roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
A friend of the copilot reported this was the multiengine airplane’s first flight since the (single-engine-rated) copilot purchased it five years before the accident. He stated that the purpose of the flight was to conduct touch-and-go landings. Another (multiengine-rated) pilot was flying in the left seat, with the copilot flying in the right seat. On the day of the accident, when the friend arrived at the airport, he noticed that the airplane was not in the traffic pattern. After a few hours, he became concerned and reported the airplane missing to local authorities, and it was found the next morning in a heavily wooded area about one mile away from the airport. There were no witnesses to the accident.Postaccident examination of the wreckage revealed that the airplane’s left propeller displayed signatures indicative of low rotational speed at impact, suggesting that the airplane’s left engine may have lost at least partial power. The right propeller showed signatures consistent with high rotational speed/power settings at the time of impact. Examination of the left engine’s fuel servo revealed that it was heavily contaminated with sediment and that the fuel pump had weak suction and compression. Either or both of these conditions could have reduced the left engine’s performance during the flight. Additionally, the airplane was found with its wing flaps extended, the landing gear not retracted, and the left engine’s propeller was not feathered. A representative from the airplane’s type certificate holder stated that, depending on the airplane’s takeoff weight, it generally could not maintain level flight during an engine-out condition unless the flaps and landing gear were up and the failed engine’s propeller was feathered. While there were no witnesses to the accident or other recorded data to suggest what flight regime the airplane was in when the loss of engine power occurred, given the stated purpose Page 2 of 9 ERA22FA351of the flight and the findings of the postaccident examination of the wreckage, it is likely that, while maneuvering the airplane in the airport traffic pattern, the airplane’s left engine lost power and the airplane subsequently impacted trees and terrain. Given the configuration of the wing flaps and landing gear and the unfeathered position of the left propeller, it is likely that the airplane’s single-engine performance was degraded.
The pilot stated that the accident flight was the sixth or seventh aerial application flight that he performed on the day of the accident. He stated that the run-up and takeoff for flight were normal. When he turned toward the intended field of application, he “noticed a lack of performance.” The pilot attempted to restore airplane performance without success. He dumped the load of aerial applicant, and airplane then impacted trees and terrain. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and postcrash fire. The pilot stated that at the time of the accident the engine instrument indications, which included engine power and propeller speed. A postaccident examination of the engine revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation, and the reason for the airplane’s reported lack of performance was not determined.
The pilot had purchased the airplane as a “barn find” and reported that it had not been flown or serviced in 12 years. The accident flight was the first flight following completion of an annual inspection. While en route, the airplane sustained a total loss of electrical power, and the pilot diverted to a nearby airport. The pilot was able to lower the landing gear using the emergency landing gear extension system, and he prepared for a faster than normal landing because he was unable to lower the electrically actuated wing flaps. After touchdown, the airplane veered left, and the pilot was unable to correct. The airplane exited the runway and impacted a utility box, which collapsed the landing gear, resulting in substantial damage.Postaccident examination of the airframe revealed that the left main wheel rotated, but it was “hard to spin.” There was no evidence of any other preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he was completing an aerial application flight about 6 ft above the corn field when the engine sustained a loss of power. The helicopter descended into the corn and impacted the field. A small postcrash fire ensued near the engine and was extinguished.Postaccident examination revealed all external air, fuel, and oil line connections were tight except for the pneumatic air line (Pc line) B-nut connecting the power turbine governor (PTG) to the fuel control unit (FCU). The Pc line was not connected to the FCU and a gap was noted between the B-nut and FCU union. Residual torque paint was identified; however, there was no new-effective torque paint identified on any B-Nut. It appeared the B-nut had backed off the FCU fitting. This Pc is one of several that use air pressure to communicate fuel scheduling demands between the PTG and FCU. The security of this line is necessary for proper engine operation. Operation of the engine without the B-nut properly connected would result in the FCU reducing fuel to a sub-idle condition, with the engine not capable of producing power for continued flight.There were no other mechanical functions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Maintenance was performed on the helicopter 23 days and 12 flight hours before the accident. It is likely that the maintenance personnel did not properly torque this B-but or apply torque stripe paint, which resulted in a disconnection of the B-nut and a loss of engine power.
The pilot reported that on the first aerial application flight of the day, he saw a wire on the edge of the field to be sprayed and decided that he could fly under the wire to perform the spray pass. During the pass, the airplane’s rudder struck the wire and tore the rudder off. The airplane returned to the departure airport and during landing, lost directional control due to missing rudder and ground looped. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the rudder from the wire strike and to the fuselage during the ground loop. The pilot reported that there was no preaccident failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during an aerial application flight in a helicopter, he mistakenly thought a power pole he had observed during an overflight was the termination point of a powerline. He stated that he failed to notice another power pole that was obscured by trees near a small house and impacted the lines between the poles during a spray pass. The helicopter subsequently impacted terrain. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, tail boom and main rotor blades.  The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during landing on the grass runway the nose landing gear contacted the runway hard, and the airplane bounced. The airplane landed again on the nose landing gear and bounced two more times in an “unstable oscillation” that he had never experienced before. The pilot stopped the airplane on the runway, then taxied to the ramp without further incident. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the fuselage and firewall. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
While en route to his home airport, the student pilot reported that the engine rpm momentarily decreased. When the engine rpm decreased a second time, he reported to air traffic control that he had engine issues. The student pilot applied carburetor heat, and engine power was restored, but shortly thereafter the engine lost total power. Unable to reach the destination airport, the student pilot performed a forced landing to a field. During the landing, the airplane collided with trees and a fence line, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage.Postaccident examination of the airframe revealed both the left and right fuel tanks were empty when checked with a dipstick and no fuel came out when either tank was sumped. About 7 ounces of fuel was sumped from the fuel strainer and an additional empty water bottle of fuel was drained from the bottom of the engine after the airplane was recovered. After the accident the engine started and ran for about 10 minutes before it quit.Fuel range and endurance calculations were performed using automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) data and the student pilot’s statements. The student pilot had fully fueled the airplane on the morning of the accident and departed to another airport to meet with a flight instructor for several flights. The total flight time was calculated to be about 4 hours. The student reported using a full rich mixture setting during the flight and estimated the airplane consumed about 6 gallons per hour. The total fuel capacity of the airplane was 26 gallons of which 22.5 gallons were listed as being usable. The circumstances of the accident are consistent with fuel exhaustion. The fact that the engine started and ran on residual fuel in the fuel system is evidence that there were no Page 2 of 6 CEN22LA355mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have prevented normal operation of the engine during the flight.
The pilot reported that he departed in his single-engine airplane on a cross-country flight with 62 gallons of fuel when he sustained a loss of engine power about 2 hours and 20 minutes into the flight. The pilot made a forced landing and the airplane impacted trees, which resulted in damage to the fuselage, both wings, and the tail section. Examination of the airplane revealed about 8 gallons of fuel in the left-wing tank. The right-wing tank was breached and no fuel was recovered. The fuel selector valve was set to the right tank and some fuel was found in the valve. No preimpact mechanical malfunctions or deficiencies with the airplane or engine were identified that would have contributed to a loss of engine power. As such, it could not be determined why the engine to lose power.The airplane was equipped with an integrated avionics system that recorded the airplane’s flight and engine data. Data downloaded from the unit confirmed the loss of engine power described by the pilot. The data indicated the airplane consumed a total of 14 gallons of fuel for the 2 hour and 26-minute flight, with a fuel consumption rate of 5.3 gph. However, the actual average fuel consumption rate for the engine was about 15 gph, so the indicated consumption rate portrayed by the data for the accident flight was likely incorrect. This erroneous indication may have been due to the pilot not entering the quantity of “fuel remaining” into the system before engine start and opting to use the calibrated fuel quantity gauges.
The pilot reported that he was taking off from a short field when he realized the airplane was not achieving enough speed for takeoff. About two-thirds down the runway he aborted the takeoff. The airplane continued off the end of the runway, struck a ditch, and nosed over coming to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the forward fuselage and empennage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
While conducting an aerial application flight, the airplane’s left wing contacted a power line on the western edge of the field. The airplane subsequently impacted the ground nose-low and a postimpact fire ensued. Examination of the wreckage did not reveal any anomalies which would have precluded normal operation of the airplane.
After an uneventful preflight inspection and engine start, the pilot took off from the turf runway and was planning on staying in the airport traffic pattern. During the initial climb, about 50 ft above ground level, the engine abruptly lost power and the propeller continued to windmill. The airplane’s low altitude prevented the pilot from troubleshooting except for switching fuel tanks and the application of carburetor heat, which both failed to restart the engine. The airplane touched down hard at the end of the runway, collapsing the gear and causing impact damage to the right wing and engine compartment. Weather at the time of the accident was conducive for the formation of carburetor ice at the glide power setting, but not at a high takeoff power setting. Additionally, the examination of the engine did not reveal any preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal engine operation. Therefore, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
According to the pilot, while landing, the airplane bounced twice and during the landing roll the airplane veered to the right. The pilot applied left rudder, but the airplane continued to turn right and came to a stop. Once the pilot egressed the airplane, he noticed that the left main landing gear had collapsed. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that it had sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and left wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that after landing, he planned to make an immediate departure. During the takeoff roll, about halfway down the turf runway, the airplane traveled over “rough runway conditions” and bounced several times. The pilot assessed the situation and decided to abort the takeoff. Due to the rough surface and the constant bouncing of the airplane, the pilot was unable to stop the airplane before it departed the runway. The airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted, and the pilot was able to egress from the airplane without further incident. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing, the left wing strut, and the vertical stabilizer. The pilot reported there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airframe and the engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor stated that the approach during the student’s fifth landing became unstable. The airplane was near the runway edge when the instructor told the student pilot to initiate a go-around. The instructor said that full engine power was applied, but there was no major increase in thrust. The flight instructor then took the controls from the student but was unable to regain control of the airplane. The airplane then impacted the ground alongside the runway and sustained substantial damage to the wings. Postaccident examination of the airframe and testing of the engine revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have resulted in the engine not producing full power.
About 30 minutes after takeoff on a cross-country flight, the pilot noticed an increase in engine exhaust gas temperatures (EGTs) for all cylinders. The engine then briefly “stuttered,” and he decided to divert to an airport en route for a precautionary landing. The EGTs then returned to normal, and he decided to continue to the original destination. However, during the landing approach, the EGTs again began to rise; the engine lost all power; and the airplane landed short of the runway and struck approach lights, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing and stabilator.Data recorded by the airplane’s engine monitor showed the EGT increases that were reported by the pilot. Disassembly of the fuel injection servo revealed significant internal corrosion and corrosion deposits along with evidence of water ingestion. The corrosion deposits likely resulted in a partial blockage (restriction) of fuel to the cylinders, which manifested itself as a lean fuel mixture. This lean mixture was consistent with the observed increase in EGTs. During the final approach, the blockage likely became severe enough to result in the total loss of power.The fuel injection servo manufacturer recommends by service bulletin that the unit should be overhauled either every 12 years or at the time of engine overhaul. The unit had last been overhauled 23 years before the accident, and it was not overhauled at the last engine overhaul 10 years before the accident. Additionally, the service bulletin stated that the unit should be overhauled in the event of water contamination. The unit had clearly ingested water at some point during its life, although it could not be determined when this occurred.Page 2 of 9 WPR22LA287
The pilot reported that, while maneuvering the balloon for a pre-dawn hot air balloon flight, the balloon struck a power line that he did not see. The contact created an on-board fire, which resulted in serious injuries to two passengers. The pilot was able to land safety in a grass field.
The medical helicopter was flying a 15-minute flight from its base to a hospital to pick up a patient for transfer to another hospital. The cruise portion of the flight was uneventful. As the helicopter began its descent to the hospital helipad, the pilot lost consciousness, as witnessed by the flight paramedic. The helicopter then departed controlled flight and impacted a field about 1 mile from the hospital helipad. During a posaccident examination of the helicopter, no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures of the helicopter were identified, nor did the pilot report any. After the accident, the pilot was admitted to a hospital and underwent evaluation for injury and syncope (loss of consciousness), but no definitive cause of the syncope was identified. Toxicological testing detected ethanol at 0.024 g/dL in a blood specimen collected from the pilot more than 1.5 hours after the crash and detected ethanol in his urine. Testing also detected the cocaine metabolites benzoylecgonine and cocaethylene in the pilot’s urine but not in his blood. Based on the pilot’s blood ethanol level and an estimated ethanol elimination rate of 0.01 to 0.035 g/dL per hour, the pilot’s blood ethanol level at the time of the accident was likely between 0.04 g/dL to 0.08 g/dL. Ethanol at this level would not sufficiently explain the pilot’s loss of consciousness but would be expected to have adverse effects on his performance capacity. Thus, it is likely that the pilot was impaired by effects of ethanol at the time of the accident. The benzoylecgonine detected in the pilot’s urine indicated that he had used cocaine. The cocaethylene in his urine indicated that both cocaine and ethanol had been in his system at the same time, with more than a small amount of cocaine likely used. The time elapsed between the pilot’s last cocaine use and his blood specimen collection was sufficient for cocaine to be metabolized and for its metabolites to fall below detectable levels in his blood. However, the Page 2 of 8 ERA22FA343precise time of his last cocaine use could not be determined, and the possibility of residual adverse effects from his cocaine use could not be excluded.The pilot also had a history of obstructed sleep apnea (OSA) and had called out sick the day before the accident, reporting a stomach illness. At the time of the accident, the pilot likely was experiencing some impairing effects from alcohol use and may also have been experiencing impairing effects related to his use of cocaine. However, the event that precipitated the loss of helicopter control was the pilot’s acute incapacitation by a syncopal episode, the precise medical cause of which is unknown. Whether the pilot’s substance use, reported illness, or OSA (or a combination thereof) contributed to his syncopal episode cannot be determined.
The pilot reported that while on final approach for landing in gusting winds and about 5 ft. above the ground, the airplane “dropped” and experienced a hard landing that collapsed the nose landing gear. The airplane slid along the runway for 5 to 10 ft. and came to a stop on the runway center line. 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. At the time of the accident, the airplane was landing on runway 36 with winds 360o at 10 knots with gusts to 15 knots. The pilot stated that the accident could have been prevented if he had initiated a go-around.
The pilot reported that he was taking off from a private gravel driveway when the airplane’s right wheel went off the edge of the driveway into a drainage ditch. The airplane subsequently veered to the right, crossed a road, and impacted a small tree. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operations.
The pilot completed the preflight inspection with no issues noted; the airplane had about 10.3 gallons of fuel onboard for the local flight test.The airplane departed and, after flying for between 30 and 45 minutes, the pilot decided to return to the airport. Shortly thereafter, the engine sustained a total loss of power. The pilot reported that the engine did not emit any noises, nor did he notice a drop in the engine’s rpm. The pilot tried restarting the engine three times. Although the engine would “turn over,” it would not start. The pilot elected to perform a forced landing to a corn field. During the landing, the right wing impacted a traffic sign and the airplane came to rest upright in a grass ditch. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and the fuselage.The on-site examination of the airplane found no fuel inside of the fuel tank; the fuel tank was not compromised. There were no signs of a fuel leak on the airframe or from the engine, nor were there any signs of a fuel leak or spillage on the ground at the accident site. During a postaccident examination, the fuel line to the carburetor was removed and no fuel was observed. No fuel was observed from the fuel supply line to the strainer. The bowl from the strainer was removed and no fuel was found. There were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airframe or the engine that would have precluded normal operation.Based on the available evidence, it is likely that the engine lost power due to fuel exhaustion.
The student pilot in the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that, during the takeoff ground roll he did not apply enough right rudder input to compensate for the propellers asymmetric blade effect. The airplane veered off the left side of the runway and ground looped. The right wing and horizontal stabilizer were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.