roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that, during approach for landing at the conclusion of the cross-country flight, the airplane's landing gear would not fully extend. The pilot subsequently actuated the hand emergency landing gear release lever, and the landing gear still would not fully extend to the down-and-locked position. The pilot then performed multiple heavy g-force maneuvers in an attempt to lower the landing gear but was unable to extend and lock the gear, and subsequently landed the airplane in a dirt area adjacent to the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to the lower fuselage. Examination revealed that the landing gear solenoid was inoperative, resulting in the failure of the gear to operate using the gear position switch; however, the emergency gear extension system operated multiple times during postaccident testing with no anomalies noted.
The pilot reported that, during the downwind leg of the approach and as the airplane was about 1,000 ft above ground level, a bird struck the propeller and cowling. The pilot was able to land the airplane without further incident. Postaccident examination revealed bird feathers in the engine compartment. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall and forward fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the pilot's son, he and his father were working on the experimental, amateur-built airplane's carburetor the day before the accident to improve the fuel consumption. They replaced the carburetor jets with smaller ones, but that change made the engine run roughly. On the morning of the accident, the pilot told his son that he fixed the airplane by adjusting the carburetor float tabs, allowing more fuel to enter the carburetor bowl. They then performed an engine run-up, and it ran normally. The pilot’s son stated that, during takeoff, the airplane was not climbing like it had in the past. When the airplane reached about 300 ft above ground level, the engine started to sputter and run roughly. He stated that it looked like his father tried to turn the airplane back to the runway and made a sharp left turn but that shortly after the turn, the airplane descended straight down to the ground. Postaccident examination of the engine found that the choke on the carburetors was safety wired in the open position. The top spark plugs were removed and noted to be black and sooty, consistent with the engine running with an excessively rich fuel ratio. No other mechanical anomalies were noted with the engine that would have precluded normal operation. Given the available information, it is likely that the pilot’s modifications to the airplane’s engine resulted in it running excessively rich, which resulted in the partial loss of power and engine roughness that occurred during the takeoff. Additionally, the pilot exceeded the airplane’s critical angle of attack while attempting to return to the airport, which led to an aerodynamic stall and impact with terrain. Toxicological testing revealed Delta-9-THC (tetrahydrocannabinol, the active compound in marijuana) in the pilot’s blood and liver specimens; however, it could not be determined if the pilot's marijuana use impacted his behavior or decision making before or during the accident flight.
During low-altitude cruise flight, the engine lost total power and the pilot performed a forced landing on an embankment next to a road, resulting in substantial damage to the right wing, right tip tank, and right elevator. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the crankshaft was fractured between the No. 2 main bearing journal and the No. 2 connecting rod journal and exhibited evidence of lubrication distress. Additionally, the No. 2 bearing had shifted, and a large portion of the bearing had extruded from the bearing support. The bearing support mating surfaces displayed fretting and the lock tab had completely worn away. Based on the observed damage, it is likely that the No. 2 main bearing shifted, resulting in inadequate lubrication to, and subsequent failure of, the crankshaft.While the crankcase mating surfaces displayed unapproved sealant material with no signs of silk thread, which was not consistent with the engine manufacturer’s guidance for engine assembly, the breakaway through bolt torque remained at or above the manufacturer’s specification. It could not be definitively determined, based on available evidence, if the use of an unapproved sealant contributed to the bearing shift.
Following a revenue sightseeing flight, the pilot landed the balloon hard in an open pasture, then the basket tipped over and was dragged by the balloon about 20 ft before it came to a stop. The pilot stated that after the accident, he saw one of his adult male passengers laying on top of his elderly mother in the bottom of the basket. The 85-year-old female passenger sustained serious injuries.
The pilot reported that he was building hours in the powered-glider to prepare for his glider instructor rating examination. He departed the airport with power and climbed to the west to chase thermals. After the powered-glider reached 4,000 ft above ground level (agl), he shut down the engine, left the battery power on, and continued to climb to 4,500 ft agl. After 30 minutes, he attempted to restart the engine, but the starter only cranked the engine briefly, and the propeller travelled one full revolution and then stopped. After another unsuccessful engine start attempt and with the glider too far away to glide back to the airport, the pilot located a field for a forced landing. During the landing roll, the main landing gear wheels dug into the soft field, and the powered-glider nosed over and then came to rest inverted, which resulted in substantial damage to the engine mount truss. Postaccident examination of the powered-glider revealed that the single battery was depleted to a level that was insufficient to power the starter during the engine restart sequence. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident malfunctions or failures with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, while departing from a lake, the float-equipped airplane was not "gaining airspeed as usual" and that the takeoff run was taking "longer." Before attempting to abort the takeoff, the left float lifted off the water, followed by the right float. While in ground effect, the floatplane started to roll right. The pilot corrected with full left aileron, but the floatplane continued to roll right. He then reduced power and applied 40º of flaps, but the floatplane continued to roll right, so he increased the throttle to full, and the right wing impacted the water. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot reported that the floatplane impacted rocks while he was back taxiing to the dock after a previous flight but that he did not realize the floats had been damaged. Before the accident flight, he conducted a preflight inspection and did not find any residual water in the floats, but he did not examine the bottom of the floats because they were submerged in water. Photographs showed that the right float's keel was damaged.
The glider pilot reported that, while being towed and approaching 3,000 ft above ground level, the glider's rear canopy opened. The glider pilot informed the tow airplane pilot via radio that the canopy had opened, and the tow airplane pilot informed the glider pilot that he would try to tow the glider closer to the runway. Shortly after, the glider entered an uncontrollable downward spin, and the front canopy shattered. The pilot regained control of the glider, and the rear canopy separated from the glider. The glider pilot made an extended right base and prepared for an off-airport landing. The flight controls were not responding properly, and the glider landed hard on the runway. The pilot reported that, after the accident, he found a section of the tow rope still connected to the glider and lodged in the rudder mechanism. A review of photographs of the airplane revealed that the tow rope exhibited overload signatures. Each airplane still had a portion of the tow rope attached to it after the tow rope failed. The glider sustained substantial damage to the composite fuselage.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, after a three-point landing on a dry lakebed, the main landing gear "hit an unseen undulation in the landing pathway," and the airplane bounced. As the main landing gear touched down again, the pilot applied heavy braking, and the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the engine mount, right wing, and left-wing lift strut. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he allowed the engine to warm-up for about 15 minutes before takeoff and used the carburetor heat. The takeoff was normal, but shortly after establishing climb power, he noticed a reduction in power although the engine was still running smoothly. He turned to a left downwind for landing; however, "several seconds" later, the engine "popped twice and quit completely." The propeller was windmilling. The pilot executed a forced landing and the airplane sustained substantial damage to the aft fuselage, left wing, left horizontal stabilizer, and right float.Postaccident examination of the engine, including a test run, did not reveal any anomalies that would preclude normal operation. Although the weather conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to carburetor icing at glide power, the pilot reported that he used carburetor heat when the airplane was idling on the ground and that the airplane was operating at a high power setting when the engine lost power, both of which would have prevented the accumulation of carburetor ice. Thus, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined based on the available information and postaccident examination and testing.
During the landing approach, the pilot noted that the right main landing gear would not extend into the down and locked position, and, during touchdown, the gear began to collapse. He performed a go-around, climbed to altitude, and attempted emergency procedures and g-loading maneuvers but was unable to extend the right main landing gear into the down and locked position. Ultimately, the pilot chose to land with the landing gear retracted. During recovery of the airplane from the runway, maintenance personnel were unable to extend and lock the right main landing gear, but they were able to extend and lock the nose and left main landing gears into position. The right main landing gear was manually extended and braced, then towed to the ramp. The pilot/operator of the aircraft reported that the damage to the aircraft was substantial.A complete examination of the right main landing gear was not performed; therefore, the reason for the right main landing gear anomaly could not be determined.
The accident flight was the first flight following the airplane’s annual inspection. The pilot reported that, during the takeoff roll, the airplane took longer than expected to accelerate, and after becoming airborne, did not seem to be producing full power. Witnesses stated that the airplane made a sharp left turn about 100 feet above the ground and the left wing impacted the ground; the airplane cartwheeled before coming to rest, resulting in substantial damage.  A postaccident examination revealed that the upper and lower spark plugs from the No. 4 cylinder and the lower spark plug from the No. 3 cylinder exhibited oil and soot bridging the gap between the electrodes. All other spark plugs exhibited black soot build-up on the electrodes and insulators. The reason for the fouled spark plugs was not determined based on the examination. The mechanic who completed the annual inspection reported that he cleaned, gapped, and functionally tested all of the spark plugs. After the inspection, he conducted an engine run-up and found that one of the plugs had become fouled. He cleaned the plugs a second time and reinstalled them using new gaskets. He ran the engine up a second time, and it ran smoothly.Based on the condition of the No. 4 cylinder spark plugs, it is likely that the engine was not producing nominal power and that its takeoff and climb performance was degraded. The witness observations of a steep left turn and descent to impact is consistent with an aerodynamic stall due to the pilot exceeding the airplane’s critical angle of attack during the initial climb.
Shortly after takeoff, when the airplane was at an altitude of 2,000 ft, the engine and electrical system failed simultaneously. The pilot was unable to restart the engine and made a forced landing to an open field, during which the airplane flipped over and sustained substantial damage to the airframe and wings. The airplane wreckage was not located until about 4 hours and 25 minutes after the accident.The airplane’s engine was equipped with a dual electronic ignition system that required electrical power to operate. The pilot, who was also the builder, had wired the airplane’s electrical system, which was routed through a 24v battery, including the dual electronic ignition system. Postaccident examination revealed that the lugs that connected the positive and negative leads of the airplane’s electrical system to the 24v battery were not crimped properly and that the leads had separated from their lugs, which resulted in the complete loss of electrical and engine power.The airplane’s 406-MHz emergency locator transmitter (ELT) triggered on impact, and a beacon alert was sent and was received by the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center (AFRCC). The AFRCC called the pilot’s cell phone twice shortly after the accident, but the phone had been displaced during the accident sequence, and the pilot was unable to retrieve it to answer. The pilot’s daughter did not receive a call from the AFRCC even though she was listed as an emergency contact on his ELT registration form. A review of AFRCC’s response to the accident revealed that the on-duty controller attempted to locate the beacon and initially determined that the airplane was most likely airborne with an active ELT and closed out the incident. However, after several hours had passed, the controller observed the beacon alerts becoming more concentrated and contacted law enforcement, who located the airplane within 45 minutes. Page 2 of 7 ERA19LA253The AFRCC reported that they handled 38 other incidents that day and that the controller was in his first phase of training. However, they indicated that they would use this incident as a training aid for similar cases in the future.
The pilot reported that he began a right orbit off the shore of an island about 20 ft above the water. During the maneuver, the helicopter drifted and struck a tree leaning over the water. The helicopter subsequently lost altitude, impacted the water, and came to rest on its right side. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the main rotor blades and fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, on the morning of the accident, several preflight fuel samples from the airplane’s wing tanks contained debris, but he was eventually able to obtain clean fuel samples. He subsequently departed and made several stops at different airports before departing with another airplane as a flight of two for the purpose of taking photos.The pilot stated that he was performing a descending left turn when, about 3,000 feet over the Pacific Ocean, the engine lost total power but the propeller continued to windmill. The pilot was unable to restore engine power and ditched the airplane into the ocean. Immediately after impact, he and the passenger egressed and stood on the wing until the airplane sank into about 145 feet of water. The wreckage was not recovered and could not be examined; therefore, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
Shortly after departing on a solo flight, at an altitude of about 3,000 ft mean sea level, the student pilot detected smoke in the cockpit. He immediately returned to the departure airport and landed gear up, which resulted in substantial damage to the airplane. The pilot stated that he chose to land with the gear up because he believed the airplane was on fire and “…just wanted to get the airplane on the ground.” The pilot did not report any other mechanical anomalies with the airplane or engine that would have precluded normal operation.A postaccident examination of the landing gear system revealed that the electric motor that powered the hydraulic power pack likely remained powered after the landing gear had been retracted. When the motor failed to shut off, it overheated and burned out, which likely resulted in smoke entering the cockpit. The reason for the motor anomaly could not be determined.
On a cross-country flight during cruise, the left engine suddenly lost all power. The pilot stated he burned fuel from the inboard tanks for 30 minutes, then another 15 minutes on the outboard tanks before the loss of power. Unable to restore power the pilot performed a forced landing to a field. Testing of the left engine fuel servo and controller revealed the servo was not the correct part number for the engine, and the servo did not meet the high-end adjustment test. It is inconclusive that the fuel servo and controller were the cause of the complete loss of engine power. Postaccident examination of the left engine revealed no other evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The left-wing outboard and inboard tanks were found empty, the nacelle tank was full. The right-wing outboard tank was empty and the inboard and nacelle were full.
The single-engine airplane had undergone recent maintenance, including the installation of a field-overhauled engine and a three-bladed propeller. The pilot and pilot-rated passenger were conducting a maintenance check flight. One witness reported that the airplane took off normally, but when it reached between about 200 to 300 ft above ground level, it stopped climbing. Another witness reported that he did not hear the engine but that he could not remember whether the propeller was turning.The accident engine was a modification to the airplane’s original configuration. Such a modification is typically recorded on a Federal Aviation Administration Form 337, “Major Repair and Alternation,” and adopted by a field approval. However, neither the form nor maintenance records regarding the installation of the modified engine were found during the investigation. A smart phone recorded two videos from inside the airplane. One of the videos captured the accident flight just after takeoff. Several seconds later, a decrease in engine sound was heard, followed by a momentary warning horn. One of the occupants then stated, “we’re stalling,” followed by the sound of the stall warning horn and impact with terrain.Examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. During examination of the engine, the air filter element was found displaced and lodged in the intake. The metal screen used to hold the filter element was found improperly installed. The evidence indicates that the improper installation of the metal screen allowed the filter element to become displaced and subsequently lodged in the intake, which blocked the intake air and resulted in a total loss of engine power. Page 2 of 10 CEN19FA279
Before the pilot performed an aerial application, the helicopter was serviced with pesticide, but no fuel was added; fuel had been added before the three previous flights. During one of the aerial application passes, the engine lost power; the pilot conducted a forced landing to a field, and the helicopter’s tailboom and fuselage were substantially damaged. Following the accident, about 3/4 gallon of fuel was recovered from the right fuel tank and 2 1/2 gallons of fuel were recovered from the left fuel tank. There was no evidence of mechanical malfunction of failure that would have precluded normal engine operations.Each spray pass is made at an airspeed of about 85 mph and directly above the crop to achieve optimal product application and spray coverage to the crop. At that speed, the helicopter flies in a nose-low attitude. The fuel delivery port or tube on both tanks is located at the aft, lower end of each tank, and both tanks deliver fuel to the engine simultaneously. It is likely that the limited fuel in the tanks moved away from the fuel ports due to the helicopter's nose-low attitude, resulting in fuel starvation.
The pilot reported that, before takeoff, he adjusted his seat. During takeoff, his seat slid back, and he was not able to reach the rudder pedals or throttle lever. The airplane accelerated, veered left, exited the runway to the left, ground looped, and impacted a berm. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during the first approach to land, the airplane was high, and he chose to abort the landing. During the second approach, the airplane was again high, and he used a forward slip to descend. Upon crossing the runway threshold, he realized the airplane was drifting left of the runway. He again aborted the landing and applied full power. However, the airplane pitched up, continued to drift left, and impacted trees. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, the left and right wings, and the empennage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during the landing roll, after the nosewheel touched down, the airplane “immediately” veered to the right and he was unable to regain control. The airplane continued off the side of the runway, the left main landing gear collapsed, and the left wing impacted the ground, resulting in substantial damage. Examination of the airplane revealed that the steering linkage control rod exhibited bending of the threaded shaft and 45o shear lips and cupping on the fractured surface, consistent with a ductile overstress fracture. The left main landing gear collapse and the steering linkage and control rod fracture likely occurred during the accident sequence from side loads experienced during the runway excursion. The reason for the loss of control during landing could not be determined.
According to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector, the pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll on unimproved terrain, he applied the brakes too hard, and the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right-wing lift struts and rudder. The FAA inspector added that the pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot and 2 passengers were returning from a fishing trip in the float equipped airplane. The flight path was over water. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed along the flight path and accident area. Both passengers reported that the airplane was flying low over the water beneath the clouds when it impacted the water. Only portions of the airplane wreckage were recovered, and the engine was not found. The available wreckage was examined, and no anomalies were found other than severe water impact damage. It is likely that the non-instrument rated pilot did not have a visible horizon, lost track of his altitude and descended below the clouds when the airplane impacted the water.