roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot in the helicopter reported that, he was conducting an agricultural aerial application flight. Before he started the spray operation, he overflew the field to identify obstacles. While approaching the northeast corner of the fields from the south, he overflew one set of wires, “ducked down” into the corner to spray, and pulled up as he approached the edge of the field. As he pulled up, he saw wires he had not seen before and tried to hit them with the wire cutter installed on the helicopter. The helicopter impacted the wires, descended, and impacted the ground. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
Post-event inspection of a GE Aviation Passport 20-19BB1A turbofan engine found light sooting aft of the fuel nozzles, along with minor thermal damage to an air duct thermal sleeve consistent with an undercowl engine fire.  This corroborates the pilot’s report of an in-flight engine fire during takeoff climb and during the throttle increases to troubleshoot the fire warning.The engine was removed and sent to GE for evaluation and a fuel system leak check was performed but the source/location of the fuel leak could not be identified.  At several fuel nozzle locations, Nos. 12, 14, 16 and 18, the fuel nozzle pigtail-to-fuel manifold b-nut connections were shiny, lacked sooting, and were thought to be possible leak locations.  The fuel pressure and nitrogen check pressure used during the leak tests were well below the fuel pressure the engine experienced during the event and were determined to be insufficient to replicate the fuel leak.A torque check of all the fuel manifold b-nut connections found five locations, all located on the left fuel manifold, which had very low torque values, less than 200 inch-pounds, when compared to the other b-nut connection locations and the required installation torque of 285 inch-pounds nominal. Two of the five - Nos. 16 and 18 - were identified as possible leak sources during the initial examination. Detailed analysis of the fuel nozzle No. 18 pigtail-to-fuel manifold b-nut connection revealed evidence of fuel manifold outer diameter surface galling and elliptical and intermediate contact marks indicative of misalignment contact with the fuel manifold female ferrule sealing surface and signs of contaminants and imbedded material (hard particles) on the fuel nozzle male bullnose sealing surface; no other b-nut connection location exhibited this type of surface distress.  The source of the hard particle damage could not be positively identified but the observed diagonally orientated abrasive material marks/material removal was consistent with Page 2 of 9 ENG22LA049what appears to be a previous repair; there is no record of a repair operation being performed on this specific nozzle.  Since the post-event fuel system leak checks performed by GE could not induce a fuel leak, the exact location/source of the fuel leak could not be determined by testing and observations.  However, the combination of low fuel manifold b-nut torque, misalignment between fuel nozzle No. 18 pigtail-to-fuel manifold b-nut connection and sealing surface distress created the conditions, and sealing surface distress created the conditions by which there was insufficient sealing allowing fuel to leak during high engine power and high fuel pressures. No other fuel nozzle locations had this combination of factors that would have allowed a fuel leak.
After a local flight, the airplane landed, and a witness saw the airplane taxi over a grass-covered area and then onto the ramp at a higher-than-normal speed. The airplane struck a parked airplane, and the left wing became wedged underneath the empennage of the parked airplane. Airport personnel responded and discovered that the pilot was slumped over the flight controls and unresponsive. Emergency responders attempted CPR, but the pilot did not recover and was transported to a hospital where he was declared deceased. The airplane’s left wing sustained substantial damage. Examination of the airplane’s flight control, brake systems, and related systems did not reveal any mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operations. The pilot’s cause of death was atherosclerotic and hypertensive cardiovascular disease in association with obesity; the manner of death was reported as natural. There was significant cardiovascular disease identified by the autopsy without evidence of significant trauma. His cardiovascular conditions placed him at increased risk for a sudden cardiac event. Given the medical findings and the circumstances of this accident, it is likely that the pilot’s incapacitation from a sudden cardiac event caused the accident.
The pilot of the experimental, amateur-built airplane was performing a slow speed low pass over an unpaved airstrip when he initiated a climb to the left. A witness reported that, when the airplane was about 650 ft above the ground, it “stalled,” the left wing dropped, and the nose went straight down. He additionally reported that the engine was running throughout the flight. The airplane was consumed by a postcrash fire; however, examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.Autopsy of the pilot revealed significant coronary artery disease and a variety of medications that cause significant depression of the central nervous system, including four sedating antihistamines. Some of these medications were found only at very low levels, but the only specimens available were in cavity blood, which may not represent levels in antemortem intravascular blood or be directly related to effects. The reason for the pilot’s concomitant use of antihistamines was unknown, as are the potential effects of using them in combination, including any hangover or withdrawal effects. Therefore, whether effects from the pilot’s use of multiple sedating medications contributed to the circumstances of this accident could not be determined.Based on the available evidence, it is likely that the pilot exceeded the airplane’s critical angle of attack during low-level flight, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and loss of control at an altitude too low to allow for recovery.
During a local flight, the pilot was maneuvering the amateur-built experimental airplane to final approach in the traffic pattern when the engine lost total power. The pilot noticed that the propeller was not windmilling and attempted to restart the engine but was unsuccessful. Subsequently, the airplane impacted trees about 1,000 ft short of the runway threshold and sustained substantial damage to both wings. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. However, examination of the fuel system revealed a clogged fuel filter on the left fuel line and a partially clogged fuel filter on the right fuel line. The pilot stated that he had the left fuel tank selected at the time of the accident. Laboratory spectrum analysis determined the material clogging the fuel filters was consistent with an epoxide used in resins and sealants. Although the spectrum of the clogging material did not match that of an uncured sample of the sealant used during manufacture of the airplane, this was likely due to the cured state of the clogging material. The epoxide likely deteriorated, with the fragments becoming loose and clogging the fuel filters.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that when he landed, the landing was “rough” and right at the edge of the airplane’s crosswind capabilities. Due to the strong crosswind, the pilot said he thought he would be better off taking off into the wind from the perpendicular taxiway since it was more into the wind. He said that during the takeoff, the wind wasn’t as strong as he thought, and he wasn’t able to clear the trees that were in the departure path. A cell phone video of the accident provided by a witness was consistent with the pilot’s description of the accident. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left elevator, right wing, and right aileron. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The accident airport had one runway (16/34) and the recorded winds about the time of the accident were from 300° at 12 kts, gusting to 25 kts.
The pilot reported that, during a landing on a snow-covered, private grass airstrip, he did not adequately confirm the landing surface condition. Subsequently, as the airplane slowed down during the landing roll, the landing gear penetrated through a shallow layer of hard packed snow and then dug into several inches of snow, which caused the airplane to nose over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot reported no preaccident malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that while descending at about 160 kts during an instrument approach in visual meteorological conditions with the autopilot engaged, and passing through 5,000 ft msl, the airplane encountered “a sudden pocket” of severe clear air turbulence for one second, resulting in the loss of about 300 ft of altitude. A passenger in the cabin, who was in the process of restraining himself when the turbulence encounter occurred, hit his head on the cabin ceiling and sustained a serious injury. The autopilot was turned off, the pilot continued with the approach, and the airplane landed at the destination airport without further incident.The airplane did not sustain any damage from the turbulence encounter. The pilot reported there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot reported that at the time of the accident, an AIRMET for moderate turbulence below 12,000 ft msl and high surface winds was active for the area.The passengers were verbally instructed by the pilot to make sure their restraint systems were fastened. The pilot activated the cabin seatbelt sign as an aural and visual warning as reinforcement.
The pilot/mechanic was hired to perform a pre-buy inspection of the airplane and then fly it cross-county to the new owner. During the inspection, he noted that the cylinders had been replaced and was told by the seller that the break-in for the new cylinders was not completed. The pilot stated that he “knew that it was going to be a risky flight home,” but decided to proceed with the flight. Observing no anomalies, he departed on course, and about 45 minutes into the flight, he noticed that the engine was running rough and the oil pressure was low. He notified air traffic control and turned back to the nearest airport to land. The engine continued to run rough, so he shut the engine down and thought he could glide to the runway. Once he realized that the airplane would not reach the runway, he maneuvered to land in a parking lot, during which the airplane impacted telephone wires and came to rest inverted. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the No. 3 crankshaft journal bearing was pitted and smeared, and that two of the engine’s connecting rods had fractured. The condition of the bearing likely blocked the passage of oil through the engine, resulting in oil starvation that would have led to increased heat and ultimately the observed connecting rod failure.
The experimental airplane was equipped with a 2.5-gallon header fuel tank, which allowed for about 20 minutes of flight. There was also a fuel tank in each wing that fed the header fuel tank, and each wing fuel tank had a respective fuel shutoff valve. The pilot stated that he recently purchased the airplane, and the fuel valve placards were confusing; however, he did not notice until after the accident that the fuel valve handles have on/off arrows embossed in them. While flying in the airport traffic pattern, the airplane experienced a total loss of engine power and the pilot attempted to glide to a runway, but the airplane struck a fence just prior to the runway and came to rest inverted, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing and vertical stabilizer. The pilot added that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions with the airplane and he believed that he flew with the fuel valves in the off position.
The flight instructor reported that they were conducting a simulated single-engine approach in the multi-engine airplane when the airplane began to yaw to the left. In an effort to regain directional control, he took control of the airplane from the student, and increased power on the left engine while simultaneously decreasing power on the right engine. Although both engines were still operating, he did not apply full power to both engines. The airplane impacted the ground, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
While on final approach, the pilot asked the air traffic controller for the wind conditions. The pilot reported that he was “worried” about the wind conditions, and he forgot to extend the landing gear during the before landing checks. The airplane landed gear-up and came to rest upright on the runway.  The airplane sustained substantial damage to the lower fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was practicing aerobatics (about 400- 600 ft above ground level) when a “large” bird impacted the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer, which resulted in substantial damage.  The airplane rolled and yawed slightly after the impact, but the pilot was able to maintain control of the airplane and land immediately without incident.
The pilot reported that he conducted a steep approach to a field with the intention of landing in between two obstacles. The balloon cleared the first obstacle with a descent rate of 250 ft per minute. The basket touched down on its short side, near the corner. The pilot was thrown forward and down as he pulled the red line; his foot caught on the basket wall then twisted. The balloon bounced once or twice before it came to rest on its side. The pilot reported that there were no anomalies with the balloon that would have precluded normal operations. The balloon sustained minor damage and the passengers were not injured; however, the pilot sustained a serious ankle injury.
The flight instructor reported that, while on final approach to land, he noticed that the student pilot had allowed the airplane’s airspeed to decay. In an effort to correct for the decaying airspeed he assumed control and pitched the airplane down to no avail. The airplane impacted short of the runway and nosed over, which resulted in substantial damage to the vertical stabilizer and rudder. The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
During a touch-and-go landing, the student pilot and flight instructor heard a pop sound as they touched down. The student pilot initiated a go-around and then informed the instructor that the left main landing gear (LMLG) had separated from the airplane. They flew for about 2.5 hours to reduce the airplane’s fuel load before attempting to land with the fractured LMLG. The landing was uneventful and the airplane came to a stop on the runway. According to the instructor the LMLG struck the horizontal stabilizer when it separated, resulting in substantial damage.Examination of the left main landing gear spring strut revealed that the step bracket was tack welded onto the spring strut. According to the airplane manufacturer, step brackets can only be affixed to the spring strut using an approved epoxy adhesive; welding on the spring strut is not permitted. This improper maintenance resulted in a fatigue crack and the failure of the gear during the accident flight due to overstress.
The pilot and three passengers departed for a short sightseeing tour after the helicopter had flown about 40 preceding tours on the day of the accident. The pilot reported that after takeoff about 500-700 ft above ground level (agl), he experienced a “violent shutter and shaking” of the helicopter flight controls. The pilot described the vibration as “very violent, like a brick in a [clothes] dryer, but three times more violent.” He stated that he noticed the erratic movement of the rpm on the tachometer and that the helicopter was no longer climbing. The pilot entered an autorotation to make an emergency landing in a parking lot. The vibration continued throughout the autorotation all the way to the ground; however, the pilot reported no unusual resistance, binding, or other issues with the flight controls.During the approach, he flared the helicopter and pulled the collective to cushion the landing; the helicopter landed on its skids and slid on the pavement before impacting a mound of dirt and rolling on its left side. The pilot and passengers were not injured and the helicopter sustained substantial damage to the tail boom and fuselage. A postaccident examination of the flight controls and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The examination of the engine included four successful test runs of the engine. The engine manufacturer had issued a mandatory service bulletin to mitigate an issue with sticking valves. While a stuck valve could not be ruled out, all valves moved freely during the two post-accident examinations, subsequent compression tests were not consistent with an open/stuck valve, and the maintenance records indicated that the manufacturer’s related service bulletin instructions were performed regularly.  A “slight” engine vibration was reported during engine warm-up, but it smoothed out during the third and fourth engine runs.Page 2 of 7 ERA22LA168The pilot stated that he noted that the helicopter stopped climbing, which would normally associated with a loss of power. However, it’s also possible that when the violent vibrations occurred initially, the pilot inadvertently lowered the collective slightly as he tried to ascertain the reason for the vibrations and the erratic movement of the rpm on the tachometer. He likely interpreted the leveling of the helicopter’s altitude as a loss of power as he entered the autorotation due to the violent vibrations. Based on available evidence, the reason for the vibrations described by the pilot could not be determined.
After refueling the helicopter, the pilot entered into a light hover to return to his hangar. Due to obstacles on the left side of the helicopter, the pilot attempted to hover taxi horizontally to the right. While executing this maneuver, the right skid contacted the ramp and the helicopter entered into a dynamic rollover and came to rest on its right side, which resulted in substantial damage to the main rotor. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during an agricultural spray pass the engine began to run abnormally. As he climbed over powerlines and trees, he looked for a place to land. The engine subsequently stopped producing any power. During the event, the engine started and stopped producing power two or three times. After touching down in a field, the airplane went over an embankment, the right wing struck an irrigation unit, and the airplane ultimately nosed over, resulting in substantial damage to both wings.The recovery crew reported that there was only a trace of fuel recovered from the airplane. However, the pilot’s son refuted this information, stating that fuel was draining from the airplane’s right fuel tank vent immediately after the accident and that the recovery crew drained more than 60 gallons of fuel from the airplane when it was recovered. Postaccident examination of the airplane, including the engine and airframe fuel system, revealed no anomalies.Based on the available information, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The pilot planned to complete two takeoffs and landings (touch-and-goes) followed by a full stop landing. He executed a go-around and a touch-and-go before the accident landing. After the airplane touched down during the accident landing, the airplane tail began to settle to the runway. The pilot responded by pulling the control stick aft. About 2-3 seconds later, the airplane began to pitch up and bank to the right. At that point, the pilot “realized that [he] was behind the aircraft.” He attempted to execute a go-around but lost control of the airplane, resulting in a runway excursion. The airplane came to rest in a ditch off the right side of the runway. The right wing sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane before the accident.
The pilot reported that, following 2 aborted landings, he attempted a third landing. Shortly after the initial touch down, the airplane encountered a wind gust, which lifted the left wing.  The pilot applied left aileron input and initiated a go-around; however, the right wing struck the runway, which rotated the airplane to the right.  Subsequently, the airplane exited the runway surface, impacted a ditch, and nosed over, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage.  The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.  The pilot reported at the time of the accident, he was landing on runway 30, and the wind was from 240° at 8 knots, gusting to 17 knots.
The pilot reported that, after takeoff and about 500 ft above ground level, the engine lost total power and he chose to land on the open desert terrain. During the landing roll, the airplane collided with vegetation and the landing gear separated, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage undercarriage.Examination of the airplane revealed that the air intake duct between the air filter box and the carburetor was damaged during the accident sequence and partially separated from the airplane. The ducting was Sceet tubing that comprised wire coil encased between an inner and outer silicone-impregnated layer. The Sceet tubing was disassembled and exhibited debonding of the inner and outer layers. Oil and debris that was not consistent with the accident sequence were present in the debonded area. It is likely that the loss of engine power was due to the separation of the Sceet tubing inner layer, which then restricted airflow to the carburetor.