roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
Qatar Airways flight 8141 struck a light pole with its right wingtip while taxing to parking at Chicago O’Hare International Airport (KORD), Chicago, Illinois. The 2 pilots on board were uninjured, and the airplane was substantially damaged. The non-scheduled international cargo flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 129 from Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport (KATL), Atlanta, Georgia, to KORD. After landing runway 10C at KORD, the tower controller instructed the accident airplane to taxi off the runway via taxiway F followed by a left turn onto taxiway P, and to contact ground on 121.75.  The ground controller verified the flight was cargo and instructed the aircraft to continue to taxiway CC and hold short of runway 10L. Shortly after the hold, they were cleared to cross runway 10L, instructed to hold short of taxiway K, and told to contact ground on 121.9. According to air traffic control (ATC) audio, the ground controller instructed the accident airplane to turn left on taxiway K and taxi via taxiway BB to taxiway BB2 to taxiway Z. While taxiing down taxiway BB2, the right wingtip contacted a light pole in the central deicing area adjacent to the taxiway. Page 2 of 7 DCA22LA175Figure 1. Airport diagram zoomed into the area of aircraft collision with light pole - with taxi route (green line) and accident location (yellow star) superimposed onto the airport map. The Qatar Airways crew had access to information on the taxi limitations on taxiway BB2. The FAA chart supplement valid for the time of the accident stated in the airport remarks on the 2nd page that taxiway BB2 was closed “to wingspan more than 118 ft.” Additionally, an airport notice to air mission (NOTAM), valid at the time of the accident, designated that taxiway AA between taxiway K and taxiway U as a non-movement area between June 5 and October 15, 2022. The crew reported reviewing NOTAMs prior to leaving their departure airport and the captain was referencing the airport diagram on his electronic flight bag during the taxi since this was his second time at the airport and the first time for the first officer. Taxiway BB2 was on the southern border of the central deicing facility for the airport. The area on taxiway BB2 where the accident occurred (between taxiway Z and taxiway AA) was considered a non-movement area as part of the central deicing facility and was not to be used to route taxiing aircraft. Facility SOPs noted that “all non-movement areas will be depicted on the ASDE-X as a restricted trait area (YELLOW BOX)” At the time of the accident, the ASDE-X depicted a yellow restricted trait area for the central deicing pad, however the restricted area on the display did not extend to taxiway BB2, despite the taxiway’s classification as a non-movement area. Page 3 of 7 DCA22LA175Figure 2: Screen capture zoomed into the area of impact at the time of event from the FAA legal recording playback of the ASDE-X display processor. The accident aircraft is shown as an orange airplane symbol, and the restricted trait area is shown within the hashed yellow box.  (Source: FAA)
The pilot reported that, while turning to the base leg at the uncontrolled airport, he heard and observed inbound traffic on a straight in approach for the same runway. The pilot turned the airplane to avoid the conflicting traffic and subsequently collided with the top of an unseen dead tree snag. The pilot still had control of the airplane, and unsure of the condition of his nose wheel, he returned to his departure airport where he landed without incident. Examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the left horizontal stabilizer. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot stated that after takeoff, at an altitude of 400 to 500 ft above ground level, the engine stopped producing power. The pilot performed a forced landing to a plowed field. During the landing, the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. The left wing, empennage, rudder, and vertical stabilizer sustained substantial damage.Postaccident examination of the airplane and engine did not reveal any anomalies that would have contributed to a loss of engine power. A sufficient amount of fuel was found in the fuel tanks. Meteorological conditions were not conducive to the production of serious carburetor icing.The reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The pilot reported that during an aerial application flight in a helicopter, he experienced a gust of wind that caused the nose of the helicopter to dip and lose altitude, which resulted in an impact with a powerline and substantial damage to the tailboom. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, he touched down “a little far” on the wet grass airstrip. Braking action did not work well so he made the decision to go around, however it was too late, and the airplane collided with trees at the end of the airstrip. The wings and horizontal stabilizer 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 flight instructor of the glider reported that the takeoff for the instruction flight was along a grass area adjacent to a paved runway. The takeoff began with the right wing down to practice a standard unassisted takeoff. As the takeoff roll began, the right wing rose, and the glider entered ground effect. Several seconds later, the flight instructor heard a “boom” as the glider bounced up. He then released the tow rope and landed straight down the grass runway uneventfully. The flight instructor exited the glider and noted damage to the right wing as a result of a collision with an electrical junction box for the runway’s precision approach path indicator. He added that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions with the glider. Postaccident examination of the glider by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector confirmed substantial damage to the glider’s right aileron.
The student pilot reported that he was doing a touch and go on runway 7 when a “heavy south wind lifted [his] right wing.” The airplane touched down, bounced, and became airborne again. The student pilot attempted a go around; however, the airplane nosed down and the student pilot felt the propeller strike the ground. The nose landing gear separated, and the airplane came to rest on the edge of the runway. The lower forward fuselage sustained substantial damage. 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, the student pilot was landing the airplane on runway 7 with wind from 090° at 11 knots gusting to 20 knots.
The pilot was on final approach when he collided with a set of unmarked powerlines that ran perpendicular to the runway. The airplane flipped over and impacted the ground resulting in substantial damage to the tail section. The pilot said he reviewed the airport facility directory prior to the flight and was aware that the runway had a displaced threshold and a set of powerlines located between the end of the runway and a section of pine trees, which were equal in height to the powerlines. He said that as he cleared the pine trees on final approach, he saw the powerlines and struck them “five feet too low.” 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 he was participating in a balloon event that consisted of dropping markers on targets at various locations. While approaching the final target, he crossed some trees about 200 ft above ground level (agl) in a descent. After crossing the trees, when the balloon was about 20 ft agl, he heard someone announce “powerline” over his crew radio and saw approaching powerlines above his line of sight. He immediately pulled his deflation line and shut off the fuel tanks. The balloon subsequently contacted the powerlines, which resulted in electrical arcing and the basket impacted the ground. The balloon sustained substantial damage to the envelope and the basket.The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the balloon that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during a local personal flight, he decided to make an off-airport landing onto a gravel runway. Although the touchdown in the tailwheel-equipped airplane was uneventful, the pilot applied hard braking in order to minimize the landing roll on the rough terrain. As the airplane began to slow it nosed over coming to rest on its back. Both of the airplane’s wings, the fuselage and the vertical stabilizer and rudder sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the helicopter reported that, he noticed a slight bounce during flight that felt like an out of balance main rotor blade. The pilot diverted to a nearby airport as the helicopter began to shake aggressively with a whipping noise hear. During the approach, the shaking worsened, and the pilot elected to perform a run-on landing at the airport. During the following inspection, it was revealed that the main rotor blades were substantially damaged due to delamination. There was also evidence of impact marks near the tip blades that was consistent with contact with vegetation. The operator reported that, 2 days before the accident flight, the blades may have impacted vegetation during an “off-site” landing. According to that pilot, while the front left seat passenger was exiting the helicopter, she inadvertently sat down on the left side collective, pushing it to the full-down position. The helicopter rolled backwards suddenly, resulting in the heels of the skids to contact the ground. The pilot corrected the helicopter’s attitude and checked that the collective’s movement was normal. The helicopter was shut down shortly after and tail and main rotor blades were inspected by the pilot who reported that he didn’t see any evidence of impact at that time. Maintenance personnel inspected the helicopter following the flight and no statements or writeup was found during the investigation. The three pilots that flew the helicopter after the unidentified impact all reported that they felt a slight bounce in the helicopter at speeds of approximately 115 knots and thought that it was a slight out of balance/track rotor and was not that significant. Page 2 of 6 WPR22LA291
The pilot and his passenger departed the airport for a personal flight but shortly after takeoff, the pilot elected to return to the airport. Witnesses stated that a thunderstorm was coming in from the south. Meteorological data showed an approaching area of convection with tops at 45,000 ft. The pilot attempted to return to the airport and did not fly a standard airport traffic pattern; instead, he approached from the north, unusually low over the tree line, crossing midfield, then made a sharp left turn to join the downwind traffic, before turning left again to land. As the airplane crossed over the runway perpendicular to the runway numbers, it suddenly entered a left descending spiral and impacted terrain adjacent to the runway. The postaccident examination of the engine and airframe, combined with the examination of the impact site, revealed no anomalous findings that would have precluded normal airplane or engine performance. It is likely that shortly after the pilot took off, he witnessed the approaching convective activity and attempted to rush back to the airport to land before the storm arrived, as evident from his nonstandard approach to landing. About the time of the accident, witnesses described a rapid wind shift accompanied by an increase in wind speed and a rapidly decreasing temperature. Witness observations were consistent with experiencing convective outflow from the nearby convective activity and are validated by the weather radar and data that suggest the convective cell was decaying and nearby convection was forming; weather conditions were changing rapidly, and the winds were likely shifting. As the pilot performed the low and nonstandard approach, he likely turned steeply to the left after crossing over the runway numbers; exacerbated by a left quartering crosswind during his turn, he exceeded the airplane’s critical angle of attack and entered a subsequent aerodynamic stall and loss of control. Page 2 of 8 ERA22FA354
The operator reported that the pilot did not taxi back far enough from the shoreline before attempting to takeoff from the water. The pilot was planning to takeoff towards the shoreline and then make a right turn and follow the edge of the shoreline. The pilot did not have enough directional control to make the right turn to follow the shoreline and subsequently the float plane ran aground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage. The operator reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot/owner reported that the pilot rated passenger, who had not previously flown in nearly 25 years, was attempting to land the tailwheel-equipped airplane. Upon touchdown, the airplane began to drift to the left.  The pilot/owner attempted to correct but was unable.  The airplane subsequently impacted trees resulting in substantial damage to the right wing and aft fuselage structure. The pilot/owner further described that “there was a gust of wind that got the better of him” in reference to the pilot rated passenger. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot explained that the accident occurred at the completion of a local flight that departed from a private residence. While landing from a hover to a “slight slope,” the pilot said he lowered the collective “too rapidly,” the helicopter “landed roughly” and that he raised the collective control to recover the landing. “At that point, I entered a dynamic rollover to the left in which I was unable to recover.” The helicopter came to rest on its side with substantial damage to the cabin and the tailboom.The pilot reported there were no mechanical deficiencies with the helicopter that precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported, that while departing from the runway the right cockpit door opened. The pilot was unable to close the door and he decided to return to the airport to close the door on the ground. While on final approach and near the runway, the pilot thought he heard the stall warning horn, so he immediately flared the airplane to land. The airplane bounced twice on the runway, so the pilot attempted to abort the landing by advancing the throttle. The airplane veered to the left, exited the runway, and the pilot reduced the throttle in an attempt to maintain directional control. The airplane then struck the runway’s precision approach path indicator before coming to rest in a ditch. The airplane’s firewall was substantially damaged.Following the accident, the pilot stated, “In hindsight I don't think the sound I heard was the stall warning horn, but rather the sound squealing through the partially open door which confused me into thinking the aircraft had stalled.” Given this information, it is likely that the pilot was distracted by the open right door during the landing, which contributed to his loss of control during the landing attempt.A Federal Aviation Administration inspector examined the airplane after the accident reported that she did not observe evidence of any preaccident mechanical malfunction or failure of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation, and specifically that there were no mechanical issues with the airplane’s right door latch. Given this information, it is also likely that the pilot had failed to ensure that the door was properly secured prior to departing on the accident flight.
About a year before the accident, the pilot replaced the carburetor as a troubleshooting effort because the airplane had sustained previous loss of engine power events that he attributed to carburetor icing. About two weeks before the accident, the pilot completed an annual inspection and engine condition inspection. Before the post-maintenance test flight, he completed an engine ground run with no anomalies noted. After takeoff, he climbed the airplane to 8,100 ft above ground level (agl), flew for a few minutes and confirmed that all instruments showed normal indications. The pilot reduced engine power and started a slow descent to 2,600 ft agl. When he leveled the airplane and advanced the throttle the engine ran rough, so he applied carburetor heat and turned on the fuel boost pump, but the engine roughness did not improve. The pilot maneuvered for an emergency landing and landed hard in a bean field. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the engine mounts and fuselage. After the accident, the left fuel tank contained 9 gallons of fuel and the right tank contained about 19 gallons of fuel. The carburetor bowl also contained fuel. The pilot stated that the airplane had not been flown for about a year and that the fuel in the fuel tanks at the time of the accident was the same fuel from a year ago. Neither the engine nor the airplane was made available for a detailed examination. The recorded engine data did not reveal a reason for the loss of engine power. It is possible that the loss of engine power was due to carburetor icing that could not be completely alleviated with the use of carburetor heat. The reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.Page 2 of 6 CEN22LA361
The pilot reported that he was applying insecticide to a soybean field when he heard a loud bang. Shortly thereafter, the airplane impacted terrain. The pilot, who momentarily lost consciousness, realized the loud bang was caused when the airplane impacted a tree located in the middle of the field. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, wings, and engine mount. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot stated he was distracted as he followed another airplane into the traffic pattern and maintained visual separation with the airplane as it landed in front of him. During his approach he felt the airplane was faster than normal, even after reducing the throttle more than expected. When the airplane reached short final, the pilot heard a low tone he was unfamiliar with. He chose to ignore the tone and concentrate on landing the airplane. As the airplane touched down, the propeller impacted the runway and the airplane settled to the runway on its belly and came to a stop near the runway centerline. The landing gear switch was found in the down position, the main landing gear were found in a partially extended position, and the nose gear and landing gear doors were found in the retracted position. The main landing gear doors had damage consistent with the main landing gear being in a partially extended position, likely in transition, as the airplane slid on the runway. The nose gear doors had damage consistent with the doors being closed during landing. There was substantial damage to the stringers and frames on the underside of the airplane. An operational check of the landing gear was conducted following the accident and the landing gear operated normally and no anomalies were found.  The evidence was consistent with the pilot becoming distracted and failing to extend the landing gear, followed by an attempt to lower the landing gear after the airplane touched down on the runway.
The pilot performed a preflight inspection and departed to his destination. He stated that after a normal approach the left wing “dipped” at touchdown. The airplane subsequently “landed hard” on the left side. After the landing, the pilot shutdown the airplane and requested a company mechanic to inspect the landing gear. A visual examination of the landing gear was performed, but no damage was found. Subsequent examination of the airplane conducted three days later, revealed substantial damage to the fuselage, and left wing consistent with a hard landing. The airplane is also used for training, and it could not be determined if the airplane was flown after the hard landing. The pilot at the time of the hard landing, and the date and time of occurrence was undetermined.
The pilot was performing an aerial application flight in the turboprop-equipped airplane. Data from an onboard GPS and witness statements indicated that the pilot completed a spray pass, entered the airplane into a climbing left turn to about 200 ft, and the airplane rolled and descended steeply to ground contact. Witness statements and video revealed that smoke could be seen briefly emitting from the airplane before impact. Postaccident examination of the airplane and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation, and there was no evidence of pre- or post-impact fire. The observed smoke may have been the result of the pilot inadvertently engaging the smoke button or switch on the bottom portion of the control grip.Although the filament of the “PROP IN BETA RANGE” lightbulb was stretched consistent with being in a ductile state at impact, the power control lever was at or forward of the idle stop and the propeller blade angle was 21°, which was above the mechanical low-pitch stop and well above the beta range. Additionally, there was no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction of the engine, propeller, constant speed propeller governor including beta valve, or power control lever at the throttle quadrant. The damaged internal engine components, the fractured propeller blades, and the blade bending in the thrust direction and also opposite the direction of rotation, were consistent with the propeller operating with moderate power at impact and at a positive blade angle above the mechanical low-pitch stop.The electrically-operated stall warning horn was inoperative during postaccident electrical testing. It could not be determined whether the stall horn was operative during the accident flight.Page 2 of 9 ERA22FA350A plastic bottle found in the cockpit displayed damage on one side that was slightly larger in diameter than the diameter of an adjacent aileron flight control torque tube and much larger than the diameter of an adjacent elevator push rod assembly. It could not be determined from the available evidence if the bottle created any issue or distraction, but it is likely that the pilot would have been able to overcome any interference the bottle could have created with the aileron or elevator flight controls.Based on the available evidence, it is likely that following a spray pass and climbing left turn, the pilot exceeded the airplane’s critical angle of attack for reasons that could not be determined, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and loss of control at an altitude too low for recovery.