roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
According to the pilot, during a short local flight while approaching to land, he encountered a descent rate that was unsuitable for landing. He attempted to correct for the rate of descent but was unsuccessful after pulling full collective pitch. The helicopter impacted the ground and rolled on to its right side, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage. He stated that he may have encountered a condition called “settling with power” during his approach to land due to the winds.The pilot reported no mechanical anomalies that would have prevented normal operation.
The student pilot reported that he did two successful touch and go landings with his instructor pilot, after which, the instructor got out of the airplane and the student pilot took off solo to practice in the landing pattern. While on downwind in the pattern, the student pilot accidentally pulled the mixture knob and the engine quit. The student pilot attempted to restart the engine but was not successful. He tried to land the airplane in a nearby field but contacted a stand of trees and impacted the ground nearly vertical. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings and forward fuselage. The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, while making an approach for landing he came in too low and collided with terrain. The forward fuselage and right wing were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot of the personal flight reported that he did not feel comfortable continuing the approach for landing at the destination airport, so he initiated a go-around. During the go-around, the airplane was too slow, and the pilot said he heard the stall warning horn come on. The airplane then stalled and impacted terrain. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces. Postaccident examination of the airplane flight control system confirmed flight control continuity. A National Transportation Safety Board Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report was not received from the pilot.
The pilot was flying the airplane to an airport about 48 miles from the departure airport when, 30 minutes after departure while in cruise flight, the engine lost all power. The pilot then verified engine controls were at their correct positions and adjusted the carburetor heat setting. There was no change in engine power, so he made a mayday call and landed the airplane in an open field, during which the airplane sustained substantial damage to the lower fuselage.A postaccident examination of the engine revealed that both magnetos produced a weak spark on all ignition leads when the propeller was rotated by hand. The left magneto was found to be in poor condition and did not function within the manufacturer’s specifications. Internal examination of the left magneto revealed that the distributor axle bearing had failed, and the distributor gear was missing about half of its gear teeth. The right magneto was found in poor overall condition and was missing about 6 distributor gear teeth; however, it did function within the manufacturer’s specifications. A review of maintenance records revealed no indication that the left and right magnetos were serviced, to include inspections or overhauls, since the engine’s last overhaul 15 years (or about 400 hours) before the accident.  While the left magneto was not functioning within the manufacturers specifications, and the right magneto functioned within the manufacturers specifications, it would not result a total loss of engine power. The reason for the total loss of engine power could not be determined.
During the takeoff roll, after reaching rotation speed, the student pilot pulled back on the yoke but the airplane did not rotate. He verified the flight instruments and tried again, and although the nose pitched up slightly the airplane did not rotate. He released back pressure on the yoke and realized that the airplane had veered to the left of the runway. The airplane departed the runway and collided with a small tree. The flight was the first time the pilot had flown solo, having just received an endorsement from his flight instructor earlier in the day.Postaccident examination did not reveal any anomalies with the pitch control system, and both the flaps and elevator trim were set appropriately for takeoff. The rudder cables exhibited significant preexisting wear in the area of the aft rudder pulleys, and the left cable had separated in that area. Metallurgical examination determined that about half of the left cable wire strands had failed before the accident due to wear, but the cable was likely still strong enough to operate the rudder. Therefore, the separation of the left rudder cable likely occurred at impact when the nose wheel, which was connected to the rudder cables, struck terrain, and the remaining intact wire strands of the weakened rudder cable failed in overload. Further, it is unlikely that the deteriorated rudder cables contributed to the accident as the pitch control issues described by the pilot did not indicate a rudder control problem.The extent of wear and the caked and old grease in the pulleys indicated the cables had not been examined or serviced recently, even though the annual inspection was performed 3 months earlier.
The pilot of the airplane reported that, while landing on a private grass 1500 ft. runway, the airplane landed “slightly long and fast.” During the landing roll, flaps were immediately raised, and brakes were applied, however the braking was ineffective on the wet grass. The safety pilot called for a go-around. The pilot was concerned there was insufficient room to accelerate and elected to decelerate instead of attempting a go-around. The airplane exited the departure end of the runway, impacted terrain, and came to rest upright.  The airplane’s lower fuselage 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 pilot reported that as he was turning on the left downwind leg, he observed 5 or 6 large birds about 200 ft ahead of him, which appeared to be moving mostly downward and to the left of his heading. He attempted to climb and turn right to avoid them, but impacted one of the birds with the airplane’s left wing, which resulted in substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel airplane reported that he was attempting to depart a 1,000-ft-long pasture. He forgot to position the flaps to takeoff setting and by the time he realized the error, it was too late to reject the takeoff. The pilot attempted to clear trees at the end of the pasture with the flaps retracted, but the airplane collided with the trees and came to rest upright. The pilot added that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions with the airplane. Examination of the wreckage by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed substantial damage to the left wing.
The pilot reported that on his third pass over the “unplowed” runway, he allowed the main wheels to touch down on the snow. Subsequently, the nosewheel impacted the snow, “folded back”, and the airplane nosed over, coming to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and right wing.The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot landed at the airport and added fuel to the airplane. On departure, when the airplane was about 700 ft above ground level, the engine stopped producing power. Recorded engine data showed a decrease in engine rpm, cylinder head temperature, and exhaust gas temperature about 2 minutes after takeoff. The pilot performed a forced landing to a field, which resulted in substantial damage to the airplane’s fuselage and wings.An examination of the engine and fuel system did not reveal any preimpact mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operations. The engine’s throttle body and fuel flow divider were sent for further examination. The bench test of the fuel servo indicated that the fuel flow was within tolerances; however, the idle fuel flow was lean with the metering head increased to the maximum limit. The examination of fuel servo and fuel flow divider found contamination with a substance consistent with a lubricant normally used during the assembly of the fuel servo. The fuel flow was within tolerances, and it is unlikely that the contamination would have resulted in the loss of engine power. Investigators were unable to determine the reason for the loss of engine power.
Upon retracting the landing gear after takeoff, the flight crew received a right main landing gear (RMLG) red position indicator light, indicating that the RMLG was not in the up and locked position. The crew elected to return to the departure airport and the RMLG red indicator light remained illuminated until the crew selected the gear DOWN position for landing. During the landing roll, the RMLG collapsed, resulting in minor damage when the right engine impacted the runway. It is likely that the RMLG was partially fractured after takeoff which prevented it from retracting to the up and locked position.Examination of the RMLG revealed that the outer cylinder fractured through a tooling hole. Examination of the fracture revealed the presence of fatigue cracking that initiated at the intersection of the tooling hole inner diameter and the outer cylinder inner diameter. Four areas of arc burn damage were identified in the tooling hole area, two of which were at the crack initiation sites. Cadmium identified at the intergranular separation initiation sites indicated the crack initiated due to liquid metal embrittlement by cadmium at the arc burn locations before propagating in fatigue.The RMLG was last overhauled about 10 years before the incident, during which the outer cylinder was replated with cadmium after repair. It is likely that the arc burning in the tooling hole area was caused by a hand-held stylus cadmium plating operation performed in the tooling hole when the stylus (anode) made contact with the outer cylinder (cathode), initiating an arc. A nonconductive sleeve normally installed on the anode was either not present or deteriorated, allowing physical contact between the anode and cathode.Page 2 of 11 ENG22FA009
The pilot was completing a local flight to three nearby airports and was returning to the originating airport. According to witnesses, after a hard touch-and-go landing, the airplane flew east at low altitude with the flaps still extended. The recorded flight track data indicated that, after the landing, the airplane climbed to about 500 ft above ground level (agl), then descended to about 84 ft agl. A doorbell camera video about one nautical mile (nm) from the accident site showed the airplane flying at a low altitude (about 158 ft agl according to the flight track data) with the wings relatively level. Another witness near the accident site observed the airplane about level with a nearby flagpole at the top of a hill (about 50 ft agl). The airplane then made a gradual descent toward the ground. The airplane impacted a wooded area in a nose-low attitude. The 230-yard debris path comprised airplane components and tree branches. Many of the tree branches exhibited diagonal cuts and witness marks consistent with the engine producing power as the airplane descended through the trees. The airplane impacted the ground and continued across a road, where it collided with a metal guardrail before it descended an embankment and came to rest. Examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failure that would have precluded normal operation. The wing flaps were found retracted at the accident site.Four of the pilot’s flight instructors provided statements about his training history, piloting skills, and other concerns. Their statements were consistent in indicating that the pilot was easily distracted from the task of flying the airplane and tended to drift off course and altitude. The instructors indicated that the pilot was usually “behind the airplane” and had issues with basic airplane control. Page 2 of 10 CEN22FA113Based on the pilot’s training history and the accident circumstances, it is likely that the pilot was distracted and did not maintain a safe altitude, which resulted in an inadvertent collision with trees and terrain.
The passenger in the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that, while the pilot was practicing a touch-and-go landing, the airplane touched down, and immediately veered right.  The passenger believed that the pilot “froze” on the controls, so the passenger attempted to “intervene,” but the airplane continued to veer right. The airplane exited the runway and collided with terrain.  The lower fuselage was substantially damaged.  The director of maintenance reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
After landing on the turf runway, the airplane drifted slightly to the right of the centerline and the pilot corrected with differential braking and left rudder, which brought the airplane back toward the centerline. When the speed reduced to less than 20 knots, the nose landing gear collapsed, and the lower engine mount was damaged. A landing gear trunnion bolt and fitting were found to have fractured consistent with overload, suggesting they fractured during the collapse rather than beforehand. Remnants of grass from the turf runway were found around the circumference of the right side of the nose landing gear wheel, between the wheel rim and the tire. This is consistent with a significant lateral load on the wheel from the right side, while the wheel was rotating (distributing grass around its circumference). Although it could not be determined when the lateral load occurred, the pilot reported correcting the airplane heading to the left during the landing roll, and tire marks showed the airplane veering left at the end of the landing roll. The lateral load on the nosewheel likely resulted in the overload failure of the trunnion bolt and fitting.
The student pilot reported that during the landing rollout of his first solo landing, the airplane veered left, impacted a snowbank, and came to rest inverted, which resulted in substantial damage to the vertical stabilizer and rudder. The pilot reported that the airplane had no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The noncertificated pilot, who had no previous training or flight experience, texted his friend to ask if he, the pilot, could taxi the airplane on a private airstrip, which was located at the friend’s residence. At the time of the pilot’s request, the friend was not at his residence. The friend arrived home about 1645 and observed the pilot taxiing the airplane. About 1700, the friend observed the airplane airborne, and the pilot completed two touch-and-go landings on the private airstrip. The airplane departed to the south and did not return. About 30 minutes later, the friend located the accident airplane, which had crashed in a field near the pilot’s residence, about 2 miles from his private airstrip. There were no witnesses to the accident.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical anomalies or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The ground scar, impact signatures on the airplane structure, and wreckage fragmentation patterns were consistent with an aerodynamic stall, loss of control, and impact with terrain.
During a local area flight, while the airplane was in cruise flight at an altitude of about 9,000 ft mean sea level over mountainous terrain, the engine lost power. The pilot attempted to troubleshoot the problem, but he was unable to restore engine power. As a result, the pilot initiated a forced landing to a snow-covered field. During the landing roll, the main landing gear tires settled into the snow, and the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. The vertical stabilizer, rudder, and right-wing lift strut were substantially damaged.  The pilot reported that his postaccident examination of the engine and airframe found no mechanical issues. The pilot thought that the airplane “flew through a layer” that “had the right temperatures that would have quickly developed carburetor ice.”
The pilot reported that he was practicing touch and go landings from the right seat. During landing, there was a right cross wind that he did not correct for, and the airplane veered left off the runway and into a sign. During the impact, the left main landing gear fractured and rotated backwards, and the left horizontal stabilizer forward spar was substantially damaged.
The pilot of the accident airplane departed the runway, stating that he was planning to remain in the traffic pattern. The pilot was then cleared to land; on the final approach, after crossing the runway threshold and just before the airplane touched down the airplane pitched up, ascended about 50 ft, and subsequently rolled left before entering a near-vertical descent and then impacting the ground. The airplane’s autopilot was repaired 1.5 flight hours before the accident flight, wherein the auto-pilot pitch servo was sent out for repair, reinstalled, and cable tensions were set. Subsequently, an operational check was conducted, which verified proper installation on the ground. The autopilot pitch servo capability is exhausted by a pitch hold setting, meaning that inadvertent activation would merely maintain the airplane’s present pitch profile at the time of activation. Postaccident examination of the pitch trim actuator revealed a 15° tab down position. The elevator tab limits are 4.5° tab up, to 23° tab down. While the pitch servo had been recently installed, it is not likely that the autopilot was engaged in the airport traffic pattern and specifically during landing. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The cause of the abrupt nose-up pitch attitude during landing could not be determined.Pilot incapacitation was not a factor in this accident.
While landing on a frozen lake, the pilot observed a van at the end of the plowed airstrip. The pilot did not know the driver’s intention and decided to steer the airplane off the plowed area into the snow to slow the airplane before getting close to the van. The right tire hit a frozen obstruction and the airplane turned right and nosed down. Substantial damage was sustained to an engine mount and the lower firewall. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions that contributed to the accident. The pilot stated that he did not realize that the snow at the edge was so frozen and deep.
The pilot reported that he taxied the ski-equipped airplane to a snow-covered area adjacent to the runway. He made two passes over 8 inches of fresh snow to create a makeshift runway. He then added engine power and started to take off toward the west. At rotation speed he heard and felt a “whack” along with a “bump,” and deceleration. The airplane felt “mushy” as it became airborne, and the pilot leveled the nose to maintain control. The pilot observed the right ski hanging straight down; with the airplane approaching trees, he pushed the nose down and landed in the remaining open area. The airplane slid about 20 ft before it came to rest; its lower fuselage structure sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operations. After the accident occurred, the pilot noted that the fresh snow obscured various ice chunks and frozen drifts.
The instructor pilot reported that during takeoff about 100 ft above ground level (agl) and near the end of the runway, the engine sustained a sudden loss of engine power. The pilot lowered the nose and extended the flaps for the off-airport forced landing. The airplane impacted the snow-covered terrain. Postaccident examination of the airplane indicated that the right induction tube connecting the turbocharger compressor outlet to the intercooler inlet had separated from the turbocharger compressor outlet flange. Two inches of the induction tube was installed into the 3-inch-long rubber coupling, leaving only 1 inch remaining to be installed on the turbocharger compressor outlet flange. It is likely that when the engine was at high RPM during the takeoff climb, the improperly installed lower rubber coupling separated from the turbocharger compressor outlet flange, resulting in the loss of engine power. The engine was installed on an engine test stand and it ran successfully at various RPM settings. The engine test run revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Maintenance records indicated that the last 100-hour inspection was performed two days before the accident. During this inspection the induction tubes would have been removed and inspected.
The pilot of the ski equipped airplane reported that, during landing at an off-airport landing site, the airplane drifted towards a tree. The pilot increased the throttle and attempted to lift the wing over the tree to no avail. The airplane impacted the tree sustaining substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no pre-accident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor of a tail wheel equipped airplane reported that, while practicing touch-and-go landings the pilot receiving instruction made a landing which resulted in a “medium bounce”. During the second flare the airplane immediately yawed left. The pilot corrected to the right and back to the left. The flight instructor tried to intervene; however, the airplane exited the side of the runway. The left wing was substantially damaged. The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during previous flights, he had observed overheating of two of the engine cylinders, and activation of the auxiliary fuel boost pump had worked to resolve the overheating. Shortly after takeoff on the accident flight, the pilot observed cylinder heating and activated the boost pump, after which the engine lost total power. The pilot performed a forced landing in an open desert field. The airplane landed hard and impacted vegetation during the landing roll, resulting in substantial damage to the airplane. Data retrieved from the airplane’s engine monitoring system showed that the fuel flow rate increased from 23.4 gallons per hour (gph) to 28.7 gph, with a peak fuel flow of 30.8 gph, followed by a sudden decrease. The engine manufacturer recommended that the fuel flow setting should be between 23.2 – 24.9 gph. Both the pilot operating handbook for the airplane and a placard on the auxiliary boost pump indicated that the pump should be off during takeoff and only turned on in the event of a loss of fuel pressure.  It is likely that the pilot’s activation of the auxiliary fuel boost pump resulted in excess fuel being delivered to the engine during the initial climb, which resulted in the total loss of engine power.  A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation.