roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The helicopter flew about 1.5 hours with no problems. On final approach to land the helicopter, about 5 to 10 ft above the ground, the pilot experienced a sudden uncontrollable yaw and bank. The left skid contacted the ground, and the helicopter rolled onto its right side. The pilot stated that there was no sudden gust of wind and that he did not have input on the controls that would have caused the yaw and bank. Detailed examination of the helicopter’s flight controls did not reveal any anomalies. The reason for the yaw and bank could not be determined based on the available information.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during landing with a tailwind, the airplane ground looped to the right. Both landing gear collapsed, and the left wing struck the ground.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The airport's automated weather observation station reported that, about 37 minutes before the accident, the wind was variable at 4 knots. The same automated station reported that, about 23 minutes after the accident, the wind was from 170° at 6 knots. The pilot landed the airplane on runway 03.
The pilot had conducted a sightseeing flight with three passengers. He configured the airplane with flaps full down for the approach to land on the 2,500-ft turf runway with the airplane near its maximum gross weight. He reported that, due to excessive speed on the final approach, the airplane floated halfway down the runway, and he initiated a go-around. The wing flaps remained fully extended, and the pilot recognized the climb rate was not enough to clear trees at the end of the runway, so he pulled back on the flight control yoke. He then realized that the airplane was in an aerodynamic stall condition and decreased the pitch attitude. The airplane impacted rising terrain about 330 ft beyond the departure end of the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. Examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot’s failure to retract the wing flaps during the go-around likely affected the airplane’s performance and ability to climb.
The pilot reported that, during landing on a 2,175-ft-long grass runway, the airplane ballooned. He pushed the nose down, but the airplane floated and touched down about midfield. He added that he "briefly touched the brakes" but decided to go around. He added that he raised the flaps to the takeoff position and added full power, but "the delay of power in the diesel and high temperature did not allow for enough climb performance." The left wing aerodynamically stalled, and the airplane impacted vegetation.The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and the fuselage.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 the wind was light and variable, the temperature was 32°C (90°F), and the density altitude was 2,000 ft.
The pilot reported that he landed to refuel and take a break, during which time he also added engine oil. About 15 minutes after departing, he noticed that the engine oil pressure reading had dropped to about 0 pounds per square inch (psi) from 30 psi about 1 minute earlier. Due to the wooded terrain over which the airplane was flying, the pilot elected to make a precautionary landing to a nearby clearing. During the landing, the right wing strut impacted a fence post and the airplane bounced and nosed over, resulting in substantial damage. While examining the airplane after the accident, the pilot found that the oil filler cap/dipstick was loose.Based on the information provided by the pilot, the accident was the result of his failure to ensure that the oil filler cap was properly secured, which resulted in loss of the oil supply and necessitated the precautionary off-airport landing.
The pilot reported that he had performed a practice candy drop pass over a field about 300 ft above ground level. He then initiated a climbing 30º banked, right turn to circle back to the field and "neglected [the] airspeed," and the airplane aerodynamically stalled, descended, struck trees, and impacted the ground inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and empennage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
After flying for about 3 hours conducting aerial survey work, the pilot noticed a low oil pressure indication in the cockpit. The pilot prepared for a landing at the destination airport. During the approach he heard a bang and the airplane started to shake. He pitched the airplane to maintain the best glide speed and noticed the engine had lost all oil pressure. The pilot prepared for a forced landing to a road, during which the right wing struck a road sign, and the airplane came to rest in a ditch.Examination of the engine revealed the No. 4 connecting rod crankshaft end and cap separated from the rod and the bolts were sheared. One of the nuts for the connecting rod cap bolts was split and both pieces were recovered. Signatures of high heat on the piston end of all the connecting rods was also noted. The high heat signatures were consistent with a lack of oil lubrication (and subsequent cooling during operation) for the connecting rods at the crankshaft. The lack of lubrication likely caused the failure of the No. 4 connecting rod crankshaft end and cap, which resulted in a total loss of engine power. The reason for the lack of lubrication could not be determined from available information.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the takeoff roll, the airplane abruptly veered right, and he overcorrected to the left. The pilot then reduced the engine power to idle and overcorrected to the right. He attempted to correct by applying full brakes, but the airplane exited the runway to the left and nosed over.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the vertical stabilizer, rudder, and the right and left wings. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The operator reported that, during the solo student pilot's landing, the airplane immediately veered left and exited the runway, and the left wing struck a vehicle on the adjacent taxiway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. The operator reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot had purchased the tailwheel-equipped airplane the day before the accident and was practicing maneuvers and landings. During his fifth wheel landing in calm wind, the pilot felt and heard a rumble that he reported sounded like a "machine gun" when the tailwheel touched down. The airplane continued to track the centerline for about 5 to 6 seconds but then veered right. Subsequently, the pilot applied left rudder, the airplane veered left off the runway, the right main landing gear collapsed, and the right-wing spar sustained substantial damage when it impacted terrain.Examination of the tailwheel assembly revealed no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded the pilot from maintaining directional control of the airplane; however, the chain and spring assembly on the tailwheel were loose, which likely contributed to the rumble that the pilot experienced when the tailwheel touched down.
The pilot reported that, while en route, she diverted due to deteriorating weather at the intended destination. She added that, during landing, a second pilot in the right seat reported a right quartering crosswind and that, during the "transition to the roundout," she observed 65 knots on the airspeed gauge, she heard the stall warning horn, and the airplane developed a high sink rate. She attempted to go around, but the airplane landed hard and veered left. The airplane became airborne again, and the pilot attempted to regain the runway centerline, but the fuselage and wing struck objects on the left side of the runway. She decided a go-around was not possible, so she reduced power and landed the airplane in grass left of the runway. 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 operation.An automated weather observation station located about 3 miles west of the airport reported that, about 2 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 020° at 8 knots and that, about 32 minutes after the accident, the wind was from 020° at 9 knots. The pilot landed the airplane on runway 27.
The pilot reported that, during landing in the tailwheel-equipped airplane with a crosswind, the airplane touched down on the main wheels and bounced. During the second bounce, he applied full back stick pressure to place the tailwheel on the ground. Aileron and directional control inputs were applied to counteract the gusting crosswind, but the airplane veered right, exited the runway, and ground looped. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing, horizontal stabilizer, and elevator. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot and passenger onboard the glider was participating in a soaring competition. Data from an onboard flight recorder were consistent with the pilot climbing in various areas of thermal lift, reaching a peak altitude of 6,935 ft above ground level about 50 minutes into the flight. During the subsequent approximate 30 minutes of the flight, the glider proceeded south southwesterly along a ridgeline, circling several times in different locations, but the glider continued to descend. Data indicated that the glider was in a right turn about 185 ft above terrain before it impacted a tree. Postaccident examination revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Review of weather information indicated a conditionally unstable environment and likely thermal lift in the area, though satellite imagery depicted clear skies over the immediate area of the accident site, with fair weather cumulus clouds located east of the site. Wind conditions in the area of the accident site were likely insufficient to provide orographic lift. The pilot’s maneuvering in close proximity to terrain was consistent with his attempt to obtain or remain in an area of lift; it is possible that the glider may have encountered adverse wind that resulted in a loss of control at an altitude too low for recovery, or that the pilot initiated a 360° turn at an inadequate distance from terrain.
The flight instructor reported that the engine lost all power about 1 minute after he switched fuel tanks while returning to the airport after a local training flight. His efforts to restore engine power were unsuccessful and he performed a forced landing to a road. The airplane touched down hard and subsequently came to rest in a ditch adjacent to the road. Recovery personnel drained about 15 gallons of fuel from the left wing fuel tank and about 1/4 gallon from the right wing fuel tank. The fuel tanks appeared to be intact and no fuel leakage was observed.A postaccident engine test run was conducted with no anomalies. Based on the minimal amount of fuel recovered from the right tank, it is likely that the flight instructor exhausted the fuel in the right tank and did not switch to the left fuel tank in sufficient time to restore engine power, which resulted in fuel starvation and the total loss of engine power.
After the pilot advanced the throttle for takeoff, the engine lost all power and a fire erupted in the engine compartment of the experimental amateur-built airplane, causing substantial damage to the fuselage and left wing.Construction of the airplane was completed almost 31 years before the accident, and the airplane sat idle for the 15 years leading up to its last inspection, about 8 months (33 flight hours) before the accident. The fire appeared to originate in the area of the gascolator and engine-driven fuel pump, an area that would have experienced relative movement between the engine and airframe while in operation. The airplane was equipped with rubber fuel hoses, none of which appeared to have been replaced since the airplane was built. It is likely that the hoses, due to their excessive age, degraded and became brittle over time, resulting in a fuel leak and eventual fire.
The pilot reported that, during initial climb, he "started to feel the airspeed drop" and that he attempted to regain airspeed by lowering the airplane's nose. The airspeed continued to drop, and the airplane aerodynamically stalled and subsequently impacted the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, both wings, the horizontal stabilizer, and the elevator. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll, he felt a "tailwheel shimmy." He attempted to correct with elevator to no avail. The airplane veered right, and he attempted to add left brake, but the airplane quickly ground looped to the right. The left wing struck the runway. He then taxied the airplane to the ramp with difficulty.The pilot reported that postaccident examination revealed that the left tailwheel steering spring was missing. He added that the spring was present and operating normally during preflight and taxi before takeoff. Crash fire rescue personnel found the left steering spring on the runway while conducting an examination for runway damage. In pictures provided by the pilot, the spring appeared undamaged.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.
The pilot and the passenger departed on a cross-country flight. While at cruise, the pilot noted a faint smell of burning paint, followed by the oil pressure drop to zero and eventually experienced a complete loss of engine power. The pilot performed an emergency landing during which the airplane sustained substantial damage.A postaccident examination revealed there was no oil remaining in the engine, the AN hose fitting on the oil cooler was loose, and there was evidence of an oil leak in the area of the loose fitting. No other pre-impact mechanical anomalies were detected that could have precluded normal operations.The engine had been overhauled about 4 operating hours prior to the accident. The accident is consistent with maintenance personnel failing to properly tighten the oil hose fitting, which resulted in a total loss of engine power.
The pilot was landing the airplane in gusting wind conditions with the wing flaps extended to 40°. During the landing flare, the airplane encountered a gust and the pilot applied full engine power for a go-around; however, the airplane “did not respond” and the pilot then chose to land on the remaining runway. The airplane landed hard and bounced, resulting in a nose landing gear collapse and a runway excursion. The wing flaps were found extended to about 35° following the accident, and the flap selector was in the fully extended (40°) position. The airplane’s pilot operating handbook (POH) stated that a flap setting less than 40° would improve airplane handling characteristics in gusting wind conditions. Additionally, the POH procedure for a go-around stated that the wing flaps should be retracted to 20° after applying engine power. It is likely that the airplane did not climb during the attempted go-around due to the pilot’s failure to retract the wing flaps; however, the airplane was not examined after the accident and whether a mechanical anomaly contributed could not be determined. Similarly, whether there were any mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that contributed to the loss of control following the bounced landing could not be determined.
The student pilot and private pilot flew a local flight in mountainous terrain. The airplane headed southwest down a nearby canyon toward rising mountainous terrain and impacted a ridgeline about 11 miles from the departure airport. The pilots were likely maneuvering near the canyon wall to get appropriate displacement for a turn reversal. However, terrain clearance was not maintained with the ridgeline in the canyon that was perpendicular to the route of flight. No significant weather or turbulence was reported or forecast for the area.Analysis of the airplane’s onboard recorded flight data revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Engine parameters indicated normal operation, and the airplane had an adequate amount of fuel on board just before the accident. The recovered data, along with evidence obtained from the airplane wreckage, were consistent with controlled flight into terrain.
The pilot reported that, as the airplane entered the downwind traffic pattern, its airspeed and altitude were too high. The pilot decided to continue the landing, and the airplane touched down about midfield on the 1700-ft-long runway. The pilot tried to use aerodynamic braking, but the airplane overran the end of the runway and collided with a drainage culvert. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left elevator and the rudder. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor reported that, about 3 minutes after the airplane was leveled off, "a black vulture" struck the windscreen. Subsequently, he returned to the airport and landed. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the windscreen. The instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
A pilot departed in a single-seat glider for a personal flight near mountainous terrain. The flight was uneventful until shortly after the pilot reversed course back to the destination. Shortly thereafter, the pilot made a 90° turn toward open terrain and began a descent. The descent was initially shallow but increased to about 1,000 ft per minute during the turn. After the turn was completed, the glider maintained a steady course heading. The ground speed initially increased during the descent but was noticeably decreased before the landing. A crash landing was accomplished in an open field and the glider came to rest upright in heavy vegetation and sustained minor damage. The deceased pilot was found strapped in his seat with the canopy closed and was observed to have sustained only minor external injures. Additionally, the glider’s landing gear was extended.There were no anomalies noted in recorded data from the accident flight indicating abnormal operation of the glider. Further, examination of the airframe failed to reveal any anomalies with the airframe that would have precluded normal operation.The medical examiner attributed the cause of death to natural causes due to a cardiac event.
The pilot reported that, during the flight, he forgot to lean the fuel mixture, which led to the airplane burning about 20 gallons per hour (gph) rather than the 15 gph he had used during his flight planning. The pilot decided to land and refuel at the next airport, but the engine lost power. He tried to restart the engine to no avail and then landed in a marsh with the landing gear retracted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was returning to the airport to practice takeoffs and landings. About 15 minutes into the flight, while flying level at 1,900 ft mean sea level, the engine "abruptly" stopped. The pilot performed a forced landing to a nearby muddy hay field. During the landing roll, the right main landing gear buckled, collapsing the gear rearward and resulting in substantial damage to the right wing and fuselage. Engine control continuity was confirmed, and spark from both magnetos and all spark plugs were noted. A mechanic working on the airplane following the accident reported that a piece of the air filter gasket was lodged in the carburetor intake. It is likely that the obstruction of airflow caused by the gasket resulted in the loss of engine power.
The private pilot stated that, during the landing roll, the airplane's tail was still elevated when he felt the airplane "immediately veer hard left." He said he "immediately" applied some right rudder, but the airplane continued turning left and he then applied full right rudder. The additional application of right rudder had no effect. The airplane turned and skidded 90° and came to a stop after the right main landing gear collapsed. The right wing impacted the ground, resulting in substantial damage. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he was performing a crop pollination flight in the helicopter when the helicopter was pushed vertically toward the power lines due to a "gust of air or thermal from the differing vegetation." The main rotor blades impacted the power lines, then the helicopter impacted terrain and came to rest in the field, resulting in substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airframe and engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was landing his tailwheel-equipped airplane when, after touchdown, the airplane veered left. He added power to go around, but the airplane veered left again, started to climb, then stalled and impacted terrain, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage. A Federal Aviation Administration inspector who examined the airplane after the accident reported that the right main landing gear brake torque plate was improperly installed.
The pilot and two passengers were on a sightseeing flight. The helicopter entered a river basin that the pilot had previously flown through and rounded a bend. The pilot then saw unmarked wires that spanned the riverand tried to fly under the wires; however, the helicopter's main rotor struck the lowest wire. The helicopter then descended and came to rest on its right side in the river. The wires were about 50 ft above the river and were not depicted on the visual flight rules sectional chart. The pilot said that he had not previously noticed the wires but that he was flying at a lower altitude than on previous flights and "was too low in a place I shouldn't have been." The pilot stated that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor reported that, while on final approach to land on a grass field adjacent to the runway and with the student pilot on the controls, a gyrocopter lifted off toward his glider. The student maneuvered away from the gyrocopter and then continued the approach. During the landing, the student flared too high, and despite the instructor's intervention, the glider landed hard. The glider was not damaged; however, the instructor sustained a serious injury. The instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the glider that would have precluded normal operation.