roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
According to the pilot, he had just picked up the airplane after an annual inspection. He conducted a pattern-only flight before departing for a cross-country flight to reposition the airplane. About 30 minutes after takeoff, there was a total loss of engine power and the pilot performed a forced landing on a road. The airplane struck a vehicle during landing, which separated the left wing from the fuselage. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed the mechanical fuel pump shaft had sheared. Further disassembly revealed rotational scoring, heat discoloration, and foreign (aluminum) debris on the pump’s rotor shaft and bearing bore. The scoring and heat discoloration were determined to have occurred due to friction occurring between the rotor shaft and bearing bore. Mechanical damage to the affected components did not allow for the determination of pre-event component measurements, including the rotor shaft or the bearing dimensions.The mechanical fuel pump was a recently rebuilt unit and was installed on the engine during the annual inspection that was completed five days before the accident. The overhaul procedures for the fuel pump specify the bearing to be honed and the rotor to be lubricated during reassembly. Honing to incorrect dimensions or improper lubrication would likely result in increased friction between the two components. Debris between the rotor and bearing could also increase friction. The rubber seal installed at the driven end of the rotor exhibited softening and deformation consistent with thermal distress, which could have allowed debris to enter the fuel pump after the pump began to overheat. Additionally, debris could have been introduced during the rebuild process or during the installation process through the fuel line ports and fittings, but due to the friction damage the source of the debris could not be identified. The fuel pump shaft sheared due to the friction between the rotor shaft and bearing bore; however, damage prevented determination of the source of the friction. Page 2 of 8 WPR22LA259
The pilot reported that he departed on the estimated 1-hour flight with about 110 gallons of fuel onboard. Upon reaching the destination airport, he elected to perform a go-around. During the go-around the left engine lost total power. The airplane descended into a corn field, resulting in substantial damage to both wings.  The second pilot on board reported that, while on final approach for landing, both engines sputtered at about the same time, “like fuel exhaustion.” He estimated the airplane’s total fuel consumption to be about 40 to 45 gallons per hour. He stated that he thought the airplane had about 80 gallons of fuel on board at the time of the accident. A postaccident examination revealed that the fuel selector for the left engine was in the “LEFT MAIN” position and the selector for the right engine was in the “RIGHT MAIN” position. The left main fuel tank (located on the wingtip) separated from the airplane during the impact and was absent of fuel. The right main tank contained about 1 gallon of fuel, the right auxiliary tank contained about 5 gallons of fuel, and the left auxiliary tank and left nacelle tank were absent of fuel. After reconnecting the wiring, fuel quantity indicators were functionally checked with no anomalies noted. During a postaccident engine examination, no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies were found that would have precluded normal operation. The total amount of fuel onboard the airplane before the flight could not be determined; however, given the lack of fuel found in the tanks after the accident and no indications of engine anomalies, it is likely that the loss of engine power was the result of fuel exhaustion. Page 2 of 7 CEN22LA341
Just before touching down to land, the pilot could not remember if he extended the landing gear. He said he then grabbed the gear handle (which was in the down position) and retracted the gear. The glider landed gear up and bounced, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage, tail boom, and tail section.
On the day of the accident, witnesses saw the airplane depart from the runway and enter a near-vertical climb before the airplane’s nose dropped and began a right turn. The airplane remained in a nose-low, near-vertical descent until it impacted a grass field off the end of the runway. Several witnesses had previously watched the pilot take off and perform various aerobatic maneuvers similar to the accident flight.Toxicological tests detected a level of ethanol known to cause some level of impairment. The test results were also consistent with the pilot having consumed alcohol near the time of the flight. Therefore, it is likely that the pilot’s impairment contributed to the  loss of control as the pilot performed an aerobatic maneuver on takeoff.
The banner tow pilot had worked for the operator for about 2 months, and the accident flight was the first flight of the day. The pilot departed from the runway and flew a left traffic pattern to pick up the banner at the approach end of the opposite runway, which was normal procedure. Witnesses stated that the airplane descended between the poles, missed the banner, and the pilot initiated an aggressive, almost vertical climb. One witness stated that it appeared as though the accident pilot "kicked rudder" at the top of the climb to see if he had picked up the banner. The airplane entered an aerodynamic stall/spin and descended to ground contact. Examination of the wreckage did not reveal evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.Based on the available information, it is likely that the pilot exceeded the airplane’s critical angle of attack during the banner pickup attempt, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall/spin and loss of control at an altitude too low to recover.
The pilot landed on a runway that was scheduled to be closed about 9 minutes after he arrived.  A NOTAM had been issued about the closure. The pilot was aware of the NOTAM and confirmed the runway was still open by communicating over the airport’s common traffic advisory frequency before he landed. The pilot said that when he was on short final approach to the runway, the airplane struck the top cross-arms of an unlit airport runway closure marker. The pilot was subsequently able to land safely. The pilot said he was unable to see the marker as he approached the runway due to the nose-high flight attitude of his airplane on approach. The impact with the marker resulted in substantial damage to the airplane’s wing spar. A representative of the engineering company contracted by the airport acknowledged to the Federal Aviation Administration that their employees had moved the marker in front of the runway’s threshold prior to it being closed because they thought they had permission to do so by the airport; however, the person or entity who had granted that permission was never determined.
The pilot was enroute conducting a visual flight rules (VFR) flight at a low altitude. It is likely given the weather conditions and PIREPs that low ceilings obscured the trees and high terrain from the pilot and resulted in a controlled flight into terrain.While the closet METAR reported cloud ceilings above 1,000 ft above ground level (agl), the PIREPs and a sounding analysis program indicated that the ceiling of the clouds was about 300 ft agl near the high terrain. The accident flight likely encountered instrument meteorological conditions and mountain obscuration conditions as the flight approached higher terrain.The pilot’s autopsy revealed significant multivessel atherosclerotic coronary disease with 80-90% narrowing of the left main and left anterior descending coronary arteries, a significant restenosis of a left anterior descending coronary artery stent, and more than 95% narrowing of the right coronary artery. The heart muscle had an area of scarring in the posterior left ventricle and interventricular septum consistent with an old injury from insufficient blood flow. Microscopic examination of the coronary system did not identify any acute clot or plaque rupture. In the autopsy report, the pathologist noted that the pilot’s family had indicated that the pilot had no new health complaints in the weeks before the accident. Due to his heart disease, the pilot was at significantly increased risk of a sudden distracting, impairing, or incapacitating cardiac event, including angina, arrhythmia, or heart attack. There is no forensic evidence that such an event occurred. However, such an event cannot be excluded by forensic evidence alone. Given the available information about the circumstances of the crash, distracting or otherwise impairing symptoms such as chest pain or palpitations cannot be excluded. This pilot may have experienced a physiologic stress response to the poor Page 2 of 8 WPR22FA255weather conditions under which he was flying. A normal stress response would have included increased heart rate, an increase in blood flow demand from his heart, and increased respiratory rate. Physiological stress has been associated with an increased risk of cardiac symptoms such as chest pain or palpitations, most notable in patients with pre-existing cardiac disease. Thus, whether the pilot's heart disease contributed to the crash could not be determined.
The pilot reported that he had just completed an overhaul of the automotive conversion engine that was installed in the experimental amateur-built airplane. Before the day of the accident, the pilot conducted several engine ground runs. During most of the ground runs, the engine would not run smoothly when at the idle throttle setting; however, on the last ground run, the engine ran smoothly at idle. On the day of the accident, the pilot planned to break in the engine during a flight over the airport. After takeoff, while the airplane was climbing to traffic pattern altitude, the pilot felt something dripping onto his leg and decided to perform a precautionary landing. When he pulled the throttle back to idle to initiate a descent, the engine stopped producing power. Unable to restore power to the engine, he elected to execute a forced landing, during which the left wing impacted a tree. Although the pilot did not run the engine after the accident, his postaccident examination of the engine revealed no anomaly that would have precluded normal operation. The atmospheric conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to carburetor icing at glide power; however, the airplane’s engine was at a climb power setting before the pilot reduced the throttle to idle to initiate the descent. Therefore, it is not likely that the loss of engine power was the result of carburetor ice. Since the pilot had just completed an overhaul of the engine and the engine would not run smoothly at idle during several engine ground runs, it is likely that the engine idle setting was misadjusted, which resulted in the engine losing power when the throttle was reduced to idle.
The pilot reported that shortly after departure, during their initial climb, he heard a “thump” and suspected a bird strike. The crew did not experience any control issues or anomalous behavior initially but continued to troubleshoot. As they were approaching 10,000 ft mean sea level, they noticed that the cabin altitude was also approaching 10,000 ft, so they leveled off and determined that they had a pressurization problem. After conferring with their flight operations and maintenance department, they notified air traffic control and diverted to a suitable airport and landed safely. Upon subsequent inspection it was revealed that a bird had penetrated the right side of the nose under the first officer’s window. The impact ruptured the fuselage and resulted in substantial airframe damage.
The accident occurred shortly after the non-instrument rated pilot and passenger departed the airport on a visual flight rules flight in instrument meteorological conditions. Two pilots at the airport reported that the weather was poor at the time of the takeoff, with low ceilings and rain prevailing. After the departure, a local resident who lived about 1.5 miles south of the airport heard the airplane over his property for about 30 seconds, and the engine was “revving up” before the airplane crashed in the woods near his house. The airplane impacted trees and terrain at a steep, nose-low descent angle. The fragmentation of the wreckage and damage to the terrain at the accident site were indicative of a high-speed impact. Examination of the wreckage did not reveal evidence of a preexisting mechanical failure or anomaly that would have precluded normal operation of the airframe or engine. There was no evidence that the pilot obtained a weather briefing prior to the flight. The family of the pilot reported that the purpose of the flight was to attend an event in another state, that he had missed a similar previous event, and that did not want to miss this one. The pilot most likely entered instrument meteorological conditions immediately after takeoff, experienced spatial disorientation, and lost control of the airplane. The pressure that the pilot placed upon himself to attend the event was likely a factor in the accident.
The pilot reported that after landing on a river with low water levels, the left float dug into the shallow water, and the airplane turned hard left into the riverbank.  The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was descending toward the destination airport when the engine began losing power and “making noises.” The pilot switched fuel tanks, but the power loss continued. He subsequently began looking for a place to land the airplane. The pilot then heard what sounded like an “explosion” from the engine. The oil service door blew open and began spewing oil and smoke from the service door opening, covering the windscreen. Smoke then began entering the cabin. The pilot landed on a road with the landing gear retracted, and the airplane slid to a stop. The airplane caught on fire, and the pilot egressed before the cockpit was consumed. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the Nos. 5 and 6 connecting rods were fractured. The No. 5 connecting rod was missing and the No. 6 connecting rod exhibited thermal discoloration consistent with a loss of lubrication. The crankshaft and camshaft were fractured at the No. 5 cylinder. Review of the engine logbook revealed that about 100 flight hours (5 months) before the accident flight, engine through-bolt nuts were removed and resealed for oil leaks. Given this information, it is likely that maintenance personnel did not properly torque the crankcase through-bolts, which allowed the No. 5 main bearing to shift, resulting in loss of lubrication to that area and subsequent engine failure.
The student pilot was practicing pattern work and while turning onto the base leg of the traffic pattern, inadvertently pulled the mixture knob instead of applying carburetor heat, resulting in a total loss of power. She attempted to restart the engine by pushing the mixture knob back in, however, the propeller had already stopped rotating and the engine did not restart. The student pilot elected to perform a forced landing to a field. During the approach to the field, she realized the airplane was too fast and decided to land in an adjacent field. During the landing, the right wing of the airplane struck a guy wire, which resulted in substantial damage to the airplane. The student pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that while on final approach, the airplane was “high”, so he pulled off power to lose altitude and reduce airspeed. As the airplane was nearing the runway, the airplane entered an inadvertent aerodynamic stall. The stall horn sounded as the airplane pitched up, and the left wing lost lift. The airplane collided with terrain in a left-wing low attitude. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failure with the airplane that would have precluded normal operations. The pilot also reported that he did not add power which allowed the airplane to enter a stall.
Law enforcement reported the airplane overflew a tractor-trailer, landed on the interstate roadway, and impacted a guardrail. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. The student pilot reported to law enforcement that the airplane ran out of fuel. While on-scene at the accident location, the pilot was arrested for driving while intoxicated and operating an aircraft while intoxicated. The pilot refused to provide a statement of the accident.
The pilot reported that, during a landing attempt at a remote airstrip, the airplane descended below glide path and landed short of the intended landing location in an area of uneven terrain.  The airplane landed hard and sustained substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The non-certificated pilot and his passenger lifted off about halfway down the 1,650 ft grass runway. During the initial climb, the airplane drifted to the left without gaining sufficient altitude to clear trees bordering the left side of the runway. As they approached the trees, the pilot increased the pitch attitude to clear them; in doing so, the airspeed degraded below the stall speed of 31 knots while simultaneously striking the tree branches. The airplane then descended and impacted terrain. A postaccident examination of the wreckage revealed no preimpact mechanical malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. Engine sounds recorded on a wing-mounted video camera revealed the engine was operating normally during the entire flight. The debris path and impact signatures were consistent with an aerodynamic stall. Based on the evidence, the pilot turned towards the trees after takeoff and made a decision to fly over them. However, in doing so he exceeded the airplane’s critical angle of attack, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and loss of control. The investigation identified no issues that would have affected the airplane’s climb performance.
The pilot reported that during the landing rollout on a remote sandbar, the airplane’s left wing impacted a tree, which resulted in substantial damage to the wings and left aileron. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation, and that the accident may have been prevented if he would have stayed in the center of the landing area.
The pilot reported that, after evaluating an off-airport landing site he proceeded with an approach to landing. During the landing rollout, excessive braking was applied and the airplane subsequently nosed-over which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing, right lift strut, vertical stabilizer, and rudder. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the pilot, during the landing roll as he applied the brakes, he observed they felt “very soft.” As he continued to apply full pressure, he experienced a very low deceleration rate. He continued to pump the brakes with minimum results and executed turns to attempt to slow the airplane down. The airplane continued to roll and exited the runway before colliding with an embankment. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed the left wing and fuselage were substantially damaged. An examination of the braking system revealed that a brake line under the floorboard was leaking hydraulic fluid. Given this information, it is likely that the degraded braking action the pilot reported during the landing was the result of the leaking brake line.
The pilot reported that while in cruise flight to their destination, the weather deteriorated, and the pilot deviated to remain in visual flight conditions. A passenger informed the pilot that the fuel remaining was showing low. The pilot saw the low fuel reading and noted that headwind was stronger than expected. The airplane then encountered severe turbulence and strong downdrafts. Soon after, the engine began to run rough, and the pilot suspecting an impeding loss of engine power due to fuel, performed a forced landing to a field. Just prior to touchdown, the engine stopped producing power due to fuel exhaustion. The airplane landed and the right main landing gear collapsed. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the horizontal stabilizer, right elevator, and rudder. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. He also reported that prior to the flight he estimated the fuel available would be sufficient to reach their destination plus reserve fuel. He also stated that this flight was his first as pilot in command and that he did not know the exact fuel consumption for the airplane. The pilot suggested that the accident could have been avoided with better equipment as a weather radar and a GPS navigation system.
The pilot departed on a visual flight rules (VFR) cross-country flight. Recorded automatic dependent surveillance – broadcast (ADS-B) data showed the airplane ascended to a cruise altitude of 17,450 ft mean sea level (msl) where it remained for about 9 minutes, 17 seconds until a descent was observed. The data showed the airplane descended 2,050 ft in 12 seconds, followed by brief 175 ft ascent. The airplane then descended 1,075 ft during the final 4 seconds of ADS-B data, which equated to about a 12,000 ft-per-minute descent rate. The last recorded ADS-B target was located about .46 miles northwest of the accident site, about 5,680 ft above ground level (agl). A witness located about 4 miles south of the accident site reported that they heard the airplane and it sounded fine until they heard a distinct over-rev of the engine, followed by the sound of the impact. Fire crews were responding to reports of a wildland fire when they located the wreckage of the airplane in rugged mountainous terrain.Based on High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR) sounding and satellite imagery, the airplane most likely encountered instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) with moderate and greater convectively induced turbulence during the last 5 minutes before the accident.  Postaccident examination of the recovered wreckage revealed no evidence of any preexisting mechanical malfunction that would have precluded normal operation. The outboard 65 inches of the right wing was not located within the recovered wreckage. Given the high descent rate recorded during the final few seconds of the flight, coupled with the missing section of the wing, it’s likely that the airplane broke up in flight following an encounter with moderate or greater turbulence while in IMC.  Page 2 of 9 WPR22LA253The autopsy examination was limited by the condition of the pilot’s body so it could not be determined if there may have been an impairing or incapacitating event. While the impairing anxiolytic medication diazepam and its metabolites were found in liver tissue, there were no blood specimens available to determine if the medication was at a therapeutic level. Thus, whether the pilot’s medical conditions and effects from his use of diazepam were a factor in this accident could not be determined from the available medical evidence.