roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
After arrival to the destination airport near the conclusion of a cross-country flight the private pilot reported the landing gear circuit breaker (CB) tripped after he attempted to lower the landing gear electrically via the normal method. He reset the CB and again attempted to lower the landing gear via the normal method, but the same CB tripped. He overflew the airport then flew towards the coast where he reviewed the airplane’s Pilot’s Operating Handbook and attempted multiple times to manually lower the landing gear but was unsuccessful. He also contacted his mechanic to obtain assistance, but he was unable to lower the landing gear. At the suggestion of his mechanic, he diverted to a larger nearby airport where he performed a go-around on the first approach because the flight was too fast, then returned and landed gear-up.According to maintenance personnel associated with recovery of the airplane, lowering the landing gear required them to disconnect the push/pull tubes near the landing gear actuator for each landing gear. Further, the emergency cable activation lever would not move and was “jammed….” Following removal of the push/pull tubes near the actuator the emergency cable activation lever would only travel about 90%. Following removal of the actuator from the airplane, manual operation revealed the actuator turned freely in the retracted direction but would not turn in the gear extension direction. Disassembly inspection of the clutch drive assembly of the landing gear actuator revealed one “tang” of the torsion spring associated with gear extension was fractured. By system design the emergency extension system did not bypass the clutch and damaged spring; thus, a single point failure (torsion spring) precluded manual and normal extension of the landing gear. According to airframe manufacturer, the landing gear actuator and fractured torsion spring are no longer available or supported, but they do have a retrofit for the landing gear actuator. An airframe manufacturer service instruction specified replacement of the torsion spring in the drive clutch assembly of the landing gear actuator was last performed nearly 5 years and 427 hours earlier. The service instruction, due every 1,000 hours, was due again in about 573 Page 2 of 5 ERA22LA319hours. The mechanic who performed the airplane’s last annual inspection nearly 8 months and 49 hours earlier reported that as part of that inspection he performed in part, normal and emergency extension checks of the landing gear and found no issues. He did not perform any maintenance to the landing gear except for lubrication.
The pilot reported that, while approaching the destination airport, he moved the fuel selector from the left main fuel tank to the right main fuel tank. About 5 miles from the airport, he completed the before-landing checklist and reduced the engine power setting to 15 inches of manifold pressure while he slowly advanced the propeller lever forward. Shortly after, the engine lost total power. The pilot immediately verified that the position of the mixture was full rich, and that the fuel boost pump was on. The pilot moved the fuel selector lever from the right main tank to left main tank, but then decided to switch back to the right main tank, as the right tank contained more fuel. The engine briefly started, but again lost all power. The pilot initiated a forced landing to an open field and the airplane impacted a dirt berm during the landing roll, resulting in substantial damage to the right wing. Postaccident examination of the engine and engine systems revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical failure or malfunction. Examination of the fuel supply and fuel vent systems revealed no evidence of blockage, and the fuel selector functioned normally when tested. At the accident site, the left main fuel tank contained about one gallon of fuel; the right main, right auxiliary, and left auxiliary tanks all appeared full. Additionally, the pilot reported that he examined the fuel tanks immediately after the accident; the right tank was full, and he could not see any fuel in the left main tank.  Although the environmental conditions at the time of the accident were favorable for serious carburetor icing at glide power or reduced power settings, the pilot reported that he reduced engine power for landing just before the loss of power occurred; therefore, the airplane had not been operating at reduced power settings for an extended period of time; therefore, it is unlikely that carburetor icing resulted in the interruption of the fuel flow.Page 2 of 7 WPR22LA213Although the pilot’s statement indicated that he switched fuel tanks several minutes before the loss of engine power, given the distribution of the fuel in the tanks following the accident and the lack of any mechanical anomalies found during postaccident examination, it is most likely that the pilot exhausted the available fuel in the left main tank, resulting in fuel starvation and a total loss of engine power.
The pilot was taking the gyroplane on a short test flight. After adding fuel, the pilot ran the engine multiple times on the ground and completed multiple taxi tests to check the brakes and steering mechanism. The pilot was satisfied that everything was functional and decided to attempt a flight in the airport traffic pattern. Shortly after takeoff the engine lost power. The pilot attempted to return to the airport, but the gyroplane impacted powerlines and the ground, resulting in substantial damage.During a postaccident examination of the wreckage, the pilot found that there was a large piece of debris obstructing a majority of the fuel filter inlet. Another large piece of debris was observed in the fuel tank. All the debris found were consistent in color and texture with silicone sealant used on the fuel quantity sending unit. Based on this information, it is likely that the sealant debris found in the fuel filter inlet obstructed the flow of fuel to the engine and resulted in the total loss of engine power.
The pilot reported that, during landing on a private airstrip in a tailwheel equipped airplane, he was distracted and landed the airplane beyond his intended touchdown point and at a higher rate of speed than anticipated. After touchdown, he overapplied the brakes, and the airplane subsequently nosed over which resulted in substantial damage to the rudder. The pilot stated that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was departing for a local flight after a successful engine run-up when the accident occurred. He reported that while starting a left turn the engine rpm fluctuated before the engine lost all power. While flying slightly above the trees, the airplane stall/mushed and descended into the trees, coming to rest in a nose-low attitude. Examination of the fuel supply system and postaccident operational testing of the engine using the same fuel as the time of the accident revealed no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction.Although the airplane was operated at a low power setting shortly before takeoff in environmental conditions that were favorable for serious icing at glide power, the engine was developing near full power during the subsequent takeoff. The empty carburetor bowl found during the postaccident examination likely occurred because of fuel leakage after coming to rest. The reason for the reported loss of engine power could not be determined based on the available evidence.
The pilot of the amphibian airplane reported that, during takeoff from the lake, the airplane encountered a gust of wind, which lifted the left wing.  While correcting the airplane encountered a second gust of wind, which raised the left wing, resulting in the right wingtip striking the water.  Subsequently, the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted within the water, which resulted in 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 said the traffic pattern was busy, so he began the pre-rotation process as he taxied the gyroplane onto the runway to depart. At that time, the rotor disk rpm was at 140 rpm, which was 20 rpm above the recommended takeoff speed. The pilot said he slowly applied power because he had a passenger onboard, which may have allowed time for the disk speed to decay and become susceptible to blade flap. During the takeoff roll, the gyroplane’s main rotor blades struck and severed the tail assembly, resulting in substantial damage. The pilot said there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot had recently purchased the twin-engine airplane, and before the accident flight had completed a preflight inspection, which included sampling fuel from both main fuel tanks and cross feed lines. He started both engines and noted no anomalies during the run-up. During the initial climb the airplane started to yaw to the right and shake. He subsequently transferred control of the airplane to the pilot-rated passenger, who was the previous owner of the airplane. The pilot-rated passenger told the pilot to secure the right engine, which he did. The pilot-rated passenger then attempted to return to the airport but the airplane struck trees, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage, both wings, the tail, and serious injuries to both occupants.   Postaccident examination of both engines found no evidence of a preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The airplane’s fuel tanks were breached during the accident sequence, and the quantity and condition of the fuel onboard the airplane could not be confirmed. The pilot reported obtaining fuel before the flight, and a witness reported smelling a fuel-like odor when he arrived at the accident site immediately after the accident. The fueler reported that the fuel supply had been tested twice with negative results for water contamination. While the temperature and dewpoint at the time of the accident were favorable for the formation of carburetor ice at glide [idle] engine power settings, given that the airplane was taking off when the loss of engine power to one engine occurred, it is not likely that carburetor icing played a role in the loss of engine power. Based on available information, the reason for the total loss of engine power for the right engine could not be determined. Page 2 of 9 ERA22LA265
The pilot reported that during the landing to the first one-third of the runway, the airplane bounced, and the pilot applied full power for a go-around. With the flaps still extended 30°, the nose of the airplane pitched up and yawed to the right. The right wing stalled, and then the right wing tip impacted the runway. The pilot leveled the wings, reduced the pitch attitude, and arrested the yaw. The airplane then departed the runway. The pilot decided to abandon the go-around attempt and closed the throttle. The airplane entered waist-high grass and the left main landing gear collapsed in the soft soil. The airplane rapidly decelerated, remaining upright, and came to a stop. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and to the fuselage. The pilot reported there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airframe or the engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during departure the airplane encountered windshear and he could not maintain directional control. The airplane veered off the right side of the runway and collided with two fences. The airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. The wings and fuselage were substantially damaged. 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 had returned to the airport for landing after conducting a local personal flight. He was performing a lefthand traffic pattern and was turning from base leg to final approach when the airplane departed controlled flight and impacted a flat dirt field. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and vertical stabilizer. The pilot reported that he did not remember any of the events after the airplane entered the airport traffic pattern except for radio calls that he made and that the airplane operated normally during the flight. A postaccident examination revealed no mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
As the pilot maneuvered the glider in the airport traffic pattern, he radioed that he experienced a heavy sink rate. Shortly thereafter, the glider impacted the ground on airport property. Airport and weather surveillance cameras recorded blowing dust indicating gusting wind. Further meteorological reports supported the possibility of wind speeds up to 67 knots due to a downdraft, outflow boundary, or gust front.Airport surveillance video showed the glider descend in a left wing low, nose low attitude before it struck the ground. About the same time a dust cloud was seen on the video travelling the same direction as the glider, indicating a tailwind.Postaccident examination of the glider did not reveal any mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The examination also revealed that the glider’s retractable engine was stowed within the aft fuselage and was not available to enhance the glider’s climb capability.The accident occurred at the end of a flight that exceeded 5 hours in duration, and it is unknown if the pilot had access to or had received updated weather information during the flight. The terminal area forecast before departure did not indicate a chance of precipitation or rain showers for the accident site. However, about 4 hours before the accident it was updated to include the potential for convective activity.Based on the available evidence, the glider entered an area with weather conditions that included downdrafts and wind gusts, that the pilot could not overcome before the glider impacted the ground.Page 2 of 8 CEN22FA240
While enroute on a cross-country flight, an aural alarm sounded that indicated the oil pressure was low. The pilot turned to the nearest airport for a precautionary landing and attempted to troubleshoot the issue, but the engine remained very “sluggish.” While maneuvering toward the airport the pilot could not maintain altitude and made an off-field landing into a field about 7.5 miles from the airport. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and forward section of the fuselage during the forced landing. No preimpact anomalies were found with the airframe, fuel-injected engine, or engine oil system that would have precluded normal operations. The engine had continuity throughout its drive system. The engine controls were connected and secured from the cockpit to the engine and the oil and fuel lines were connected and secured. The engine oil cooler and associated oil lines did not show any evidence of oil leakage. Oil was present in the oil lines, engine oil sump, and oil pump. The oil pump turned freely with no binding. The reason for the low oil pressure warning and the subsequent partial loss of engine power could not be determined.
The student pilot reported that he was performing takeoffs and landings when the airplane bounced twice during landing. The student pilot applied full engine power after the second landing bounce, but the airplane descended and impacted the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and wings. The pilot’s flight instructor, who was monitoring the flight from the ground, reported that he heard an application of full engine power and saw the airplane enter a higher pitch attitude after the airplane bounced a second time, and stalled about 10 ft. above the runway. There were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions of the airplane that would have precluded normal airplane operation.
The student pilot reported that during the takeoff roll the airplane began “drifting to the left” of the runway centerline. The airplane briefly became airborne as the pilot attempted to apply opposite rudder. The airplane then landed hard and came to rest in a grassy area at the end of the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the forward fuselage and nose wheel landing gear. The student 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 was attending a backcountry flying course and had conducted several off-airport landings on various backcountry airstrips prior to returning to the destination airport. During the landing roll, the left brake “flopped” under his foot with no pressure and the airplane veered to the right. The airplane exited the right side of the runway and traveled down an embankment, where the left wing and tail contacted the down-sloping terrain. Examination of the brake caliper and brake line components revealed that the brake line fitting had fracture separated. A contact mark was observed on the brake caliper aft of the fitting. Metallurgical examination of the fracture surfaces on the brake line fitting revealed that it had fractured due to overstress. It is likely that, while operating on an unimproved surface, the brake line fitting struck an object that fractured the fitting. The loss of functionality in the left brake caused the loss of directional control during the subsequent landing.
The pilot was conducting a test flight following recent maintenance when, shortly after departing, the engine began to lose power. He performed a forced landing on airport property, during which the airplane landed hard and sustained substantial damage. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the fuel filter b-nut fitting was not properly torqued, which likely introduced air into the fuel system. Additionally, there was no restricted bypass line between the inlet (pressure side of the fuel pump module) and the return line and no vent line from the header tank, both of which would have allowed the venting of air from the fuel system. Based on this evidence, it is likely that the loose fuel filter b-nut allowed the air into the fuel system that could not be properly vented due to the lack of a restricted bypass line and vent line, which ultimately resulted in the loss of engine power.
The pilot reported that while landing his tricycle-gear equipped airplane he flared too high and touched down harder than expected. Examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the engine firewall.   The pilot reported that there were no pre-accident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that while taxiing for a local night flight, he heard a slight noise that originated from the front of the airplane.  When the stopped the airplane short of the runway, the noise stopped. During the takeoff roll, a louder noise occurred and shortly after the airplane lifted off the ground, the pilot elected to abort the takeoff and pitched nose down. The airplane contacted the runway and bounced multiple times, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage. A postaccident examination conducted by maintenance personnel could not determine a reason for the noise. A flight instructor, who flew the airplane earlier in the day, reported that he heard a noise that he thought was coming from the nosewheel shimmy dampener. Except for the noise the pilot heard, he reported no other mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that while landing, the airplane touched down on the main landing gear and then bounced. On the second bounce, the nose landing gear collapsed, the left main landing gear collapsed, and the left wing impacted the ground. The airplane departed the runway and came to a stop in the grass. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during an attempted takeoff in a tailwheel equipped airplane, he experienced a left crosswind as he lifted the tail and the airplane veered off the left side of the runway and impacted terrain. The right wing and fuselage were substantially damaged. 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 was taking off from a 14-ft-wide gravel road. He started a “fast taxi” to clear a road sign on the left side of the road. During the fast taxi, the pilot thought that the airplane “got a gust of wind” and became airborne. The pilot added full throttle and the left wing struck the road sign. The airplane veered to the left onto grass and came to rest upright in the adjacent field. The left and right wings and the forward fuselage sustained substantial damage.
The airplane was the fourth air tour company airplane to land at a remote beach site as part of a bear viewing flight. The pilot set up for a landing on the same tracks as the three previous company airplanes. During the landing, the left main landing gear wheel touched down first, followed by the right main landing gear wheel. When the right wheel touched down, the pilot heard a “pop” sound and the airplane veered to the right. The airplane slowly came to rest upright and sustained substantial damage to the left wing and right horizontal stabilizer. Postaccident examination revealed that the right main landing gear leg was fractured near the wheel attachment fitting.Materials laboratory examination of the right main landing gear leg revealed that the gear leg fractured during landing due to fatigue cracks that initiated from localized corrosion pitting. The area of the fatigue cracks which was absent paint and primer, contained many elements typical of salt corrosion in a marine environment. Repeated abrasive wear from landings on rough terrain or runway asphalt had likely removed the protective coatings in the area of the fatigue cracks.