came to rest upright. The instructor was able to unbuckle his seatbelt but had to cut the student pilot's seatbelt to free him. After examining the passenger, the instructor realized that her seatbelt was not latched and that her injuries were fatal. The autopsy of the passenger determined her cause of death to be blunt force injuries of the head and neck. These injuries were likely due to impact with the tree that penetrated the cabin area.
On February 11, 2017, about 1950 mountain standard time, Southwest Airlines flight 4152, a Boeing 737-700, N7822A, had a catering agent fall from the airplane while alongside provisioning the airplane. On board were the captain, first officer, three flight attendants and several passengers. The regularly scheduled passenger flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 from Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX), Phoenix, Arizona, to Sacramento International Airport (SMF), Sacramento, California.According to Southwest Airlines, while passengers were boarding the airplane at the gate, a catering agent returned to the airplane to provide a box of peanuts. The agent stopped the provisioning truck short of the airplane creating a gap between the truck and the airplane. After entering the airplane to deliver the peanuts, the agent lost situational awareness and stepped backwards, falling through the gap, and suffered a fractured rib.
The pilot reported that, during the landing flare, while on his second landing attempt, the airplane began to sink rapidly, and the right wing dropped. He applied right rudder and power in an attempt to maintain directional control but was unsuccessful. The airplane settled in the bushes to the left of the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, after maneuvering in the local area for about 45 minutes, he returned to his home airport for landing. During the final approach, the airplane sunk below the proper glidepath, and he increased the power three separate times, but the airplane continued to sink. Subsequently, the airplane struck a seawall located about 380 ft from the runway threshold, which resulted in the propeller separating from the propeller hub and the collapse of the landing gear.The fuselage and both wings sustained substantial damage.According to the Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Safety Inspector who interviewed the pilot after the accident, the pilot reported that the engine did not contribute to the accident.
The private pilot reported that he departed from his ranch and was flying about 100 ft above ground level and at 50 knots. He intended to position the carburetor heat to "on," but he inadvertently positioned the mixture control to the "fuel cutoff" position instead, and the engine lost total power. He immediately entered an autorotation, but because the helicopter was so low and slow, there was insufficient time and altitude to flare the helicopter. He stated that the airspeed decreased and that the main rotor blade stalled, which caused the helicopter to just "drop." The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot's inadvertent positioning of the mixture control to the "fuel cutoff" position resulted in fuel starvation and the total loss of engine power.
The private pilot reported that, while making a right turn during a personal flight, the flight controls "stuck." She was unable to make aileron or elevator control inputs, and was also unable to correct the airplane's bank using rudder inputs. The airplane subsequently descended in a right turn until it impacted the ground.The airplane was removed from the accident site before it could be examined. During recovery, both wings and their control cables were cut. The airplane was later examined on the pilot's property, strapped to a trailer. Examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of any control anomalies that would have precluded normal operation; however, since the flight control system was compromised during the recovery, the pre-accident condition of the flight controls could not be determined and the investigation was unable to establish a reason for the pilot's reported loss of control.
The helicopter pilot reported that, after landing to refuel, he reduced power to flight idle and initiated a 2-minute cooldown before shutting off the engine. One minute into the cooldown, the fuel truck approached the helicopter from the rear and struck the main rotor blades.The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the main rotor blades.
According to the airline transport pilot, he was dispatched on the emergency medical flight to an accident scene about 35 nautical miles from his base operations. The pilot checked the weather, completed the risk assessment form, and departed for the scene in the helicopter. He further stated that he climbed to 2,500 ft mean sea level and noted the winds to be from the southwest at 35 knots. He stated he was comfortable flying in these conditions and had flown in similar wind conditions several times before. The pilot stated that he was cautious of electrical wires that were next to the intended landing helipad. He came over the wires at 100 ft to clear them and then started to descend the helicopter at a rate of about 200 ft per minute. As the helicopter approached the ground, he increased the collective but was unable to slow the descent. The helicopter landed hard, bounced, and rolled onto its right side. The pilot stated that there were no known mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter before the accident. Thus, it is likely that the pilot failed to maintain helicopter control while landing.
The non-scheduled passenger helicopter flight departed from an oil tanker ship that was anchored in a bay. The pilot reported that the departure had been delayed, but, when the helicopter did depart, the weather was "good." He said he had more than 6 miles visibility, that and he could see the moon above and the water below, and that his en route altitude was between 700 and 800 feet. He added that as the flight approached the shore at 500 feet, he could see the city lights and lights off the water. The next thing he remembered was being in the water. He and the two passengers were subsequently found by the US Coast Guard about 1hour later. The nearest weather observation station, located 8 miles east of the accident site, reported an overcast ceiling of 400 feet and 5 miles visibility in mist about 17 minutes before the accident. TAFs and AIRMETs issued about 1.5 hours and 1 hour before the accident, respectively, forecast instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). Postaccident examination of the helicopter wreckage was consistent with a relatively level impact, and no pre-impact mechanical anomalies were noted that would have precluded normal operation. It is likely that the flight encountered IMC at night and that the pilot did not properly gauge the distance of the helicopter from the water, which led to its collision with the water.
The pilot, who was the owner of the experimental airplane that was equipped with a vintage radial engine, decided to take the airplane around the airport traffic pattern. He recalled that he conducted a preflight inspection and remembered a portion of the takeoff, but did not recall the events of the accident. A witness reported that the engine was “sputtering” before the airplane impacted trees about 3,500 ft from the departure end of the runway; a postimpact fire ensued. The propeller exhibited little rotational damage, consistent with low or no engine power at the time of impact. Given these signatures and the witness description of the engine “sputtering,” it is likely that the engine lost either partial or total power. A small amount of fuel was discovered in the fuel sump; however, the total fuel onboard the airplane at the time of the accident could not be determined. The engine sustained impact and postimpact fire damage. Subsequent examination of the additional systems, specifically the fuel system, was inconclusive due to the severe impact and postimpact fire damage; therefore, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined based on the available information.
The pilot reported that, during an instrument meteorological conditions flight, he chose to accomplish an area navigation approach. He reported that he descended to his minimum descent altitude of 800 ft, decreased the airspeed, and began looking outside the cockpit for the runway. He recalled that the visibility was 3/4 mile, and that, about 20 seconds later, the airplane struck tree tops. The pilot immediately executed the missed approach procedure and made an approach to an alternate airport. The right wing sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the flight instructor, he was conducting an instructional flight in the helicopter and demonstrating low-rotor rpm operations from a hover. The helicopter was at a 3-ft hover when he initiated the maneuver with the student pilot "on the flight controls" following the flight instructor's movements. As the throttle was reduced, the helicopter's nose began to rotate to the left. The flight instructor pushed the right antitorque pedal to counter the rotation, but the pedal initially felt like it was "blocked." The right skid contacted the taxiway, causing the helicopter to bounce and rotate to the right. The flight instructor applied full throttle and collective to attempt to gain altitude; however, the helicopter departed the taxiway, entered an adjacent grass area, and rolled over onto its left side. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the main rotor and the tailboom. Examination of the flight control system by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector did not reveal any anomalies. In addition, the flight instructor reported there was no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
After completing a preflight inspection of the airplane, the private pilot filled the fuel tanks and sampled the fuel, which exhibited no anomalies. Shortly after takeoff, about 1,000 ft above ground level, the engine experienced a total loss of power and the airplane was substantially damaged during the subsequent forced landing. A postaccident examination of the engine and fuel system revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Although the timing of both magnetos was found to be off, this discrepancy could have been a result of impact forces, since the engine ran smoothly before the loss of power.
The pilot reported that the airplane was low and that he felt "rushed" during final approach. He added that, during the landing roll, the airplane "started to veer off the runway," so he applied power to abort the landing and that, during the aborted landing, he "pulled back" on the yoke. The airplane then aerodynamically stalled and impacted grass left of the runway and then nosed over.The fuselage, left wing, and vertical stabilizer sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot, who held a commercial fixed-wing pilot certificate, was performing hovering flight during his first helicopter lesson when the helicopter "suddenly jerked backwards." The helicopter's tail rotor gearbox and a portion of the tail rotor departed the helicopter, and the flight instructor landed the helicopter upright with no injuries to the two occupants.According to the flight instructor, he monitored the cyclic, collective, and tail rotor controls while explaining hovering flight and surrendered each control to the student pilot one at a time until the student pilot was fully controlling the helicopter. As the helicopter transitioned backward and began a "spin to the left," he requested and took control of the helicopter, but the student pilot did not surrender the controls, and the flight instructor could not overpower the student pilot's inputs before the tail rotor collided with terrain. The flight instructor further stated that there were no mechanical deficiencies with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The solo student pilot reported that, during touchdown, the airplane encountered a crosswind and was "push[ed]" off the runway to the right into a ditch. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall and engine mount.The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The student pilot reported that the wind was about 5 to 10 knots from a westerly direction. The nearest automated weather observation station, located 27 nautical miles from the accident site, about the time of the accident, reported wind from 270° at 3 knots. The student pilot reported that he landed on runway 1.
The private pilot of the experimental, imported military airplane, stated that, after takeoff and while retracting the landing gear, he noticed that the pneumatic pressure was low. He then attempted to extend the landing gear using normal and emergency procedures, but the right main landing gear (MLG) remained retracted. The pilot subsequently conducted an emergency landing with the right MLG retracted. During the landing roll, he was able to keep the right wing from contacting the runway for about 1,000 ft. Once the wing contacted the runway, the pilot was unable to maintain directional control, and the airplane exited the right side of the runway. The right aileron sustained substantial damage.Examination of the airplane revealed that the pneumatic cylinder actuator that released the right MLG uplock was not functioning properly. Subsequent teardown examination of the right MLG uplock actuator revealed that moisture had entered the actuator over a period of time and corroded the internal components. The corrosion led to the failure of the actuator.