roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that, during cruise flight, the engine lost partial power, which necessitated an emergency landing on a highway. During the landing, the airplane impacted a road barrier, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing. During a postaccident examination, the induction air coupling was found wrapped in gray tape. When the tape was removed, separations were visible on the top and bottom at the flange on the inboard side. The top and bottom separations likely reduced the rigidity of the coupling when the engine was operating. Examination of the inside of the coupling showed that the lower portion appeared to be permanently deformed in a manner similar to compression. Therefore, because of the reduction in the coupling’s rigidity, the coupling had likely closed due to suction from the engine, which impeded airflow. Tape should not have been applied as a fix for the induction coupling separations. The investigation could not determine when the coupling separations appeared or the tape was applied, but those events had likely caused the permanent deformation to the coupling. The airframe and powerplant mechanic, who performed annual inspections for the airplane during the 3 years before the accident. should not have allowed the airplane to return to service with the tape applied and the coupling deformed.
The pilot reported that prior to landing at the destination airport, she performed a low pass to assess the landing conditions. After the low pass, she decided to initiate a landing. During the touchdown, she reported the airplane “experienced possible windshear/wind shift” that induced a bounced landing. After bouncing again, the pilot was able to maintain control of the airplane until it came to a full stop. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilot reported there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airframe or the engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot said that while practicing an autorotation, the helicopter did not slide forward on the landing as he had expected, and instead came to a quick stop.  The pilot rated passenger said the helicopter did not slide forward like a typical run-on landing, but “bucked” forward as it came to a quick stop just after it touched down. The pilot subsequently felt a vibration in the anti-torque pedals and shut the helicopter down. Postaccident examination of the helicopter revealed that the tail rotor drive shaft was bent and the cowling around the area of the bend had ruptured. Given that the helicopter was operating normally prior to the landing, it is likely that the forces imparted by (or were the result of) the pilot’s control inputs during the landing resulted in the damage to the tail rotor drive shaft.
The flight instructor and student pilot departed the airport where the airplane was based and proceeded to another airport, flying a flight profile consistent with flight training. They flew one straight-in approach to a low approach over the runway, about 200 ft above ground level (AGL). Following the low approach, the airplane made a right turn to downwind about midway down the runway. The airplane did not climb during the turn or after it was established on downwind. It remained 200-300 ft AGL and maintained airspeed at or near the 45° bank no-flap stall speed. The airplane then angled towards the extended runway centerline and began a turn to final shortly after passing abeam the runway threshold. The airplane subsequently impacted terrain in the turn and short of the runway. A postimpact fire ensued and the airplane was destroyed. There were no witnesses to the accident.The airplane impacted terrain in a near-vertical and left-wing-low attitude, consistent with impact following a stall. Postaccident examination of the wreckage and engine revealed no preimpact anomalies and damage to the propeller blades was consistent with the engine producing power at the time of impact. The flaps were found in the retracted position, contrary to normal landing procedures that specify the flaps should be extended.The student pilot had heart disease and had used a medication that increased his risk of having a sudden impairing or incapacitating cardiac event such as arrhythmia or heart attack. There is no autopsy evidence that such an event occurred, although such an event does not reliably leave autopsy evidence if it occurs just before death. Operational evidence in this case makes a sudden medical event involving the student pilot unlikely. Had such an event occurred with the student pilot flying, the flight instructor would have been available to assist in maintaining airplane control. Additionally, the airplane’s flight path prior to the accident indicates the airplane was being flown in a controlled manner. Due to the limitations of the Page 2 of 13 WPR22FA215instructor’s toxicological testing, the results of that testing cannot be reliably interpreted. Thus, there is insufficient toxicological evidence to determine whether the instructor had used any substances that were potentially impairing or indicative of potentially impairing underlying conditions. The airplane was flown in a non-standard traffic pattern at an unusually low altitude that positioned the airplane closer to the runway than normal during the final turn. Additionally, the airplane flaps were found in the retracted position. It could not be determined why the non-standard traffic pattern was flown or why the flaps were retracted, but both conditions increased the susceptibility of an accelerated stall during the turn to final. It was not determined which pilot was manipulating the controls at the time of the accident, but the evidence indicates the pilot flying maneuvered the airplane such that an accelerated stall occurred. The flight instructor was responsible for the safe operation of the airplane, but he did not ensure proper airspeed or bank control during the turn to final.
The flight crew of F-GSPQ, an Air France B777-200ER, operating as Air France flight 008, had stopped with the parking brake set while waiting for the gate personnel to finish preparing gate 9 to receive their flight at Terminal 1, at John F. Kennedy International Airport (KJFK), when their airplane was struck by an ITA Airways A330-202 that was taxiing past. The Boeing 777 airplane received substantial damage to the right-hand elevator. The Airbus airplane only received scratches on the left winglet.The Air France crew said that their company procedure to enter gate 9 is to stop and wait for a tow. There were no ground marshalling crew present when they arrived, so they stopped, shut down the engines, and waited about 10 to 15 minutes for a tow to arrive. About the time the tug arrived, the crew said they felt the airplane move due to a “hard connection”, but they were unaware of an airplane passing behind at that time. After the airplane was parked at the gate and passengers had disembarked, maintenance informed the flight crew of damage to the elevator, and it was determined to be from the ITA Airways A330 that had passed behind. The Air France flight crew said they tried to contact the Air Traffic Control Tower to stop the ITA Airways flight, but the conversation was lengthy, and the ITA Airways flight 611 took off without receiving timely notification of the collision.The ITA Airways crew said they noted an Air France Boeing 777 entering at gate 9, a safe distance away, where it stopped awaiting a tow to parking. The ITA Airways crew further stated that after engine start, they were cleared to taxi via Taxiway N, Taxiway B, Taxiway G, cross runway 22L, and via taxiway Z to join the queue for Page 2 of 8 DCA22LA135takeoff on runway 31L. They said that during the taxi at no time was there any indication that they had impacted an airplane. After takeoff, while climbing out at 3,000 feet, the ITA Airways crew received a radio call from JFK Tower asking if they had impacted an airplane, and if they had any damage. The crew said they then conducted visual, and systems checks, and checked with the cabin crew. No abnormalities were observed.Upon reaching FL300 the ITA Airways flight crew said they received a second radio call from Air Traffic Control. After contacting their company, and having ruled out any problems with the airplane, a decision was made for the ITA Airways flight to continue to Leonardo Da Vinci International Airport (FCO). After an uneventful flight and landing, an inspection revealed a longitudinal abrasion throughout its length on the upper part of the left winglet consistent with the winglet contacting an object.
The pilot reported he was attempting a takeoff from a 2,100 ft turf runway when he observed a sudden tailwind and the stall horn activated. The pilot aborted the takeoff but was unable to stop the airplane on the remaining runway. The airplane departed the runway and struck a barbed wire fence. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that the purpose of the flight was to complete a solo cross-country for the requirements of an additional rotorcraft rating. He conducted a steep approach to the runway and was about 5 to 10 ft above the ground when the helicopter began settling with power. He attempted to fly forward but the helicopter continued to descend. He added that he might have increased the collective input and pulled back on the cyclic. The helicopter landed hard and sustained substantial damage to the fuselage steel tubing structure. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot had departed his home base to relocate the helicopter for an upcoming aerial application job when he felt a vibration and heard a bang, followed immediately by an uncommanded right yaw. While performing a precautionary landing to an orchard, the helicopter entered an uncommanded, continuous right rotation about the vertical axis. The pilot rolled off the throttle and increased collective to cushion the landing, but the helicopter continued the right rotation as it touched down, which resulted in the helicopter rolling over onto its left side. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, transmission, main rotor, and tail rotor assemblies. Fragments of one tail rotor blade was recovered about 2,000 ft from the main wreckage. The pilot stated that he was unsure if a bird had struck the tail rotor during flight. Postaccident examination of the tail rotor assembly revealed both blades were damaged, and one blade fractured and separated from the hub. The tail rotor blades were shipped to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) materials laboratory, and subsequently to the manufacturer’s laboratory for further examination. The combined examinations revealed translaminar overstress fractures of both tail rotor blades, with one blade exhibiting a leading-edge high-energy impact.  Both blades exhibited an unidentified foreign material transfer onto their leading edges. A small amount of nitrile rubber was found lodged into the end of one blade; however, its origin was undetermined.
The pilot and two passengers were flying at low altitudes over a camp and dropping candy from the airplane. The pilot recalled that the airplane was “a couple hundred feet” above the trees in slow flight; the next thing that the pilot remembered was waking up in a hospital. During the flight, one of the passengers commented to the pilot that the airplane was getting close to the treetops and that he needed to apply power and pull up. The pilot stated something similar to, “I’m working on it.” The passenger recalled that the airplane hit trees and that he woke up next to the airplane. He also stated that the engine was operating normally.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. An onboard image recording from a camera found at the accident site revealed that the airplane was maneuvering at a low altitude and high bank angles until the airplane impacted terrain.Given the passenger’s recollections and the onboard image recording evidence, the pilot allowed the airplane to sink below the level of the treetops while conducting high bank angles at a low altitude.
Cape Air’s pilot reported that while waiting to depart, the tower cleared their flight to line up and wait at the N5 intersection, advising “traffic on the roll” on runway 28R. As the accident airplane approached the hold short line, the right wing was lifted, and the right landing gear was raised off the ground causing the left wingtip to contact the ground. Cape Air’s pilot corrected the airplane to a normal attitude, exited the runway at EE intersection and returned to the fixed base operator (FBO). The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left forward wing spar.Page 2 of 6 DCA22LA131Figure 1. Google Earth imagery of the locations of the accident airplane and departing airplane at the time of the upset.ADS-B data showed the upset occurred about 28 seconds after a preceding Boeing 737 (B737) had crossed the same hold short line. At the time of the upset, shown in Figure 1, the B737 had just completed the turn on to the runway centerline and begun increasing thrust for takeoff.
The pilot reported that shortly after takeoff he experienced smoke in the cockpit. The pilot reported to air traffic control that he wanted to return to the airport; however, the amount of smoke continued to increase and the engine stopped producing power. The pilot opened the side windows and located a lake below him into which he ditched the airplane. Postaccident examination revealed that the v-band clamp securing the turbocharger exhaust fractured and allowed hot exhaust gas to blow over the accessory section of the engine. The hot exhaust gases caused damage to several components, resulting in a fire and total loss of engine power.The Federal Aviation Administration issued a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB), CE-18-07, recommending detailed inspections of v-band exhaust couplings be performed at 100-hour intervals. The accident occurred on the first flight following a 100-hr inspection that indicated an examination of the exhaust system. The investigation did not determine the total time in service of the clamp or whether a specific examination of the v-band clamp was accomplished.
According to the pilot, he conducted an uneventful engine run-up and taxi to the runway for departure. During the initial takeoff climb he observed smoke emanating from the instrument panel, followed by flames radiating from the rudder pedal area and followed by a partial loss of engine power. The airplane had enough altitude to clear the trees near the departure end of the runway; the pilot then made a forced landing on a tomato field. During the landing rollout, the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. The fire subsequently destroyed the airplane.  The thermal damage to the engine’s accessories case and firewall suggests that the fire originated near the rear of the engine. However, destruction of the airframe precluded determination of the reason for the in-flight fire.
The pilot noticed smoke in the cockpit while on departure. He returned to land and when the smoke worsened during taxi, he stopped the airplane and shut down the engine. The pilot and passenger egressed the airplane and observed a fire in the engine compartment. They were not able to put out the fire with a fire extinguisher. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the forward fuselage.Postaccident examination revealed the right-side exhaust system was fractured between the muffler and tailpipe. The investigation determined that a crack in the weld joining the aft ball tube to the aft muffler flange had previously failed, and a weld repair had been performed. Metallurgical examination determined that the repair weld had failed, allowing hot exhaust gases to escape onto the surrounding engine compartment components.Maintenance records show the Airworthiness Directive (AD) calling for the repair weld to be inspected was complied with during the last annual inspection, just under a month and about 10 flight hours before the accident. The mechanic that completed the inspection was not aware of the AD requirement to spray the outside of the muffler with a penetrating oil to check for cracks, which most likely would have identified the muffler weld issue prior to the failure.
The pilot reported that he intended to complete a cross-country flight and the airplane had about 65 gallons of fuel onboard. After takeoff, he entered the left traffic pattern to overfly the runway before departing the area. While on the downwind leg, the engine sustained a total loss of power and the propeller continued to windmill. As he turned toward the airport, he extended the airplane’s landing gear because he believed the airplane would reach the runway. However, the additional drag of the extended landing gear increased the airplane’s descent rate and the airplane descended into an area of trees short of the runway. The airplane collided with trees and came to rest vertically with the tail resting on a tree. The engine mounts, forward fuselage, and both wings were substantially damaged during the accident.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that there was adequate fuel available, and no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation were identified. The reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined based on available information.
The pilot of the weight-shift aircraft reported that, while on the final approach for landing, he reduced throttle and the aircraft descended quickly. He added power, but instead of pulling back on the control bar, which would have increased his airspeed, he pushed forward on the bar and the wing stalled. The aircraft was about 50 ft above ground level at the time, when it descended rapidly and impacted the ground. The aircraft sustained substantial damage to the wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the aircraft that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot in the airplane’s left seat reported that they were taking off from a turf runway with a quartering tailwind. The pilot in the right seat was flying and rotated 1,000 ft down the runway where they got into ground effect. About 800 ft from trees at the end of the runway and an airspeed of about 63 kts, the airplane began to climb. After they cleared the first group of trees, the stall warning came on. The pilot pushed the nose over to regain airspeed, but the airplane’s tires caught in a second set of trees. The airplane went into the trees and subsequently impacted the terrain. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and the forward fuselage. The left seat pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. A National Transportation Safety Board Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report was not received from the right seat pilot. At the time of the accident, the airplane was taking off on runway 08 with winds 140 degrees at 10 kts and the density altitude was 2,805 ft.
The pilot reported that while maneuvering the airplane to set a starting line for aerial application to a field, the airplane’s right main landing gear struck a power line pole. The pilot immediately returned to the airport. Upon landing, the left main landing gear collapsed. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and right wing. The pilot did not report any preaccident failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operations.
The pilot stated that he departed visual flight rules and was returning to his home airport after work.  On about a 3-mile final approach to the runway the pilot switched from the right to the left fuel tank and when he tried to add engine power found there was no response.  He then switched back to the right tank and found the engine was still producing no power.  The pilot executed a forced landing in a field, which resulted in substantial damage to the wings, tail, and fuselage.  An inspection of the wing fuel tanks found the left tank to be empty and dry, and a sample from the right tank revealed all water with no visible fuel.  When the carburetor was drained, it had about 2 tablespoons of liquid; half fuel and half water.  The pilot stated that he did not check for fuel contamination before departing.  He also reported that he fueled the airplane with fuel cans that were uncapped and exposed to rain over the weekend.  The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
On the day of the accident, the student pilot performed four takeoffs and landings with his flight instructor before he was cleared by the instructor for his second solo traffic pattern flight. The student pilot reported that upon touching down on the third solo landing the airplane was blown across the runway by a sudden crosswind, and he decided to abort the landing.  The student pilot described that after applying full power and beginning to climb the airplane encountered an aerodynamic stall. Airport surveillance video confirmed that during the climb, the airplane was in a nose high pitch attitude and at relatively slow ground speed before it descended to the ground in a left turn. The airplane impacted a field to the left of the runway resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage, both wings and the vertical stabilizer.  The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot reported that he intended to depart the airport to the southeast. He stated that the airplane accelerated, and rotated at 55 kts, after which he did not notice an increase in altitude or airspeed. He then "brought the airplane to a neutral configuration to build airspeed.” The airplane yawed and when it was about 45° from runway heading the student pilot reduced power and attempted to land. He noted that he still had right rudder input for takeoff, and this induced a hard right turn. The right wing stalled, and the airplane impacted on the right landing gear. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and the forward fuselage. The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.