roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
While approaching to land on a support truck, the helicopter experienced a loss of engine power. The pilot attempted to autorotate to land and the helicopter experienced a hard landing. The right skid broke, and the main rotor blades struck the ground and the tail boom. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and tail boom.  The pilot attributed the loss of engine power due to a possible fuel pump failure. During a telephone interview the pilot said that he took off from the airport ramp to refuel and the fuel gauge indicated about 15 to 20 gallons. He climbed the helicopter to about 40 ft, flew about 150 yards, and landed on a support truck where the helicopter idled for about 15 minutes while ground personnel attempted to get the truck fuel pump to work. One of the ground personnel waved the pilot off to another support truck. The helicopter climbed to about 40 ft and moved about 35 - 50 yards to a second support truck. As the helicopter approached to land, the tachometer dropped then spiked, and then the engine lost power. The pilot nosed the helicopter over to avoid the truck and the helicopter hit the ground. When asked the pilot answered, "I guess I ran out of fuel". A postaccident examination of the helicopter revealed that the fuel tanks were dry and the fuel gauge indicated 0 gallons of fuel.
The flight instructor reported that he and the student pilot departed the short turf runway with a low fuel load to practice landings at another airport. The flight instructor planned to refuel midway through the flight but forgot to stop for fuel, despite observing that fuel quantity gage indications were low during the flight. While the airplane climbed out during a go-around, the engine lost power due to fuel exhaustion. The flight instructor made a forced landing and the airplane impacted trees. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings. The flight instructor reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The flight instructor attributed the inflight fuel planning error to a lack of recent flight instructor experience and the distractions of a challenging training environment.
The pilot reported that during landing touchdown with all three wheels “down,” and the airplane “tracking fine,” he removed his feet from the lower rudder pedal bars to apply braking via the upper braking pedal bars. The pedals then fell rearward toward the pilot and his right foot got wedged between the lower rudder pedal bar and the upper braking pedal bar. The pilot reported this action caught him by surprise and he applied “heavy” right rudder, thinking it was braking application. The airplane departed the right side of the runway, nosed over, and came to rest inverted in the grass next to the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the top right wing and the empennage. The pilot reported there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot reported that he had recently purchased the airplane and did not know that the rudder pedal return springs were not installed. The investigation revealed that the airplane was previously modified for aerobatic competition with the addition of a large rudder and that due to cockpit spacing limitations, the rudder pedal return springs could not be installed. The pilot concluded that the accident could have been prevented by performing a “very thorough” inspection and understanding all the modifications made to the airplane before flying it.
The pilot of the airplane reported that, he departed with a total of 50 gallons of fuel for a cross-country flight. After about 1.5 hours, as the airplane approached the destination airport, the fuel-injected engine experienced a total loss of power. The pilot switched the fuel selector valve from the right main fuel tank to the left main fuel tank and attempted to restart the engine, to no avail. The airplane impacted upsloping terrain during the forced landing, which resulted in the engine separating from the firewall. Postaccident examination of the airplane and engine revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have resulted in the loss of engine power. According to the manufacturer, the unusable fuel in each main fuel tank is 3 gallons. The fuel recovered from the right and left main tanks were about 2 and 4 gallons, respectively. A total of about 16.5 gallons was recovered from the main and auxiliary fuel tanks combined. It is likely that the pilot did not properly monitor the fuel supply during the cross-country flight, which resulted in a total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation.
The pilot reported a partial loss of engine power during cruise flight. The gyroplane impacted a power line and trees during the subsequent forced landing. The fuselage and empennage sustained substantial damaged during the impact. About 1 cup of water was recovered from the fuel tank/lines. A subsequent engine test run performed by the pilot/owner did not reveal any anomalies with respect to normal operation. The pilot stated that he was diligent in obtaining preflight fuel samples and was uncertain how any water could have been introduced into the fuel system.After an approximate 2-hour flight since refueling, the likelihood of a fuel contamination event was remote. However, based on the subsequent engine run with no anomalies noted, the reason for the partial loss of engine power could not be determined.
The glider tow pilot had completed one flight and was returning to the airport following the second tow of the day. The pilot reported that, during the approach, he encountered a meteorological effect and the airplane drifted to the left and the pilot decided to initiate a go-around. As the airplane was accelerating during the go-around, it started “turning/yawing” even though the pilot was trying to accelerate straight and level. The pilot surmised this was from the same meteorological effect that initially pushed the airplane left. The pilot noticed that the airplane seemed to yaw to the right, the airplane began descending, touched down, and came to rest inverted in a grass field, resulting in substantial damage to both wings and the empennage.The pilot admitted to first responders that he had consumed alcohol earlier that morning. The pilot was evaluated at a hospital, where he was diagnosed with alcohol intoxication based on a serum ethanol test result of 0.079 g/dL collected about one hour after the accident.It is likely that the pilot was experiencing impairing effects of ethanol at the time of the accident. It is unknown whether ethanol’s impairing effects were worsened by altitude effects (the field elevation of the airport was about 6,500 ft above mean sea level); however, it is likely that ethanol effects increased the pilot’s risk of making serious errors and diminished his ability to effectively maintain airplane control. Thus, pilot impairment from effects of alcohol consumption likely contributed to the accident.
The flight instructor reported that during landing, the upwind wing raised, and power was applied for a go-around. The nose was lowered, and aileron was applied into the wind, but there was insufficient airspeed to sustain flight. The airplane settled and contacted a drainage ditch, which resulted in substantial damage to both wings. The instructor reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during the landing roll, the airplane encountered a gust of wind that “flipped” the airplane over. Postaccident examination revealed substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane.
The flight instructor reported that he and pilot receiving instruction were conducting an instructional flight to include practice autorotation maneuvers. The flight instructor reported that he was demonstrating a straight-in autorotation with power recovery but did not apply full power as required. About 10 ft above the runway the low rotor horn sounded, and the pilot attempted to go around, but the helicopter bounced on the runway and pitched forward. The main rotor blades contacted and severed the tail boom, which resulted in substantial damage. The pilot reported there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot stated there were no discrepancies of the anti-torque pedals noted during his check of them as part of the startup checklist or after starting the engines. After lifting off from a dolly while operating about 150 pounds below gross weight, he reported “suddenly and without notice” a “pop” in the pedals. The helicopter began yawing to the right, which he attempted to correct with left anti-torque pedal input but did not recall if the pedal moved. The helicopter yawed about 180° clockwise and impacted a parked golf cart which stopped the yaw. He then lowered the collective which resulted in the helicopter landing partially on the dolly. He then raised collective and lifted from the dolly but after getting airborne the helicopter yawed left which he attempted to correct with right anti-torque pedal input. After clearing the dolly, he lowered collective and the helicopter impacted hard on the ramp resulting in substantial damage to the tailboom. The pilot indicated on the NTSB Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident report there was no mechanical malfunction or failure.Postaccident examination of the helicopter by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airworthiness inspector with the accident pilot present revealed no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction of the anti-torque flight controls. While binding was noted in the anti-torque flight controls during postaccident examination, that was attributed to be from impingement of a displaced skid cross tube into a bellcrank of anti-torque control system. The lack of any malfunction of the anti-torque flight controls was further supported by the pilot and witness accounts, as well as recorded video that depicted the helicopter yawing to the left in response to pilot left pedal input following right yaw.Page 2 of 5 ERA22LA342
The pilot was departing for a local flight, and following an uneventful preflight inspection, runup, and taxi, he began the takeoff. About 3 to 5 seconds into the initial climb the engine sustained a partial loss of power and the pilot elected to land straight ahead on the remaining runway. The runway was wet, and the airplane exited the departure end of the runway, coming to rest in a small retention pond. The pilot received minor injuries, the passenger was not injured, and the airplane’s right wing was substantially damaged. A postaccident examination of the engine found no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation and the reason for the partial loss of engine power could not be determined.
The accident pilot reported that, 2 days before the accident, the airplane was flown uneventfully by another pilot to the destination airport using the right fuel tank. The pilot who previously flew the airplane reported that he had refueled the airplane with 15 gallons of fuel before that flight, which lasted about 1 hour and 40 minutes; he used the right tank for that flight. He did not indicate that the tanks had been completely filled, noting that 15 gallons was all he needed for the flight. As he approached the destination, he switched to the left fuel tank and landed uneventfully.According to the accident pilot, after conducting a preflight inspection on the day of the accident, he taxied the airplane out to the runway using the right fuel tank.  He recalled that the right tank was full of fuel, which would be inconsistent with the right tank’s fuel state if the previous flight had been flown using the right tank. Following an engine runup, he departed. As the airplane was about 400 ft above ground level, the engine rpm decayed to about 1,800 rpm. The pilot performed a 180° turn but was unable to make it to the runway and landed on an airport perimeter road. The airplane bounced, impacted the fence, and came to rest upright on the airport transient parking ramp. The pilot stated that, after the accident, he observed the right fuel line was “severed” with “pouring out fuel.”  Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the right fuel line from the lower door frame structure had separated from the fuel fitting. Examination of the recovered airframe and engine revealed no evidence of any preexisting mechanical malfunction that would have precluded normal operation. Although the investigation did not identify performance information for the O-200-A engine installed on the Cessna 120 specifically for fuel burn, given the fuel burn of the O-200-A, and estimated flight time, the previous flight would have used about 10 gallons of fuel. This would Page 2 of 7 WPR22LA242place the fuel level in the fuel tank below 1/4 tank, which would prohibit takeoff according to the airplane owner’s manual. Although the pilot may have inadvertently used the wrong fuel tank for takeoff, which could have unported the fuel tank and interrupted the subsequent fuel delivery to the engine, the investigation could not determine the position of the fuel selector valve at the time of the accident. The reason for the total loss of engine power could not be determined.
After performing maneuvers in the local area, the pilot receiving instruction and the flight instructor returned to the departure airport and performed two practice landings. During the third landing, the flight instructor heard a “bang” noise and the airplane veered left away from the runway centerline. The airplane came to rest in the grass next to the runway and the airplane’s fuselage and rudder were substantially damaged. A Federal Aviation Administration inspector examined the airplane after the accident. The airplane’s left main landing gear had collapsed and the inspector found that the left main landing gear through bolt was fractured. The inspector further reported that the airplane’s most recent annual inspection had been completed more than 22 months before the accident. Additionally, the airframe manufacturer’s maintenance manual required that the through bolt be removed and inspected at every 100 hour/annual inspection and replaced as necessary, in addition to a mandatory replacement every 500 hours. The airplane’s maintenance records did not show when the last though bolt change had occurred. Based on this information, it is likely that the landing gear collapsed due to a failure of the left main landing gear through bolt, and that the through bolt had likely not been maintained in accordance with the airframe manufacturer’s requirements.
The pilot departed and about 3 minutes into the flight he elected to return to his departure airport due to weather. The airplane entered the downwind leg of the airport traffic pattern and made his final radio transmission over the airport common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF). When abeam the runway threshold the pilot then made an early turn onto base leg of the traffic pattern for reasons that could not be determined, and the airplane descended towards the runway. As the airplane turned onto final approach, just over the runway threshold, it made a right turn about 90° and impacted the ground. The airplane was destroyed by postcrash fire.Postaccident examination of the airplane and engine revealed no preimpact mechanical anomalies that could have precluded normal operation. The weather was not likely a factor in the accident as reports indicated few clouds and visibility was variable but appeared clear in surveillance video. The pilot’s flight experience in the accident airplane make/model are unknown, but he was familiar with the traffic pattern at the airport where the accident occurred. The pilot’s autopsy report showed that he had an increased risk of a sudden incapacitating event due to coronary artery disease. However, a family member noted that the pilot was in good health and showed no indications of distress the morning of the accident flight. In addition, the pilot exhibited no medical concerns during his communications with air traffic control, which ceased about 18 seconds before the accident. Video and radar evidence also indicated the pilot flew a stabilized descent while on the base leg of the traffic pattern, which also suggests he was likely not in distress. In this context, no evidence suggests that a medical anomaly contributed to the accident. Page 2 of 10 WPR22FA235As the pilot turned onto final approach, he commanded a steep turn to align the airplane with the runway, which likely resulted in an exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack, an accelerated stall, and impact with terrain. The pilot had an opportunity to go-around after the improper base leg entry, thus his decision to continue the approach following the base leg turn contributed to the accident.
The pilot reported that, he experienced an alternator failure approximately 47 minutes from his destination airport. He switched to a backup battery, but within 2 minutes the entire electrical system shut down, which included a loss of his airspeed and altitude indicators. When he reached the airport, he intentionally flew fast to provide a buffer against stalling the airplane as he was in high density altitude conditions. While over the runway at about 5 ft above ground level, he overflew the runway at the same altitude to bleed off excess airspeed. As the airplane decelerated the pilot was unable to determine when the airplane would touchdown due to the loss of his airspeed indicator. According to the pilot, the right main landing gear touched down first followed by the left main landing gear, at which point the airplane began to ground loop. The left elevator impacted a runway light, which resulted in substantial damage to the airplane. The pilot report no other preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during the approach, the airplane encountered wind gusts. During the landing as the pilot reduced power and began the landing flare, the airplane continued to descend. The pilot realized there was a problem but did not have time to initiate a go around. The airplane struck the ground hard and went off the side of the runway coming to a stop in the grass. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the landing gear box. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. At the time of the accident, the airplane was landing on runway 28 with winds 310o at 12 knots with gusts to 20 knots.
The pilot reported that he began the takeoff roll using partial engine power. When the speed reached 45 knots he applied full power, the airplane immediately turned to the left and departed the left side of the runway into the grass. The nose and right main landing gear separated from the fuselage, the right wing impacted the ground and sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no pre-accident anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he was performing flight testing after accumulating 9 hours of flight time on the recently constructed airplane. He departed with 16 gallons of fuel in the right tank and 8 gallons in the left tank. The pilot then  flew for about 70 minutes with the fuel selector on the right tank. As the airplane approached the airport to land, a total  loss of engine power occurred, and the pilot switched the fuel selector to the left fuel tank but did not activate the auxiliary fuel pump and his attempt to restart the engine was unsuccessful. The flight characteristics in the airplane’s final moments suggest the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall when it began a steep left turn and rapidly descended into the ground. Postaccident examination of the wreckage did not reveal any preimpact mechanical anomalies with the engine or airframe that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot departed with about 15 gallons of usable fuel in the selected tank, and then flew for about 70 minutes. The engine was likely consuming fuel at a rate of about 12 gallons per hour (gph), which would have yielded a total fuel consumption of about 14 gallons during this flight. Fuel flow data indicated that the engine-driven fuel pump likely cavitated just before the engine lost power, which was likely caused by an unporting of the right fuel tank pickup due to insufficient fuel in the selected fuel tank. It is likely that the pilot’s improper fuel management resulted in fuel starvation and a loss of engine power. Further, the pilot’s failure to activate the auxiliary fuel boost pump likely inhibited the engine restart.
The flight instructor of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that, after the touch-and-go landing with a pilot receiving instruction at the flight controls, the flaps were retracted, and full power was applied. The pilot receiving instruction pushed the yoke forward to lift the tail, and the airplane veered to the left. The flight instructor assumed control of the airplane, “cut the power” and corrected with right rudder input. The airplane veered to the right and while he continued to apply corrective actions, the airplane collided with a taxiway sign. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the aft fuselage. The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
A witness at the departure airport watched the accident airplane take off and fly into a box canyon. Shortly thereafter, the witness saw a dust cloud in the same area.A friend of the accident pilot reported that they were camping in the area and had flown to the departure airport earlier in the day. The friend reported that they waited until later in the day to fly back to their camping area due to density altitude considerations. He watched the accident airplane depart to the north and then turn back toward the airport. He then departed in his airplane and flew to the camp site destination, where he expected to meet up with the accident pilot and passenger. He reported them missing when they did not arrive at the camp site.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of any preexisting mechanical malfunction that would have precluded normal operation.The accident site was in a box canyon about 1 1/2 miles north of the airport at an elevation of 6,240 ft above mean sea level (msl). The change in elevation from the departure airport to the accident location was about 2,040 ft. As the airplane climbed, the calculated climb performance from the departure airport to the accident site location would have likely degraded from about 477 ft per minute (fpm) to about 360 fpm. The accident is consistent with the pilot turning toward rising terrain with limited climb performance that resulted in the pilot’s failure to maintain obstacle clearance and a subsequent impact with terrain.