roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that, while following a friend performing an instructional flight, the other aircraft motioned to indicate that the student pilot had taken the flight controls, so he "broke away to the right." He added that he began a descent in an area of known power wires and "in [his] mind's eye, [he] had already [passed] the second of 2 sets" of power wires. He added that the airplane struck the power wires "at eye level" and then impacted terrain.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.
On November 11, 2017, about 1230 Pacific standard time, Southwest Airlines flight 1159, a Boeing 737-700, N740SW, had a provisioning agent fall from the airplane while parked at Gate 13 at Los Angeles International Airport (KLAX), Los Angeles, California . The flight was deplaning and onboard were the captain, first officer, three flight attendants, several passengers, and the provisioning agent. The regularly scheduled passenger flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 from San Francisco International Airport (KSFO), San Francisco, California, to KLAX.According to the operator, the provisioning vans platform/box assembly malfunctioned and lowered about 2-3 feet. As the provisioning agent was moving from the airplane to the platform he lost situational awareness and fell onto the lowered platform, injuring his shoulder. The agent was transported to the hospital and diagnosed with a fractured right shoulder.  The van was removed from service and the left side tape switch was found to have dislodged from its track, resulting in the uncommanded lowering of the platform.
According to the pilot, before departing on the personal flight, he added about 30 gallons of fuel to the airplane, which filled the left fuel tank completely and the right tank to about 7/8 full. He flew for about 20 minutes with the fuel selector on the left tank position. While preparing for landing, the pilot accomplished the before landing checklist, which included increasing the mixture to full rich, turning on the auxiliary fuel pump, and switching the fuel selector from the left tank position to the both position. He then reduced the throttle to slow the airplane and felt "slight resistance" on the throttle lever. About 10 seconds after switching the fuel selector, the airplane began to lose airspeed faster than anticipated. When he looked at the fuel flow indicator, the pilot saw it slowly transition from 8 gallons per hour to zero, and the engine subsequently lost all power. He moved the fuel selector back to the left fuel tank position, but the engine would not restart. During the forced landing, the airplane impacted a tree in the median of a 4-lane street before impacting and coming to rest in a stand of trees adjacent to the roadway.Postaccident testing of the engine and fuel injection servo revealed no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Although some debris was noted during the examination of the fuel injection servo, it was likely not enough to cause the engine to lose total power. Thus, the reason for the total loss of engine power could not be determined.
The flight instructor reported that, during the instructional night, cross-country flight, while in level flight about 3,500 ft, a bird struck the airplane and went through the windscreen. The airplane returned to the airport without further incident. Postaccident examination revealed that the windscreen sustained substantial damage. The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during landing, the right wheel touched down first on the runway, and the gyroplane veered to the right. He added that, the "aircraft bounced from one wheel to the other" multiple times until the main rotor blade struck the runway. The gyroplane then rolled to the right, slid off the runway, and came to rest on its left side. A postcrash fire ignited in the engine compartment and consumed the gyroplane. The gyroplane was destroyed.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the gyroplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot stated that, after a go-around, he was on the downwind leg of the airport traffic pattern when the engine lost partial power. He applied carburetor heat, but it did not restore full power to the engine. With the airplane unable to reach the runway, he performed an off-airport landing to a field, which resulted in substantial damage to the wing leading edges and engine mounts. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that there was an insect nest in the carburetor heat control box that prevented it from functioning properly. The examination revealed no evidence of other preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures of the engine that would have precluded normal operation. The weather conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to the formation of serious carburetor icing at glide engine power settings. It is likely that the initial loss of engine power was the result of an accumulation of ice in the carburetor that could not be removed by using carburetor heat due to the insect nest.
The pilot was conducting a flight review with a flight instructor in the multiengine airplane when, during the initial climb following a touch-and-go landing, the airplane yawed to the left. The pilot noticed a change in engine sound and the airplane began to descend. The airplane bounced on the runway and collided with a ditch before skidding to a stop on the edge of the taxiway. The fuselage was substantially damaged during the accident. A postaccident examination and test run of the left engine revealed that it was capable of producing full power; however, when rapidly moving the throttle from idle to full power, a total loss of engine power would occur. The engine's timing was off by 3° from that specified by the engine data plate; testing of the fuel control revealed an excessively-rich mixture setting at lower power settings; and fuel was observed leaking from the fuel pump. It could not be determined which of these discrepancies, or combination thereof, contributed to the loss of engine power. Given this information, it is likely that the left engine lost power as the airplane transitioned to climb following the touch-and-go landing. The pilot then lost control of the airplane as it descended, bounced onto, and subsequently departed the runway.
The pilot and flight instructor were conducting a flight review in the pilot’s experimental gyroplane. Both reported that the engine start, run up, and takeoff were normal. About 100 ft above ground level, they increased throttle to full power, which engaged the turbocharger. Immediately after, there was a rapid loss of engine power from 5,000 rpm to 3,000 rpm, and they were unable to maintain flight. The flight instructor took control of the aircraft and made a 180° turn back toward the runway but was unable to reach the runway at the completion of the turn. The aircraft landed hard in the grass, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilot reported that the aircraft was damaged beyond repair and disposed of; therefore, no additional examination of the engine was conducted, and the reason for the loss of power could not be determined.
About 40 minutes after takeoff and while the airplane was at a cruise altitude of 10,000 ft mean sea level, the pilot began leaning the engine mixture. After about 5 minutes, the pilot observed that the engine was running roughly, the No. 5 cylinder head temperature had spiked, and the airplane was unable to maintain altitude. The pilot could not restore engine power and subsequently made a forced landing on a highway. The airplane touched down hard, which resulted in substantial damage to both wings.A postaccident engine examination confirmed continuity to the accessory section. Spark was produced on all six top spark plug leads, and thumb compression was obtained on all cylinders except the No. 5 cylinder. The top spark plugs were removed, and all except the No. 5 spark plug exhibited dark-colored combustion deposits; the No. 5 spark plug exhibited a molten, metal-like substance around the electrode. Cylinder Nos. 1 and 3 exhibited minor signs of detonation. The No. 5 cylinder exhibited signs of detonation/preignition with material missing from around the circumference of the piston face, and the No. 5 cylinder exhaust and intake valves showed signs of mechanical damage.  The detonation was consistent with excessive leaning at high power settings.
The pilot reported that, during landing, as the main landing gear touched down, he "felt like [the airplane] hit a[n] uneven section of the runway" and began to porpoise. The pilot was able to remedy the porpoise by using back pressure, and he taxied the airplane to the ramp without further incident. 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.
According to the pilot, during an approach in the rain, there were wind gusts, and he retracted the flaps to zero. He noted that, "I decided to land a little faster than the preferred 75-80 mph." The pilot reported that the airplane "did not settle into a normal rollout." He recalled that a few seconds into the landing roll, the airplane veered to the left and exited the left side of the runway. The airplane continued across the safety area and collided with a drainage culvert.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the engine mounts.Photographs provided by the Federal Aviation Administration aviation safety inspector showed three parallel rubber skid markings that began about 1,500 ft from the approach end of the runway. The markings began in the center of the runway and exhibited a sharp left turn that continued along a path through the safety area and stopped at the drainage culvert.The pilot reported that the left main landing gear assembly and tire failed during the landing roll. However, an examination of the landing gear assembly, wheel, and tire revealed that there were no mechanical anomalies or failures before the runway excursion.The METAR at the accident airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the rain was light, and the wind was from 010° at 12 knots.
The pilot reported that while practicing instrument approaches for an upcoming checkride, she moved the landing gear selector to the down position, verified that the landing gear position light was illuminated green, set the flaps to 20°, and completed the before landing checklist. Shortly thereafter, when the airplane was about 500 ft above ground level (agl), the GPS blinked, and electrical power and radio communications were lost. When the airplane was about 150 ft agl, the lights on the airplane's instrument panel blinked and remained illuminated. The pilot selected flaps to 30° and configured the airplane for landing. The pilot then moved the landing light switch to the on position and again lost all electrical power. Upon touchdown, the right main landing gear collapsed, and the airplane departed the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to the right horizontal stabilizer. The pilot stated that no electrical or landing gear warning lights were illuminated for the duration of the flight.A postaccident examination revealed that the airplane's battery had been depleted. Further examination revealed no anomalies with the airplane's electrical charging system, landing gear system, or its actuators. However, both the landing gear unsafe horn and low voltage warning light were inoperable. Given that the landing gear unsafe horn and low voltage warning light were inoperable, it is unlikely that the pilot would have been alerted to an electrical system failure, which ultimately would have depleted the battery and affected the operation of the landing gear system.
The solo student pilot reported that, during a touch-and-go landing, the airplane landed flat. He added that the airplane porpoised and that he heard a "thump." The student pilot performed a go-around, entered the traffic pattern, and landed without further incident.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
While en route on an instrument flight rules cross-country flight, the pilot noticed that the engine oil pressure had decreased; the oil pressure gauge was indicating in the yellow range, but the other engine instruments were showing normal indications. During the descent to landing, when the airplane was about 2,500 ft mean sea level, the pilot heard a "loud bang" from the engine, and smoke filled the cockpit. After declaring an emergency and requesting vectors from air traffic control to the nearest airport, the pilot executed an emergency landing just short of the runway in a wet, grassy area; the airplane slid, came to rest upright on the runway, and sustained substantial damage. A postaccident examination of the engine revealed two large holes in the crankcase and mechanical damage on the inside of both crankcase halves. The No. 4 connecting rod, which exhibited thermal damage signatures, had separated from the crankshaft and thus punctured the holes in the crankcase. The No. 4 connecting rod bearings were significantly damaged consistent with lack of lubrication, and all of the connecting rod bearings displayed smear-type signatures consistent with lubrication distress. Gouging was found inside the oil pump consistent with the passage of hard particles during engine operation; it is likely that the metal pieces from the damaged engine passed through the oil pump and created the gouges. The turbocharger's oil scavenge check valve spring was found broken, which resulted in the check valve not closing automatically; it would not restrict oil traveling from the turbo to the scavenge pump. The pilot reported a normal oil level before the flight and no signs of oil leaking. Further, according to the engine manufacturer, an open check valve would not have any effect on oil consumption during engine operation; thus, it was not a factor in this accident. The reason for the lack of lubrication could not be determined.
The noninstrument-rated private pilot did not obtain an official weather briefing or file a flight plan before departing on the cross-country flight with three passengers. About 55 minutes into the flight, while cruising at 5,500 ft and receiving visual flight rules (VFR) flight following services from air traffic control, the pilot advised the controller that he was climbing the airplane to "maintain VFR." Six minutes later, after completing a series of erratic turns between 6,600 and 7,200 ft, the pilot advised the controller that he had encountered instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) and requested vectors to an altitude with "more visibility." The controller advised that the cloud tops were reported about 8,000 ft, and the pilot stated that he would climb the airplane to that altitude; however, the airplane did not begin a climb. Instead, the airplane's radar track showed a series of shallow left and right turns before it depicted a sharp, tightening right turn and a rapid descent before radar contact was lost in the area of the accident site. Postaccident examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of fire, no pre-impact mechanical anomalies, and a distribution that was consistent with an in-flight breakup.One witness near the accident site described seeing the airplane as it appeared from beneath the clouds in a vertical descent, heard a "pop," and then watched as the airplane "just blew apart" before it disappeared from view behind trees. The witness stated that the weather at the time of the accident was "solid fog."It is likely that the pilot's decision to continue the flight into deteriorating weather conditions resulted in his loss of airplane control due to spatial disorientation. The restricted visibility and entry into IMC were conducive to the development of spatial disorientation, and the airplane's erratic flight track, which included altitude and directional changes inconsistent with progress toward the destination, the rapidly descending right turn depicted on radar, and the in-flight breakup are all consistent with the known effects of spatial disorientation.Despite not being instrument rated, 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." The spouse of one passenger had planned a surprise party for the afternoon of their return. It Page 2 of 10 ERA18FA022is likely that the pilot's desire to get to the destination airport because of the party or another unknown reason contributed to this behavior.
The pilot reported that, after he refueled his airplane, he was cleared by the tower controller to the runway. He added that, as he taxied west toward taxiway Delta, the asphalt was very rough, and he did not see the taxiway to his left nor the unmarked drainage ditch immediately in front of him. The airplane entered the ditch travelling about 5 knots.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.Review of the accident airport diagram revealed that the area around the ditch was not a depicted taxiway. Further review of satellite imagery revealed that there were two access points to taxiway Delta southwest of the refueling point.
The private pilot reported that, during the en route climb, he smelled antifreeze and realized that the engine was overheating. He then reduced power to idle and turned the airplane back toward the departure airport. As the airplane descended, the pilot added power, but the engine did not respond. He decided to land at a nearby closed airport; however, when he realized that the airplane would be unable to reach it, he performed a forced landing to a desert. During the landing roll, the airplane struck several bushes, which resulted in the nosewheel and left main landing gear collapsing and the left wing and fuselage sustaining substantial damage.The airplane was powered by a modified automobile engine, which was equipped with two alternators and a water pump to circulate the engine coolant. The common drive belt that connected the two alternators and water pump was found detached. In addition, the upper and lower attachment bolts that secured one of the alternators were fractured, and the alternator was partially displaced. Examination of the fracture surfaces of both bolts revealed that they exhibited rachet marks, consistent with fatigue fractures. It is likely that, once the alternator attachment bolts fractured, the common drive belt tension decreased, which resulted in the separation of the belt. The belt separation would have precluded the water pump from operating and led to the engine overheating and eventually losing total power.
The commercial pilot was conducting a personal flight in the helicopter to practice operating in the traffic pattern and performing landings and hovers. When the helicopter was transitioning from a hover to forward flight, the nose suddenly pitched down more than expected. The pilot immediately applied aft cyclic but was unable to arrest the downward pitch. The helicopter subsequently impacted the ground and came to rest on its side. The passenger reported that first the skids and then the rotor blades contacted the ground. During a postaccident examination of the helicopter, flight control continuity was established with no anomalies noted that would have precluded normal operations. Thus, the pilot likely did not maintain a proper pitch attitude while transitioning to forward flight.
The private pilot was conducting a personal flight in an experimental airplane. While in cruise flight, the airplane "violently began shuddering," and the pilot immediately shut down the engine and attempted an emergency landing. The airplane was unable to reach the selected runway and landed about 200 ft short of the runway threshold in a rough, grassy area. After exiting the airplane, the pilot discovered that a portion of the trailing edge of the wood propeller had separated and penetrated the lower half of the right rudder control surface.A postaccident examination of the remaining portion of the wood propeller determined that the propeller was manufactured from laminations of defect-free hard maple lumber that showed no signs of decay. An inspection of the separation surface indicated that the individual layers of the propeller were laminated together using an adhesive that resulted in a light-colored bond line. The failure surface included an exposed portion of the bond line between two wood layers that had failed. Examination of this bond line showed minimal wood failure that was about 8 inches long and between 1/8 and 1/4 inch wide. The amount of cured adhesive observed varied considerably along the length of the failure surface's bond line, with an area of the bond line having minimal adhesive coverage. According to the propeller manufacturer, the propeller was carved by hand and assembled using an adhesive that is advertised as "ideal for interior wood application." However, the adhesive had not been tested for applications in which extreme temperature fluctuations, pressure, and vibrations would be expected, such as those experienced during airplane operations.
The pilot of the amphibious, float-equipped airplane reported that, 2 days before a repositioning flight, he inspected the destination airport. He had planned to land on an alternate grass landing area, adjacent to an asphalt runway, and stop before reaching a gravel driveway. He further reported that he noticed in the airport facility directory (AFD) that the intended landing area was closed due to soft, wet conditions.The pilot reported that, during landing, he was "high and fast." He further reported that he landed "too far along to stop before the gravel drive." The airplane reached the gravel driveway, bounced, and then landed hard, and nosed over.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 AFD for the accident airport, in part, stated: "[Alternate Grass Landing Area (AGLA)]: AGLA clsd 1 Nov-1 June. Gnd soft when wet. [Daylight] hrs only. Use of AGLA prohibited when Rwy 04-22 in use….Pilots use at own risk."
The pilot stated that, about 45 minutes after departure, he felt a subtle vibration in the engine. A few minutes later, the propeller rpm increased uncommanded to 2,700 rpm and remained "pegged at the redline." The pilot was unable to control the rpm and the vibration increased, followed by smoke in the cabin and a loss of engine power; the pilot subsequently performed a forced landing, impacted a pole and guardrail, and the left wing and horizontal stabilator separated.Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the propeller governor control arm had disconnected from the propeller governor. It is likely that during maintenance conducted 5 months before the accident, the linkage was not properly secured, and the bolt eventually backed out of the propeller control arm, which resulted in the separation; however this would not have directly resulted in the loss of engine power. The examination of the airframe and engine was otherwise unable to identify a definitive cause for the loss of engine power.