roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
According to the pilot, during a time-building, cross-country flight, the airplane had multiple mechanical malfunctions. On the fourth leg of the flight, he departed the airport and noticed that the airplane was low on fuel. He flew to a nearby airport, landed, and added 10 gallons of fuel. After fueling, the airplane would not start, and the pilot asked maintenance personnel to jump the airplane's battery. Then, during taxi to the runway, he noticed that the "radios and other electronics" were inoperative, but he continued to the runway. During the takeoff roll, he was startled by a loud noise in his headset, which he believed came from the airplane's communication radio. He attempted to assess the problem during the takeoff roll, and the airplane veered off the right side of the runway into the safety area.After regaining control, he taxied back to the approach end of the runway. He performed a flight control check and an engine power check and departed the airport. The pilot reported that he then landed at a nontowered airport "to check out the aircraft." He performed another flight control check and an engine run-up but did not exit the airplane "because of the starting issue." The pilot then departed for the destination airport. He reported that he landed the airplane and taxied to parking. He recalled that he performed a postflight check of the airplane, but "other than grass and grass stains [he] did not see any damage."Later that evening, the airplane's owner informed the pilot that the left wing was damaged. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left-wing spar and aileron.   Page 2 of 6 GAA17CA546
The airplane was occupied by its new owner, a private pilot, and a flight instructor; they had just completed a personal flight. During the landing roll, the main landing gear partially collapsed and the airplane departed the runway surface, resulting in substantial damage to the left horizontal stabilizer. Both pilots gave conflicting statements regarding their roles during the flight but agreed that the landing gear was extended during the landing approach.Postaccident examination did not reveal any anomalies with the landing gear system that would have precluded normal operation, and the gear was successfully extended and retracted multiple times using the gear handle during the examination; therefore, the reason for the partial gear collapse could not be determined.
During the final phase of a crosswind landing approach, the solo student pilot felt the helicopter shudder and heard the low rotor rpm horn sound. Instead of applying corrective control inputs, he immediately initiated an autorotation. He did not raise the collective control during the flare, as required, and the helicopter then landed hard and rolled over. Postaccident examination did not reveal any preimpact anomalies with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation, and the engine appeared to be operating at the time of ground impact.Airframe vibration during the final phase of a landing approach is not an unusual phenomenon, and a low rotor rpm warning under high-load conditions (such as when landing with a crosswind) can also occur if rotor speed and engine power are not properly managed. The pilot improperly decided to initiate an autorotation instead of applying corrective control inputs to address the vibrations and improperly performed the landing flare.
The pilot of the retractable-landing-gear airplane reported that he "neglected to lower the landing gear" before landing, and the airplane landed with the landing gear retracted. He added that he had "no recollection of hearing the gear horn."The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot departed in dark night, marginal visual flight rules (MVFR) conditions from his private grass runway that was partially lit with solar lights. A witness heard the airplane depart followed by the sound of a crash, and when he arrived at the airstrip, he observed a light layer of fog over the runway. The airplane came to rest in heavily-wooded terrain adjacent to the runway. Examination of the airplane and engine revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation before impact.Data downloaded from an onboard GPS unit revealed that, after departure, the airplane made a climbing right turn to an altitude of 407 ft. It then descended to 256 ft and reached a maximum airspeed of 95 knots (kts) while continuing the right turn. The airplane then climbed in a right, 30° bank to a maximum altitude of 666 ft while slowing to an airspeed of 32 kts, which was well below the minimum stall speed. The airplane then rolled to the right and entered a rapid descent before the data ended.Conditions conducive to the development of spatial disorientation were present, including the dark night, MVFR conditions and a noninstrument-rated student pilot. Additionally, the airplane's track data, which reflects spiral-like maneuvering, and a wreckage distribution consistent with a loss-of-control, stall-type vertical descent, are consistent with the known effects of spatial disorientation. Based on this evidence, the student pilot most likely experienced spatial disorientation after takeoff, which led to the airplane exceeding its critical angle of attack and an aerodynamic stall.
The flight instructor and the student pilot were in a cruise descent toward the destination airport when the engine experienced a total loss of power. The instructor performed a forced landing to a corn field, during which the airplane sustained substantial damage. The instructor reported that the airplane had 25 gallons of fuel onboard before takeoff and that the duration of the accident flight was 1.3 hours. Due to a recent engine overhaul, the instructor was operating the airplane at a high power setting with the mixture full rich. He noted that, during previous flights, the fuel consumption was about 11 gallons per hour and calculated that the airplane should have burned about 14.3 gallons of fuel during the accident flight. Since the engine was not being operated at normal cruise power settings, fuel burn based on information in the pilot's operating handbook could not be calculated; however, examination of the airplane after the accident revealed no usable fuel remaining in either wing fuel tank, and no breaches of the fuel system. Subsequent testing revealed no fuel leakage and no excessive fuel consumption during ground runs.Based on the available evidence, it is likely that the engine lost power due to fuel exhaustion; however, whether the pilot overestimated the fuel quantity before departure or underestimated the fuel consumption during the flight could not be determined.
The commercial pilot reported that he and the pilot-rated passenger returned to the airport to practice touch-and-go landings after a local flight. The first two landings were uneventful. While on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern for the third landing, the pilot reduced engine power and started to descend the airplane. After turning base, the pilot increased power, but the engine did not respond and remained at idle. There was no change in engine noise and the engine was not running rough. The pilot manipulated the throttle and primer several times, but the engine did not respond, and the pilot elected to land the airplane on a nearby road. During the descent, the airplane struck powerlines and a tree before it impacted the road and slid to a stop.A postaccident engine examination did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. A review of the carburetor icing probability chart revealed that the airplane was operating in conditions favorable to the formation of serious carburetor icing at glide power. In addition, on-scene photographs revealed that the carburetor heat lever was in the off position; therefore, it is likely that carburetor ice accumulated during the descent, which resulted in a partial loss of engine power.
During the initial start of an air race, nine airplanes were positioned in a line-abreast formation. The RV-8 was positioned in the No. 7 slot, and the GP 4 was right of the RV-8 in the No. 8 slot. The RV-8 pilot reported that, during the race start, he felt an air current push down his airplane. He then moved forward of the No. 6 slot airplane and initiated corrections to reestablish his position within the formation. The GP 4 pilot reported that he saw the RV-8 descend below his airplane's left wing and that he reduced power while initiating a slight right bank in an attempt to "back out" of the formation. The pilot who was in the No. 9 slot reported that he observed the GP-4 move forward back into the formation very quickly. At that time, he noticed the pilot of the GP-4 trying to slow or correct his position to the right using ailerons. Shortly after, the propeller of the GP-4 struck the right aileron of the RV-8. Following the collision, the RV-8 entered an uncommanded left roll; however, the pilot was able to level the airplane and land uneventfully. The GP-4 pilot pitched his airplane upward and rolled right to avoid the surrounding airplanes and was also able to land the airplane uneventfully.It is likely that, if the pilot of the GP-4 had maintained adequate lateral distance from the RV-8 while advancing forward to maintain a line-abreast formation, he would have been able to maintain clearance from the RV-8 as it descended and would not have needed to bank right, which further reduced the GP-4 pilot's visual contact with the RV-8 and led to the midair collision.
The pilot was flying under a powerline during an aerial application flight in an area with which he was very familiar when the helicopter collided with a wire. The wire was installed at a height of about 20 ft on the 40-ft-tall poles and was used for attaching a larger cable data line, which had not yet been installed at the time of the accident. The pilot did not recall seeing the wire before the accident.Examination of the wreckage revealed that the helicopter impacted the wire at its main rotor mast. The main rotor mast separated from the wreckage and the main rotor blades displayed impact damage consistent with ground impact. Examination revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation of the helicopter.
As the helicopter approached the airport, the pilot reported that the helicopter's engine rpm increased, and the rotor rpm decayed. He conducted an autorotation to the field.  An examination of the helicopter revealed that the helicopter's main rotor drive belt/cog belt lost teeth resulting in a failure of the belt to drive the main rotor blades. The drive belt had recently been installed, about 3.5 hours prior to the accident. The circumstances of the accident are consistent with improper tension of the cog belt resulting in a failure of the belt.
The pilot reported that he landed on the runway and noticed an elk running toward the nose of the airplane. He applied full throttle and climbed to avoid impact, but the propeller struck the elk. The pilot shut off the engine, and the airplane descended to the runway. When the airplane touched down on the runway, a second elk collided with the airplane's left wing. The airplane veered to the left, and the right main landing gear collapsed. The airplane then veered to the right and came to rest on the right wing. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings. The Airport Facility Directory for the accident airport stated that there was wildlife in the vicinity of the runway.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot was conducting a local, personal flight. He reported that, about 1,000 ft above ground level and as he began turning the airplane left, it rolled faster than he expected and then "rolled over" into an inverted attitude. The pilot regained control of the airplane, and when the airplane was straight and level, he saw treetops. He tried to pull up, but the airplane impacted trees and then terrain, which resulted in substantial damage to the airframe.  The pilot stated, and a postaccident examination of the airplane confirmed, that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures of the flight controls that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was conducting a return cross-country business flight in a helicopter. The reported winds at the time of the accident were light, and visibility was at least 10 miles.GPS data showed that the helicopter departed about 1554 on a northwest heading toward the destination airport. The data revealed that, for the last 5 minutes of the flight, the helicopter's GPS altitude varied between 6,200 and 6,456 ft. The terrain in the area of the accident was between 6,000 and 6,400 ft, and the initial impact point was at 6,330 ft. The last recorded data at 1635 showed the helicopter about 1.5 nautical miles from the accident site at a GPS altitude of 6,456 ft.A person located near the accident site reported that he saw smoke on nearby ranch property, drove in the direction of the smoke to investigate, and found the helicopter wreckage.The helicopter impacted terrain in open ranch land. A postcrash fire consumed most of the wreckage. All of the airplane's major components were located at the wreckage site. Ground scars and signatures were consistent with a slight, nose-low impact with terrain, and the wreckage path was about 300 ft long on a 293° heading, which was indicative of controlled flight into terrain.. Although the airframe and engine examinations were limited by impact and fire damage, they did not reveal evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot's cell phone was recovered, and a review of the phone records revealed that, at 1612, he called a car rental agency. An agency employee stated that she remembered the call well. She added that she could not tell that he was in a helicopter, but that he seemed "busy or distracted" and that, as they were talking about a future rental and she was "midsentence," the line was disconnected. Based on the available information, the pilot was likely using his cell phone during the low-altitude flight and became distracted, which resulted in controlled flight into terrain.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during landing, after a stabilized approach, the airplane touched down on the main landing gear (MLG) first for a wheel landing. The airplane bounced twice, and shortly before the tail settled on the ground, the "crosswind increased causing the aircraft to weathervane to the left." He added that he increased left aileron and right rudder to keep the airplane on the gravel airstrip; however, the "wind gust then all but stopped as the tailwheel settled to the ground causing the aircraft to turn rapidly to the right." He further added that he increased left rudder and brake, but the MLG started to depart the gravel airstrip and enter the softer shoulder. The "tail swung to the left of the aircraft direction of travel," and he was unable to correct the continued tightening right turn. Subsequently, the airplane rolled onto the left wing and left horizontal stabilizer and came to rest on the MLG. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and left horizontal stabilizer.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot reported the wind at the accident site, about the time of the accident, as variable, gusting to 10 knots. The pilot landed to the northeast.
The commercial pilot reported that, while taxiing after landing, he was instructed by the ground controller to follow a truck to transient parking. A fly-in car show event was taking place at the time, and several areas on the ramp were occupied by the show. With a wing walker on the right wing, he followed the truck and moved left of the taxiway centerline to avoid getting too close to the airplanes to the right that overhung into the taxiway. After the airplane was clear of the airplanes to the right, the pilot advanced the throttle and the left wing impacted a light pole, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane.
The student pilot reported that, while attempting a touch-and-go landing, the airplane bounced. He added that he "worked the yoke" to stabilize the airplane, but the airplane bounced a second time and veered off the runway to the left.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall.The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The airline transport pilot, who was the owner of the airplane, and one passenger departed on a day visual flight rules cross-country flight. The airplane came to rest in a wooded area near an open field about 24 miles from the departure airport. The pilot was not in contact with air traffic control during the flight. Review of radar information revealed radar targets that were coincident with the accident flight on a south-southeast track at altitudes between 900 and 1,300 ft above ground level until radar contact was lost about 1 mile northwest of the accident site. Several individuals near the accident site reported that they heard the sound of the impact, but there were no witnesses to the accident. The propeller exhibited signatures consistent with a lack of engine power at the time of impact. The fuel selector was found in the left tank position and the landing gear was extended. There was evidence of fuel in both tanks at the accident site.Examination of the fuel system revealed that air would not pass through the fuel selector valve with the valve selected to the left fuel tank position. The handle was operated by hand and could be moved normally between the settings. Air passed freely through the valve when selected to the right tank position. Disassembly of the fuel selector revealed a piece of red, fibrous material consistent with a shop towel that likely inhibited fuel flow to the engine and resulted in fuel starvation and a total loss of engine power. The airplane's maintenance logs were not found and when the shop towel debris may have been introduced to the fuel system could not be determined. Additionally, a homemade tool constructed of PVC pipe and connection fittings was found in the wreckage that appeared to be designed to manipulate the fuel selector; however, the reason for its fabrication and use during the accident flight could not be determined. The device was broken at its handle.Following the loss of engine power, the pilot may have attempted to switch the fuel selector from the left tank to the right tank and was unable to do so, either due to a failure of his homemade tool or to the inadequate time afforded to troubleshoot the loss of engine power due to his selection of a low cruising altitude, or a combination of the two factors. The airplane's low cruising altitude also reduced the pilot's available forced landing site options after the engine lost power. It is likely that the pilot was attempting to reach an open field that was about 1,500 ft beyond the accident site and had lowered the landing gear Page 2 of 12 ERA17FA327in preparation for landing, but due to the airplane's low altitude, it was unable to reach the field and impacted trees.The pilot's medical certificate was denied nearly 10 years before the accident and never re-issued. Autopsy identified severe cardiac disease, which placed the pilot at risk for sudden symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, or fainting; however, it is not likely that this condition contributed to the accident.
The private pilot fueled the airplane to capacity before departing on a local photography flight. About 1 hour after departing, the pilot was climbing the airplane to cruise altitude for the return to the departure airport. About 800 to 1,000 ft above mean sea level, the airplane experienced a sudden, total loss of engine power over open water and beyond gliding distance to shore. The pilot prepared to ditch and attempted five engine restarts without success. The propeller continued to windmill as the airplane landed upright, but subsequently sank in about 12 ft of saltwater. The airplane was recovered 12 days later and a fuel sheen was observed in the area.The wreckage was examined following recovery and the engine crankshaft could not be rotated due to saltwater corrosion. Examination of the engine-driven fuel pump revealed that the drive shaft remained intact and could be actuated by hand with no anomalies noted. The engine and its ignition and induction systems could not be thoroughly examined or tested due to extensive saltwater corrosion; therefore, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The non-instrument-rated private pilot and three passengers departed on a night cross-county flight over mountainous terrain. Radar track data showed that the airplane traveled mainly on a southwesterly heading directly towards its destination with a series of altitude changes. About 5 minutes before the accident, the airplane turned to the northwest, a deviation off the destination course, and continued northwest for about 12 miles. After the turn, a passenger sent a text message to a family member stating that they were "taking the long way around, lots of weather, keep you posted." Shortly thereafter, the airplane entered a gradual left turn to the southwest, descending from 11,500 ft to 11,300 ft, then climbing back to 11,400 ft. The last recorded radar return was about 1/4 mile south of the accident site, which was located at an elevation of 10,800 ft. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine showed severe fragmentation of the airplane consistent with a high-energy impact and did not reveal any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The flight was likely operating in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) at the time of the accident, including light to moderate icing conditions. The airplane likely encountered intermittent IMC beginning about 30 minutes after takeoff, and continued into an area of solid IMC about 3 minutes before the accident occurred. There was no record of the pilot retrieving preflight weather information from an official, access-controlled source, and what weather information, if any, he obtained before or during the flight could not be determined. Based on the weather forecasts and information valid before the airplane departed and while en route, and the equipment available onboard the airplane, there was sufficient weather information available to the pilot before and during the flight to make informed decisions regarding the weather he would likely encounter.The night instrument conditions present at the time of the accident were conducive to the development of spatial disorientation and the circumstances of the accident. The non-instrument-rated pilot's continued flight into IMC, the airplane's descending turn depicted on radar, and the fragmentation of the Page 2 of 13 CEN17FA354wreckage due to high-energy impact are all consistent with the known effects of a loss of control due to spatial disorientation. It is likely that, while maneuvering, the pilot experienced spatial disorientation, which resulted in a loss of control and subsequent descent into terrain.