roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot of the airplane reported that, while landing and trying to maintain the runway centerline, the airplane was "blown to the east, presumably by either stronger winds or gusts." He added that he continued to descend while attempting to correct back to the right toward the runway centerline. He further added that he was "fearing a stall" and chose to "put the plane down in the grass and dirt to the left of the runway." Unable to stop the forward momentum with full application of the brakes, the airplane continued over the edge of the embankment and came to rest in the trees.A witness, who was flying another airplane in the pattern, reported that the accident airplane did not touch down until the second half of the landing runway. He added that the airplane was "over the dirt" on the east side of the runway when it touched down and went off the embankment at the end of the runway. He observed the pilot exit the airplane and walk away.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and both wings.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 about 21 nautical miles from the accident site reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 150° at 12 knots, gusting to 20 knots. The pilot landed on runway 16.
The commercial pilot departed a private grass airstrip and was observed by a witness returning about 14 minutes later. The witness stated that the airplane was headed east when it made a steep right turn followed by a steep left turn to get lined up on the final approach path for runway 9. The airplane straightened out as it descended toward the runway on a normal approach path. The airplane's wings were level, and the engine was running, when the airplane suddenly nosed over and descended into a hayfield from a height of about 75 ft above the ground. Examination of the accident site indicated that the airplane impacted the hayfield in a nose-down attitude and came to rest upright about 660 ft from the end of the runway on a magnetic heading of about 261°. A postaccident examination of the airframe and a test-run of the engine found no evidence of any mechanical deficiencies that would have precluded normal operation at the time of the accident. A review of the pilot's logbook revealed that he had 13 hours of flight time in the accident airplane and had not flown in the 8 months before the accident. Since no mechanical issues were identified and based on the witness description and the wreckage, it is most likely that the pilot failed to maintain a safe airspeed as he approached the runway and exceeded the airplane's critical angle of attack, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall.The airplane was equipped with lap belts only, and the pilot was wearing a lap belt at the time of the accident. The pilot had recently purchased new lap belt/shoulder harness assemblies that were to be installed in the airplane. The lack of a properly installed and worn upper body restraint may have contributed to the severity of some of the pilot's injuries.
The private pilot was attempting to land at an unfamiliar grass airstrip. He made two low approaches, and on the third attempt, he elected to land the airplane with full flaps. After touchdown, he realized that he had insufficient runway remaining on which to stop, so he aborted the landing. Shortly after takeoff and after clearing the trees, the airplane abruptly stalled and impacted the ground. The grass airstrip was designed for radio-controlled model airplanes and was only 650 ft long. A large stand of trees formed the boundary of the northeast end of the runway. The pilot reported that he misidentified the grass airstrip and that there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane.
The airline transport pilot reported that, after making a normal landing and slowing the airplane during the rollout, the airplane began to drift to the left. The pilot's right rudder input was not effective at countering the left drift due to the airplane's slow speed, so the pilot applied the right brake. The right brake application caused the airplane's nose to swing to the right, which the pilot then countered by applying left rudder and brake. However, the left rudder input was ineffective, and the left brake provided no stopping action, so the airplane departed the right side of the runway. The airplane's subsequent impact with soft dirt resulted in the collapse of the left main landing gear and substantial damage to the airplane. A postaccident survey of the runway revealed a 200-ft-long skid mark that was made by the left main landing gear tire. A postaccident examination revealed no preimpact failure or malfunction with the airplane's brake system that would have resulted in the loss of directional control.
The pilot of the airplane reported that the en route portion of the cross-country flight was uneventful and that conditions were "good." Following a normal approach and landing, he lost directional control of the airplane. The airplane ground looped and came to rest at the right edge of the runway in grass. During the accident sequence, the left main landing gear separated from the fuselage, and the left wing and propeller contacted the ground.A Federal Aviation Administration inspector examined the wreckage and reported that the airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and left wing. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
During the initial climb after takeoff for a non-scheduled cargo flight, the engine experienced a partial loss of power and the commercial pilot reversed course to return to the airport. Unable to reach the runway, the pilot landed the airplane in a field, during which it sustained substantial damage. An examination of the engine revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Thermal damage was noted on the lower left side of the engine near the turbocharger. Examination of the turbocharger and housing revealed thermal damage and erosion within the turbocharger housing. Further, the turbocharger had been reconfigured with a different compressor housing and the addition of wear washers. The erosion of the turbocharger housing and induction wye was likely caused by excessive internal turbine temperatures. This erosion would have reduced performance, but likely would not have resulted in the airplane's ability to climb or maintain flight. The reconfiguration of the turbocharger with the wear washers likely would result in the abnormal wear of the bearings and subsequent instability and rub, but would not have precluded normal operation.
While on climbout on a cargo flight, the pilot heard a loud bang, followed by a squealing noise; the engine immediately lost power. The pilot accomplished a forced landing to a field, during which both wings were damaged after contacting power poles.Examination of the engine revealed the compressor turbine (CT) blades had fractured. Material analysis of the CT blades confirmed operational overtemperature conditions had occurred during previous flights, and significant creep in the microstructure of the blades indicated an imminent cracking probability in all the CT blades. During the last borescope inspection about 3 months before the accident, a crack in a CT blade that could be seen in a video recording of the inspection was not observed by the technician who conducted the inspection. It is likely that this CT blade failed due to creep and the undetected crack.The engine's compressor turbine vane ring had features different from an original equipment manufacturer part, including cooling air ducts that were a different size; however, the investigation was not able to determine if cooling air performance was compromised. The CT vane axial positioning, which was staggered, likely increased vibrational loads on the CT blades; however, the investigation was not able to determine if this contributed to the CT blade longevity and crack initiation.
The commercial pilot reported that, while taxiing for takeoff, the right main landing gear (MLG) strut brace broke at the fuselage attachment point, which resulted in the right MLG collapsing and the outboard portion of the lower right wing sustaining substantial damage. The pilot moved the airplane from the taxiway, repaired the strut brace by welding it back onto the fuselage where it had broken, and then towed the airplane to his hangar. The pilot's welding of the strut brace back onto the fuselage at the point where it had broken precluded an examination of the fracture surfaces. The reason for the strut's failure could not be determined based on the available evidence.
During the cross-country flight, the pilot performed a precautionary landing in a field due to a possible fuel flow issue. After determining that fuel was flowing to the engine, the pilot attempted to depart from the field, which was covered in high vegetation. The pilot reported that the condition of the field resulted in inadequate airspeed to climb out and clear the trees at the end of the field. The pilot initiated a turn, during which he exceeded the airplane's critical angle of attack, resulting in an aerodynamic stall and impact with terrain. The left wing impacted terrain and the airplane cartwheeled. It came to rest upright, in the field and was destroyed by a postcrash fire.
The pilot reported that, during the landing roll, the airplane encountered wind, exited the runway to the left, and the wing struck a runway light. The right wing sustained substantial damage.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 station located about 7 nautical miles east-northeast of the airport reported that, about 5 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 060° at 7 knots. The airplane landed on runway 13.
According to the pilot, he was flying the second airplane in a flight of two about 1 mile behind the lead airplane. The lead airplane pilot reported to him, via the airplane's radio, that he had encountered decreasing visibility and that he was making a 180° left turn to exit the area. The pilot recalled that, after losing sight of the lead airplane, he made a shallow climbing right turn and noticed that the terrain was rising. He recalled that he entered the clouds for a few seconds and "at that moment I ran into the trees which I never saw coming." The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings.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 the temperature was 60°F with 8 miles visibility and 1,500-ft ceilings.The nearest METAR was about 1 mile away and reported that the temperature was 54°F, dew point was 52°F, visibility was 8 statute miles with light rain, and ceiling was broken at 500 ft and overcast at 1,500 ft.
The solo student pilot reported that, during the first approach to land, the airspeed was about 10 knots fast. He added that, during the flare, he attempted to correct the airspeed by "pitching back," but the airplane bounced hard and then porpoised on the runway. He further added that he initiated a go-around and subsequently completed a normal landing after two additional go-arounds. The right elevator, fuselage, and firewall 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 pilot reported that, while on short final approach to a back-country airstrip and approaching into a setting sun glare, the airplane encountered a downdraft. He added that he increased power and pitched up slowly, but the "sun came lower" and blocked his vision to the runway. Subsequently, the airplane landed short of the runway in a ravine that was about 20 ft lower than the runway. The fuselage, wings, and elevator sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot took off in the airplane for a cross-country personal flight. Shortly after reaching 1,800 ft mean sea level (msl), the pilot contacted the departure controller and said he was diverting to another nearby airport. He did not provide a reason for the diversion nor did he declare an emergency, and when asked if he needed assistance, he replied "no." Subsequently, the controller told the pilot that a frequency change was approved and that radar services were terminated; however, no further communications were received from the pilot.Radar data showed the airplane in a controlled descent on a southerly heading toward the diversion airport. The descent distance from 1,800 ft msl to the point of impact was 7.5 miles, for an average descent rate of 120 ft per mile. One witness reported that he saw the airplane fly over him and that it was "obviously in distress" and making a "terrible racket." One witness said the engine was "popping," and another witness reported that the airplane "sounded like it was in trouble." One witness reported seeing the airplane's right wing clip a light pole. The airplane then impacted a cornfield 1/2 mile from the airport. Examination and disassembly of the engine revealed damage to the propeller case and gear case that was consistent with the engine running at impact, which corroborated the witnesses' reports, and no evidence of malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Oil specimens were within normal ranges. The reason for the abnormal engine sounds reported by the witnesses could not be determined.
The commercial pilot reported that, while making a left descending turn in the helicopter about 75 to 100 ft above a pond to set up for landing to a field, he heard three "pops," followed by the low rotor horn sounding and the caution light illuminating. The pilot assumed that the engine had lost power, and he immediately and abruptly lowered the collective, pulled aft on the cyclic, and rolled the throttle to full open. To avoid obstructions, he steepened the right turn. Realizing that the rotor rpm was below 50% and that the helicopter would not reach the field, he subsequently landed the helicopter on the pond; it then sank. The pilot was unsure if the engine was running or not.Postaccident airframe and engine examinations revealed no evidence of any preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. The reason for the partial loss of engine power could not be determined.
The student pilot reported that, during his second low approach, the airplane was stable at 75 knots and full flaps and about 20 ft above ground level (agl). He added, that about 5 to 10 ft agl, he applied full power and began to "slowly" retract the flaps. Encountering what he described as "wind shear," he reported that the airplane became "vertical" and that he lost directional control. He added that he immediately banked to the right and applied full right rudder. Subsequently, the airplane's left wing struck the ground. The airplane came to rest off the right side of the runway.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The student pilot reported checking the airport's automated weather observation system, which was reporting wind from 120° at 12 knots, before the approach. He further reported the sky condition as clear, temperature 84°F, dewpoint 53°F, and wind gusts to 20 knots. The pilot selected runway 15.As a recommendation, the student pilot reported that he should have avoided areas with gusts greater than 10 knots.
The private pilot was conducting a local flight in an experimental airplane. During takeoff, the pilot thought that the airplane's performance was sluggish. The pilot indicated that the airplane started to lose lift, so he reduced the control stick input. He maneuvered the airplane around trees, but the airplane continued to descend, so the pilot decided to land. The airplane made a hard landing, causing the airplane's landing gear to collapse because it was sideloaded, and the airplane then skidded into a tree. During a postaccident examination, a repair station noted contamination in one of the fuel jets and both carburetors. After replacing the fuel jet and cleaning the carburetors, the engine produced normal power. The cause of the contamination could not be determined.
The pilot reported that, during the landing roll, the airplane pitched up and yawed to the right because of a "dust devil." He added that he applied full power but was unable to maintain level flight and that the right wing then the left wing struck the runway. The airplane touched down, the nose landing gear collapsed, and the airplane slid about 60 to 70 ft. 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.A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located on the airport reported that, about 40 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 300° at 9 knots, gusting to 16 knots. The same automated weather observation station reported that, about 15 minutes after the accident, the wind was from 220° at 9 knots. The airplane landed on runway 24R.
The accident flight was the first flight of the Phase 1 test period for the experimental amateur-built airplane. The private pilot stated that, during the flight, while on the crosswind leg of the airport traffic pattern, the engine experienced a total loss of power and that he noted that there was no fuel pressure indication or electrical system charge. He unsuccessfully attempted to restart the engine with the secondary electric fuel pump and then maneuvered to land the airplane. The pilot reported that the airplane touched down longer and faster than "normal due to a no flap condition" and that the airplane overran the runway, impacted a fence, and came to rest on its nose. The engine mounts and fuselage were substantially damaged.According to the pilot, the total loss of engine power resulted from an electrical problem due to the use of a lithium motorcycle battery on the airplane, which was not designed for such use, and to his attempt to charge the battery with a charger that was specifically not recommended for use on lithium batteries. The pilot reported that this likely resulted in the battery having a "low charge" at the beginning of the flight. When the alternator subsequently attempted to recharge the battery during the flight, it overheated the battery, which then shut down and resulted in a loss of electrical power and the subsequent loss of engine power.
After the scheduled air carrier flight touched down on the runway, a left engine undercowl fire occurred. The fire occurred after leaked fuel accumulating inside the engine core compartment (a fire zone) ignited from contact with a hot engine surface. The fuel accumulated inside the core compartment because the nacelle drainage system was overwhelmed by the release of about 34 gallons of fuel during the landing roll, at which time the high rates of ventilation through the nacelle were reduced. The leak occurred during landing when the removal of fuel leakage depends in part on gravity drainage. A nacelle drainage capability assessment found that the core compartment contained about 20 gallons of fuel at the time of ignition. After engine shutdown, fuel draining from the core compartment was no longer carried overboard by the fan exhaust, and the fuel pooled in the fan duct. Some of this fuel drained to the ground through the transcowl drain holes. The fire became uncontrolled when it escaped the fire zone and spread to areas where expelled/drained fuel had accumulated in the nacelle and on the ground. The draining fuel led to a fire on the ground and on the underside of the left pylon. The fire was extinguished by airport rescue and firefighting personnel.On-site investigation found that a rosan -05 to -06 expander fitting had pulled out from the fuel supply port of the operability bleed valve (OBV), which is part of the left engine’s environmental control system (ECS). Also, two ECS support links (which attach and support the ECS hardware, including the OBV, to the engine) were found severely worn.Metallurgical examination of the OBV upper housing fuel supply port found evidence of advanced thread wear and fatigue damage, consistent with side-to-side fitting cyclic movement and insufficient remaining threads to prevent the fitting in the upper housing from pulling out. Modal testing demonstrated that ECS link wear can shift the OBV natural operating frequency into the engine operating frequency range, significantly increasing the fuel tube loads into the fitting. OBV design evaluation testing found that fitting joint preload loss permits relative Page 2 of 11 DCA17LA182motion to occur between the fitting and upper housing port threads, initiating upper housing thread wear and leading to upper housing thread failure and fitting pullout. The rosan -05 to -06 expander fitting with the cast aluminum housing lacked the design margin to maintain sufficient preload against engine vibration loads and fitting pullout. A review of CF34-8 maintenance engineering sheets and field maintenance documents found that rod end alignment instructions critical to preventing ECS support link wear were not provided in the base engine assembly drawing and that the ECS support links were not part of any scheduled airplane- or engine-level maintenance. As a result, maintenance personnel did not inspect for wear caused by poor rod end alignment. Worn or misaligned ECS support links increase fuel tube fitting loads and can result in fitting pullouts.
The pilot reported that, while maneuvering at low altitude over a field during an agricultural application flight, he was focused on the top of electrical poles that paralleled the field. He added that he crossed between the electrical poles and was focused on the pole to the right of the airplane. Once he crossed the top wire, he focused his attention forward, but added that he "was staring at a 30-ft tower just to the left of the nose" of the airplane. The airplane struck the tower and then impacted the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that the airplane approached the runway with a "steep angle [and] high descent rate." He added that the airplane "touched the ground before flaring" and that the airplane porpoised on the runway. Subsequently, the nosewheel tire popped, and the strut partially collapsed. The pilot reported that he stopped the airplane on the runway and radioed for assistance.The firewall and fuselage sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.