roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that he began the accident flight with 160 gallons of fuel on board. The airplane was equipped with two main wingtip fuel tanks, two in-wing auxiliary fuel tanks, and one engine nacelle locker fuel tank. His normal procedure was to operate for 50 minutes out of the main tanks, then use most of the fuel in the auxiliary tanks, then transfer fuel out of the locker tank and use all of that fuel. While approaching the destination airport, he attempted to transfer fuel from the locker tank; however, he later noticed that fuel was not transferring from that tank. Later, the right engine lost all power, followed by the left. He subsequently ditched the airplane in the ocean about 17 miles from of the destination airport. The airplane landed on the water, and the pilot and his passengers donned life vests and egressed before the airplane sank. The occupants were rescued about 4 hours later. The airplane was not recovered from the ocean and was presumed substantially damaged. A postaccident examination of the fuel system could not be performed and the reason for the pilot’s inability to transfer fuel from the engine nacelle locker tank could not be determined.
The flight instructor reported that during the taxi for takeoff in a non-movement area, he and his student noticed a large multi-radial-engine airplane near their intended taxi route. The instructor told the student to deviate from the painted taxiway yellow line to provide for additional distance away from the prop wash behind the larger airplane. Subsequently, as their taxi continued behind the other airplane, the accident airplane started “violently shaking,” the right wing lifted, and the left wing contacted the taxiway surface. The nose also tipped forward, which resulted in the propeller striking the ground. The flight instructor shut off the engine, however, he estimated the airplane was pushed by the propeller blast an additional 100 ft further until eventually stopping upright on all three landing gear. The left wing sustained substantial damage.According to the pilot of the larger airplane, there had been delays for departure clearances and he had positioned his airplane into the wind while waiting, which resulted in the tail and the engines propeller blast oriented towards the taxiway the accident airplane taxied through. He stated that at the time that the event occurred, his airplane was at flight idle, and he was not performing a run-up. He did not know anything had happened to the accident airplane, until he heard of a propeller strike announced over the radio.
ITA Airways flight 610, an Airbus A330-202, EI-EJM, collided with Endeavor Air flight 4994 (d.b.a. Delta Air Lines), a Bombardier CRJ-900LR, N928XJ, while taxiing after landing at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), Queens, New York. There were no injuries to the passengers and crew onboard either airplane, and the Endeavor Air airplane received substantial damage. Endeavor Air flight 4994 was operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 as a regularly scheduled passenger flight, and ITA Airways flight 610 was operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 129 as a scheduled international passenger flight. Endeavor Air flight 4994Endeavor Air flight 4994 landed on runway 22L at JFK and proceeded on taxiway juliet, then to taxiway alpha, and then initiated a turn onto taxiway KF into the ramp area.  The Endeavor Air flight crew reported being cleared to enter the Terminal 4 ramp and taxi to gate B44.  Ramp control advised the flight crew to give way to traffic parking at gate B42 before parking at their assigned gate. The Endeavor Air flight crew moved forward onto taxiway KF, and the flight crew stated they pulled as far forward as they could into the ramp area but could not pull any further forward due to an airplane awaiting to park at another gate. The flight crew remained stationary and continued to monitor ground and ramp frequencies while waiting to park at their assigned gate.  Page 2 of 8 DCA23LA114ITA Airways flight 610ITA Airways flight 610 landed on runway 22L and taxied to the ramp area using taxiway alpha.   The flight crew reported they saw the Endeavor Air airplane turning onto taxiway KF and recalled the Endeavor Air airplane stopping as soon as it entered the taxiway.  As ITA Airways proceeded on taxiway alpha, the captain, who was the pilot monitoring, noticed the tail of the Endeavor Air airplane was close to taxiway alpha and reduced ground speed.  The ITA Airways flight crew stated they presumed they were clear of the Endeavor Air airplane since their airplane was taxiing on the centerline of taxiway alpha.The Endeavor Air flight crew reported feeling a severe shaking which prompted them to look out of the left side of the airplane where they observed that the ITA Airways airplane was missing its right winglet. This prompted the Endeavor Air flight crew to conclude their airplane may have been struck by ITA Airways airplane and they instructed air traffic control (ATC) that their airplane needed to remain stationary until the damages were confirmed and an exterior check could be performed. ITA Airways flight 610 proceeded to their gate.  Post accident inspection revealed substantial damage to the right elevator and horizontal stabilizer structure of Endeavor Air’s airplane, and minor damage to the right winglet of ITA Airways’ airplane.
The pilot reported that, during landing on a road in flat light conditions he drifted to the right after touching down and the right tire struck unplowed snow. The pilot was unable to correct, and the airplane continued to the right into a snow berm. Subsequently, it nosed over sustaining substantial damage to the wings, lift struts, and rudder. The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The purpose of the flight was for the pilot to stay in the airport traffic pattern and make two full-stop landings to meet night currency requirements. The pilot described that shortly after takeoff he encountered an unexpected indication while retracting the landing gear and that one of the navigation radios turned off and then back on again. He then extended the landing gear and subsequently noted no abnormal indication. He continued the in the traffic pattern and while on final approach to the runway noted that he was “low,” had a clear view of the runway, and did not see any trees or other obstructions. He then increased engine power before he heard the sounds of (trees) striking the airplane. He could see the runway in front of him, so he landed the airplane and taxied uneventfully to his hangar. Both of the airplane’s wings and horizontal stabilizers were substantially damaged. The 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, she initiated a go around when she realized that she was low while on final approach.  During the go around, the airplane struck powerlines, impacted terrain, and came to rest nose down.  The right wing and the fuselage were substantially damaged. 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, during landing, the airplane bounced and began too “fishtail” and he lost control of the airplane. When the pilot regained control of the airplane, the right main landing gear was off the runway and the airplane exited the runway into muddy ground. The airplane nose wheel became stuck, and the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to wings and 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 pilot completed a preflight inspection, including sampling the fuel to check for water contamination, then departed with a passenger for a flight after maintenance was completed on the airplane. The pilot reported that a few minutes into the flight, after leveling off at 3,000 ft mean sea level, the engine seemed to power down, as if the power went to idle. The pilot established best glide airspeed and attempted to restore engine power; however, he was unable to restore power, so he declared an emergency and turned back toward the airport. Unable to make the airport, the pilot performed a forced landing into trees, substantially damaging the fuselage, empennage, and both wings.Postaccident examination of the airframe revealed that the electrical fuel pump would not operate. Disassembly of the pump revealed rust at and around the shaft bearing, indicative of water having been in the airplane’s fuel system. Examination of the engine revealed that the left magneto ground strap was not connected to the magneto and its hardware was not located. Also, debris was observed in the fuel servo filter and water was observed in the fuel samples and gascolator bowl. Based on the condition of the fuel and fuel-related components, it is likely that the loss of engine power was due to contamination of the fuel supply with water. It is unlikely that the loss of one magneto due to a disconnected ground strap resulted in a noticeable loss of power since the airplane had a second, functioning magneto.
During landing, the airplane touched down on the runway and the pilot applied the brakes. The airplane veered to the right and the pilot attempted to correct the turn, however the airplane exited the right side of the runway. The airplane struck a berm, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, prior to landing, she obtained weather conditions at the airport, which included calm wind and light rain. After calculating the landing performance, she determined that the destination airport was adequate, and continued the approach to landing. Upon touchdown, she realized that the runway was wetter than anticipated, and applied maximum braking efforts, which included the application of the emergency brake system. Despite the use of maximum braking, the airplane “failed to decelerate at the normal rate.” The pilot initiated a right turn to decelerate, however, the airplane exited the departure end of the runway and impacted approach lighting and the airport perimeter fence, which resulted in 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 automated weather observation station located on the airport reported that, about 9 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 090° at 3 knots, 7 statute miles visibility and light rain.
The PA46 pilot stated that he was stopped on the taxiway behind another airplane when a P51 collided with his airplane from behind. After the collision, the P51 pilot reported to the PA46 pilot that he did not see the PA46.  The P51 pilot stated that he was taxiing to the runway and was aware of two other airplanes taxiing ahead of him. He stated that he was “[taxiing] at idle speed, making long S turns, and making sure to clear all aircraft ahead.” The first airplane in line departed and he continued taxiing toward the runup area and was unaware that the second airplane was stopped on the taxiway. The P51 collided with the empennage of the PA46 and the pilot applied the brakes to stop the airplane. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The PA46 sustained substantial damage to the empennage.
The private pilot departed with full fuel tanks for the cross-country flight with a planned fuel stop en route. As the pilot neared the fuel stop airport, the fuel gauges indicated 3/4 capacity remaining, so he elected to continue to his destination airport. When the flight was 38 miles from the destination, with the fuel selector on the right tank position, the engine “started sputtering.” He then moved the fuel selector to the left tank position and turned the airplane towards a diversion airport. He checked the weather and NOTAMs for the diversion airport and noted nothing that concerned him. As he approached the diversion airport, he keyed the airplane’s radio transmitter 5 times and then 7 times on the common traffic advisory frequency to turn on the runway lights, but they did not turn on (the end of civil twilight had occurred about an hour prior). Concerned about the airplane’s fuel level, he landed but did not know how far down the runway he had landed. He described that the approach was “too fast” and the airplane bounced. After touching down, he applied the brakes but realized he would be unable to stop the airplane on the remaining portion of the runway. He added full power, started to climb, and thinking that the airplane had climbed higher than it actually had, he then banked left. The airplane’s left wing then collided with trees substantially damaging it and bringing the airplane to a stop. The pilot stated that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. He also stated that had he known the runway lights were inoperative, he would have diverted to a different airport.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed the airplane’s radios were tuned to the correct frequency to activate the runway lights. According to the airport manager the, pilot-controlled lighting system at the airport was normally checked on the 1st day of every month and had been last checked 25 days before the accident. Following the accident, he discovered Page 2 of 5 ERA23LA094that they were inoperative. Given this information, it is possible that the pilot could have performed a successful landing had the runway lights been operational.
The pilot reported a failure of the left brake during the landing roll. The airplane departed the runway surface and impacted a fence, which cause substantial damage to the empennage, right elevator, and horizontal stabilizers.Postaccident examination of the brake system revealed that the left brake master cylinder reservoir was completely empty. It was serviced and tested with no failure or leaks identified. Further examination of the brake system included the removal of the main landing gear pivot trunnion. It revealed that the O-rings, while not visibly damaged, were flat and stiff, which likely allowed the brake fluid to leak out from the main landing gear trunnion to the actuator interface joint when the landing gear was retracted.
The flight instructor reported that during landing rollout on the instructional flight with a student pilot, the student pilot lost directional control of the airplane. They attempted to regain control, but the airplane departed the runway. The student pilot then applied the brakes and the airplane nosed over coming to rest inverted in the adjacent field. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and engine mount. The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident failures of malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that during the uneventful local flight he heard two pilots on the radio discussing the wind conditions at his destination airport and that a direct crosswind prevailed there. While approaching the runway for landing, the pilot described that the wind was “choppy” and that he applied constant inputs with the rudder and aileron controls. Near the midpoint of the runway, the pilot described that he encountered stronger than expected wind from the right. The pilot landed the airplane on both main wheels and applied left rudder to stay aligned with the runway. Despite the control input from the pilot, the airplane veered to the right, departed the right side of the runway, and nosed-over resulting in substantial damage to the wings and empennage. The 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 took off from Runway 34 and intended to practice take-offs and landings. After landing the airplane without incident, he raised the flaps and added full power to take off again; however, the airplane veered to the left during the take-off roll. The student pilot added right rudder to keep the airplane on centerline but was unsuccessful. Once airborne, the left wing struck a snowbank on the side of the runway, which caused the airplane to pivot left. The nose gear collapsed, and the airplane came to rest inverted, nose first in the snowbank. The outboard side of the right wing sustained substantial damage to the skin, ribs, and spars. The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. At the time of the accident, Runway 34 was covered in ice and snow.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that, while on final approach to land, the airplane encountered a wind gust and “rotated the aircraft” off runway centerline. He attempted to realign the airplane with the runway prior to landing, to no avail. During the landing roll, the airplane veered left. The pilot attempted corrective action; however, the airplane subsequently exited the runway. 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.
The pilot performed a normal preflight inspection and engine run-up before departing and everything was normal. Shortly after takeoff, the pilot noticed a drop in airspeed and the airplane was losing altitude. Though he did not hear any unusual noises or vibrations, he figured the engine lost power and made a forced landing to a partially frozen creek, where the airplane sank. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed no preimpact malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Weather conditions as the time of the accident were not conducive to carburetor icing. The reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
A Gulfstream 450 airplane encountered turbulence while in level cruise flight at 36,000 ft. and a cabin server (CS) fractured her arm and leg. The flight crew reported that after departure, while climbing through 20,000 ft, they encountered unexpected light turbulence, and the seatbelt sign was illuminated. About 30 minutes into the flight at a cruising altitude of 36,000 ft (FL360) in visual meteorological conditions with the autopilot engaged, the copilot noticed a cloud top “rising up” from under the nose of the airplane.  The airplane “pitched up and down rapidly with a hard jolt;” however, the autopilot did not disengage, and the airplane returned to normal flight. A passenger notified the flight crew of injuries to the CS.  At the time of the turbulence event, the CS was in the aft galley taking catering notes, when she felt a rising sensation. She attempted to get low to the floor in case turbulence was encountered. While looking over her shoulder to check on the passenger cabin, she was thrown into the air and “hurled” to the floor impacting on her left shoulder, arm, and hip. Upon being notified of the injury, the flight crew declared an emergency and diverted to Miami for medical assistance. The injured CS was transported to the hospital where she was diagnosed with a fractured left arm and multiple fractures to her left leg. At the time of the turbulence encounter there were no active convective significant meteorological information (SIGMETs), international SIGMETs, center weather advisories (CWAs) or pilot reports (PIREPs) for the area where the turbulence occurred. Page 2 of 6 DCA23LA107
The pilot receiving instruction and his flight instructor were conducting an instructional flight in night instrument meteorological conditions when the airplane had a partial loss of engine power shortly after takeoff. The pilot-receiving-instruction reported that about 500 ft above the ground the engine began “coughing/sputtering” and there was a decrease in engine rpm. The flight instructor stated that the engine speed decreased to about 1,400 rpm, but when he leaned the fuel mixture the engine speed increased about 200 rpm. The flight instructor made a left 180° turn back toward the airport. The airplane’s left-wing tip impacted the ground, the nose gear collapsed, and the engine partially separated from the firewall when the airplane impacted the terrain during the forced landing.  The postaccident engine examination did not reveal any evidence of mechanical malfunction that would have precluded normal operation. Additionally, the airplane had ample fuel available that did not contain any water or debris.The weather conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to a serious accumulation of carburetor icing with the engine operating at cruise power. According to a Federal Aviation Administration Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin, pilots should use carburetor heat while in weather conditions where carburetor icing is probable. The flight instructor stated that he did not use carburetor heat after the loss of engine power.Based on the available information, the partial loss of engine power was likely due to carburetor ice accumulation. Additionally, the low altitude at which the loss of engine power occurred significantly reduced the amount of time available to the flight instructor to troubleshoot and restore engine power before the forced landing.Page 2 of 9 CEN23LA068
The pilot reported that shortly after takeoff, as the airplane was climbing through about 3,000 feet, the engine “coughed and shuddered and started to run rough.” After unsuccessfully troubleshooting the engine, the pilot decided to conduct an emergency landing on a nearby road. During the landing the airplane’s left wing clipped trees, causing the airplane to veer left and flip over. The airplane sustained substantial damage that included damage to both wings, horizontal and vertical stabilizers, fuselage, and engine mounts.Postaccident examination revealed a trail of oil from the airplane’s hangar, down the taxiway, leading to the departure runway. The underside of the airplane was covered in engine oil, and the externally mounted engine oil cooler exhibited fresh oil leakage. The No. 4 cylinder connecting rod was separated and there were holes through the engine crankcase above the No. 4 cylinder, consistent with catastrophic failure due to a lack of lubrication. The outside air temperature at the time of the accident was about 28oF. According to the airplane manufacturer, engine oil with a viscosity of SAE 20 was to be used at temperatures below 40oF and SAE 40 was to be used for temperatures above 40oF. However, the oil in the airplane’s engine had a viscosity of SAE 50, with an operating temperature range of 60o to 80o F. Although the pilot added an oil additive to “thin the engine oil,” the aircraft manufacturer noted that the use of any oil additives during cold weather operation is not recommended.  Additionally, the engine manufacturer indicated that operation of the engine without preheat could lead to oil congealing and engine failure, and operation of the engine above 1,700 rpm without first reaching minimum oil temperature could also lead to engine failure. The pilot reported that during the engine runup and takeoff roll the engine oil temperature gauge Page 2 of 7 CEN23LA067indication was “not registering,” and he did not remember whether the oil pressure gauge indication was in the normal operating range. It is likely that the pilot’s failure to preheat the engine before starting it, in combination with his failure to warm the engine to operating temperature before takeoff, resulted in the engine failure.