roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot indicated that about 3 weeks before the accident flight, he had topped off the airplane's two fuel tanks and flown the airplane once; the flight lasted about 1 1/2 hours and was conducted using fuel from the left tank only.During his preflight inspection before the accident flight, the pilot noted that the right tank was full and the left tank was "just under half." The pilot departed on the personal flight, which had a planned duration of 2 hours, and was again using fuel from the left tank only. After about 40 minutes to 1 hour of flight time, while the airplane was at an altitude of about 2,500 ft above mean sea level, the pilot reversed course to return to the departure airport; shortly thereafter, the engine lost total power. The pilot turned on the electric fuel pump and ran it for about 10 seconds before he switched to the right tank. The engine did not start, and the pilot switched back to the left tank. The pilot's attempts to restore engine power were unsuccessful, and he did not refer to the engine failure checklist in the cockpit. He chose to conduct a forced landing; the airplane landed in a field and was substantially damaged when the right wing struck a power line pole.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the left tank was empty, the right tank was full, and the fuel selector was set to the left tank. Each tank had a usable fuel capacity of 24 gallons, and performance information from the airplane manufacturer's pilot's operating manual indicated that it was possible for the airplane to burn 24 gallons of fuel in the 2 1/2 hours flown by the pilot since fueling. Examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation, and the engine was successfully test run.Because there was no evidence of an engine malfunction or failure and there was sufficient fuel on board, it is likely that the engine lost total power due to fuel starvation as a result of the pilot's continued operation using the left fuel tank only.The pilot's actions after the engine lost power likely contributed to his inability to restore engine power. Page 2 of 9 WPR18LA040The manufacturer's emergency procedures checklist cited switching fuel tanks before activating the electric fuel pump; however, the pilot activated the electric pump, ran it for about 10 seconds on the empty left tank, switched to the full right tank, and then switched back to the empty left tank. Although it could not be determined how long the pilot kept the fuel selector valve set to the right tank before he switched it back to the left tank, it is likely that there was insufficient time for the engine to restart once the fuel selector was switched to the right tank, particularly if he did not activate the electric fuel pump at that time.
The private pilot stated that the airplane's left engine had recently started to leak a significant amount of oil; however, two mechanics looked at the engine the day before the accident flight, and the source of the leak could not be located. On the day of the accident, the pilot topped off his fuel tanks and put 2 quarts of oil in the left engine, bringing the oil level up to 7 quarts. He then departed on a long cross-country personal flight. About 10 to 15 miles from the destination airport, the left engine low-oil-pressure light came on. When the airplane was 5 miles from the airport, the left engine lost total power, and the propeller feathered. The pilot chose to land downwind due to having only one working engine; however, his approach was too fast and too high, so he decided to go around. As the airplane began a shallow climb, the pilot entered a left turn to avoid mountains. While in the turn, he realized that he was not going to make it back to the airport and increased the right engine's throttle to full power. This overboosted the turbocharger-equipped engine, which stopped producing power. The airplane stalled and impacted trees.A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed streaks of oil on the top and under the left engine cowling just aft of the oil filler door. Oil was also observed under the left wing. The left engine's oil filler cap was still on the filler neck but did not seat properly and would partially lift off the seat if it was pulled upward. The cap's locking mechanism was corroded, and the locking tangs were bent. A teardown examination of the left engine revealed that the No.1 and No. 2 connecting rods had failed, and their associated crankshaft journals displayed heat distress, consistent with oil starvation. The No.1 piston exhibited signatures of detonation. It was not determined what caused the piston to detonate, but a download of the onboard engine analyzer revealed that the cylinder head temperature was higher on that cylinder for most of the accident flight. The exact source of the oil leak could not be determined based on available evidence. The pilot made an improper decision to fly the airplane with a known oil leak, which ultimately led to the total loss of engine power due to oil starvation. Further, although the pilot decided to land downwind due to having only one working engine, the tailwind was significant, and this decision led to his attempted go-around and loss of control.Page 2 of 8 ERA18LA032
The pilot performed a preflight inspection of the turboprop airplane and an engine run-up with no anomalies noted. The takeoff roll and lift off from the runway were normal; however, when the pilot initiated a landing gear retraction, the engine torque decreased, but the rpm did not change. The torque then surged back to full power and continued to surge as the pilot attempted to return to the runway. The left wing of the airplane struck the ground, and the airplane came to rest in the grass on the side of the runway. Examination of the engine, engine accessories, and propeller revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation before the accident. The reason for the partial loss of engine power could not be determined based on the available information.
According to the pilot in the low-wing, experimental, amateur-built airplane, he landed on a backcountry strip. During the taxi about 15mph, the left wing and the right wing struck separate fence posts. The pilot reported that the fence posts were surrounded by vegetation and not visible. He continued his taxi to parking and shut the engine off.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the leading edge and the ribs on both wings.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the pilot, during the landing flare the airplane was fast, and he tried to bleed off the airspeed by applying back pressure, but the airplane ballooned. Upon touchdown the airplane porpoised, after which, the airplane veered to the left and exited the left side of the runway. The airplane impacted the visual approach slope indicator lights that were located on the left side of the runway.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and the fuselage.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, during the right downwind in the traffic pattern, he was about 1/4 mile from the runway, which was "too close." He added that, "during a poorly planned and executed base to final approach," he performed an "uncoordinated" right bank about 45°, and the right wing dropped, which resulted in a descending right roll. He attempted to recover, but the airplane impacted terrain.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and right wing.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during the landing roll, the tailwheel-equipped airplane veered to the right. He overcorrected, and the airplane exited the left side of the runway and ground looped to the left. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and right wing.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
After takeoff, the commercial pilot saw flames coming from the left engine nacelle area. He retarded the throttle and turned off the fuel boost pump; however, the fire continued. He then feathered the propeller, shut down the engine, and maneuvered the airplane below the clouds to remain in the local traffic pattern. He attempted to keep the runway environment in sight while drifting in and out of clouds. He was unable to align the airplane for landing on the departure runway, so he attempted to land on another runway. When he realized that the airspeed was decreasing and that the airplane would not reach the runway, he landed it on an adjacent grass field. After touchdown, the landing gear separated, and the airplane came to a stop. The airframe sustained substantial damage to the wings and lower fuselage.Examination of the left engine revealed evidence of a fuel leak where the fuel mixture control shaft inserted into the fuel injector body, which likely resulted in fuel leaking onto the hot turbocharger in flight and the in-flight fire. A review of recent maintenance records did not reveal any entries regarding maintenance or repair of the fuel injection system.The pilot reported clouds as low as 500 ft with rain, snow, and reduced visibility at the time of the accident, which likely reduced his ability to see the runway and maneuver the airplane to land on it.
The 89-year-old commercial pilot departed on a cross-country flight late on the day before Thanksgiving to visit relatives. He received two weather briefings in the 2 days before the flight, with the most recent briefing (the day before the flight) indicating widespread marginal visual flight rules conditions and mountain obscuration; the briefer advised the pilot that visual flight rules (VFR) flight was not recommended. Despite the conditions presented during the weather briefing, the pilot chose to conduct the flight under VFR and indicated to the briefer that he did not want to fly through clouds with potential icing conditions.GPS track data downloaded from a unit onboard the accident airplane indicated that the flight began uneventfully, with the pilot following a highway, likely for route guidance. As the flight progressed, the airplane's altitude began to decrease. This is consistent with the reported weather conditions and the pilot attempting to remain clear of clouds since he was not on an instrument flight rules flight plan and did not want to fly through the clouds.  Near a location where the highway turned west through a town and around terrain, the airplane continued straight and flew along a valley between two ridges. The airplane made two turns within the valley, then made a left turn to the west, possibly in an attempt to return to the highway. While heading toward the highway and after crossing the ridge, the airplane entered a descending right turn. The GPS data ended about 750 ft from the accident site and indicated that the airplane was about 425 ft above ground level. Examination of the airplane, engine, flight controls, and instruments did not reveal any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.Toxicology testing indicated that the pilot had used diphenhydramine, a sedating antihistamine, at some time before the accident; however, the blood level of the potentially impairing medication was below the therapeutic and impairing level. Therefore, it is unlikely that the pilot's use of diphenhydramine contributed to the accident.Page 2 of 10 CEN18FA037Based on the available information, it is likely that the pilot inadvertently encountered instrument meteorological conditions while maneuvering the airplane in deteriorating light conditions near the end of civil twilight. Although the pilot was instrument rated, no determination of his recent instrument flight experience could be made. He was likely not prepared for the sudden entry into instrument conditions and the loss of visibility combined with the turns and varying altitudes while attempting to exit the valley resulted in spatial disorientation and a subsequent loss of airplane control.
The private pilot was attempting a takeoff from an industrial truck yard in 24- to 31-knot gusting headwind conditions. He performed a short field takeoff procedure with the wing flaps extended about halfway. As the airplane reached about 30 knots, the airplane's tailwheel lifted off the ground, then the pilot fully extended the flaps and the airplane became airborne. Shortly afterward, the right wing dropped. As he was recovering from the right bank, the pilot retracted the flaps from fully extended back to half extension and confirmed that the throttle was full forward. At that time, the airplane turned sharply to the right and descended into a parked trailer.A witness reported that, shortly after becoming airborne, the airplane entered a 35° right bank. The pilot corrected slightly; however, at that point, the airplane started a more abrupt climb, "snap rolled" to the right, and impacted the trailer inverted. The bank and roll to the right are consistent with an aerodynamic stall.A postaccident examination did not reveal any anomalies consistent with a preimpact failure or malfunction. The exact position of the wing flaps at the time of impact could not be determined.The dirt- and gravel-surfaced takeoff area was about 750 ft long and was rough and uneven. The uneven takeoff area may have reduced the airplane's acceleration during the takeoff ground roll, and the gusty wind condition may have contributed to the stall once airborne. In addition, given the limited takeoff distance available, the pilot may have rotated the airplane at a slower-than-normal airspeed, thereby increasing the possibility of an inadvertent stall. Additionally, the extension and retraction of the wing flaps during takeoff resulted in abrupt changes in the airplane's angle of attack and a subsequent aerodynamic stall, which precipitated the pilot's loss of control. Page 2 of 7 CEN18LA039
The pilot reported that he had a "rough landing" and the "right rear strut wheel broke." Examination of the accident site revealed that the airplane touched down on the runway, and skid marks were found on the runway and grass infield. The airplane exited the runway, crossed over a taxiway, impacted a rock drainage revetment, and then impacted a hangar about 2,100 ft from the touchdown point. The landing gear strut did not separate from the airplane until about 100 ft before impact with the hangar. Examination of the airplane wreckage did not reveal any preimpact malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Thus, the pilot likely failed to maintain directional control while landing, which resulted in a runway excursion.
The helicopter pilot reported that he was landing on a pad in a confined area. He added that, as he approached the landing pad, he slowed the helicopter to transition to a hover. The main rotor rpm began to drop, and he applied full throttle, but the rpm continued to decline. The helicopter was unable to maintain altitude and slowly settled into the trees on the hillside about 20 ft short of the landing pad. Subsequently, the helicopter struck the trees and rolled onto its right side.The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and main rotor system.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot reported that, after the accident, he noticed there was a significant right quartering tailwind, which required the application of more left pedal than anticipated. He further explained that the increased application of antitorque pedal lessened the available power to maintain the main rotor rpm. He concluded that the approach could have been completed safely with a steeper and faster approach to better manage engine power.
The commercial pilot completed a preflight inspection of the airplane before departing on a local flight. Upon adding power for takeoff, the airplane initially tracked straight but then started to turn right; the pilot was unable to correct the turn or stop the airplane, and the airplane exited the side of the runway before coming to rest inverted. An examination of the steering and rudder system did not find any preimpact abnormalities. The pilot added that he did not notice any undirected braking or unusual taxi characteristics of the airplane before the takeoff. An automated weather observation facility located about 5 miles south of the accident site recorded a crosswind at 4 knots about the time of the accident, which the pilot should have been able to compensate for. Given the lack of mechanical anomalies and light wind conditions, it is likely that the pilot failed to maintain directional control during the takeoff, which resulted in a runway excursion.
The airline transport pilot was hired to fly the airplane for a positioning flight, which required multiple fuel stops. The pilot had not previously flown this airplane make and model. Before takeoff, he taxied the airplane to become familiar with the flight controls and brakes. The pilot reported that, during the landing roll at the first en route airport, the airplane veered to the left, so he had to unexpectedly apply the brakes, which resulted in a nose-over. A postaccident examination of the tire marks on the runway revealed that, during the landing roll, the airplane veered to the left and then back to the right before the airplane nosed over on the runway. A functional test of the brakes did not reveal any anomalies. Thus, the accident circumstances were consistent with excessive rudder application during the landing roll followed by excessive brake application, which resulted in the nose-over.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll, the airplane veered off the runway. The right wing subsequently collided with a tree before the airplane came to rest on the grass. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot was flying his company's helicopter during a low-altitude cattle herding flight. A witness saw the helicopter maneuvering over power lines; it subsequently descended in a nose-low attitude to ground contact and was consumed by postcrash fire. Both the power lines above the helicopter wreckage and the helicopter itself exhibited damage consistent with in-flight contact with the lines. An onscene examination of the wreckage did not reveal any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the helicopter.
While the commercial pilot was maneuvering the airplane during a local flight, the engine lost total power. The pilot was unable to restart the engine, and he made a forced landing to a nearby road. After landing, the pilot saw a car on the road and attempted to turn the airplane to the right; however, the airplane's right wing impacted a road sign and a barbed wire fence. Postaccident testing revealed that the engine-driven fuel pump was not functional; thus, the fuel contained in the main tanks could not be transferred to the header tank. Therefore, the loss of engine power was likely the result of fuel starvation after the available fuel in the header tank had been depleted. Although the airplane was equipped with a header tank fuel gauge, the pilot failed to identify that the fuel level in the header tank was decreasing prematurely.
The pilot reported that, about 2 miles from his destination, he made a left turn to enter the downwind leg for landing when a bird came "out of the sun." The pilot made a hard right turn to avoid the bird and prevent it from coming through the windscreen. The bird subsequently collided with the leading edge of the left wing. The pilot continued to his intended destination without further incident. Postaccident examination revealed 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 helicopter air ambulance flight was en route to pick up a patient when company satellite tracking was lost at an altitude about 1,250 ft mean sea level. The helicopter impacted a reservoir bank and a postimpact fire consumed a majority of the fuselage. Examination of the helicopter did not reveal any anomalies with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.A postaccident examination of the wreckage found multiple bird remains, identified as snow geese, were located in the cockpit and embedded in the pilot's clothing and boot. Fragments of a night vision goggle (NVG) system near the pilot's position suggest that the pilot was using them for visual navigation; however, there was no moon illumination to enhance the NVG effectiveness, and it is unlikely that the pilot would have been able to visually detect the birds before impact. While the helicopter flight controls were continuous, it could not be determined if the bird strikes jammed the pilot's controls and/or incapacitated the pilot.
According to the pilot in the tailwheel-equipped, high-performance biplane, during the landing roll, he applied the brakes to decelerate for the full-stop landing. When he did, the biplane swerved to the left, but it was corrected by letting off the brakes and applying right rudder. The biplane then veered to the left again, but the pilot was not able to correct it with full right rudder and brake application. The biplane exited the left side of the runway and nosed over. The biplane sustained substantial damage to the rudder.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the biplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during the takeoff for the personal flight, as the airplane reached about 50 ft above ground level, the airplane stopped climbing and the pilot was unable to maintain altitude. When the airplane stopped climbing, the pilot and pilot-rated passenger decided to examine the anomaly further as the pilot began a wide, shallow left turn  and attempted to maintain altitude. A video showed that as the airplane completed the turn, it entered a steep bank angle and descended. The airplane's wings leveled out just before the airplane disappeared behind trees and impacted a trailer, trees, and a residence, which resulted in substantial damage to the wings, empennage, and fuselage. Examination of the area revealed that, had the pilot initiated an emergency landing straight ahead rather than troubleshooting the engine problem or attempting to return to the airport, the damage may have been reduced.Postaccident examination of the engine revealed the travel of two of the intake valve rockers was severely limited, the camshaft lobe that supported these intake valves was severely worn and had extensive pitting, and spalling damage was on the faces of the camshaft lifters supporting these intake valves. The decreased travel of the intake valves would have reduced the fuel/air mixture reaching the affected cylinders, thus reducing the overall power the engine could produce. A review of maintenance records revealed that owner had not complied with a manufacturer's mandatory service bulletin requiring a rocker arm inspection. While a service bulletin is not mandatory for Part 91 airplane owners, compliance with the service bulletin might have revealed the limited travel of the rocker arms and prevented the loss of engine power.