roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The purpose of the flight was to recover the airplane from a farm field. The pilot walked the field, which was oriented east/west and measured about 1,000 ft long by 500 ft wide. The southeast corner of the field was bisected by high-tension powerlines oriented northeast/southwest. The pilot stated to witnesses that he intended to begin the takeoff roll to the west along the northern border of the field and arc the takeoff path left 90° to the south. Once airborne, the pilot planned to fly the airplane beneath the powerlines before climbing to cruise altitude.Cell phone video of the accident and measurements of the field revealed that, about 300 ft after starting the takeoff roll, the airplane turned sharply left toward the powerlines. About 100 ft later, the airplane pitched up sharply and banked steeply left as it lifted off the ground. The airplane reached near the apex of its climb about 50 ft above the ground in about a 60° left bank; shortly thereafter, the airplane collided with terrain. Throughout the takeoff roll, initial climb, and the flight to ground contact, the engine accelerated smoothly, and ran continuously at high power without interruption. A detailed examination of the airframe and engine revealed no pre-impact mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.The airplane's original 100-horsepower engine had been replaced with a 150-horspower engine, which likely influenced the pilot's decision to attempt the takeoff. The circumstances of the accident, including the lack of mechanical anomalies and the airplane's steep nose-up, left banking attitude just before impact, are consistent with the airplane exceeding its critical angle of attack during the initial climb after takeoff, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall at an altitude too low for recovery.
The pilot reported that while in level cruise flight on the personal flight, he adjusted the throttle and mixture controls. Shortly after, the engine lost total power. Emergency engine procedures did not restore engine power, and the pilot selected a nearby airport for a forced landing. During the subsequent emergency landing, the airplane struck a perimeter fence before impacting the ground just short of the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage. A postaccident engine examination revealed that when the mixture control was manipulated, the cable moved, but the mixture arm on the carburetor did not move. When the fiber lock nut that attached the mixture cable to the mixture arm was tightened, the mixture linkage operated normally. The engine was then started and operated at various power settings. Given the absence of mechanical issues other than the loose mixture control fiber lock nut, it is likely that the mixture linkage became loose and the mixture control arm vibrated to the lean direction, which resulted in the mixture being too lean and the engine losing total power.
The commercial pilot of the Piper airplane reported that he had recently performed maintenance on the smoke generator. Before the flight, the Piper pilot coordinated with the pilot of a Cessna to fly adjacent to his airplane to verify whether the Piper's smoke system was operating. After departure, the Piper pilot flew on the right side of and parallel to the Cessna, and both pilots acknowledged each other visually. The Cessna pilot subsequently verified that the Piper's smoke system was operating normally with a "thumbs up" signal, and the Piper pilot then broke off to the right, and the Cessna pilot continued straight ahead. After clearing for traffic, the Piper pilot then performed a check of the oil system and mixture control, which required inverted flight. He rolled the airplane inverted, verified the system operation, and then rolled the airplane upright, at which point its right wing collided with the Cessna's left wing. The Cessna pilot saw the Piper strike his airplane while in a descent. The Piper pilot stated that he never saw the Cessna and thought he was experiencing a flight control problem after the collision. Both airplanes returned to the departure airport and landed without further incident. The Piper's right wing and aileron and the Cessna's left wing were structurally damaged. The Cessna pilot was flying straight ahead, and the Piper pilot was maneuvering; therefore, the Piper pilot was responsible for ensuring that the area was clear before initiating the inverted maneuver. Given the described geometry of the collision, the Piper pilot likely did not adequately clear for traffic before beginning the inverted flight maneuver, which he should have done, and failed to see the Cessna before impacting its left wing.
The two commercial pilots reported that the purpose of the flight was to identify suitable emergency landing sites in the area. They located a small private airport, and they decided to make a landing. The right-seat pilot took control and made a low pass over the runway and saw piles of gravel blocking half the width of the runway. He decided to attempt a short-field landing. While maneuvering for landing, the airplane was in a left bank turn when the wing collided with a tree. The pilot applied rudder control and thought about going around but decided against it due to trees blocking the runway. He entered the airplane into a left-wing-down slip as he tried to keep the airplane as level as possible. The airplane touched down on the right landing gear, and the right wing dug into the dirt. The airplane subsequently came to rest inverted.During the accident sequence, the airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, empennage, and wing.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane or engine that would have precluded normal operation.Neither pilot submitted the National Transportation Safety Board Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Form 6120.1.
According to the pilot, he landed on runway 15 instead of runway 33 because he did not want to make a 180° turn and taxi back on the runway.He reported that, when he turned to final, the sun was in his eyes and the airplane landed short. During landing, the right main landing gear collided with "deep snow" during the flare, and the airplane veered to the right and collided with a snow berm. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right-wing spar, horizontal stabilizer and the fuselage.The pilot reported that this accident could have been prevented if he had used runway 33 and not had the sun in his eyes during landing.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, while on final approach for landing, he felt a shudder followed by a loud bang. Immediately after, the windscreen was covered in oil and the engine lost all power. The airplane impacted trees about 2 miles short of the runway. Examination of the engine revealed a large hole in the crankcase above the No. 4 cylinder. Further examination revealed that one connecting rod bolt and the connecting rod cap were missing, and the connecting rod was not attached to the crankshaft. About 6 inches of the camshaft was also missing.The remaining components of the connecting rod, piston assembly, and pieces of connecting rod bearing were examined; all of the discernible fracture surfaces exhibited features consistent with overstress. Extensive postfracture damage to the recovered pieces precluded the determination of any preexisting damage. Based upon the lack of available evidence (the missing connecting rod cap and rod bolt), the cause of the connecting rod failure could not be determined.
The pilot reported that he was relocating the helicopter from the fueling station to an overnight parking area. He initially attempted to move the helicopter on wheels but was unsuccessful. He then started the helicopter, performed the startup checklist, and applied a "normal amount of collective," but the helicopter rolled to the right and impacted the ground.The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and tailboom.The automated weather observation station located on the airport reported that, about 16 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 160° at 5 knots.In a followup conversation with the National Transportation Safety Board investigator-in-charge, the pilot reported that the helicopter began rolling to the right immediately after lifting off and that he added power to increase the altitude and applied left cyclic to counteract the right rolling movement. He estimated that the accident sequence took only seconds.The Federal Aviation Administration's Helicopter Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-21A, contained a section titled, "Normal Takeoffs and Landings," which stated:Dynamic rollover is possible even during normal takeoffs and landings on relatively level ground, if one wheel or skid is on the ground and thrust (lift) is approximately equal to the weight of the helicopter. If the takeoff or landing is not performed properly, a roll rate could develop around the wheel or skid that is on the ground. When taking off or landing, perform the maneuver smoothly and carefully adjust the cyclic so that no pitch or roll movement rates build up, especially the roll rate. If the bank angle starts to increase to an angle of approximately 5-8°, and full corrective cyclic does not reduce the angle, the collective should be reduced to diminish the unstable rolling condition. Excessive bank angles can also be caused by landing gear caught in a tie down strap, or a tie down strap still attached to one side of the helicopter. Lateral loading imbalance (usually outside published limits) is another contributing factor.Page 2 of 5 GAA18CA089
The commercial pilot indicated that he performed a preflight inspection with no anomalies noted and that the inboard fuel tanks were full of fuel and the outboard tanks contained about 1/4 fuel, which totaled about 60 gallons. According to the pilot, after departure, he initiated a left turn and reduced the engine power to "climb power"; soon after, the engine started to lose power. It "intermittently came back," and the pilot applied full power and requested to return to the airport. He started to set up an approach but realized that the airplane would not reach the airport; he landed the airplane in a lake just to the south, and the airplane sank. An engine examination revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The examination noted that the cabin of the airplane contained multiple household items that nearly reached the ceiling of the cabin; however, the items could not be accurately weighed after the airplane was submerged in water. When discussing the accident sequence with the pilot, he stated that he did not perform a weight and balance calculation with the contents of the airplane before takeoff. Based on the available evidence, the investigation could not determine the cause of the loss of engine power or if the airplane's weight and balance impacted the takeoff performance.
The pilot reported that, while landing on an unimproved airstrip, the approach was normal, but after "a longer than expected float and brief touchdown," he aborted the landing and began a go-around. Once airborne, he made a shallow left turn to avoid a cliff that was off the right side of the unimproved airstrip. Subsequently, the left wing struck a tree, and the airplane then cartwheeled and impacted the ground.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and both wings.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
On December 12, 2017, about 0735 EST, Delta flight 2421, Boeing McDonnell Douglas MD-88, N924DL, after being pushed back from the gate, with the towbar still connected, was substantially damaged after the airplane moved forward after engine start and struck the tug at Detroit Metropolitan Airport (DTW), Detroit, Michigan. There were no injuries to the 61 passengers and crew onboard.  The flight was operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 as a scheduled domestic passenger flight from DTW to Raleigh-Durham International Airport (RDU), Morrisville, North Carolina. During pushback, the tug driver informed the flight crew they were cleared to start.  After the left engine was started, the airplane started to unexpectedly move forward.  Both flight crew members were focused inside the cockpit, running checklists, when the tug driver asked if the brake was set on the airplane.  The captain responded "no" and the first officer then noticed the position of the tug and told the captain that they needed to stop the airplane.  The airplane struck the tug before stopping.   After the airplane's brake was set, the flight crew noticed that the engine throttles were not at idle as expected.  Ground conditions were reported as slippery. The tug struck the right forward lower fuselage causing damage to the pressure vessel (skin, stringers, and frames).
Before departing on the flight, the private pilot, who did not hold a current medical certificate, fueled the multiengine airplane and was seen shortly thereafter attempting to repair a fuel leak of unknown origin. The pilot did not hold a mechanic certificate and review of the maintenance logbooks revealed that the most recent annual inspection was completed 2 years before the accident. After performing undetermined maintenance to the airplane, the pilot reported to a witness that he had fixed the fuel leak. The pilot then taxied to the runway for takeoff. Witnesses reported that a large fuel stain was present on the ramp where the airplane had been parked; however, the amount of fuel that leaked from the airplane could not be determined. The pilot aborted the first takeoff shortly after becoming airborne. Although he did not state why he aborted the takeoff, he told the tower controller that he did not need assistance; shortly thereafter, he requested and was cleared for a second takeoff. During the initial climb, the pilot declared an emergency and was cleared to land on any runway. Witnesses reported that the airplane was between 400 ft and 800 ft above the ground in a left bank and appeared to be turning back to land on an intersecting runway. They thought the airplane was going to make it back to the runway, but the airplane's bank angle increased past 90° and the nose suddenly dropped; the airplane subsequently impacted terrain. One of the pilots likened the maneuver to a stall/spin, Vmc roll, or snap roll.Examination of the flight controls and engines did not reveal any anomalies that would have prevented normal operation. The position of the fuel valves was consistent with the fuel being shut off to the left engine. The fuel valves, with the exception of the left main valve, functioned when power was applied. The left main valve was intact, but the motor was found to operate intermittently. The amount of fuel found in the left engine injection servo was less than that in the right engine; however, the cylinder head temperatures and exhaust gas temperatures were consistent between both engines for the duration of the flight, and whether or to what extent the left engine may have experienced a loss of power could not be determined. Page 2 of 9 CEN18FA050The available evidence was insufficient to determine why the pilot declared an emergency and elected to return to the airport; however, the airplane's increased left bank and nose-down attitude just before impact is consistent with a loss of control.
The airline transport pilot and three passengers departed on a cross-country flight in the single-engine airplane. About 2 minutes after takeoff, the pilot reported a total loss of engine power to air traffic control. He conducted a forced landing to a school yard and, during the landing sequence, the airplane impacted a fence and an adjacent residence. The airplane was destroyed by a postcrash fire. Examination of the airframe and the engine revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation; however, the scope of the examination was limited due to fire damage. Additionally, the amount of fuel onboard the airplane at the time of the accident and its distribution could not be determined due to fire damage. The reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined based on the available information.
According to the pilot, during the initial climb, he realized that the canopy was not latched properly and had opened. The pilot attempted to secure the canopy, but he was unsuccessful. He decided to terminate the flight and land; however, his airspeed was too fast during the touchdown and the airplane landed hard. The landing gear collapsed, and the airplane slid across the runway. The pilot reported that when the airplane came to rest, he saw that a fuel line had ruptured, and he immediately exited the airplane. The airplane caught fire and was extinguished by first responders.The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and the fuselage.The pilot reported that this accident could have been prevented if he had checked the canopy after he latched it and noticed the latch didn't catch.
According to the pilot in the experimental amateur-built airplane, he was conducting a flight test. During the takeoff roll, he applied "too much aft stick," and the airplane entered an unintentional steep climb at a low airspeed. The airplane rolled left about 30°, he corrected to the right, and the airplane's nose dropped. The pilot further reported that he may have reduced the throttle and overcorrected to the right. The airplane stalled and impacted the ground.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing.The pilot reported that this was his second flight in the accident airplane. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, while landing on a private grass airstrip, the airplane landed short of the runway and struck a berm that was covered by tall grass. Subsequently, the right main landing gear leg sheared off and struck the right wing. 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 takeoff for an instructional flight, when the airplane reached 1,800 ft mean sea level, the student pilot began a left turn toward the destination. Shortly after, the engine went silent and stopped producing power. The flight instructor took control, slowed the airplane, and landed into the wind on a gravel road. During the landing roll, the left wheel caught the edge of the road, and the airplane veered into a ditch, which resulted in substantial damage to the wing and fuselage. Examination of the airplane revealed that the engine's No. 1 cylinder head had separated at the cylinder head-to-barrel interface. The engine had accumulated 605.9 hours since the last engine overhaul, which was conducted over 23 years before the accident. The engine manufacturer's recommended time between overhaul for the accident engine was 1,800 hours or 12 years. However, it could not be determined if the lack of an overhaul within the manufacturer's recommended overhaul period led to the No. 1 cylinder head separating at the cylinder head-to-barrel interface.
The pilot reported that, during takeoff following a touch-and-go landing, the engine gauge readings appeared normal, the airplane lifted off the ground about 65 knots, and he applied nose-down pressure to stay in ground effect. The pilot reported that the airplane was not climbing nor was the airspeed increasing, so he lowered the nose further. He then attempted to climb by pulling back on the yoke and alternately building airspeed by lowering the nose multiple times with negative results. The pilot then reduced power to abort the takeoff. The airplane landed on the remaining runway, overran the end of the runway, and impacted a fence.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and both wings.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The passenger in the right seat provided a video showing the touch-and-go landing from the right seat looking forward through the windscreen. The instrument panel cannot be seen. During the landing, the airplane touched down about 200 ft beyond the approach end of the 3,004 ft-long runway. The pilot applied takeoff power, the airplane lifted off the runway, and continued in level flight in ground effect. The pitch attitude did not appear excessive, the stall warning horn was not audible, and there were no abnormal sounds from the engine. The pilot then reduced power to abort the takeoff. The airplane touched down near the departure end of the runway, and the camera panned downward for the remainder of the video.
Before departing on the night cross-country flight in the multi-engine airplane with four passengers, the private pilot, who did not hold a multi-engine rating, called a flight instructor/mechanic, because he was having problems starting the left engine. The flight instructor/mechanic advised the pilot to wait until the next day; however, the pilot chose to depart. Shortly after takeoff, the pilot advised air traffic control that the engines were "not running right" and that he needed to return to the airport. The airplane was cleared to land, but impacted terrain about 500 ft short of the runway threshold and was destroyed by impact forces and a postcrash fire. The disposition of the wreckage suggested a steep descent and impact attitude with little horizontal motion, consistent with a loss of control.Examination of the left engine found that the No. 2 cylinder piston exhibited severe detonation damage, which likely resulted in the subsequent catastrophic failure of the left engine; however, the reason for the detonation could not be determined. While the pilot lacked a multiengine rating, the investigation was unable to determine his prior multiengine flight experience.
The pilot reported that, during a night approach, the runway precision approach path indicator lights indicated that the airplane was on a proper glidepath. Shortly after, the airplane encountered a "strong gust of wind" and "lost significant altitude." He added engine power and raised the airplane's nose to intercept the glidepath. A few seconds later, he felt a slight bump and heard a scraping noise to his right. He looked to the right, and when he returned his focus to the approaching runway, he noticed that the airport lights were no longer lit, and the airport was in "complete darkness." He added that he "couldn't really see anything and wasn't sure exactly where the runway was, [but he] knew [he] was going to have a hard landing." He then pulled the power back, moved the mixture to idle cut off, and turned the fuel selector off. Subsequently, the airplane landed hard off the runway, bounced, slid sideways, struck a tree, and then came to rest.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, both wings, and empennage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.Following the accident, it was discovered that, during the approach, the airplane struck a power line that supplied the airport power.The automated weather observation system at the accident airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 330° at 6 knots. The pilot was on a visual approach for runway 34.According to the Federal Aviation Administration inspector assigned to the accident, the power line was estimated to be 75 ft above the ground and 1/2 mile from the runway threshold. The power line crossed perpendicular to the runway.Page 2 of 6 GAA18CA075