roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that while on a personal flight he was attempting to execute a crosswind landing when the airplane encountered a gust of wind that raised the right wing and the airplane “weather vaned” to the right and into the wind.  He applied full left rudder to correct the airplane’s direction but was unable. The airplane departed the right side of the runway, went down an embankment, and nosed over coming to rest nearly inverted.  Both wings were substantially damaged during the accident.  The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
According to another pilot at the airport on the day of the accident, the accident pilot departed with the intention of staying in the traffic pattern. The airport manager reported that the pilot typically took off from the asphalt runway and landed on the turf runway; the pilot at the airport observed the accident airplane take off from the asphalt runway and turn left, consistent with entering left traffic for the turf runway. There were no known witnesses to the accident. The airplane wreckage came to rest on the extended base leg of the traffic pattern for the turf runway, consistent with overshooting the turn to the final leg of the traffic pattern. Examination of the wreckage revealed no preexisting mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The wind at the time of the accident would have resulted in a left quartering tailwind for the base leg of the traffic pattern. Although there was no flight track data for the flight, given the witness statement and the wreckage location, it is likely that the pilot was planning to land on the turf runway. The wreckage location and wind conditions were consistent with the pilot overshooting the final approach leg and entering a cross-controlled aerodynamic stall while trying to return to the final approach path. Therefore, it’s likely that, while maneuvering to align with the runway during the base to final turn, the pilot failed to maintain the proper airspeed, which resulted in the exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack and the airplane entering an aerodynamic stall at an altitude that was too low to recover.
At the conclusion of the return flight, the pilot was landing at his home airport where a significant right crosswind prevailed for the landing runway. The pilot described that, during the final approach for landing, he maintained a right-wing-down attitude and was crabbing the airplane into the wind. As the airplane neared touchdown, the pilot applied left rudder to straighten the airplane’s path; when the right main wheel touched down, the airplane “weather vaned” to the right and into the wind. The airplane’s nose wheel touched down, and the airplane “swerved hard to the left.” His subsequent attempts to correct the airplane’s path were unsuccessful. The airplane departed the left side of the runway, continued down an embankment, struck a berm, and came to rest, 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 reported that the airplane’s engine did not respond when he attempted to increase power while on final approach to land at the conclusion of a 4-hour flight. The airplane was about ½ mile from the runway at 200 ft above ground level (agl) at the time. He attempted to switch tanks and selected full rich mixture, but the engine did not restart. The pilot continued the landing, but the airplane struck the runway approach lighting system about 1,000 ft short of the runway and came to rest between the approach lights and the runway. A postaccident examination of the airplane did not reveal any preimpact mechanical anomalies. The right fuel tank did not contain any usable fuel at the time of the examination and the tank was not compromised.Based on the available evidence, the loss of engine power was likely due to mismanagement of the airplane’s fuel supply, which resulted in fuel starvation. Due to the low altitude the airplane’s engine likely had insufficient time to restart after the pilot switched tanks following the loss of engine power.
The flight instructor was demonstrating a short-field landing to the pilot receiving instruction. The flight instructor reported that, during the landing attempt when the airplane was about 10 to 40 ft above ground level, the airplane’s airspeed decreased, and the sink rate increased. The flight instructor stated that he applied full throttle for a go-around; however, the engine did not respond and may have even further decreased before the airplane landed hard on the runway, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage. Review of data downloaded from the airplane’s primary flight display revealed that the airplane’s airspeed had decayed from around 50 knots to 25 knots during the landing flare and touchdown, while remaining relatively consistent at around 900 rpm. After touching down the engine power suddenly increased and reached a maximum of 1,800 rpm before then stopping completely about 7 seconds later. The data were not consistent with the flight instructor’s description that the engine power was lost or that the engine did not respond to the throttle inputs during the approach. Rather, the data suggested that the throttle application did not occur until after the airplane had contacted the runway. Following the hard landing, and subsequent runway excursion during which the nose landing gear collapsed, the engine did stop completely, and in his statement the flight instructor expressed surprise that, “…the engine was not producing any sound to indicate it was even running, nonetheless running at the appropriate rate given that the throttle was still set to maximum…” It is possible that this perception may have contributed to the instructor’s recollection of the engine not performing correctly during the accident sequence. Given this information, it is likely that the flight instructor’s improper flare resulted in a hard landing and subsequent runway excursion.Page 2 of 7 ERA23LA159
While en route, the pilot saw birds in his flight path and banked the helicopter to the right to avoid striking one, after which he felt a vibration. The vibration continued, and the pilot performed a precautionary landing to a marshy area, where the helicopter rolled over, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage. Examination of the helicopter revealed a dent in one of the tail rotor blades; no evidence of any other mechanical anomalies were noted that would have precluded normal operation.The tail rotor came to rest in marsh water and the blade did not display evidence of organic material consistent with a bird strike; however, given that the pilot identified and was maneuvering to avoid birds just before the vibration occurred, it is likely that the tail rotor was damaged during impact with a bird, resulting in the subsequent vibration.
The pilot was too high on approach to land, so he lowered the flaps and reduced power to idle. He said his groundspeed “seemed a little high” prior to touching down but he continued to land on the 3,500 ft long grass runway. The braking effectiveness on the grass was not good, but the pilot said it was “too late” to go around. The airplane went off the end of the runway and collided with a pile of logs, which resulted in substantial damage to the right-wing spar.
The helicopter was returning to its home base after a normal offshore air taxi flight. The pilot was seated in the right front seat, one passenger was seated in the left front seat, and another passenger was seated in the right rear seat. The left front seat passenger stated that they were flying about 1,500 ft above the water when the pilot expressed that he was not feeling well. The pilot then slumped over in his seat and became unresponsive. The passenger seated in the right rear seat reported that he also saw the pilot slump over in his seat. With the helicopter about 400 ft above the water, the front left seat passenger reported that he reached over and attempted to control the helicopter with the pilot’s controls. At some point during the descent, the skid-mounted float system was deployed. The helicopter impacted the water and became inverted. After impact, both passengers egressed and waited on top of the floating helicopter’s belly until they were rescued. During salvage operations, most of the helicopter wreckage was lost at sea. The only parts of the helicopter that were recovered included portions of the intermediate fuselage/ baggage compartment, and most of the landing gear skids. Medical investigation showed that the pilot had cardiovascular conditions including high blood pressure, mild coronary artery disease, and severe aortic atherosclerosis. It is likely that the pilot’s loss of consciousness was due to diminished blood flow to his brain due to a medical event causing an abrupt drop in blood pressure, mediated by his cardiovascular system. His cardiovascular disease increased his risk for certain conditions that could lead to such an episode without leaving autopsy evidence, including unstable arrhythmia, carotid sinus syndrome, and heart attack. The pilot’s autopsy did not identify a definitive cause of his loss of consciousness. The pilot’s postmortem toxicological testing detected low levels of ethanol in blood and urine, along with n-propanol, indicating possible microbial activity in those specimens. Some or allthe detected ethanol was likely from postmortem production, rather Page 2 of 8 CEN23FA019than alcohol consumption. It is unlikely that that ethanol contributed to the pilot’s incapacitation. Based on his risk factors and the surviving passengers’ accounts, the pilot’s loss of consciousness was likely due to a cardiovascular event, which resulted in the helicopter departing controlled flight and colliding with water.
Shortly after takeoff, the engine lost power and the propellor began to windmill. The flight instructor conducted emergency procedures but was unable to regain engine power. The flight instructor determined that they did not have sufficient altitude to make it back to the airport and he selected a road on which to make a forced landing. To avoid a car, the pilot turned slightly towards the edge of the road and was pulled into a snow berm, where the aircraft came to a full stop. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and fuselage.A postaccident examination of the engine found the crankshaft drive gear bolt was missing and the gear alignment dowel pin on the crankshaft was broken. The missing bolt was not found during the postaccident examination. The engine was last disassembled in 1983 and the accessory gearbox was opened for an oil pump rebuild in 2006; the investigation was not able to identify how long the engine had operated with the bolt missing. The crankshaft drive gear drives the accessory gear box and, according to the engine manufacturer, failure of the gear or the gear attaching parts would result in complete engine stoppage.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped biplane reported a light left crosswind during the landing approach. He executed a mainwheel landing which he reported as smooth, however during the final stages of the landing rollout the airplane began to weathervane to the left. He attempted to correct with right rudder control, however just before the airplane stopped it ground looped to the right. The right wing impacted the ground and was substantially damaged. 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 conducted a preflight inspection and filled both of the airplane’s fuel tanks. While enroute, the airplane’s engine lost power. The pilot switched fuel tanks but was unable to restore power. The pilot then conducted a forced landing to a rough field, during which the airplane impacted a hay bale. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the fuel tanks contained no usable fuel. No other postaccident malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operations were found. Immediately following the accident, the pilot stated that he ran out of fuel.The pilot wrote on NTSB Accident/Incident Reporting Form 6120.1 that it was possible either or both fuel tanks were not completely full “due to difficulty with the ladder and fuel pump.”
The pilot reported that, after completing the first half of a cross country flight, he departed without checking the airplane’s fuel level. Before reaching his destination, the airplane’s engine lost power and the pilot attempted to restart the engine, without success. The pilot executed a forced landing to an open field, where during the landing roll, the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. The vertical stabilizer was substantially damaged. The pilot reported that he had exhausted all available fuel and that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The airplane was observed flying around the area at an unknown time on the day of the accident, but no other information was available about the flight. At about 1800, law enforcement received a notification that aircraft wreckage was discovered on the airport property between a runway and a taxiway. There were no known witnesses to the accident.Before the aircraft was sold to the non-certificated accident pilot, the previous owner had provided the pilot with several familiarization flights and emphasized the importance of obtaining instructional lessons since he had no experience with weight-shift-controlled aircraft. However, the pilot disregarded the advice likely because he assumed the aircraft had similar handling characteristics to hang gliders, which he had previous experience operating.  Toxicology testing revealed the pilot had used cannabis; however, since no psychoactive THC or psychoactive metabolite was found in blood samples, it is unlikely that the pilot was under the influence of THC at the time of the accident. Given the pilot’s lack of experience in power gliders and the signature of the terrain impact, it is most likely that the pilot lost control of the power glider for undetermined reasons.
The purpose of the flight was for the pilot to practice touch-and-go landings in the tailwheel-equipped, tandem-seat airplane. Following nine uneventful landings, the pilot reported that he entered the traffic pattern at the destination airport. While on the base leg in the traffic pattern for landing he felt that the flight controls were “noticeably weird.” He aborted the landing attempt and tried to maneuver the airplane away from the airport. The pilot described that the airplane would not bank to the right and was descending, despite the engine power being at 2,200 rpm. The airplane continued in a left bank and the pilot was unable to level the wings, and despite application of aft elevator control input, he was unable to arrest the descent. The airplane continued toward a pasture and struck the ground left bank before striking trees. The airplane’s left wing sustained substantial damage during the impact.  The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. He added that when he was examining the airplane after the accident, he noted that the rear seat headset had become unstowed and had, “fallen onto / and around” the right rear rudder pedal. Based on this information, it is likely that the unsecured headset obstructed the movement of the rudder controls, resulting in the airplane’s uncommanded left bank.
The pilot reported that the airplane encountered low-level wind shear as it crossed the runway threshold while landing. He stated that as he was about to flare for landing, the airplane encountered a strong crosswind from the right causing it to drift toward the left side of the runway. He initiated a go-around; however, the engine made a “coughing” sound and lost power.ADS-B data revealed that, about 3 seconds after crossing the runway threshold, the airplane began drifting toward the left side of the runway. The final data point was recorded about 2 seconds later, as the airplane was about 10 ft from the left side of the runway. The airplane impacted the terrain and came to rest upright about 300 ft off the side of the runway and about 1,000 ft from the approach threshold.  Postaccident airplane examination did not reveal any anomalies consistent with an inability of the engine to produce rated power. Flight control continuity was established from each control surface to the corresponding cockpit controls.  At the time of the accident, the pilot encountered a 90° direct crosswind, gusting to 31 knots. The pilot’s operating handbook (POH) noted that the maximum allowable crosswind velocity depends on pilot capability and airplane limitations. However, demonstrated crosswind landings were limited to 20 knots.
The pilot reported that the preflight inspection, run-up, and takeoff were routine. During the initial climb, about 600 ft above ground level (agl), a boom was heard and the engine rpm dropped to zero. The pilot completed a forced landing on a city street. On final approach to the road, the airplane struck live powerlines; however, the landing was completed without further incident. After landing, the pilot exited the airplane and deployed a fire extinguisher toward smoke emanating from the engine and cowling area. The power line strike resulted in substantial damage to the rudder.Examination of the engine revealed that the crankshaft gear partially separated from the crankshaft. The crankshaft gear bolt was partially backed out from its normal position and a few threads were stripped. The safety clip remained attached. The crankshaft alignment dowel pin had sheared. This condition prevented crankshaft continuity to the engine’s accessory drive gears and resulted in the total loss of engine power. Metallurgical examination of the fractured crankshaft gear alignment dowel revealed a shear overstress fracture. The shaft of the crankshaft drive gear bolt was bent near the start of the threads, the last threads were flattened, and the end face of the bolt was smeared.An airworthiness directive (AD), in addition to an engine manufacturer service bulletin, required inspection and replacement of any worn alignment dowel and crankshaft drive gear bolt; however, the maintenance procedure was only required to be completed during engine overhaul, after a propeller strike, or whenever the crankshaft gear was removed. Although there were multiple maintenance logbook entries in the several years preceding the accident noting compliance with the propeller strike AD, there was no record that the AD/service bulletin (SB) Page 2 of 8 ERA23LA037was complied with in full (to include an inspection of the crankshaft drive gear, bolt, dowel pin, and replacement as warranted). There was also no record of a propeller strike. The left magneto’s exterior casing was found fractured and partially rotated from its normal attachment points. Further disassembly of the unit found that its bearings rotated freely. In addition, the fracture surface of the left magneto gear tooth and the fracture surfaces of the left idler gear had features consistent with overstress separation. There was no evidence of recent maintenance to either magneto. It is likely that the left magneto damage and left idler gear damage was not an originating event that contributed to the loss of engine power based upon these factors.The engine displayed sooting and thermal damage. The propeller blade tip exhibited black marks on the front side and a small section of the tip showed evidence of melting and erosion. The damage was consistent with electrical arcing damage as a result of striking powerlines during the emergency landing, which likely caused a fire in the engine compartment during the landing or landing roll, which was extinguished by the pilot with a fire extinguisher after exiting the airplane.
After an uneventful flight and landing the pilot purchased 10 gallons of 100LL aviation fuel for a total fuel load of 27 gallons for his next flight to his destination airport about 55 nautical miles away. The takeoff and initial climb were normal, but shortly after retracting flaps and making a power adjustment, the engine began to lose power and his attempt to regain power was unsuccessful. The pilot stated there was “no roughness” in the engine before or during the power loss. Unable to maintain level flight, and at an altitude of 300 ft above ground level, he made a forced landing on a paved road. During the landing attempt, the airplane struck treetops and a fence, shearing off the landing gear. The airplane skidded about 500 ft before coming to rest against a guardrail, sustaining substantial damage during the impact. Recovered fuel revealed no discrepancies or contamination and the flight computer showed 26 gallons were on board at the time of the accident. Examination of the engine and its subcomponents did not reveal any reason for the loss of engine power. An examination, teardown, and functional test of the turbo charger revealed rotational scoring on the intake housing and all components were observed to be normal. The functional test did not reveal any anomalies. While rust was discovered on the shaft and housing, the airplane was stored outside in hot humid conditions months after recovery, so it is likely that it developed after the accident and did not contribute to the loss of power. Examination of the engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation, and the reason for loss of engine power could not be determined. Page 2 of 7 ERA23LA040
The pilot reported that shortly after takeoff, the control stick started shaking violently fore and aft. A witness video confirmed that upon liftoff the airplane’s elevator and elevator trim surfaces began to oscillate. The pilot stated that he continued the takeoff because insufficient runway remained on which to abort, and that he had full control authority, but flew the traffic pattern 10 mph slower than normal due to the feedback on the flight controls. The video showed that the airplane flew the downwind leg at a constant altitude but appeared low based on its position relative to trees and structures in the foreground. The sound of the engine was smooth and continuous through the takeoff roll, the initial climb, and the crosswind and downwind legs of the left traffic pattern. At a point consistent with the base leg of the traffic pattern, the airplane decelerated and entered a left turn. The airplane banked steeply, the nose pitched downward, and the angle of descent steepened. The airplane’s descent appeared to shallow before it disappeared behind trees and the sounds of impact were heard.The pilot’s son, who was a passenger in the airplane, said, “He tried to turn it back, but our airspeed was so low [the plane] just started falling.”Flight control continuity was confirmed from the cockpit to the flight control surfaces. The elevator trim tab cable was intact, but free from its attachment hardware on the trim tab cable mount. Examination of the cable and its associated hardware revealed that the cable was not properly secured and pulled free of its mount. Because the maintenance records for the airplane were burned in the post-crash fire, the history of the assembly could not be determined after the airplane’s airworthiness date. Page 2 of 7 ERA23LA041It is likely that the pilot’s decision to fly at a lower airspeed and his distraction due to the fluttering elevator trim tab led to his exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack during the downwind-to-base-leg turn, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and a subsequent loss of control.