roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The private pilot departed the airport in the light-sport airplane and made a left turn back toward the airport while still over airport property. The airplane was at a low altitude when it rolled to the left and impacted terrain, consistent with a loss of control following an aerodynamic stall. Witnesses stated that the engine sounded abnormal. One witness reported that the airplane did not climb above treetop height before it rolled into a steep left turn and descended into terrain. An additional witness did not see the accident occur but heard the pilot state on the radio that he was making an immediate return to the airport. The terrain in front of the pilot on departure was commercial properties and parking lots, and was unsuitable for landing. During postaccident examination, contaminants and corrosion were found in both carburetor bowls. The piston slide in the carburetor for the Nos. 2 and 4 cylinders was found stuck in the idle position in its bore on the carburetor chamber top. A white substance was present on the interior surface of the bore that prevented the piston from sliding up and down within the bore. Testing of the substance determined that it was likely contamination produced by oxidation and corrosion of the aluminum alloy carburetor chamber top because of exposure to water-contaminated fuel. The engine manufacturer had previously issued a Service Instruction (SI) that warned of the possibility of poor performance or engine stoppage due to contaminants in the carburetor float chamber. One of the sources of contaminants identified in the SI was corrosion caused by high water content in fuel. Both carburetors had been inspected in accordance with the SI about 130 flight hours and 19 months before the accident, which was within the SI recommended 200-hour inspection interval. The contaminants found in the carburetors were indicative of the use of fuel with high water content at an undetermined time, most likely after compliance with the SI.
On July 28, 2016, at 0111 eastern daylight time, JetBlue Airways as flight 1561, an Airbus A321, N913JB, experienced turbulence during cruise that resulted in one flight attendant sustaining a serious injury.  There were no injuries to the other passengers and crew aboard and the airplane was not damaged.  The flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 as a regularly scheduled passenger flight from New York John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), Queens, New York to Grantley Adams International Airport (BGI), Christchurch, Barbados.  The flight diverted to Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport (SJU), San Juan, Puerto Rico .According to the operator, aircraft encountered turbulence during cruise while the flight attendant (FA) at position #4 was carrying a pot of hot water from the aft galley towards one of the aft lavatories.  The FA stated that she held on to the galley counter with her right hand and swung the coffee pot in her left towards the jumpseat away from another flight attendant.  She stated that the aircraft experienced another sudden drop and the water in the pot flew up in the air and landed on her left shoulder and left side resulting in second-degree burns.The flight crew indicated that at the time of the event the weather conditions were mostly clear, but had encountered short segments of instrument weather conditions as forecasted with no associated turbulence or precipitation. They indicated that they had been actively using the onboard weather radar, but there were no returns that led to deviations. The first officer stated that the turbulence was sudden, with no other associated rain or precipitation and then immediately calm again, so no actions were taken.The operator indicated that the flight data from the Quick Access Recorder (QAR) showed smooth conditions prior to the turbulence encounter. Page 2 of 6 DCA16CA205
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that after landing on a 1,900-foot grass strip she determined she would not be able to stop prior to the end of the airstrip. The pilot reported that during the aborted landing she added full power, but the airplane settled into a bean field and subsequently nosed over.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall, fuselage, and empennage. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The airline transport pilot was departing on a cross-country flight in the multi-engine airplane. Shortly after takeoff and during the initial climb, witnesses observed the airplane drift to the left and then descend and collide with terrain off the left side of the departure runway. The airplane came to rest about 3,775 ft from where the takeoff run commenced, and about 300 ft south of the extended centerline of the runway. The majority of the airplane was consumed by postcrash fire. The airplane's estimated ground speed during the last 5 seconds of flight was about 70 knots. It could not be determined whether this speed was above, near, or below the manufacturer's best angle, best rate, or recommended climb speed. The investigation revealed that both engines fuel system had been modified by the removal of the pressure carburetors and replaced with continuous fuel flow injection systems. This modification would require a re-identification on the engine data plate, which was not accomplished, and field approval documentation for the alteration.  A search of the airplane's FAA airworthiness file found no records regarding the alteration. Documentation relative to the airplane's revised performance data, which would have been published subsequent to the approval of the fuel injection system modification was also not located in order to determine the effect of airplane performance at the calculated 5,483 foot density altitude at the time of the accident. The propeller strikes found along the debris path and the rotational damage to the blades of both propellers indicated that both engines were developing power at impact. A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any evidence of mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The investigation could not determine the reason for the pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane on takeoff/initial climb.
The solo student pilot reported that during a day visual meteorological condition flight, in the landing flare he saw a deer where he intended to touch down. He further reported that he banked to the right and applied power to go-around, but during the turn to the right he was unable to clear a line of trees in his flight path. The student pilot reported that the landing gear "scraped" one line of trees, and in order to avoid a thicker line of trees ahead, he forced the airplane down into a marsh area.The fuselage and both wings sustained substantial damage.  The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. During a postaccident interview with an airport representative, he reported that the airport does not a have a perimeter fence.The Federal Aviation Administration Chart Supplement airport page for the accident airport in part states: "Deer and birds on and invof [in the vicinity of] arpt."
The student pilot reported that during his third supervised solo landing, the airplane touched down hard in a level attitude and bounced. The student pilot further reported that the airplane bounced three times and the nose wheel collapsed.A post-accident examination by a mechanic, revealed that the airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall.The student pilot's instructor reported that from the airport control tower he observed the student pilot touch down fast, bounce the airplane three times, and the nose landing gear collapsed.The student 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 during the takeoff roll from a private, dirt airstrip the airplane encountered a bump and became airborne prematurely. The pilot further reported that he attempted to reduce the angle of attack, but the left wing aerodynamically stalled and the airplane impacted terrain.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, left wing, right wing and aileron, and right vertical stabilizer.The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot reported that while on his fourth landing in the tailwheel equipped airplane, after touchdown the airplane was "a little out of alignment" and he "started to lose control". The student pilot further reported that he advanced the throttle to attempt an aborted landing but was unable to regain control of the airplane, the airplane veered off the runway to the left, he then decreased the throttle and the airplane rolled back onto the runway. A post-accident examination of the airplane revealed that the right wing tip struck the ground, which caused substantial damage to the right wing rear spar. The pilot reported that there were no pre impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
During reloading operations for an agricultural flight, the nurse truck was parked on the right shoulder of a road, facing west. The helicopter was parked on the elevated helipad on top of the nurse truck, facing north, with the engine running and rotor blades turning. The helicopter's tail boom and rotor disk extended about 8-10 ft over the road. As the loader was reloading the helicopter's product tanks, a westbound semi-trailer truck drove underneath the rotor disk and struck the helicopter's tail boom. The semi-trailer truck driver said he thought he had enough clearance to pass safely under the helicopter's tail rotor. The pilot said that if the nurse truck had parked closer to an adjoining field, the platform would have a tilt, making it difficult to land for servicing. It is likely that the semi-trailer truck driver failed to ensure that he had adequate clearance to pass under the helicopter and that the loader failed to park in a safer area for the reloading operations.
According to the pilot, during approach he slipped the airplane down to the private turf airstrip. He reported that when he recovered from the slip, the nose of the airplane was not aligned with the airstrip heading, and still not aligned during touchdown. The pilot reported that he was not able to correct the airplane's heading during the landing roll and the airplane impacted the corn stalks that bordered the airstrip. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the ribs of both wings and both ailerons.The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or anomalies with any portion of the airplane that would have prevented normal flight operations.The pilot reported that the wind at the airstrip was calm.
The commercial pilot and the designated pilot examiner departed in the multi-engine airplane to conduct an airline transport pilot checkride. Radar data indicated that they proceeded to the practice area and performed two 360° turns. The airplane then slowed, consistent with the pilots' intention of performing a stall. As the airspeed decreased, the airplane entered a rapid descent, and it was observed by a witness as it spun clockwise in a nose-low attitude to ground impact. Impact signatures were consistent with a slightly nose-low, near-flat attitude. Postaccident examination of the engines and airframe did not reveal evidence of any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane. Polishing of the propeller blades from both the left and right propeller assemblies indicated that both engines were likely running at impact; however, the right propeller had more signatures of power when compared to the left propeller.A performance study revealed that the airplane departed controlled flight about 80 knots, which was the airplane's minimum controllable airspeed with one engine inoperative. It could not be determined if an engine was momentarily inoperative resulting in a loss of control inflight. Both fuel selector valves were found in the auxiliary positions, which according to the operating handbook was for level flight only. It could not be determined if this contributed to the accident sequence. It also possible that an improper stall recovery resulted in an inadvertent spin entry.
According to witnesses, the commercial pilot performed an engine run-up and then departed the airport in the experimental, amateur-built airplane. The airplane climbed to about 400 ft above ground level, entered a steep left bank then a spin, and descended behind trees. Video recorded by one of the witnesses showed the airplane in the spin and also revealed that the engine was operating until it impacted a house. Examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. According to a friend of the pilot, the pilot did not have much flight time in the accident airplane, and most of the accident airplane's initial test flights were completed by another pilot. There were no entries in the pilot's logbook associated with the accident airplane make and model. Given the lack of mechanical malfunctions and the pilot's lack of experience in the airplane, it is likely that the pilot failed to maintain airplane control during the initial climb.
The commercial pilot stated that before departing on the personal flight, the engine did not start on the first attempt; he primed the engine, and then it started immediately. During the takeoff roll, he noted that he used more of the runway than usual. After rotation, the airplane was not climbing, and then the engine lost total power. He did not have time to restart the engine and performed a forced landing to a field, which resulted in substantial damage. An engine test run and an examination of the fuel pump were performed. The examination revealed that the aneroid adjustment within the fuel pump was set for too rich of a mixture. The rich mixture setting caused the engine to run normally until the manifold pressure went above 36 inches of pressure (in excess of the maximum manifold pressure for which the engine was certified); then it would stumble then lose power. After the aneroid adjustment was set for a leaner mixture, the fuel pump operated normally on the test bench without any anomalies. A review of maintenance work orders revealed that the fuel pump was removed, repaired, and reinstalled about 2 months before the accident. Given this information, it is likely that maintenance personnel set the aneroid adjustment too high at that time, which caused the engine to run with an excessively rich mixture, which resulted in a total loss of engine power on climbout.
Both agricultural application airplanes were returning to their respective home bases after completing application operations when they collided in-flight at an altitude less than 500 ft agl. Following the collision, one of the airplanes (N502WC) descended to ground contact, fatally injuring the pilot. The pilot of the second airplane (N5044N) performed a forced landing to a field. That pilot reported that he did not see the other airplane until immediately before the collision.Examination of the engine and flight control systems of both airplanes revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation including the ability to maneuver the airplanes away from each other.The deceased pilot had at least therapeutic levels of two impairing medications, cyclobenzaprine and hydrocodone, at the time of the accident. In addition, he had low levels of two sedating antihistamines, chlorpheniramine and diphenhydramine. These four drugs, in combination, would likely have slowed his psychomotor functioning and decreased his attentiveness to the flight environment. Therefore, it is likely that the fatally injured pilot's use of a combination cyclobenzaprine, hydrocodone, and two sedating antihistamines, contributed to his inability to successfully see and avoid the other airplane.Based upon the sun's position and the statement from the second pilot, the sun was likely in the eyes of the deceased pilot. There was no evidence of the deceased pilot performing any evasive maneuver prior to the collision, which suggests that he never visually acquired the other airplane prior to the collision.
The commercial pilot was performing an agricultural application flight. The pilot reported that, while spraying a field, the helicopter struck a wire that he did not see. The pilot reported that after striking the wire, the helicopter came to a stop, and then the wire broke. The pilot flew the helicopter to the ground, and the helicopter hit hard and then flipped onto its side. The pilot reported no mechanical failures or malfunctions of the helicopter.
The commercial pilot reported that, about 30 minutes into the cross-country flight, while cruising at 1,000 ft above ground level, the engine began to lose power, decreasing from about 2,350 rpm to about 2,100 rpm. The pilot pulled the carburetor heat to the on position for a few seconds, then pushed it back in to turn it off. The pilot then diverted to a nearby airport; however, the engine continued to lose power and the pilot chose to land in a field next a road. During the landing, the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted.Examination of the airplane did not reveal any mechanical anomalies that could have resulted in the loss of engine power. Given the temperature and dew point in the area about the time of the accident, the airplane was operating in conditions conducive to the development of light carburetor icing at cruise or descent power. It is likely that the loss of engine power was the result of carburetor ice, and the pilot's brief application of carburetor heat was insufficient to clear the ice from the carburetor, which resulted in a further loss of engine power.
Shortly after takeoff for a local personal flight, about 300 ft above ground level, the private pilot of the airplane smelled fuel. The engine lost all power shortly thereafter, and the airplane descended, collided with trees, and then impacted terrain. An examination of the airplane revealed that the fuel line between the electric fuel pumps and the engine driven pump had a loose connection at the fuel shut-off lever. During a postaccident engine run, when the electric fuel pumps were on and delivering fuel under pressure to the engine, the loose connection did not affect engine operation. However, when the electric fuel pumps were shut off, the engine-driven fuel pump suctioned air through the loose fuel line connection resulting in fuel starvation and loss of engine power. It is likely that the engine lost power during the accident flight when the commercial pilot turned off the electric fuel pumps after takeoff. The airplane's most recent annual inspection was completed about 7 months before the accident. The investigation could not determine if the fuel line had been installed before or after the annual inspection because there was no logbook entry regarding installation of the fuel line.
The commercial pilot and pilot-rated passenger departed on a local flight with the intention of performing aerobatic maneuvers. According to a witness near the accident site, the airplane was performing aerobatic maneuvers. He stated that the airplane flew over at a high altitude and performed a barrel roll. The airplane continued south and then pitched up to climb straight up. The nose of the airplane came down through the horizon and the airplane started "tumbling". He stated that 1/3 of the way through the tumble the airplane rolled over on its back and entered an inverted flat spin.Damage to the airplane and witness marks on the ground were consistent with the airplane impacting the ground in an inverted, nose low attitude. No anomalies consistent with a preimpact failure or malfunction were observed. The witness did not see the final seconds of the flight and it is unknown if or when the pilot may have initiated a recovery from the intentional maneuver. It is likely that the pilot waited too long to recover from the aerobatic maneuver.
The commercial pilot departed on a cross-country flight in the multi-engine airplane and attempted to use visual flight rules flight following from air traffic control during the flight. The availability of this service is based on controller workload, and, as the flight neared an area of Class B airspace, the controller discontinued flight following services and instructed the pilot to remain clear of the Class B airspace. The airplane then climbed from its cruise altitude of 8,500 ft mean sea level (msl) to 10,300 ft msl while losing airspeed until reaching about 48 kts, well below its lowest published stall speed. The airplane subsequently entered a series of descending turns, reaching an airspeed of about 211 kts that exceeded the airplane's design maneuvering speed. The airplane experienced an in-flight breakup.Weather radar imagery identified reflectivity values consistent with convective activity immediately adjacent to the airplane's position just before the time of the accident. It is likely that the pilot initiated the climb in order to remain clear of the developing convective activity, and it is also likely that the airplane entered instrument meteorological conditions sometime between the initiation of the climb and the loss of control. The convective conditions present at the time of the accident were conducive to the development of updrafts, downdrafts, and turbulence; however, there were no recorded pilot reports for this area and the exact conditions encountered by the accident airplane could not be determined.Although maintenance records indicated that the airplane had undergone recent maintenance to the left wing and rivet holes in the left wing spar exhibited signs of anomalous installation, this likely did not contribute to the accident, since a performance study determined that the airplane exceeded its design maneuvering speed, which put the airplane at risk of exceeding its design load limitations and the subsequent structural failure.Toxicology findings indicated that the pilot was using two antidepressants, one of which, trazodone, is potentially impairing. While symptoms of depression often include cognitive deficits, it is impossible to know what, if any, medication side effects or cognitive symptoms the pilot may have been experiencing Page 2 of 16 CEN16FA276at the time of the accident. Therefore, whether his depression or its treatment contributed to the circumstances of the accident could not be determined from the available information.
On his ninth spray pass, the pilot stated that he did not maintain adequate clearance above a wire near the edge of the field. He attempted an evasive climb after noticing the wire, but was unsuccessful, and the airplane contacted the wire. Following the wire strike, the pilot was able to recover the airplane and landed without further incident. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.
The pilot stated that, during approach to the 50-ft-wide runway in his airplane, which had a 54.5-ft wingspan, he maintained a left-wing-low attitude to account for a left crosswind and touched down 1 to 2 ft right of the runway centerline. While correcting toward the runway centerline, the right wing collided with a bush located off the right side of the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to the right aileron. The pilot indicated there was nothing mechanically wrong with the airplane that caused the collision and that he had flown into the same airstrip between 30 and 50 times. Following the accident, the bush was removed.