roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that, during an agricultural application flight, he flew under power lines, climbed, and then made a 180º left turn to the south for another low-level pass. While approaching the field, the airplane struck the power lines and then impacted terrain. The pilot added that he forgot the wires were there and did not see them on the pass. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and the tail cone. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot in the multiengine airplane reported that, during the landing roll, shortly after touchdown, the airplane "floated up" into a right bank and then touched back down in a right bank. He added that he did not realize that there was any damage until after he shut down the engine after parking.Postaccident examination revealed propeller scars on the asphalt runway, damage to the right engine propeller, and substantial damage to the fuselage structure.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, while landing on an asphalt runway, the airplane touched down and then veered right. The pilot applied left rudder and left brake but overcorrected, and the airplane continued veering left. Subsequently, the airplane ground looped to the left, the right main landing gear collapsed, and the right wing struck the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, after he had fueled the airplane with a fuel pump, he started the engine and began to taxi. During the taxi, the right brake malfunctioned, and his right foot slipped off the brake/rudder pedal. The left wing struck the fuel pump enclosure, and the airplane impacted a concrete post that protected the fuel pump. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. Federal Aviation Administration inspectors who examined the brake system after the accident reported that there were no preaccident malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during landing on a gravel runway, he noticed that the airplane "floated slightly off of the center of the runway to the west." The airplane touched down with the left wheel off the runway in some vegetation, and the airplane nosed over.Postaccident examination revealed that there were alder branches wrapped around the left main landing gear and that the landing gear was locked up. The pilot said he removed the branches, and the landing gear moved "fine."The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing lift strut and empennage.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 the wind was from 090° and light and variable. The pilot landed the airplane on runway 33.
During the airplane's takeoff roll, two witnesses reported that the engine sounded unusual; the airplane became airborne and flew in ground effect until it reached the end of the runway and then pitched up abruptly. As the airplane reached about 500 feet agl, the engine sputtered and the airplane made a hard-left turn and pitched down. After the loss of engine power, the pilot likely initiated a return to the runway environment, during which the airplane impacted terrain. The airplane was heard regaining power as it descended below the tree line, just prior to impacting the ground.In a postaccident examination, the electric fuel pump was found seized with contaminants inside the internal fuel passages. The contaminants were determined to be consistent with a mixture of fuel additives such as anti-static and anti-corrosion additives. It is likely that, during the takeoff, the electric fuel pump seized due to the fuel contamination and restricted fuel flow to the engine. The engine then experienced a degree of fuel starvation which resulted in reduced engine power.
The pilot reported that, after fueling the airplane, he did not realize that he had not replaced the fuel cap. During takeoff, the fuel gauge showed that the airplane had 74% of fuel remaining. About 5 nautical miles from the destination airport, the fuel gauge showed that the airplane had 10% of fuel remaining. He flew the airplane in a straight line to the end of the runway and reduced the engine throttle setting to idle, which set up a lower glidepath than normal. When the airplane reached a field west of the runway, the airplane "ran out of fuel." The pilot conducted a forced landing on the field, during which the airplane impacted a fence. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the forward fuselage. A Federal Aviation Administration inspector who examined the wreckage reported that less than 1/2 a gallon of fuel was recovered from the fuel tank. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was seen by multiple witnesses flying low just above the ocean surface near the shoreline. One witness stated that he saw the airplane flying about 10 ft above the ocean when it contacted the water, climbed about 100 to 200 ft, then entered a steep dive and impacted the water in a near-vertical attitude. Postaccident examination of the wreckage revealed no pre-impact mechanical deficiencies that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane. Following a death investigation, the state medical examiner classified the manner of death as suicide.
The pilot was on approach to a private airstrip when the engine began to run rough. During the forced landing to rough terrain the airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings and the fuselage. After the accident the pilot stated that he suspected an uncommanded feather of the right propeller blade due to a maintenance issue. An examination of the airframe, engine, and propeller revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operations. According to the icing probability chart contained within Federal Aviation Administration Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin CE-09-35, atmospheric conditions at the time of the accident were conducive for serious icing at glide power, which could result in a loss of power and/or a rough running engine. It is unknown if the engine was at glide power or if the pilot had selected to use carburetor heat.
The pilot-in-command (PIC) was evaluating another pilot as a new job applicant. While the applicant-pilot was manipulating the helicopter controls, the PIC heard a “bang” and noted an overspeed indication on the tachometer. He subsequently took control of the helicopter and performed an autorotation that resulted in a hard landing, which substantially damaged the helicopter.  The Federal Aviation Administration and operator surmised that the main drive line system clutch and torque converter failed, which resulted in the engine overspeed.  However, the operator did not respond to investigators or submit a NTSB Form 6120.1, Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident Incident Report, nor was a follow-up examination of the helicopter able to be scheduled and performed by the NTSB investigator.  Due to the operator’s lack of cooperation during the investigation, the NTSB investigator was unable to definitively determine the cause of the accident.
The pilot reported that, during an instrument flight rules approach, he failed to extend the landing gear, and the airplane landed on the runway with the landing gear retracted. The pilot added that the accident could have been prevented by "paying much closer attention to the checklists." The airplane sustained substantial damage to the lower fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
On May 28, 2019, about 1800 UTC, JetBlue Airways flight 174, an Airbus A320-232, N507JT, a flight attendant sustained serious injuries when a hot coffee pack ruptured when he was preparing the beverage service. There were no injuries to the other passengers and crew or passengers onboard. The airplane was not damaged. The regularly scheduled passenger flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 121 from Punta Cana International Airport (PUJ), Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, to Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport (FLL), Fort Lauderdale, Florida. According to the flight attendant, he had completed the announcements after takeoff, and began to prepare the coffee for beverage service. When the brewing process was completed in both brewers, the flight attendant lifted the right brewer handle, and the coffee pot was removed with no issue.  When the flight attendant lifted the handle for the left coffee brewer, the coffee bag burst, covering him in hot coffee and grounds. The flight attendant was treated by EMS upon landing at KFLL and diagnosed with second degree burns on both hands
The pilot departed on a visual flight rules cross-country flight in night conditions. He had attempted the flight the previous night but turned around because it was “too dark.” The pilot did not arrive at his destination as expected, and the accident site was subsequently located in a remote area, which would have been devoid of cultural lighting at the time of the accident. Examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of mechanical failure or malfunction that would have precluded normal operation of the airframe or engine.The pilot did not hold an instrument rating and his recent flight experience could not be determined. The pilot’s family indicated that he had not flown in “a couple of months” before the accident. The night conditions present at the time of the accident, the remote area in which the airplane was operating, and the pilot’s lack of an instrument rating were all conducive to the development of spatial disorientation. It is likely that the pilot became spatially disoriented during the flight, which resulted in a loss of control and impact with terrain.
The pilot reported that, after filling the hopper with fertilizer and during the takeoff roll to the north, the airplane "encountered a gust of wind from the southwest." The airplane veered left, exited the airstrip, and impacted a ditch. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. 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 he landed the airplane with the landing gear retracted, which he said was his error. 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 pilot reported that he approached the turf runway intending to conduct a full-stop landing. He stated that upon applying the brakes, the right brake “stuck and would not release,” which resulted in the airplane veering right. The pilot attempted to pump the brakes to release the right brake and was unable to regain directional control. The airplane traveled off the right side of the runway and impacted trees. A ground scar consistent with skidding of the right tire was observed on the turf leading up to the edge of the road near where the airplane came to rest. The spars of both wings were fractured, and the fractured wing sections were displaced aft. During a postaccident interview, the airplane’s owner reported that the brakes were “very old” and required frequent adjustments and that she had planned to replace them. Review of the airframe logbooks revealed multiple entries related to the right brakes in the 4 years before the accident.Postaccident examination and operational testing of the brake assemblies did not reveal any evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have caused the right brake to lock.
Shortly after departure, the pilot smelled oily smoke and noted a loss of engine oil pressure and an increase in oil temperature. The engine lost power, and the pilot performed a forced landing to a corn field. During the landing, the nosewheel dug into the field and the airplane nosed over, resulting in substantial damage to the wings and vertical stabilizer.An examination of the engine revealed no mechanical anomalies that would preclude normal operations. The source of the oil leak was not identified. The pilot later reported that, after researching and consulting with other pilots who operated the engine type installed on the accident airplane, he believed that the loss of engine power was the result of vapor lock in the throttle body injection (TBI) system. His research indicated that other airplane owners provide “blast cooling” on the TBI to fix the issue. The pilot said that the vapor lock issue likely started at the same time as the engine heated up due to the extra lean mixture. He added that the rear seal might leak and spray oil on the exhaust pipe. He stated that enriching the mixture might have corrected the issue inflight.
The pilot reported that the airplane contained 6 gallons of fuel before he departed to conduct three touch-and-go takeoffs and landings in the airport traffic pattern. He did not add additional fuel because the airport’s fuel pump was inoperative. The pilot completed one landing and was departing again when, after reaching about 100 to 200 ft above ground level, the engine lost total power. During the forced landing, the airplane impacted a tree and came to rest in a heavily vegetated area, resulting in substantial damage. The airplane had an unusable fuel level of 3.5 gallons. Given the fuel quantity before the flight, it is possible that the loss of engine power was the result of fuel exhaustion; however, the airplane was not examined after the accident and the amount of fuel onboard at the time of the accident could not be determined.
The pilot reported that, about the time he started rotation, the airplane veered right, the right wing contacted some brush, and the airplane impacted vegetation. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. 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 approach, he allowed the airspeed to decrease, and the airplane aerodynamically stalled about 15 ft above ground level. The airplane then landed hard on the turf runway and slid to a stop. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the landing gear attachment points. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was conducting an agricultural application flight in the turbopropeller-equipped airplane when the engine lost total power. The pilot maneuvered the airplane for a forced landing to an uneven field, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage and wings. Teardown examination of the engine revealed that the teeth of the engine’s helical cam gear were fractured. Several of the gear teeth cracks showed signatures consistent with fatigue failure. The engine assembly had a relatively low time in service (485 hours) since its most recent overhaul. The helical cam gear assembly did not show pre-existing installation anomalies. The type and degree of damage to the helical cam gear was indicative of an uncoupling of the high-speed pinion from the helical cam gear of the engine torque sensor. The uncoupling event resulted in the continuous activation of the negative torque system, which likely drained the oil in the propeller and increased the propeller blade angle. This action would have resulted in an increase in engine operating temperature and subsequent loss of engine power.
The student pilot reported that, during the instructional flight, he was practicing stop-and-go landings. On his second landing, while on short final, the glidepath was lower than normal, and he increased the power setting to extend the glide. After the airplane crossed the runway threshold, he flared slightly high and leveled the airplane to keep it from sinking too fast. The airplane bounced slightly on touchdown, and he overcorrected with rudder inputs due to a crosswind. The airplane rolled forward, and the tail began to rise. The flight instructor reported that, at this point, he took over control of the airplane and applied back stick pressure; however, the airflow was too slow over the elevator flight control surface to have effect, and the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. The left-wing lift strut and rudder were substantially damaged. The student and instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot receiving instruction reported that, during takeoff from the grass adjacent to a paved runway, after adding full power, he held the stick back during acceleration. He added that the airplane did not accelerate "much above the red line (40 mph)" and that he felt a "bump." The airplane then bounced and veered right. The flight instructor reported that, during the takeoff, the angle of attack was "higher than normal" and that the airplane aerodynamically stalled 3 ft above ground level. The right wing dropped, the airplane yawed right, and he and the pilot attempted to recover with nose-down, left-rudder, and left-aileron inputs. The airplane landed sideways, the landing gear collapsed, and the propeller struck the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot and instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The cross-country flight proceeded uneventfully in good weather conditions until the airplane was about 5 miles from the destination airport. The airplane had descended gradually from an en route altitude of 4,000 to 1,700 ft mean sea level (msl) over a period of about 4 minutes. However, between 1,700 ft and the second-to-last radar target at 1,300 ft msl, and between that radar target and the final target at 900 ft msl, the airplane descended 400 ft in about 4 seconds between the targets. The airplane subsequently impacted terrain in a wooded area. The tree scars and the lack of a debris path at the accident site were consistent with a near-vertical descent. Examination of the wreckage revealed no preimpact mechanical malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation.The 80-year-old pilot had high blood pressure and high cholesterol, which would not be considered impairing. Some plaques were found on the pilot's thoracic aorta during his autopsy, but, due to the pilot's extensive injuries, his heart was not available for examination to determine if he had any coronary artery disease. Thus, the investigation of this accident could not determine if the pilot's medical conditions contributed to the accident. Ethanol was detected in the pilot's muscle tissue. Given the lack of ethanol in the pilot's lung tissue and the presence of n-propanol in his muscle tissue, it is likely that some or all of the identified ethanol was from sources other than ingestion. Thus, the identified ethanol did not contribute to this accident.
The airline transport pilot departed on a repositioning flight in the jet airplane. The airplane was in level cruise flight at 39,000 ft mean sea level when the pilot became unresponsive to air traffic controllers. The airplane continued over 300 miles past the destination airport before it descended and impacted the Atlantic Ocean. Neither the pilot nor the airplane were recovered, and the reason for the airplane's impact with water could not be determined based on the available information.
The day of the accident, the student pilot had flown three takeoffs and landings in the pattern with the instructor. After the third landing, the instructor exited the helicopter and authorized the student to perform her third flight solo. The student accomplished the before takeoff checks and increased the throttle, and as she increased the collective pitch, she felt an "abnormal vibration," but she decided to continue with the flight. She increased the collective and applied left pedal, and the helicopter ascended, but the nose yawed rapidly left. The student noted that the engine rpm had increased, and she lowered the collective. The left skid contacted the ground hard, followed by the right skid, and the student then decreased power, shut down the engine, and exited the helicopter. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the aft skid tube cross-member. The student reported that several mechanical malfunctions existed with the helicopter during previous flights. Although examination of the helicopter and the operator's maintenance logbooks revealed that there were maintenance deficiencies that were incorrectly annotated, postaccident examination revealed no evidence of any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation. After the accident, the operator implemented a policy to document and clear all future maintenance discrepancies associated with helicopters in their fleet.
The pilot reported that, during a practice agricultural application flight and after overflying the field, he pulled up hard to avoid a tall tree. He leveled out for about 3/4 mile to build airspeed and initiated a turn to overfly the field again. During the turn, the airplane began to buffet, and the pilot knew it was a "pending stall." He pushed the stick forward, and the airplane descended, so he pulled back on the stick again, and the airplane buffeted. He pushed the stick forward, the main landing gear tires contacted the ground, and the airplane became airborne again. The airplane was approaching power lines, so the pilot banked left, but the airspeed decreased, and the airplane then aerodynamically stalled and impacted the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left and right wings. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot and pilot-rated passenger conducted a local flight before returning to the airport for landing on runway 17. The pilot reported that the approach was smooth and normal, but as the airplane was about to touch down, it was "pushed down hard to the surface and quickly sucked back up." She applied engine power for a go-around, and as the airplane gained altitude,  a gust of wind occurred; the airplane subsequently impacted a storage facility and a home just west of the airport. Postaccident examination of the airplane and engine revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Review of weather reports from a nearby airport about the time of the accident revealed wind from 140° at 11 knots gusting to 23 knots. Another weather station recorded wind from 140° at 16 knots gusting to 29 knots.Based on the available information, the accident was consistent with the pilot's loss of control during an attempted go-around in gusting crosswind conditions.