roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The private pilot and passenger were departing on a cross-country flight. Shortly after takeoff, the engine experienced a partial loss of power and the airplane would not climb. The pilot chose to perform a forced landing to a road, during which the airplane impacted a building, then the ground; a postimpact fire ensued.The airplane was operated by a flying club. On two separate occasions before the accident, two different pilots experienced a loss of engine power in the accident airplane. About 1 month before the accident, a pilot experienced a partial loss of engine power shortly after takeoff; he subsequently landed the airplane on the remaining runway. Following that incident, a maintenance inspection revealed no anomalies. Maintenance personnel flushed both right and left fuel tanks, installed new fuel cap seals, drained the carburetor fuel bowl, cleaned and inspected the fuel filter, and flushed the fuel lines. A subsequent test run of the engine revealed no anomalies. Another pilot reported that, about 2 weeks before the accident, while in cruise flight at 8,000 ft, the engine experienced a total loss of power. The pilot was able to restart the engine at an altitude of 3,000 ft and uneventfully performed a precautionary landing. A subsequent maintenance inspection did not reveal any anomalies.Postaccident examination of the engine did not reveal any preimpact mechanical malfunctions. Continuity of the crankshaft and camshaft were observed during manual rotation of the engine and the interiors of each cylinder revealed no anomalies. However, postimpact fire damage precluded a thorough examination of the ignition, fuel, and induction systems, and the reason for the partial loss of engine power could not be determined based on the available information.
The pilot reported that, during the landing as the tailwheel began to settle, a "massive and unexpected gust of wind" lifted the left wing. He immediately attempted to recover by adding rudder inputs; however, the wind shifted to a "quartering tailwind," and the rear of the airplane whipped rapidly to the right. He applied the brakes as the airplane encountered a downhill slope on the left side of the runway, and it then came to rest inverted.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The automated weather observation system located on the airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 360° at 12 knots, gusting to 17 knots. The pilot landed on runway 35L.
The commercial pilot, who was the pilot flying, reported that, while he, the copilot, and four passengers were returning to the airport following a sightseeing flight and while the airplane was at 7,500 ft, it would no longer climb. The airplane then slowly started to descend about 350 ft per minute. Unable to stop the descent, the pilots attempted to troubleshoot the problem but were unable to regain engine power. The pilot initiated a precautionary landing onto a dirt road. When the airplane was about 125 ft above ground level, the copilot took control of the airplane and landed it on the road. During the landing roll, the left wing impacted bushes before coming to rest. As the pilots retarded the throttle to idle, the throttle and about 2 ft of the throttle control cable came out of the control panel. Metallurgical examination of the throttle cable wires revealed flat fracture surfaces that were perpendicular to the wires' axes, and no evidence of necking or other deformation was found, which is consistent with a progressive fracture mechanism, such as fatigue. Therefore, the throttle control cable likely failed due to fatigue and resulted in the pilots' inability to control the engine power.A review of the airplane's maintenance logbooks revealed that the throttle control cable was installed more than 20 years before the accident. The airplane maintenance manual indicated that the engine controls, including the throttle control cable, should be replaced at every engine overhaul. The operator reported that the last engine overhaul was completed 163 hours before the accident. The logbooks did not indicate that the throttle control cable had been replaced during the overhaul. Given the evidence, maintenance personnel likely failed to replace the throttle control cable at the last engine overhaul, which led to the cable fracturing in flight due to fatigue and the subsequent inability of the pilots to control the engine power.
The first officer was on her third day of initial operating experience training and was the pilot flying for the flight; the captain, a check airman, was the pilot monitoring. The first officer reported that this was her fourth landing in an A320-series airplane and her first landing in an A321 model. According to the captain and first officer, the flight was cleared for the visual approach, the approach was stable, and wind was out of the southwest at 12 kts with gusts up to 20 kts. The first officer recalled that the captain instructed her to "pull back pull back" before touchdown. Both pilots reported that the landing was “firm.” The first officer stated that after landing, the captain provided feedback that she flared a little low (near 20 ft above ground level [agl] instead of 30 ft agl) and did not provide enough pitch back on the side stick. Both crewmembers reported that the first officer was late to flare on previous landings.A company pilot who was seated in the cockpit jumpseat reported the captain was providing instruction to the first officer during the flight about the nuances of the A321. He stated that the descent and arrival were uneventful up until the flare and that the first officer “never really performed any type of flare maneuver even as the captain repeatedly called for the F/O to perform one." Subsequent preflight inspection of the airplane by the next flight crew revealed an area of abrasion damage to the aft fuselage about 13 ft long by 2 ft wide affecting two skin panels. The fuselage skin was abraded through in several areas with damage to the underlying stringers and frames. Several frames, stringers, and shear clips were also bent and/or fractured.
The pilot reported that touchdown on the runway and rollout were normal but that the airplane began to wobble as it decelerated to about 10 to 15 mph. He maintained directional control without braking. However, the wobble worsened, and the right main landing gear collapsed, which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing.  Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the right main landing gear torque link pivot bolt assembly was severed, and the two inboard spacer washers, nut, and cotter pin were not located. Additionally, the the landing gear trunnion was partially separated from the wing structure. Vertical scuffing was observed on the outboard crown of the right main landing gear tire, which is consistent with the wheel skidding along the ground after becoming misaligned about 90° from normal. Metallurgical examination of the torque link pivot bolt revealed that the bolt fractured through the threaded region at the edge of the pivot barrel in bending overstress, with no evidence of preexisting cracking or corrosion. In addition, the trunnion fractured in overstress, with no evidence of preexisting fatigue cracks or fractures.  Alignment of the wheel is achieved by washers installed between the upper and lower torque link assemblies; disconnection of the upper and lower torque link assemblies from one another could result in wheel misalignment, vibration, and ultimately failure of the main landing gear. However, due to postaccident damage to the landing gear and the unrecovered components, there was insufficient evidence available to determine why the right main landing gear collapsed.
The pilot of the helicopter reported that, while flying downwind during rice field pollination operations, he "lost control" of the helicopter. The helicopter impacted the ground and rolled onto its right side. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the tailboom.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.The automated weather observation station located about 12 miles west of the accident site reported that, about 37 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 360° at 19 knots, gusting to 26 knots. The same weather observation station reported that, about 23 minutes after the accident, the wind was from 360° at 18 knots, gusting to 26 knots.
The helicopter pilot reported that, while maneuvering at a low altitude during an agricultural application flight, he "forgot to duck" for some nearby transmission wires. The tail rotor struck the transmission wires, and the helicopter impacted terrain.The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the tailboom.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The sport pilot reported that the initial takeoff roll was normal but that he then noted that the airplane was not gaining airspeed and that the engine was not developing full power; however, he decided to continue the takeoff. He stated that, once he was committed to the takeoff, there seemed to be an even "greater loss of power." The airplane only reached 150 ft, and he decided to turn right to avoid a highway and power lines. He initiated a 20° bank, and subsequently the airplane stalled and then impacted a bean field adjacent to the airport. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Although weather conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to moderate icing at cruise power or serious carburetor icing at descent power, given the airplane was at takeoff power, it is unlikely that carburetor ice accumulated and caused the power loss. The pilot's decision to not abort the takeoff at the first sign of a loss of engine power resulted in a slow airspeed during the initial climb during a turn, which resulted in the aerodynamic stall.
The pilot reported that, about 8 seconds into the takeoff roll in gusting wind conditions at high-density altitude, the airplane "suddenly and expectantly lifted off the runway in a steep angle of attack." He added that he immediately reduced power to idle to abort the initial climb, and the airplane "settled back onto the runway but landed hard." He further added that, during the landing roll, he lost directional control, and the airplane veered off the runway, coming to rest in the dirt alongside the runway.The fuselage, left wing, and aileron 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, 10 nautical miles southeast of the accident airport, reported that, 5 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 150° at 16 knots, gusting to 25 knots. The pilot reported that he observed the wind from 300° at 8 knots, gusting to 15 knots. He reported that the takeoff was on runway 9. He further reported that the density altitude was 10,000 ft at the departure airport.
According to the flight school director, the student pilot was conducting stop-and-go landings during a solo flight. He added that the student pilot reported that, during takeoff, the airplane began to "fishtail," the pilot reduced power, but the airplane continued to the left, exited the runway, and impacted a taxiway sign.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.The flight school director reported that, according to the student pilot, there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, after flying a stable approach, the airplane ground looped to the right during the landing.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right 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 landed the float-equipped airplane at a remote mountain lake as part of a sightseeing tour flight. During the subsequent takeoff, the pilot realized that the airplane was not going to clear trees in the intended direction of departure. The pilot decided to lower the nose and turn 180° to remain over the lake while continuing to climb; however, during the turn, the airplane impacted the water and began to sink. All of the occupants egressed and swam to shore. The operator reported no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe and engine that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane.Another airplane of the same make and model as the accident airplane successfully departed the lake shortly after the accident. Given the lack of mechanical malfunctions with the accident airplane and the fact that the other airplane performed a successful takeoff, it is likely that the accident pilot misjudged the required departure distance and altitude needed to safely depart the lake, then failed to maintain sufficient clearance from the water during the turn to avoid terrain.
The pilot, who was on the controls in the high-performance, experimental, amateur-built airplane, reported that he and a check pilot, who was familiar with the airplane and required by the insurance company, were taking off from a grass airstrip for a planned cross-country flight. According to the check pilot, before takeoff, he advised the pilot to "begin his rotation to takeoff attitude a few knots before the normal takeoff speed of approximately 65 knots and then let the airplane lift off smoothly when it was ready to fly." During the takeoff roll, the pilot initiated the "rotation" as instructed, but the nose pitched up too high, and the airplane drifted to the left side of the runway. The airplane exited the left side of the runway, struck the ground, and came to rest upright facing the opposite direction of the takeoff. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right-wing spar and the lower part of the composite fuselage.The pilots 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 reported that, during the landing roll on a gravel bar in gusting wind, the "tail seemed to pick up from the wind." Subsequently, the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the empennage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The automated weather observation station located about 6 nautical miles west of the accident site reported that, about 36 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 340° at 14 knots, gusting to 22 knots. The same weather observation station reported that, about 24 minutes after the accident, the wind was from 360° at 19 knots, gusting to 26 knots. The airplane was landing to the north.
The commercial pilot reported that, during initial climb after takeoff, the amateur-built airplane's engine experienced a partial loss of power. As he attempted to return to the airport, the engine lost total power. He subsequently conducted a forced landing on rough terrain, during which the right wing and fuselage sustained damage.Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the fuel hose from the left wing tank had deteriorated from the inside, which would have restricted the flow of fuel to the engine and led to fuel starvation and the subsequent loss of engine power.
The pilot was transporting about 120 lbs of plywood, secured to the airplane's float struts via cargo straps, to his remote cabin. The pilot reported that, about 200 ft above the ground during the landing approach, the airplane experienced an uncommanded left turn, then the pilot realized that he had no rudder control and that the rudder was "locked to the left." The airplane subsequently impacted trees and terrain. The pilot reported no mechanical anomalies with the engine and no anomalies with the airplane before the loss of control.The airplane's water rudder cables descend from the fuselage along the support struts to which the plywood was secured. The water rudders were directly linked to the rudder. It is likely that, during the flight, the plywood shifted and interfered with the water rudder cable, which resulted in the pilot's loss of rudder control during the landing approach.
The private pilot prepared to hand-prop the airplane, which was not equipped with an electrical starter, by tying the tail down with a nylon rope. The pilot then hand-propped the engine, which started at a high power setting. The airplane moved forward, breaking the rope, and continued to taxi in circles. The pilot and another individual tried to stop the airplane; however, the propeller struck the pilot, resulting in fatal injuries. The airplane eventually came to stop farther down the runway.  Although the pilot attempted to secure the airplane by tying down the tail, the throttle was set at a high engine power setting, allowing the airplane's movement.
The pilot reported that the takeoff, climb, and en route portions of the cross-country flight were uneventful. He checked the wind sock before landing, and it was "flaccid," indicating calm wind. He slowed the airplane to 80 mph on final approach and landed near the approach end of the runway, which was 2,355 ft long. He estimated that the airplane should have rolled to a stop; however, it continued down the runway despite heavy braking. The airplane departed the end of the runway, traveled across a small road and down an embankment, and came to rest in water at the edge of the airport boundary.A Federal Aviation Administration inspector examined the wreckage and reported that the airplane sustained substantial damage to the forward fuselage and submersion in salt water. There were tire skid marks on the runway leading to the wreckage. A weather buoy, located about 1 mile east of the airport, recorded wind from the west about the time of the accident, which would have resulted in a tailwind of up to 8 knots. The pilot reported there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor of the glider reported that, during landing, about 100 above the ground, "a sink rate started to develop." He added that he took over the flight controls and closed the spoilers. The glider impacted the airport perimeter fence, landed short of the runway, and then slid into a culvert. The glider sustained substantial damage to the empennage.The flight instructor did not submit the National Transportation Safety Board Form 6120.1 Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report.
The agricultural application pilot reported that, during the initial climb and as soon as the airplane "broke ground," he turned left and subsequently encountered turbulence that caused the left wing to "dip." He added that he applied full right aileron and rudder but that the airplane continued to sink and turn left. Subsequently, the left wing impacted terrain, the airplane cartwheeled, and a postcrash fire ensued. The fuselage, empennage, and both wings 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, 12 nautical miles south of the accident site, reported, about the time of the accident, calm wind, clear skies, temperature 84°F (29°C), and dew point 64°F (18°C).
The commercial pilot stated that, before the 2nd aerial advertising flight of the day in the airship, he checked the wind conditions and determined that, although the wind was still within flight parameters, it would be increasing, which would make "flying more challenging." After 15 minutes of flight time, the pilot returned to land because the wind was stronger than forecasted. As the airship approached the runway the pilot released the drop line and attempted to open the Plexiglass panel that is used for venting and descent control. However, the panel jammed closed.  Shortly thereafter, the airship encountered a thermal that caused the airship to rise. The airship leveled around 500 ft above ground level, at which time the pilot heard a "loud air explosion," which violently shook the airship. He looked up at the envelope and noted a panel of fabric located aft of his sitting position and near the top of the envelope was missing. Within seconds he heard up to four more air explosions. The pilot stated that the envelope began to sag, and the forward speed of the airship resulted in the nose of the airship collapsing in and around the burners, which ignited the fabric. The pilot shut off the fuel to the burners, secured his five-point harness, and braced for impact as the airship descended. After impact, the pilot was able to get out of the gondola and crawl a short distance before the ground crew arrived and pulled him away from the wreckage. The maximum wind for takeoff listed in the flight manual as 12 knots; the wind velocity reported 15 miles from the accident site at the time of the accident was 10 knots gusting to 15 knots; 1 hour earlier the wind velocity was 7 knots. The flight manual also stated that the airship must not be operated when thermals are present. Given the increase in wind velocity and the thermal activity, it is likely that a localized area of high pressure developed in the crown of the envelope that exceeded the strength capability of the envelope, resulting an overpressurization and the subsequent explosive failure of the balloon fabric. It is also likely that the jammed Plexiglass panel used for venting prevented the pilot from relieving pressure in the envelope as the airship climbed.Page 2 of 8 CEN17FA231
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll, the airplane drifted to the right and he corrected with rudder but then the airplane "started to pull" to the left. He added that his "rudder input failed to stop the plane from continuing to the left," the airplane ground looped to the left, and the right wingtip hit the ground.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
After completing an agricultural application flight, the commercial pilot lost control of the helicopter, which subsequently impacted a field in a nose-low attitude. The pilot shut down the engine after the accident occurred. Postaccident examination of the helicopter wreckage did not reveal any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The control rods were found fractured and exhibited damage consistent with overload. The pilot did not report why he lost control of the helicopter.
The pilot reported that, during the takeoff roll for an agricultural flight, the airplane drifted left of the runway center, and the left wing and spray boom encountered tall grass. Subsequently, the airplane spun about 270°. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and 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 in the Operator/Owner Safety Recommendation section of NTSB Form 6120.1 that the tall grass next to the runway "will be maintained shorter."