roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The airplane was about 1 hour into the cross-country flight when the pilot heard a “boom” noise. The airframe began vibrating, and the airplane yawed to the left. The pilot contacted approach control and stated that he needed to land the airplane immediately. The pilot was directed to divert, and he landed the airplane without incident. After exiting the airplane, the pilot noticed that one of the aluminum propeller blades on the left engine had separated about midspan, resulting in minor damage. The “boom” that the pilot heard was likely the blade separating in flight. Examination of the fracture surface revealed signatures consistent with high-cycle fatigue failure. The fatigue origin area was coincident with an area of damage that was covered with a thick black paint. The paint had a slightly different composition than the thinner layer of black paint on the rest of the blade. No evidence indicated any repair in the area of the damage and investigators were unable to determine when the damage was painted.Although the investigation could not determine, based on the available evidence for this incident, when the damage that led to the fracture occurred, or when the damage was painted, it is likely the damaged area was present at the airplane’s most recent 100-hour inspection, which occurred 28 hours before the incident. The presence of the black paint could have made it difficult to detect the damage during the mechanic’s visual inspection of the blade surface during the airplane’s most recent 100-hour inspection. Had the damage been detected during the 100-hr inspection it should have triggered maintenance of the propeller blade.  The damage was also hidden but detectable during the preflight inspection conducted by the pilot before the accident flight. Had the damage been detected by the pilot, it should have triggered further examination and maintenance of the propeller blade.Page 2 of 8 CEN22LA250
The pilot reported that while slowing the balloon and preparing for landing, he briefed the passengers how to position themselves and where to hold on for landing. During the landing upon contact with the ground, the basket “pitched forward” and the female passenger lost her grip. Her shoulder struck the ground and the male passenger fell on top of her. After the balloon came to a full stop, the female passenger complained of extreme shoulder pain. During a postaccident medical examination, it was determined that the female passenger suffered a broken clavicle.
The pilot of a twin-engine, turbine-powered airplane was landing at a remote, rough, soft, turf and grass covered airstrip at the completion of a Part 135 cargo flight.  He said that after an uneventful touchdown, as the airplane’s landing roll slowed, the right main landing gear wheel and the nose wheel contacted an area of soft, muddy terrain. The airplane’s nose wheel collapsed, and it subsequently folded under the fuselage. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilot reported no mechanical problems that would have precluded normal operations.
The pilot reported that, during takeoff from a dirt road, the nosewheel struck an object and resulted in the airplane nosing over. During the accident sequence, substantial damage was sustained to the empennage and wings. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
Shortly after takeoff, having reached an altitude of between 100 to 200 ft above ground level, the airplane’s engine lost total power. The pilot then switched from the left to the right fuel tank and verified that the fuel pump was on. With limited time to troubleshoot and at an altitude too low to deploy the ballistic recovery parachute, he performed a forced landing directly ahead. The airplane struck a fence and sustained substantial damage.The airplane had been parked outside and not flown for about 6 weeks before the accident. During this time, it had been moved from its usual paved tie-down location to a temporary grass tie-down location and, several rain showers had passed through the area. Following the accident, 6 ounces of water were found in the left (takeoff) fuel tank, and the entire fuel system was found to be contaminated with water. Examination revealed that the water likely entered the left tank through the fuel filler cap, which was missing its O-ring seal. Although the pilot drained fuel from the left-wing sump before engine start, he may not have observed any water as the airplane was parked on an uneven grass surface, which may have resulted in the water settling away from the sump drain. Another possibility is that so much water was present that the pilot’s sump container was full of only water, which he misidentified as fuel rather than the globules of water typically observed during sumping operations.
The student pilot was practicing a touch-and-go landing following a cross-country flight when the accident occurred. During the takeoff portion of the touch and go, at an altitude of 100 ft above the runway, the engine stopped producing power. The student pilot performed a forced landing and the left wing collided with a tree and separated which resulted in substantial damage. A postaccident examination of the airplane found the right fuel tank was empty and the left fuel tank was about ½ full of fuel. The student pilot reported the right fuel tank was selected when the engine lost power. It is likely that the engine lost power when it was starved of fuel.
The pilot was returning to land after performing a local sightseeing flight. The wind velocity had increased since departure, and during the landing approach he realized he was about to land short of the runway. He applied full engine power, but the engine sputtered and the airplane subsequently landed short of the runway, struck a fence, and nosed over. The fuselage, vertical stabilizer and rudder were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot and the passenger departed on a local flight in their helicopter and about 15 minutes later, the helicopter impacted the driveway at their residence. There were no witnesses to the accident and it could not be determined why they were operating the helicopter near their home. Impact marks at the accident site were consistent with the helicopter impacting the ground hard in a near-vertical descent. A postimpact fire consumed the aft cockpit area to the forward tail boom area, including the engine and both fuel tanks. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunction or failure that would have precluded normal operation. Based on available information, the reason the helicopter impacted terrain could not be determined.
During the student pilot’s second solo cross-country flight, he flew about 25 miles south to Hemet, California, to perform takeoffs and landings. The student pilot was operating on the downwind leg of the airport traffic pattern, when a witness, also flying in the traffic pattern, heard the student pilot’s distress call stating that the airplane had sustained a loss of engine power. The student pilot’s approach path to runway 23 overshot his intended landing point and he transmitted a radio call indicating that he was going around. The student pilot made a left turn, and the airplane touched down in a dirt field just over a mile southeast of the departure end of runway 23. From the initial touchdown point ground scar in the dirt field, three additional ground scars were observed on a track of 110° and the airplane traveled about 665 ft, before impacting an 8-ft-high cinder block wall near a residential area. The impact and thermal damage were consistent with a high-energy impact as revealed by the engine compartment, cabin and both wings having breached the cinder block wall.  Although impact and thermal damage restricted the position confirmation of the ignition switch, throttle, mixture, carburetor heat, and flap positions, postaccident examination of the fuel selector valve revealed that the fuel selector remained in the “On” position. Additionally, postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The propeller revealed “S” bending, chordwise scratches, and leading-edge material gouges that were indicative of engine power during impact. Page 2 of 8 WPR22FA198Given the icing probability, the student pilot may have experienced carburetor icing that led to a partial loss of engine power while operating on the downwind leg of the airport traffic pattern. With the student pilot’s limited flight experience, it is likely that he overshot the intended runway during the forced landing, consistent with eyewitness statements that the airplane’s approach was too fast to land on runway 23. While a partial loss of engine power can be experienced when carburetor icing occurs, the student pilot did not specify the degree of engine power loss. The false sense of intermittent engine power and the drag experienced during the airplane’s multiple touchdown points in the soft dirt field suggest that the loss of engine power was partial in nature, however, the investigation could not determine the extent of the loss of engine power.
The pilot of the multi-engine airplane reported that, after landing he was taxiing via taxiway S to the parking area near the fixed based operator located near taxiway A. As the airplane approached the ramp, the pilot looked to the marshaller to start the right turn. During the turn, the marshaller gave the stop signal when the airplane’s left wing collided with the rudder of a single-engine airplane that was holding at the short line to runway 25 at taxiway A. The multi-engine airplane received minor damage to the left wing. The single-engine airplane sustained substantial damage to the rudder.Neither flight crew reported that there were any preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with their airplane’s that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor reported that during a dual training flight with a student pilot, they returned to their base airport and practiced two landings without incident. During the third landing, the student pilot applied too much elevator back pressure in the landing flare, and the instructor stated “power.” Subsequently, the student pilot applied full power to go-around, instead of a “slight amount of power” which was what the flight instructor expected. After the application of full power, the airplane drifted beyond the right side of the runway, was near the aerodynamic stall speed, and was approaching trees ahead. The flight instructor reported that she “eventually” was able to take the flight controls, where she reduced power to idle, lowered the nose of the airplane, and landed in a down sloping grass area beyond the end of the runway. During the runway excursion, the airplane impacted trees, which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing and fuselage. Neither pilot reported any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation with the airplane.
The pilot was conducting a personal flight with two passengers aboard. Security camera video revealed that when the pilot arrived at the airplane prior to initiating the flight, he did not perform a complete preflight inspection, which should have included at least a cursory examination of the airplane’s engine and a check of the ground below it. Shortly after departure, the pilot declared an emergency, and the airplane made a 180° left turn back toward the airport. The airplane descended and impacted terrain about 1.7 miles from the runway threshold. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the crankcase was breached near the No. 4 cylinder. Also, the No. 4 connecting rod journal exhibited thermal damage and bearing material was found welded/smeared to the crankshaft journal. The No. 4 connecting rod cap, connecting rod bolts, and bearing pieces were found in the oil sump along with other metallic debris and a trace amount of oil. Examination of the oil system revealed that the oil pressure sensor was separated from the engine. The sensor’s rigid copper line was fractured at the fitting to the accessory section of the crankcase. The propeller exhibited chordwise scratching and angle-cut tree branches in the vicinity of the wreckage, which were indications that the engine did not lose total power.Examination of the rigid oil pressure line revealed that it fractured due to high-cycle fatigue. This was likely from excessive vibration due to insufficient support of the oil pressure sensor and rigid line. The oil pressure sensor, which was part of the avionics system, was installed about 3 flight hours before the accident. The installation manual for the avionics system stated that a flexible line should be used to install the oil pressure sensor in order to minimize vibration effects. Instead, a rigid line was installed, which would have been more susceptible to the effects of vibration, including high-cycle fatigue failure. Page 2 of 10 ERA22FA261Oil staining observed on the ramp area where the airplane was parked before the flight, a trail of oil leading from the parking area to the runway, and the oil observed on the airframe exterior at the accident site all suggest that the airplane was actively leaking oil both before and during the accident flight. Based on all available information, it is likely that the oil pressure sensor line fractured during the flight before the accident flight, which resulted in oil leaking from the engine. This oil leak ultimately resulted in oil starvation and loss of engine power during the departure from, and the pilot’s attempted return to the airport. Had the pilot noted and investigated the source of the oil leakage during the preflight inspection, he might have taken appropriate corrective action and avoided the accident.
The pilot of the tail wheel equipped airplane reported that, while conducting a full stop landing, the airplane touched down normally. He felt a jolt then the airplane started to veer towards the right side of the runway and nosed over. The airplane came to rest inverted, which resulted in substantial damage to the wings and vertical stabilizer. The left main wheel separated from the landing gear strut near the wheel attachment during the landing. The landing gear strut was bent inward. Photographs of the landing gear strut fracture surfaces were sent to the NTSB Material Laboratory for further review. The specialist reported that the fracture appeared to be due to overstress. No fatigue crack origin area was identified. The pilot reported that there were no other mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The helicopter pilot was practicing hover takeoffs and landings in a crosswind. The passenger reported that, while hovering before a landing, the helicopter shuddered, and the left skid contacted the ground. The helicopter rolled onto its left side. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the main rotor blades, fuselage, and tail boom. Examination of the helicopter’s flight control systems and main and tail rotor drive systems did not show any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Examination of the No. 2 cylinder revealed that the exhaust push rod was bent and the exhaust valve was stuck. Borescope inspection of the No. 2 cylinder showed that the exhaust valve had contacted the piston and the intake valve appeared to be recessed in the No. 2 valve seat. The loss of engine power was most likely due to the stuck exhaust valve on the No. 2 cylinder.
The pilot of the tail-wheeled equipped airplane reported that, during landing with a quartering tailwind, the airplane floated and bounced after touchdown. When the airplane settled to the runway, the right wing dropped and impacted the surface. The airplane ground looped and rolled into soft dirt, where it nosed over and came to rest inverted. The fuselage and left wing were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, after touchdown the airplane bounced and veered to the right. Concerned that he may ground loop the airplane, he applied full power and initiated a go-around. The airplane got airborne, but the right wheel touched a low mound to the right of the runway surface. The right wing dropped, and the airplane struck the ground and spun around. The left wing and fuselage were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he landed on a runway that was wet due to recent rain showers. As he applied the brakes, the airplane began to hydroplane, so he released braking pressure to regain directional control. The pilot then reapplied the brakes but was unable to stop the airplane on the remaining runway. The airplane subsequently impacted a fence off the end of the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to both wings. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operations. Following the accident, the pilot recognized he should have diverted to another airport.
The pilot reported that he extended the landing gear prior to the landing and observed that the gear down light was illuminated. The pilot described the touchdown as “soft.” However, during the roll out, the nose gear collapsed followed by the left main gear and the right main gear. The airplane came to rest on the underside of the fuselage on the runway. The pilot shutdown the airplane and the occupants egressed from the airplane without further incident. The air traffic control tower controller observed the airplane during the landing roll and reported that the airplane’s landing gear was down. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the underside of the fuselage. Due to the damage sustained to the landing gear system gear box and swing doors components, a postaccident functional test of the electric gear system could not be performed. The landing gear was able to be extended manually.
The pilot was found deceased in the undamaged glider following a landing to a field near the airport. Postaccident examination revealed an improperly secured aileron connection; however, despite being partially unseated, the ailerons clevis pin remained seated adequately to facilitate operation of the aileron. No other anomalies were detected with the airframe that would have precluded normal operation. Autopsy revealed that the pilot’s cause of death was aortic dissection associated with hypertensive and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, with blunt force injury contributing.
While making a crosswind turn in a non-registered airplane, the engine sustained a total loss of power. The pilot checked to ensure the throttle setting was at maximum power and that the ignition switch was ON, but the engine did not restart. He initiated a forced landing to an off-airport site where the fuselage and both wings were substantially damaged. The pilot had previously conducted significant maintenance on the fuel system; however, all the maintained components were found to be in functional condition. Components vital to the investigation were removed and unavailable for examination, which precluded a complete and through investigation of the fuel system.  Postaccident examination of the airplane and engine revealed no mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Environmental conditions at the time of the accident were not conducive to carburetor icing.
The pilot reported that the landing was “harder than normal” but otherwise uneventful.  However, about 2,000 ft down the runway during the rollout, the nose landing gear collapsed. A postaccident examination determined that the right nose landing gear attachment on the engine mount had separated in tensile and shear overstress fracture. The hard landing likely fractured the engine mount and separated the attachment foot, resulting in the nose landing gear collapse during rollout.
The pilot reported that he had flown about 10 minutes from one airport to another and, after landing, the engine “hiccuped” like it was it was losing power and then “revved up.”  The pilot turned the fuel pump off and back on, and the engine seemed to clear up. The pilot performed an uneventful engine runup and elected to conduct a short-field takeoff. As the airplane climbed through about 700 ft mean sea level (msl), the engine began to surge, followed by a total loss of engine power. The pilot attempted to land on a nearby road; however, he realized he was unable to reach it and instead landed in an open field, which resulted in substantial damage to the engine mount.  The pilot reported that before the flight, the owner of the airplane sent him a text message telling him that the fuel selector valve was on the left tip tank. The pilot didn’t believe that to be an issue; however, he could not remember if he put the selector valve on the left main fuel tank or not. The owner of the airplane estimated that the left tip tank had about 4 gallons of fuel in it when he put the airplane in the hangar. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.  During the examination, the left-wing auxiliary fuel tank was found void of fuel. It’s likely that while the pilot conducted his preflight, he inadvertently positioned the fuel selector to the left wing tip tank position.
The pilot reported that during the landing roll the airplane veered slightly to the right, and he overcorrected. The airplane ground looped, the right main landing gear collapsed, and the right-wing tip struck the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported he intended to depart the residential street to ferry the airplane to an airport. While taking off headed east, he felt a “gust of wind” and was “unable to correct.” The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings when it impacted a brick wall. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot stated he was flying to another airport for lunch, and as he approached the airport, he was looking around for other airplanes in the traffic pattern and “just forgot” to extend the landing gear. He further stated he did not use the landing checklist. He subsequently landed the airplane with the landing gear retracted, which resulted in substantial damage to the lower fuselage longerons.