roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The No. 1 engine fire was caused by an improperly installed #7 fuel nozzle located at the 3 o'clock position of the engine. The nozzle installation error resulted in a fuel leak that subsequently ignited on hot engine case surfaces. All the fuel nozzles had been replaced as part of engine overhaul at the Delta Tech Ops facility 53.7 flight hours/18 cycles prior to the incident flight.The cross threaded condition was evident during visual examination, and an x-ray of the fuel nozzle assembly confirmed the fuel nozzle b-nut was not properly seated, with one or fewer threads engaged. The nozzle assembly featured two o-rings and a conical seal washer (Voi-Shan) that acted in conjunction with the torque applied to the fuel nozzle b-nut to provide a seal. The o-rings and seal washer temporarily compensated for the cross threaded condition, until one of the o-rings began to break apart.The cross threaded b-nut should have been visually detected by the mechanic and inspector. Although, if not visually detected, the cross threaded b-nut may have given a proper torque indication during the required torque check and passed  the pneumatic leak check step of the installation procedures.Several fuel system components including the fuel flow transmitter and stator vane actuator are located near the #7 fuel nozzle. The fire thermally damaged the case housings of both of these components resulting in secondary fuel leaks.The damage to the nacelle components including the fan cowl, thrust reverser, and core cowls was due to fire exposure.  The area of thermal insulation on the right thrust reverser half that was minimally discolored with a wet and shiny appearance was located radially outboard of the #7 fuel nozzle. The fuel spray from the nozzle provided localized cooling where the fuel contacted the insulation and was too rich to ignite, preserving the fire insulation.Page 2 of 7 ENG17IA036The fan blade shroud shingling and displacement noted on three fan blades was most likely a result of firefighting efforts. After the blades were dislodged from the rub strip, the fan spun smoothly.
The pilot stated that, after takeoff, the engine lost partial power at an altitude about 250 ft above ground level. He attempted to restore power by adjusting the throttle but was unsuccessful. Shortly thereafter, the engine lost all power and the pilot performed a forced landing to a field. During the landing roll, the airplane impacted a log and nosed over, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage. Postaccident examination and test run of the engine revealed no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction that would have precluded normal operation. Atmospheric conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to light carburetor icing at cruise or descent power; however, the airplane was operating at takeoff power at the time of the power loss. Thus, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined based on the available information.
The pilot reported that, while taking off from a road, the airplane struck a road sign with its left wing. He explained that, during takeoff, the airplane had accelerated rapidly and that, in the next moment, he felt a lurch to the left. The parking brake, which he had forgotten to release, then released. He added that he had "incorrectly assumed" that the brake had grabbed and caused the lurch, not the unknown to him, sign strike. Subsequently, he corrected with rudder and continued the flight. He added that the airplane flew "normally" but that it had a "slightly left-wing heavy feel." He continued the flight without further incident.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that it had sustained substantial damage to the left wing.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 the purpose of the flight was to evaluate handling qualities of the experimental airplane at various configurations specified in the test card. After rotation, with the airplane about 50 ft above ground level (agl), the pilot experienced a loss of aileron control. As the airspeed increased, he began to attain some controllability and climbed to about 1,400 ft agl. After about 20 minutes of manipulating the flight controls and practicing climbing and descending using the trim, he stabilized the airplane around 90 kts. He thought that he would be able to land the airplane at an increased airspeed using steady thrust control and the rudder for directional control. During landing, with the airplane about 10 ft above the runway surface, the airplane experienced a loss of lift and landed hard, which resulted in damage to the right wing spar. For the test flight, the airplane manufacturer had changed the winglet position, which contributed to a loss of aileron effectiveness.
Before departing on the instrument flight rules cross-country flight, the instrument-rated private pilot received an official weather briefing which included the latest Significant Meteorological Information (SIGMET) valid along the proposed route of flight. While en route at 8,000 ft mean sea level (msl), the controller provided a vector to the pilot to deviate around weather. The pilot accepted the deviation and turned the airplane; shortly thereafter, he reported that the airplane was in an area of moderate-to-heavy precipitation. Several minutes later, the pilot reported that the airplane was clear of the precipitation; he requested and was cleared to resume the on-course heading. The controller subsequently observed the radar return associated with the airplane descending rapidly from 8,000 ft to 5,000 ft before radar contact was lost. Review of the airplane's flight track data showed the airplane descending in a left turn, then making a sharp right turn followed by a sharp left turn; there were no further communications received from the pilot. The wreckage was significantly fragmented, consistent with a high-energy impact and trees in the vicinity of the accident site displayed angular cuts consistent with propeller contact. There was no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.A cold frontal boundary just west of the accident site provided a moderately unstable environment for the formation of thunderstorms along the route of flight. Review of weather information indicated that the pilot was operating in instrument meteorological conditions and likely turbulence associated with the thunderstorm activity. These conditions are known to be conducive to the development of spatial disorientation. Additionally, the airplane's series of descents and changes in direction before being lost from radar and the evidence of a high-energy impact are consistent with the known effects of spatial disorientation and a subsequent loss of control.Page 2 of 11 ERA17FA313
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during landing on an off-airport gravel bar, the airplane touched down about 30 ft short of the intended landing area. Subsequently, the right wheel struck a large rock, the gear collapsed, and the left wing impacted the ground.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and left wing.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
On September 4, 2017 at about1531 central daylight time, Delta Air Lines flight 2121, a Boeing MD-90, N938DN, encountered turbulence during final approach into El Paso International Airport (ELP), El Paso, Texas. Of the 143 passengers and crew onboard, one flight attendant sustained serious injuries. The flight was operating under 14 CFR Part 121 as a regularly scheduled passenger flight from Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport (ATL), Atlanta, Georgia, to ELP.  According to the operator, while on approach the flight crew completed the cabin notification and turned the seatbelt sign on.  While one of the flight attendants was performing final safety checks and walking to her jumpseat, the airplane encountered turbulence, resulting in the flight attendant hitting her head on the overhead bin.  The flight attendant continued to her seat for the remainder of the approach and landing.  The flight crew was notified of the event during taxi and they requested paramedics meet the flight at the gate.  The flight attendant was transported to the hospital where she was diagnosed with head injuries and admitted for observation.
The pilot reported that, after a local flight, during touchdown, the airplane veered to the left, and he applied full power to go around. He added that the airplane became airborne, drifted to the left over brush, and then started to sink because the airplane "did not have enough airspeed to maintain flight." Subsequently, the airplane settled into the brush about 50 ft left of the runway. The left wing struck the ground, and the airplane spun 180° to a stop.The left wing and aileron sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.An automated weather observation station 23 nautical miles southwest of the accident site reported, about the time of the accident, wind from 320° at 12 knots, gusting to 15 knots, temperature 100°F (38°C), dewpoint 41°F (5°C), and barometric setting of 30.15 inches of mercury. The calculated density altitude was 8,352 ft. According to the Federal Aviation Administration density altitude Koch Chart, the airplane would likely have experienced a 72% decrease in the normal climb rate.
The commercial pilot departed on a sightseeing flight with a passenger onboard; the airplane was near its published gross weight. The pilot had experienced some difficulty starting the engine before takeoff, which he resolved after removing and reinstalling the primer several times. The takeoff roll and departure were uneventful; however, when the airplane transitioned to initial climb, its climb performance reduced, and when it reached about 500 ft mean sea level, the airplane stopped climbing, which the pilot reported that he believed was due to a partial loss of engine power. Subsequently, the pilot turned the airplane back toward the departure airport, but after realizing that it would not reach the airport, he chose to conduct an off-airport forced landing. The airplane touched down in a dry riverbed, and it impacted brush and then nosed over and came to rest inverted, which resulted in substantial damage to the upper and lower wings.The airplane had sufficient fuel for the accident flight. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed numerous preimpact anomalies, including a leak in the engine primer line, which had developed over time due to its repetitive contact with the engine exhaust adjacent to it. The leak likely resulted in the pilot needing to add an excessive number of primer shots to start the engine before departure and led to some of his failed engine start attempts. Further, examination of the engine revealed that the cold compression on the No. 3 cylinder was low, that a spark plug was defective, that two ignition cables had significantly low insulation resistance, and that several of the forward ignition harness elbows were bent. Low compression is not an isolated incident, and it is possible that the pilot had been operating the airplane with low cold compression on the No. 3 cylinder for some time; therefore, it could not be determined if this contributed to the power loss. Although a defective spark plug could have resulted in a negligible power loss, it likely would not have prevented the airplane from climbing during the accident flight. Further, it could not be determined if the ignition harnesses were bent during the impact sequence; therefore, it could not be determined whether the condition of the ignition system contributed to the loss of engine power. Page 2 of 11 WPR17LA197Although the atmospheric conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to the accumulation of serious icing at glide power, it could not be determined if carburetor ice had formed while the airplane was idling on the ground. The reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The pilot reported that the airplane touched down on the first third of the wet, grass runway at 80 mph with 10° of flaps extended. He added that, about two-thirds of the way down the runway, the airplane "hit a bump and became airborne." As the airplane touched down for the second time, he felt as though he was running out of room and applied the brakes. Subsequently, the end of the runway was approaching fast, and he attempted to turn the airplane, but it continued to slide off the runway because "the brakes were locked." The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The director of aviation safety for the operator reported that, after landing, while parked at the ramp, the pilot-in-command exited the flight deck to open the cabin door. He added that the pilot "found the lead passenger standing in front of the main cabin door waiting to exit the aircraft." He further added that "…[the pilot] was able to open the door from this position, but did not have room to exit the aircraft ahead of the passenger," and as the passenger started down the airplane's air stairs, her foot slipped, she landed on her knees, and she caught her balance by grabbing onto the hand rails.A subsequent medical examination revealed that the passenger had broken her ankle.The director of aviation safety reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot and passenger were conducting a cross-country flight in the experimental, amateur-built airplane. While in cruise flight about 1 hour after takeoff, the engine experienced a total loss of power and the pilot performed a forced landing in a bean field. The airplane nosed over after touchdown, crushing the top of the rudder. The pilot told Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspectors that, before moving the airplane to its hangar following the accident, he drained the fuel tanks because he did not want fuel leaking on the hangar floor. He reported that he drained 13 gallons; this could not be confirmed by the FAA inspectors. A cursory examination of the engine established drive train continuity when the propeller was turned by hand; however, based on the available information, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped biplane reported that, during the landing roll, about halfway down the grass runway, the biplane "very quickly" inverted. After exiting the biplane, he examined the runway and saw where the propeller had dug in and viewed skid marks in the grass "where it was obvious that the brakes had been applied and locked up." The airplane sustained substantial damage to the vertical and horizontal stabilizer.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the biplane that would have precluded normal operation.The automated weather observation system about 1 nautical mile from the accident site reported, about the time of the accident, wind from 230° at 7 knots, gusting to 14 knots. The pilot landed on runway 31.
The private pilot attempted to take off for the personal flight with three passengers from a 3,601-ft-long asphalt runway. Video footage and a witness confirmed that the airplane did not rotate and become airborne until it was near the end of the runway. The nose initially pitched up about 5°, and the airplane climbed about 20 to 30 ft above ground level. As the airplane approached trees, the nose pitched up about 15° and the left wing dropped, consistent with a stall. Examination of the wreckage did not reveal any evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Pilot estimates regarding occupant/baggage weights and the available fuel on board suggest that the airplane was slightly below its maximum allowable takeoff weight. However, although the exact baggage weight and fuel load during takeoff could not be determined, witness estimates of baggage weight and the airplane's total capacity for usable fuel suggest that the airplane was likely at or above its maximum gross weight. The pilot reported that he rotated the airplane at 80 knots. He also initially reported that he attempted the takeoff with "two notches" of flap extension but subsequently stated that the takeoff was with the flaps retracted. Although performance data indicate that the takeoff could be accomplished in about 2,900 ft at maximum gross weight with flaps retracted, the pilot likely did not fly the airplane at the optimal airspeeds recommended in the pilot's operating handbook for the airplane make and model, which were 64 knots at rotation and 69 knots at an altitude of 50 ft.
The private pilot stated that he performed a preflight inspection of the airplane before an earlier flight that day. Before departing on the accident flight with two passengers, he cautioned a friend and fellow pilot about how his airplane "needed more time to build speed" during the takeoff roll. After taxi, the pilot positioned the airplane on the runway for departure and performed a flight control deflection check. He stated that there was corresponding movement with the flight control surfaces but that the resistance in the controls was light; his concern led him to perform the check eight times before takeoff. The pilot stated that after rotation, the airplane was unresponsive, or was slow to respond, in the roll axis when he applied aileron corrections. He closed the throttle and performed a forced landing to the grassy area beyond the departure end of the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to the wings, cabin, empennage, and tail section. During postaccident examination of the airplane, flight control continuity was confirmed to all flight control surfaces; however, the left aileron was significantly impact damaged, and a break was noted in its control push-pull rod. Further examination of the control rod revealed that the fracture features were consistent with an overstress fracture; there was no evidence of a preexisting crack. Because the postaccident examination confirmed flight control continuity, it is likely that the pilot lost control of the airplane during takeoff.
The solo student pilot reported that, during the landing flare, he "felt an updraft," and the airplane landed hard. The airplane bounced, the nose landing gear (NLG) struck the ground, the airplane bounced again, and he then performed a go-around. The student entered the traffic pattern and landed without further incident.The student reported that, during the taxi to the ramp, the rudder pedals "felt funny." He added that, as he and the flight instructor put a cover over the airplane, he noticed the NLG "looked funny." He asked a local mechanic to examine the airplane and then decided to send the airplane to a repair station to be repaired.During the airplane repair, it was revealed that the airplane sustained substantial damage to the engine mounts.The student reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located on the airport revealed that, about 30 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 180° at 8 knots. The same weather observation station reported that, about 23 minutes after the accident, the wind was from 190° at 5 knots. The airplane landed on runway 22.
The pilot and two passengers had conducted aerial hog hunt operations from a helicopter and were en route to an airport when the engine lost power. The pilot conducted an autorotation to a road; however, the helicopter landed hard, resulting in substantial damage. An examination of the helicopter revealed that the fuel tank was empty, and no residual fuel was found in the system. Since the pilot was en route to an airport where fuel was available, it is likely that he spent too much time airborne and misjudged the amount of fuel needed to reach the destination. The accident is consistent with a fuel exhaustion event.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during landing, the airplane bounced, so he applied power for a go-around. He added that the airplane "immediately banked left sharply." He attempted to recover by using rudder and aileron inputs, but the airplane impacted terrain.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located on the airport revealed that, about 5 minutes before the accident, the wind was calm. The airplane was landing on runway 34.
The pilot reported that, during landing, the airplane touched down and bounced. He aborted the landing, but the airplane did not climb although the engine was operating at full power. The airplane veered to the right and became momentarily airborne as it exited the runway. The airplane struck the ground hard and nosed over.The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings, the fuselage, and the empennage.The METAR at the time of the accident reported that the wind was calm and that skies were clear. The temperature was 99°F, and the altimeter setting was 30.12 inches of mercury.
The pilot of the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) helicopter was conducting a water drop during an aerial firefighting mission when the accident occurred. As the helicopter neared the drop area, the pilot slowed to about 20 knots and the helicopter entered an uncommanded right yaw and began to descend.  The pilot released the water and the helicopter continued to yaw to the right and descend rapidly. The pilot reported that he had little positive control of the helicopter, and the helicopter contacted trees. After the tree impacts, which resulted in substantial damage to the horizontal stabilizers and tail boom, the pilot regained control, departed the area, and performed an emergency landing nearby. The pilot reported, and onboard data from the helicopter confirmed, that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. During the water drop, it is likely that the helicopter encountered radiant heat from the fire and its associated smoke columns, which reduced helicopter performance. Additionally, the helicopter was operating with a quartering tailwind at the time, which was within the critical wind azimuth published by the manufacturer. It is likely that the combination of the increased heat and smoke, adverse wind conditions, a higher helicopter weight due to the water onboard, and the higher torque demand as the result of the helicopter's slower airspeed resulted in the yaw excursion and vertical descent due to a loss of tail rotor effectiveness. As the helicopter continued its flight path out of the area of the gases, heat, and wind, and dropped the water, the pilot was able to regain control of the helicopter.Review of published LAFD training information and operating procedures revealed no guidance regarding water drop operations or the hazards associated with operating near and around smoke columns. Page 2 of 10 ANC17LA051