roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The solo student pilot reported that during landing in crosswind conditions, the airplane "porpoised back into the air two or three times, finally striking the nose gear hard." He further reported that the nose gear had been damaged and the airplane veered off the runway to the right.The engine mounts sustained substantial damage.The student pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The automated weather observing system at the accident airport, near the time of the accident, recorded the wind at 240 degrees true at 16 knots. The student pilot reported that the landing was on runway 29 right.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that shortly after touchdown, he "lost directional control" to the right, attempted to correct with left rudder and brake inputs, but was unsuccessful. The airplane continued to veer off the runway to the right, ground looped, and the left wing impacted the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the flight instructor in the weight-shift-control aircraft, he made two low approaches and two go-arounds to runway 36. He reported that, during the third approach, he crossed the runway threshold and "rounded up" and that the left wing "flew up, and the right wing dropped precipitously, as if it stalled." The aircraft swiftly yawed to the right and descended rapidly, and the pilot stated that he responded with a full control deflection. He added that the deflection leveled the aircraft just before impact with the turf and that the aircraft heading was about 35° to 50° right of the runway heading. The aircraft sustained substantial damage to both wings and the airframe.A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aviation Safety Inspector examined the aircraft wreckage and was unable to locate the right overcenter washout strut spilt ring. The split ring connects the washout strut and the leading edge of the right wing spar, which allows the pilot to manipulate the aircraft's directional control. In postimpact photographs of the left side overcenter washout strut split ring, it appears to be partially attached, and the right side split ring was not located in the wreckage.
The student pilot stated that, while on final approach for landing, the airplane encountered turbulence on final approach that "pushed the plane down." The airplane landed short of the runway, the student egressed, and the airplane subsequently caught fire and was destroyed. The student pilot reported that there were no mechanical problems before the accident; there were no witnesses. Visual examination of the wreckage revealed that the fuel/gascolator line had ruptured during impact, resulting in the postimpact fire. The local weather at the time of the accident included wind from 130° at 3 knots, and the smoke was observed billowing straight up from the fire; indicating calm to light wind at the time of the accident. It is likely that the student pilot failed to maintain a proper approach path during the landing approach, which resulted in the airplane impacting terrain short of the runway.
The pilot reported that during the landing on a grass runway at his private property, he "crabbed for the [cross] wind but did not neutralize the rudder pedals soon enough." He further reported that when the airplane touched down, the airplane veered off the runway to the right and the nose wheel collapsed in soft mud. During the runway excursion, the right wing impacted terrain and was substantially damaged.The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The automated weather observing system about the time of the accident, 5 nautical miles north of the accident site, recorded the wind at 160 degrees true at 4 knots. The pilot reported that he landed in a northeast direction.
The student pilot was conducting a cross-country personal flight. The student pilot reported that, while in cruise flight, the single-engine airplane lost power. He then performed a forced landing to a field, during which the wings and firewall were damaged. Examination of the engine revealed damage consistent with lubrication distress. Further, a cylinder piston pin was found broken, and metal was found in the oil pickup screen and in the oil filter, which had recently been changed. It is likely that the degraded piston pin was the source of the metal in the oil, which clogged the oil inlet screen and reduced the amount of oil available to the engine and resulted in the loss of engine power. A nonmechanic had performed preventative maintenance and changed the oil and oil filter shortly before the accident. He reported that he noticed the metal in the filter but did not consider it to be an indication of a problem.
The hot air free balloon was participating in the Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta. According to the pilot, he was approaching a vacant field for landing after a one-hour flight. The pilot approached the field from about 8 feet above the ground and the envelope impacted an unnoticed power line during landing. The pilot deflated the envelope, but the wind pulled the envelope and basket into the lines, which resulted in arcing against the uprights and frame.
Shortly after departing on the local flight, the pilot noticed that the engine oil temperature indicated 245°, or redline, and the engine began to run roughly. The pilot contacted air traffic control and requested to return to the airport. The controller cleared the pilot to land and advised of the wind conditions. Upon touchdown, the airplane bounced and came to rest on the runway, resulting in substantial damage. On-scene examination revealed damage consistent with the airplane impacting the runway on the nose landing gear. Examination of the engine revealed that the vernatherm had failed, which would have resulted in elevated engine oil temperature; however, there were no other engine anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The conditions at the time of the accident included a 50° crosswind between 7 and 14 knots. The airplane's published maximum crosswind component was 15 knots.  The circumstances of the accident are consistent with the pilot's improper landing flare while landing in gusting, crosswind conditions, which resulted in the nose landing gear contacting the runway and its subsequent collapse.
The pilot was flying the airplane in cruise flight at 11,000 ft when the engine lost power. He attempted to restart the engine by switching fuel tanks, turning on the igniters, and holding down the start button but was unsuccessful. He elected to turn back toward the departure airport and feathered the propeller. During the descent, the pilot decided he was unable to make it back to the airport and conducted a forced landing on a dirt road. During the landing rollout, both wings struck trees, which resulted in substantial damage. Examination of the flight controls, engine, and fuel systems revealed no mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. However, fuel samples recovered from the airplane tested positive for water. Data recovered from the engine monitor showed an abrupt power loss that coincided with a loss of fuel flow. The flight instructor who completed transition training with the pilot reported the pilot did not sump the fuel before every flight. Thus, it is likely that the pilot did not perform an adequate preflight inspection and water remained in the fuel system, which led to a total loss of engine power. The pilot's operating handbook (POH) recommended that the configuration for a forced landing is landing gear up, flaps up, propeller feathered, and airspeed at 110 knots to achieve maximum glide performance. This configuration provides a maximum glide performance of about 500 ft per minute (fpm) descent and about 3.5 nautical miles glide distance per 1,000 ft of altitude lost. Data from the engine monitoring system revealed that, about 3 minutes after the fuel flow stopped and about 2-3 minutes before the accident, the flaps were extended to takeoff position, the airplane achieved 110 kts, and the propeller was feathered. During this time, the rate of descent exceeded 1,000 fpm and was, at times, in excess of 4,000 fpm. The pilot did not mention of the use of an emergency engine-out checklist or consultation of the POH during the event. The pilot's failure to accomplish all of the steps in the emergency engine-out checklist promptly after the loss of engine power led to an accelerated loss of altitude and the subsequent inability to glide to the airport. Page 2 of 8 CEN17LA009
According to the pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane, during the approach, he applied carburetor heat, set airspeed to 70 knots, and set the flaps to 1 notch less than full. He reported that the flare and touchdown on the gravel runway was "very smooth." However, he recalled that, when the tailwheel contacted the ground, the right wing ascended, and the left wing dragged across the ground. The pilot reported that the left wing strut failed and that the airplane nosed over and came to rest on the gravel runway. Additionally, the pilot noted that, after the accident, the wind sock indicated a direct crosswind from the right and varied between three-quarters to completely full.However, postaccident photographs of the airplane revealed that the airplane's left wing sustained damage to its top side. The bottom side of the left wing, the wing tip, and the wing strut revealed no indication of runway contact. The photographs revealed substantial damage to the horizontal stabilizer and the rudder.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor reported that he was conducting primary flight training in a complex, high-performance airplane. On final approach during daylight hours, the runway's precision approach path indicator (PAPI) indicated the airplane was low on the approach path. He advised the student pilot to reduce the rate of descent. He further reported that the student pilot "relaxed his white knuckle grip" and the airplane pitched down "significantly". The flight instructor grabbed the control yoke and applied full throttle, but the airplane struck the runway approach lights during the low altitude recovery. The flight instructor landed the airplane without further incident. A postaccident examination of the airplane, by the flight instructor, revealed the airplane was trimmed nose down and that the right wing had sustained substantial damage.The flight instructor reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot, who owned the airplane, was making a local personal flight from his home airport. During taxi for takeoff, the airplane experienced a total loss of engine power. The pilot/owner reported to a controller in the airport's air traffic control tower that he did not know why the engine stopped but that he got it restarted. The airplane subsequently departed. Minutes after departure, the pilot reported "engine problems" to the controller, asked to return, and was cleared to land on any runway. The airplane reversed course and witnesses near the accident site reported hearing the engine sputter and then stop. The airplane struck trees about 1 mile from the extended runway centerline as the pilot was attempting to reach the airport.Examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical anomalies that would have prevented normal engine operation. The fuel drained from the airplane presented the color and odor of automobile gasoline, and the pilot was seen refueling his airplane from cans transported in his car. Further, the pilot had not serviced his airplane with aviation gasoline at his home airport.Atmospheric conditions were conducive to serious icing at descent power and moderate icing at cruise power. The airplane's loss of power when the power setting was low while taxiing and its loss of power when the power was reduced to cruise power after takeoff were both likely due to carburetor icing. A search of the airplane's maintenance records revealed no supplemental type certificate that authorized the use of automobile gasoline in the airplane, and the likelihood of carburetor icing is increased when automobile gasoline is used. While the airplane was equipped with carburetor heat, impact-related damage to the engine controls precluded an assessment of the control's preimpact position.
The private pilot stated that, during the initial climb after takeoff, he checked the airspeed and lowered the airplane's nose. He reported that the airplane rolled to the right, which he corrected, then the airplane "abruptly" rolled to the left. He was unable to correct the roll, and the airplane descended and impacted terrain. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or malfunctions of the airplane. A witness reported that the airplane was airborne in a wings level, "very high" nose-up attitude when he first saw it. He stated that, after a few seconds, the left wing and the nose dropped. Shortly after that, the right wing dropped, the nose-down attitude increased, and the airplane impacted terrain. A video of the accident corroborated the witness account. The witness's recollection of the accident, along with the video of the accident airplane just before the accident, suggest that the pilot exceeded the airplane's critical angle of attack during the initial climb, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall.
The student pilot departed with full fuel tanks and flew to a nearby airport to practice takeoffs and landings. In preparation for his first landing, he checked that the mixture was full-rich and that the electric fuel pump and carburetor heat were turned on. The student pilot reduced power and extended the flaps; however, he realized that the airplane was too high and chose to go around. The student pilot applied full power, retracted the flaps, and turned off the carburetor heat. At that point, the engine started running roughly and experienced a total loss of power. The student pilot turned the carburetor heat back on, rechecked that the electric fuel pump was still on, and switched fuel tanks, but engine power was not restored. The student pilot made a forced landing to a field adjacent to the airport. Examination of the airplane revealed the carburetor had flooded and was leaking due to a stuck float, which prevented engine operation. The carburetor was removed and disassembled. No anomalies were noted with the float or needle/seat, and the carburetor was reassembled and reinstalled on the engine. The engine was subsequently started, and it ran with no anomalies noted. The reason for the stuck carburetor float could not be determined.
During a personal cross-country flight, the airplane's engine lost power when the airplane was 1/2 mile from the destination airport. The airline transport pilot performed a forced landing, during which the airplane struck trees and severed both wings. The fuselage impacted the ground, and the airplane caught fire. Although many of the engine accessories were damaged or destroyed by the postcrash fire, a postaccident examination of the engine revealed considerable debris in the fuel strainer screen, and the fuel strainer bowl was extensively corroded. Thus, it is likely that the debris in the fuel strainer stopped adequate flow of fuel to the engine, resulting in a loss of engine power due to fuel starvation.
The private rated pilot conducted a local pleasure flight and returned to a private grass airfield.  He reported that he had poles located at the end of the runway, to help establish the runways' s center line and that there was a field of standing corn on the left side of the runway.  He added that during the landing he was slightly left of the runway centerline and should have executed a go-around. The airplane's left wingtip impacted the corn and the airplane continued left into the corn, nosed over, and came to rest inverted.  Examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the fuselage and wings.
The airline transport pilot and passenger were breaking in the newly overhauled engine on a cross-country flight in accordance with the engine manufacturer's break-in procedures. About 20 minutes after departure, during cruise flight at 75% power, the engine began running "mildly rough" and then began "cutting in and out." The pilot chose to divert to another airport, and about 5 miles from that airport, the engine experienced a total loss of power. The pilot subsequently performed a forced landing to a field, during which the wings and fuselage sustained substantial damage.When the single-drive dual magneto was placed on a test stand, the left side of the magneto did not produce spark. Internal examination of the magneto revealed that the left and right capacitor fastenings were not properly torqued, which resulted in intermittent arcing and melting of the cam follower and the subsequent loss of power. It could not be determined when the magneto's capacitor fasteners had last been torqued.
The pilot reported that, during cruise flight, the airplane's engine began making an unusual ticking sound and the oil pressure was low. The oil pressure continued to drop, and the engine began to "knock" louder until it experienced a total loss of power. The pilot attempted to glide to an airport, but the airplane had insufficient altitude and landed in a field short of the intended runway. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the No. 4 connecting rod had failed, and displayed signatures consistent with a lack of lubrication. The other connecting rods also exhibited signs of a lack of lubrication, and the oil pickup screen contained debris. The engine had sufficient oil in the sump, and examination of the components of the oil system failed to reveal any preimpact anomalies. The engine manufacturer recommended that engines be overhauled at least every 12 years due to possible deterioration of engine components and abnormal wear on soft metal bearing surfaces during engine start procedures. The accident engine had not been overhauled for 23 years; however, the investigation was unable to determine if or to what extent the damage to the engine was a result of the connecting rod failure or may have occurred before the failure.
While maneuvering at low altitude for a water landing, the commercial pilot of the float-equipped airplane encountered low visibility due to ground fog. The pilot initiated a go-around, but the airplane impacted the water, bounced, and impacted the water a second time before coming to rest upright. The airplane subsequently sank and was not recovered. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The operator further reported that other company pilots who were flying on the day of the accident stated that the low visibility conditions were easily avoided by a slight course deviation.
The pilot reported that he performed his approach into the wind. On short final he could feel periodic gusts of wind. The pilot executed the standard approach to the helipad and the helicopter encountered another gust that picked the helicopter's nose up as it was moving over the pad. He maneuvered the helicopter to center it over the pad when he heard a sound like "metal on metal as if the tail rotor had hit something a couple times." The pilot felt no initial feedback in the controls, he felt the helicopter yaw to the left, and the helicopter continued to yaw to the left with his full application of right pedal. He lowered the collective and rolled off the throttle to enter a hovering autorotation and attempted to land it as level as possible. The helicopter landed hard. The operator reported substantial ground damage occurred to the tail rotor gearbox and tail rotor blades and a review of images revealed damage to the tailboom. A nearby fence and light were reported to be damaged. The operator's accident report indicated that there were no mechanical malfunctions with the helicopter.
The pilot reported that during approach the airplane began to sink excessively. The pilot further reported that he applied power and attempted to climb, but the airplane impacted terrain prior to the approach end of the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing lift strut.The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. He further reported that a little more airspeed, lesser flap setting, and altitude could have prevented the accident.
The commercial pilot of the helicopter was approaching to land on a helipad. It was his first landing to this helipad, though he had departed from the helipad the day before. Due to trees and transmission lines near the helipad, the pilot flew a slight right-turning, steep approach. When the helicopter was about 125 ft above the pad and 150 ft to the southwest of it, the pilot commanded left cyclic to stop the right turn. He estimated the helicopter to be 40 knots above effective transitional lift, and in a stable 500 ft per minute descent; there was a headwind. The helicopter did not respond to his control input, and the pilot announced to the crew his intention to go around. He increased left cyclic until the cyclic was against his left leg and the helicopter still did not respond. The pilot lost control of the helicopter and it landed hard, colliding with a wall.Data extracted from the engine control unit (ECU) was consistent with the engine producing the required power and responding to collective control inputs; however, the data indicated that the main rotor speed and torque were exceeded. These exceedances suggested that a large demand for power was commanded by the pilot, likely during the go-around. Examination of the helicopter did not reveal any mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The helicopter was in a right bank with 3 crewmembers seated on the right side of the helicopter, one crewmember seated on the left side, and was carrying a near-full fuel load. The distribution of crew members and a high torque setting may have contributed to the pilot's inability to maintain helicopter control; however, the extent to which these factors may have contributed could not be determined.
The pilot reported that he had intended to land on a dry creek bed at night to meet his friend and drop off parts for a jet car. He further reported that he mistakenly landed in a field and impacted a fence. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
Earlier on the day of the accident, the pilot/mechanic flew the airplane from its home base airport to another airport to perform scheduled maintenance. Airport security video captured the entire maintenance event and showed the pilot/mechanic removing the engine cowling, draining the engine oil, and inspecting the spark plugs, air filter, and other components. The video did not show him adding engine oil before reinstalling the engine cowling and departing on the accident flight. Shortly after takeoff, the pilot reported to an air traffic controller that the airplane's engine was losing power and that he was returning to the airport. Witnesses reported that the airplane began to fly erratically, rolled into a steep bank, and descended to ground impact about 1 mile from the airport. The witness observations were consistent with the pilot failing to maintain airspeed following the loss of engine power, which resulted in the airplane exceeding its critical angle of attack and experiencing an aerodynamic stall. Postaccident disassembly of the engine revealed catastrophic failure of internal engine components and signatures consistent with no lubrication and high heat.