roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot and pilot-rated passenger conducted a personal flight that included troubleshooting an avionics issue. Following an extended taxi of longer than 1 hour, the airplane departed with a longer-than-normal ground roll and made a shallower-than-normal climb out. About ½ mile past the departure end of the runway, the airplane turned left and descended toward a road, which was a flight profile that was consistent with a forced landing attempt. The airplane impacted the road and then a large tree, which separated the engine and cockpit area from the fuselage, resulting in substantial damage.Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any indication of a mechanical failure or malfunction that would have precluded normal operation. Recorded data indicated engine performance during the accident takeoff was significantly lower than a previous takeoff. The engine power increased very slowly on the accident takeoff roll and fuel flow was about 45% less than the previous takeoff. The reason for the lower fuel flow during the accident takeoff could not be conclusively determined. However, one possibility was that the pilot(s) leaned the mixture during the extended ground operations of more than 1 hour and subsequently forgot to enrich the mixture before takeoff. A second possibility for the lower fuel flow was carburetor ice. The weather conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to serious carburetor icing at glide power. Carburetor ice can affect the fuel flow by disturbing the venturi effect in the carburetor throat that draws fuel into the cylinders. The result is lower fuel flows.Toxicology testing of the pilot did not identify any tested-for substances. The pilot-rated passenger’s toxicology indicated use of a number of substances; however, indications were limited to the urine and it is unlikely they were contributory to the accident.Page 2 of 10 CEN22FA208The slow acceleration and extended ground roll due to the degraded engine performance necessitated an abort that was not accomplished by the pilots. Since a purpose of the flight was troubleshooting an avionics issue, it is possible that the pilots were distracted by the avionics issue during the takeoff roll. This distraction could have led to inattention to ensuring that the fuel flow/engine performance was adequate during the takeoff roll and to abort the takeoff.
The pilot reported that shortly after takeoff the airplane’s engine suddenly lost power. Despite his efforts, the engine would not restart. Subsequently, the pilot initiated a forced landing in a field and, during the landing roll, the airplane impacted a tree stump, nosed over, and came to rest inverted. During a postaccident airframe and engine examination, the engine rotated freely, and all cylinders had compression and proper valve movement. The engine was started and run at various power settings, with no anomalies noted. No evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures was found that would have precluded normal operation. The weather conditions at the time of the accident were not conducive to carburetor icing at cruise power, and the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The pilot was ferrying a gyroplane from Gulf Shores, Alabama, to his home in South Dakota. He made an overnight stopover in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as part of his planned route of flight. The following morning he requested progressive taxi instructions from air traffic control to the assigned departure runway. After he taxied to the runway he departed to the northwest, consistent with what he told the controller. However, shortly into his climb, he reported to the controller that he wanted to return to the airport and the controller cleared him to land on his departure runway. The gyroplane flew the airport traffic pattern back to the runway to land; however, during the downwind leg the gyroplane rapidly descended to the ground following a loud crack that was heard by a witness at the airport. Postaccident examination of the gyroplane revealed no preimpact mechanical anomalies or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that could have precluded normal operation. Data retrieved from an onboard recording system suggests that the engine performance was unremarkable and consistent with the throttle movements throughout the final moments of the flight. Paint transfer marks on the rotor blades suggested that the main rotor contacted the horizontal stabilizer right winglet in the final moments of the accident flight, which was likely the source of the “crack” sound heard by the witness. The postaccident examination revealed evidence of severe blade flapping from a partial bend of the teetering stop of one of the main rotor blades and rotor contact with the horizontal stabilizer, which is typically due to a several-second low g or zero rotor load condition that slows the autorotation speed of the rotor. This condition was likely the result of the 270° hard left roll before the gyroplane rapidly descended and impacted the ground. Without the ability to Page 2 of 12 WPR22FA184maintain a load on the rotor in the full roll over, the rotor would have slowed and began severe flapping. The investigation was unable to determine the reason for such a severe control input (hard left roll) based on the available evidence. The evidence does indicate distress in the pilot’s voice and that he had opened his door at some point during the flight. There was no damage to the door latches and the door was found at the same distance from the main wreckage as the right horizontal stabilizer (about 170 ft). As a door annunciation would have informed the pilot if the door was not properly latched on takeoff, it is likely that this occurred in flight, and was possibly intentional if the pilot anticipated a hard landing.The accident was the result of the pilot’s failure to maintain controlled flight, which resulted in a hard left roll, excessive blade flapping, and a subsequent inflight separation of the right horizontal stabilizer.
The pilot reported that he remembered only portions of the accident sequence due to injuries sustained in the accident. He said that during takeoff from a remote, grass-covered site, as the airplane accelerated, he recalled discovering that there was no elevator control when he moved the control yoke aft. The next thing he remembered was being upside-down in the airplane immediately after the accident. The airplane subsequently impacted terrain, sustaining substantial damage to the fuselage, wings, and vertical stabilizer. After the accident, a camp helper told the pilot that due to windy conditions the prior evening, he had placed a large screw through the hole in the control yoke column, but he had forgotten to tell him.The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
According to a flight attendant (FA) on Southwest Airlines flight 2046, during cruise flight with no reported turbulence, she and several passengers noticed the forward lavatory was occupied for an unusually long time (10-15 minutes) requiring passengers to use the back lavatory. The FA realized the passenger had unlocked the lavatory door and cracked it open but did not exit. She knocked on the door and asked if everything was okay but there was no response. When the FA attempted to open the door, a female passenger started to exit the lavatory when she began to fall and grabbed on to the FA.  The FA immediately requested for the front two passengers to assist her in getting the passenger up and moved to a seat.  While assisting the passenger, the FA noticed the passenger’s foot was swollen and piece of bone was sticking through her skin.  A volunteer medical professional who was onboard the airplane assisted and positioned the injured passenger in the front galley for landing.  Emergency medical personnel met the airplane at the gate and transported the passenger to a local hospital.
The pilots were conducting single-engine landing performance tests on an unimproved, dirt runway at the time of the accident. The pilot reported the touchdown was smooth, after which the throttles were reduced, and maximum braking was applied. The airplane began to drift toward the right side of the runway. The pilot immediately applied left rudder and reduced braking. He subsequently “applied cautious left braking” to bring the airplane to the center of the runway without over correcting. These actions were not sufficient and the right wing impacted bushes and a small tree along the right side of the runway, although the main landing gear remained on the runway. After the accident, the pilot noted that the antiskid braking system may not have been operating properly.Recorded data revealed the left brake pressure increased after touchdown consistent with the pilot’s effort to maintain the center of the runway. About 8 seconds later, the right brake pressure increased consistent with a maximum bilateral braking effort, and the left and right brake pressures began to oscillate consistent with normal operation of the antiskid system. The investigation was unable to identify any anomalies with respect to the airplane.The pilot’s efforts to maintain directional control after landing touchdown were insufficient, which allowed the right wing to drift off the right side of the runway and impact the brush and small tree. The single-engine landing and maximum braking effort in accordance with the test plan likely hindered these efforts.
The pilot reported that, during an aerial application flight, the engine lost total power. The pilot attempted to restart the engine but was unsuccessful and was forced to land in a dry plowed field. The left wing was substantially damaged. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the right-side fuel tank was almost empty, and the left side fuel tank contained approximately 15 gallons of fuel. The Airplane Flight Manual for the airplane states that skidding turns below ½ tanks can transfer fuel from one tank to another, which will lead to engine flameout if one tank runs dry. Subsequently, the pilot stated that he should have completed a better visual inspection of the contents of both fuel tanks before takeoff. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot was attempting to land on the runway in gusty wind conditions. During the landing flare, the airplane encountered a gust of wind and it climbed back into the air and yawed. The pilot increased engine power and added right rudder input in an attempt to correct the airplane’s heading, but the airplane subsequently departed the runway surface and struck an embankment. During the excursion the empennage separated from the fuselage and the landing gear collapsed, resulting in substantial damage to the airframe. The pilot did not report that there were any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot observed a reduction in engine power shortly after takeoff. While attempting to return to the airport, the engine lost power completely while on the downwind leg of the airport traffic pattern, after which the pilot performed an off-airport landing. The airplane’s fuselage and horizontal stabilizer were substantially damaged during the landing.Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the pushrod O-rings had been incorrectly installed. This improper installation led to the disintegration of the O-rings, and the resulting debris to blocked the oil ports to the No. 4 connecting rod bearing. The lack of oil to the bearing resulted in the failure of the connecting rod, and the subsequent total loss of engine power.The airplane’s maintenance logbooks did not document any recent engine maintenance that would have required removing the engine’s cylinder heads. The cylinders were removed and reinstalled following repair nearly 9 years, and about 58 tachometer hours, before the accident. Based on available information, it is likely that the O-rings were improperly installed during this maintenance.
The pilot reported that, while on final approach to landing at a private airstrip, he was slow to correct for a slower-than-normal airspeed. Subsequently, the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall, and descended into a swampy area short of the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the 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 while on final approach for runway 18 the airplane bounced around in gusty wind conditions. The pilot was focused on the wind gusts, and he forgot to put the landing gear down. The airplane touched down on the lower fuselage and slid to a stop. The pilot observed smoke emitting from the engine after the landing. The airplane was consumed by a post-crash fire.
The pilot picked up the helicopter from a repair facility and while flying home heard a “boom,” felt a vibration in the tail, and performed a precautionary landing to a beach. Postaccident examination of the helicopter revealed that the engine cowling had become unlatched and was subsequently struck by a main rotor blade. The detached cowling then struck the horizontal stabilizer and tail rotor, which resulted in substantial damage. The pilot reported that he did not confirm that the engine cowling latch was properly secured during his preflight inspection. He reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures of the helicopter before the cowling opened and detached.
The flight instructor reported that shortly before touchdown, the student pilot flared too low, overcorrected, and the airplane ballooned. The instructor then took the flight controls and initiated a go around; however, the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall, went to the left, and landed hard. The left wing impacted the ground and the airplane rolled off the runway and came to rest in the grass. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the outboard portion of the left wing. 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 he attempted a takeoff with an estimated 10-12 knot left quartering tailwind. During the takeoff ground roll, the airplane veered left, departed the side of the runway, and collided with trees. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left and right wings. The pilot reported no mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. A review of aviation weather data found the potential for the wind to gust over 20 knots at the time of the accident.
According to the accident pilot, after transferring a patient from Klamath Falls, Oregon to Bend, Oregon, he received a request from his dispatch to collect a patient in Christmas Valley, Oregon. He reviewed weather information from stations surrounding the destination as there was no local weather reporting facility at the destination. The pilot recalled that the expected winds were from the northwest at 15-20 kts sustained, and gusting to 30 kts, but were acceptable for the flight. After a preflight inspection he departed on the accident flight with three flight crewmembers. They did not experience any significant weather while enroute to their destination and the helicopter was operating within its normal limitations. The pilot approached the airport by entering the airport traffic pattern from the north for a landing to the west as the winds were from the west/northwest. He recalled that the windspeeds at the time of arrival were approximately 15-20 kts and gusting between 25-30 kts. After he became established on final approach he sidestepped and approached a parallel taxiway. He slowly taxied while looking for the air ambulance they were scheduled to meet. The pilot reported that he was monitoring the windsock during this time, but observed the helicopter handling well with no indication of winds that would exceed the helicopter’s limitations at the time. Once he identified the landing site he lined the helicopter with the landing pad and began a descent while noting several structures nearby that were providing protection from the wind. At this point he performed a right pedal turn from about 3 ft above ground level to position the left door towards the ambulance for the pickup, consistent with the operator’s protocol. The pedal turn went smoothly; however, as the helicopter touched down it was forced forward rapidly. The pilot reacted by increasing collective and applying aft cyclic to climb the helicopter and avoid surrounding hazards. He lowered collective when the helicopter was about 30 ft above ground level and held aft cyclic, but the helicopter began to spin to the left and he was unable to control the helicopter. The pilot then reduced power to IDLE using the throttle twist grip and could not recount anything further. The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical anomalies or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation. He opined that he encountered a hard wind from the rear. Page 2 of 6 WPR22LA182A witness estimated that the wind was about 50 mph (43 kts) at the time of the accident.
The student pilot was returning to his home airport after making three stops to pick up and drop off equipment and a passenger. While the airplane was at low altitude about 5 miles from the student pilot’s home airport, the airplane made a left turn that was followed by a right turn near the airplane’s stall speed. The airplane rapidly descended and impacted a field in a nose-low attitude and with minimal forward momentum. The airplane came to rest upright, with both wings crushed downward and the engine partially separated and forward of the main wreckage. There was no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions were observed during examinations of the engine and airframe.Six empty mini-sized alcohol bottles were found in the airplane’s glove box. In addition, the pilot’s toxicology results showed ethanol concentrations that were about five times the Federal Aviation Administration regulatory limit of 0.04 gm/dL. At such concentrations, the pilot would likely have experienced degradation of judgment and deficits in coordination, psychomotor skills, perception, and attention. The student pilot’s toxicology results indicated that he was drinking alcohol before the time of the accident. The student pilot’s decision to maneuver the airplane at a low altitude while under the influence of alcohol caused the airplane to exceed its critical angle of attack and enter a stall, resulting in a loss of control from which the student pilot could not recover.
The pilot and his passenger were performing a local flight after the installation of a new GPS system. After flying for about 15 minutes, the pilot lowered the landing gear in preparation to land. The pilot observed the landing gear in an extended position via landing gear mirrors and confirmed a cockpit gear down light indication. After touchdown, the main landing gear collapsed. The airplane skidded and came to rest upright on an adjacent taxiway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left horizontal stabilizer and left elevator.Postaccident examination of the landing gear system revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. During the examination, 10 landing gear extensions and retractions were performed without any anomalies noted with the system. The cockpit landing gear light indications functioned during each gear cycle, and no leaks in the system were detected. The reason for the main landing gear collapse could not be determined.
The flight instructor reported that while on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern, after carburetor heat was applied, she “heard a noise,” followed by a decrease in engine power. She attempted to apply full throttle, but the engine did not respond. Unable to reach the runway, and in an effort to avoid rocks and debris on a nearby beach, she elected to land on adjacent mud flats. During the landing, the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. The instructor and student were able to egress the airplane, but the wreckage could not be secured before it was washed into the bay during rising tides. Due to the wreckage not being recovered, the reason for the power loss could not be determined.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that, during landing the airplane bounced, and he elected to go-around. Full power was applied, and a left turn was initiated, however climb performance was insufficient and resulted in a forced landing in a gravel pit. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wing and fuselage.
The pilot reported that he completed a normal traffic pattern and was on final approach in gusting wind conditions. About 10 ft above the runway, the airplane encountered a gust of wind, and the pilot was unable to control the descent rate. The airplane landed hard, and the nose landing gear collapsed, which resulted in substantial damage to the firewall, fuselage, and right wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot was maneuvering the glider for landing in the grass area left of and parallel to the runway after a solo traffic pattern flight. Witnesses reported that, as the pilot turned the glider left from the base leg to final, the turn was “early,” resulting in the glider being left of the approach path, and “slightly higher than normal.” The pilot performed a forward slip and recovered, which appeared to put the glider closer to a normal glidepath; however, it was “somewhat close” to tall trees located to the left of the approach path. The pilot then entered another forward slip, and the glider maintained a slight left bank during the recovery, which placed it closer to the trees. The left wing subsequently impacted a tree and the glider rotated to the left, pitched downward, and descended into a grass field adjacent to the tree line.Examination of the glider revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Although a bird remnant was found in the debris path, no remnants were found on the glider or any of its components, and it is likely that the remnant was present before the accident. It is likely that the pilot became fixated on attaining the proper glide path during the landing approach and failed to correct the glider’s lateral misalignment with the intended landing area, which resulted in impact with the tree.