roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The flight instructor and student pilot reported problems with the airplane’s engine shortly after takeoff. The flight instructor stated that the engine “quit abruptly” and “seized,” and the student pilot stated that the engine “locked up” and lost total power. The flight instructor assumed control of the airplane and made a forced landing in a field, which resulted in substantial damage to the airplane’s left wing. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no fuel remaining in the wing tanks and no evidence of a fuel spill. The fuel system was not compromised. According to the accident report submitted by the flight instructor they departed with 8 gallons of fuel and were flying for about 1 hour and 15 minutes. Postaccident examination revealed that the engine rotated freely, and compression was verified on all cylinders. Both magnetos produced spark when rotated. Thus, the engine likely lost power due to fuel exhaustion.
The operator reported that the flight instructor was working with a student on hovering the helicopter. The operator reported that the instructor used a method which transferred one control at a time to the student to familiarize the student with the use of that control and to not overwhelm the student by transferring all controls at once. The instructor first transferred pedal control, while maintaining cyclic and collective controls, with good success. He then did the same with the student commanding collective only, and then with cyclic only, while the instructor retained control of the other two controls. Ultimately the student was given control of cyclic and collective, and shortly thereafter the helicopter began to drift to the left. The instructor attempted to make a control input to correct the drift, but the helicopter rolled to the left and the rotor system of the helicopter impacted the ground, followed by the helicopter fuselage coming to rest on is left side. The helicopter received substantial damage to its fuselage and rotor system. The operator reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures of the helicopter prior to the accident that would have precluded normal operations.
The pilot was on a cross country flight and at the destination airport entered the right downwind leg of the airport traffic pattern, then turned onto right base leg of the airport traffic pattern. Because of “excessive wind gusts” on final approach he performed a go-around and remained in the traffic pattern for the same runway. On final approach the flight again encountered a wind gust and the airplane descended. He added power to arrest the descent but the airplane then floated down the runway. The airplane touched down just prior to a taxiway, with about 959 ft of runway available. He applied the brakes but realized he would be unable to stop before the runway end. He applied power to abort the landing, but the airplane did not climb as he expected and it travelled off the end of the runway into a farm field. He did not recall if he applied the brakes or reduced power in an attempt to abort the aborted landing. The airplane impacted a metal frame that enclosed plants and came to rest with the nose landing gear collapsed. The engine mount was substantially damaged. He reported that when he added full power to go-around the engine responded, the airplane was decelerating with initial brake application, and there was nothing mechanically wrong with the airplane that resulted in the runway excursion. Postaccident examination revealed the flap selector was in the retracted position.
The pilot was maneuvering the airplane over a river about 3,000 feet above mean sea level (msl) with the engine operating at 2,200 rpm. After a few minutes, the pilot heard a “pop” emanating from the engine compartment followed by a loss of engine power. With no suitable terrain to land in the area, the pilot opted to ditch in the river adjacent to the shoreline. The airplane touched down in a calm current near some exposed rocks. A team of swift-water rescue divers arrived at a boat ramp across the river with the intention of performing a training exercise that morning. The team carried the pilot and passenger to shore without injury.A postaccident examination revealed that the crankshaft gear was missing its retaining bolt and lock-plate. The alignment dowel was sheared off and the crankshaft gear’s mounting flange was damaged. Mounting flange material was found in the sump, but the missing bolt and lock-plate were not found, likely because it was never installed at the last overhaul (98.9 hours before the accident).
After takeoff, the pilot maneuvered the airplane in the local area for about 30 minutes. He then contacted approach control and informed the controller that he was experiencing chest pains. The airplane became established on a course to return to the departure airport. However, a few minutes later, the flight track abruptly turned away from the airport. The airplane entered a descent and impacted a soybean field. The fuselage, right wing, and vertical stabilizer were damaged during impact. Postaccident airframe and engine examinations did not reveal any preimpact anomalies.The pilot had a history of coronary artery disease, including a previous heart attack, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. Records demonstrated that he was intermittently non-compliant with his medication regimen. Considering the evidence about the pilot’s underlying severe coronary artery disease, his non-compliance with his medical regimen, likely continued use of tobacco, and reported chest pain to air traffic control, it is likely the pilot experienced an in-flight acute cardiac event, most likely cardiac ischemia, that caused the accident. The investigation could not determine if effects from his use of the sedating antihistamine diphenhydramine contributed to the accident.
The pilot, who was the amphibious airplane’s owner and possessed single engine land and sea ratings, was receiving instruction on takeoffs and landings. The flight instructor reported that the approach to the runway was normal; however, the pilot flared too high. The instructor verbally commanded power, but the pilot did not respond appropriately, and the airplane landed hard on the runway. The left, front wheel separated, the airplane departed the runway surface, struck a trench, and came to rest inverted. There were no injuries. An inspector with the Federal Aviation Administration examined the wreckage and determined that the damage to the fuselage was substantial. The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that the airplane floated over the grass runway in ground effect for longer than expected and touched down midfield. He was unable to stop on the wet runway and the airplane slid into heavy brush and trees, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during the takeoff roll, the airplane drifted left, and he applied rudder input to correct. The pilot subsequently reduced power to abort the takeoff, and the airplane departed the runway surface, into the gravel. The airplane collided with a runway sign, resulting in 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 and passenger were landing at the 1,600-ft-long private dirt runway at the conclusion of a cross-country flight. The pilot told the passenger as they approached the runway that he may need to perform a go-around. The airplane landed hard about halfway down the runway and bounced, and the pilot added engine power to abort the landing. The airplane lifted off the ground near the end of the runway and transitioned into a climb. As the airplane crossed trees and continued toward rising terrain past the end of the runway, the passenger observed the pilot curse while pulling or rotating a knob which she identified as the throttle control. The airplane subsequently entered a left turn and began to descend nose-down. The passenger thought that the airplane may have leveled out, possibly in a left-wing-low attitude, before impact.  Postaccident examination of the airplane and engine revealed no preimpact mechanical anomalies or malfunctions that could have precluded normal operation. Evidence revealed during the investigation suggests that the airplane’s uncommanded descent to the ground was either the result of an aerodynamic stall or excessive drag as the examination discovered that the flaps may have been in a fully deployed position at the time of the accident. However, there was no performance information on the airplane available or parametric data to determine if the airplane’s flight profile was consistent with an aerodynamic stall or whether the flap deployment contributed to the uncommanded descent. Based on these findings, the accident was result of an uncommanded descent during a go-around maneuver for undetermined reasons due to a lack of available evidence. Damage to the airplane was consistent with impact in an approximately level attitude. The wing flaps were found fully extended (48°), consistent with a landing position. Although the pilot had about 8,000 hours of helicopter flight experience, he had received his airplane single-engine land rating about two weeks before the accident and his flight Page 2 of 8 WPR22LA192experience in the accident airplane make and model was unknown. The circumstances of the accident suggest that the pilot likely failed to retract the flaps from the landing position during the attempted aborted landing, which resulted in a reduced climb performance.The pilot’s toxicology was positive for midazolam in his hospital blood and hydromorphone and fentanyl in his urine, which were likely administered after the accident. Thus, the medications detected in the pilot’s toxicology testing were not a factor.
Shortly after departure, the pilot informed air traffic control that he had an engine failure, and the airplane entered a left turn back toward the airport. The pilot then told the controller that he was not going to be able to make it back to the airport and he was going to land in a field. The pilot then reported that he had a fire onboard the airplane. The airplane impacted the ground in a storage yard and slid into a storage unit. The airplane was destroyed by impact and fire damage.  A performance study revealed that, while in the turn to the field, the airplane banked right about 75° with an increase in pitch from 0° to about 11° nose up at an altitude of about 400 ft above the ground. The airplane exceeded the critical angle of attack, entered an accelerated stall, and departed controlled flight. It is likely that due to the inflight fire and the loss of engine power, the pilot was unable to maintain control of the airplane during the last portion of the flight.Examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded operations; however, the examination was limited due to impact and fire damage. The reason for the reported loss of engine power could not be determined. Due to the postimpact fire, the source of ignition for the inflight fire could not be determined.
The pilot reported that he departed from the private grass airstrip on his farm and had been flying for about 25 minutes. He climbed to 2,500 ft mean sea level (msl) before descending to 1,500 ft msl and turning to the northeast. The airplane’s engine then lost all power and the pilot turned northwest toward “river bottoms” that were about 1 mile away to attempt a forced landing. When it was obvious that the airplane could not reach the river bottoms, he maneuvered to an area that did not have any large trees. During the forced landing, the airplane’s right wing struck a tree and the airplane then spun 180° before coming to rest, which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing and rudder. In his written statement, the pilot did not indicate whether he had attempted to restart the engine or had applied carburetor heat after the engine lost all power. The on-site examination of the airplane found the carburetor heat in the OFF position.The pilot reported that he had departed with about 12 gallons of fuel on board. Although only about an inch of fuel was found remaining in the 13-gallon fuel tank the day after the accident, the examination revealed that the gascolator bowl was missing/broken, which likely would have allowed any remaining fuel to drain out. A fuel selector valve had been installed behind the firewall between the fuel tank and the fuel line that led to the gascolator. The installed fuel selector valve was not labeled with ON and OFF locations and the valve was able to be turned 360° with ease, with no apparent detents. The airframe examination also revealed that the original fuel shutoff valve handle located on the engine control panel had been disconnected. A postaccident examination of the engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. It is possible that during the flight the modified fuel selector valve vibrated, or was inadvertently moved by the pilot, to a position that stopped or reduced the fuel flow to the gascolator. However, a weather reporting Page 2 of 8 ERA22LA249station located about 8 miles from the accident site indicated that the temperature was 84° F, and the dew point was 61°F. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin CE-09-35, Carburetor Icing Prevention, indicated that the weather conditions at the time were conducive to serious icing at glide power. Based on the reported conditions and accident scenario, the airplane likely encountered serious carburetor icing conditions during the 1,000 ft descent, which resulted in a total loss of engine power.
While in cruise flight, the pilot observed the manifold pressure drop, followed by a loud rattling engine noise with strong vibrations. The pilot shut down the engine and diverted toward a nearby airport. The pilot reported that he thought the airplane was too high on the downwind leg; however, after he turned the airplane onto the final leg, he realized that the headwind would prevent him from making it to the runway. The pilot performed a forced landing into rough terrain short of the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing.Postaccident examination of the No. 3 cylinder revealed the cylinder barrel was fractured between the cooling fins and the threaded section used for mounting the cylinder head. A metallurgical examination revealed a fatigue crack that originated at a corrosion pit on the outer diameter surface of the cylinder barrel.The inboard-facing side of the first cylinder cooling fin was tinted black for a 180° arc, with the center of the arc in line with the fatigue crack. Manufacturer guidance includes inspection of cylinder fins for any signs of oil or soot leakage that might indicate a cylinder or head-to-barrel junction structural integrity breach. The engine was operated about 30 hours since the last annual inspection.
The pilot reported that, during a personal flight while in the traffic pattern, he applied power after the first landing to perform a touch-and-go landing. During the takeoff roll, the pilot moved the flaps from a landing to takeoff setting, at which time the airplane began pulling hard to the left. The pilot attempted to correct this movement with full right rudder and right brake, but the airplane continued off the runway and into grass. The pilot reduced power to idle during the runway excursion but was unable to control the direction of the airplane, and it nosed over. The wings, fuselage, and vertical stabilizer sustained substantial damage.The left nose landing gear (NLG) steering connecting rod had fractured at its connection point. The right steering connecting rod remained connected. Laboratory examination of the fracture surfaces of the rod end fitting revealed slant fractures consistent with overstress. The plastic deformation along with the slant fracture features were consistent with bending overstress.The NLG connecting rod had likely fractured and become disconnected during the runway excursion or noseover; the laboratory examination found that the fracture was due to a one-time instance of overload and was not the result of cumulative applications of force. Furthermore, the airplane veered to the left, which was consistent with the left-turning tendencies that would be experienced upon power application during a touch-and-go. It is possible that during the touch-and-go landing attempt, the pilot was distracted with changing the flap setting. Ultimately, he did not maintain directional control of the airplane, which resulted in its departure from the runway surface.
The pilot, who was also the owner and builder of the tailwheel equipped biplane stated that the purpose of the flight was to perform a “final check” of the airplane’s engine and operating systems. The airplane performed “properly,” and he landed “without issue.” The pilot further stated that at low speed during the landing roll, his foot “became lodged between the bulkhead and the brake” which resulted in a sudden misapplication of the brakes and a nose over event, which fractured a wing strut and substantially damaged the airplane.
The pilot and passenger were on a local personal flight. Witnesses stated that they saw the weight-shift-control trike flying in the area for about 20-30 minutes before the accident. A witness on the south end of the airport saw the trike flying in the area as it made several passes over the airpark. He did not witness the accident but recalled the wind condition to be “super windy.” Another witness stated that the wind condition was “swift” with gusts at the time of the accident. The trike impacted a tree and the ground near the approach end of the runway, resulting in substantial damage to the wing and carriage. The weather observations taken 25 minutes before the accident showed southerly winds at velocities of 4 to 11 knots with increasing velocities and gusts to 21 knots.Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Based on this information, it is likely that the accident pilot allowed the airplane to exceed its critical angle of attack while on final approach and the trike entered an aerodynamic stall at too low an altitude to successfully recover. The strong, gusting wind conditions increased the likelihood of a sudden increase in angle of attack as the pilot approached the runway at a slow speed, already operating near the trike’s critical angle of attack.
The pilot reported that, while turning the airplane from a downwind to base leg to an off-airport landing site, the airplane’s left wing stalled, and the airplane began to spin. The pilot did not have sufficient altitude to recover, and the airplane descended into a river short of the intended landing area. The airplane was destroyed and was unrecoverable. The pilot reported that there were no pre-accident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during landing, the airplane encountered a wind gust that yawed the airplane left. The pilot applied full throttle, turned off the carburetor heat, and initiated a go-around, but did not retract the flaps. The airplane continued left as the pilot attempted to climb, but ultimately it collided with trees and then terrain. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and both wings. An examination of the airplane at the accident site showed that the wing flaps were extended at least 30°. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The airplane flight manual states that during a botched landing or go-around, the flaps should be retracted to 20° after full power is applied and should remain between 10° and 20° until obstacles are cleared.
The pilot of the banner tow airplane made a low approach to pick up a banner. Witnesses reported that after the tow rope was picked up, the airplane pitched up and maintained a steep angle of attack until it entered an aerodynamic stall and made a near vertical descent to impact. The airplane came to rest in a nose-down, near-vertical position about 300 ft from the banner pick up zone. A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Toxicology testing detected a low level of ethanol in the pilot’s liver tissue. Some or all of the small amount of detected ethanol may have been from postmortem production. It is unlikely that ethanol effects contributed to the accident. It is likely that after the banner pickup and during initial climb, while the airplane had a high-power setting, high pitch angle, and low airspeed, the pilot exceeded the airplane’s critical angle of attack, and the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall from which recovery was not possible due to the airplane's low altitude.