roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The commercial pilot stated that a vehicle struck the right wing of the airplane as he was taxiing from the non-movement area for departure. Surveillance video showed a ground service vehicle drive across the ramp and into the right wing of the airplane. The driver of the ground vehicle stated that as she was starting to speed up on the ramp, the airplane came into view. The driver attempted to stop but slid on the ice and came to rest under the airplane’s right wing. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot stated there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor reported that he was demonstrating a 180° autorotation for his passenger into an open field off airport grounds.  Nearing the end of the maneuver, prior to touchdown, he failed to recover engine power in a timely manner which resulted in the rapid decay of the rotor rpm at low altitude; this resulted in a hard landing that subsequently caused the main rotor blades to make contact with the tail boom and severed the tail rotor driveshaft. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and the main rotor blades. The pilot reported that there were no pre accident mechanical malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot reported she had been practicing touch and go landings. During the takeoff roll of her second touch and go, the pilot noticed the flaps were fully extended. She retracted the flaps and subsequently lost directional control of the airplane. The airplane veered and exited to the left side of the runway and struck a sign before it nosed over and came to rest inverted, which resulted in substantial damage to both wings. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor was conducting an instructional flight when the engine began to make a “knocking” noise, followed by a total loss of oil pressure and subsequent loss of engine power. The instructor reported they were unable to return to the airport and made a forced landing to a marsh area. The nose wheel of the airplane dug into the soft/wet terrain and the airplane slowly flipped over, resulting in substantial damage to an engine mount. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed there were no major oil streaks on the lower engine cowling and fuselage; however, there was some dark oily residue noted on the right underbelly of the airplane that appeared to have been there for an extended period of time. The engine did not seize and crankshaft rotated freely when the propeller was manually rotated. Examination of the engine’s oil system revealed no obvious mechanical failures; however, damage signatures were observed that were consistent with a lack of lubrication. The instructor said they departed for the flight with 6 quarts of oil; however, about one quart of dark oil was drained from the engine following the accident. Pieces of metal were found throughout the oil system consistent with high heat, friction, and metal-to-metal contact within the engine. A review of the engine maintenance records revealed the engine was 55 hours past its last 100-hr inspection. Based on the instructor’s report that the engine was “knocking,” followed by a loss of oil pressure and a power loss, and evidence of high heat, friction, and metal-to-metal contact within the engine with no sign of leaks in the oil system, the engine was likely being operated with an inadequate oil level at the time of the power loss. Though the engine did not fully seize, the damage found throughout the engine most likely contributed to a loss of engine power.Page 2 of 7 ERA23LA141
The pilot departed on a routine agricultural flight to spray multiple orchards. Recorded onboard GPS data showed that after spraying three fields, he flew to an almond orchard where he made numerous north-to-south passes over the target area in a racetrack pattern at speeds of about 160 mph, and an altitude of about 135 ft above ground level (agl). Several seconds after he sprayed an area adjacent to a set of 130 ft tall power transmission lines that ran parallel to his flight pattern, he made one more lap in the pattern. The data ceased when the airplane was at the south end of the field while turning north, likely several seconds before impact. The airplane subsequently impacted a powerline and came to rest about 500 ft northeast of the point of initial impact, which was a powerline next to a tower. Postaccident examination revealed no preimpact mechanical anomalies or malfunctions with the airplane or engine that would have precluded normal operation. The propeller signatures indicated that the propeller was rotating at moderate to high power when it impacted the powerline. The powerline was found wrapped around at least one blade and the propeller hub. A witness recount suggests that the accident took place several seconds after the last flight data point. The pilot was familiar with this orchard and was likely not fatigued at the time. In addition, the position of the sun at the time of the accident would not have been a factor. Although a recount of the pilot’s flying habits indicated he was unlikely to have flown beneath the powerlines, the pilot struck the inside wire between two towers at about the lowest point, which suggests he flew under the powerlines. Thus, the accident was the result of the pilot’s failure to maintain clearance from powerlines while attempting to fly beneath multiple conductors during a low-altitude aerial application flight, which resulted in propeller contact with a powerline and a subsequent loss of control. Page 2 of 11 WPR23FA122
The pilot reported that during the takeoff roll the airplane encountered a gusting and shifting crosswind. The airplane departed the left side of the runway and the pilot applied the brakes and reduced engine power. The airplane subsequently struck a culvert, the landing gear partially collapsed, and the airplane’s firewall was substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot reported that, he was taxiing on the parking row centerline and did not see that another airplane had moved and came to a stop about 5 feet into the taxiway. The left wing of the taxing airplane collided with the propeller of the other airplane, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing and aileron. The other airplane sustained minor damage to the propeller.The pilots of both airplanes reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions and failures with the airplanes that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that while enroute, a low fuel level annunciation occurred. The pilot subsequently prepared to divert to a nearby airport due to low fuel. Within 2 minutes the left engine shut down, followed by the right. The pilot asked air traffic control for vectors to the nearest airport. The sky conditions were clear with no moon, no horizon and no terrain feature visible. While approaching the airport at approximately 2,000 feet above the runway, the airport runway lighting turned off. The pilot was unable to turn the lights back on and subsequently used the terminal and ramp lights to maneuver the airplane to the runway. The airplane touched down and veered off the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilot reported to a first responder that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation and that he ran out of gas.
The pilot and airplane were reported missing by family members. A multi-agency search was conducted; radar data believed to represent the missing airplane showed a westerly track to 10 miles east of Queets, Washington. The airplane wreckage was found 5 weeks later in an area of dense trees one mile north of the last radar target.Shortly after departure, evidence suggests the pilot turned off the airplane’s transponder. The airplane likely encountered instrument meteorological conditions and icing along the route of flight. Although evidence suggests the pilot had been drinking alcohol shortly before the accident, the pattern of the pilot's ethanol results indicates that some or all the detected ethanol likely was from sources other than alcohol consumption. This conclusion is consistent with the severity of the pilot’s injuries, the delayed recovery of his remains, and the presence of other volatiles (n-butanol, isopropanol, and acetone) in some of the tested specimens. However, the results do not exclude the possibility that the pilot may have consumed ethanol and may have been impaired by ethanol effects at the time of the crash. Thus, whether ethanol effects contributed to the crash could not be determined.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during the landing roll on a dry, paved runway, the airplane veered to the right. The pilot was unable to correct, and the airplane ground looped, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing, left aileron and elevator. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor reported that during an instructional flight, a large bird flew into the path of the airplane and his evasive actions were unsuccessful in avoiding the bird. The bird struck the airplane’s left wing. The flight instructor made an uneventful landing following the bird strike. The left-wing leading edge and main spar were substantially damaged during the bird strike. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The airplane was coming into the airport to land following a cross-country flight. The pilot reported they checked the weather, entered the current conditions in the Garmin Control Unit, and received the results they expected for the RNAV approach to runway 33. The airport manager came on the radios and reported the winds as 280o at 8 knots, gusting to 19 knots. The crew captured the glidepath before the final approach fix and the co-pilot called out speeds to touchdown, the last being 115 kts. The touchdown was normal, but then the airplane experienced a strong yaw to the left from a wind gust. The pilot attempted to steer the airplane back, but the airplane went off the left side of the runway, struck a taxiway sign, and came to a stop with the nose of the airplane facing the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left inboard wing and lower left fuselage. The crew reported no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.At the time of the accident, the airplane was landing on runway 33 with reported winds 280o at 8 knots with gusts to 24 knots. Following the accident, the company put in place stricter crosswind component limits for its’ fleet of airplanes.
About an hour into the flight, while cruising at 8,500 ft, light smoke entered the cabin momentarily, and the engine oil pressure dropped to zero. The pilot turned toward a nearby airport and shortly thereafter the engine lost power. Unable to glide to the airport, he saw a cleared field and set up for a forced landing. The airplane touched down on sandy soil, the nose gear dug in and separated, and the airframe was substantially damaged. The pilot was not injured.A postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the oil filter adapter separated at the engine case which likely resulted in a depletion of the engine’s oil supply and the subsequent total loss of engine power due to lack of lubrication. Residual oil covered the area around the adapter-to-engine case opening and below. The adapter threads appeared stripped. The adapter was safety wired in position and there was red torque putty applied as well.A review of the maintenance logbooks revealed that an annual inspection of the airframe and engine was completed about 29 hours before the accident. The logbook entries noted that an airworthiness directive that addressed security of the connection between the oil filter adapter and the engine case, including checking for proper torque, had been complied with during the inspection. The separation of the filter and stripping of the adapter threads were likely indicative of the oil filter adapter threads having failed due to improper torquing of the jam nut.
The airplane departed with two passengers on a local “discovery flight.” After completion of the 40-minute flight, while established on a 3-mile final approach for landing, the pilot announced there was smoke in the cockpit and he requested an immediate landing. The pilot subsequently broadcast a “Mayday” over the tower frequency. The tower controller reissued an earlier landing clearance and observed smoke emanating from the left side of the airplane as it descended rapidly from view.Local doorbell camera and surveillance video captured the airplane in a wings-level attitude, with smooth continuous engine sound until contact with trees and terrain.Examination of the wreckage identified copper tubing and brass fittings associated with the oil pressure indicating system. These copper oil lines and fittings were on the cockpit side of the firewall and slightly offset toward the left side. The oil pressure tubing exhibited a branch line that was not part of the original design. It is not known exactly where this line was routed behind the instrument panel. At the end of this branch line a brass fitting exhibited melting consistent with very localized heating caused by electrical arcing. The appearance was that of sustained or repeated arcing as it melted through the fitting across multiple flats. The post-crash fire resulted in widespread, diffuse thermal exposure of the wreckage and aircraft components as exhibited by the melted regions of the fitting. If the fitting had reached its melting point due to the postcrash fire, it would have melted entirely without the localized melted region and sharp demarcation shown between melted and intact material.    Two previous reported incidents of smoke in the cockpit of the accident airplane occurred about 2 months and about 50 hours before the accident; however, the investigation could not conclusively determine if those events were related to the event during the accident flight. Page 2 of 12 ERA23FA137It is likely that an intermittent electrical short circuit took place involving the fitting on the end of the oil pressure indicating line. Repeated electrical arcing eventually compromised the fitting enough to allow oil leakage and eventual ignition of the leaking oil, which resulted in an in-flight fire.
The pilot reported that the helicopter preflight and engine runup were normal; however, he could not maintain main rotor rpm on departure and the engine lost partial power. The pilot made a run-on landing to a snow-covered lake, which resulted in substantial damage to the tail boom.Postaccident examination of the engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Since there were no mechanical anomalies with the helicopter, it is likely the pilot allowed the main rotor rpm to decrease and exceeded the available engine power to recover from the low main rotor rpm condition. When the main rotor rpm decreases, the amount of power the engine can produce also decreases, which is likely the reason the pilot perceived a partial loss of engine power. In addition, the obstacles along the departure path prevented the pilot from lowering the collective to regain main rotor rpm, which resulted in the pilot electing to perform a run-on landing.
The flight instructor reported that while performing a touch-and-go landing at night, just prior to rotation speed, the pilot receiving instruction noticed a deer coming from the infield area. The flight instructor also saw a deer and heard a “clump” noise.  The flight instructor reduced the engine power to idle and exited the runway. After taxiing to the ramp, the pilot and flight instructor noted damage to the airplane and subsequently airport operations personnel found one deceased and one injured deer near the landing runway. The deer strike resulted in substantial damage to the left horizontal stabilizer.  The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
While enroute during a cross-country flight, the engine lost total power and the pilot performed a forced landing to a bridge. During the landing, the airplane contacted a cable placed across the bridge and nosed over, which substantially damaged the rudder.Examination of the engine revealed that three teeth of the crankshaft timing gear had separated, and approximately 60 to 90 percent of the remaining gear teeth had been deformed and flattened, which stopped rotation of the camshaft and resulted in a total loss of power. The liberated teeth exhibited evidence of fatigue cracks and subsequent overstress fractures. The crankshaft timing gear and liberated teeth did not meet the 50 HRC (513 HV) standard for case hardening. No evidence of the engine overheating was found, which eliminated the possibility of an altered case hardening of the crankshaft timing gear via engine heat. A review of maintenance records revealed that the engine had been overhauled about 58 operating hours before the accident and all ferrous metal parts were non-destructive tested (NDT), including the crankshaft timing gear; the testing did not identify surface or subsurface cracks. An annual inspection of the engine was performed about 8.4 flight hours before the accident and revealed no anomalies. The accident crankshaft timing gear was likely the original gear to the engine.
The pilot reported he was spraying near power lines during an aerial application flight. He made several passes beneath a power line; however, during a subsequent pass, the pilot became distracted and struck the power line. The airplane impacted the ground and was destroyed by post-crash fire. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operations.
The pilot reported that, during the final run for the aerial application flight, he noticed the engine spooling down. He attempted to land on a nearby road but collided with the terrain, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter or engine that would have precluded normal operation and that the loss of engine power was due to fuel exhaustion.
Frontier Airlines flight 1369 experienced convective turbulence during the descent from cruise altitude to land at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW).The captain stated they were briefed and were expecting a mostly smooth flight from Chicago Midway International airport to the Saint Louis area, and then anticipated a “bumpy ride” the remainder of the flight to the DFW, and those were exactly the conditions they encountered. He said that about halfway through the flight it became rough, and they were allowed to deviate around some convective cells to get a smoother ride. Air traffic control (ATC) also gave an additional reroute to transition south of the weather and return to the same arrival transition east to DFW. The captain said that the ride became smoother, so he turned off the seat belt sign as the flight was descending on the arrival at DFW.During arrival, the flight was given a descent to flight level (FL) 240 and told to maintain 290 knots or better. It was mostly smooth, so the captain kept the seat belt sign off, but as the descent progressed, they started getting some light chop, and all of a sudden experienced “one big, unexpected bump”. The captain said he immediately turned the seat belt sign on and made a call to the flight attendants (FA) to get seated. He said the “A” FA told him that one crew member fell and hit her head and hip and was in pain and unable to get up. The first officer (FO) stated they were instructed to descend from FL280 to FL240 and during the descent the airplane flew through a cloud that looked “light with no apparent indications of adverse conditions”, but upon entering the cloud the ride went from smooth, to light, to moderate turbulence. There had been no pilot reports (PIREPS) prior to entering the descent, and the flight attendants had been preparing the cabin for landing and were about to be seated. The FO recalled that the seat belt sign was on throughout the descent.Page 2 of 6 DCA23LA196The FO said he immediately got on the public address (PA) system and told the flight attendants to be seated, and shortly thereafter they were informed that the “D” flight attendant had been thrown around and was injured.The flight crew informed ATC of the medical event, requested priority handling, and asked for paramedics to meet the airplane at the gate. ATC declared an emergency for the flight crew. The injured flight attendant was on the galley floor and could not get up. She was assisted by another flight attendant and two passenger nurses, and the flight landed otherwise uneventfully. After landing the injured flight attendant was given medical care and diagnosed with a broken hip.
The pilot purchased an airplane that had not flown in 22 years and that had an extensive annual inspection completed the day before the accident flight. On the day of the accident, the pilot flew the airplane on a short flight to an airport and topped off the fuel tanks. About 5 minutes after he departed on the second leg, the engine started to lose power so he performed an off-airport forced landing. The airplane landed hard, which resulted in substantial damage to the wings. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that when electrical power was applied to the electric fuel pump, fuel leaked from the fuel strainer bowl. Further examination of the fuel strainer bowl revealed that the thumb wheel, which secured the fuel strainer bowl to the firewall, was loose and not secured with safety wire. Examination of the fuel system forward of the fuel strainer bowl revealed no fuel was present up to the fuel nozzles. Once the fuel strainer bowl was secured and the thumb wheel tightened, fuel flowed to the fuel nozzles and no leaks were noted. Additionally, one of the fuel injector nozzles was completely obstructed and another was partially obstructed. Since the fuel bowl was not safety wired, it likely loosened from vibration after the annual inspection which resulted in fuel leaking from the fuel strainer bowl. The fuel leak likely starved the engine of adequate fuel to operate normally, and contributed to the partial loss of engine power. The obstructed fuel injector nozzles also likely negatively impacted the engine’s performance during the flight.