roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The private pilot reported that, about 3 hours into a cross-country flight, an instrument panel warning sounded and the oil pressure indicator was in the red arc; however, the engine continued to run smoothly. The pilot began to look for airports or fields to divert to and notified air traffic control of the abnormal engine indication. A few minutes later, the pilot heard "clanging" noises from the engine and it subsequently lost partial power. The engine was not producing enough power for the airplane to fly to the destination airport, and the pilot performed a forced landing in a field. During the forced landing, the airplane sustained substantial damage. Examination of the engine revealed that the No. 3 cylinder exhaust valve had stuck in the closed position, which resulted in failure of the cylinder's valvetrain components, breach of the rocker box cover, and the engine's oil supply being exhausted through the breached rocker box cover. The resulting oil starvation subsequently resulted in a partial loss of engine power.
The student pilot reported that he was returning from a solo flight when the engine "started failing." The engine speed decreased to about 1,500 rpm with a "significant" vibration. The pilot's efforts to restore engine power were unsuccessful, and the engine ultimately lost total power. He subsequently conducted a forced landing to a plowed field, during which the airplane nosed over. A postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the No. 2 cylinder exhaust valve was stuck in the "full open" position. Disassembly of the cylinder revealed that the exhaust valve stem exhibited carbon deposits consistent with the stuck valve condition. No other engine anomalies were noted.
The pilot reported that during a biennial flight review (BFR), while in the traffic pattern, the flight instructor reduced the throttle to idle to simulate a total engine failure. He further reported that during the base to final turn, the airplane was slow, and the stall warning horn was audible. During touchdown, the airplane landed hard, bounced, veered off the runway to the right, impacted a tree, and then nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing.The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot reported that, while on approach for landing in the experimental amateur-built airplane, the engine experienced a total loss of power. The pilot performed a forced landing to a field, during which the airplane sustained substantial damage. An examination of the engine revealed that the left magneto was not producing spark. Further examination of the left magneto revealed signatures consistent with failure of the magneto capacitor. Although&nbsp;the&nbsp;failure of a&nbsp;single magneto would likely result in a partial loss of engine power,&nbsp;the reason for the total loss of engine power experienced on the accident flight could not be determined based on the available information.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during a touch-and-go landing on a turf airstrip, he applied power for takeoff, the airplane drifted left, and he applied right aileron and left rudder. As the airplane accelerated, it began drifting farther left until it departed the runway onto the grass. The pilot reported that the airspeed was about 60 mph and that he felt he could fly out of the situation. However, he realized the airplane was approaching a hill with trees and a house too quickly and would not clear the trees. He then applied right rudder and the airplane turned 90° toward the runway and began to skid. The airplane skidded across the runway and hit a ditch. The left landing gear collapsed followed by the right, and the airplane skidded to a stop. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage.The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located about 14 miles southwest of the accident site revealed that, at 1255, the wind was from 190° at 13 knots, gusting to 21 knots. The airplane landed on runway 17.
Witnesses reported that they observed the pilot of the experimental, amateur-built airplane performing touch-and-go landings. The airplane flew for about 30 minutes before the engine lost power, and the airplane crashed into trees. The pilot did not recall the accident. Examination of the airframe did not reveal any anomalies. Fuel was observed in the fuel tank, and an examination of the fuel system did not reveal any fuel contamination. Although the wreckage examination revealed that the loss of engine power was likely not related to fuel quantity or fuel contamination, no additional examination of the engine was performed; thus, the reason for the partial loss of engine power could not be determined.
The airline transport pilot was conducting a local flight with one passenger. The accident flight was the pilot's third flight in the helicopter on the day of the accident; before that day, he had not flown the helicopter in nearly one year. One witness stated that he saw the helicopter rocking back and forth before it "spun sideways" and "a bunch of parts" departed the airframe. Some reported hearing a "clunk" sound, and others reported hearing a "pop" sound. Another witness saw the main rotor blades "seize," then "snap off," followed by the tail rotor departing the helicopter. The witness stated that the helicopter then "dropped out of the sky." The fuselage impacted in an open field, and a postcrash fire erupted. The separated main rotor blades and hub were found in a pond about 500 ft south of the main wreckage.Examination of the rotor mast showed deformation and fractures consistent with overstress under bending and torsion loads but no evidence of preexisting cracks or corrosion. The observed deformation of the mast was consistent with a mast bumping event. Mast bumping can occur in low acceleration of gravity (G) flight conditions, causing the rotor blade to exceed its flapping limits and resulting in the main rotor hub bumping into the rotor shaft. This often results in structural failure of the rotor shaft and a subsequent separation of the main rotor.Due to the extensive thermal damage to the wreckage, only a limited examination could be conducted; however, no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies were noted that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot had accumulated about 15,000 flight hours in airplanes but only had about 55 hours flight time in helicopters, most of which were accumulated more than 1 year before the accident. Although the pilot had received instruction on how to avoid mast bumping, given his low helicopter experience relative to his airplane experience, it is possible that he made a large, abrupt flight control input that resulted in a low-G flight condition and led to the observed mast bumping. However, the pilot's control inputs are unknown, and the initiating event for the mast bumping could not be determined.Page 2 of 9 CEN17FA012
The pilot reported that he attempted to hand prop the unoccupied and unchocked airplane, but was unsuccessful. He returned to the cockpit to prime the engine, but then decided to instruct his passenger on how to enter and exit the cockpit, which she then practiced multiple times before exiting the airplane to watch the start procedures again. The pilot further reported that he attempted to hand prop the airplane a second time and the engine started and accelerated to a high revolution per minute (RPM) setting. The pilot was unable to restrain the airplane by holding the right wing lift strut and the airplane made a right circle, entered a wooded area, and impacted trees.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. The pilot later reported that the airplane was not equipped with a parking brake.The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.Federal Aviation Administration's Airplane Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-3A, contains a section titled "Hand Propping" which states:An engine should not be hand propped unless two people, both familiar with the airplane and hand propping techniques, are available to perform the procedure. The person pulling the propeller blades through directs all activity and is in charge of the procedure. The other person, thoroughly familiar with the controls, must be seated in the airplane with the brakes set. As an additional precaution, chocks may be placed in front of the main wheels. If this is not feasible, the airplane's tail may be securely tied. Never allow a person unfamiliar with the controls to occupy the pilot's seat when hand propping. The procedure should never be attempted alone.Page 2 of 7 GAA17CA017
The operator reported that, during a training flight, the flight instructor attempted a go-around on runway 30 right. When power was applied, the airplane yawed to the left, struck a runway remaining sign, and bounced off the ground. The flight instructor moved the throttle to idle, and the airplane settled to the ground and rolled onto runway 30 center and then stopped. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the aft fuselage bulkhead and horizontal stabilizer.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 with tundra tires, reported that after landing off airport next to a reservoir, the tires became stuck in muddy terrain. He further reported that he decided to "use power and elevator to unstick the tires". The tires loosened from the mud, however, when he applied additional power the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to its vertical stabilizer and rudder.The pilot reported that there were no pre impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that the airplane touched down on the numbers of the runway with excess airspeed, bounced, and then veered off the runway.The airport director provided video surveillance of the landing. The video showed the airplane near the runway aiming point markings, about 1,000 feet from the runway threshold, veer to the left and impact a ditch between the runway and the parallel taxiway.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and right wing.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot was accomplishing a flight review with his flight instructor seated in the right cockpit seat. Ground operations and the engine run-up were normal. After climbing to 3,000 ft mean sea level, the pilot retarded the throttle and the engine lost total power, with no pressure observed on the fuel pressure gauge. The flight instructor assumed the controls, established best glide speed, and performed a forced landing in a field. After touchdown, the airplane struck an embankment before coming to rest on a dirt road. Examination of the wreckage did not reveal any evidence of a preimpact mechanical malfunction or failure of the engine that would have precluded normal operation. All fuel tanks contained an adequate supply of fuel. However, examination of the fuel tank selector valve revealed that the valve was stuck in the partially closed position, which would have restricted fuel flow to the engine. Moving the tank selector handle did not open the valve.
The pilot of a tailwheel equipped airplane reported that while landing on a dirt road with a left quartering crosswind, the "wind changed suddenly" and the airplane drifted to the right. He further reported that he applied power to abort the landing, but the right main landing gear "dropped off" the side of the dirt road and the airplane veered "hard to the right" into a ditch and wire fence.   The left elevator sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
On October 5, 2016, at about 1725 MDT, Southwest Airlines flight 3663, Boeing B737-800, N8324A, after arrival into Denver International Airport (KDEN), Denver, Colorado, the "B" position flight attendant lost her balance while retrieving her carryon bag from an overhead bin. The flight attendant fell against a seat arm rest near her right rib area. She was examined by paramedics and later escorted to a local hospital for further evaluation. An X-ray identified the flight attendant had sustained a fractured rib.  The flight was operated as a 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 domestic passenger flight from Salt Lake City International Airport (KSLC) , Salt Lake City, Utah, with 2 pilots, 4 flight attendants and 173 passengers on board.After the event, the injured flight attendant stated they had finished their day in Denver and while retrieving her bag from the overhead bin she stepped back and lost her balance. She thought her foot may have caught on the bar underneath a seat. She fell onto a row of seats making contact with an arm rest. She heard a crack in her rib area and it was difficult to breathe.  The "C" flight attendant got help, the crew came back and paramedics were called.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that during the takeoff roll in left crosswind conditions, the airplane drifted to the left and he applied full right rudder. He further reported that as he lifted his heels to use right brake to correct for the left drift, the airplane veered off the runway to the left. The pilot reduced power, the airplane impacted a runway sign, and both main landing gear collapsed.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and the fuselage.The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located on the airport, revealed that, about 7 minutes before the accident the wind was 290 degrees true at 8 knots. The airplane departed on runway 34.
The pilot reported that during the landing flare he pitched up "higher than what is normal" and the airplane bounced three times during the touchdown. The pilot further reported that he was able to taxi the airplane to the ramp, but he noticed the nose wheel was flat.During a 100-hour maintenance inspection conducted a week later, it was revealed that the firewall sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of a retractable landing gear equipped airplane reported that he landed with the landing gear retracted. He further reported that the airplane slid about 100 feet to a stop near the right edge of the runway. The fuselage sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aviation Safety Inspector assigned to the accident, by coincidence, was already at the accident airport for an unrelated event. The inspector observed the landing gear retracted into the wheel wells and observed the landing gear handle in the up position. He further reported that the pilot was using a "noise cancelling headset." According to the inspector, the landing gear warning horn was not designed to sound through the headset/ intercom system, but would be audible in the cockpit. He reported that during the airplane recovery process the landing gear handle was moved to the down position and the landing gear extended and locked normally.The FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB), CE-16-08, Noise Cancelling Headsets, in part states: "In many cases, pilots are using the noise cancelling headsets as supplementary equipment during operations. When wearing these headsets, the pilot may be unaware of environmental sounds and audible warning annunciations in the cockpit that do not come through the intercom system."The FAA SAIB recommends that general aviation pilots and operators:• Become familiar with the safety information in FAA InFO 0700 Page 2 of 6 GAA17CA023• Elect to find other solutions to discern such alarms or sounds, or discontinue using these headsets if any audible alarms or environmental sounds cannot be discerned while wearing a noise cancelling headset. The pilot did not report whether or not he had heard the landing gear warning horn prior to landing.
While the helicopter was maneuvering at low altitude after an agricultural application, its 90° tail rotor gearbox separated. The commercial pilot performed an autorotation, and the helicopter rolled over on impact.The gearbox had been installed about 300 flight hours before the accident. Postaccident examination revealed that the gearbox separation was the result of fatigue fracturing of its six attaching studs, which, once failed, liberated the gearbox from the input quill sleeve. Fatigue is typically the result of insufficient preload in the fastener often due to insufficient torque during installation or by the loss of preload after installation. Fretting wear on the studs and in the holes indicated that there were small amounts of relative movement between these components and thereby also indicated insufficient preload. However, the interface between the input quill housing and the vertical fin showed no significant fretting or wear.The locations of the main fatigue origins in the studs and the fretting location between the studs and fin holes were both consistent with normal torsional loads in the tail rotor drive system. The studs exhibited a large percentage of fatigue penetration before final stud separation and relatively small overstress zones. These signatures are indicative of a low mean stress and a large number of small tail rotor inputs (loads) consistent with repetitive aerial application flight profiles.The helicopter, which was originally designed and manufactured for the military, was never made commercially available. As such, individual owners and companies were responsible for certification and continued airworthiness of this and other surplus military aircraft.A review of National Transportation Safety Board records indicated two accidents involving similar failures on this helicopter type. Both were surplus military helicopters flying in the restricted category and used in highly repetitive cycle work that would require significant tail rotor inputs.Page 2 of 12 WPR17LA002
A flight instructor and private pilot receiving instruction departed on the accident flight to practice aerodynamic stalls in the multiengine airplane. After the accident, the pilot recalled that the instructor initiated an aerodynamic stall maneuver about 4,000 ft mean sea level, then recalled the instructor "cursing" the airplane when it would not recover from the stall. The pilot could not recall any further details of the accident flight. A witness about one 1 mile south of the accident site saw the airplane descending in a fully- developed right spin. Data retrieved from an onboard GPS unit revealed that the airplane entered a climb from about 4,000 ft, reaching a peak altitude of about 4,800 ft. The airplane then immediately entered a descent that continued until the end of the recorded data. Post-accident examination of the airplane revealed no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.Review of the flight instructor's logbooks indicated that he had accumulated over 9,800 total hours of flight experience, with over 4,600 hours in multiengine airplanes; however, he had only accumulated 16 hours in the 11 years before the accident. He had logged about 11 hours in the accident airplane, of which about 6 hours were as a flight instructor, all within the previous two months. His logbooks did not indicate that he had previously practiced aerodynamic stalls in the accident airplane; therefore, he was likely unfamiliar with the airplane's stall characteristics.Following a series of fatal accidents in Beech Baron/Travel Air airplanes between 1978 and 1980, the National Transportation Safety Board issued safety recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration, stating that these airplanes have a propensity for entering flat spins under high asymmetric power and low speed conditions; such conditions are frequently encountered during multiengine emergency (engine-out) training. It is likely that, while demonstrating aerodynamic stalls, the airplane entered a spin from which the flight instructor was unable to recover.Page 2 of 8 CEN17FA005
The private pilot stated that the engine experienced a partial loss of power shortly after takeoff on the local flight. In an effort to regain power, the pilot switched fuel tanks, applied carburetor heat, and richened the fuel mixture, but the engine continued to operate at reduced power. The pilot attempted to land at a nearby airport; however, he overshot the runway and decided to perform a forced landing to an adjacent cornfield. During the landing, the right wing impacted the corn, and the airplane came to rest upright.Partial disassembly of the engine revealed a failure of the No. 1 piston pin plug due to corrosion in the No. 1 cylinder barrel. The plug failure resulted in significant oil contamination and subsequent oil starvation and damage to the crankshaft connecting rod bearings. The damage to the bearings resulted in the partial loss of engine power.
The pilot reported that the airplane bounced on the initial touchdown followed by a gust of wind that allowed the airplane to "float" longer than he had intended. The pilot further reported that the airplane bounced hard a second time, raising the nose considerably higher. Subsequently the airplane impacted the pavement and broke the nose wheel off allowing the airplane to come to rest in a nose down attitude. The airplane sustained substantial damage to its firewall.The pilot reported that there were no pre impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he landed the airplane fast and long, and was unaware that the grass runway was "extremely" wet. He further reported that the airplane was unable to slow down before exiting the end of the runway and impacting a dirt road. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the nose gear had collapsed and the firewall sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no pre impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The airline transport pilot was conducting the first flight test of the experimental, amateur-built airplane when, shortly after takeoff, the engine experienced a partial loss of power. The airplane was unable to maintain altitude, and the pilot conducted a forced landing to a tree nursery about 1 mile from the airport. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the mechanical fuel pump housing screws were slightly loose, and the fuel screen was not properly seated. Although an engine run and several high-speed taxi runs were conducted before the flight without any observed anomalies, it is likely that the pump housing screws further loosened during these tests and subsequently allowed air to enter the fuel system during flight, disrupting the fuel flow to the engine.