roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that, during his preflight inspection, he perceived that both fuel tanks were full. Based on previous flights, full fuel tanks allowed for about 5 hours of flight endurance. About 4 hours after departure, the pilot noticed a low fuel quantity on the cockpit gauges but continued the flight toward the planned destination airport. Several minutes later, the engine lost power, and the pilot performed a forced landing to a field. The airplane impacted a power line and nosed over, which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing and fuselage. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the fuel tanks contained no usable fuel. Following the accident, the pilot stated he should have landed earlier to refuel. He also discovered that a co-owner had not filled the fuel tanks after the previous flight, as he had expected.
The commercial pilot stated that, while maneuvering during the local flight, the engine magneto indicator illuminated and one of the engine's magnetos failed, followed shortly after by the other magneto, which resulted in a total loss of engine power. The pilot landed the airplane in a stand of trees before it nosed over, fell 60 ft to the ground, and came to rest on its nose with the tail section in the air; the airplane sustained damage to the top and bottom wings and the firewall.Postaccident examination of the magnetos revealed that both magnetos had "bad (out of range on impedance)" secondary windings on the coil. The points exhibited a white powder, consistent with the capacitor in the secondary windings of each magneto failing or having failed. Both rotors were cracked, and the pencil springs in both distributor caps were rusted. Damage was also noted to several of the ignition leads (the left magneto had three faulty leads, and the right magneto had one faulty lead). An automotive ignition harness was installed on the magnetos as part of an approved automotive conversion kit; the examination representative indicated that the auto ignition wire has a higher amount of resistance that the magnetos were not designed to handle. Thus, it is likely that some combination of these deficiencies ultimately resulted in the in-flight failure of the magnetos and the subsequent loss of engine power.
The commercial pilot reported that he departed in the airplane with full fuel and chemical for the aerial application flight. After spraying a field for about 20 minutes, the engine experienced a total loss of power. The pilot jettisoned the chemical load and initiated a forced landing to a field. About 5 ft above the field, as the pilot tried to bleed off airspeed, the airplane stalled and impacted terrain. Disassembly and examination of the engine revealed that the crankshaft was fractured, and the main bearings displayed thermal damage and smearing. Material examination of the crankshaft showed features consistent with a subsurface crack initiation and fatigue crack propagation. The fatigue striations, particularly near the initiation site, were consistent with high-cycle fatigue. The forward main bearings exhibited spalling, displacement, and cracking consistent with bearing wear fatigue. All the bearing damage was typical of similar bearings that had been operated at elevated temperatures using inadequate lubrication. The main bearing damage was likely the result of main bearing shift and a blockage of the lubrication paths. The blockage resulted in a lack of lubrication, main bearing failure, and a fatigue failure of the crankshaft. The reason for the main bearing shift could not be determined based on the available information.
The pilot reported that he was cleared to land on runway 30R, but when he turned to the base leg, he observed a large airplane on final for 30L. However, he continued the approach, and the landing flare was normal, but the airplane landed hard. He recalled that the airplane "seemed ok," and he taxied to parking. The following week, the airplane underwent an annual inspection. The inspection revealed that the left wing false spar and trunnion were substantially damaged.The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
During an instructional flight, the student pilot and flight instructor were returning to the airport. While descending to traffic pattern altitude with the carburetor heat off, the student applied full power to level off, but the engine lost total power. The instructor took control of the airplane and pumped the throttle, which resulted in a brief surge of power, followed by a total loss of power. The instructor then performed a forced landing to a field, during which the airplane impacted trees, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing and aileron, right wingtip, and the fuselage. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation, and during an engine test-run, the engine started and ran continuously at multiple power settings. The atmospheric conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to the accumulation of serious carburetor icing at glide power. Therefore, given the atmospheric conditions and that the instructor did not use carburetor heat, it is likely that the carburetor accumulated ice during the descent, which resulted in the total loss of engine power.
According to a statement provided by the Federal Aviation Administration inspector, the pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane stated that, after touchdown, the airplane veered sharply to the right, then the left, and subsequently ground looped. During the ground loop, the right wing, right horizontal stabilizer, and right elevator struck the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot did not submit the National Transportation Safety Board Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report Form 6120.1.
According to the pilot in the high-performance, tailwheel-equipped biplane, he landed on a turf airstrip which he described as "long and wide." He added that "there was no wind." During the landing roll, he taxied the biplane along the right edge of the runway, and the lower right wing struck a precision approach path indicator (PAPI) control box. The pilot reported that the accident was caused by a lack of situational awareness during the landing roll.The PAPI lights were identified in the airport facility directory.The biplane sustained substantial damage to the lower right-wing spar.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the biplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot, who was endorsed for solo flight in the experimental, amateur-built gyroplane, was conducting a personal flight. About 1 1/2 hours after takeoff, a witness saw the gyroplane flying about 50 to 60 ft above ground level then heard two "bang" or "pop" sounds. The engine then lost all power and a section of one main rotor blade separated about the same time. The gyroplane entered an uncontrolled descent and impacted a wooded area. Components of the gyroplane consisting of the vertical stabilizer and rudder, which exhibited evidence of contact by the main rotor, and pieces of foam and propeller blade fragments were located along the energy path. Postaccident examination of the gyroplane revealed no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction of the flight controls for the main rotor, while examination of the engine revealed that the electrical connection from the coil of the crank triggered ignition, which did not have a secondary locking device, was disconnected; this would have resulted in the loss of engine power. The investigation could not determine if any prior maintenance was performed on the gyroplane which would have resulted in disconnecting and reconnecting the crank triggered electrical connection.Although the pilot's control response following the loss of engine power could not be determined, main rotor contact with the vertical stabilizer/rudder is consistent with either an unloading of the main rotor blades, or an overcorrection (excessive control input) following the loss of engine power.While toxicology testing indicated that the pilot had used diphenhydramine at some time before the accident, the blood level of the potentially impairing medication could not be determined. Based on the circumstances of the accident, it is unlikely that the pilot's use of diphenhydramine contributed to the accident.
The pilot reported that, during touchdown, the right main landing gear tire failed. Subsequently, the airplane veered to the right, and a postimpact fire ensued. The airplane was destroyed during the postimpact fire. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the pilot in the tailwheel-equipped airplane, he was inexperienced flying this make and model. The pilot reported that, during the landing roll on asphalt, the tundra tire-equipped airplane yawed to the left, and he corrected with "significant" right rudder. He reported that he inadvertently engaged the right toe brake when he applied right rudder, "which led to a very rapid and unsustainable correction." The airplane ground looped to the right, and the left wing struck the ground.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and aileron.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, during a hand propeller start, the tailwheel-equipped airplane was secured by having the passenger stand in front of the horizontal stabilizer. He added that, as he rotated the propeller with the throttle "cracked," the engine started, but "it ran fast enough" to break the passenger's hold. As the airplane began to move forward, he grabbed onto the lower right-wing strut in an attempt to enter the airplane. Subsequently, he let go, the left main landing gear ran over his shoulder, and the airplane stuck maintenance equipment.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and fuselage.During a telephone conversation with the National Transportation Safety Board investigator-in-charge, the pilot reported that the throttle was "cracked a little more than it should have been." He added that he did not use wheel chocks before attempting the start.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot reported that, while approaching the destination airport, the engine lost total power. The pilot performed a forced landing, and the airplane impacted a cornfield. A postaccident examination of the wreckage, including the fuel system, revealed no preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The engine was started, and it operated normally. Atmospheric conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to the accumulation of moderate icing at cruise power and serious icing at descent power. The total loss of engine power was likely due to an accumulation of carburetor ice while operating at a reduced engine power setting.
The flight instructor, who was providing instruction to the student pilot in the tailwheel-equipped airplane, reported that, during the landing roll, the student failed to maintain directional control, and the airplane swerved right and then left. He added that, during the attempted remediation of the second swerve, the tail started to rise with an "associated tire squeal." Subsequently, the propeller struck the ground, and the airplane nosed over.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The flight instructor also reported that he believed that "the student inadvertently got on the brakes."
The check pilot reported that he was administering an annual standardization check ride in the public helicopter. The last maneuver evaluated was a hydraulic failure that would terminate by accomplishing a simulated run-on landing.The maneuver was initiated when the evaluated pilot established an out-of-ground-effect (OGE) hover on the downwind leg of the pattern. The check pilot engaged the hydraulic test button on the center console to "simulate a hydraulic failure." The evaluated pilot lowered the nose and established forward airspeed to maintain controllability. He maintained stabilized forward flight on the downwind leg, and the check pilot disengaged the hydraulic test button. The check pilot moved the hydraulic cutoff switch to the "off" position, and the hydraulic system was disengaged. The evaluated pilot remained on the controls and established a shallow approach until about 3 ft above the runway. Over the runway, the evaluated pilot allowed the helicopter's airspeed to decrease, and the check pilot stated, "Keep the speed up." The evaluated pilot responded by lowering the nose; however, an uncontrollable rapid left yaw ensued. The check pilot took control of the helicopter and attempted to keep the helicopter over the runway, but the nose pitched down, and the main rotor blades struck the ground. The check pilot decreased the fuel control, and the helicopter settled upright on the runway.The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the windscreen above the cabin, the tailboom, and tail rotor drive system.The METAR at the accident airport reported that, at the time of the accident, the wind from 250° at 3 knots, the skies were clear, and the temperature was 72°F.According to the Operator's Flight Manual:Page 2 of 6 GAA17CA562In case of loss of hydraulic pressure, the recommended safety speed range is from 40 to 60 kt.CAUTION: DO NOT ATTEMPT TO CARRY OUT HOVER FLIGHT OR ANY LOW SPEED MANEUVER WITHOUT HYDRAULIC PRESSURE ASSISTANCE. THE INTENSITY AND DIRECTION OF THE CONTROL FEEDBACK FORCES WILL CHANGE RAPIDLY. THIS WILL RESULT IN EXCESSIVE PILOT WORKLOAD, POOR AIRCRAFT CONTROL, AND POSSIBLE LOSS OF CONTROL.Postaccident examination revealed no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he took off in dark night conditions and was using flight following. When he arrived at the destination airport, he activated the runway lights while entering the downwind leg. While on final approach, the runway lights suddenly turned off, so he aborted the landing. The pilot again activated the runway lights on the downwind leg, but this time he flew a short base leg to final. The airplane was at a lower altitude for the approach and suddenly entered a heavy band of fog. The left wing subsequently hit the soft dirt, cartwheeled, and then came to rest inverted about 1/4 mile short of the runway.Postaccident examination revealed substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage. The weather conditions reported at the airport, about the time of the accident, were calm wind, visibility 4 statute miles, moderate mist, clouds scattered 100 ft, temperature 15°C, dew point 15°C, and an altimeter setting 29.24 inches of mercury.The pilot did not submit the National Transportation Safety Board Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident /Incident Report Form 6120.1.
According to the private pilot, who was the owner of the airplane, the airplane had been parked for an extended period, and he was preparing it for an annual inspection which was nearly 4 years overdue. On the day before the accident flight, he charged the airplane's battery and ran the engine for about 30 minutes. Before departing on the accident flight, he performed a preflight inspection of the airplane, measured the level of fuel in each tank, sampled the fuel tanks and fuel strainer for contaminants, and ran the engine for about 5 to 7 minutes with no anomalies noted.The pilot taxied the airplane for takeoff, performed the before-takeoff checks, and departed. When the airplane reached about 200 ft above ground level, the engine "sputtered" and then stopped producing power. The pilot performed a forced landing to a field beyond the departure end of the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage and wings.The left-wing fuel tank was breached by impact and contained no fuel. The right tank was intact and contained about 8 gallons of fuel. The gascolator was drained, and the first 4 ounces drained were clear water; the remaining 4 ounces were a mixture of water and fuel.The carburetor was separated from the engine at impact and was reattached with an adhesive to facilitate an engine operational check. An external fuel tank was then plumbed to the carburetor, and the engine was started on the airframe utilizing the airplane's own battery. The engine started immediately, accelerated smoothly, and ran continuously without interruption. Had the pilot conducted an adequate preflight inspection, he would have likely detected the water contamination in the fuel system.
The pilot was concluding a personal flight. He stated that he lowered the landing gear while preparing to land and felt the airplane's drag increase; however, he could not remember if he got confirmation that the landing gear were down and locked from the indicator light in the cockpit. He stated that the landing flare was normal but that as the airplane continued the landing roll, all three landing gear collapsed. The airplane sustained structural damage to the fuselage.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that all the landing gear were in the gear wells. The main landing gear doors were not damaged and only the nose landing gear door had light scratches, which is likely due to the landing gear being in the retracted position as the airplane touched down on the runway. A landing gear swing was accomplished, and no mechanical malfunctions or failures were revealed that would have precluded normal operation.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aviation safety inspector reported that, during a telephone conversation, the pilot reported that, during the climb, he noticed the engine cylinder heat temperature gauge exceed 500°F. The pilot added that he immediately turned back to the departure airport, and while in the downwind for the landing runway, the engine lost power. The pilot further added that the airplane immediately lost altitude and cleared a tree line in the path to the runway but then impacted terrain hard in a base-to-final flightpath near the runway threshold. He added that, when he exited the airplane, he observed an engine cowl plug installed on the right side of the engine cowl and removed it. The right wing and fuselage sustained substantial damage.The FAA inspector reported that he traveled to the accident, and while on-site, he observed the left cowl plug melted onto the engine cylinders. He added that the right cowl plug was found on the ground near the airplane. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot did not submit the National Transportation Safety Board Form 6120.1 Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report.
The pilot reported that, during the landing roll on an unimproved airstrip, the tailwheel-equipped airplane "hit a hole" and came to rest inverted.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the pilot of the experimental amateur-built helicopter, after departure, the flight was uneventful with no indications of any mechanical problems. After flying around the local area between 800 and 1,000 ft above mean sea level for about 45 minutes, the pilot started to return to the departure site and began a slow descent, after which, he noticed a substantial loss of engine and rotor rpm. He then tried to increase power with no response, so he entered an emergency autorotation and started looking for a landing spot. He aimed to land in an open area, but the helicopter was unable to reach it and impacted a house’s roof.Download and examination of data from the helicopter’s electronic engine monitor indicated that the engine had experienced an overheat event. The overheating was confirmed during a postaccident examination of the helicopter’s engine when it was discovered that the coolant return line, which carried heat away from the engine’s cylinders and was rated for a maximum temperature of 200° F, had melted off its brass connector. Additionally, both the Nos.1 and 2 pistons exhibited scoring on their sides. The No.1 piston’s sides were also fractured, and pieces were missing. Additionally, the No.1 spark plug electrode exhibited evidence of metallic splatter. This evidence indicates that the engine likely experienced cold scoring, which can occur if power is applied before the engine has been brought up to normal operating temperature. When this occurs, it results in the piston heating up and expanding faster than the cylinder, losing clearance between the piston and cylinder, and the piston contacting the sides of the cylinder bore, and seizing. It is likely the No. 1 piston experienced a cold seizure, which resulted in its failure and a subsequent total loss of engine power.
The noncertificated pilot was departing in the experimental light sport airplane when the engine lost power. The pilot attempted to return to the runway, but the airplane impacted trees and a fence west of the departure end of the runway. Examination of the airplane revealed that the fuel line between the fuel tank and engine was brittle and cracked and had broken. Both carburetor bowls were dry. Additionally, putty was found at the fuel tank outlet connector, consistent with a repair to prevent or fix a fuel leak, and the engine air filter was dirty. Although no maintenance records were located, the condition of the engine and its components suggested that it was not being properly maintained. It is likely that the engine experienced a total loss of power due to fuel starvation as a result of the broken fuel line; the loss of engine power prevented the pilot from reaching a suitable landing area. Toxicological testing found&nbsp;potentially impairing drugs in the pilot; however,&nbsp;it is unlikely that the negative&nbsp;effects of the drugs directly contributed to the outcome of this accident.&nbsp;
On September 25, 2017, at about 1600 CDT, Southwest Airlines flight 1813, B737-800, N500WR, was enroute to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Los Angeles, California, when the "A" position flight attendant accidentally poured hot water onto his hand. The injured flight attendant was able to complete duties but was pulled from his trip upon landing. After returning home, the flight attendant visited a doctor who diagnosed him with second degree burns.  There were 6 crew and 167 passengers onboard and the flight was operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 as a domestic scheduled passenger flight from Chicago Midway Airport (MDW), Chicago, Illinois, to LAX.
According to the pilot in the tailwheel-equipped airplane, he landed on tundra that had an uphill slope. Before touchdown, the pilot shut off the engine "in case of a nose over event." He reported that, after the landing roll, when the airplane was completely stopped on level ground, a tailwind gust lifted the tail. The airplane balanced on the nose for about 10 seconds, a second gust pushed the airplane over, and it came to rest inverted.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the rudder.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.