roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
According to the pilot, he topped off both wing fuel tanks about 2 weeks prior to the accident flight. The engine was ground run for about 10 minutes on the day after the fueling, after which the airplane was parked until the day of the accident flight. During the preflight inspection for the accident flight, the pilot sampled fuel from the fuel drains, but did not visually inspect the level of fuel in the fuel tanks, and assumed they were both full. About 1 hour into the flight, the engine started to “miss”, and the pilot then activated the fuel boost pump. The engine then ran normally for about 15 to 20 seconds before it began to “miss” again, until a few moments later when it lost all power. The pilot attempted to divert to a nearby airport, however during the approach he determined he would not reach the runway, and he selected a field for a forced landing. During landing the airplane struck trees, and a portion of the left wing separated about 3 ft outboard of the root. The airplane impacted terrain, came to rest inverted, and sustained additional substantial damage to the right wing, forward fuselage, horizontal stabilizer, and elevator. A Federal Aviation Administration inspector observed that both of the left wing fuel tanks were breached and that only a trace amount of fuel was found in the fractured left wing fuel line near the fuselage. The right wing fuel tanks remained intact but were inaccessible. The inspector reported, and the pilot confirmed, that there was no odor of fuel at the accident site.Following the accident, pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation prior to the accident. He concluded that although he believed the fuel tanks were full prior to departure, they likely were not, and he did not confirm the fuel level during the preflight inspection. The pilot further described that the airplane was equipped with fuel quantity gauges, however the gauges were located in the footwell for the rear seat, near but below his hips when seated in the front seat, and they were difficult to see from the front seat position. He added that the fuel quantity gauges were of limited use. Due to the wing dihedral, the gauges would indicate “full” until Page 2 of 6 ERA22LA200about 8-12 gallons had been used, and then read empty after using another 3-4 gallons. He had instead used the fuel computer/totalizer indications to reference fuel quantity. He had previously calibrated the totalizer by comparing its indications with fueling records several times and found it to be accurate. Given this information it is likely that the loss of engine power was the result of fuel exhaustion.
The pilot stated that he was practicing touch and go landings. After landing, during the landing roll, when raised the flaps and added full power, the airplane veered to the right. He applied left rudder to stop the right turn and overcorrected. Then the airplane veered to the left and continued off the runway into a ditch, which resulted in substantial damage to the engine mounts. The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
Witnesses traveling near the accident site reported that they observed the accident airplane flying on an easterly heading about 200 to 300 ft above ground level. The airplane did not appear to be in distress. After the airplane passed over the witnesses’ positions, the airplane maneuvered as if the pilot were trying to turn it around. One witness stated that the airplane’s wings were almost completely vertical at that point. The airplane subsequently impacted mountainous terrain about 7 miles southeast of the departure airport. A postcrash fire ensued.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of a pre-existing mechanical malfunction that would have precluded normal operation. A review of the airplane’s weight and balance information showed that, at the time of departure, the airplane was about 128 pounds over the airplane’s maximum gross weight of 2,646 pounds. The airplane was also outside the approved center-of-gravity envelope. The calculated density altitude at the time of departure was about 6,022 ft.The calculated fuel use from the departure airport to the accident location was about 5 gallons. Thus, at the time of the accident, the airplane was likely about 98 pounds over the maximum gross weight. The calculated density altitude at the accident location and the time of the accident was about 7,203 ft. The calculated climb performance for the airplane, at its assumed altitude and air density conditions, would have about 300 ft per minute. The excessive airplane weight likely limited the airplane’s ability to climb in mountainous terrain.   Page 2 of 9 WPR22FA164
The pilot flew and picked up a passenger for a cross-country flight with multiple intermediate legs and a return destination to his original departure airport. About 1 hour and 20 minutes into the accident leg, about 3,000 ft above the ground, the engine lost all power. The pilot restarted the engine, but it lost all power again about 30 seconds later. The pilot then maneuvered the airplane towards a road for a forced landing. The airplane struck treetops and came to rest upright on a riverbank.Recovery of the airplane revealed that less than a gallon of fuel was retrieved from the two 20-gallon wing fuel tanks.Postaccident examination of the airplane and engine did not reveal any preimpact mechanical anomalies.The pilot stated that the engine consumed 12 gallons of fuel per hour and calculated that he had about 3 hours of flight time after filling the aircraft with 34–36 gallons of fuel. Fuel planning calculations revealed that at the time of the loss of engine power, the airplane flew for a total of about 2.8 hours and would have consumed about 42 gallons of fuel. It is likely that the pilot exhausted all usable fuel as he decided to divert to another airport without proper fuel planning.
The student pilot reported that he was conducting a local solo instructional flight and landing in calm wind conditions. During his first approach the airplane was “too high and fast,” and he performed a go-around. During his second approach the airplane was “a little high and fast;” however, he elected to continue the landing. The student pilot could not recall the point on the runway where the airplane touched down but knew it was “past the go-around point.” The pilot stated that the airplane carried too much speed to stop on the remaining runway. The airplane overran the departure end, continued down an embankment, nosed over, and came to rest inverted. The airplane’s vertical stabilizer 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 student pilot, who was the new owner of the multi-engine airplane, and a private pilot flew commercially to Lubbock, Texas, utilized a ride-hailing service to drive to Portales, New Mexico; they met with the former owner of the airplane to finalize the purchase of the airplane and flew it back to Georgia the same day. The next day, the student pilot commenced flight training with the private pilot who offered to provide flight instruction to the student pilot in the student pilot’s newly acquired multi-engine airplane, even though he did not possess a flight instructor’s rating or a multi-engine airplane rating. Radar data showed that the track of the accident airplane's route consisted of their departure airport, a midway stop, and the third leg of the flight, where it crashed during the approach to their destination airport. Witnesses observed a sharp right turn before the airplane’s spiraling descent and impact with terrain and unoccupied semi-trailers. Surveillance footage from a parking lot security camera captured the airplane in a right spiral turn just before the accident. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and the postimpact fire.The postaccident examination of the airframe, engines, and propellers revealed no anomalies that would preclude normal engine and airplane performance. Additionally, a review of the maintenance logbook revealed that the airplane was overdue for its annual maintenance inspection; no special flight permit (ferry permit) was obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for its return flight to Georgia. Toxicological testing of the student pilot revealed the presence amphetamine, a prescription Schedule II controlled substance that may result in cognitive deficits that pose a risk to aviation safety; however, its effect, if any on the accident flight could not be determined. Page 2 of 9 ERA22FA199It is likely that the private pilot’s failure to maintain aircraft control was exacerbated by his lack of a multi-engine airplane rating, his lack of a flight instructor rating, and his poor decision making.
The pilot reported that he had performed three takeoffs and landings without incident. During the fourth landing, he “flared the airplane at stall speed”. He “heard a noise under the fuselage even though the landing gear lever was engaged in the down position.” The airplane sustained substantial damage to the lower fuselage structure during the landing. During a postaccident examination the landing gear extended and retracted normally. The landing gear position lights and the landing gear unsafe warning horn both functioned as designed. There were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor reported that the airplane was slowed to taxi speed after a full stop landing. While the flight instructor taxied toward the ramp during gusty wind conditions, the left wing raised up and the airplane subsequently nosed over. The vertical stabilizer and both wing struts sustained substantial damage. The flight instructor reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during landing, the left main landing gear touched down first, followed by the right main landing gear. As the nose wheel landing gear settled onto the runway, the airplane immediately veered to the right. Despite the pilot’s control inputs, the airplane veered left and right several times. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that both wings struck the ground, and the outboard 6-8 inches of all three propeller blades were bent aft from contact with the runway. The upper trunnion of the nose gear shock strut deformation and missing material was consistent with shear tear out of the attachment bolt hole. The deformation of the material was consistent with an overstress fracture. No preimpact anomalies were observed on the airplane.
The pilot of the airplane reported that he had been holding short of the runway when a large jet departed. He was then instructed by the control tower to “line up and wait.” The pilot began taxiing the airplane onto the departure runway and experienced a “violent burst of wind or jet wash”. The airplane’s right wing lifted, and the airplane nosed over, coming to rest inverted. The airplane’s wing struts and vertical stabilizer were 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 flew a low approach to a turf runway with an upslope and then attempted a go-around with an airspeed of about 55 knots and the flaps extended. The pilot noted a partial loss of engine power and noted that the airplane would not climb. The airplane descended slightly and subsequently impacted trees and fence poles beyond the departure end of the runway, which damaged both wings.Postaccident examination of the airplane and engines revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot stated he did not apply carburetor heat during the approach. With the probability of serious carburetor icing at glide power, the lack of carburetor heat likely contributed to the partial loss of engine power during the go-around attempt. Another pilot familiar with the airport reported that the runway’s upslope was difficult to fly over. Because the pilot did not maintain a higher airspeed during the low approach and initiate the go-around earlier, he flew an unsuitable profile for the upsloping runway.
Shortly after takeoff, the pilot reported to the tower controller that he was not able to retract the airplane’s landing gear and requested to circle the airport at 2,500 ft. The airplane climbed to and remained at about 2,000 ft for about 2 minutes before entering a descent that continued until ground contact. Witnesses saw the airplane descending in a steep, nose-down attitude, and a surveillance video showed the airplane rotating in a nose-down attitude as it collided with terrain. Examination of the airframe and engines revealed no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.Toxicology testing of the pilot revealed 65 (mg/dL, mg/hg) ethanol in blood, 133 (mg/dL, mg/hg) ethanol in urine, and 10 (mg/dL, mg/hg) glucose in vitreous fluid. The ethanol production was not attributed to putrefaction. Based on the levels found and their distribution, it is likely that the pilot’s blood ethanol concentrations were around 0.12 gm/dL. It is likely that, while trying to troubleshoot the landing gear issue, the pilot allowed the airplane to slow and exceed its critical angle of attack. The airplane subsequently entered a spin from which the pilot was not able to recover. Given the levels of ethanol found in toxicology testing, the pilot would have likely experienced degradation of judgment, reasoning, and coordination that would have affected his ability to safely manage the airplane, and it is likely that his impairment due to alcohol consumption contributed to his loss of control.
The pilot reported that, while on final approach for landing, the airplane descended below his intended glidepath. Subsequently, the main landing gear impacted a snow berm at the approach end of the runway, and the airplane nosed over sustaining substantial damage to the 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 reported that, during a solo cross-country flight while attempting a landing, the airplane bounced, and a gust of wind raised the right wing. The pilot was able to level the wings, when another gust pushed the airplane off course to the left. The pilot applied full throttle and was able to avoid a barbed wired fence, but then the airplane’s wheels struck wheeled crop irrigation equipment, which resulted in the airplane nosing over, and coming to rest inverted on the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, wings, and vertical stabilizer. The pilot reported no preaccident malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot receiving instruction performed a short-field landing to a runway. During the rollout, about 750 ft from the touchdown point, the right main landing gear collapsed, and the right wing contacted the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to the right aileron.  A postaccident inspection revealed the right main landing gear brace rib had separated from the wing structure. Examination of the failed components revealed the separation did not occur due to faulty adhesion from the original installation. In addition, an 8- to 10-inch crack was discovered between the upper and lower wing skin bonds to the airplane’s center section spar. That crack would have resulted from some type of force or stress to the airplane, such as a hard landing. However, no hard landings in the airplane had been reported. The airplane had undergone a 100-hour/annual inspection about 3 weeks before the accident, with no reports of damage or faults related to the landing gear. The airplane had been flown for about 35 hours since the inspection by multiple pilots. It is likely that the separation of the right main landing gear support assembly and the crack were initiated by a hard landing that was not reported since the inspection. The condition of the right main landing gear brace rib likely began to deteriorate and the right main landing gear subsequently collapsed during the accident flight.
The flight instructor reported that during landing, the student pilot was the pilot flying. The airplane touched down and immediately veered to the right. The student pilot attempted to correct with left rudder, but the airplane continued to veer to the right. The flight instructor then took the controls and stated she heard a “rumbling noise” coming from the nose wheel area of the airplane. The airplane exited the right side of the runway and impacted a taxiway sign coming to a rest in a ditch. The nosewheel strut, right main landing gear and horizontal stabilizer were substantially damaged. A postaccident visual examination of the brakes, nosewheel steering, and flight controls revealed no abnormalities or defects that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was performing aerial application flights during which he returned to the landing zone five times to receive additional product. He recalled spending the majority of his time troubleshooting a spray rate system issue and was not paying attention to the fuel level while ground personnel were loading the product. During climb out on the final spray, the engine lost all power. During the subsequent autorotation and hard landing on a gravel road, the tail boom and tail rotor drive shaft sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter and that upon landing he noticed that the fuel gauge showed empty. Examination of the helicopter by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector found that a total of 2.5 gallons of uncontaminated Jet A fuel was able to be sumped from the helicopter’s fuel system. Residual and trace amounts of fuel were discovered in the engine driven fuel pump and fuel filters. The helicopter was not equipped with an optional low fuel light.The helicopter flight manual advised to avoid uncoordinated turns and maneuvers with fewer than 20 gallons. It is likely that while the pilot maneuvered out of the field following his final spray, the engine was starved of fuel, which resulted in the loss of engine power. The operator following the accident amended their ground personnel training manual to require that both the ground personnel and the pilot ‘confirm fuel quantity OK’ prior to each takeoff.Page 2 of 6 ERA22LA192
The pilot reported that, during the takeoff ground roll, he slowly started to pull the control stick back for takeoff after the airplane attained 55-60 knots. The airplane subsequently veered left off the runway despite application of full right rudder. The airplane’s left wing struck sage brush, which caused the airplane to cartwheel and nose over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings, the vertical stabilizer, and the rudder. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot-in-command (PIC) of the business jet described that at the conclusion of the flight the second-in-command (SIC) would conduct the landing. The SIC briefed the approach and the PIC agreed. The tower cleared the airplane for the visual approach to runway 22 (4,552-ft-long), noting winds were 300° at 18 knots, gusting to 26 knots. The PIC told the SIC that if he did not feel comfortable with the approach to landing, he should voice his concern, and initiate a go-around or transfer control of the airplane to the PIC. The PIC also briefed the procedure for taking control of the airplane should any unsafe conditions be observed.The PIC further described that after turning final, the landing checklist was completed, and the airplane was established on a stabilized approach. The SIC noted that he would fly at a slightly higher speed due to varying winds and gusts. Just before touchdown, the airplane “encountered a gust of wind that resulted in a ground effect float.” The airplane then touched down “at Ref speed” and on what the PIC perceived to be the first third of the runway. Due to the float and wind gust upon touchdown, the PIC called for the controls with the intent to initiate a go-around or to bring the airplane to a stop. The PIC then decided not to commence a go-around due to the limited amount of remaining runway available, low airspeed, and time to initiate takeoff power. The PIC realized that the airplane would not come to a stop on the remaining runway, even with maximum braking applied, and the airplane overran the runway and came to a stop in a brook beyond the departure end. The forward portion of the fuselage was substantially damaged during the runway excursion. The PIC reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.Review of airport surveillance camera footage showed that the airplane touched down beyond the midpoint of the runway.Page 2 of 6 ERA22LA190
The flight instructor reported that, the pilot receiving instruction performed a wheel landing in the tailwheel equipped airplane.  During the landing roll, with the tailwheel still off the ground, the airplane drifted left, which was counteracted with right rudder control.  Shortly after, the right wing suddenly lifted, and the airplane veered to the right.  Despite left rudder input, the airplane ground looped to the right.  During the ground loop, the left main landing gear axle bolts broke, and the left wing was substantially damaged when it struck the ground. The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.  He added that he felt the loss of control was due to a dust devil.  At the time of the accident, the pilot was landing the airplane on runway 10R with wind from 180° at 4 knots.
The pilot of the helicopter reported that, he was on the ramp with the engine running to accomplish a rapid refuel. The fueler was attempting to attach the grounding cable to the helicopter and due to the cable not locking, he maneuvered the cable up and down, which then contacted the main rotor blades. The pilot reported he felt a “violent jolt” and immediately shut the engine down. The fueler’s hands were seriously injured. The main rotor blades were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.