roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The airplane owner and a mechanic completed the airplane's annual inspection the morning of the accident. The mechanic did no work but returned the airplane to service with an endorsement that the annual inspection/airworthiness requirements had been met based on his determination that the engine runup was satisfactory. The airplane departed but returned to the airport shortly after the departure. During the return, a witness said that the airplane was "way too high," and its approach was "pretty steep." The airplane touched down about halfway down the short-grass runway and was "going way too fast." The airplane overran the end of the runway and into a pond where it became submerged. Postaccident examination of the runway revealed the presence of skid marks from the airplane main landing gear wheels along the last 300 ft of the runway.  The propeller exhibited rotational signatures but with some loss of torque. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed numerous unairworthy maintenance items and/or lack of maintenance to the engine and accessories; further the engine and various accessories surpassed their manufacturers' recommended time for overhaul/replacement. The exhaust manifold was blocked with internal fractured pieces that would have resulted in power loss. The condition of these pieces was consistent with a failure that had been preexisting. The induction hose to the carburetor was the wrong part for the installation. The hose was collapsed and would have restricted airflow into the carburetor resulting in power loss. Both magnetos were no longer serviceable and would have produced minimal ignition. The engine timing was not set to the engine manufacturer's specification. Had the mechanic conducted a proper annual inspection, he would have identified many of the issues found during the airplane's postaccident examination.Based on the evidence, the pilot likely returned to the airport due to a loss of engine power. It could not be determined which of the many discrepancies led to the loss of engine power. Further, the pilot did not attain a power-off approach glideslope that would have led to a proper touchdown point near the approach end of the runway.Page 2 of 11 CEN17FA139
The private pilot in the light-sport, experimental airplane reported that the flight was conducted with the intent of burning off fuel because he planned to pick up a passenger. When the pilot entered the downwind traffic pattern, the engine stopped. The pilot reported that, "my mistake had been to not switch fuel tanks before the one I was on was sucked dry." The pilot switched the fuel selector to a full tank and attempted to restart the engine as he maneuvered to reach the runway. The airplane's airspeed was slow, and the airplane stalled. The airplane landed hard on the left side of the runway centerline and remained on the runway when it came to rest. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall and the fuselage aft of the firewall. 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, while flying in mountainous terrain around 9,500 ft mean sea level (700 to 1,200 ft above the ground), the airplane encountered a downdraft. He added that he immediately turned away from the mountainside in a right turn, added full power, selected 10º of flaps, and pitched the nose up to maintain the airplane's maximum angle-of-climb airspeed (Vx). Subsequently, the airplane was unable to climb, and it then impacted wooded, snow-covered terrain along the mountainside. The fuselage and both wings sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The calculated density altitude near the flightpath was about 10,339 ft. According to the Federal Aviation Administration Koch Chart, the airplane would have experienced a 50% decrease to the normal climb rate. The high-density altitude conditions likely contributed to the airplane's inability to establish a climb.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing, he flared high and bounced. The airplane touched down again, and a "gust of wind blew [him] off the runway." He attempted to recover by adding full power to go around; however, the airplane exited the runway to the left and came to rest inverted.The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and the empennage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.A review of current weather conditions at the accident airport revealed that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 150° at 9 knots. The airplane landed on runway 31.
The pilot was on a local pleasure flight in a single-engine airplane.  A witness reported seeing the airplane descending in a "spin" from a high altitude.  The airplane impacted terrain and a post-crash fire ensued.  A review of radar data showed the airplane's departure from a small airport on a north heading. The airplane reached an altitude of 5,500 ft, before it slowed down. The last radar return was about 9 minutes after the airplane departed and showed the airplane near the accident site at 5,250 ft and 73 knots. The post-crash fire consumed or thermally damaged most of the airplane. The extensive fire and impact damage limited the scope of the examination; however, no pre-impact abnormities were noted with the engine or airframe. The pilot's toxicology test was positive for an over-the-counter pain and an anti-depressant medication; neither medication is considered impairing. However, the possible effects of depression could not be determined from the available evidence. Weather conditions were favorable for the flight.   The accident is consistent with the pilot not recovering from the spin; however, a reason for the initial loss of control could not be determined.
The pilot reported that, during approach, a goose struck the airplane's left horizontal stabilizer. The pilot continued the approach and landed without further incident. A postaccident examination revealed that the airplane had sustained substantial damage to the left horizontal stabilizer.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The solo student pilot reported that, as she taxied into the run-up area, the right wing impacted a parked airplane. The airplane continued and then impacted two other airplanes in the run-up area. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings. The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The solo student pilot reported that, during the landing flare, he "felt a big push from behind," which resulted in a propeller strike and substantial damage to the fuselage. The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located on the airport revealed that, at the time of the accident, the wind was from 190° at 3 knots. The airplane landed on runway 6.
The pilot of the airplane reported that he had recently completed flight training from the manufacturer. The accident flight was conducted under instrument flight rules (IFR). During the first approach to land, the pilot reported that the airspeed was too fast and that he decided to go around. He canceled the IFR flight plan, squawked 1200, and remained in the traffic pattern. During his second approach, the airspeed was again too fast, but he attempted to land. The airplane bounced three times, and during the ascent of the third bounce, the pilot added full power and attempted to go around. The airplane veered left, and he attempted to counter the veer with full right rudder application. However, the airplane touched down hard and exited the runway to left. The nose gear collapsed, and the airplane slid across the safety area before coming to rest upright. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot reported that, shortly after touchdown during landing, the experimental, amateur-built tailwheel equipped airplane immediately veered to the left. The pilot corrected with right rudder and applied engine power; however, the airplane subsequently ground looped, during which the right main landing gear strut collapsed. The pilot, who was the builder of the airplane, reported that this was the second time the gear struts had bent on this airplane. Following the first event, the pilot had reinforced the landing gear strut, but he believed that the design of the main landing gear was unable to withstand the routine stresses of landing.
The pilot of the float-equipped airplane reported that, before the takeoff, he taxied "out a little farther than normal" due to another airplane taxiing in the waterway. He added that, as he advanced the throttle, his forward view changed as the airplane came onto step position and that he subsequently saw a buoy in the takeoff path. The pilot immediately aborted the takeoff, but the right wing impacted the buoy. The pilot taxied back to the dock without further incident. The right wing sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was planning to perform practice night landings at the airport, and after initially departing, was returning to the airport after conducting some practice instrument maneuvers. He stated that once he was on final approach to the runway, he prepared for landing using his “written checklist" and that “[e]verything with the approach and completed checklist appeared normal." He then did a check of the gas, undercarriage, mixture, props, and flaps several times. He stated that the airplane touched down normally on the runway, then dropped and skidded to a stop. Following the accident, the airplane was observed on its belly on the runway; the landing gear were not extended. Examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the forward wing spar. No evidence of damage was noted to the landing gear system linkages and retraction rods, which would have been evident if all three landing gear had collapsed. Operational checks of the landing gear system revealed that the landing gear system was functional.During a follow-up interview, the pilot stated that he landed right on the runway centerline but that “[u]nfortunately, the gear was not under the airplane” and that it was “[m]y fault.” Given this information, the pilot’s failure to lower the landing gear before touchdown resulted in the gear-up landing.
The private pilot of the airplane departed from a grass runway. He stated that after takeoff, the engine was losing power, so he turned to return to the runway. The engine continued to lose power, and as the pilot attempted to line up for landing, the airplane lost airspeed, stalled, and then contacted low trees near the end of the runway, and the right wing contacted the ground. Examination of the wreckage revealed that a wooden throttle cable support block that had been glued to the aircraft structure was found detached. The detachment area did not appear to show signs of impact damage. No other anomalies were noted with the engine, airframe, or fuel distribution system. It is likely that the throttle cable support block came loose in flight, which resulted in the pilot's inability to control the engine throttle and the subsequent stall while maneuvering for an emergency landing.
At the end of a cross-country flight, the commercial pilot noted that the left main landing gear would not extend. He elected to divert to another airport and land with the gear retracted. Postaccident examination revealed that the left main landing gear actuator assembly housing was cracked across the forward attach bolt hole, which resulted in the inability to fully raise or extend the landing gear using either the normal method or the emergency hand pump.Following the incident, the Federal Aviation Administration released a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) emphasizing the importance of inspecting main landing gear actuator assemblies. This SAIB recommended complying with a supplemental inspection document provided by the manufacturer that prescribed a combination of visual, fluorescent penetrant, and eddy current inspections. The SAIB also included initial and repetitive inspection intervals.
The commercial pilot was found lying on the ground under the nose of the airplane with a fatal head injury from a propeller strike. Normal engine start for this airplane required hand propping the engine. The airplane was found with the left wheel chocked, and the magneto, throttle control, primer, and fuel tank selector settings as expected for an engine start. It is likely that, during hand propping, the pilot inadvertently entered the path of the propeller. The Federal Aviation Administration advises pilots that hand propping should only be attempted with two properly trained people, and the pilot was alone when he was fatally injured.
The airline transport pilot reported that he performed a preflight inspection of the airplane before departing on the repositioning flight. The takeoff roll was normal; however, just after the airplane lifted off, he heard a "pop" and felt a vibration. The pilot initially thought that one of the tires had blown, but as the vibration continued, he determined that he might have a problem with one of the propellers. The pilot subsequently returned to the airport and landed without further incident.When the pilot shut down the left engine after landing, he noticed that the tip of one of the propeller blades was missing. Further examination of the blade revealed that about 4 inches of the blade tip had separated and penetrated the side of the fuselage.Airport personnel later found additional pieces of propeller blade material on the runway, as well as what appeared to be the blade of a screwdriver and pieces of the handle.Maintenance personnel reported that a mechanic had been working on the airplane just before the flight and had been called away from the task he was performing before it was completed; the airplane was subsequently returned to service. The mechanic left a screwdriver on the nose of the airplane in the windshield wiper area, in a position that the pilot could not see. It is likely that, during the takeoff roll, the screwdriver became dislodged from the area of the windshield wiper and impacted the left propeller.
The nearly 30,000-hour commercial pilot was conducting an aerial application flight. A nearby witness heard the airplane and reported that it sounded normal, then about 10 to 15 seconds later, he heard a "pop" sound followed by an explosion. Examination of the accident site, which was located well within the typical agricultural turn distance location for a turbine-powered airplane, revealed that the left wing collided with trees in a wings-level attitude. The airplane was destroyed by impact and a postcrash fire. No preexisting mechanical anomalies were noted with the airplane or its systems that would have precluded normal operation and propeller damage indicated that the engine was producing power at the time of impact.The pilot was reported by family members to have had a cold the day before the accident, and toxicology identified doxylamine, a sedating antihistamine, in the pilot's blood and urine. The pilot may have experienced impairing effects from the doxylamine, which could have affected his reaction time, sleepiness, and judgment. Although the autopsy did not identify any incapacitating medical conditions, there are a number of conditions that could incapacitate a pilot and leave no evidence at autopsy. The airplane's descent below the height of trees, the pilot's failure to avoid trees before impact, and his failure to use a nearby open field as a forced landing site suggest that he likely was unable to perform basic piloting functions, most likely due to incapacitation, although the reason for incapacitation could not be determined.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during takeoff, he added full power, applied right rudder, and "pushed [the] stick forward to lift [the] tail off the ground." He added that the tail came back onto the ground and that the airplane veered to the right. He further added that he overcorrected to the left and that the airplane ground looped; subsequently, the right main landing gear collapsed, and the right wing and elevator impacted the ground.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and elevator.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The No. 2 engine fire was caused by the uncontained failure of the generator main rotor. Deformed generator rotating components and/or metal fragments radially released by the generator severed the constant speed drive (CSD)-to-oil cooler return line located adjacent to the generator. The severed line sprayed oil onto hot generator and engine case surfaces that subsequently ignited.The sections of the generator main rotor that remained intact and the metal fragments recovered from the generator case exhibited extensive thermal and impact damage that precluded material analysis. The operating history of the failed generator was not available and federal regulations do not require operators to maintain hour and cycle counts for non-life limited components. An estimate of generator operating hours was provided by Allegiant Air and the date of manufacture was provided by UTC Aerospace Systems. Based on the available records the generator main rotor was never overhauled or re-wound and the total operating hours likely exceeded the 40,000 hour recommended overhaul interval specified in UTC Aerospace Systems service information letter (SIL) 449.
The flight instructor reported that the purpose of the flight was to complete a tail-wheel endorsement for the pilot. After about 1 hour of total flight time, while attempting to take off for the fourth full-length runway departure, the flight instructor realized that the engine was not producing enough power for a successful takeoff, so he took control of the airplane and began applying maximum braking; however, the airplane departed the runway end, collided with a ditch, and then nosed over. During postaccident examination of the airplane, no anomalies were found that would have precluded normal operation. Atmospheric conditions in the area were conducive to the formation of serious icing at cruise power. The flight instructor reported that he believed that carburetor icing led to the loss of engine power. He added that carburetor heat was applied before each landing but that it was turned off when they taxied for departure. Therefore, it is likely that carburetor ice accumulated during the taxi and that the carburetor heat was not on long enough to melt the ice before takeoff, which resulted in the partial loss of engine power.
The pilot of the retractable-landing-gear airplane reported that, during the approach of a simulated 180° power-off landing, he became fixated on his touchdown point and did not complete the landing checklist. He added that he did not look outside to check that the main landing gear was down or to "confirm a green [landing gear position indicator] light." The airplane landed with the gear retracted.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.In a followup e-mail, the pilot reported that he was using an active noise reducing headset during the accident flight. He added that, although the gear warning horn was audible, it did not translate in his brain as a landing gear retracted warning.
The private pilot reported that he landed off airport to an unimproved surface. He remarked that the "airplane only needs about 60 feet of ground roll to become airborne." During the attempted takeoff, the airplane ascended about 2 ft above ground level before the landing gear wheel impacted desert shrubs, and the pilot aborted the takeoff. The airplane touched down and developed a side load, and the right main landing gear collapsed. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the lower fuselage tube struts and the firewall. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The solo student pilot reported that, during the landing roll, the airplane veered to the left. The student pilot added power to go around, applied back pressure to the control yoke, and applied right rudder inputs. He added that "[he] waited for the plane to lift off the ground. But it did not get off the ground." The airplane veered off the runway to the right and sustained substantial damage to both wings and the fuselage. The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The automated weather observation system on the airport reported, about the time of the accident, that the wind was from 010° at 10 knots. The pilot landed on runway 36.
The pilot was making a personal cross-country flight to return the airplane to the airport where it was normally stored after the completion of an annual inspection. The route of flight passed near a grass airstrip that was adjacent to the pilot's ranch home, and the wreckage was located about 275 yards from the northwest end of the airstrip. No witnesses to the accident were identified, and it could not be determined whether the pilot was performing a low pass or had attempted a landing at the airstrip.Examination of the accident site indicated that the airplane impacted terrain in a nose-low attitude. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures. Although the reported wind at an airport about 19 miles from the accident site was from 360° at 16 knots, the wind at an airport 53 miles from the accident site was from 320° at 34 knots with gusts to 40 knots. Additionally, weather modeling identified the potential for moderate low-level wind shear (LLWS) and moderate clear air turbulence within about 100 ft of the ground, and the potential for light LLWS from 100 to 500 ft above the ground. Therefore, it is possible that the airplane encountered LLWS and turbulence that contributed to a loss of control. Further, the pilot had severe coronary artery disease, which placed him at increased risk of a cardiovascular event that may have resulted in impairment or incapacitation. The investigation was not able to determine if adverse weather conditions or an acute cardiac event contributed to the accident.
The pilot of the wheel/ski-equipped airplane reported that, after landing on skis and during the taxi on hard-packed snow, a wind gust pushed the airplane, and the left wing impacted a parked, unoccupied airplane.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and left wing lift strut.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located on the airport revealed that, about 13 minutes after the accident, the wind was from 360° at 12 knots, gusting to 20 knots.