roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that, after departing from a lake and during the initial climb, the airplane seemed to experience a loss of lift. Uncertain what was causing the loss of lift, he turned left back toward the lake. As soon as the airplane turned, a wind gust hit the tail, and he lost airplane control. Subsequently, the airplane aerodynamically stalled and then impacted the water. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage. 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, about the time of the accident, the wind was variable at 10 knots, gusting to 20 knots.
The pilot reported that, while taking off from water to the east, the wind shifted from the east to the south. The airplane became airborne and then aerodynamically stalled, and the left wing impacted the water. The airplane came to rest inverted in the water. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during a cross-country flight, he descended the airplane from 10,500 ft to 1,500 ft, then configured the airplane for a climb; however, the engine did not respond to the application of power and the airplane began losing altitude. After performing the emergency checklist, the pilot was not able to restore power to the engine. The pilot declared an emergency, activated the emergency locator transmitter, and ditched the airplane in the water. The airplane sank and was not recovered, thus the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The pilot reported that, during takeoff for the accident flight, which was the second flight of the day, he saw that the oil pressure was falling and realized it was likely due to his failure to install the engine oil filler cap after checking the oil during the first flight of the day. He did not conduct a preflight checklist before the accident flight. He subsequently made a precautionary landing at a nearby airport. During the landing, the airplane bounced, and the landing gear collapsed. The airplane bounced again, skidded off the right side of the runway, and ground looped. The left wing struck the ground before the airplane stopped. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the main rotor blades. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
While in cruise flight, the airplane’s engine lost total power. The pilot deployed the airframe parachute and the airplane descended under canopy to a marsh, resulting in substantial damage. Examination of the engine found that a fuel line from the fuel manifold to the No. 1 cylinder failed in fatigue near the manifold, resulting in the loss of engine power. The failed fuel line was replaced postaccident and the engine was test run with no anomalies noted. Although the fuel manifold bracket was replaced twice in the approximate 2.5 years before the accident, the extent to which this may have been related to the failure of the fuel line was not determined.
The pilot reported that during cruise flight, the engine momentarily started to run rough before he heard a loud bang followed by a separation of a portion of the propeller blade. The pilot shut the engine down and performed a forced landing to open desert terrain, during which the airplane impacted vegetation, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing.Postaccident examination of the propeller blade revealed a chordwise fracture across the propeller about 12 inches from the hub. The fracture origin area exhibited a small pit, consistent with progressive crack growth from a flat fracture surface in the area identified as the origin. The pit was likely initiated by corrosion, as it exhibited evidence of chlorine-containing salts. No maintenance logbooks were located for the propeller, and its total time in service and most recent inspection were not determined.
The pilot reported that, during a familiarization flight with a flight instructor in a recently purchased airplane and while demonstrating a soft-field takeoff, the tower controller cleared him for takeoff "with no delay." He quickly taxied the airplane to the runway centerline, applied power, and pulled back on the yoke. He added that, in retrospect, the back pressure he used was too abrupt. The airplane entered ground effect about 10 knots slower than normal and was unable to maintain flight in ground effect, and he was struggling to maintain the runway heading. The airplane then touched down "abruptly several times." The airplane drifted left, and the pilot thought there was a positive climb rate, so he retracted the landing gear. Additionally, he was "too aggressive" with control inputs and "caused a stall." The left wing struck the taxiway, and the airplane came to rest on the ramp. The pilot reported that the instructor did not take the flight controls. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, shortly after landing, the passenger, without his permission or guidance, retracted the landing gear. The airplane impacted the runway, slid about 600 ft, and then came to rest. The pilot-rated passenger reported that, without the pilot's guidance, he mistakenly raised the gear handle then quickly lowered it again, thinking it was the flap handle, and that he was attempting to assist the pilot. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the center wing spar.
During engine start about 30 minutes following the previous shutdown, the engine caught fire, which resulted in substantial damage to the airplane. The operator reported that six of their airplanes experienced flooding and subsequent fires during the engine start process within the previous 6 months. The airplanes that experienced flooding and fires had all previously flown and been parked between 5 and 28 minutes before the engines were restarted and the flooding occurred. During these events, the daily average temperatures were between 85° and 98°F.Testing conducted to simulate the conditions of the engine fire events revealed that, in the minutes following engine shutdown, the temperature of the fuel system components and fuel pressure to the carburetor would rise, most likely as a result of heat soaking from the combination of the hot engine and high outside air temperature. The tests showed that during the engine restart, about 6 to 12 ounces of fuel and vapor emanated from the carburetor intakes. During some of the tests, a whistling sound was heard originating from the carburetor inlet, which is likely from the buildup of fuel vapor as a result of the heat soaking and escaping through the internal passages of the carburetor before exiting out the carburetor intake.The carburetor from the accident airplane was disassembled, and the accelerator pump needle valve showed wear at the valve contact area. This wear was likely a result of the high fuel pressure vapor and fuel escaping past the valve, causing it to chatter excessively. The operator had experienced recent growth in its student population, which resulted in increased frequency of flights during the day. This most likely prevented the engine and fuel system from cooling between flights.
The pilot reported that, during landing, the airplane touched down about midfield on the 1,900-ft-long private, dirt airstrip. The airplane overran the end of the runway and impacted a drainage culvert. The airplane sustained 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 flight instructor reported that, during landing, he told the student pilot to initiate a go-around. During the climb, the instructor saw dust devils at the end of the runway, so he instructed the student to also initiate a slight left turn. The instructor then noticed power lines past the dust devils, so he took the controls from the student and continued a shallow, 200 ft-per-minute climbing left turn to the south. While turning the airplane, the instructor saw other power lines to the south, so he decided to initiate a precautionary soft-field landing to a plowed field adjacent to the runway. During landing, the nose landing gear touched down, and the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing lift strut and vertical stabilizer. The instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot descended the helicopter to land on a field in a bowl-shaped area with prevailing high winds.  The pilot reported that the engine stopped producing power during the approach when the helicopter was too low to prevent a hard landing. The helicopter descended, spun, and landed hard, resulting in substantial damage. Examination of the airframe and test run of the engine did not reveal any anomalies which would have precluded normal operation of the helicopter. Testing of the engine could not replicate a loss of engine power.The helicopter was landing at high altitude, with strong winds. It could not be determined if these factors adversely impacted the helicopter’s power available during the landing leading to conditions consistent with a loss of engine performance.The reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined because an examination and engine runs did not reveal any anomalies.
The pilot performed a preflight inspection of the airplane and noted no anomalies. The pilot initiated the takeoff roll and noted that the airplane’s airspeed never rose above 40 mph. The airplane was about one-third to halfway down the 2,420-ft runway when the pilot elected to abort the takeoff then overran the departure end of the runway. The airplane broke through the airport perimeter fence and struck a car on a highway just off the airport property, which resulted in the left wing separating from the fuselage. Postaccident examination of the airplane was unable to find any anomalies with the airspeed indicator, pitot tube, or pitot static system between the left-wing root and the airspeed indicator that would have precluded normal operation. Due to the wing’s impact damage, investigators were unable to functionally test the portion of the pitot system between the pitot tube and the left-wing root. It is possible that the pitot static system was blocked during the accident flight, preventing the airspeed indicator from displaying airspeeds above 40 mph and leading the pilot to decide to abort the takeoff, then the blockage became dislodged during the accident sequence.
Witnesses observed the powered parachute (PPC) flying about 10 to 15 ft above trees and power lines and said the pilot appeared to be in control of the PPC, the parachute canopy appeared “full,” and there did not appear to be any mechanical issues. One of the witnesses, who was a neighbor to the pilot, reported observing the PPC fly over his property and then turn south and disappear from his view. He reported it sounded like the pilot tried to apply additional power to the engine and there were two "snapping sounds" followed by the sound of an impact. He responded to the accident site and observed a wire wrapped around the pilot and the cart. None of the witnesses observed the accident occur.Postaccident examination of the PPC revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The PPC had an adequate amount of fuel onboard. Wreckage signatures were consistent with a wire strike. It is likely the pilot failed to maintain clearance from a wire during the low-level flight, which resulted in a wire strike and an impact with terrain.Medical evidence showed that the pilot's risk of impairment and incapacitation was elevated due to heart disease, prior stroke, and prescription opioid use but did not establish whether he was impaired or incapacitated. There was no operational evidence that the pilot lost control of the PPC or that it was unusual for him to fly so low in the vicinity of hazards. Thus, whether medical factors contributed to the accident could not be determined. The accident is consistent with the pilot failing to see and avoid a power line while flying at a low altitude.
The pilot stated that, after about 1 hour into the flight, the wind changed, and the balloon’s direction shifted south toward terrain that was not suitable for a balloon landing. The pilot then aligned the balloon with a more suitable landing location and began the descent. As the balloon neared the surface, the wind increased, and the pilot briefed the passengers of a potential high-wind landing. He pulled the vent line, but the balloon did not deflate as he expected. The balloon landed hard, and the pilot and several passengers were ejected from the basket. Afterward, the balloon flew at a low level for about 0.5 mile, and the remaining three passengers were ejected from the basket. The balloon came to rest on a hillside in remote desert terrain. The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation of the balloon.
The student pilot reported that, during landing, she flared the airplane early and that it then skipped on the runway during touchdown. The airplane drifted right, and the flight instructor then took the flight controls, but the airplane continued right. The airplane then lifted off about midfield, spun, and came to rest in grass right of the runway.The flight instructor reported that he was a new instructor. He added that, while the student was landing, the approach was high and slow as the airplane crossed the threshold, that the student flared "very high," and that he attempted to instruct her on how to recover, but she unexpectedly "pitched [the airplane] up further." He took control of the airplane, applied full power, retracted the flaps, and attempted a go-around. He added that the airplane was struggling to stay airborne and that he was concerned that it might impact some construction cranes beyond the end of the runway, so he turned right, and the airplane impacted the ground right of the runway.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and engine mounts.The instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The solo student pilot reported that, during takeoff, the airplane drifted left off the runway. He was concerned that the takeoff was unsafe, so he decided to abort the takeoff and landed the airplane in a gravel field adjacent to the runway. He applied the brakes to slow down and attempted to maneuver the airplane back onto the runway. The right main landing gear impacted a runway sign, and the airplane veered right, crossed the runway, impacted a second runway sign, and then came to rest in a gravel field. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage aft of the nosewheel and the right horizontal stabilizer. The student reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot reported that while back-taxiing at night on the takeoff runway, he cycled the propeller twice, pulled the throttle back to idle, and heard an irregular noise. He then felt ground contact, consistent with the airplane’s left main landing gear collapsing. He immediately shut off the mixtures to both engines. The pilot reported that he did not recognize that the landing gear was slowly collapsing because of the dark night conditions. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. Postaccident examination of the landing gear system revealed no mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Therefore, the reason for the landing gear collapse could not be determined.
The pilot reported that, during landing, the biplane encountered a right crosswind, veered right off the runway, and ground looped. The biplane sustained substantial damage to the lower left wing and rudder. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the biplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was conducting a ferry flight. During cruise flight while at an altitude of about 1,000 ft above ground level and at an airspeed of about 110 knots, one of the helicopter’s tail rotor blades separated, which resulted in a partial separation of the remaining tail rotor assembly and a forced autorotation. The remaining tail rotor assembly subsequently impacted the vertical stabilizer. The mechanic who performed the daily inspection of the helicopter before the accident flight did not observe any evidence of a crack on the tail rotor blades.The separated section of the tail rotor blade was not recovered. Postaccident fractographic examination of the tail rotor blade piece containing the root end revealed that most of the blade had cracked due to fatigue. No nicks, gouges, damage, or contamination were observed. Further examination revealed that the blade met the design specifications of the engineer drawings.     Maintenance records revealed that the rotor blade was most recently repaired in April 2007, but details of the repair work were not available.
The pilot was on a personal flight when, during final approach for landing, the gear unsafe warning horn sounded. The pilot made a go-around when he saw the gear safe indicator lights were not illuminated. The pilot verified, with another pilot on the ground, that the landing gear were not extended after several attempts to extend the landing gear, including using the emergency extension procedure. The pilot then made a wheels-up landing on the runway, during which the airplane’s lower fuselage structural longerons were substantially damaged.After the accident, the landing gear extended into the down-and-locked position when the airplane was hoisted off the runway surface using a crane and straps. Postaccident examination and testing revealed no issues with the normal landing gear extension/retraction system or the emergency extension procedure. The investigation was unable to duplicate the pilot’s report that he was unable to extend the landing gear using the normal and/or emergency procedures during the flight. The reason for the malfunction of the landing gear extension system could not be determined based on the available evidence.
The student pilot reported that, during landing, the airplane touched down hard, the nose landing gear collapsed, and the airplane bounced multiple times. He then pitched the airplane to level, and it came to a stop on the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the engine mount. The director of flight operations reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot reported that he recently fueled the airplane with fuel from an external supply tank on his ranch. On the day of the accident, the pilot taxied the airplane to a north-south road and started the takeoff roll to the north. The airplane lifted off and climbed to about 40 ft above ground level when the engine experienced a total loss of power. The pilot made a left turn to land in a parallel field; the airplane landed hard and came to rest upright, sustaining substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage. Postaccident examination revealed a significant amount of water in the carburetor and in the airplane's fuel tanks. Water was also found in the supply tank from which the pilot fueled the airplane. The pilot reported that he did not check the airplane's fuel tanks for contamination before departing on the flight, nor had he checked the fuel supply tank for contamination. The circumstances of the accident are consistent with a total loss of engine power due to water contamination of the fuel system.
During the takeoff roll for the instructional flight, the student pilot allowed the airplane to veer left of centerline multiple times, but the flight instructor corrected the airplane’s track back to runway centerline with steering control inputs. As the airplane lifted off the ground, the student pilot abruptly pitched the airplane’s nose up, and the airplane began to bank to the left. The flight instructor stated twice that he had the flight controls; however, the student pilot’s continued inputs prevented the flight instructor from gaining control of the airplane. Afterward, the airplane stalled; the student pilot relinquished airplane control to the flight instructor; and the airplane entered a spin and collided with the roof of a two-story airport building, which caused substantial damage to the airplane and serious injuries to the airplane occupants.A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no preexisting malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.It is likely that full operation of the elevator was not possible while the flight instructor was trying to manipulate the controls and the student pilot was not relinquishing the controls, which led to the roll to the left and the subsequent exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack. Even though the student pilot was at the controls before and at the time of the stall, the flight instructor had the ultimate responsibility for the safety of the flight, especially given that the accident flight was only the student’s second time receiving instruction in the accident airplane.
The pilot was participating in an air racing event. He reported that, after finishing qualification laps, he lowered the landing gear in preparation for landing, but the left main gear unsafe light illuminated. The pilot attempted to troubleshoot the problem but was unable to fully extend the gear. While troubleshooting, he also noticed that electrical bus 1 was no longer charging; shortly thereafter, the airplane experienced an electrical failure, and the engine, which was equipped with an electronic ignition system, lost total power. The pilot landed on the runway with the landing gear retracted and a fire ensued. The airplane sustained substantial damage.The airplane was not examined after the accident, and the reason for the landing gear and electrical anomalies was not determined.
While performing an aerial application flight, the helicopter experienced a partial loss of engine power when the pilot advanced engine power to reverse course. The helicopter was substantially damaged during the forced landing when it contacted trees and landed hard. A postaccident examination of the helicopter’s engine found evidence of fuel contamination due to water and a non-ferrous material in the engine driven fuel pump/filter, fuel control unit, and fuel nozzle.  The fuel control unit operated outside of acceptable limits during postaccident testing. The airframe was stored outside and subjected to the elements after the accident; however, the location of the water and debris in the engine were in areas where contamination from the elements cannot normally collect. It could not be determined when the contamination occurred or whether it originated within the company’s fuel truck tank or within the helicopter’s fuel tank.