roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that as the airplane slowed down during the landing roll, he was unable to maintain directional control and the airplane ground looped to the right and the left wing struck the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left outboard wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation and that the accident may have been prevented if he had applied more left braking action.
The pilot reported he intended to land after sunset and did not activate the runway lighting. During final approach, the airplane collided with the airport windsock and landed next to the runway. During the landing roll the pilot maneuvered the airplane onto the runway and stopped on a taxiway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing when it impacted the windsock. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operations and that he misjudged the runway location.
The pilot reported that before landing, he made a low pass to check the controllability of the airplane close to the runway. While passing the windsock, he noted the surface winds appeared to be a direct crosswind from right to left. The pilot then set up the airplane for a full stop landing. As the airplane touched down, the wind had shifted to a quartering tailwind and the wing and tail began to lift. The pilot applied full right aileron and up elevator in an attempt to maintain directional control, however, the airplane departed the runway surface, the propeller impacted the ground and the airplane flipped over, which resulted in substantial damage to the rudder. The pilot reported that the airplane had no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The amateur-built airplane was assembled from a kit about 10 years prior to the accident and had only been flown about 250 hours during those 10 years.  After performing a preflight inspection and noting no anomalies, the pilot proceeded to take off from a 4,498-ft-long asphalt runway. During takeoff, the engine experienced a partial loss of power at 70 knots, about midfield. The pilot was not sure that he could land on the remaining runway and immediately turned the right fuel tank to on and the engine rpm increased significantly. Within seconds, the engine lost total power, and the pilot elected to keep the airplane on the runway heading to clear several obstacles at the end of the runway. The pilot attempted a forced landing in a field but pulled up to clear a fence. The airplane subsequently landed hard in the field and collided with a creek bed. The pilot stated that, in retrospect, he should have rejected the takeoff during the initial partial loss of engine power.Examination of the wreckage revealed that the diaphragm return spring on the engine side of the diaphragm was corroded. Additionally, the electric boost pump’s electrical wire was disconnected from the cockpit pump switch and the pump switch’s spade connector was loose. When the wire was reconnected, the spade connector had to be wiggled to get the pump to activate. Once activated, it pumped normally. Given this information, it is likely neither fuel pump was able to provide adequate fuel flow to the engine to sustain normal operation during the takeoff.
The pilot in the helicopter reported that, during a night solo training flight, the helicopter was on the ground with the throttle rolled on and full collective friction applied when he used a flashlight to view the Hobbs meter. Unbeknownst to him, the collective crept up, the helicopter rolled to the right and dynamically rolled over. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the horizontal stabilizer, and the main rotor system. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal flight operation.
The pilot of the ski-equipped airplane reported that while taxiing for takeoff through a narrow tree lined area on sloping hard crusted snow-covered terrain, the airplane began to slide down slope. Unable to arrest the descent, the airplane impacted trees which resulted in substantial damage to the right lift strut. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the airplane reported that, during the landing roll the airplane veered left unexpectedly. The pilot applied corrective action with rudder input, but the airplane continued to veer left, exited the left side of the runway, impacted a ditch, and nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right-wing lift strut, vertical stabilizer and rudder.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that, the bolt, spacer, nut and cotter pin connecting the upper torque link and the lower torque link was missing and not observed with the wreckage. It further revealed that the upper and lower torque links were not damaged. Damage to the nose gear and the right main gear was consistent with impact damage when the airplane exited the runway and impacted a ditch.A review of the airplane maintenance records did not reveal any recent maintenance conducted on the nose landing gear torque links.
The student pilot reported that, he departed on a solo flight, but decided to turn back to his departure airport after he encountered turbulence. During his return to the airport his altitude indication and some engine instruments were appearing intermittently on the glass panel displays. He flew the airport traffic pattern uneventfully and complied with the instructions he received from air traffic control. The student pilot decided to perform a go-around during his first landing attempt after the airplane bounced. He felt that his approach was stable during his second attempt, but the airplane bounced again during touchdown. The student pilot initiated another go-around, but pulled too far back on the yoke, which resulted in a stall and impact with the ground. The wings and fuselage were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that other than the intermittent instrument indications, there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The solo student pilot reported that following performing maneuvers in the local area he returned to the airport to complete touch-and-go landings. He had completed four landings and remained in the pattern for his fifth landing, in which he planned to do a soft field landing. Upon touchdown, the pilot described that a “hard bounce” sent the airplane back into the air. When the airplane touched down again, the nose landing gear collapsed and the airplane skidded to a stop on the runway. The fuselage and rudder sustained substantial damage. The student pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane.
The pilot and pilot-rated observer departed on a pipeline inspection flight. Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast, and GPS data indicated the airplane first appeared immediately south of the departure airport. The airplane tracked north-northwest and climbed to 4,000 ft mean sea level. About 1 1/2 hours into the flight, the airplane turned southwest and began a series of maneuvering turns over the area where the pipeline was located. The airplane continued to maneuver southwest and worked its way to a location 20 miles south of its destination airport. It then turned to the east toward a nearby airport. The pilot contacted approach control and informed them that he was landing at that airport. The airplane overflew the south end of the airport and entered a left downwind traffic pattern for runway 17. The airplane continued to a left base leg and then final. An armory security camera located on the airport recorded the airplane on final approach. The airplane touched down just past the approach end of the runway and bounced back into the air. It touched down a second time in the grass just right of the runway, struck a runway light, veered back on the runway, crossed the runway, and departed the left side of the runway. The airplane then disappeared behind a building. GPS data showed that the airplane became airborne again. The airplane climbed to about 75 ft above ground level, crossed a road that ran parallel to the runway east of the airport, and then entered a rapid decent until track data was lost.The airplane impacted trees and terrain in a near vertical attitude and came to rest on its main landing gear and forward fuselage on a westerly heading, 340 ft due east of the runway. The airplane’s propeller was found in a 1-foot-deep impact crater 33 ft west of the airplane main wreckage and showed signs of power. Examination of the airframe, flight controls, and engine revealed no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. The reason for the pilot’s Page 2 of 9 CEN22FA168failure to maintain control of the airplane during the final approach and landing was not determined with the available information.
The pilot was landing the tailwheel-equipped airplane in light crosswind conditions. He reported that after a three-point landing the airplane began to ground loop to the right. He applied left rudder to correct; however, the airplane ground looped to the right and exited the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and empennage. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he landed and exited the helicopter and stood just outside of the door. The helicopter “picked up, spun around,” and knocked the pilot onto the ground. The helicopter came to rest on its left side resulting in substantial damage. The helicopter manufacturer had issued a safety notice SN-17 in 1984. The notice stated in part that the pilot should never exit the helicopter with the engine running and rotors turning as “the collective can creep up, increasing both pitch and throttle, allowing the helicopter to lift off or roll out of control.” The pilot stated that there were no mechanical anomalies with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operations.
The pilot reported that, prior to landing, he obtained weather information as specified on the instrument approach procedure chart, which was from an airport about 18 nm from the landing airport. The wind was reported as being from 350° at 7 knots, which favored runway 07. During landing, the airplane floated longer than anticipated and bounced upon touchdown. The pilot added power and elected to do a go-around maneuver; however, the airplane was unable to attain a sufficient rate of climb and impacted trees at the departure end of the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage and right wing. A witness stated that the weather obtained from the airport specified on the instrument approach plate did not match the conditions at the airport at the time of the accident, which included a 10-kt tailwind on runway 07. The nearest airport's weather observation system, about 7 miles from the accident airport, included wind at 310° at 11 kts gusting to 17 kts.The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, upon arrival at the destination airport, the reported wind was from 220° at 10 knots gusting to 20 knots. He chose to fly a faster approach speed for landing on runway 15. He stated that, as the airplane touched down, a gust of wind pushed the airplane off the runway toward a hangar. Although he knew he impacted ground signs, he attempted a go-around, but was unable to avoid the hangar in front of him and impacted it with the left wing. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wing and fuselage. Examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot stated that he was unable to maintain control of the airplane during the landing and attempted go-around.
The pilot stated that he added 3.8 gallons of fuel before departure but did not know the total amount of fuel on board. While en route, the pilot diverted to another airport due to strong headwinds. After passing over the airport and assessing the landing conditions, the engine sustained a loss of power. The pilot was unable to maintain altitude and the airplane collided with the desert terrain adjacent to the runway.    A postaccident examination of the engine and fuel system revealed no evidence of a pre-impact mechanical malfunction or failure. First responders stated that a visual examination of the fuel quantity indicator showed the fuel tank was empty. This was confirmed by opening the fuel cap, visually examining the inside of the tank, and then inserting a dipstick. Although the 10-gallon fuel tank was not breached during the accident, the gascolator drain sustained damage. Due to the damage of the gascolator, it is unknown if fuel leaked out of the system following the accident. Therefore, it could not be definitively determined if the loss of power was a result of fuel exhaustion, but no other anomalies could be found.
The student pilot reported that she was practicing touch and go landings. She had just added full power to take off when the airplane veered to the left. The student pilot attempted to correct with the application of right rudder; however, she perceived that the rudder was “locked into place” and required full body weight to apply full right rudder. The student pilot lost control of the airplane and exited the side of the runway which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage. A postaccident examination of the airplane found no obvious malfunctions with the flight controls, although impact damage precluded full rudder deflection. The instructor pilot that witnessed the accident reported that the wind had increased past what was forecast and past the student pilot’s limit. At the time of the accident the student pilot was taking off on runway 17 with wind from 130° at 12 kts, gusting to 18 kts; the crosswind was calculated to be 11 kts.
The flight instructor reported that he and pilot receiving instruction had performed eight takeoffs and landings without incident. The flight instructor’s procedure was to perform the checklist items and select landing gear down when established on downwind in the traffic pattern. During the final traffic pattern, they became distracted and did not perform the checklist. The pilot receiving instruction reported that they did not lower the landing gear during the final approach and the airplane landed wheels up. The airplane sustained damage to the lower fuselage structure during the landing. Video footage provided by the airport manager showed the airplane’s landing gear fully retracted during the approach. Neither pilot recalled hearing the landing gear warning horn prior to the gear up landing. The mechanic that recovered and examined the airplane after the accident reported that the landing gear extended normally, and the landing gear warning horn was audible.
Post-event inspection of a GE Aviation Passport 20-19BB1A turbofan engine found light thermal distress on the outside of the engine core compartment near the top of the engine from the 10:00 to 11:00 o’clock position, aft looking forward, and localized discoloration on the inside of the core cowls in the general location of fuel nozzle No. 16 location consistent with an undercowl engine fire.  This corroborates the pilot’s report of an in-flight engine fire during takeoff climb.  The fuel nozzle No. 16 location appeared shiny, lacked the sooting that neighboring fuel nozzle pigtail-to-fuel manifold b-nut connections exhibited; therefore, it was considered a possible fuel leak location.  The engine was removed and sent to GE for evaluation; a fuel system leak check was performed but the source/location of the fuel leak could not be identified.  The fuel pressure and nitrogen check pressure used during the leak tests were well below the fuel pressure the engine experienced during the event and was determined to be insufficient to replicate the leak. A torque check of all the fuel manifold b-nut connections found four locations, all located on the left fuel manifold, which had very low torque values, less than 200 inch-pounds, when compared to the other b-nut connection locations and the required installation torque of 285 inch-pounds nominal.  One of the four low torque locations was fuel nozzle No. 16 that was identified as a possible leak source during the initial examination.  Detailed analysis of the fuel nozzle No. 16 pigtail-to-fuel manifold b-nut connection revealed evidence of galling and intermediate contact marks consistent with and indicative of misalignment and relative movement within the connection; none of the other low torque b-nut connection locations exhibited this type of surface distress.  Since the post-event fuel system leak checks performed by GE could not induce a fuel leak, the exact location/source of the fuel leak could not be determined by testing and observations.  Page 2 of 10 ENG22LA020However, the combination of low torque, misalignment between fuel nozzle No. 16 pigtail-to-fuel manifold b-nut connection, and sealing surface distress created the conditions by which there was insufficient sealing allowing fuel to leak during high engine power and high fuel pressures.  No other fuel nozzle locations had this combination of factors that would have allowed a fuel leak.
The airplane owner, who was a student pilot, reported that the pilot-rated passenger was the pilot flying. During landing, the airplane bounced and the owner took control of the airplane and initiated a go-around. He stated that the airplane was slow to climb with the flaps fully extended and they cleared the first tree line but impacted another tree farther away from the airstrip. The owner reported he did not recall anything after the tree contact but did say that there was nothing mechanically wrong with the airframe or engine. The airplane came to rest upright among small diameter trees in a nose-low, tail high attitude with the right wing substantially damaged.
The pilot reported he was on final approach for a short field landing when the airplane developed an unexpected sink rate from which he did not have time to recover. The airplane subsequently struck a fence bordering the runway and impacted the ground, which resulted in substantial damage to the airframe. A witness located on the approach end of the runway reported that the airplane appeared to be low and at an abnormally slow airspeed, and immediately before impact with the fence, the airplane pitched up rapidly. The pilot stated that he got behind the airplane on approach and there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot and flight instructor taxied the Cessna 172 and stopped short of the displaced threshold runway behind a Bombardier Challenger awaiting their clearance for departure. A witness stated that the Cessna was about “2-wing spans” behind the Challenger and was in line with the jet thrust vector. Shortly after the pilot of the Challenger was cleared for takeoff, while still on the taxiway, with brakes applied, the pilot increased the engine power to about 80 to 90%, then released the brakes, and departed. The flight instructor of the Cessna reported that he cut the mixture and deflected the aileron control towards the Challenger’s jetbast, but the airplane lifted, and the left wing was substantially damaged when it contacted the runway. The flight instructor reported that there were no mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operations The Challenger pilot reported that he was not aware of anything unusual related to his takeoff, as he was not contacted by the local air traffic control tower.
The pilot reported that, while on final approach, he reduced airspeed which resulted in a higher angle of attack and blocking his visibility of the approach threshold. The glide path steepened, and the airplane touched down short of the airstrip. The right main landing gear collided with a rock and sheared off. Shortly thereafter, the left main landing gear sheared off and the airplane slid down the runway substantially damaging the fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight crew of the jet obtained weather information for the destination airport, which indicated quartering tailwind conditions for the runway in use at the time, with wind at 3 knots gusting to 16 knots. The crew determined the wind to be within limitations. The cockpit voice recorder transcript and airport surveillance video indicated that the landing approach was normal. The captain, who was the pilot flying, stated that, after touchdown, the thrust reversers were deployed and the airplane turned “sharply to the right.” He reported that remedial control inputs were ineffective in maintaining directional control. Airport surveillance video footage of the landing roll and accident sequence showed that, about 9 seconds into the landing roll, the airplane turned sharply to its right. The airplane departed the runway, its left wingtip struck the ground, the entire wing structure (left wing/right wing/wingbox) separated from the airplane as one assembly, and the fuselage continued a short distance before it came to rest upright. The thrust reversers on each engine were deployed and their extended positions were about equal. A windsock could be seen in the surveillance video footage nearly parallel to the ground, indicating nearly a direct crosswind to the landing runway that would have been towards the airplane’s right side. Recorded wind shortly after the accident was consistent with a 90° right crosswind for the landing runway at 6 knots with gusts to 14 knots. A detailed examination of the airplane and system components revealed that all flight control, steering, and braking systems and their actuator components operated as designed. Although the copilot's yaw force sensor did not meet manufacturer acceptance testing during postaccident examination, this would not have affected the directional controllability of the airplane. Based on the available information, it is likely that the pilot’s compensation for the Page 2 of 8 ERA22LA175crosswind conditions was inadequate, which resulted in a loss of directional control and runway excursion.
The weather when the non-instrument-rated helicopter pilot initiated the flight included a ceiling of 250 ft mean sea level (msl) and visibility of ½ mile, which corresponded to instrument meteorological conditions. After flying for 15 minutes, the helicopter “entered a wall of fog.” The pilot attempted to turn the helicopter around and return to an area of better visibility; however, the tail rotor impacted trees. The pilot did not realize that the helicopter was in a right turn and reduced engine power. The helicopter descended to ground in a bank, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage, tailboom, and rotor blades. The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation. According to the helicopter owner’s maintenance and flight manual, “instrument flight [is] prohibited.”