roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot was picking up the airplane for its owner after an annual inspection had been completed. During his preflight inspection he noted that both fuel tank fuel gauges indicated that they were ½ to ¾ full. While he was checking the fuel selector valve the “brittle plastic handle broke off” with the left fuel tank still selected. The pilot called the airplane owner to inform him of the situation and advised that he would add more fuel to the left fuel tank in order to make the anticipated 45-minute flight without switching fuel tanks. He subsequently had 4 gallons of fuel added to the fuel tanks and acquired a small crescent wrench that he planned to use in-lieu of the broken plastic fuel selector handle if necessary. He subsequently departed and climbed the airplane to a cruise altitude of about 6,500 feet. About 20 nautical miles from the destination, he noted that the left fuel tank quantity indication was “bouncing between ¼ and empty” and he decided to change to the right fuel tank for the remainder of the flight. He was subsequently unable to use the crescent wrench to change the fuel selector valve position after several attempts. About 2 nautical miles from the destination airport, while approaching the runway to land, the airplane’s engine lost power completely and the pilot performed a forced landing to a field. The airplane nosed over during the landing and the aft portion of the fuselage left, as well as the wing, were substantially damaged.After the accident, recovery personnel reported that after lifting the airplane upright, they noted fuel staining around the fuel caps of both wing fuel tanks, that the right fuel tank was absent of fuel, and the left fuel tank only contained only a trace amount of fuel. They also operated the fuel selector valve with their own adjustable wrench (the broken fuel selector handle and the crescent wrench used by the pilot could not be located in the wreckage) and found that it operated normally. Based on this information, it is likely that the loss of engine power was due to fuel starvation after the pilot exhausted all usable fuel from the left fuel tank and was unable to select the right fuel tank; or that the pilot had inadvertently moved the fuel selector to an intermediate position in his attempts to use a crescent wrench to adjust the fuel selector valve. Page 2 of 6 ERA23LA128
The pilot stated that while taking off on a frozen lake with hard-packed snow, the right main landing gear separated from the airplane. He continued the takeoff and landed the airplane without further incident on a snow-covered lake near his home. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the vertical stabilizer due to impact from the right main landing gear.A metallurgical examination of the right main landing gear leg assembly revealed that bilateral fatigue cracks originated from the inner wall of a cross-drilled hole near the right gear leg socket. Eventually, overload and bending stresses in the direction of the fatigue cracks resulted in the right gear leg separating. It was unclear why the hole was drilled. There is an identical hole in the same spot on the left landing gear leg.
The flight instructor stated that while practicing power off stalls the student pilot added engine power and was retracting the wing flaps when the engine began to lose power. The instructor took control of the airplane and scanned the engine instruments. He noted that oil temperature was in the green range and the oil pressure was 0 psi and blinking in the red. The engine lost total power and the flight instructor performed a forced landing to a field. During the landing roll out, the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. Substantial damage was sustained to the empennage and vertical stabilizer.An examination of the airframe and an engine run did not detect any preimpact anomalies that would have contributed to a loss of engine power. The airplane was operating in conditions conducive to the formation of carburetor icing at glide and cruise power and serious icing at glide power. The instructor reported the use of carburetor heat during the flight training.The reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined with the available information.
The pilot reported that after conducting an instrument approach, the airplane descended out of the clouds at an altitude of about 800 feet above the ground and the pilot had a clear view of the runway. The pilot described that the descent was “uneventful though blustery.” During the subsequent landing, while the airplane was slow and in a nose up pitch attitude, he encountered a sudden wind gust and the airplane subsequently struck a runway identifier sign. The airplane’s left wing and fuselage were substantially damaged during the collision. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
Before takeoff, the student pilot and flight instructor performed a preflight inspection and an engine run-up that included checking the carburetor heat before taxiing the airplane into position; they noted no anomalies. After takeoff, about 200 ft above ground level, the engine lost total power. The flight instructor initiated a left turn and the airplane impacted the ground near a parallel runway, resulting in substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures 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 (idle) engine power settings. Furthermore, the engine data monitor indicated that the carburetor temperature decreased to 38°F just before the loss of engine power. Thus, it is likely that during the taxi and engine run-up, a period during which the engine would typically be operating at low power, carburetor ice formed and subsequently resulted in a total loss of engine power during the initial climb.
Spirit Airlines flight 641 encountered convective turbulence while descending into Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport (MSY), New Orleans, Louisiana. As a result of the turbulence, all three flight attendants were injured with two receiving minor injuries and one receiving a serious injury. The aircraft continued to its destination without further incident. According to the captain, the flight crew completed the approach checklist and illuminated the seat belt sign when the airplane was at about flight level (FL)180. As the airplane passed through 12,000 feet, the first officer (FO) made an announcement to the flight attendants to prepare the cabin for landing. According to the lead flight attendant, she made the landing announcement to passengers while the other two flight attendants started final checks from the aft cabin. The lead flight attendant then started the final check from the front of the aircraft. When the lead flight attendant was between rows 6 and 9, the airplane descended through a cloud layer at about 7000 feet and experienced what was described as moderate turbulence by the flight crew. This turbulence led to all three flight attendants falling to the floor. All three flight attendants agreed they needed medical attention and notified the flight crew. The FO called operations and requested for paramedics to meet the airplane. The flight continued to its destination without further incident. Upon arrival at MSY, paramedics met the airplane at the gate, and all flight attendants received medical treatment. The lead flight attendant was transported to the hospital where she was diagnosed with a fractured ankle. Another flight attendant suffered minor injuries to their back and the third suffered minor injuries to their head.Page 2 of 7 DCA23LA175Both pilots stated that the cloud layer appeared stable with no vertical development, and there were no indications on the radar that suggested the risk of turbulence. A post-accident review of the weather conditions showed no pilot reports (PIREPs) for turbulence located within a 100 nm radius from the accident location within 2 hours of the accident time.There were no airman’s meteorological information (AIRMETs), significant meteorological information (SIGMETs), or Center Weather Advisories for turbulence or thunderstorm activity for the accident location. Based on weather satellite information and upper air sounding data, the flight encountered convective activity while traversing building cumulus clouds during the descent.
The pilot reported that he was performing touch and go landings. On the fourth traffic pattern, the controller requested that he turn inside of the airplane that was on final approach. The pilot stated that he delayed extending the landing gear until he turned the airplane onto the final approach leg. After he reduced the airspeed, he selected flaps and extended the landing gear. During the landing, the pilot “heard the sound of metal” and realized that the landing gear was not extended. The pilot reported that when he moved the landing gear handle, he did not see the unsafe landing gear warning light, nor was there a landing gear warning horn.  The airplane sustained damage to the lower fuselage. The mechanic that recovered the airplane after the accident reported that the landing gear extended normally, and the landing gear warning horn was audible. Further, the pilot reported to the responding inspector that he had just forgot to extend the landing gear.
The flight instructor reported that while practicing crosswind landings a gust of wind pushed the airplane left. The flight instructor took the controls and applied right rudder and added power to go around, but the airplane impacted a taxiway sign before it transitioned into a climb. According to the instructor, the airplane did not exhibit any abnormal flight characteristics once airborne. After communicating with air traffic control, they returned to the airplane base where substantial damage was found 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 he was about three miles south of the non-tower-controlled airport, inbound for landing, when he heard another pilot announce they were on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern for the same runway. He elected to perform a 360° right turn to “allow the other aircraft time to clear the pattern.”  He further reported that while in the turn, he “noticed acres and acres of pristine/plush land.” The pilot then decided to perform an off-airport landing in a field. During the landing roll, livestock began to walk in front of the airplane and the pilot took action to avoid a collision.  This resulted in a nose over and substantial damage to the vertical stabilizer, rudder, wings, and fuselage.  The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during the preflight inspection and engine run-up, he noted no anomalies with the airplane. Then, on departure, the airplane lost partial power. The pilot performed an emergency landing to the runway overrun area with the landing gear retracted, and the airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.Postaccident examination of the engines revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. During the examination the rear engine started normally, accelerated smoothly, and ran continuously without interruption. Review of recorded engine monitoring data revealed that the rear engine lost total engine power during the engine run-up. Although the reason for the rear engine’s total loss of  power during the engine run-up could not be determined, the pilot should have recognized that the rear engine was not operating during the takeoff roll and aborted the takeoff. Placards on the instrument panel and the owner’s manual stated, “Do not initiate single engine take-off,” The continuation of the takeoff in this condition resulted in the airplane’s inability to climb and its subsequent descent and impact with terrain.
The pilot reported that the runway had about 12 inches of new snow and the runway edge lights were not visible. During the takeoff run, in flat light conditions, he was unable to determine the centerline of the runway, and the airplane subsequently drifted left of centerline. The left main landing gear impacted a snow berm along the edge of the runway and the airplane spun around 90°, which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing.  The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was performing a soft-field takeoff from a 2,700 ft soft, dry grass runway. According to the pilot, during the takeoff roll the soft terrain seemed to impede his airspeed, so he decided to perform a soft-field takeoff in ground effect. About half the distance down the airstrip, the pilot considered aborting the takeoff because he was concerned the airplane was not gaining enough airspeed to climb and avoid a moving train that was on the railroad track. He ultimately did not abort the takeoff, as he thought he would not be able to stop in time to avoid a collision with the train. As the airplane neared the moving train, the pilot pulled up the control yoke to initiate a climb; however, the airplane’s right main landing gear contacted the moving train. The airplane nosed down, impacted terrain, and came to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and wings. A pilot-rated witness stated that it did not appear the airplane reached proper airspeed during the takeoff. Postaccident examination revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.Based on the airplane’s weight and the ambient conditions, the manufacturer’s predicted takeoff distance to clear a 50 ft obstacle was about 1,200 ft. It is likely the pilot’s delayed decision to perform a soft-field takeoff procedure resulted in the airplane not adequately accelerating to a proper airspeed and climb rate.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during landing, and after the tailwheel touched the ground, the airplane began turning to the left. The pilot made an abrupt control input with the right rudder, which resulted in the airplane veering to the right side of the runway and colliding with a snowbank. The airplane subsequently nosed over substantially damaging the right wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
Before purchasing the airplane, the pilot had an inspection performed. One of the findings on the inspection stated that, “spark plugs are worn past limits.” There were no indications that the magneto timing was checked during the inspection. The pilot reported that the airplane had been run with a lean mixture in the past.After the pilot purchased the airplane, he flew the airplane on a cross-country flight to relocate it to his home base. While in flight, the engine had a low manifold pressure reading and then the engine sustained a total loss of power. The pilot attempted to fly to the nearest airport, but instead performed a forced landing to a golf course. During the forced landing sequence, the airplane impacted trees and a wood fence, and came to rest near a diesel generator. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and to both wings.Examination of the airframe revealed no mechanical anomalies. Examination of the engine revealed a hole in the corner of the No. 6 piston; however, the No. 6 cylinder was intact. The No. 6 piston had eroded crown material and a darkened periphery. The engine case was found intact. The top spark plugs from the Nos. 3, 5, and 6 cylinders and the bottom spark plugs from the Nos. 3 and 5 cylinders were found in a “worn out - normal condition.” The right magneto timing was found at 22°, when it is supposed to be at 20°. The left magneto timing was found at 15°, when it is supposed to be at 20°. The oil breather tube was found intact, and the slot was not blocked. Engine oil was found splattered in and around the oil breather tube area, including traveling rearward on the area underneath the oil breather tube. No anomalies were noted with the turbocharger system or the propeller.It is likely a total loss of engine power occurred when the No. 6 piston developed a hole from burn through, consistent with detonation and preignition signatures consisting of combustion Page 2 of 8 CEN23LA107deposits and excessive temperature exposure. The hole in the piston likely allowed exhaust gases, caused by the detonation and preignition, to force engine oil out of the oil breather tube.The combination of the engine being previously run with a lean mixture, worn spark plugs, and incorrect magneto timing, likely lead to the preignition and detonation and a subsequent total loss of engine power.
Neither pilot reported identifying any mechanical issues with the airplane before the flight. The flight was uneventful and both pilots described the landing as being firm, with the copilot stating the landing was in the touchdown zone on the runway. The pilot reported that after landing he knew something was wrong because the left wing was low. The pilots taxied the airplane to the ramp where they discovered fuel leaking from the left wing. A review of airport surveillance video revealed that the airplane touched down around the displaced threshold, bounced, and touched down again. Examination of the runway revealed skid marks beginning in the displaced threshold about 110 ft before the landing surface of the runway. Fractured airplane parts were scattered over and beyond the ground scars and tire markings. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed it sustained structural and skin damage to the left wing, the landing gear strut, and both left main wheels. One passenger said that she heard altitudes called out during the landing approach, and just before touchdown, she heard a crewmember announce, “too fast, too fast!” She stated the airplane contacted the runway so hard the oxygen masks deployed and compartments inside the airplane opened. The airplane bounced, and the second landing was bumpy. She also stated that fuel was leaking from the airplane when they were deplaned.Although the pilots’ subsequent statements indicated that they observed that the airplane’s left wing was “lower” during takeoff on the accident flight, surveillance video of the airplane from the departure airport did not indicate any anomalies. Given the available evidence, it is likely that the pilots failed to attain a proper landing flare and touchdown point, which resulted in a hard landing short of the runway.Page 2 of 10 ERA23LA126
American Airlines flight 2516 encountered clear air turbulence during decent, while en route to Chicago O’Hare International airport (ORD), Chicago, Illinois. The flight was a regularly scheduled passenger flight from Orlando International Airport (MCO), Orlando, Florida to ORD. As a result of the turbulence, one flight attendant (FA) sustained serious injuries. The aircraft was not damaged, and the flight landed without further incident. The flight crew reported that while on the VEECK5 arrival at flight level (FL)290, near the top of the decent, air traffic control (ATC) advised of reports of moderate turbulence between FL240 and FL190. ATC suggested the flight begin its decent early to avoid the area, and the flight crew agreed. The flight had previously been smooth, and this was the first turbulence advisory they had received from ATC. The captain informed the cabin crew to expect moderate turbulence in about 10 minutes and advised them to prepare the cabin for landing and take their seats. The captain made an announcement for the passengers to remain seated. The seatbelt sign was on. While the cabin crew was preparing for landing, the airplane encountered severe turbulence as it descended through FL250. FA1 reached the forward jumpseat, while FA2 and FA3 reached nearby cabin seats. All 3 had difficulty reaching their seats and trouble securing their seatbelts due to the turbulence.  FA4 was lifted up then down to the floor while attempting to reach a seat, injuring her left leg and ankle. She remained on the aisle floor until the turbulence ended, about 2 minutes after it began. Once FA1 confirmed it was safe to get up, she informed the captain about the injury to FA4 and went to check on the passengers with FA2. FA3 tended to FA4 and made a passenger announcement requesting medical assistance. A nurse who was a passenger on board rendered Page 2 of 7 DCA23LA170aid to FA4. The captain advised dispatch of the event and requested medical personnel meet the airplane at the gate. After landing, FA4 was transported to the hospital where she was diagnosed with multiple fractures to her left leg and ankle which required surgery. A post-accident weather analysis provided by the operator showed strong horizontal and vertical wind shear and gravity waves in the area indicating an environment conducive to clear air turbulence. Preflight weather planning predicted light to moderate turbulence between FL290 to FL360 in the area of the event. While there were no active Significant Meteorological hazards (SIGMETs) over the area of the event, a turbulence SIGMET was in effect between FL290 and FL360 for an area about 20 nautical miles southeast of the event. The Turbulence Auto-PIREP System (TAPS) had generated severe turbulence reports for altitudes between FL276 and FL244 in the hour prior to the event, and one pilot report of severe turbulence between FL200 and FL250 was issued a few minutes after the event.
The pilot reported that during a landing attempt, the airplane descended below glide path and landed short of the runway.  The airplane landed hard and sustained substantial damage to the firewall and engine mount. 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 on departure the engine lost then regained power. The pilot turned the airplane back toward the airport to land and, during the turn, a total loss of engine power occurred.  The airplane impacted a snowbank during the landing. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.Postaccident examination of the engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during takeoff, he heard a noise that sounded like “gravel hitting the gear,” which continued after landing gear retraction, and prompted a return to the departure airport for a precautionary landing. He stated that while on the downwind leg, the stall warning aural alert sounded, and the stick shaker activated; the pilot used the autopilot disconnect button to regain control of the airplane. During touchdown, the airplane bounced and exited the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to the lower forward fuselage. Following the accident, the pilot discovered that he had failed to remove the angle of attack vane cover. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot in the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that, during landing roll the airplane veered to the right. He applied left rudder and left brake, however, the airplane continued to veer to the right. The pilot then decided to abort the landing and applied full engine power. The airplane subsequently impacted a snowbank and came to rest inverted. The vertical stabilizer, rudder, and right-wing struts sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.