roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The commercial pilot and passenger planned to complete touch-and-go takeoffs and landings in order for the pilot to build time in the airplane. The pilot reported that the main fuel tanks were full before takeoff and that he began the flight with the left main fuel tank selected. After the final touch-and go, while on the upwind leg of the traffic pattern and 700 ft above ground level, the engine experienced a total loss of power. The pilot was unable to troubleshoot the loss of power and made a forced landing to a field, where the airplane impacted a ditch and came to rest upright. The airplane's owner reported that he flew the airplane the day before the accident for about 1 hour, during which the engine performed normally with no anomalies noted. He added that no fuel had been added to the tanks in the previous 2.5 flight hours. There was no evidence of additional fuel being added to the airplane after the owner's flight and before the accident flight. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the left main fuel tank was empty; the right main tank and the two auxiliary tanks contained a combined 45 gallons of fuel. The fuel selector was found positioned to the left main fuel tank. Although the amount of fuel onboard the airplane at the beginning of the flight could not be determined, it is likely that the pilot kept the fuel selector selected to the left main fuel tank throughout the entire flight, and the loss of engine power occurred when the tank was exhausted of usable fuel. An engine test run did not reveal any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal engine operation. The electric fuel boost pump was inoperative for undetermined reasons and a replacement fuel boost pump was installed only for the purposes of starting the engine. Since the electric boost pump is not required for engine operation in flight, its inoperative state would not have contributed to the loss of engine power. The fuel selector valves were free of obstructions. Page 2 of 8 CEN17LA220
The pilot reported that he attempted to take off in the airplane from his turf airstrip. He attempted to force the airplane into the air, and after a brief ascent, the airplane descended to the ground and touched down hard. The pilot continued the sequence of lifting off and then touching down again until he determined that he would not be able to clear the trees at the end of the runway. He made a left turn, and the airplane traveled through two fields, hit a ditch, and collided with a barn. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings.Per the National Transportation Safety Board Pilot Aircraft Accident Report, the pilot reported that the accident could have been prevented if he had aborted the takeoff after the first bounce.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, during the landing roll, "a strong wind" pushed the airplane to the right and he was "unable to regain control." The airplane impacted a taxiway sign and nosed over.The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings.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 wind was from 020° at 6 knots. The airplane landed on runway 02.
When the private pilot taxied the airplane to park, he was taxiing past his friend, who was using a camera to record the airplane. The pilot felt a thump and could not see his friend, so he turned the airplane around and saw his friend lying on the ground. The friend sustained serious injuries. The airplane sustained damage to the left wingtip. Weather at the time of the accident was a clear sky with no restrictions to visibility.
The disassembly and examination of the engine revealed a 5th stage compressor blade was fractured transversely across the airfoil directly above the blade root platform.  Unfortunately, that fractured blade was lost during the shipment of the engine parts from Delta Air Lines to P&W's Material and Processes Engineering Laboratory.  However, the similarity of the elliptical-shaped fracture surface on that 5th stage compressor blade to the elliptical-shaped fracture surfaces on 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th compressor blades that were confirmed as fatigue fractures would indicate the 5th stage compressor blade also fractured due to a fatigue crack.  The PN 5th stage blade that fractured in this engine and the compressor blade that it had superseded had a combined total of 38 airfoil fractures that would suggest some subtle interrelationship that would cause a resonance leading to a fracture.  A detailed examination of the HPC did not identify anything that could have triggered an airflow disturbance.  The fractured blade 5th stage compressor blade was subsequently superseded with a new blade in 2011 that has not experienced any fractures suggesting that whatever was causing the fractures was designed out.The engine's turbine sections sustained extensive thermal and mechanical damage.  When the 5th stage compressor blade fractured, the cascade of damage through the HPC disabled the compressor's ability to pump air.  The FDR showed that following the loss of power after the 5th stage compressor blade fractured, the fuel flow dropped to zero but then recovered to a sub idle level probably from the electronic control's auto relight feature activating the igniter plugs.  Although the fuel flow was less than what was seen when the airplane taxied out for departure, with little to no airflow through the engine, the combustion flame would stagnate around the turbine vanes and blades burning off the early stages and the liberated pieces causing the mechanical damage to the trailing stages.  Page 2 of 10 ENG17IA026This incident was initially reported as an uncontained event because of the 360° circumferential split in the LPT case.  The examination of the split showed that the edges were not pursed outward indicating there was not a ballistic challenge of liberated blade to the case.  The examination of the LPT case showed that the case's walls were not bulged radially outward indicating that there was not a ball up of material whirling around the case.  The examination did show that the edges of the cut in the case matched the edges of the circumferential breaks in the 6th stage blade outer airseal segments that both matched the geometry of the 6th stage blade tip shroud indicating that a tip shroud was dragged around by one of the near full length blades as the engine wind milled during the return to NRT.  So although the LPT case was cut in half, this was not an uncontained event.
The private pilot stated that, immediately after takeoff, the left wing felt "extremely heavy" and required "an exceptional amount of right aileron" to maintain level flight. During the precautionary landing, the airplane bounced, turned left, and the left main landing gear collapsed.The pilot had recently reinstalled the wings; however, he made no measurements during the reinstallation, and the mechanic who signed off on the condition inspection did not confirm the wings' angle of incidence. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the angle of incidence was incorrect. Given this was the first flight since the reinstallation of the wings, it is likely the incorrect angle of incidence led to the pilot's difficulty controlling the airplane.
The solo student pilot reported that, during landing, the airplane "ballooned up and [he] added a little throttle [to] settle the [airplane]." He added that "the [airplane] seemed to settle but felt like it was coming down too fast." He applied full power to go around and reduced the flaps to 20°. He added that "the [airplane] was stalling and so [he] moved the flaps to 0 degrees, which caused the plane to continue to stall." Subsequently, the airplane impacted the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings and empennage. The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, while landing on a beach, he "felt a significant push to the right toward the water and was concerned with going into the water" He added that he initiated a go-around, but the nosewheel "caught and apparently broke off." The propeller then struck the sand, the airplane slid, the tail kicked over, and the airplane came to rest on its back.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he was maneuvering to perform an agricultural application. He noticed a ground application operator was located inside of the cab of the ground application equipment. The pilot decided to perform a "close fly-by" over the ground equipment. The left main landing gear struck the ground equipment cab, and the pilot chose to return to the airport. He landed on the gravel taxiway that paralleled the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left main landing gear attachment points.Per the National Transportation Safety Board Pilot Aircraft Accident Report, the pilot reported that the accident could have been prevented if "the pilot [had] used better judgement and not done a close fly-by the ground application equipment," which was also owned by the operator. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during an agricultural application flight, about 800 ft into the takeoff roll on a gravel airstrip, he veered the airplane to the right to avoid hay bales that were stacked on the left side of the runway. He added that, as the airplane veered right, the right-wing spray boom encountered tall wheat, and the airplane exited the right side of the runway. Subsequently, the airplane came to rest nose down.The airplane 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.
After reaching 12,500 ft altitude, the private pilot attempted to adjust the boost control of the experimental amateur-built airplane's engine. When he did so, the engine experienced a total loss of power. The pilot subsequently performed a forced landing to a field. A postaccident examination of the engine revealed no anomalies. The examination revealed that the airplane was powered by an aircraft engine that was modified to employ a belt-driven automotive centrifugal supercharger. Due to the experimental nature of the supercharger installation, no determination could be made regarding its installation or operation; however, no outward signs of a failure or malfunction were observed. Based on the available evidence, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The commercial pilot and his son were conducting a personal flight. About 15 minutes after takeoff, the airplane flew a series of passes over a horse arena where the pilot's daughter was riding. The arena was situated within a geographic bowl depression, surrounded by hilly terrain and adjacent to three sets of power transmission lines. A pilot witness in an airplane flying above the accident airplane described the accident airplane's flight path as low and erratic, and a witness close to the arena described the initial pass as "aggressive." The pilot conducted the final pass over the arena at a much lower altitude than the previous passes. Multiple witnesses described the engine noise as "sputtering" and then going quiet either during the descent for the final pass, or just as the airplane flew over the arena. The engine sound then increased as the airplane climbed and entered a steep right bank, then descended into power lines and impacted the ground about 600 ft south of the arena. Calculations based on witness reports and impact geometry indicated that the radius of the turn before impact would have required a high angle of bank, resulting in an increase in stall speed, which would have led to an accelerated stall at an altitude too low for recovery.Examination revealed no anomalies with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation, and damage signatures and witness accounts indicated that the engine was producing power at the time of the accident. Damage to the airplane's fuel tanks indicated that they contained fuel at the time of impact.The pilot's son, who was not a pilot, was seated in the front left seat. Since the airplane was equipped with dual controls, it could not be determined who was flying the airplane at the time of the accident.The pilot was familiar with the terrain in the area of the accident site. Witnesses stated that he had performed low passes there multiple times in the past and was aware of the power lines at the edge of the arena. The reduction in engine noise as reported by witnesses could have been the result of an actual loss of engine power or a power reduction made by the pilot to descend more rapidly in order to perform the pass at a lower altitude; however, if the pilot had been flying at an appropriate and safe altitude and the airplane had experienced a loss of engine power, it would have been within gliding distance of open Page 2 of 14 WPR17FA120terrain adequate for a forced landing. Given the pilot's previous behavior and the circumstances of the accident flight, it is likely that the pilot was performing an intentional, ostentatious display at low altitude when the accident occurred.Toxicology testing of the pilot indicated the presence of multiple impairing medications, as well as tetrahydrocannabinol carboxylic acid, a metabolite of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active compound in marijuana. However, no blood was available for toxicology testing, and there is no known relationship between tissue levels and impairment. As a result, whether the pilot's use of multiple potentially impairing substances contributed to the accident could not be determined.
The pilot reported that, during the landing flare, the airplane encountered a "sudden massive gust of wind" that pitched the nose up. He pushed the yoke forward, but the wind shifted to a tailwind, and the airplane "slammed" onto the runway. Subsequently, the left main landing gear collapsed, the airplane veered right off the runway, and it then came to rest nose down.The airplane 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 automated weather observation system at the airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 260° at 4 knots. The pilot landed on runway 26.
The pilot reported that, during an approach to runway 22, the airplane drifted to the right of the runway centerline. He initiated a go-around by turning off the carburetor heat, applying full throttle, decreasing the flaps from 30° to 20°, and pushing forward on the yoke to increase airspeed; the airplane then began to settle into ground effect. The pilot saw that the terrain began to rise, and he recalled that the noise abatement procedure called for a right turn to 270°, so he turned to the right before establishing a climb. The airplane descended into rising terrain, struck trees, and impacted the ground and became engulfed in flames. The postcrash fire destroyed the fuselage.The METAR reported that the wind was variable at 4 knots and that the temperature was 84°F. The field elevation was 5,504 ft, and the altimeter setting was 30.14 inches of mercury. The density altitude was 8,255 ft.Per the National Transportation Safety Board Pilot Aircraft Accident Report, the pilot reported that the accident could have been prevented by reviewing the airplane's performance data and atmospheric conditions, especially density altitude and its effect on performance per the manufacturer's Pilot's Operating Handbook. The pilot stated that he would place greater emphasis on performance planning as an essential activity during flight planning. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The airline transport pilot indicated that, immediately after takeoff for the local flight, the experimental, amateur-built airplane began to vibrate. As he transitioned the airplane to the downwind leg, the vibration increased, and the engine then experienced an overspeed and lost all power. The cockpit filled with smoke and the pilot subsequently performed a forced off-airport landing, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing and aft fuselage.The airplane had accrued about 43 flight hours since its construction, which was completed about 2 years before the accident.Examination of the propeller speed reduction gearbox revealed that the teeth of the input drive gear had separated, which caused a loss of drive continuity to the propeller. The drive and idler gears did not appear to meet the manufacturer's case hardness requirements; however, evidence suggests that the gearbox had undergone severe heat buildup during the failure sequence, which may have subsequently altered the hardness. Oil starvation or exhaustion likely did not occur, as the gearbox bearings were intact and largely undamaged. Due to damage sustained to the gears, an accurate assessment of the initial failure mode could not be determined. Thus, the investigation could not determine the reason for the failure of the propeller speed reduction gearbox input drive gear.
The solo student pilot reported that, during the takeoff roll, the pilot's side window blew open as full power was applied. He added that he "reached over with [his] right hand to close [the] window," but as he did so, the airplane veered off the runway to the left into a wooded area and impacted terrain. The student pilot reported that he had noticed on previous flights that the window latch was loose and that he had planned to get it fixed but had not done so.Both wings sustained substantial damage.The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot was conducting a personal flight in the experimental amateur-built airplane. After about 1 hour of flight, the airplane was straight and level, at an airspeed of about 75 mph, when the pitch control became erratic. The pilot stated that the control stick started "slamming" fore and aft to the limits, the airplane nose began pitching up and down, and the airplane began buffeting "like it was going to come apart." The pilot declared an emergency and reduced airspeed to 50 to 60 mph, which slightly lessened the fore-and-aft stick movement and pitch but did not control it. The pilot turned to clear steep terrain and chose a field for an emergency landing. He was able to make final directional corrections and flew the airplane to landing about 40 to 45 mph and 200 to 300 ft per minute rate of descent. The left wing and horizontal stabilizer struck the ground. Examination of the airplane revealed a broken right elevator control rod; the left elevator control rod was not broken and moved normally. The broken control rod was a factory-supplied, 1/2-inch aluminum tube with bearings at each end. The attach points of the control rods appeared to be intact, the bearings were still connected and safety wired, and all other control rod linkages were connected. Further examination revealed no indication of any preexisting failure on the fracture surface of the right elevator control rod. The deformation of the rod was indicative of a bending failure. The pilot reported after the accident that he may have encountered flutter, but it could not be determined when or if that occurred.
The pilot reported that, after landing on a gravel airstrip, during the taxi, a moose cow and calf ran onto the airstrip, moving from the pilot's right to left. She added that she veered to the left to avoid the animals and the airplane struck a tree.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.
The private pilot departed on the local flight to practice touch-and-go takeoffs and landings in the experimental, amateur-built airplane. The airplane impacted flat, open terrain just after takeoff and was consumed by a post-impact fire. There were no witnesses to the accident. The wreckage was confined to a small area, and the orientation of the wreckage was consistent with an aerodynamic stall and spin. Examination of the airframe revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures. Engine drive train continuity was established. The propeller blades and spinner did not exhibit evidence of rotation at the time of impact. The damage precluded a thorough examination of the engine ignition system.The pilot's wife said that the pilot had been having ignition issues with the airplane, and described them as the engine missing or quitting entirely during high-powered run-ups. An acquaintance of the pilot reported that the pilot had resolved the ignition problem; however, the pilot did not specify how he had done so. There was no record that the airframe or engine had received a condition inspection in the previous 12 years, and the pilot did not hold a current flight review. Given the orientation of the wreckage and the lack of rotational signatures on the propeller blades, it is likely that the engine experienced a total loss of power just after takeoff. The reason for the loss of power could not be determined based on the available evidence. Following the loss of power, the pilot failed to maintain adequate airspeed, which resulted in exceeding the airplane's critical angle of attack and a subsequent aerodynamic stall and subsequent spin.
The private pilot, who did not hold a rotorcraft rating, departed in the helicopter on a routine flight to check and observe crop fields, business facilities, and other business-related assets. A search was initiated when the pilot did not return from the flight, and the accident site was located in a field the following morning. There were no witnesses to the accident. Data obtained from an onboard GPS showed the helicopter making a series of turns at a low altitude above the field in which the wreckage was located. Examination of the helicopter did not reveal any preimpact mechanical malfunctions and there was no damage to nearby obstructions to suggest an in-flight collision. The pilot's autopsy revealed scarring in heart muscle from previous heart attacks and severe left ventricular hypertrophy. Each of these findings significantly increased his risk for a sudden arrhythmia. Such an arrhythmia would likely cause sudden symptoms such as palpitations or altered/decreased consciousness as a result of diminished blood pressure. It is likely that scarring from previous heart attacks and severe hypertrophy of the left ventricular wall caused arrhythmia which resulted in incapacitation and a loss of control at low altitude. Although the pilot did not hold a rating for rotorcraft, his recent flight experience in the accident helicopter performing similar flight profiles make it unlikely that he simply lost helicopter control.