roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot departed in the aerial application airplane to apply dry chemical to a rice field. Shortly after takeoff, the operator who was training the pilot heard the pilot announce over the company radio frequency that, “I’ve got to land this airplane.” There were no further radio transmissions from the pilot. A postimpact fire ensued and the wreckage was destroyed. Shortly after, the wreckage was discovered upright next to ditch. Due to the absence of any flight track data, the airplane’s flight path, altitude, and airspeed were unknown for the accident flight.  Postaccident examination of the airframe and the engine revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot did not extricate herself from the airplane and died from inhaling products of combustion, which also caused an elevated carboxyhemoglobin level. There is no evidence to suggest the pilot was exposed to significant levels of carbon monoxide before the accident. Two sedating medications were found in the pilot’s blood postmortem, diphenhydramine, an antihistamine, and zolpidem, a sleep aid. The postmortem level of diphenhydramine for this pilot was 79 ng/ml in central blood; dividing by 3 to account for postmortem redistribution places the likely antemortem level just at or above the level where any effects might be expected. In addition, she had safely flown the airplane on a flight earlier that day. Therefore, it is unlikely any effects from the pilot’s use of diphenhydramine contributed to the accident circumstances. In this case, the pilot’s very low postmortem level of 3 ng/ml of zolpidem is unlikely to have caused any effects or contributed to the accident circumstances. Finally, the detected but not quantified quinine in heart blood most likely indicates the pilot drank some tonic water at some point in the night or hours before the accident, but it is unlikely that any Page 2 of 12 CEN22FA215effects from her use contributed to the accident circumstances. Overall, it is unlikely that any effects from the identified substances contributed to the accident circumstances.The airplane’s fuel system ruptured during the accident sequence and a fire ensued, consuming the airplane. The airplane was not equipped with, nor was it required to be equipped with, a crash-resistant fuel system. According to sources, a postimpact fire presents a significant risk of fire-related injuries to airplane occupants, and crash-resistant fuel systems reduce the risk of postimpact fire and can provide occupants with more time to escape or be rescued.The pilot’s last radio transmission indicated that she likely intended to land the airplane; however, it could not be determined what the reason was for her wanting to land the airplane. There was no evidence that the pilot performed an emergency hopper dump procedure. Based on the available evidence, it is likely the pilot was attempting to perform an emergency landing to a rice field, but because of the full chemical load, she misjudged the approach to landing and impacted a ditch immediately after touchdown, which resulted in the substantial damage to the airplane and postimpact fire.
The pilot reported that, while on a downwind leg of the airport traffic pattern at the destination airport, he extended the landing gear. The subsequent touchdown was normal; however, the main landing gear collapsed during the landing roll.Examination of the wreckage revealed that the wing flaps were retracted, and the landing gear doors were open, consistent with the airplane not being properly configured for landing and indicative of the landing gear being in transit at the time of touchdown. Functional testing of the landing gear system did not reveal any preimpact mechanical malfunctions. Based on the available information, it is likely that the pilot realized that the landing gear was retracted during the landing flare and attempted to extend the landing gear, but the airplane touched down before the gear were fully extended.
The pilot reported that, after a normal approach and touchdown on the centerline of the runway in crosswind conditions the airplane veered to the left. He attempted to correct for the veer with right brake and rudder control to no avail. The airplane exited the runway and impacted terrain, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage, right wing, and right aileron. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
Local law enforcement received a report of an airplane crash at a private airstrip, and upon arrival, discovered a substantially damaged airplane that had already been moved off the airstrip. A bystander identified the accident pilot, by name, to the officer, as the pilot was trying to stop a fuel leak from the left wing. When the officer approached, the pilot became hostile, and reported he only had a hard landing, and it was not an accident. The accident pilot subsequently left the scene. Photographs provided by the on-scene law enforcement officer depict substantial damage to the accident airplane’s fuselage, left wing, and left aileron.     The pilot has not replied to multiple requests for additional information, and he did not complete and return the National Transportation Safety Board form 6120.1, Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report.
The pilot was conducting takeoffs and landings in the tailwheel-equipped airplane, which he had not previously flown. A witness reported that, after takeoff, the airplane pitched up “sharply, then went straight down,” consistent with an aerodynamic stall. The pilot stated that he “assumed” that, during takeoff, the airplane got too slow and stalled, which resulted in impact with trees and terrain.Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation; therefore, it is likely that, during the initial climb after takeoff, the pilot failed to maintain adequate airspeed, which resulted in the exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack and an aerodynamic stall.
The private pilot and flight instructor were conducting a flight review. During the attempted short-field landing, the pilot slowed the airplane to 70 kts, about 10 kts slower than usual, and planned to make a “shallower than normal final approach.” While on short final, the airplane descended too low, and the airplane collided with a small tree. The airplane subsequently veered left, landed short of the runway, and impacted several taxiway lights, which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing and left aileron. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation and that he let the airplane get too low and slow on final approach.
The pilot reported that he was conducting a local pattern flight and performing touch and goes when during his second landing when he applied the brakes to slow down, the brakes did not respond. The pilot used the emergency break handle to stop but got no response. The pilot then steered the airplane into the grass adjacent to the runway to slow down. During the excursion, the left main landing gear struck a hole in the grass causing the aircraft to stop abruptly and nose over coming to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the forward fuselage and wings. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed a small hole in left brake line and the line in that area was chaffed. The line transitioned from the airplane fuselage to the landing gear and brakes through a jagged hole in a metal support bulkhead. The hole did not possess a barrier or material to prevent rubbing of the break line. A review of the airplane’s maintenance logs did not show any entries regarding the brakes or any damage to the left brake line area. It is likely that the hole in the brake line existed for some time before it leaked enough fluid to cause the brakes to malfunction during the accident flight. According to a manufacturer’s engineering diagram, there should have been a grommet installed (Part Number: AN331-6-10) in the bulkhead hole that the brake line passed through. The part was designed to protect the brake line from chaffing.The pilot reported that there were no indications of a brake issue when he did his preflight.
The pilot reported that during the landing rollout on a remote sandbar, the airplane’s main tires encountered an area of soft sand and the airplane nosed over, which resulted in substantial damage to the wings, vertical stabilizer, and rudder. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation, and that the accident may have been prevented if he had applied less brakes and been more prepared for the soft and uneven landing surface.
The pilot reported that, while maneuvering through a field at low altitude, the wingtip struck a telephone pole. The airplane subsequently impacted terrain and was destroyed. The pilot stated that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane before the accident.
The student pilot was performing a solo flight and practicing takeoffs and landings. A witness reported, and ADS-B data confirmed, that the student pilot performed a touch-and-go. According to the witness, the airplane touched down long and then took off again. When the airplane lifted off the ground, the flaps remained down. The airplane climbed just above tree height in a nose-high attitude. Shortly thereafter, the left wing dropped, and the airplane descended “straight down.” During the climb, the student pilot reported to air traffic control (ATC) that he had an engine failure. Subsequently, he reported that he did not have his flaps up. A performance study was conducted to estimate the drag characteristics of the airplane and the engine power developed during the initial takeoff, subsequent landing, and accident takeoff. Before telling ATC that the flaps were not up, the pilot reported an engine failure; however, according to the study, the energy state of the airplane and the computed power required during the accident climb at flaps 30° are inconsistent with a loss of power. Instead, performance calculations indicate that the engine was producing power consistent with the power levels achieved during the previous (initial) takeoff and climb, which was performed with the flaps up. The airplane’s lift coefficient, computed using ADS-B data and wind speeds consistent with the reported weather, indicate that the flaps 30° maximum lift coefficient was reached about 13 seconds after the pilot reported an engine failure, and nearly coincident with the time that the pilot reported that the flaps were not up. The increase of the airplane’s lift coefficient to the maximum lift, and the rapid drop in pitch angle, angle of attack, and flight path angle that followed, are consistent with an aerodynamic stall and subsequent loss of control.Page 2 of 8 CEN22FA214Physical examination of the airframe, engine, and propeller did not reveal any preimpact failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane.
Seconds after liftoff to a hover, the helicopter began to “aggressively shudder.” Loud, rapid reports were heard, and the nose of the helicopter yawed to the left. The instructor assumed control of the helicopter, closed the throttle, and performed an autorotation from a hover, landing the helicopter upright on its skids; however, the airframe sustained substantial damage. The instructor completed an engine shutdown, egressed the helicopter, and noticed that the main rotor was still turning while the tail rotor remained stationary. A cursory examination of the helicopter revealed that the clutch shaft yoke fractured at one of its two bolt lugs where the yoke attached to the flex plate. All other damage depicted appeared to be impact damage from the rotating assemblies left unsecured by the fractured lug.Examination of the damaged yoke and flexplate in the NTSB materials laboratory revealed a fractured attachment lug on the forward clutch shaft yoke due to fatigue failure with multiple origins.
The pilot and passenger were departing on a personal flight. Witnesses observed the airplane attempt to take off, but the takeoff was aborted, and the airplane was then taxied back to the approach end of the runway so that the pilot could perform an engine run-up. The witnesses stated that the engine was “sputtering” and “sounded bad” during the takeoff and the taxi to the run-up area. The pilot subsequently attempted a second takeoff. The airplane remained at a low altitude, began a left turn toward the downwind pattern, and then “sank” out of sight behind a ridgeline before impacting terrain. A pilot witness stated that the pilot had “milked it [off the runway], set it back down, and then milked it off [the runway] again.” This witness also described the engine as “running rich, like it was bogged down” during the second takeoff.Postaccident examination of the engine found that the No. 4 engine cylinder exhaust valve was stuck due to a buildup of material that enlarged the overall diameter of the valve’s stem. Examination of the valve stem deposits showed indications of an organic compound that was consistent with deposits of unburned fuel. The stuck valve led to a partial loss of power during the accident takeoffs. The accident pilot reported to another pilot that there had been previous engine problems that had been identified as stuck valves. The accident pilot also reported that he ”never leaned the engine” and that he had little-to-no training on how to lean the engine.The partial loss of engine power that resulted from the No. 4 cylinder exhaust valve becoming stuck was likely due to the pilot's improper leaning of the engine over an extended period. Excessively rich mixtures can lead to a buildup of unburned hydrocarbons, which can foul engine components with deposits. The accident could likely have been avoided if the pilot had the airplane examined by maintenance personnel before attempting the second takeoff.Page 2 of 11 WPR22FA188
The private pilot of the personal flight reported that during the landing touchdown, the airplane bounced slightly, and the right wing lifted. The stall warning came on as the pilot applied full right aileron into the crosswind. The airplane then yawed right, and the pilot applied full left rudder and started to initiate a go-around. The airplane then impacted terrain and came to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and wing struts. The pilot reported that there was no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
United Airlines flight 2197 experienced clear air moderate turbulence at flight level (FL) 350 while enroute to Toronto Pearson International Airport (YYZ), Toronto, Canada. The flight was a regularly scheduled passenger flight from George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH), Houston, Texas. As a result of the turbulence, one flight attendant experienced a serious injury to their wrist. The aircraft received no damage and continued to its destination without further incident. As stated by the first officer, dispatch remarks for this flight included a forecast for light to moderate turbulence over VORTACs BUM - JOT between FL310 - 390. The captain conducted a pre-departure briefing with the flight attendants which included the possibility of experiencing turbulence. About two hours into the flight, two flight attendants were in the last three rows of the aft cabin conducting in-flight service when light turbulence commenced. The two flight attendants decided to “bring the cart back into the galley to finish the service.” As they were pushing back into the galley, the turbulence intensified, and one of the two flight attendants asked the other to sit down in their jump seat while the other set the brake on the cart. As the flight attendant was securing the cart, the captain made an announcement asking the flight attendants to take their seats. At that time, the flight attendant who was securing the cart lost their footing and fell back where the other flight attendant had taken their seat. The seated flight attendant attempted to brace the falling flight attendant and injured their wrist. The captain stated that this instance of turbulence lasted about 15 seconds. In addition, he reported that that the seatbelt sign had been on for five minutes prior to this moderate turbulence as the aircraft flew through light turbulence earlier in the flight. The injured flight attendant was treated by an onboard doctor, and the flight proceeded to its destination without Page 2 of 6 DCA22LA125further incident. Upon arrival to Toronto, paramedics met the airplane. The flight attendant was taken for x-rays and diagnosed with a broken bone in their wrist.
The pilot reported that, the landing gear did not deploy on approach and the airplane subsequently landed with the nose gear retracted. The pilot stated the wrong electrical fuse was installed in the landing gear circuit. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilot reported no other preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot had been observed flying in the area over a period of several weeks at a low altitude and while performing “ag-type maneuvers” over the fields, as he aspired to become an agricultural pilot. There were no witnesses to the accident; the airplane wreckage was discovered in a field by a local farmer. Examination revealed that the airplane impacted terrain in a nose- and right-wing-low attitude, and the orientation of the wreckage was consistent with an aerodynamic stall/spin. There was no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or anomalies of the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. Based on the available information, it is likely that the pilot exceeded the airplane’s critical angle of attack while maneuvering, possibly at low altitude, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall/spin, a loss of control, and impact with terrain.
The pilot reported that, the airplane bounced while landing with a crosswind from the right. The airplane subsequently drifted left, exited the paved runway and collided with a tree. The fuselage and left wing were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot said that before he departed, he tested the airplane’s brakes and they functioned normally. He then departed, made one circuit in the traffic pattern, and landed about 500 to 1,000 ft beyond the first intersection located at the approach end of the 9,730-ft-long runway. The pilot said the brakes were not working during the landing roll-out and he was unable to stop or slow on the remaining runway. The pilot veered the airplane off the left side of the runway, traveled another 1,800 ft and impacted the airport’s perimeter fence resulting in substantial damage to the airplane’s fuselage. A postaccident examination of the airplane’s brakes revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation at the time of the accident.
The private pilot was receiving a checkout in the helicopter from the flight instructor, and they were practicing pick-ups and touchdowns on the non-movement area of the airport. The flight instructor was demonstrating a pick-up to the pilot when the helicopter rolled left (due to a wind gust) and reached an angle where the instructor described that he was unable to recover, resulting in a dynamic rollover. The fuselage and main rotor were substantially damaged during the accident. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures of the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation, nor did the flight instructor report any.
The pilot reported that preflight and ground operations were normal for the cross-country flight and all fuel tanks were filled to capacity. Several minutes after departure, at 5,800 ft mean sea level, the left engine lost power. He initiated the emergency checklist procedures and informed air traffic control. He requested right turns only and a return to the departure airport. Shortly thereafter, the right engine lost power. He attempted to change to the auxiliary fuel tanks; however, there was no response from the engines. He was unable to glide to an airport, so he maintained best glide speed and performed a forced landing with the landing gear retracted to a nearby farm field. After touchdown, the airplane collided with a barbed-wire fence and came to a stop in an open farm pasture. A postaccident fire ensued, which consumed the outboard and center sections of the left wing.An examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of a fuel system malfunction or anomaly. Although the left-side fuel system was heavily damaged by the postaccident fire, the remaining components operated normally, and all fuel lines and filters were unobstructed. Fuel that was recovered was tested for possible contamination (misfueling) with Jet A; no Jet A was found in the fuel system. Examination of both engines revealed no malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The reason for the loss of engine power on both engines was not determined.
The flight instructor and pilot were conducting a currency flight with the pilot at the flight controls of the tailwheel equipped airplane.  The takeoff, flight around the traffic pattern, and landing approach were normal.  The pilot executed a wheel landing; however, the airplane encountered a “rough spot on the turf runway” and bounced.  When the airplane touched down again, it entered a ground loop which resulted in a runway excursion.  During the accident sequence, the left wing contacted the ground resulting in substantial damage to the wing spar and aileron.  The flight instructor and pilot reported that there were no airplane anomalies before the ground loop.
The pilot was performing an aerobatic routine (about 500 ft above ground level) when a large bird impacted the leading edge of the left wing resulting in substantial damage to the spar. The pilot was able to maintain control of the airplane and landed without incident.