roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported the flight was uneventful until he was approaching the destination airport. During the approach, he observed the oil pressure drop to zero and, shortly afterward, the engine started running rough. The pilot subsequently heard a “bang” from the engine and observed smoke from under the engine cowling. The engine lost power completely and he executed a forced landing to a field. The airframe sustained substantial  damage to the forward fuselage.  Postaccident examination revealed that the engine failed because of oil starvation.  At the time of the examination, the aftermarket oil filter adapter was loose and not safety wired in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airworthiness directive.
The pilot reported that he was performing a landing to runway 29 in a tailwheel-equipped airplane. Prior to the tailwheel contacting the runway, the airplane encountered a gust of wind from the left and the pilot lost control of the airplane. The nose of the airplane swerved left, and the pilot attempted to regain directional control using rudder and right brake. Unsuccessful, the airplane continued off the left side of the runway, nosed over, and came to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings, vertical stabilizer and rudder. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that contributed to the accident. The pilot estimated the prevailing wind to be from the west at 12 kt gusting to 17 kts.
During the first flight after the installation of avionics, and an overhauled engine, the engine started to lose power in the traffic pattern. The pilot continued to fly straight in the downwind leg of the traffic pattern and attempted to troubleshoot the problem. Despite his actions, he was unable to regain engine power and subsequently pitched for best glide and made a 180° right turn to land on the runway. By this time, the airplane had traveled too far on the downwind leg, and the airplane landed short of the runway.Postaccident examination of the engine’s single-drive dual magneto revealed that the right magneto capacitor wire was attached utilizing an automotive terminal, however, the wire had separated from the crimped portion of the terminal. Additionally, the left magneto P-lead had areas of exposed wire, which grounded the left magneto and prevented its operation. The compounded anomalies, on both the left and right magnetos, would have resulted in a total loss of engine power.
The pilot reported the takeoff and en route portions of the flight were uneventful. While descending to the traffic pattern altitude at the destination airport, the engine lost power and the propeller stopped. The pilot made an emergency landing on a vacant road, colliding with powerlines. A postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the flywheel screws had separated due to fatigue, resulting in an engine failure. Examination of the screws showed multiple fatigue cracks and wear consistent with low-stress bending fatigue.Maintenance records revealed that the engine had been installed in another airplane that was involved in an accident where the propeller was damaged. According to the engine manufacturer, abrupt propeller stoppage can produce a spike of torque along the crankshaft, overloading the flywheel screws and causing failure. There was no evidence that the screws were replaced after that accident.
During the landing, the pilot lowered the helicopter air ambulance down to the concrete pad. Shortly before touchdown, a cloth fire extinguisher cover from a nearby mobile fueling unit was blown airborne from the main rotor system wash. The cloth fire extinguisher cover was ingested into the tail rotor (the fenestron). During the cloth fire extinguisher cover ingestion sequence, the fenestron hub flexed, the metal fenestron hub cover detached, and it was also ingested. The pilot was able to land the helicopter without further incident. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the fenestron. The evidence indicated that the ingestion of the metal fenestron hub cover contributed to the severity of the damage sustained.The operator reported there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airframe and the engines that would have precluded normal operation. The investigation revealed that the cloth fire extinguisher cover, which did not have a lanyard installed, was not secured with the retention bracket for the fire extinguisher on the mobile fueling unit. The operator additionally reported that foreign object debris checks are conducted by crew members anytime they are on the pad and that the mobile fueling unit is inspected during the daily fuel quality check. The Accident Investigation Board Norway along with the European Aviation Safety Agency, previously issued a formal safety recommendation to Eurocopter (Airbus) regarding the securement of the metal fenestron hub cover.
The pilot was flying the helicopter following a river shoreline about 400 ft above ground level. He was scanning the horizon when he saw a “flash” and felt the helicopter shudder. He assessed the controllability of the helicopter and noted no anomalies, therefore, he continued the flight to a nearby airport. After landing, during the post flight examination of the helicopter, he found substantial damage to the vertical stabilizer of the helicopter. Furthermore, there were wire strike marks on the main rotor blade consistent with a wire strike. The operator reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor and student pilot reported that the purpose of the flight was to practice off-airport landings. On the fourth and final landing, they set up a steep approach with the student pilot on the flight controls. The helicopter was above the effective translational lift (ETL) airspeed as they descended through 100 ft above ground level (agl) in a stabilized descent. The helicopter then started to yaw left and the flight instructor took the controls. As the spin rate increased, the flight instructor’s efforts to regain control were not successful. He then realized the helicopter was spinning out of control. He lowered the collective and the spin rate slowed as the helicopter contacted the ground. The flight instructor shut down the engine and both pilots exited the helicopter. The helicopter’s fuselage sustained substantial damage.  The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operations.
The pilot reported that, he touched down left of the runway center line and the left wing struck corn on the left side of the runway. The pilot could not maintain directional control of the airplane and the airplane slid to the left into the corn field, and came to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left and right wings. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
Before departure, the helicopter was loaded with about 30 gallons of fuel and 80 gallons of spray product. After takeoff from a load truck, the pilot received a low rotor alarm and the helicopter began to sink. He performed an autorotation and the helicopter bounced upon landing. The tailboom was severed by the main rotor blades which resulted in substantial damage. During a postaccident examination and engine test run, no anomalies were noted that would have precluded normal operation. The reason for the loss of rotor rpm could not be determined based on the available evidence.
The pilot reported that, he was transporting supplies to a remote landing site and had made multiple approaches and landings. He stated that on the final approach, cloud cover had cleared and the helicopter “felt heavy.” About 25-30 ft above the ground the helicopter began to sink and he could not recover. The helicopter hit hard and tipped forward onto its nose during landing, substantially damaging the airframe and main rotors. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot stated that he performed a new engine run-up on the day of the accident. He stated that after he conducted a preflight inspection of the airplane, he taxied and performed multiple engine run-ups. He then shut down the engine and added fuel. The pilot started the engine and performed multiple engine run-ups both before and after taxiing to the runway with no engine anomalies noted. After takeoff, the engine sustained a loss of power while climbing through about 100 ft above ground level. The pilot performed a forced landing to a road, during which the airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed one of the airbox’s three aluminum spacers was missing. Pieces of the spacer were found in cylinder Nos. 1 and 2 with additional material within the No 1 spark plug lead. The cylinders exhibited pitting damage from the spacer. It is likely that the metallic pieces within the engine cylinder shorted the engine ignition, thus reducing and/or ceasing engine power production on those cylinders. An examination of the remaining engine and systems revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operations. The accident occurred on the first flight following an annual inspection and engine installation following a propeller strike inspection. Investigators were not able to determine how the spacer was introduced to the cylinder.
On the day of the accident, the pilot intended to fly the airplane for the first time since it had been repaired following a previous hard landing. The pilot, who was the builder of the experimental biplane, was taking off on a personal flight when the airplane veered to the left, lifted off the runway, and flew back toward the runway centerline. A witness noted that the airplane was going “very slow.” When the airplane reached an altitude of about 200 ft above ground level, the airplane started to make a slow left turn. The witness then observed the tail of the airplane drop down and the left wing roll, and the airplane subsequently spun to the ground. A postcrash fire ensued.About 2 years before the accident, the airplane was involved in a hard landing, which damaged the landing gear. The pilot subsequently repaired the landing gear, which would have included removal and reassembly of the wing struts. Postaccident examination of the airplane found that the left outer interplane strut was not correctly attached to the lower left wing compression strut. The bolt and nut were present through the outer interplane strut but had not been secured to the lower wing compression strut. The disconnected strut would have resulted in an out-of-rig condition and change the flight characteristics of the upper and lower left wings, potentially inducing drag while in flight. In this case, the upper and lower left wings would have each displayed different flight characteristics because the lower wing angle was pushed down and the upper wing was pushed up during the wire-tensioning process. The faster the airplane flew in the out-of-rig condition, the more pronounced the changed flight characteristics of the upper and lower left wings would have become. During the accident sequence, the pilot likely tried to slow the airplane to improve the changed flight characteristics, but the airplane’s critical angle of attack was exceeded and resulted in the airplane’s subsequent stall and spin to the ground.Page 2 of 7 ERA22FA320
Shortly after takeoff, the experimental amateur-built airplane’s engine lost total power and the pilot made an off-airport forced landing, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage, both wings, and the tail section. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that a cannon plug-type circular connector that connected the engine’s electronic ignition system’s wire harness to the two electronic control units was not properly connected. The manufacturer of the ignition system stated that disengagement of the connector, which carried all electrical signals required to run the ignition system, “…would result in a single point failure of the entire ignition system.” Maintenance records showed that the ignition system had been installed about 21 months before the accident, with no other work to that system detailed between that time and the accident. Based on this information, it is likely that the connector had not been fully secured when the system was installed, and that over time, the partial connection had loosened, ultimately resulting in the loss of engine power.
On the final flight of the evening, after performing six previous flights, all of which were uneventful, the pilot took a passenger up for a final flight in calm wind conditions. After the flight that lasted about 10 minutes, he returned to land. During landing, the touchdown felt “good”, but the airplane began to veer to the left and he reacted too slowly. He attempted to correct with right rudder, then added power to abort the landing but the airplane continued to turn left and departed the runway surface. During the runway excursion the right landing gear separated and the right wing impacting the ground resulting in substantial damage to the airframe. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot and student pilot-rated passenger departed to conduct low-level flight operations over and on a river in a remote area. After not hearing from either occupant, family members initiated a search and found the wreckage several hours later. The airplane came to rest on a remote island in the river, nose-down with the empennage in a near-vertical position. The leading edge of both wings exhibited aft accordion crush damage and the engine was pushed aft into the cabin of the airplane.Postaccident examination of the wreckage found that the damage to the propeller was consistent with no or low power at the time of the accident. The right fuel tank was breached with no fuel present. The left fuel tank was intact, and a small amount of a white liquid was found inside the tank. The auxiliary fuel tank in the cabin was intact and a small amount of clear blue liquid was found inside the tank. No fuel samples were obtained from the engine and no fuel was recovered during the removal of the airplane from the accident site. The amount of fuel onboard the airplane at the time of departure could not be determined. An examination of the airframe and engine revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operations. It could not be determined if there was a loss of engine power or not. The position of the wreckage when it was located and the uniform crush damage to both wings is consistent with the airplane encountering an aerodynamic stall before it impacted the ground. It is likely that the pilot exceeded the airplane’s critical angle of attack at an altitude too low to recover which resulted in a loss of control and impact with terrain.  Toxicology testing detected the potentially sedating antihistamine, cetirizine, in the pilot’s system, but based on the drug’s low level in the pilot’s heart blood, it is unlikely to have caused Page 2 of 8 CEN22LA321significant psychomotor effects. Ethanol was detected at low levels in some specimens and not detected in others from the passenger; a postmortem ethanol source was likely, and ethanol likely did not contribute to the crash.
The student pilot reported that he performed a straight-in approach for landing at the conclusion of his first solo cross-country flight. At the time, a 6-knot, left crosswind was reported at the field. Prior to touchdown, the airplane was “on the correct glide path” with the flaps fully deployed. While in the landing flare and just prior to touchdown, the nose of the airplane “shifted left” and the airplane touched down headed off the left side of the runway. The pilot said he briefly corrected, but eventually the airplane performed a runway excursion to its left coming to rest upright in the grass. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the nose landing gear mount structure. The pilot reported there were no pre-accident mechanical failures or malfunctions of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot departed with a known deficiency with the nose landing gear due to a hard landing he made on a grass runway a few days before. He then flew to another airport to seek help in fixing the nose landing gear but forgot that it was damaged when he landed. The pilot landed hard on all three landing gear and veered left of the runway centerline after the nose wheel separated and the strut collapsed. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed both propeller blades were damaged, and an engine mount was broken.
The flight instructor reported that the student pilot was practicing “pickups and set downs” in the helicopter for the day’s lesson. He said in his statement that the student had a tendency to pull up quickly on the collective and allow the helicopter to drift to the left then yaw to the right after liftoff. He cautioned the student on the hazards of dynamic rollover during the lesson. The student’s performance improved, and she asked to perform one more pickup. During the last attempt, a dynamic rollover occurred and the helicopter pivoted around the left skid as it was still on the ground. The helicopter came to rest on its left side. The impact with the ground resulted in substantial damage to the main rotor blades, tail boom and fuselage.  The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot and passengers departed on a local sightseeing flight in the twin-engine, centerline-thrust airplane. ADS-B data showed the airplane depart toward mountainous terrain in the general direction of the planned tour route. The airplane’s climb rate appeared appropriate and consistent with normal operation until the airplane leveled off about 11 minutes later, at an altitude about 9,500 ft mean sea level (msl) about 3,000 ft below a typical cruise altitude for that flight. A short time later, the airplane slowed and entered a left descending turn, reaching a descent rate of almost 6,000 ft per minute (fpm). Witnesses near the accident site reported observing the airplane flying low overhead. The right wing rose abruptly, dropped, and the left wing rose as the airplane entered a nose-down attitude and began to “corkscrew.” One witness stated that the engine noise stopped as the airplane entered the descent. The witness also stated that, up until that point, the engine(s) sounded like they were “struggling.” The airplane impacted wooded terrain about 7,800 ft msl and came to rest upright. The ground scars, impact signatures observed on the trees, and wreckage signatures indicated that the airplane impacted terrain in a nose-low attitude, consistent with a spin. A post-impact fire consumed most of the airframe. Both the front and rear engines sustained extensive thermal and impact damage, and the propeller for the rear engine was found in the feathered position. A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation; however, the scope of the examination was limited due to the extensive thermal and impact damage, and a mechanical issue could not be ruled out. The feathered position of the rear engine’s propeller Page 2 of 10 WPR22FA256suggests that it is likely that the engine had lost power or been shut down; however, the reason could not be determined based on the available information.It is possible that the pilot was attempting to return to the airport when the accident occurred. Given the high density altitude conditions present at the time of the accident, the airplane’s single-engine climb performance would have been marginal. Additionally, although the pilot’s logbook was not available for review, he was recently hired by the accident operator and had accumulated about 3.5 total hours in the accident airplane since he was hired. According to the operator, the pilot’s training in the accident airplane did not include an engine shutdown; instead, a loss of engine power was simulated by reducing the throttle. The circumstances of the accident are consistent with the pilot’s exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack while maneuvering with one engine inoperative, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall/spin and loss of control. Due to the extensive thermal and impact damage, the investigation was not able to determine why the rear engine was not operating.
The pilot and passenger were on a personal flight in the weight-shift-control trike and had just completed a touch and go when they departed north, in the direction of the accident site. There were no witnesses to the accident, but nearby residences reported an electrical power outage at the time of the accident. Two hills adjacent to the accident site had a single power pole at each of their summits that supported three transmission lines between them. The weight-shift-control trike collided with the transmission lines that spanned the valley and impacted the ground north of the transmission lines. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the helicopter, two tactical flight observers, and a rescue specialist were returning to their home airport after conducting firefighting operations. While in a west-bound cruise flight about 500 to 600 ft about ground level (agl), the helicopter entered a descent that rapidly increased to over 5,000 ft per minute, and impacted terrain in a tail-low attitude. The helicopter was destroyed during the impact with terrain.Examination of the engine revealed that the starter-generator input (zerol) gear failed due to fatigue. This failure led to the starter-generator driveshaft shearing, N1 accessory gearbox seizure, and a total loss of engine power. An examination of the remaining helicopter systems revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operations.About 17 flight hours before the accident, an engine chip event occurred, and a small piece of ferrous metal was found on the magnetic chip plug. Following the chip event the oil system was drained and flushed and the filter elements were removed, cleaned, and reinstalled. No further engine chip lights were reported after the engine chip event.The chip and oil sample were shipped to a lab for analysis. The results of the lab analysis were not used by the operator to troubleshoot the reason for the chip event. Had the operator conducted an analysis, they could have potentially identified the deteriorating component and impending failure. The helicopter’s low altitude (500 to 600 ft agl) during the return leg made the transition from powered flight to autorotation after an unexpected loss of engine power more time critical. The high density altitude conditions, combined with flight directly into the setting sun, may have contributed to the unsuccessful autorotation following the total loss of engine power.Page 2 of 10 CEN22FA317