roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The flight of two airplanes landed at a dirt airstrip for a short break after flying in the area to spot elk. The passenger in the accident airplane recalled that during takeoff, the airplane's nose snapped to the right and then pointed toward the ground. The pilot in the other airplane (which had not yet departed) observed the accident airplane take off and reported that when it was about 150 ft above the ground, the right wing dropped and simultaneously he heard the accident pilot say "whoa" over the radio. The airplane's nose continued to drop, and the airplane impacted the ground in a nose-low, near-vertical attitude. Examination of the airplane revealed that the left aileron control cable was separated from the eye fitting and thimble on the left aileron control cable turnbuckle. Further, the outboard left aileron control cable and the inboard right aileron control cable were improperly crimped. The improper crimping allowed the left aileron cable to pull through the swaged sleeve. As a result, the separation of the cable would have allowed the balance cable to become slack and the pilot would not have been able to control the roll of the airplane. Examination of maintenance records revealed that 20 years before the accident, the left wing was rebuilt and reskinned and the flap and aileron hardware were replaced. The entry did not specifically mention that the control cables were replaced. Additionally, 10 years before the accident, the aileron balance cable and rudder cables were tightened. The airplane received an annual inspection every year, during which no discrepancies were noted with the flight control systems.
The flight instructor and commercial pilot receiving instruction departed on a local instructional flight in the twin-engine airplane. The pilot receiving instruction indicated that each main fuel tank indicated about one-quarter full before departure, and the instructor stated to him that they could "run on the auxiliary tanks." The amount of fuel in the auxiliary tanks could not be recalled. After completing air work, the pilots were conducting an instrument approach to the departure airport when the left engine began to lose power. They continued the approach and shortly thereafter, the right engine also lost power. The instructor performed a forced landing to a golf course fairway, during which the airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and came to rest in a small lake.Examination of the airplane revealed that all of the fuel tanks were absent of fuel, and there was no evidence of fuel spillage at the accident site. Examination of the engines revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Given the available information, it is likely that the pilots departed with an inadequate amount of fuel onboard, which resulted in fuel exhaustion and a total loss of power to both engines.
The private pilot was initiating takeoff for the positioning flight with no winds and with the airplane's tail off the runway when the airplane suddenly veered left, which he could not correct. The airplane exited the left side of the runway and then slid down a sharp incline into a ditch and nosed over. Postaccident examination of the runway revealed skid marks made by the right main landing gear (MLG) tire that continued off the runway, and by the tailwheel tire, which began 50 ft past the beginning of the right MLG tire marks and also continued off the runway. The left MLG tire only made light tire marks, which indicates that the airplane was light on the left MLG tire during the takeoff. No flat spots were noted on either MLG tire, and examination of both brakes and the flight controls revealed no evidence of a preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. During an operational test, the left brake operated normally. The right brake could not be operationally tested due to damage to its components Given the evidence, it is likely that the pilot lost directional control during the attempted takeoff.
Two student pilots and the flight instructor were conducting a cross-country instructional flight. The instructor reported that he told the student who was flying to climb to 3,500 ft above ground level (agl). As the airplane approached 3,100 ft agl, the student began leaning the mixture. Subsequently, the engine began to sputter, followed by a loss of all power. The instructor then saw sparks near the propeller area, took the flight controls, and turned back toward the departure airport. During short final, due to fire near the propeller area and the smell of smoke in the cockpit, the instructor turned the airplane 360° to try to lose altitude; however, the airplane was still too high to safely land on the runway. Subsequently, he conducted a forced landing to a field just past the runway, during which the airplane struck a fence, which resulted in substantial damage to the wing and firewall.Examination of the engine revealed that the crankshaft had separated at the propeller hub assembly and that a portion of it remained in the assembly. No holes were found in the engine case. Metallurgical examination revealed that the crankshaft had fractured into two halves at the main bearing journal’s forward side. The fracture consisted of two primary mating crack faces, one of which was circumferential and the other of which was a spiral through a lubrication hole to the inside of the crankshaft journal. The lubrication hole exhibited crack arrest marks that originated from the inside portion of the hole wall. The mating fracture surfaces of the circumferential and spiral fractures exhibited crack arrest marks consistent with progressive crack growth due to fatigue. The areas outside of the circumferential fracture exhibited features consistent with subsequent overstress fracture.Maintenance records revealed that at the time of the accident the engine had accumulated a total time of 3,907.1 hours and 1,153.7 hours since major overhaul.Based on the evidence, it is likely that the crankshaft fractured due to a fatigue crack that had initiated at a lubrication hole on the main bearing journal and then progressed in an outward spiral direction toward the inside surface of the crankshaft journal. The fatigue crack then progressed circumferentially until the Page 2 of 7 WPR18LA039crankshaft fractured into two halves due to overstress, which resulted in a subsequent total loss of engine power and off-airport landing.
The pilot reported that about 25 minutes into the local personal flight in the experimental amateur-built airplane, with all systems appearing to operate normally, he noticed that the batteries (located near his right foot) were getting hot and that the system voltage indicated about 15.5V, which was above the normal value of about 13V. Almost immediately thereafter, the engine lost total power. The pilot activated the bus manager emergency power switch and independently selected each of the two engine control units but was unable to restore engine power. He chose a rural road for a forced landing but changed his path to clear a truck on the road; the airplane impacted a vineyard on the side of the road, nosed over, and came to rest inverted. The pilot had recently decided to change the carburetor and conventional magneto ignition systems to electronic versions for "performance and efficiency improvements." He purchased a kit that included an electronic fuel injection system and replaced the magnetos himself with a fully electronic ignition system. After completing the installations, the pilot began testing the systems and engine operation. Two days before the accident flight, he conducted two flights of the airplane with the new systems; both flights were brief and uneventful. Postaccident examination revealed no anomalies with the airplane fuel system or the engine itself. Because the engine was completely reliant on electricity for operation and control of the ignition and fuel injection, the cause of the engine power loss was likely due to a problem with the electrical system or supply. The only nonimpact-related anomaly discovered during the engine and airframe examination was that the swage/crimp of the terminal to the conductor of the primary alternator ground cable was loose, and the conductor and terminal bore evidence (black residue) of electrical arcing. The appearance was consistent with that residue having been caused by the looseness of the swage/crimp and as having been loose for an extended period before the accident. This looseness and arcing indicated that there were transient power interruptions. Such interruptions also create the potential for spurious electrical Page 2 of 11 WPR18LA021power variations, which could potentially interfere with the operation of the airplane's electrical or electronic systems, including the alternator, batteries, bus manager, and both the fuel injection and ignition systems.
The pilot reported that he performed a preflight inspection; at that time, the fuel tanks contained 12 gallons of fuel total, with 7 gallons in the left tank and 5 gallons in the right tank. The pilot then departed to practice touch-and-go landings with the fuel selector in the right tank position. During the fourth takeoff about 300 ft above ground level, the engine suddenly stopped developing power. With little time to restore power, the pilot pitched the airplane down slightly, then switched to the left tank, but was unable to restore power. He then switched back to the right tank but was again unable to restore power. The pilot subsequently performed a forced landing; the airplane impacted a stand of trees before coming to rest on its left side. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the forward fuselage and left wing. The left fuel tank was breached during the accident sequence and no fuel was observed in the tank. The right fuel tank, which had not been breached, contained about 1 ½ gallons of aviation fuel. The airplane's operations manual does not list an unusable fuel amount. A postaccident examination of the engine and airframe revealed no evidence of a mechanical malfunction or failure that would have precluded normal operation. The reason for the total loss of engine power could not be determined.
The private pilot was conducting a personal flight and reported that, while the airplane was climbing after takeoff, the engine began to run roughly and lose power. The pilot began a descent for an emergency landing and, during the descent, he sensed a "bad" engine vibration, which was followed by a complete loss of engine power. The pilot selected an area on an asphalt-covered automobile racetrack to make a forced landing, which resulted in substantial damage to the airplane's wings and fuselage. A postaccident engine examination revealed a crack in the accessory case and a large hole in the crankcase near the No. 6 cylinder pad. A subsequent internal examination revealed damage to the engine's internal components, including the main bearings and the No. 6 connecting rod, that was consistent with oil exhaustion. The airplane was equipped with a remotely mounted oil filter. A B-nut on one of the oil filter lines was found to be loose with about 2 ½ threads showing. The B-nut was tightened by hand and rotated about 1 ¾ turns, which resulted in about ½ thread showing. The pilot stated that he was not an airframe and powerplant mechanic but that he had replaced the oil line about 1 week before the accident. The accident flight was the first flight after that maintenance.
The pilot of the weight-shift aircraft reported that he was practicing touch-and-go landings. When the aircraft touched down, it veered to the left because he did not have the ground steering centered before touchdown. The pilot initiated a go-around; however, the aircraft collided with an airport ramp sign. The weight-shift aircraft sustained substantial damage to the wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the weight-shift aircraft that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, while on final approach, after passing over the airport perimeter fence, the engine lost power. The airplane had a high descent rate, impacted the ground about 100 ft from the approach end of the runway, and slid to a stop about 3 ft from the runway threshold.Postaccident examination revealed that the instrument panel layout had the flap position buttons adjacent to the unguarded engine control switches. The pilot reported that, while on final approach, he inadvertently contacted the engine control unit (ECU) toggle switch while he was positioning the flaps, which shut down the engine. Engine download data indicated that the ECU was turned off while on short final.The fuselage and inboard wing spar structure were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot configured the airplane for a straight-in approach when it was about 8 nautical miles from the destination airport. He verified that both main landing gear were down and locked by seeing that the landing gear indicator light had illuminated and by looking in a mirror mounted on the right wing and seeing that the gear were down. After a normal touchdown and during the landing roll, the airplane began to veer right, which the pilot believed was likely due to a flat tire. He then shut down the engine and steered the airplane to a grassy area adjacent to the runway. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the right main landing gear (MLG) had collapsed and that the right aileron and right elevator had sustained substantial damage. Postaccident examination of the landing gear system revealed that the right MLG's down-lock hook exceeded the airplane manufacturer's maximum tolerance and that it was not over center, which is required for the landing gear to remain in the locked position. Based on the evidence, it is likely that the out-of-tolerance down-lock hook prevented the right MLG from locking after the pilot deployed the landing gear and resulted in the right MLG collapsing during the landing roll. The airplane service manual states that the proper rigging of the MLG down-lock mechanism should be verified every 200 hours. A review of the maintenance logbooks revealed no entries related to the rigging, which is not always documented in the maintenance logbook following each service. Therefore, it could not be determined whether a maintenance event led to the out-of tolerance right MLG down-hook or if it became out of tolerance over time.
The pilot reported that, while landing on an unimproved snow-covered airstrip, he touched down in a configuration on the main landing gear "for a soft field landing." He added that, about 10 to 15 mph, he allowed the nosewheel to settle in the snow. Subsequently, the nosewheel broke through the crusted layer of snow, and the airplane "lurched" forward coming to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the vertical stabilizer.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the multiengine, retractable-landing-gear airplane reported that, during the initial climb, he "noted 105 IAS [indicated airspeed] as normal and reached down to retract the gear." He added that he "glanced down" to make sure he had grabbed the landing gear selector, and when he looked back outside, the airplane was "near the runway." He further added that he "pulled back hard on the yoke," but the propellers struck the runway, and the airplane then settled on the runway and skidded into the grass to the left.The pilot reported in the National Transportation Safety Board Form 6120.1 Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report Safety Recommendation section that the airplane was "not high enough above [the] ground to raise the gear," and he may have "relaxed back-pressure on the yoke after rotation," and when leaning slightly forward for the gear handle, the yoke may had been pushed forward slightly.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The Federal Aviation Administration's Airplane Flying Handbook stated, in part:        Avoid premature landing gear retraction and do not retract the landing gear until a positive rate of climb is indicated on the flight instruments. If the airplane has not attained a positive rate of climb, there is always the chance it may settle back onto the runway with the gear retracted. This is especially so in cases of premature lift-off. Remember that leaning forward to reach the landing gear selector may result in inadvertent forward pressure on the yoke, which causes the airplane to descend.Page 2 of 6 GAA18CA035
The flight instructor reported that, in day visual meteorological conditions, during the landing roll, a deer "appeared from high grass and bushes" from the right of the runway. He added that, before he could react, the deer impacted the inboard section of the right wing. The flight instructor stopped the airplane on the runway and then taxied to the ramp without further incident The right wing sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The Federal Aviation Administration Chart Supplement for the airport stated, in part: "Deer on and invof [in the vicinity of] arpt [airport]."
The pilot of the gyroplane reported that, when he returned to the airport for landing, the wind was calm. After touchdown, the gyroplane was on a slow roll when the tower controller asked the pilot if he wanted to exit at intersection Charlie. The pilot was about to reply to the controller when the gyroplane unexpectedly tipped over and came to rest on its side. The gyroplane sustained substantial damage to the horizontal and vertical stabilizers. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the gyroplane that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the pilot in the tailwheel-equipped airplane, this was his first solo flight in the airplane. During the landing roll, the airplane decelerated and veered to the left. The pilot reported that he overcorrected, and the airplane veered to the right. The airplane exited the runway, and the left wing struck the ground during the right ground loop. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left-wing spar and aileron.The METAR at the accident airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was calm, and the sky was clear.The pilot noted in the National Transportation Safety Board's Pilot Aviation Accident Report Operator/Owner Safety Recommendation section that this type of accident could have been prevented if he had "flown with a properly rated pilot (tailwheel endorsed) and practiced landings before flying…solo."The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the powered parachute reported that, during a biennial flight review, he descended to about 30 ft above the ground to fly an arc around a field. While over the field, the powered parachute dropped another 10 to 15 ft, and he added power to compensate before initiating a left turn. He added that, during the turn, he saw transmission wires that neither he nor the flight instructor previously noticed. He applied full power and attempted a turn to avoid the wires. Subsequently, the powered parachute struck the transmission wires and impacted terrain. The powered parachute sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilot sustained serious injuries.The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the powered parachute that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the pilot in the public helicopter, he was conducting a wildlife antipredation flight and maneuvering at a low altitude with two net gunners located on the left and right in the aft cabin. The pilot reported that he entered a left bank to pursue a deer. The deer was located "between our 8 and 9 o'clock position, and the net gunner made the net shot at the deer." The pilot observed the net miss the deer and simultaneously heard an unusual "whooshing noise" coming from the helicopter. He made a precautionary landing, and during the shutdown, he noticed what he described as an unusual discoloration of the main rotor disc.Examination of the main rotor blades revealed that one of the blades had a large hole in it, about 5 ft from the blade tip. The net that was fired at the deer was recovered and was found to be missing one of the weights that are normally attached to the net's corners. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to a main rotor blade.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot of the helicopter stated that there were 20 gallons of fuel on board when he departed on the aerial application flight. He flew to a 43-acre field and made steep turns while spraying the field. After dispensing the chemical, he made a steep, "hard right turn" en route to the operator's base, which was located about 3/4 mile west of the field. About 40 seconds after making the hard right turn and with the fuel gauge indicating 10 gallons remaining, the helicopter was on approach for landing. While on a right base leg to the landing zone and about 40 ft above ground level with about 35 kts airspeed, the pilot felt the "tail wag," and the engine stopped producing power. He performed an autorotation, but the tail impacted the ground during the landing flare, which resulted in substantial damage to the helicopter. During the examination of the helicopter, 2 spoons full of fuel were drained from the airframe fuel filter assembly. When the fuel boost pumps were turned on, they initially sounded as though they were cavitating. With the fuel boost pumps running, 7 gallons of fuel were drained from the fuel tank through the airframe fuel filter assembly. The engine was removed from the airframe and placed on a test cell, where it operated normally.The helicopter flight manual stated that, if installed, the FUEL LOW light would illuminate with about 20 gallons of fuel remaining. It stated that, if this light illuminated, the pilot should, "Land as soon as practical." The flight manual also contained a warning that, "Operation with both fuel boost pumps inoperative is not authorized. Due to possible fuel sloshing in unusual attitudes or out of trim conditions and one or both fuel boost pumps inoperative, the unusable fuel is 10 gallons."It is likely that the engine experienced a total loss of power due to fuel starvation; however, the reason for the fuel starvation was not determined. The pilot decided to operate the helicopter with less than 20 gallons of fuel, and 7 gallons of fuel were found in the helicopter after the accident occurred. The final, steep right turn likely was uncoordinated, and it might have caused the fuel pickup in the tank to become Page 2 of 7 CEN18LA020unported, allowing air into the fuel line. However, the pilot reported that the boost pump circuit breakers were in, and they should have been able to deliver fuel to the fuel filter assembly.