roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The private pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll, the airplane "began suddenly swerving" and would not respond to opposite rudder inputs. The airplane veered off the runway into a freshly-plowed field where it nosed over and came to rest inverted.  The pilot stated there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane. The pilot further reported that, during the noseover, the center seatbelt anchor bracket failed, which resulted in both occupants falling out of their seats once the airplane became inverted.  About 2 years before the accident, in response to a similar accident, the manufacturer issued a service bulletin that called for inspection of the center seat belt bracket to ensure that the latest type (steel) bracket was installed. The service bulletin had not been completed on the accident airplane.
According to the solo student pilot, the experimental, amateur-built gyrocopter was positioned for takeoff on the runway and stopped with the brakes set. He recalled that he engaged the prerotor, increased the main rotor speed to 180 rpm, then disengaged the prerotor, released the brake, and applied full throttle. He reported that, "this is where I made my mistake. At this point I should have brought the control stick all the way back, but did not." He recalled that the gyrocopter was moving forward rapidly but that the rotor rpm decreased and that he then pulled the control stick aft. He reported that the rotor blades were flapping, the control stick became uncontrollable, and the gyrocopter exited the runway to the left. The student pilot reduced the throttle to idle, and during the runway excursion, the left main and the nose landing gear separated from the gyrocopter. The main rotor blade struck the ground, the blade grip sustained substantial damage, and the rotor head partially separated from the frame. The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airframe or the engine that would have prevented normal operation.
According to the pilot of the tailwheel-equipped biplane, during the landing roll, the tailwheel became "stuck" in an expansion joint that runs down the centerline of the runway. She reported that when the tailwheel became unstuck, the biplane "swung wildly to the left," the bottom right wing struck the ground, and the airplane came to a stop on the runway after turning 180° to the left. A video of the accident, taken by a camera mounted on the accident biplane and posted on social media, revealed that the biplane touched down on the runway to the left of the centerline. During the landing roll and after crossing the taxiway A2 intersection, the biplane began drifting right. The tailwheel is seen crossing the centerline expansion joint about 30° to the joint and then rolling over the joint without hesitation. The tail is then seen swinging to the right at an increasing rate. The biplane ground looped to the left, and the bottom right wing sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or anomalies with the airplane that would have prevented normal operation.
The pilot of an amphibious airplane reported that he departed a hard surfaced runway and flew to a lake about 3 nautical miles away. He further reported that after takeoff he failed to retract the landing gear and during the touchdown on the lake, the airplane nosed over. The pilot reported that he did not use a checklist during the flight. The fuselage and vertical stabilizer sustained substantial damage.  The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The airline transport pilot reported that the engine operated normally during the takeoff and initial climb to join up in race formation for the start of a closed course air race. During the initial climb, the pilot tested the nitrous system with no anomalies noted.At the start of the race, the airplanes began a descent toward the first pylon. The pilot reported that she smoothly opened the throttle to full and turned the nitrous system on. The airplane flew normally as it accelerated, and the engine sounds were normal. As the airplane passed pylon No. 5, the engine suddenly stopped producing power. The pilot then pulled up and declared a mayday. She subsequently saw smoke begin to fill the cabin and flames on both sides of the engine cowling and in the cockpit under the instrument panel. The pilot subsequently landed on a runway, and emergency personnel extinguished the fire.The airplane owner reported that the engine had backfired before the loss of power. The backfire caused an explosion in the induction system, which broke the induction elbow. The throttle body and nitrous injector dropped into the bottom of the cowling and sprayed flammable fluid into the engine compartment, which resulted in the fire and loss of power.
The pilot reported that he crossed midfield, entered the traffic pattern, and then flew down the centerline to "view the runway", but it was "getting dark and difficult to see". The pilot further reported that after touchdown the runway conditions were worse than he had expected and "heavy vegetation pulled" the airplane to the left. The airplane veered off the runway to the left and impacted a group of small pine trees. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tandem-seat, tailwheel equipped biplane reported that he was flying from the rear seat which limits his forward view, "especially in the landing configuration". He further reported that during the landing roll on a private grass airstrip, the biplane impacted a drainage pipe, which resulted in a collapsed left landing gear and substantial damage to both lower wings and the lower right aileron.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the pilot of the retractable landing gear airplane, his normal approach to the backcountry grass airstrip was to follow the terrain until established on a "5-10 second" final approach. The pilot recalled that there was a 5-knot tailwind at the airstrip during the approach. On final, he increased the flaps, the airspeed was 70 knots, and the airplane touched down on the approach end of the runway. He reported that he did not extend the retractable landing gear and that, following the touchdown, the airplane slid about 1,000 ft down the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage longerons and the firewall.The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or anomalies with the airframe or engine that would have prevented normal operation.
The commercial pilot reported that the accident flight was the first flight in the experimental, amateur-built airplane since he had completed building it. He added that, shortly after departure, while in level cruise flight, he heard a loud "pop" and immediately saw that the left wing's leading-edge slat had buckled and distorted, which made the airplane difficult to control. While maneuvering for an emergency landing, the pilot had to make significant power adjustments to maintain control. After making a right turn to begin the approach to the airport, the right wing's leading-edge slat failed, which resulted in an almost complete loss of airplane control. Subsequently, he guided the airplane to an open road using the rudder and varying the engine power settings. The airplane struck the top of a tree before impacting the road in a nose-low attitude, which resulted in substantial damage to both wings and the fuselage. Each wing was equipped with three carbon fiber leading-edge slats located center, inboard, and outboard. A detailed examination of the airframe and engine revealed that the right wing's leading-edge slats exhibited features consistent with compression failure of the leading edge, trailing edge bond failure, lack of adhesive in the joints, and ply bridging. In addition, the right inboard slat attachment bracket exhibited deformation patterns consistent with an overload failure. The left wing leading edge slats exhibited no leading-edge damage but had signatures consistent with resin starvation. In addition, the left attachment bracket between the inboard and center slats exhibited features consistent with an adhesive failure in the joint and a disbond at the attachment. Microscopic examination of the attachment bracket revealed a lack of adhesion, improper surface preparation, and improper adhesive thickness. No other airframe or engine anomalies were noted.
The airline transport pilot was departing from a remote unimproved airstrip. He stated that, as he initiated the takeoff, everything seemed normal. About 300 ft into the takeoff roll, the airplane veered sharply left, exited the airstrip, and impacted brush and trees, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage and left horizontal stabilator. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the tailwheel had separated from its attachment point and folded underneath the empennage. Visual and magnified optical examinations revealed deformation and fracture patterns consistent with an overstress failure. Although fatigue cracks were observed in the fractured left arm of the tailwheel A-frame, they were relatively small and would not likely have caused a failure without abnormal loading. Additionally, the fractures in the left arm initiated not only at the fatigue cracks but also at locations away from the fatigue cracks, consistent with an overstress fracture. It is likely that the tailwheel A-frame fractured due to excessive side loads on the frame, which led to the tailwheel separating and the subsequent loss of control.
The pilot reported that during the landing touchdown the airplane bounced on the main landing gear then nosed down and the propeller struck the ground.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the engine mount. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
Although federal regulations do not allow a student pilot to carry passengers, the student pilot and a passenger departed from a private airstrip on a personal flight in the airplane. During the flight, the passenger posted on social media a video that showed the airplane maneuvering at low altitude. The airplane subsequently impacted a cornfield at high speed. Examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.Toxicology testing of specimens from the student pilot indicated the use of multiple psychoactive drugs, including alprazolam, cocaine, ethanol, and hydroxyzine. The combined effects of these drugs likely impaired his ability to safely perform low-altitude maneuvers.
The pilot was conducting a personal flight to break in the recently overhauled engine. After about 30 minutes, when the airplane was about 2,000 ft above ground level, the engine started to backfire and lose power. The pilot attempted to troubleshoot the problem by switching fuel tanks; adjusting the engine throttle, mixture, and propeller controls; and selecting the individual magneto positions, to no avail. He performed an emergency landing to a soft field; the airplane subsequently nosed over during the landing roll, and the rudder sustained substantial damage. Postaccident examinations of the airframe, engine, and magnetos found no mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Weather conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to serious carburetor icing at cruise power. Thus, it is likely that the engine lost power due to serious carburetor icing.
The pilot reported that during a night visual meteorological condition flight, he was receiving flight following from air traffic control and had to divert around convective weather. The pilot further reported that about 7 nautical miles from his destination airport, the fuel supply was exhausted and the engine lost power. The pilot was able to touchdown on an interstate, but during the landing roll the right wing struck a sign.The right wing sustained substantial damage.  During a postaccident interview with the National Transportation Safety Board investigator-in-charge, the pilot reported that he was aware of the weather en-route, but he did not anticipate the length of diversion he received from air traffic control. The pilot reported that he should have departed with full fuel. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the pilot of the tricycle landing gear-equipped airplane, during the landing roll in calm wind, the airplane touched down on the main landing gear first and he held the nose landing gear up as long as possible. He reported that while holding the nose landing gear up, the airplane began to drift to the left, and he slowly applied the brakes. He recalled that when the nose gear came down the airplane was too far to the left side of the runway, he continued to apply the brakes and the airplane exited the runway to the left. He reported that the more brake pressure that he applied, the further to the left the airplane drifted. He recalled that he then "removed the throttle" and when he attempted to shut off the fuel, the airplane struck a drainage culvert and sustained substantial damage to the firewall. The pilot reported that he was unsure whether a mechanical anomaly occurred during the landing. Per the Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Safety Inspector that examined the airplane, there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane's brake system.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll in gusty crosswind conditions, the airplane abruptly veered to the left because his right foot had rolled off the right rudder pedal. He further reported that he was able to regain rudder authority, but the airplane was approaching the left edge of the runway and he did not want to "apply hard right rudder" for fear of blowing a tire. Subsequently, the airplane departed the runway surface into soft grass. During the runway excursion, the right main landing gear dug into the grass, folded under the fuselage, and the airplane ground looped.  The left wing sustained substantial damage.  The pilot reported after the accident he found the right rudder foot pad cover had rolled off the rudder pedal and was lying on the cockpit floor.An automated weather observing system at the airport, near the time of the accident, reported the wind at 280 degrees true at 7 knots, gusting to 16 knots. The landing was on runway 26.
The pilot performed touch-and-go landings and go-arounds, then flew about two miles from the airport to practice stalls. After performing three stalls, he was climbing the airplane through 800 ft above ground level and returning toward the airport when the engine lost total power. The pilot established best glide speed and attempted to restart the engine to no avail. He made a left turn toward a nearby road, but when he tried to level the wings, the left wing remained low. He applied full control stick and rudder in an attempt to level the wings, but the airplane continued a left slip toward the ground, where it landed hard and slid to a stop. The reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined based on the available information.
The pilot of the experimental, amateur-built airplane reported that he was demonstrating turns for the passenger while flying at a low altitude when he lost control of the airplane and "stalled." The airplane collided with trees and sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, wings, and empennage. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The helicopter pilot reported that he was flying in support of a utility company crew that was installing line guards for a conductor damper on an energized 161 kilovolts (Kv) electrical transmission line. The transmission line had three phases (power lines) that were separated vertically and staggered horizontally from one another and ran parallel to the ground. The lower phase power line was about 9.5 ft (horizontally) further out from the middle phase power line. While the helicopter was approaching the lines, its main rotor blade clearance from the middle phase line was about 2.5 ft, which resulted in an electrical arc to the main rotor. The pilot landed the helicopter away from the transmission line without further incident. A postaccident examination revealed substantial damage to the main rotor hub and two main rotor blades.The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.According to Occupational Safety & Health Administration 1910.269(I)(10), the minimum approach distance (MAD) is to "ensure that workers do not approach or take any conductive object closer to the energized parts as set forth in the table below (excerpt)." For a voltage of 161 Kv, the MAD for this operation was equal to or greater than 4.00625 ft.
The pilot of the amphibious float-equipped airplane reported that during the touchdown to the north on choppy lake waters the airplane nosed over. The pilot further reported that when he and the passenger egressed from the cockpit and climbed onto the floats he noticed that the wind was 5-7 miles per hour (mph) from the south.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot reported as a safety recommendation that the pilot should get a "better read of the wind direction" prior to landing.
The airline transport pilot and three passengers were departing in the multi-engine airplane when, during the early phase of takeoff, most likely shortly after rotation, the right engine experienced a total loss of power. The power loss occurred during a critical phase of flight, at a time when the airplane was close to or just below the manufacturer's recommended "safe single-engine speed." The hilly terrain surrounding the airport, particularly in the takeoff direction, left the pilot with few options for a safe climb out. Further hindering the takeoff was the airplane's anemic single-engine climb performance due to the high density altitude conditions and the airplane's weight. As a result, shortly after the loss of power, the airplane rolled right, consistent with it flying slower than its minimum controllable single-engine airspeed, collided with the ground, and sustained substantial damage.The pilot and passengers all sustained serious injuries and could not remember the circumstances of the accident.Examination of the right engine revealed that a clear, gelatinous substance had blocked the inlet port of the fuel flow transducer, leading to fuel starvation. The substance was determined to be silicone, most likely room-temperature-vulcanization silicone sealant. There were no indications that this material had been used anywhere within the fuel system, nor were there any signs of recent maintenance that could have resulted in the introduction of this contaminant. To get to the fuel flow transducer, the silicone would have had to pass through multiple fine mesh filters, which was unlikely based on the material's size when dry. However, silicone becomes semi-soluble once in contact with aviation gasoline, and it is possible that it was extruded through the filters in this state, and eventually coalesced in the flow divider inlet port. Smaller fragments of the silicone were found in the fuel manifold valve, beyond the flow divider, and a fuel injector valve port was partially occluded, possibly with the same material.The specific source of contamination could not be determined. The pilot last purchased fuel for the airplane about one month before the accident. Later on the day of purchase, the fuel system was shut down by the airport management due to metering inaccuracies; however, the problems were all electrical Page 2 of 11 WPR16FA176in nature, and did not require the repair or replacement of any components that would have come into contact with fuel.
The pilot of a tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll, the airplane veered off the runway to the right, ground looped, and nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of a tailwheel equipped airplane reported that the left wing of the airplane impacted a tree while maneuvering at low altitude. He further reported that he continued to his intended destination and landed without further incident. After he landed, a subsequent exam of the left wing revealed substantial damage to the left aileron. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The noninstrument-rated private pilot was conducting a visual flight rules (VFR) cross-country flight while receiving VFR flight following services from air traffic control.  Radar data and voice communication information indicated that the airplane was in cruise flight as the pilot deviated around convective weather near his destination. The controller issued a weather advisory to the pilot concerning areas of moderate to extreme precipitation along his route; the pilot responded that he saw the weather on the airplane's NEXRAD weather display system and planned to deviate around it before resuming course. About 3 minutes later, the pilot stated that he was around the weather and requested to start his descent direct toward his destination. The controller advised the pilot to descend at his discretion. Radar showed the airplane in a descending right turn before radar contact was lost at 2,900 ft mean sea level. There were no eyewitnesses, and search personnel reported rain and thunderstorms in the area about the time of the accident.The distribution of the wreckage was consistent with an in-flight breakup. Examination of the airframe revealed overload failures of the empennage and wings. No pre-impact airframe structural anomalies were found, and the propeller showed evidence of rotation at the time of impact. Further, there was no evidence of pilot impairment or incapacitation.Review of weather information indicated that the pilot most likely encountered instrument meteorological conditions as the airplane descended during the last several minutes of flight. During this time, it is likely that the pilot became disoriented while attempting to maneuver in convective, restricted visibility conditions, and lost control of the airplane. The transition from visual to instrument flight conditions would have been conducive to the development of spatial disorientation; the turning descent before the loss of radar contact and the in-flight breakup are also consistent with a loss of control due to spatial disorientation.Page 2 of 11 CEN16FA361