roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The commercial pilot was conducting an agricultural aerial application flight. A witness stated that he observed the airplane as it started spraying chemical along the east side of a cornfield. The airplane made a turn at the north end of the field and then started a second pass heading south. When the airplane was about midway down the field, the witness observed blue smoke coming from the airplane for a distance of about 150 to 200 ft. (The airplane was equipped with a smoke marker, which produced blue smoke to aid in lining up spray runs and provide wind drift indications near the ground.) The witness estimated that the airplane's speed was about 100 mph at that time. The airplane then clipped a tree, which was about 30 to 40 ft in height, at the south end of the field; rolled inverted; and impacted terrain. This witness did not see the airplane crash because he lost sight of the airplane behind a line of trees. Two other witnesses stated that they had heard a "popping" noise before the airplane crashed. The first witness stated that he did not hear anything out of the ordinary, including the reported popping noise, but indicated that his all-terrain vehicle and its radio were operating at the time.A postaccident examination of the airplane wreckage found the airplane's right position light along with one-quarter of the right wingtip lying next to the base of the tree that was struck. The main wreckage was found about 360 ft from the tree. The damage to the airplane was consistent with a steep, nose-down attitude at the time of ground impact. The flight controls exhibited continuity from the cockpit to the control surfaces. The propeller blades exhibited "S" bending and chordwise scratching, which was consistent with the engine producing power at the time of impact. The pilot had flown 17.5 hours in the accident airplane before the accident occurred, which was also his total flight experience as an agricultural pilot.
The pilot of the retractable-gear airplane reported that, during a simulated engine-out landing with a flight instructor, they forgot to extend the landing gear. Subsequently, the airplane landed with the gear retracted.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The solo student pilot reported that he was practicing a stop-and-go landing on the asphalt runway. He recalled that, while on the downwind leg of the approach pattern, he was headed into a bright sunset. On short final, "a medium sized, reddish brown animal ran across the runway near the numbers from right to left." The student overflew the animal, and the airplane bounced upon touchdown. He applied full power to abort the landing, but the airplane veered left and exited the left side of the runway. About 40 ft from the runway, the airplane encountered soft soil and nosed over. During a conversation with the National Transportation Safety Board investigator-in-charge, the student pilot stated that he may have become fixated on the animal during the approach. He could not recall whether he manipulated the yoke to avoid the animal. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left-wing strut.The student reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel airplane reported that he made a normal approach to an asphalt runway. During the landing roll, the tail started to move to the left, and he corrected with left rudder application, but he recalled that "I may have unintentionally put pressure on the left toe brake." The airplane veered to the left and exited the left side of the runway. The airplane entered a drainage culvert and ground looped to the left. The right main landing gear (MLG) collapsed, and the right wing tip struck the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right MLG attachment point.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot reported that he was conducting touch-and-go landings and that, while on final approach, the experimental, light sport airplane encountered a downdraft, and the engine lost total power. The pilot was unable to restart the engine or glide the airplane to the runway, and it impacted trees. The engine was test run successfully several times, and no anomalies were noted. The engine's choke control was located near the throttle lever. During the test runs, the engine lost total power if the choke control was moved about halfway (1 inch). It is likely that the pilot's hand was on the throttle lever and that it inadvertently bumped the choke control during the downdraft encounter, which resulted in a total loss of engine power.
The pilot reported that, during the touchdown, a wind gust caused the airplane to float back into the air. Subsequently, the airplane porpoised, and he initiated a go-around. The second landing was uneventful; however, before the airplane exited onto the taxiway, the front wheel seized.A postaccident examination revealed that the front tire rim was damaged and that the tire was flat.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The automated weather observation system on the accident airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 120° at 11 knots. The pilot landed on runway 12.
The pilot of the tandem-seat, tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, while taxiing to the runway and seated in the rear seat, he had "poor [forward] visibility" and that the airplane's propeller collided with the left wing of a stationary airplane on the taxiway. The pilot reported that he "broke and turned" as soon as he saw the stationary airplane, but "it was too late." The pilot of the stationary airplane reported that he had stopped on the taxiway due to the run-up area ahead being fully occupied with multiple airplanes waiting to depart. He added that his "first awareness" of the tailwheel airplane was the sound of a "loud bang."The stationary airplane's left wing and aileron sustained substantial damage. The tailwheel airplane sustained minor damage to the propeller. The pilots reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with their respective airplanes that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot was conducting a personal, cross-country flight and was attempting to land on a choppy lake with heavy boat traffic. A witness stated that the airplane looked high and fast during its descent before touching down, and a review of a video of the accident sequence revealed rapid, abrupt rolling of the wings just before water contact. At touchdown, the airplane bounced and then rotated back and forth about the roll axis, alternately contacting the water with the left and right pontoons. The roll oscillations increased in magnitude until the right pontoon and right wingtip dragged the water, which brought the airplane to an abrupt stop with the right wingtip submerged. The right wing and horizontal stabilizer sustained substantial damage. Postaccident examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during a day, visual meteorological conditions flight, just after touchdown, a deer jumped out onto the runway. He added that he made a "hard left turn" into soft grass next to the runway, and as the airplane was almost stopped, the nosewheel collapsed.The engine mounts and firewall 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 Federal Aviation Administration Chart Supplement for the airport stated, in part: "Deer on and…[in the vicinity of] airport."
The pilot and the pilot-certificated passenger departed on a local flight, and the airplane was seen performing aerobatics before the accident. A witness then saw the airplane fly low over the ground, pitch up at a steep angle, turn, descend, and impact the ground in a near vertical attitude. Ground scars and damage to the airplane were consistent with the airplane impacting trees with the right wing, and then the ground in a nose-low, wings-level attitude with a pitch in excess of 60° nose down. According to radar data, the airplane lost about 1,000 ft in altitude during the final 5 seconds of the flight; the rate of descent was about 12,000 ft per minute. The location of the accident was within 250 ft of the last known radar target.The airplane wreckage was severely fragmented and all damage to the airframe, engine, propeller, and flight controls was consistent with a high-speed impact. Examination of the airframe, engine, and related systems revealed no evidence of any anomalies that would have precluded normal operations. After performing in an air show the day before the accident, the pilot had agreed to take the pilot-certificated passenger for a ride in the airplane before he departed the area. The airplane was equipped with dual flight controls and it could not be determined who was manipulating the flight controls just before or at the time of the accident. The pilot's autopsy revealed evidence of previous damage to his heart tissue, and this placed him at risk of a sudden cardiac event such as a heart attack or dysrhythmia. Such an event would likely cause acute symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, or loss of consciousness, and sudden impairment or incapacitation could result. However, although such an event might explain the loss of control, it does not explain why the plane was flying at a low altitude. Because of the unknown flight circumstances just before the loss of control, it could not be determined whether the pilot's heart disease contributed to the accident. Although toxicology test results for both occupants identified ethanol in some tissues, the levels varied widely and were negative on two tests for the pilot-certificated passenger. As a result, it is most likely Page 2 of 9 CEN17FA270that the identified ethanol was from sources other than ingestions.
The pilot reported that, after a normal touchdown, the airplane's nose dropped, and he added power. Subsequently, the airplane bounced, exited the runway to the right, and came to rest nose down.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall and engine mounts.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 during cruise flight, a severe vibration came from the engine, and cooling fluid leaked onto the windscreen. About 30 seconds later, the engine lost total power. The pilot made a forced landing on a narrow field, and the airplane slid off the landing area into a ditch, coming to rest nose down substantially damaging the left wing and forward fuselage.An engine examination revealed that one of the spider pins and some of the material holding the pins, which connect three rubber links that transmit power between the engine and transmission, had broken. The semi-attached broken pin resulted in extreme vibration, it swung out on the other pin by centrifugal force which hit and broke the coolant line causing a loss of coolant and subsequent loss of engine power. Two days after the accident, the engine manufacturer recalled the flywheel drive assemblies and stated they would be replaced with heavier flywheel drive assemblies.
During the final approach for landing, the airplane was too low and struck trees short of the runway threshold, spun about 180°, and then impacted the ground. The airplane sustained 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 did not submit the National Transportation Safety Board Form 6120.1 Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report.
The pilot was shuttling friends to his remote recreational cabin in the airplane, and the accident occurred during the return trip after dropping off the first group of friends. When the airplane failed to arrive to pick up the second group of friends, a family friend initiated an aerial search and found the wreckage.  The accident site was located about 600 ft from a river that the pilot reportedly often flew along at low altitude during his return flights from his remote cabin. The airplane initially impacted the top of an estimated 45-ft-tall tree located about 150 ft from the river bank. After the initial impact, the airplane traveled about 450 ft before coming to rest inverted. A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.Given the lack of mechanical deficiencies with the airplane, the elliptical impact areas to the airplane's severed left wing, and the pilot's habit of flying low level along the river, it is likely that the pilot inadvertently collided with a tree while in cruise flight at low-altitude.
According to the commercial pilot, after a successful sightseeing balloon flight, all the passengers exited the gondola and were helping the pilot secure the balloon. As they were holding on to the maneuvering handles, the balloon began to ascend; the pilot directed the passengers to "let go" of the gondola, and all except one released the maneuvering handles. The passenger who did not let go was carried about 30 ft into the air before he let go and fell to the ground; he sustained serious injuries. The pilot regained control of the balloon and landed.
The pilot reported that, shortly after takeoff, the engine began to "act erratically" and surged. The pilot initiated a turn back toward the airport, during which the engine lost total power and began producing black smoke. The pilot subsequently performed a forced landing to an open field, during which the airplane sustained substantial damage.Examination revealed that the automotive engine's air filter element had sustained fire damage, and debris consistent with molten air filter material was in the throats of both intake openings. It is likely that the engine lost power due to ingestion of molten foam air filter, which obstructed the air intakes; however, how the filter became fire-damaged was not determined. There were no other mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the engine.
The pilot of the single-engine airplane reported that, during landing to the southeast, a wind gust contacted the airplane's tail from the left side, which caused the airplane to veer left. The airplane departed the runway, crossed a taxiway, and impacted a ditch. The pilot reported there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. Examination of the wreckage by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed that the nose landing gear collapsed and that the propeller was bent aft. The engine firewall was wrinkled below the left engine mount. The recorded weather at the airport, about the time of the accident, included wind from 080° at 10 knots.
About 15 minutes after arriving at the airport, the private pilot departed on a local flight. A witness reported that, shortly after takeoff, the engine "sputtered and quit." The airplane appeared to continue climbing straight ahead to an altitude about 200 ft above ground level, then initiated a left turn as if attempting to return to the runway. The airplane reached an approximate 90° angle of bank and the nose dropped before the airplane descended almost vertically to ground contact, consistent with an aerodynamic stall/spin. Examination of the airframe and engine revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The propeller did not exhibit indications of rotation at the time of impact. The fuel selector was set to the left tank position. Both left and right fuel tanks were breached and devoid of fuel; however, the asphalt surrounding the wreckage was discolored consistent with fuel spillage. The gascolator bowl contained some fuel; however, the carburetor bowl and accelerator pump well were devoid of fuel. Examination of the fuel system revealed no evidence of blockage that would have prevented fuel flow to the engine. The quantity and distribution of fuel on board the airplane at the time of the accident could not be determined; however, the lack of fuel in the carburetor bowl and accelerator pump is consistent with a fuel starvation event. The reason for the fuel starvation could not be determined based on the available information.  Following the loss of engine power, the pilot attempted to return to the runway; however, the airplane did not have sufficient altitude to complete the 180° turn. During the turn, the pilot failed to maintain sufficient airspeed, which resulted in the airplane exceeding its critical angle of attack and entering an aerodynamic stall and spin.
The student pilot reported that, during the final landing of his solo flight, the airplane bounced and that he attempted to correct, but the propeller struck the ground. Subsequently, he stopped the airplane and was towed back to the ramp.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall.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 stated that, during the preflight inspection, he visually inspected both fuel tanks and checked the fuel level using a dipstick and that each tank contained about 15 gallons. Subsequently, the flight instructor and private pilot receiving instruction departed for an instrument training flight with the fuel selector positioned to the "both" position. The pilots flew to two different airports to practice instrument approaches and holding. About 2 hours 25 minutes after the airplane originally departed, the flight instructor chose to return to the departure airport. The instructor stated that, while east of the airport, the engine "sputtered" for about 2 to 3 seconds and then lost all power; the engine rpm then increased briefly to 1,500, followed by the loss of all engine power again. The pilot reported that, at that time, the left and right fuel gauges were in the lower red arc between 1/4 and 1/2 capacity, respectively. The pilots attempted to restore engine power by moving the fuel selector to each fuel tank position and checking the magnetos in each respective position to no avail. The instructor maneuvered the airplane for a forced landing on a road, during which it collided with trees and a light pole before landing hard.During postaccident examination of the airplane, less than 1 gallon of fuel was drained from the left fuel tank, and about 10 gallons of fuel were drained from the right fuel tank; the tanks were not breached, and no evidence of leakage was found. Further examination of the right fuel tank supply system revealed that the strainer was nearly completely blocked by organic material, which prevented the remaining fuel in the right fuel tank from feeding to the engine and likely resulted in the loss of all engine power due to fuel starvation. If either the flight instructor or the pilot had scanned the fuel quantity gauges periodically throughout the flight, they could have noticed the uneven fuel burn and performed a precautionary landing before the engine lost power.
The noninstrument-rated private pilot was conducting a cross-country flight to compete in an aerobatic competition scheduled to begin the next day. Weather information showed that the pilot would have experienced increasingly cloudy conditions as the airplane proceeded along the route of flight. Radar data indicated that the airplane was flying on a northerly heading before it made two complete right turns followed by a larger diameter sweeping right turn, and abrupt and rapid diversions from the en route altitude. The last 3 minutes of data showed the airplane climbing from 2,000 ft mean sea level (msl) (1,300 ft above ground level) to 6,425 ft msl. The airplane then began to descend, and radar contact was lost at 5,800 ft msl. Automated observations from airports north and south of the accident site showed ceilings at 800 ft above ground level and 1,200 ft above ground level, respectively. The pilot did not obtain a weather briefing from an official, access-controlled source before departing on the flight, and it could not be determined if he checked or received additional weather information before or during the flight.A witness described the airplane as performing "aerobatics" in a very "low cloud ceiling." He subsequently observed the airplane enter a "high vertical climb," and then heard it descending. The airplane descended through the bottom of the clouds and continued "straight down" until impact. In addition, a witness heard the engine operating at a high power setting before impact. The damage to adjacent trees and the limited linear wreckage debris path were consistent with a near-vertical, nose-low attitude at impact. Examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any evidence of a preimpact anomaly or malfunction. A placard in the airplane stated that the airplane was not approved for flight in instrument meteorological conditions.Despite not being instrument rated and flying an airplane that was not certificated for instrument conditions, the pilot chose to continue along the flight route as weather conditions deteriorated rather than diverting, consistent with a common behavioral trap known as "get-there-it is." It is likely that the pilot's desire to get to the destination airport in order to prepare for the competition contributed to this behavior. The instrument meteorological conditions that existed in the area of the accident site around Page 2 of 9 ERA17FA241the accident time and the airplane's turning ground track and near-vertical descent were consistent with a loss of control due to spatial disorientation.Toxicology testing identified THC and its primary metabolite in liver, kidney, and lung specimens. While this indicated that the pilot had used marijuana at some point before the flight, without results from a blood specimen, it could not be determined when he used it or whether it may have had impairing effects at the time of the accident.
The flight instructor and pilot receiving instruction, departed on an instructional flight and proceeded toward mountainous terrain. A witness saw the airplane in a box canyon and reported that the airplane made a steep right turn and the nose dropped. To the witness, it appeared that the airplane was trying to escape the box canyon and that the speed of the airplane increased after the nose of the airplane dropped. The witness lost sight of the airplane behind terrain. Shortly thereafter, the witness saw smoke coming from the area where he had last seen the airplane. The wreckage was subsequently located by law enforcement personnel on down sloping terrain.Examination of the airframe and engine revealed no preaccident mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.The density altitude at the departure airport was 7,000 ft mean sea level (msl); the density altitude in the area of the accident site was over 10,000 ft msl. Given the high-density altitude it is likely that the airplane performance was decreased, and there was not enough engine power available for the airplane to climb out of the box canyon. It is also likely that as a result of the turn, the true airspeed increased the radius of the turn, and the pilot would have attempted to compensate and increased the bank angle and exceeded the airplanes critical angle of attack resulting in a stall.