roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The accident flight was the private pilot's first flight without a flight instructor in his recently purchased, high-performance airplane. The passenger reported that, following an uneventful local flight, he and the pilot returned to the airport for a full-stop landing. Witnesses reported that the airplane was high and fast during the landing approach, touched down about halfway down the 3,100-ft-long runway, and bounced about three times before conducting a go-around. The second landing approach appeared to be slower but was still high. The airplane flared about 10 ft above the runway then abruptly descended, again touching down about halfway down the runway. The passenger reported that the airplane bounced "a couple of times" and that the bounces were "pretty high." A witness stated that, after bouncing, the airplane's engine rpm increased and the airplane became airborne, pitching to an approximate 40° nose-up attitude. About 75 ft above the ground, the airplane entered a steep, left-turning descent that continued to ground contact; the airplane came to rest next to a road just outside airport property and was consumed by a postcrash fire.The witness accounts of the airplane approaching the runway fast and high and its touchdown point are consistent with the pilot's failure to fly a stabilized landing approach. This likely contributed to the airplane touching down on the nose landing gear first, as evidenced by the black tire marks in an S-shaped (sinusoidal) pattern co-located with white paint transfer marks on the surface of the runway, which are consistent with a nosewheel shimmy and nosewheel pant contact. After bouncing during the second landing, the pilot added engine power to conduct a go-around, allowed the airplane's pitch to rapidly increase, and entered a steep left turn before attaining a proper climb speed, which resulted in a loss of control during the attempted go-around.Examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of any preimpact failures or malfunctions of the airplane or engine that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot had about 1,200 total hours of flight experience and had received about 10.5 hours of transition training in the accident airplane make and model from a local flight instructor. During that time, the pilot performed 12 landings and received an endorsement for operating high-performance airplanes such as the accident airplane. Before purchasing the accident airplane, the pilot owned another airplane that was not classified as high-Page 2 of 12 ERA17FA167performance. Despite receiving transition training, it is likely that the pilot's lack of experience with his new airplane and its flight characteristics, and particularly operation of the airplane in abnormal/emergency situations, contributed to his loss of control.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, after several attempts to land, the wind had changed to a more favorable direction and that "[he] was confident in [landing] the plane." He added that the approach was uneventful but that, during the landing roll, "a cross wind started pushing the aircraft and tail left." Subsequently, the airplane ground looped to the right.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing, left wing aileron, and right wing rear spar.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 on the airport, about the time of the accident, reported that the wind was from 180° at 10 knots. The pilot landed on runway 8L.
The commercial rated pilot was landing the airplane at the end of a personal local flight. The airport manager saw the airplane very low on final approach for runway 18. As the airplane continued toward the airport, it collided with power lines about 0.5 mile north of the runway's approach end. Weather conditions at the time of the accident included a clear sky with no obstructions to visibility. Examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any anomalies that would have contributed to the accident. The pilot was familiar with the airport and was likely aware of the location of the power lines, which were well below a normal glideslope to the runway.The pilot did not hold a medical certificate. An autopsy of the pilot revealed coronary artery disease and significant brain pathology. It is unlikely that the pilot's coronary artery disease contributed to the accident as it would not have impaired the pilot's judgment, vision, or decision-making. The pilot had scarring from a previous brain injury and severe damage to his left optic nerve to the extent that he was nearly blind in that eye. Given that the pilot failed to maintain proper altitude while operating in visual conditions and struck a potentially visible hazard, it is likely that his vision deficiency contributed to the accident.Toxicology test results indicated that the pilot had used multiple psychoactive drugs before the accident, including cocaine, methamphetamine, clonazepam, and diphenhydramine. In addition to their psychoactive effects, these drugs are potent vasoconstrictors and can cause small arteries to spasm, cutting off blood flow to portions of vital organs. Although the neuropathologist who examined the pilot's brain believed the degree of cerebral hypoxic/ischemic damage he identified would take several hours to develop, the pilot was deceased by the time first responders arrived about 10 minutes after the witnessed crash. Therefore, this hypoxic/ischemic damage had to have begun before the accident and was likely caused by the pilot's misuse of cocaine and methamphetamine. This evolving brain ischemia may have played a role in the circumstances of the accident, but without specific information regarding the pilot's symptoms, its exact role cannot be determined. Although the pilot's stage of intoxication with methamphetamine or cocaine at the time of the accident is unknown, it is very likely that he was impaired by the combined effects of these drugs.Page 2 of 9 CEN17FA164
The pilot flying the airplane reported that, during an instrument flight rules instructional flight, the airplane was established on a very high frequency omnidirectional range approach. The pilot reported that, during the approach, he observed a large bird dive into the airplane's nose section. The pilot recalled that there was no time to react between the initial observation and impact. He terminated the training flight and landed the airplane as soon as practical and without further incident. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage frame.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot departed with full fuel tanks for a multileg, cross-country flight. The pilot estimated that his total flight time for the first two legs of the trip was 4 hours 15 minutes, and he landed at two different airports but did not obtain fuel. About 25 to 30 minutes into the last leg of the flight, the left engine lost power. Shortly thereafter, the right engine lost power. The pilot conducted a forced landing to a field, during which the outboard portion of the left wing and aileron hit a tree and separated from the airplane. About 1 to 2 quarts of fuel were recovered from the entire fuel system. An examination of the airplane revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. It is likely that both engines lost total power due to fuel exhaustion as a result of the pilot's improper fuel planning.
The pilot in the tailwheel-gear-equipped airplane reported that he set up for a wheel landing to an asphalt runway. During touchdown, the airplane bounced three times, and the right landing gear wheel split into two pieces. The airplane ground looped to the left and exited the left side of the runway. The right wing tip and the elevator struck the ground, and the airplane sustained substantial damage to the right elevator.
On the fourth skydiving flight of the day, the commercial pilot climbed the airplane to 10,000 ft mean sea level (msl), and after the last jumper had departed the airplane, the pilot initiated a steep left turning descent. When the airplane was at 3,000 ft msl, the engine lost total power. The pilot was unable to restart the engine and turned the airplane to land on the runway, but when he realized that it would not be able to reach the runway, he landed in a field short of the approach end of the runway. During the ground roll, the airplane nosed over and then came to rest inverted. The fuselage and wings sustained substantial damage.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the carburetor's fuel inlet screen and gascolator screen were blocked with fibrous debris and dirt. The airplane had undergone an annual inspection 3 weeks before the accident, and the mechanic who conducted the inspection stated that he had not removed and examined the carburetor fuel inlet screen. The mechanic's failure to remove and examine the carburetor inlet screen led to the accumulated contaminants going undetected, and the contaminants obstructed the fuel flow to the carburetor and resulted in fuel starvation and the subsequent loss of engine power.
The private pilot was in cruise flight about 2,500 ft mean sea level during a cross-country flight when he noted an engine vibration and loss of power, which he could not remediate. The pilot performed a forced landing to a field, during which the airplane nosed over. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. One of the two propeller blades was rotated about 90° and was beyond its high pitch limit. The high pitch angle of the blade would have resulted in high drag and/or loss of propulsive thrust. Disassembly and metallurgical examination of the hub of the rotated propeller revealed that its blade actuating pin had fractured in high-cycle fatigue. According to a manufacturer's service bulletin, the propeller should be overhauled at 1,500 hours or 60 calendar months, whichever occurs first. Propeller logbooks showed that the accident propeller was last overhauled nearly 24 years and over 1,592 hours before the accident. It is likely that compliance with the manufacturer's recommended overhaul schedule would have resulted in the fatigued pin being replaced.
The airline transport pilot of the experimental amateur-built World War I fighter replica departed from a private airstrip for a local flight. The airplane climbed, turned left, and entered the downwind leg for the runway. Shortly thereafter the airplane descended in a steep nose down attitude until it impacted terrain. Signatures observed at the accident site and the damage to the airplane were consistent with a near vertical impact attitude into terrain. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that an elevator flight control cable rod end had separated from its turnbuckle connection, which resulted in the pilot losing pitch control of the airplane. No safety wire was found at the connection of the turnbuckle and the separated cable rod end, even though it should have been safety wired according to proper maintenance procedure. A review of the airplane's maintenance logbook revealed no maintenance documented for work performed on the elevator or elevator cables. It could not be determined when or by whom the elevator turnbuckle was connected without being properly safety wired. It is likely that the unsecured connection gradually loosened over time until it finally disconnected during the accident flight.According to the airplane's mechanic, the flight control cables and turnbuckle assemblies that were contained in the interior of the airplane's fuselage (including the section of elevator cable found disconnected) were not accessible during routine inspections. The mechanic further stated this portion of the flight control cable and turnbuckle assemblies would even be difficult to inspect with the fuselage's fabric covering removed, due to the plywood paneling and wood stringers in that area. A window in the empennage allowed for inspections of the elevator control attachments only in the tail, and the rudder control attachments could be inspected externally. Therefore, the mechanic was unable to inspect the cables and turnbuckle assemblies contained in the interior of the airplane's fuselage.
The pilot reported that the wind shifted before departure and that, although this would result in the balloon travelling to an area with "limited landing opportunities," he chose to continue the departure. During landing, the balloon descended to about 20 to 30 ft above the ground, and the landing area was on a hillside that had a commercial building on the top and that, at the base of the hill, was a short pole with guy wires. He did not see any other poles, so he "focused" on the intended landing site. As the balloon approached the landing site, a passenger asked, "if we would hit that power line?" He looked up and saw two power lines above and forward of the balloon's path, and he immediately vented the balloon to land and stop its forward progress. The balloon collided with the power lines and settled to the ground. The balloon sustained substantial damage to 3 of its 24 cables that attach the envelope to the basket.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the balloon that would have precluded normal operation.
On the afternoon of the accident, the pilot was scheduled to participate in a fundraising event in which he would drop golf balls from his helicopter. The pilot departed his home airport and flew to a private uncharted airfield with a turf runway, which was about halfway between the departure airport and the fundraising event location but not directly between the departure and destination locations. Radar data for the flight ended when the helicopter was about 800 ft north of the accident site and proceeding along a northwest track away from the accident site. The amount of flight time and the track after the radar data ended could not be determined. A witness reported hearing the engine as the helicopter approached the area; the engine noise continued until he heard the sounds of rotor blades striking trees and a subsequent explosion. The helicopter struck a 60-ft-tall tree at the edge of a tree line surrounding a 2-acre residential lawn, which was located near the runway extended centerline and about 300 ft from the approach end of the runway. The debris path was oriented on a heading of 325°, and the runway was oriented on a heading of about 330°. The runway had not recently been maintained or used, as indicated by the 4-ft-tall grass on the entire runway.Given the available evidence, the investigation could not determine why the pilot flew to the private uncharted airfield. The pilot's destination was about 13 miles northwest of the accident site, and it is unknown if or where he intended to stop along the way. No golf ball remnants were found at the accident scene, and there was no indication if the pilot planned to pick up the golf balls along the way to or at the destination.The tall grass on the runway made the runway itself an unlikely planned landing location. The pilot was not likely performing a forced landing to the runway (or the residential lawn) because after arriving in the area, he initially flew away from the runway and lawn for an unknown amount of time before apparently lining up with the runway prior to impact. The witness information indicated that the engine was operating, and the fragmentation of the main rotor blades showed that the rotor system was rotating. Also, examination of the airframe and engine revealed no preimpact mechanical malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation.Page 2 of 8 ERA17FA164Although postaccident toxicological testing detected tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in the pilot's cavity blood, the blood concentration level at the time of the accident could not be reliably determined due to postmortem redistribution, during which THC levels may rise or fall. Thus, the toxicology results were inconclusive regarding when the pilot's marijuana use occurred and whether it would have had performance-impairing effects during the accident flight.
The pilot of the tundra-tire-equipped, tailwheel airplane reported that the airplane landed hard and "bounced pretty good." He applied power to go around, but during the crosswind turn, a downdraft pushed the airplane to the ground. Subsequently, the airplane impacted trees.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, empennage, and both wings. After multiple requests, the pilot did not return the National Transportation Safety Board Form 6120.1 Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report.A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located on the airport reported that, about 15 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 170° at 7 knots, gusting to 16 knots. It is unknown which direction the airplane was landing.
The pilot was conducting agricultural spray operations in a turbine-powered airplane. During turns, he noticed that the fuel pressure varied between 19 and 20 lbs per square inch, but otherwise it appeared normal. During a subsequent turn, the engine lost power. The pilot turned on the fuel boost pump and engine ignitor, but the engine did not respond, so he conducted a force landing to a rice field. During the landing, the airplane impacted several levees, and the main landing gear were torn off; the airplane subsequently came to a stop on its belly.The pilot reported that he looked into each wing fuel tank and that fuel was visible in each tank. Two witnesses also looked into each tank and reported seeing between about 3 and 4 inches of fuel in each tank. They added that the tanks were breached and leaking fuel. The responding Federal Aviation Administration inspector reported that the tanks were empty when he arrived on scene, but it appeared that the tanks had been breached, and fuel had leaked onto the ground. The airplane was disassembled and transported to a repair facility. An examination of the airplane revealed fuel in the airframe filter and engine high-pressure canisters. About 1 quart of fuel was drained from the header tank. No contaminants were found in the fuel. The fuel flow meter displayed 52.1 gallons for fuel remaining and 157 gallons used. The flow meter does not have a fuel level sensing capability but subtracts the fuel used from what the user (pilot) input into the meter. The flow meter was programmed to 209 gallons at the last refueling or instrument reset. Given the pilot may have reset the meter during the last refuel, the meter would have registered a full fuel load even if the airplane had not received a full fuel load; thus, the 52.1 gallons remaining would not have been accurate. The engine was separated from the airframe and sent to overhaul/repair facility. The engine was placed in a test cell and started and ran with no anomalies noted. The reason for the loss of power was not determined.Page 2 of 6 CEN17LA165
The private pilot, who was also the owner of the tailwheel-equipped airplane, was landing after a local flight. The pilot stated that the airplane bounced during touchdown and that he attempted a go-around, but the airplane veered to the left, which resulted in a ground loop. During the ground loop, the airplane's right wing impacted runway lighting and sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot was conducting a local sightseeing flight in a helicopter with two passengers onboard. He reported that, while he was flying southbound and descending from 1,000 to 600 ft, he heard a "pop" sound and noted a corresponding right yaw, followed by vibration and engine roughness. The pilot looked at the instruments, and the main rotor tachometer was indicating that the rpm had dropped to "0" and that the engine tachometer was indicating between 60% and 70%. The pilot immediately initiated an autorotation to a median, and the helicopter landed hard. The helicopter began rolling forward, and in response, the pilot applied aft cyclic control input, which was contrary to the instructions in the Pilot's Operating Handbook, which contained a caution in the emergency procedures section related to power failures that stated to "not apply aft cyclic during touchdown…to prevent possible blade strike to the" tailboom. The pilot's improper control input resulted in the main rotor blades contacting and substantially damaging the tailboom. Postaccident examination of the engine and the tail rotor drive system revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. The engine was test-run, and it started and operated normally. One of the two main rotor tachometer indication system magnet assemblies was separated and not recovered. According to helicopter manufacturer personnel, with only one magnet assembly installed, the main rotor tachometer rpm would indicate about 50% of the actual rotor rpm. Therefore, the main rotor tachometer rpm indication was likely erroneous due to the separation of a magnet assembly from the rotor rpm sensor. The pilot's perception that the main rotor tachometer had decreased to "0" was likely in response to his seeing the needle near the lowest number on the scale. The reason for one of the magnet assemblies' separation could not be determined because it was not located.
The student pilot had been signed off for a solo instructional flight. He performed the preflight check, including a check of the engine control unit (ECU), and noted no discrepancies. The run-up and initial takeoff were normal. However, during the takeoff climb out, the student pilot noted an engine power change followed by an ECU A and ECU B failure annunciation. The student pilot was able to land in an open field and impacted several drainage ditches, resulting in substantial damage to the right wing. Inspection of the engine revealed that the hose that connects the air inlet to the turbocharger inlet was found to have de-laminated or collapsed.  The loss of engine power was likely due to a partial vacuum in the turbo inlet and prevented the turbo from supplying the correct air inlet pressure to the engine, thus reducing power output.The investigation found that a generic air induction hose had been installed on the accident airplane that was not part number specific. The Diamond illustrated parts breakdown calls for a specific part number for two flexible induction hoses. The operator reported that they inspected their fleet of airplanes and replaced the generic hoses with Diamond Aircraft Industries Inc. (DAI) hose.
The private pilot reported that the engine run-up and takeoff were normal for the personal flight. About 15 minutes after takeoff, while in cruise flight, the engine experienced a total loss of power, and the pilot subsequently declared an emergency. He attempted to restart the engine four times before ditching the airplane in water. The pilot and passenger then egressed without injury. Examination of the engine revealed no evidence of any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Although water was noted in the carburetor and fuel strainer, it could not be determined if the water entered the fuel system before the accident or when the airplane became submerged in water. Although weather conditions were conducive to the accumulation of serious icing at glide power, the investigation could not conclusively determine whether carburetor ice played a role in the loss of engine power.