roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
During cruise flight above 10,000 ft mean sea level (msl) in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), the pilot noted the airplane’s airspeed slowing and the autopilot pitching the airplane up in order to maintain altitude. After he disconnected the autopilot, the pilot had difficulty maintaining pitch control. The pilot suspected that the airplane was accumulating ice but did not see any on the wings or windscreen. A performance study using automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) data indicated that the airplane descended and slowed until there was a sudden loss of lift near the airplane’s stall speed, which was consistent with an aerodynamic stall. The pilot lowered the nose, and the airplane gained airspeed while continuing to descend. About 3 minutes 30 seconds later, the airplane experienced a second sudden loss of lift at a much lower lift coefficient and higher airspeed. This second loss of lift was consistent with an accumulation of ice on the wing, which increased drag and reduced the amount of lift the wing could produce before a stall. The airplane recovered briefly before drag again began to increase. Drag continued to gradually increase until the flight descended below ADS-B coverage.  According to the pilot, the airplane descended out of the clouds into heavy rain. The pilot performed a forced landing to a road. During the landing the airplane impacted trees and terrain, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage, wings, and empennage.Based on surface weather observations, upper air sounding data, and satellite weather imagery, clouds were likely present in the accident area from 3,300 ft msl (about 400 ft above ground level) through 13,000 ft msl. In areas with precipitation, which the flight encountered, clouds likely persisted from 13,000 ft msl to near the surface. Moderate or greater icing conditions were indicated from near 6,000 ft msl through 9,500 ft msl, but icing conditions likely persisted through 13,000 ft msl near the cloud tops. Further, supercooled liquid droplets Page 2 of 8 ERA22LA191(SLD) conditions were likely present in the icing encountered by the flight. The flight was likely in IMC below 13,000 ft msl with moderate or greater icing conditions and SLD.The pilot’s reports that the airplane was underperforming, unable to climb, and that the autopilot was increasing pitch to maintain altitude were consistent with ice accumulation degrading handling. The second loss of lift event occurred at a high lift coefficient, high angle of attack, and at an airspeed lower than the airplane’s stall speed. The ice accumulation on the airplane likely made it difficult for the pilot to control airspeed and attitude, which resulted in a loss of control.Based on the ForeFlight weather briefing information that the pilot received, he should have been aware of the potential for icing conditions on the accident flight. His decision to continue the flight in an airplane not equipped for flight into known into icing conditions resulted in the accident.
The flight instructor and student pilot were practicing a tow rope failure and were landing the glider with a light, quartering tailwind. On final approach the glider drifted right of the runway centerline and just before touchdown, the right wing struck a tree, which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing and canopy. The flight instructor reported that the airplane had no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor of the helicopter reported that, while conducting hover training about five ft above ground level, with the student pilot at the flight control, the helicopter began drifting to the right and the right skid contacted the ground. The helicopter subsequently exceeded the critical roll angle and experienced a dynamic rollover to the right. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the tailboom. The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
Shortly after the tow airplane and the glider became airborne, the pilot of the glider released from the tow plane about 200 ft above ground level, then entered a left turn back toward the runway, during which the glider impacted terrain. Witnesses to the accident described the glider’s takeoff as “abnormal” and “erratic” and reported that the glider climbed above the tow plane twice before the glider pilot released from tow. Postaccident examination of the glider revealed that the elevator control was not connected as required by preflight assembly procedures, which would have resulted in the pilot’s inability to control the glider’s pitch attitude. According to the tow pilot, the glider pilot had assembled the glider by himself (as he had done many times before) on the morning of the accident. It is likely that, had the pilot completed a positive control check after assembly, he would have identified the disconnected elevator control. Toxicology testing identified two sedating drugs, cetirizine (Zyrtec) and trazodone (an antidepressant), in the pilot’s cavity blood and urine; however, the pilot’s use of these medications most likely did not contribute to the accident.
The pilot-rated student reported that, while landing, the airplane landed hard and bounced twice. The instructor then told the pilot to perform a go-around. The pilot applied full power but was unable to control the airplane and decided to turn over the controls to the flight instructor. According to the pilot, the instructor was able to land safely after declaring an emergency. The stabilator, right wing and aileron were substantially damaged.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, while on short final approach, he felt a “sudden loss of altitude”.  Before the pilot could make a correction, the left wing collided with a runway approach light. The airplane subsequently landed short, slid through the overrun area, and came to a rest at the displaced threshold, resulting in substantial damage to the forward fuselage. 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, during takeoff, a crosswind pushed the airplane to the right. He aborted the takeoff and attempted to correct for the right drift to no avail. Subsequently, the airplane continued to the right, exited the runway, impacted a snowbank, and nosed over.  The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, wings, and vertical stabilizer. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that while landing and during the landing flare, a gust of wind caused the airplane to drift off centerline and the nose to rise. The airplane ballooned, then subsequently bounced hard before ballooning a second time. The nose dropped sharply, and the pilot was unable to control the airplane before it struck the runway hard on the nose landing gear, causing the landing gear to collapse and fold back, which resulted in substantial damage to the engine compartment, firewall and underside of the airframe. The pilot stated that there were no pre accident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The solo student pilot was conducting a cross-country flight when it impacted the terrain 212 ft before the approach end of the runway at the destination airport. The helicopter then slid about 30 ft and came to rest on its right side. A witness located about 1/2 mile west of the accident site reported seeing the helicopter go down and stated that the rotor blades were rotating before the impact.  Postaccident airframe and engine examinations revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. Given the upright orientation of the wreckage at impact, the significant damage to the underside of the fuselage, engine and skids, damage to the main rotor blades, coupled with the witness statement, were all consistent with a loss of control and a subsequent uncontrolled descent that resulted in the collision with terrain.
According to the pilot, he was approaching the airport to land when a departing helicopter reported deer near the runway. The pilot stated that he turned on the landing lights, lowered the landing gear, and flew the approach. He did not see any deer activity and proceeded to land. Upon landing, the airplane began to shake, and the airplane stopped on the runway. The airplane came to rest on its belly and with the main landing gear partially extended.  The nose gear was not visible due to the airplane’s resting position on the runway. The landing gear switch was found in the down position, and the gear motor circuit breaker was found popped. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the skins, frames, and stringers on the belly of the fuselage. During postaccident examination of the airplane, the popped gear motor circuit breaker was reset, and the landing gear was cycled up and down successfully using airplane power. No anomalies were noted with the landing gear system. Examination of the underside of the airplane revealed no damage to the main landing gear, wheels, or main gear doors. Examination of the nose gear showed abrasion damage to the face of the nose gear doors. The lack of damage to the main landing gear assemblies and the damage to the face of the nose gear doors was consistent with the gear being in the up position when the airplane touched down on the runway. Even though the pilot stated that he lowered the gear on approach, the evidence is consistent with the pilot failing to lower the gear on approach likely due to distraction from the report of deer near the runway. The gear motor circuit breaker popped because the landing gear switch was likely moved to the down position sometime after the airplane touched down while movement of the landing gear was restricted.Page 2 of 6 WPR22LA180
The pilot reported that in cruise flight he positioned the fuel selector to the right auxiliary fuel tank and set a timer for 20 minutes. He practiced private pilot maneuvers and then proceeded to a nearby airport for touch-and-go landings. He did not switch the fuel selector back to the main fuel tank because he did not notice the timer. The pilot completed one touch-and-go landing and during the initial climb, the engine experienced a total loss of power. He pitched the nose of the airplane down for a forced landing and the engine regained power momentarily. The engine again experienced a loss of power, the airplane stalled, and impacted the ground adjacent to the runway resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. He stated that he should have refueled the airplane before the flight, so he did not have to worry about fuel management.
The pilot reported that airplane had been painted and the rudder reinstalled before the accident flight. He stated that immediately after takeoff he noticed that he needed to use significant left rudder to maintain directional control. He executed a precautionary landing on the airport property, landing hard in the grass at a 45° angle to the runway. The fuselage sustained substantial damage and the nose landing gear fractured during the landing. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the rudder trim system was significantly out of rig. The pilot was unable to provide any maintenance records relating to the rudder removal and reinstallation. It is likely that the rudder and/or its trim system was installed incorrectly following the airplane’s repainting, which resulted in the pilot’s difficulty maintaining directional control and inability to make a normal landing on the runway. Although the pilot indicated that he performed the preflight checklist before takeoff, he stated that he may not have checked the control trims that are part of that checklist. It is likely that, had the pilot completed a preflight control check before the flight, he would have identified the improperly rigged rudder trim system.
The pilot reported that he reduced airspeed and lowered the landing gear and flaps while on downwind for the runway. The landing gear and flaps used a single control lever, which he had to “wrestle” with to get into the “locked” position. While he attempted to lower the landing gear and flaps the engine lost all power. He extended the downwind leg so he could attempt to restart the engine. Unable to restore engine power, he turned toward the runway and the airplane impacted trees short of the runway threshold. The pilot later reported, after simulating the accident sequence in the airplane, that while extending the flaps and landing gear, he likely inadvertently closed, or turned off, a switch that controls the engine control unit (ECU), an action which results in an immediate engine stoppage.”
According to the pilot, he repositioned the helicopter within the landing zone after landing to use its full length for the planned departure. As he applied takeoff power, the pilot inadvertently climbed the helicopter into wires above the main rotor blades. The pilot subsequently reduced power and attempted a run-on landing to an adjacent road, but the main rotor struck a building. The helicopter rolled on its side and was substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that while landing off-airport on snow-covered mountainous terrain, the ski-equipped airplane touched down fast, and he was unable to make a left turn prior to the airplane impacting a “gully”. Subsequently, the airplane impacted the opposite side of the gully, both landing gear collapsed, and the left wing impacted the terrain and sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot stated that he was landing on a beach. During the landing roll, the airplane’s main landing gear “dug in the soft sand” and the airplane flipped over, which resulted in substantial damage to the rudder, fuselage and longerons. The pilot stated that there were no mechanical deficiencies that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, upon touchdown on the asphalt runway, the airplane veered abruptly to the right. The airplane exited the runway, impacted a snowbank, and nosed over, resulting in substantial damage to the vertical stabilizer, rudder, and wings.Examination of the nose landing gear system revealed no pre-accident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. An examination of the landing surface revealed tire witness marks consistent with the airplane touching down in a left-wing-low attitude and evidence that the right main tire did not contact the ground until after the airplane had departed the runway.   Based on the tire witness marks and the lack of preaccident mechanical malfunctions with the airplane, the circumstances of the accident are consistent with the pilot’s failure to maintain directional control during the landing roll.
While en route the pilot reported there was a sudden explosion and the right window and portion of the right roof separated from the airplane. He performed an emergency descent and landed uneventfully. The airplane was initially documented but was repaired before a detailed postaccident examination could be completed. The airframe could not be examined, and the separated window was not located; therefore, the reason for the separation could not be determined.
The pilot stated that shortly after takeoff as they climbed to a higher altitude, she noticed the burners sounded different and they didn’t seem to produce as much power as they usually did, so she elected to perform an emergency landing. During the descent, the balloon descended below power lines, and the pilot applied maximum available power to avoid a collision with the power lines. The pilot then decreased the power to immediately land in a nearby parking lot. The balloon touched down, bounced and the envelope contacted power lines that bordered the fence enclosed parking lot. Just beyond the parking lot where the pilot landed was open uninhabited land.  Postaccident examination of the accident balloon’s fuel supply system, ignition, burner, gages, and operational checks revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot was able to successfully add power to climb over the power lines as she approached her selected landing site, indicating that she still possessed control over the balloon’s descent rate. Despite still having climb capabilities, she elected to continue the approach to the confined area, which resulted in a collision with power lines. Review of the landing area indicated that there were miles of unobstructed hazard-free landing sites that would have been more suitable for the landing.
The airline transport pilot had just purchased the tailwheel-equipped, 65-horsepower airplane and was flying it from Wyoming to his home in Texas accompanied by a flight instructor. During one of their fuel stops on the first day of the trip, the instructor spoke with a local pilot and stated that the accident airplane had difficulty climbing above 8,000 ft during previous legs of the trip. The accident occurred on the second leg of the second day of the trip. The accident flight originated from an airport at an elevation about 5,500 ft mean sea level (msl), with a density altitude over 7,000 ft, and proceeded over an area of high desert terrain. About 50 nautical miles from the departure airport, the airplane was seen maneuvering at low altitude toward a ridgeline, then away from the ridgeline and toward a nearby dirt road before it descended, impacted terrain, and nosed over. The witness further reported that, at the time of the accident, the winds were gusting from the southwest, over the ridgeline, and that the airplane’s engine was running. The pilot was fatally injured. The instructor sustained serious injuries and stated that he had no recollection of the accident flight after departure. A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any mechanical failures that would have precluded normal operation. The accident site was located at an elevation of about 7,100 ft msl. The calculated density altitude at the accident site exceeded 9,000 ft. The operating manual for the engine make and model revealed that, at an altitude of 7,000 ft, the full throttle sea-level horsepower value is reduced to 78.9%. At 9,500 and 10,000 ft, the sea level horsepower is reduced further to 72.5% and 70.8%, respectively. Given the instructor’s statement the previous day regarding the airplane’s performance above 8,000 ft, and the estimated density altitude conditions at the accident site, it is likely that the Page 2 of 9 WPR22FA148airplane’s performance was significantly degraded during the accident flight as a result of high-density altitude. It is possible that the pilots may have also been experiencing mechanical turbulence due to the mountainous terrain and gusting wind conditions described by the witness.
The pilot reported that he flared too high resulting in a hard landing. The airplane bounced, drifted to the right, and went through a fence colliding with some trees. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the leading edge of the right wing as well as the right horizontal stabilizer and elevator. 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 the purpose of the flight was to gain experience operating the airplane in crosswind conditions. During landing, when the airplane was about 20 feet above the ground, a wind gust arrested the descent and pushed the airplane to the right of the runway centerline. The pilot corrected for the drift and re-established alignment with the runway centerline. When the airplane was a few feet above the runway, another wind gust resulted in the airplane contacting the runway with the left main landing gear. The pilot corrected with right rudder, but the side loading of the landing gear had altered the airplane’s runway alignment to the left and it went off the left side of the runway. The pilot attempted to correct with right rudder and right braking, but the nose wheel sunk into wet ground and the airplane nosed over, coming to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot indicated that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operations. The pilot reported that the wind condition at the time of the landing was about 50 degrees left of runway heading at 13 kts gusting to 23 kts. The recorded weather observation about the time of the accident recorded wind about 20 degrees left of runway heading at 8 kts, gusting to 21 kts.
The pilot of the glider reported that, while in thermal flight, he made a turn to the south to follow a ridgeline. Before he reached the top of the mountain, the glider experienced a loss of lift. To compensate, he maneuvered the glider away from terrain and encountered additional sink. While maneuvering the glider toward lower terrain, the right-wing tip struck a tree. The glider struck additional trees before it impacted terrain and came to rest between two trees.The glider sustained substantial damage to the right wing and fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the glider that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the accident airplane was attempting to depart after his airplane had recently been returned to service following a hard landing about 9 months before that had collapsed the right main landing gear and damaged the wing strut. During the takeoff attempt on the day of the accident, when the pilot started to rotate, the airplane immediately entered an uncommanded right roll. The pilot’s attempts to counteract the roll were unsuccessful and the airplane impacted the ground. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the right wing’s aft lift strut was not bolted to the right wing attachment clevis. As the left wing was intact and continued to produce lift, the unsecured right wing would have reduced the lift force acting on the right wing and, therefore, inhibited the pilot’s ability to maintain level flight. This condition is what likely resulted in an uncommanded right roll and impact with the ground. The airplane had recently been repaired by the pilot (who was also the owner) with assistance from his mechanic. During the rebuild, the mechanic placed a bolt upside down and with a finger-tight nylon locknut in the right wing’s aft lift strut to secure it to the right wing attachment clevis while they transported the airplane to a new hangar. The pilot and the mechanic never removed the bolt and the strut was never properly secured to the wing as required by the build manual before the accident flight. Both the pilot and mechanic performed the rebuild together and were both aware of the temporary measure used to secure the right wing’s aft lift strut to the right wing. The mechanic should have correctly completed the installation before he returned the airplane to service and the accident pilot should have recognized the absence of the hardware before he departed on the accident flight. Further, the pilot also missed the absence of the improper installation, having incorrectly assumed that the mechanic had performed a preflight inspection for him while they developed a preflight checklist. Page 2 of 7 WPR22LA149