roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that following an instrument flight rules (IFR) cross country flight, he canceled his IFR clearance, and made a visual approach to runway 26. He recalled that Tower told him that his airplane would be the last to land on runway 26, and he recalled that the inbound airplane behind him was vectored for an approach to runway 08. He reported that after landing, the nose gear collapsed and the airplane slid to the right side of the runway, and partially exited the runway before coming to rest. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the engine mounts, firewall and fuselage bulkheads.The Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Safety Inspector that examined the airplane and the accident scene, reported that during the landing the propeller struck the runway, the airplane bounced and settled back to the runway about 100 feet further down the runway where a second set of propeller blade strike markings were identified. The Inspector reported that the propeller blade strike markings were accompanied by black rubber skid marks that extended from the runway centerline and veered to the right edge of the runway. The Inspector reported that, the nose gear collapsed backwards as evidenced by white paint marks and metallic material scarring the asphalt. The airplane continued to veer to the right where it eventually departed the paved runway coming to a rest in the dirt. The Inspector confirmed that the distance from the initial propeller strike to the wreckage was about 735 feet. The meteorological aerodrome report at the accident airport reported that the wind direction and distance about the time of the accident was 010 degrees true at 4 knots.
The purpose of the flight was for an emergency response team to complete recurrent rescue hoist training from the helicopter. The three-person team included a rescue specialist, a system operator, and a safety officer. Each crewmember needed to complete 3 evolutions in each position to complete the recurrent training. During an evolution, the system operator would be positioned on the helicopter's skid while the rescue specialist would be lowered from, then picked up and brought back into, the helicopter as it hovered about 100 ft above ground level. After three evolutions, the pilot would land the helicopter; the crew would rotate positions and restart the process. According to a rescue checklist, the security of each member's safety harness was checked before each takeoff.The accident flight was the seventh evolution of the day, and the first flight where the fatally-injured crewmember acted as the system operator. The safety officer and rescue specialist reported they checked and verified that the restraints were secure. The helicopter then lifted off the ground, moved to the practice area, and the system operator requested and was granted permission by the pilot to move to the helicopter skid. The system operator stepped onto the skid and fell from the helicopter. The pilot stated that throughout the accident sequence, the crew was not rushing while they completed the checklists.Examination of the system operator's equipment did not reveal any failures or malfunctions that would explain the fall. Additionally, examination of the tether to the helicopter did not reveal any abnormalities. In the absence of any equipment failure, it is likely that the system operator was not fastened to the helicopter.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during landing the airplane began a sudden right turn, he applied left rudder and brake inputs but to no avail. The pilot further reported that the left wing and nose dropped, and the airplane came to rest on the right side of the runway.After the pilot exited the airplane it was noticed that the left landing gear had been ripped from the airframe and was subsequently dragged by the brake line for approximately 100 feet. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the forward fuselage, left wing, and left aileron.A post-accident inspection revealed that the outer gear leg bulkhead failed, allowing the gear leg to drop out of the bulkhead and rotate to the rear during the landing roll.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll, and after the tail wheel touched down, the airplane swerved to the right, then to the left, and veered off the runway to the right and impacted an airport sign. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right aileron.Following a postaccident examination of the right/left main landing gear wheel, the pilot sent an email to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Inspector, regarding the Timken bearing for the main landing gear wheel, this email stated in part: "The bearing itself is a stock Timken 18200 bearing, nothing special. While jacked up the wheel turns fine by hand. And this is unlike any failed bearing I've seen. And getting close to a CND (cannot duplicate) condition. I think it is possible the bearing was in the process of failing. At touchdown speeds (approximately 60-80 knots) with little weight on wheels the bearing could lock up or freeze momentarily causing the aircraft to veer right".A photo of the Timken 18200 tapered roller bearing was sent to the manufacturer for further examination. The manufacturer examined the photo and concluded that there was no evidence of damage or scoring, and further reported that if the bearing would have seized, he would have expected to see damage to the rolling contact surfaces.
The commercial pilot climbed the multiengine airplane to 13,500 ft mean sea level and performed a 2-hour aerial photography flight before descending and returning to the departure airport. As the pilot maneuvered the airplane in the traffic pattern for landing, the right engine lost power, and then the left engine lost power. The pilot concluded that the airplane would not reach the airport, so he chose swampy terrain for a forced landing, during which the wings, fuselage, and tail section sustained substantial damage.Postaccident examination of the airplane and its engines revealed no preimpact mechanical anomalies that would have prevented normal operation. Both fuel selector handles were found in the "auxiliary" position. According to the airplane manufacturer's owner's manual, the first step in the Before Landing checklist was to move each fuel selector to the "main" position. Further, the auxiliary fuel system description stated, "Since the auxiliary fuel tanks are designed for cruising flight, they are not equipped with pumps and operation near the ground (below 1,000 ft [above ground level]), using auxiliary fuel tanks is not recommended." The pilot's failure to move the fuel selectors to the "main" position in accordance with the Before Landing checklist likely led to fuel starvation to both engines and their subsequent loss of power.
The student pilot of the powered parachute reported that, during the takeoff roll from an airport parking lot, the engine started to "sputter," so he chose to abort the takeoff. While attempting to do so, he lost control of the powered parachute and collided with a fence, which resulted in substantial damage to the airframe. A postaccident examination and test run of the engine revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll, he encountered a crosswind gust from the right. Subsequently, the airplane swerved off the runway to the right and ground looped. During the ground loop, the left wing and left horizontal stabilizer impacted the ground, which resulted in substantial damage.  The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot reported on the National Transportation Safety Board Accident/ Incident Report Form 6120.1, the wind direction was variable at 8 to 9 knots, with gusts at 2 to 5 knots. The destination airport was not equipped with an automated weather observation system.
The pilot of an aerial application helicopter reported that after spraying a field he noticed that he missed a portion of the field. The pilot further reported that he maneuvered at a low altitude to the south end of the field, made a quick right turn to the north, dove into the field at approximately 45 knots, flew into his own vortices, and impacted the terrain.The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot was conducting his fourth solo flight in the weight-shift aircraft and was landing on a private turf runway in light wind conditions. A witness stated that the aircraft initially appeared to track straight down the runway after landing; however, shortly thereafter, it started to oscillate to the left and right. The oscillations increased until the aircraft rolled over and came to rest on its side.   An examination of the aircraft did not reveal any preimpact malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Although the pilot only had a total of 16.75 flight hours and less than 2 hours solo, it could not be determined why he lost control of the aircraft after landing.
The private pilot was conducting his third flight of the day when, during climb about 10 minutes after takeoff, the engine lost partial power, regained power, then lost all power. The pilot was unable to restart the engine and ditched the airplane in a lake. Postaccident examination of the engine did not reveal any evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The left main fuel tank was breached and absent of fuel. The left wingtip fuel tank was separated from the wing and was not recovered. However, adequate fuel remained in the airplane. Recovery personnel noted that the right wingtip fuel tank contained water and its drain was found locked in the open position, whereas the right main fuel tank remained intact and contained about 25 gallons of fuel. The fuel selector was found positioned between the right main fuel tank and the right wingtip fuel tank. The pilot reported that he flew a previous flight with the fuel selector positioned to the right wingtip fuel tank but switched it to the left wingtip fuel tank before departing on the accident flight. The investigation could not determine if the drain for the right wingtip fuel tank was locked open before or during impact, nor could it determine the position of the fuel selector when engine power was lost.
The private pilot was departing on a cross-country flight in the airplane when the forward baggage compartment door opened shortly before the airplane rotated for liftoff near midfield. The pilot continued the takeoff on runway heading to about 100 ft above ground level before entering a left turn. The airplane continued to turn left until it was on a downwind heading, and then it entered an aerodynamic stall/spin and descended nose-down into terrain. Flight track data revealed that the airplane's ground speed decreased from 84 knots to 1 knot during the final 4 seconds of the flight, consistent with the airplane entering an aerodynamic stall/spin. None of the witnesses reported hearing any engine anomalies during the accident flight.The postaccident investigation determined that the forward baggage compartment door separated during the airplane's impact with terrain. The door latch mechanism was found unlatched, and its corresponding key-lock assembly was unlocked. No anomalies were found with the forward baggage door latch mechanism, key-lock, or door frame latch catch/receptacle that would have precluded the door from being properly secured before the flight. Based on the witness descriptions and the physical evidence, it is likely that the pilot failed to ensure that the forward baggage compartment door was closed, latched, and properly secured during his preflight inspection. The pilot likely became distracted by the open baggage door and, as a result, did not maintain adequate airspeed while on the downwind leg, which resulted in the airplane exceeding its critical angle of attack and experiencing an aerodynamic stall at a low altitude.
The private pilot made a normal landing in his 1946 tailwheel-equipped airplane. During the landing roll, the left wing began to dip. The pilot applied opposite aileron, but the airplane continued to roll to the left, and the cabin floor deformed upward. The left wing and propeller struck the runway surface, and the airplane came to a stop on the runway shortly thereafter. Postaccident examination revealed that the left main landing gear leg had rotated aft and up, and that the landing gear leg support structure formed by two transverse bulkheads and portions of the lower fuselage skin had failed. Comparisons of fasteners, skin, and fairing panels revealed some discrepancies between the existing configuration and the original design, but the exact pre-accident configuration and condition could not be determined. Detailed laboratory examination revealed that the joint between the aft landing gear bulkhead and the lower fuselage skin had failed in fatigue. The fatigue failure sites were in a region of the airplane's structure that was not readily accessible for cleaning or inspection, and some sludge-like deposits of unidentified substance were observed in the location of the fatigue failure.
An O-ring was severed when being installed on a fuel tube during maintenance. The damage degraded the O-ring sealing function at the right engine FFT-to-fuel OUT tube flange. During the next takeoff, high-pressure fuel flowed past the damaged seal and sprayed into the engine core compartment. The fuel contacted hot engine surfaces and ignited. The right nacelle fire detection system detected the fire and a right engine fire warning alerted in the cockpit. The flight crew shut down the right engine, which cut off the engine fuel supply. The fire extinguished after the fuel supply was stopped. The fire damaged the right engine external components and burned through the right nacelle inboard core cowl.
The flight instructor and student pilot were departing on an instructional cross-country flight when, just after takeoff, the airplane encountered wind and turbulence. The instructor had difficulty maintaining altitude and elected to perform an off-airport precautionary landing, during which the right wing sustained substantial damage. A weather study revealed conditions conducive to low-level wind shear and turbulence at the accident site at the time of the accident. Although the instructor had received an abbreviated weather briefing before departure, the briefing did not advise of the potential for low-level wind shear. It is likely that the encounter with wind shear during departure made it difficult for the airplane to maintain altitude.
The pilot was performing an aerial application flight to a field that was intersected by powerlines. There were no witnesses to the accident, but the wreckage path consisted of broken power lines consistent with an in-flight collision. In addition, the ground scarring was consistent with the airplane operating at a normal speed before the collision, followed by an uncontrolled descent. Examination revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.The 48-year-old pilot had reported multiple orthopedic surgeries and use of medication for high cholesterol to the FAA. At the time of his last aviation medical examination, he was diagnosed with diabetes and began treatment with metformin. The aviation medical examiner (AME) who performed the examination questioned the pilot's records from a recent hospitalization that stated the pilot had anxiety/depression. The pilot told the AME this was not a current diagnosis and that he had not been on medication for these conditions in years.Toxicology testing identified acetaminophen, an over-the-counter analgesic; chlorpheniramine, a sedating antihistamine available over-the-counter in many cold, cough, and allergy preparations; citalopram, a prescription antidepressant medication; and dextromethorphan, an over-the-counter cough suppressant, in liver. Acetaminophen and chlorpheniramine were found in cavity blood and the rest were found in muscle. Acetaminophen was identified in urine.It is likely that the pilot did not see the power lines while spraying the field, which resulted in the in-flight collision with the power lines. While treated diabetes can result in hypoglycemia, this is an unusual occurrence when metformin is used as a single agent for the disease. Thus, it is unlikely that the pilot's diabetes or its treatment contributed to this accident. Because the status of the pilot's depression symptoms around the time of the accident were unknown, whether effects from it contributed to his inability to avoid the powerlines could not be determined from the available information. The pilot's use of chlorpheniramine, dextromethorphan, and acetaminophen suggests that he had cold or allergy symptoms and was using an over-the-counter product to treat them. When severe, such symptoms may Page 2 of 7 CEN16LA260be quite debilitating; however, the extent to which he had symptoms at the time of the accident and the effectiveness of the treatment could not be determined. As a result, whether his underlying symptoms or the use of medications contributed to the accident circumstances could not be determined.
The pilot was flying the airplane from the right seat which he was not experienced in doing. He reported the approach was unstabilized, but he continued the landing resulting in a loss of control and subsequent hard landing. In addition, the pilot did not have access to the pitch trim control which was located on the left seat yoke which most likely contributed to the unstabilized approach.
The pilot of a float-equipped airplane reported that immediately after touch down, the float plane encountered a boat wake, veered sharply to the left, water-looped, and became submerged inverted.  The float plane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.According to the pilot there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot reported that the wake that his float plane encountered which precipitated the water-loop may have been generated by a boat that is used by a local ski school.
During an instructional flight, the student pilot was landing the airplane. As the flight instructor observed the student's approach, he noted that the approach path was too low, so he prompted the student to add more engine power. The instructor then diverted his attention to a radio call with another airplane and did not monitor the student's approach path. When the instructor realized that the approach path was too low to make the runway, there was insufficient time for him to intervene before the airplane landed short of the runway. The instructor reported no mechanical malfunctions with the airplane before the accident
The non-instrument-rated pilot departed for the third leg of a cross-country flight in the airplane during dark (moonless) night conditions. The departure path was toward the ocean and over an area with few ground-based light sources to provide visual cues. A witness heard an airplane flying nearby and assumed that it was taking off from the airport. As the airplane continued, he heard a reduction in engine power, like a pilot throttling back while landing. According to the witness, the engine did not sputter. Review of the recorded radar data showed that the airplane turned left shortly after takeoff and climbed to about 700 ft above ground level as it passed near the witness's location. The airplane did not arrive at its destination, and a search was initiated. The wreckage of the airplane was found in ocean waters about 2 miles west of the departure airport. Although visual meteorological conditions prevailed, no natural horizon and few external visual references were available during the departure. This required the pilot to monitor the flight instruments to maintain awareness of the airplane's attitude and altitude. Given the lack of external visual cues and the the pilot's lack of recent night flight experience and his lack of an instrument rating, it is likely that the pilot became spatially disorientated during the departing left turn.The main wreckage was not recovered. Therefore, it could not be determined whether any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or anomalies were present.
The commercial pilot performed a preflight inspection and sampled the fuel with no anomalies noted. He then departed on the flight with 5 hours of available fuel. About 3.5 hours into the flight, the airplane was flying about 500 ft over the ocean when the engine experienced a total loss of power. The pilot performed a forced landing to the water, subsequently egressed, and was rescued a brief time later. Examination of the engine after recovery revealed no obvious signs of mechanical anomalies with the engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot was making a personal flight in the experimental amateur-built airplane. A witness at the destination airport reported hearing the pilot declare a "mayday" on the airport's common traffic advisory frequency, but the pilot did not state the nature of the emergency. Witnesses near the accident site reported hearing the airplane's engine running extremely rough and seeing the airplane's wings rocking back and forth. The accident site was in an open, flat field with sparse vegetation and ample area in which to make a forced landing. Examination of the wreckage indicated that the airplane impacted the ground and nosed over, and a fire then erupted which consumed most of the airplane. Fire damage precluded a complete examination of the airframe, engine, and systems; however, the examinations that were performed did not reveal any preimpact anomalies. Based on the available evidence, it is likely that the airplane's engine lost partial power for a reason that could not be determined due to the extent of the fire damage, and the pilot did not maintain control of the airplane during the ensuing forced landing.
The commercial pilot reported that he was conducting an agricultural application flight with the airplane at its maximum gross takeoff weight. He added that, after taking off toward the west, the airplane settled into a cornfield. He stated that there were no failures or malfunctions with the airplane preceding the accident, that the engine was running "fine," and that there were no flight control anomalies at the time of the accident. The pilot stated that the prevailing wind was from the east gusting to 18 knots, which resulted in a gusting tailwind during the takeoff. The density altitude was calculated to be about 3,000 ft. It is likely that the combined effects of the airplane operating at its maximum gross weight, the elevated density altitude, and the gusting tailwind resulted in the airplane becoming airborne at an airspeed that could not be maintained outside of ground effect. The pilot subsequently failed to maintain the proper angle-of-attack as he attempted to climb the airplane out of ground effect, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall.