roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The commercial pilot was conducting a local, agricultural application flight when the engine experienced a partial loss of power during a spray pass. The pilot's corrective actions did not restore normal engine operation, and he conducted a forced landing to a nearby field. The airplane descended into tall vegetation and landed in soft, sandy soil and then decelerated rapidly and nosed over.  Postaccident engine examination revealed a circumferential fracture of the No. 9 cylinder. Further examination determined that the cylinder fractured from a fatigue crack that had initiated at multiple locations at a valley between two cooling fins on the outside surface. The fatigue crack progressed inward and circumferentially around the cylinder before finally cracking in overstress. No discrepancies, such as corrosion pits, wear marks, or machining marks, were found at the crack initiation sites. The cylinder met the airplane manufacturer's material and hardness specifications. The fracture would have allowed combustion gasses to escape during engine operation and led to a corresponding loss of cylinder compression, which would have led to erratic engine operation and a partial loss of power. According to engine logbook documentation, no cylinder cracks were found during an airworthiness directive inspection completed about 64 flight hours before the accident.
The private pilot stated that he flew the airplane earlier in the day with no engine anomalies noted. During the return flight at 2,000 ft above ground level, the cylinder head temperature (CHT) on one of the engine's cylinders was higher than normal. He reduced engine power and the CHT decreased, then later increased again. He subsequently heard a loud "bang" from the engine, and the airplane and engine both shuddered. He reduced the throttle to idle and made a forced landing in a bean field. During the landing roll, the nose wheel collapsed in the mud and the airplane nosed over.A postaccident exterior examination of the engine did not reveal any abnormalities. The airplane was not made available for examination during the course of the investigation; therefore, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The commercial pilot reported that he did not note any drag or restrictions from the wheel brakes during taxi or takeoff. When the airplane touched down at the destination airport, it immediately began to veer left. The pilot was unable to overcome the uncommanded movement despite his application of right rudder and right brake, and the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. The pilot reported that as he was preparing the airplane for the flight, he removed the chocks and the airplane started to roll backwards. He assumed that his son had released the parking brake and replaced the downhill chocks the night before the accident when he finished washing the airplane. The pilot completed the preflight but did not follow the checklist to confirm that the parking brake was disengaged before departing on the flight. Postaccident, the brake knob was found in the ON (engaged) position. However, the pilot reported the absence of any drag during ground operations indicating that the parking brake may not have been engaged before taking off, which can occur if the toe brakes are not fully extended when the parking brake is set. Postaccident testing revealed that the left brake became stuck multiple times due to the interference of circumferential gouges and ridges on the left brake master cylinder piston rod and bushing, which likely resulted from normal operation of the parking brake. Because the parking brake knob was in the ON position during the flight, the left brake could have been set by depressing the toe brake. The rod damage would have then prevented the free travel required for the piston to release brake pressure and disengage the left brake, thereby causing the airplane to veer left after touching down. Although a visual inspection of the rod could have detected the wear, review of the maintenance logs since 2010 showed that the master cylinder had not been disassembled and inspected, nor was it required to be. Page 2 of 7 WPR17LA192
The student pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane was practicing crosswind takeoffs and landings with the flight instructor. During the second landing, a few feet above the runway on short final, the airplane's nose turned sharply to the left. The student reported that his flight instructor yelled a command, took over the controls, and added full power. The flight instructor reported that, after he took the flight controls, he attempted to go around but was unsuccessful. The airplane continued to the left through low brush and down an embankment. The tailwheel struck the edge of the embankment, and the airplane then nosed over.Both wings and wing struts sustained substantial damage.The student pilot and flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.An automated weather observation station located about 7 miles north of the accident airport reported that, about 8 minutes after the accident, the wind was from 310° at 11 knots. The airplane landed on runway 2.Page 2 of 6 GAA17CA507
The private pilot had flown the airplane “many times” before the accident flight and was planning on conducting a local sightseeing flight on the day of the accident. According to the pilot, the preflight inspection, engine start, run-up, flight control check, taxi, and takeoff roll were normal.  During the take-off roll, the tail lifted off normally. Immediately after takeoff, the airplane began an abrupt and uncontrollable yaw to the left. The pilot applied full right aileron and full right rudder, but the airplane continued a turn to the left. The pilot determined the airplane was “travelling too fast to land in the rough field adjacent to the runway” and began to climb. The airplane impacted trees bordering the left side of the runway and sustained substantial damage to the airframe and the firewall.Postaccident examination of the rudder control cables and their associated linkages revealed that, when the cable was manipulated the rudder deflected fully left, and it was difficult to move the rudder to the right. The examination could not conclusively determine the reason for the restricted movement of the rudder. In addition, the right tail wheel spring was loose, the attachment S hook appeared elongated, and there was bending to the right spring inner bandings. The pilot’s loss of directional control was likely due the restricted movement of the rudder controls. The bending of the spring and the elongated S hook suggest that significant right rudder force was applied against the rudder control, though the cause of the restriction could not be conclusively confirmed.
The commercial helicopter pilot, who was enrolled in transition training for airplanes, stated that he made a normal approach to land the airplane, but when he pulled back on the control yoke, the nose of the airplane did not come up as expected. The airplane had a flat attitude, landed hard, and bounced four or five times, which resulted in damage to the firewall, the nosewheel, and both propeller blades. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the control yoke had minimal movement due to the upper yoke control tubes at the chain sprocket binding against the aluminum channel brace due to the bent firewall. The examination also found that the elevator trim tab cable had slack and was not rigged correctly, which was not due to the hard landing: when the trim tab wheel was moved, the cable's center travel block would catch on the aft tail cone bulkhead. However, subsequent examination of the airplane did not reveal any evidence of a preimpact elevator control problem, despite the rigging of the elevator trim tab cable. A student pilot who had flown the airplane before the accident flight had not reported any issues with landing the airplane. At the time of the accident, the pilot had accrued 29 hours of flight experience in single-engine airplanes. About 1 month after the accident, the pilot flew with a Federal Aviation Administration designated pilot examiner (DPE) and, according to the DPE, executed several landings that had a flat attitude versus a nose-high attitude. On one landing, the airplane bounced and then ballooned, which resulted in the DPE taking control of the airplane. The DPE later spoke with the pilot's flight instructor, who confirmed that the pilot tended to not properly flare on landing. Although the elevator trim tab cable was not rigged correctly, it did not impede the use of the elevator or the pilot's ability to properly flare the airplane for a safe landing. Thus, it is likely that the pilot did not flare properly, which resulted in a hard landing.
The pilot reported that, during banner towing operations, he was on approach to drop the banner and pulled the tow release, but the banner did not release. The banner hit the ground and broke away from the airplane, and the airplane nosed over. The release mechanism has three hooks, but they typically only use the No. 1 hook. Postaccident examination of the hook release mechanism did not reveal any anomalies that would have prevented the banner from being released. The pilot believed that the ground crew mistakenly set up the No. 3 hook to pick up and tow the banner instead of the No. 1 hook. Therefore, when he went to release the banner from the No.1 hook, there was nothing to release.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the empennage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
While in cruise flight around 36,000 ft, the flight crew of the scheduled domestic passenger flight was instructed by air traffic control to turn for traffic separation. The crew reported that, after completing the turn, the airplane entered a cloud and encountered severe turbulence. The seat belt sign was not activated at the time of the encounter, and of the 74 passengers and crew members aboard, one passenger received serious injuries and two flight attendants and eight passengers received minor injuries. The airplane was not damaged. According to flight data recorder information, during the encounter, vertical acceleration ranged from -0.8g to 1.89g, the airplane lost about 200 ft altitude in 2 seconds, and the airspeed varied by about 15 knots. The airplane entered an 11.6° nose-down pitch attitude and rolled 26 degrees to the left. The crew reported that the flight until the encounter had been smooth. They reported that they could see the cloud build-up as they were approaching it from about 80 to 100 miles away, but that their radar did not indicate that they were going to encounter convective weather.The company's flight operations manual stated that, before entering an area of thunderstorms, pilots were required to ensure that all personnel were seated and safety belts were fastened.
The civilian airline transport pilot was conducting a cross-country flight with another airplane to participate in a military air defense training exercise. The accident pilot reported that, while flying about 14,000 ft mean sea level (msl), one of the military airplanes started flying alongside his airplane's right wing and then accelerated ahead of his airplane and crossed in front of its flightpath. The military pilot stated that he tried to get the accident pilot's attention so that he could make him aware of his position but that he was unsuccessful. The accident pilot reported that he attempted to follow the military airplane but that it then turned right and passed in front of his flightpath again. The accident pilot added that, as he turned right to follow the military airplane, he heard a "thump," which he attributed to jet wash. His airplane then immediately rolled left. He attempted to counter the left roll by applying right aileron, but the airplane then entered a nose-down attitude and began to spin. The pilot attempted to recover control without success, and he subsequently ejected from the airplane while it was passing through 4,000 ft msl. The airplane subsequently descended into the ocean. The airplane could not be examined after the accident because the wreckage was not recovered from the ocean. The pilot reported seeing that the magnetic indicators displayed black, which suggests that aileron hydraulic power was being supplied to the ailerons at the time of the loss of control. Given the evidence, it is likely that, after the accident airplane flew through the military airplane's jet wash, aileron movement was inhibited for reasons that could not be determined, which resulted in the pilot's loss of airplane control.
According to the pilot in the high-performance, tailwheel-equipped airplane, he accomplished a normal wheel landing on the asphalt runway in light-and-variable wind conditions. He reported that, during the landing roll, the tailwheel settled to the runway and began a "violent shimmy." The airplane exited the left side of the runway and ground looped to the left. The right wing and the elevator struck the ground. The pilot taxied the airplane to parking.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and the elevator.The pilot reported that, shortly after the accident, he retrieved a metal clamp from the airport, which he believed was on the runway during the time of the accident.The accident airplane was originally manufactured with tricycle landing gear and was converted to a tailwheel-equipped airplane.A Federal Aviation Administration aviation safety inspector examined the airplane's tailwheel assembly, including the tire and the wheel, for evidence that a clamp had gotten caught in the tailwheel assembly. He reported that there were no signs of any scarring to the wheel, tire, or steering assembly. There were no signs of tire damage from skidding, and the tailwheel's control cables were intact. He reported that "there [was] no visible sign of any sort [that] this tailwheel was operated any way other than what it is designed for, and there is not any physical sign it was ever not following the [inputs] from the pilot."
The commercial pilot was performing an aerial application flight in the airplane. A witness reported that after a slight right turn, the airplane rolled wings level, about 150 to 200 ft above ground level. Then, the nose dropped, and the airplane impacted a field in a near vertical attitude. A postimpact fire ensued, which consumed most of the airplane's fuselage, left wing, and empennage. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. However, the extent of thermal damage to the airplane prevented confirmation of control continuity.
The flight instructor and student pilot were practicing hovering autorotations when the cockpit filled with smoke. The helicopter had just touched down, so the flight instructor secured the cockpit and both he and the student egressed the helicopter with the engine still running. About 5 minutes later, the engine stopped. Postincident examination of the helicopter revealed no fire or other related damage. Maintenance personnel reported that the smoke appeared to have originated from the failure of an internal oil seal within the turbocharger-compressor that leaked oil into the turbocharger-compressor's exhaust system. No further examination or repair was accomplished and the turbocharger was replaced.Further examination revealed damage to the turbocharger-compressor v-clamp assembly that was installed on the exhaust. The strap portion of the v-clamp assembly contained cracks on the outer face that emanated from three of the four spot welds. The edge of the strap portion exhibited evidence of bending deformation on both sides of the assembly. In the deformed areas, the distance between the edge of the retainer and the edge of the strap was smaller when compared to other, non-deformed areas. Further, microscopic examination of the largest crack revealed a fatigue crack emanating from the outer surface of the v-clamp assembly strap. It is likely that the v-clamp assembly bolts were tightened to an extent that caused the deformation in the strap. The damage found to the v-clamp was not related to the source of the smoke.
According to the pilot, he was flying a 400-nautical-mile, cross-county flight. He reported that the outside air temperature along the route had been hot. He recalled that the engine temperature had been high and that he "increased the mixture to cool the engine down multiple times." As he approached his destination, the engine began "coughing for 3-4 minutes" before the engine stopped. He attempted to land at the destination airport but was unable to reach it, so he made a forced landing in a mud-filled drainage channel about .5 mile north of the airport. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the lower fuselage and windscreen. A Federal Aviation Administration aviation safety inspector examined the airplane's fuel system at the accident site. He reported that both fuel tanks were found empty, with about 1/2 cup of fuel at the bottom of the left tank, after removing the sump drain.Per the National Transportation Safety Board's Pilot Aircraft Accident Report, the pilot reported that the accident could have been prevented with the "Use of [a] fuel dipstick for better measurement of fuel quantity." The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The noncertificated pilot of the experimental amateur-built airplane reported that, during the initial climb, the engine did not seem to be producing full power, so he attempted to reject the takeoff and land back on the runway. During the landing, the wind pushed the airplane to the right, the left wing rose, and the right wing contacted the ground. The airplane spun around and came to rest upright. The pilot had not flown since 2010 and had no more than 2 hours of recent flight experience. The pilot stated that he had checked the spark plugs before the accident flight and thought that he did not properly install the plugs; however, following the accident, the pilot ran the engine several times and the engine appeared to produce power.The wind conditions at the time of the accident would have resulted in a left quartering tailwind during landing. This, coupled with the density altitude of about 7,300 ft, would have significantly decreased the airplane's performance and could have given the perception to the noncertificated, inexperienced pilot that the engine had experienced a partial loss of power.
The pilot was departing on an agricultural application flight from a 2,300-ft-long runway. When the airplane reached the end of the runway, the pilot could "feel that the airplane did not want to fly." The pilot extended the flaps, then dumped the spray load that was in the airplane’s hopper tank in an attempt to become airborne; however, the airplane continued off the end of the runway, crossed a drainage ditch, and came to rest in a bean field, resulting in substantial damage.The airplane’s hopper was loaded with about 3,400 lbs of a mixture of herbicide and other chemicals, which exceeded the hopper’s placarded limitation of 3,250 lbs. The airplane’s estimated weight at the time of the accident was 1,864 lbs higher than the manufacturer’s published gross weight and about 264 lbs more than field experience showed could be carried safely with adequate margins of performance and structural strength. Calculations by the airplane manufacturer using takeoff data of a similar airplane from a previous company test program indicated a takeoff ground roll distance of about 2,322 ft. Given the density altitude about the time of the accident, the airplane’s takeoff distance would have been increased by 24%, and there would have been an 18% decrease in its rate of climb. No preimpact failures or malfunctions were discovered that would have precluded normal operation. Despite the numerous indicators that the takeoff conditions were marginal, such as the high air temperature, high gross weight, and a short runway, the pilot failed to evaluate the conditions that existed in relation to the performance capability of the airplane.
According to the pilot, during the takeoff roll, about 2,100 ft down the 4,210-ft-long runway, the airplane had accelerated to 65 knots. The airplane remained in ground effect for about 1,000 more feet but would not climb. The pilot feared the airplane would collide with obstacles beyond the end of the runway, and he aborted the takeoff. During landing, the airplane bounced, and when it descended back to the runway, the pilot immediately applied the brakes. The airplane exited the left side of the runway before reaching the runway threshold. The airplane continued about 120 ft and then collided with a fence. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and the lower left fuselage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The METAR at the accident airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 200° at 8 knots, and the temperature was 73°F. The field elevation was 4,862 ft, and the density altitude was 6,682 ft. According to the Pilot's Operating Handbook, under the reported weather conditions, the minimum ground roll was about 2,249 ft, and the minimum distance to clear a 50-ft obstacle was about 3,701 ft. Further, the normal distance to land would have been about 901 ft.According to FAA-H-8083-25A, The Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, Chapter 10 (Aircraft Performance) pg.16: Page 2 of 6 GAA17CA500        The most critical conditions of landing performance are combinations of high gross weight, high density altitude, and unfavorable wind. These conditions produce the greatest required landing distances and critical levels of energy dissipation required of the brakes. In all cases, it is necessary to make an accurate prediction of minimum landing distance to compare with the available runway. A polished, professional landing procedure is necessary because the landing phase of flight accounts for more pilot-caused aircraft accidents than any other single phase of flight.
During the takeoff roll after a touch-and-go landing, the airplane veered sharply to the left and departed the runway. The private pilot was unable to stop the left turn, even with full right rudder applied, and the airplane traveled down a slope and into brush. The airplane was recovered and inspected by a local mechanic, who spoke with the operator and determined that the airplane was not substantially damaged and that there were no mechanical issues with the nosewheel. The pilot subsequently chose to take off and then perform a touch-and-go landing before flying the airplane back to his home airport. He stated that the takeoff and landing were normal, but when he added power to take off again, the airplane veered left off the runway, even with full right rudder applied. The nosewheel struck an object, which resulted in damage to the engine mounts, propeller, and airframe. According to the operator, the airplane had no previous mechanical problems with steering or the nosewheel. Because the airplane had no previous records of problems with steering or the nosewheel, the mechanic did not find any mechanical issues after the first runway excursion, and the pilot was able to successfully take off before the touch-and-go, it is likely that the pilot failed to maintain directional control on takeoff.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during takeoff, he lost directional control. He added that the airplane veered to the left "abruptly," exited the runway, and struck a vertical approach slope indicator light. The right main landing gear collapsed, and the airplane nosed over.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the empennage.The pilot did not submit the National Transportation Safety Board Form 6120.1 Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report.