roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The commercial pilot was conducting a cross-country flight to deliver the airplane to a maintenance facility. The airplane departed with full fuel tanks. The pilot stated that, as the airplane neared the planned fuel stop airport, he thought that there was adequate fuel remaining to reach the maintenance facility, so he did not stop to refuel and continued to the destination. About 4 hours 23 minutes into the flight, which was past the expected fuel exhaustion time of about 4 hours 18 minutes (assuming a fuel burn of 50 gallons per hour, which the pilot used for his initial flight planning), the pilot declared an emergency and advised an air traffic controller that the airplane was out of fuel. The controller provided information to the pilot about nearby airports, but the airplane would not have been able to reach any of them, so the pilot initiated a forced landing to a field. Before touchdown in the field, the pilot descended to avoid power lines ahead, but the airplane hit one of the lines. The airplane touched down in the field, impacted an embankment, and came to rest upright on a road. The airplane sustained substantial damage. A small amount of fuel was observed on the ground at the accident site, and residual fuel was found in the two forward fuel tanks. Although the amount of the fuel could not be quantified, it was likely equivalent to the unusable fuel amount. Examination of the airframe fuel system components, including the fuel filter, the environmental collector tank, and the fuel lines in the engine compartment, revealed no fuel, which is consistent with fuel exhaustion. Therefore, it is likely that the pilot's improper decision to not to refuel as planned and his improper in-flight fuel planning led to the loss of all engine power due to fuel exhaustion
The private pilot reported that, about 1 1/2 hours after departure and in cruise flight about 6,700 ft mean sea level, he felt a "jolt" as if the airplane had impacted an object. The pilot realized that the propeller was missing, initiated an emergency descent, and attempted to land at a nearby airport. Unable to glide to the airport, he decided to perform a forced landing to a field. During the forced landing, the airplane impacted trees and terrain and came to rest upright. Propeller sections and components were located about 9 miles from the accident site.Material examination of the propeller revealed that the propeller fractured due to fatigue that initiated adjacent to two of the propeller attachment bolt holes. Fretting contact damage was observed at the primary fatigue initiation location. The contact damage appeared to be associated with the movement between the forward bulkhead and the propeller at the edges of the attachment bolt clamping locations, and some of the fretting contact damage likely preceded crack initiation in the propeller. Fatigue cracks were present in the forward bulkhead outboard of each of the propeller attachment holes. The symmetric nature of the cracks at all 6 holes and the locations of fatigue initiation at the forward and aft sides of the bulkhead suggest that the fatigue in the forward bulkhead could be associated with a rotational torque vibration in the spinner. Possible sources for high rotational torque vibration include looseness in the spinner attachment at the aft bulkhead or an engine issue that produced excessive rotational impulses. Excessive clamping force from the attachment bolts may have also contributed to the initiation of fatigue cracks in the forward bulkhead. Excessive clamping force could have warped the forward bulkhead adjacent to the clamped area, leading to higher stresses in areas around the attachment holes where fatigue cracking was observed. The analysis of deposits from the threaded area within the crankshaft lug pieces suggested lubricant may have been present on the attachment bolt threads that should have been installed dry. The use of lubricant at installation would have reduced the frictional resistance to the applied torque, leading to higher than expected clamping force on the attachment bolts.Page 2 of 8 CEN17LA333Crack arrest marks that appeared to coincide with flight cycles were observed on the fracture surface. One of the crack arrest marks would have a very high probability of detection by fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI); however, the presence of red deposits in the attachment holes and dowel holes suggest that red dye (visible) penetrant was used at some time on the propeller. The manufacturer recommends against using visible dye penetrant and indicates that the use of visible dye penetrant could prevent crack detection during subsequent FPI inspections.
The commercial pilot was conducting a business flight; while climbing out after departure, the pilot declared an emergency and reported a loss of engine power to air traffic control. The controller provided vectors to a private airport about 6.5 nautical miles (nm) behind the airplane and stayed in communication with the pilot until communications and radar were lost. The airplane then began a wide turn to head back to the private airport, traveling about 6.3 nm during the turn. The airplane impacted trees and terrain about 6 miles from the private airport. The airplane's maintenance records showed that all six engine cylinders were replaced about 15 months and 227 engine hours before the accident. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that four of the eight nuts that retained the No. 1 cylinder and one nut that retained the No. 2 cylinder were loose during disassembly, and no breakout torque reading could be measured. Two of the loose nuts on the No. 1 cylinder were on the through-studs that provided clamping force on the No.1 main crankshaft bearing. Disassembly of the crankcase revealed that the No. 1 main bearing had shifted to the rear of the crankcase, which obstructed the oil flow to the No. 1 main bearing and the No. 1 connecting rod bearing.Given the available evidence, it is likely that, during replacement of the engine cylinders, improper torque of the cylinder hold-down bolts and through-studs resulted in an insufficient clamping torque, which allowed the No. 1 main bearing to shift. This shift precluded oil from reaching the No. 1 main bearing and the No. 1 connecting rod bearing, which led to the failure of the connecting rod during the accident flight.The display map data used by the controller handling the flight did not depict another private airport, which was closer (3.4 nm) and was in more of a direct path from the airplane's heading and position at the time of the emergency. The Federal Aviation Administration order governing display map data stated that they should contain airports and heliports among other items, but noted that facility managers could delete items not required. The only exception was that facility managers could not delete airports immediately outside their area of jurisdiction that were within airspace used to receive radar handoffs Page 2 of 9 CEN17FA331and that were depicted by the facility having jurisdiction over that airspace.  In response to questions from the NTSB, the closer airport was not depicted on the controller’s video display because the air traffic facility was not aware the airport existed. Since the accident, the airport has been added to the display map data. On the basis of the distance that the airplane was able to glide after the pilot declared the emergency (6.3 nm), the airplane should have been able to reach the closer airport that was ahead of it. Thus, the omission of this airport on the controller's display map data resulted in the pilot attempting, at the direction of the controller, to reach an airport that was beyond the airplane's gliding distance.
According to the pilot in the tailwheel-equipped airplane, he landed on the asphalt surface of runway 4 with full flaps and about 40 knots airspeed. The pilot reported that, during the landing roll, a wind gust struck the airplane's left side, the airplane ground looped to the left, and the right-wing strut collided with the 7,000-ft runway distance marker.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right-wing strut and the wing spar.The METAR at the accident airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 020° at 9 knots. No wind gusts were reported at the time of the accident.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot stated that, after departing for the local, personal flight and as the airplane reached about 1,000 ft above ground level, the engine lost all power. He attempted to return to the airport, but the airplane was unable to maintain altitude, so he chose to make an off-airport landing in a pasture, during which the firewall sustained substantial damage.  Postaccident examination of the engine revealed no evidence of any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
After completing five glider tow flights, the commercial pilot landed the airplane on the turf runway. During the landing roll, the left main landing gear wheel separated from the axle; the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted, which resulted in substantial damage to the rudder and wings. Postaccident examination revealed that the axle of the left main landing gear assembly was fractured near the end that would have been attached to the landing gear strut. There were two opposing fatigue regions on the fracture surface separated by an overstress region. The first fatigue region had a shiny appearance consistent with recontact of the fracture surfaces. The second fatigue region exhibited a more matte appearance and covered a larger area than the first region. In addition, the tread of the rubber tire exhibited a wear pattern that was not centered but instead had shifted toward the shoulder. It is possible that the axle had a crack for an unknown amount of time, then was reassembled 180° rotated when it began to fatigue again on the opposing side. As a result of the canting of the wheel because of the larger fatigue crack, the wear pattern of the tire shifted from the centerline to the shoulder of the tire. According to the maintenance records, the most recent annual inspection was performed about 12 months before the accident, which would have been the most recent time the landing gear system was completely examined. Since the origination time of the crack is unknown, the investigation could not determine if the mechanic performing the most recent annual inspection would have been able to see and identify the fatigue fracture.
The noncertificated pilot was performing his first flight in the unregistered amateur-built weight-shift control light sport aircraft, which he purchased several months before the accident. During the takeoff, about 20 ft above the ground, the aircraft veered left and impacted a dumpster. It could not be determined whether the pilot obtained any instruction in the operation of the aircraft before the flight.Postmortem examination and toxicology testing detected the non-impairing metabolite of marijuana, THC-COOH, in blood, but the impairing compound, tetrahydrocannabinol, was not detected. It is likely that the pilot used marijuana at some time before the accident; however, it is unlikely that the effects of marijuana were impairing or contributed to the accident.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during landing on grass surface next to a hard-surfaced runway, the airplane approached "too high and landed too fast." He added that he was "not sure" if he could stop the airplane in the remaining distance, so he "decided to go-around, but did not leave…enough room to clear the trees" at the end of the landing area. Subsequently, the airplane impacted the trees and stopped.The right wing, fuselage, and windscreen sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.An automated weather observation station at the airport reported, about the time of the accident, wind from 320° at 5 knots. The pilot reported that the wind was variable and that he landed parallel to runway 29.
According to the pilot, the airplane's airspeed was fast during the landing, and the airplane veered to the left during the landing roll. The airplane exited the left side of the runway, and the nose landing gear collapsed. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the lower fuselage. The METAR at the accident airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was calm, and the sky was clear. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane was transporting hunters to a remote cabin. The flight was a 146-mile multileg flight, which departed with about 20 gallons of fuel, which he believed was sufficient for the approximate 2-hour flight with about 30 minutes for fuel reserve. The pilot reported that visual meteorological conditions prevailed during the flight, but he noted that, due to low stratus clouds and rain showers, he diverted from his planned flightpath. He added that, on the last leg of the flight, the unanticipated headwind component was about 15 to 25 mph. About 2 miles from his destination, fuel exhaustion occurred, and the engine experienced a total loss of power. The pilot deviated from his destination to a river to execute a forced landing. While on the base-to-final leg on landing approach, the headwind changed to a tailwind, and the airplane landed in a left-wing-low orientation. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The day before the accident, the pilot identified contaminated fuel. He de-fueled the airplane, refueled it with 100 low-lead aviation fuel, and then extensively ground run the engine with no issues noted. The day of the accident, he performed another ground run, shut down the engine and checked for leaks, and then prepared for the accident flight. About 75 ft above ground level during the initial climb, the engine lost total power. The pilot performed a forced landing to rocky, uneven terrain, during which the left wing sustained substantial damage. Postaccident examination of the airplane and engine and did not find any mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined based on the available information.
The commercial pilot and passenger departed in the helicopter on a personal flight to a nearby lake, but decided to change course during the flight to meet a friend at his home. They approached from the north with the intention of landing in the backyard. After entering an out of ground effect hover, the pilot received a low rotor rpm indication and the helicopter began to descend. The pilot was able to restore the rotor rpm to normal momentarily, but after completing a 360° right pedal turn to search for a suitable landing site, the helicopter started to sink again. The helicopter's right skid then impacted the ground, which resulted in a dynamic rollover and substantial damage to the fuselage. The property owner stated that he saw intermittent puffs of dark gray smoke coming from the tailpipe that turned into a steady stream after the helicopter completed the pedal turn.  According to maintenance logs, verification of engine-to-magneto timing, a differential compression check, and confirmation of valve movement using a relevant service bulletin were completed during the most recent 100-hour inspection (about 104 flight hours before the accident); however, postaccident examination found that the magnetos were improperly timed by 10o, cylinder compression was low, and a camshaft lobe was severely worn and spalled, which would have inhibited two intake valves from operating normally during the accident flight and resulted in a reduction in the effectiveness of two cylinders. These anomalies resulted in a reduction in the engine's available power, and the absence of this power precluded the helicopter from maintaining an out of ground effect hover. The presence of dark smoke from an operating engine can be the result of an excessively rich mixture; however, the origin of the dark gray smoke in this case could not be determined. A flight instructor who regularly flew the helicopter stated that, despite his repeated reports of degraded engine performance, one of the multiple mechanics responsible for servicing the helicopter justified the performance issues as the result of age, as the engine was nearing its next major overhaul. This likely encouraged the instructors who flew the helicopter to dismiss the problem as well and to "manage" the lack of power instead. Additionally, the mechanic responsible for the helicopter's most recent inspection Page 2 of 11 WPR17LA188stated that he did not comply with the manufacturer's service bulletin to inspect the valves for adequate movement, which likely would have prompted an inspection of the camshaft and discovery of the lobe wear.
The flight instructor, student pilot, and pilot-rated passenger flew on a short cross-country instructional flight to practice stop-and-go landings. On the first landing, after touchdown, the student pilot reduced the engine power to idle, and the engine lost total power. The airplane stopped on the runway, and the student pilot noted that the electric fuel pump was still on from landing and that the mixture control was full forward. He tried to start the engine while he "pumped" the throttle, but it did not start. He stated he thought the engine was flooded, so he turned off the electric fuel pump and pulled the mixture control to the "off" position, but again the engine would not restart. He then pushed the mixture control back to full forward and tried to start the engine while pumping the throttle a couple more times, but the engine did not start. The student pilot then saw smoke coming out of the engine cowling and notified the flight instructor and passenger. The flight instructor performed the "engine fire on start checklist," told everyone to egress, and went to the cargo door to get the fire extinguisher while the passenger opened the engine cowling. When the flight instructor looked at the fire extinguisher, she noticed it was empty. The flight instructor and passenger noted that the fire was at the bottom of the engine around the carburetor and gaining in intensity. The passenger located a fire extinguisher at the airport's fixed-base operator, and when he returned, the engine compartment was fully engulfed by fire. Subsequently, the fire was extinguished by the portable extinguishers and the local fire department. Examination of the airplane revealed that the engine compartment, engine mounts, and firewall were substantially damaged by fire. The flight instructor reported no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
During a preflight inspection of the airplane, the flight instructor and the student pilot observed a small hole in the upper surface of the left wing and skin wrinkling on the upper and lower surfaces of the left wing. The airplane had been flown twice on the previous day. The first flight, which was in the morning, was conducted by the same flight instructor and student pilot who noticed the damage. They reported that no damage was present when they performed a postflight inspection of the airplane. The second flight, which was in the afternoon, was conducted by another pilot as a personal flight. That pilot did not notice the damage during his preflight inspection. However, the damage was visible in photographs taken by a passenger on that flight, both on the ground before departure and during takeoff. Examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the left wing spar. The damage was consistent with a hard landing; however, the investigation could not determine when the damage occurred.
The pilot reported that, during engine start and run up, the left engine shut down twice when the throttle was reduced to idle, and during the engine run-up magneto checks, the engines ran rough with greater than normal losses in rpm. The pilot advanced the throttles and leaned the mixtures to both engines to “clear” what he thought was “carbon buildup on the sparkplugs” and the engines subsequently ran smoothly at idle. The pilot departed, and during the initial climb, noticed that the airplane did not accelerate as normal. The pilot reduced the angle of attack to aid in acceleration and noticed that both engines indicated fluctuations in power, fuel flow, and rpm. He confirmed that the propeller and throttle levers were full forward, and he placed the auxiliary fuel pump to “high.” The airplane continued to decelerate and began to yaw to the left. The pilot banked right and feathered the left propeller, but the airplane continued to descend, and the pilot reduced the mixture controls to idle-cutoff. The airplane impacted two power poles and the ground before skidding to a stop adjacent to a building. A postaccident fire ensued. Examination of the engines revealed dark and sooty deposits on the sparkplug electrodes, consistent with a rich fuel/air mixture ratio. Additionally, the left engine tachometer generator cannon plug was separated and undamaged. It is possible that this plug disconnected during the takeoff and would have resulted in a tachometer indication of a loss of left engine power.It is likely that the left engine fuel flow was not properly adjusted by maintenance personnel when the engine was installed earlier the month of the accident, which created an overly rich fuel-air mixture and resulted in the repeated loss of left engine power during ground operations; however, the reason for the loss of power during the takeoff and the airplane's inability to gain altitude/airspeed during the initial climb could not be determined based on the available information. Page 2 of 7 WPR17LA187
The flight instructor reported that, after the student pilot performed several practice approaches, they landed the helicopter, and the flight instructor exited. The instructor reported that, after the start, the student pilot attempted to take off; the left skid lifted off the ground, but the right skid did not. Subsequently, the helicopter rolled to the right and came to rest on its right side.The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the main rotor system.The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.