roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot under instruction and the certified flight instructor (CFI) departed in the multi-engine airplane to conduct training. Radar data indicated that they proceeded to multiple airports and performed traffic pattern work including takeoff and landings. After departing the last airport, they performed two 360° turns and one power off stall task. The airplane again slowed and recorded engine data indicated that, while the critical engine’s speed was reduced, the other engine’s speed was increased, consistent with performing a Vmc demonstration.During a Vmc demonstration, power is reduced on the critical engine (left) and the airplane is recovered before loss of directional control or stall. As the airspeed decreased, the airplane entered a rapid descent with a continuous left-hand turn that was observed by witnesses as it was spinning, not nose down, with a flat attitude until water impact. Impact signatures were consistent with a slightly nose-low, near-flat attitude. Postaccident examination of the engines and airframe did not reveal evidence of any mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane. Positive identification of who was on the controls during the Vmc demonstration could not be determined given the available evidence.
The balloon pilot reported that, after establishing level flight at 300 feet above ground level, he initiated an approach for landing, with a 200 feet per minute rate of descent. The balloon landed hard and bounced three times. The balloon was undamaged, but a passenger sustained serious leg and rib injuries. The pilot of the balloon reported that the technique of bending the knees upon landing was omitted in his passenger briefing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the balloon that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during landing, the wind shifted to a tailwind, and he landed past his intended touch down point. Breaking action was poor on the river rock surface and when the airplane was nearing the end of the airstrip the pilot, “ground looped the airplane to prevent the airplane from rolling over the bank.” Subsequently, the left wheel hit large rocks and the airplane nosed over off the end of the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to both wing tips, the right wing strut, horizontal stabilizer and elevator. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation..
The helicopter pilot was flying a cross-country flight in thunderstorms. The former owner of the helicopter, its new owner, stated they were worried about the weather and tried to talk the pilot into waiting 1 day until the weather improved, however, the pilot did not want to wait and subsequently departed for his home airport.Postaccident examination revealed no anomalies with the engine or airframe that would have precluded normal operation. There was no record of the pilot obtaining a weather briefing and rising terrain led up to the area of the accident. The observations surrounding the time of the accident from the closest official weather station indicated visual flight rules to instrument flight rules conditions, with reflectivity data indicating that thunderstorms were present along the route and at the accident site at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the flight likely encountered reduced visibility and heavy rain while in thunderstorms as a result of the pilot’s decision to fly in thunderstorm conditions. Had the pilot obtained a weather briefing he likely would have had increased his awareness of the severity of the weather conditions along his route of flight and may have elected to delay the flight further until conditions improved.
During initial climb, about 300 ft above ground level, the airplane’s engine began shaking and lost partial power. The pilot lowered the nose and saw that the airplane was still over the runway but too close to the end to land on the remaining runway. He made a “hard” left turn in an attempt to land on the runway in the opposite direction. He also turned the fuel selector to off in preparation for an off-airport impact. The engine subsequently lost all power (due to the fuel being turned off), and the airplane impacted a field, coming to rest upright in a wooded area at the edge of the field. A postaccident compression check performed when the engine was cold revealed no compression on the No. 1 cylinder and low compression on the No. 3 cylinder; however, the engine was subsequently started and run at idle power, with no anomalies noted. After shutdown, removal of the Nos. 1 and 3 cylinders revealed scoring on the No. 1 piston skirt and cylinder wall. The scoring was consistent with material entering the cylinder as a result of tappet to camshaft wearing, which also would have affected the intake and exhaust valves opening and closing properly. While this condition may have reduced the engine’s ability to produce full takeoff power; it would not have resulted in the sudden loss of engine performance described by the pilot. Given the engine’s subsequent normal operation postaccident, the reason for the partial loss of engine power could not be determined.
The glider took off under aerotow about for a flight in the local soaring area.  After flying about 45 minutes the pilot decided to reposition to a different ridge but during his transition, he encountered a loss of lift and started to lose altitude. Unable to gain sufficient lift, he was forced to make an off-airport landing. During his approach, he noticed another glider in the field and there were midfield powerlines.  The pilot passed over the glider on the ground but impacted the powerlines.  The impact with the powerlines and subsequent collision with terrain resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage and both wings.  The pilot reported that there were no pre accident mechanical malfunctions or failures of the glider that would have precluded normal operation.
The accident pilot reported that he had topped the airplane off with fuel before departure. Following an uneventful flight, the pilot began a descent to the airport traffic pattern and enrichened the mixture and applied carburetor heat. While on the downwind for the runway, he noted that he had about 10.5 to 11 gallons of fuel remaining. The pilot conducted a low approach by descending over the runway using an intermediate power setting to inspect the runway for wildlife. As the pilot initiated a climb and turned onto the left crosswind leg, the engine lost all power about 300 ft above ground level, and he initiated a forced landing to a nearby clearing. Subsequently, the airplane impacted trees and came to rest in a nose-low attitude.Examination of the recovered airframe and engine revealed no evidence of any preexisting mechanical malfunction that would have precluded normal operation.The reported fuel level would have placed the fuel levels in both fuel tanks below 1/4 tank, which would prohibit takeoff according to the airplane owner’s manual. It’s likely that following the low pass over the runway, with the application of power and a climbing turn, the fuel was unported and interrupted the fuel delivery to the engine, which resulted in a loss of engine power.
The pilot of the powered glider reported that, after takeoff he realized that both the left wing and tail dolly were still attached. The pilot returned to the airport and prepared for a straight in landing to the grass runway with the electric propellor off and the main wheel retracted. The fuselage was substantially damaged when the glider landed hard. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the glider that would have precluded normal operation.
During the initial climb after a touch-and-go landing, about 50 ft above the 3,530-ft-long runway, the engine lost total power. The airplane subsequently impacted the ground about 2/3 down the length of the runway and was substantially damaged. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that adequate fuel remained onboard and that there was no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures of the engine that would have precluded normal operation. While a carburetor icing chart showed that the weather conditions were conducive to the formation of carburetor ice at glide engine power settings, because the airplane was operating at full engine power when the reported loss of engine power occurred, it was not likely that carburetor icing contributed to the loss of engine power. The reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined based on available information.
The uncertificated pilot stole the accident airplane with the intent of crashing it into a department store located 2 miles southeast of the airport. However, he continued to fly the airplane in the area for several hours until he performed an off-airport landing in a field 32 miles northwest of the departure airport that resulted in substantial damage to the airplane’s fuselage.
The pilot reported that, during takeoff, in dusk light conditions he was not able to see the side tree line of the runway. The airplane traveled off center line of the runway, and subsequently impacted trees and nosed over, which resulted in substantial damage to both wings, wing lift struts, vertical stabilizer and rudder. 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 he decided to land with a tailwind to avoid landing into the setting sun. The remote site he was landing at was approximately 800 ft long. He said that his touchdown speed was “fast” and when the airplane touched down, it bounced back into the air. He attempted a go-around, but the airplane “did not build speed back up,” at the end of the strip he opted to reduce engine power. The airplane subsequently landed in rough terrain and nosed over, which resulted in substantial damage to the rudder. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor, who was seated in the front seat, and pilot receiving instruction practiced three landings on the hard surface runway in the tailwheel-equipped airplane. The flight instructor reported that he then asked the pilot to conduct a 3-point landing on the grass adjacent to the runway. The instructor reported that the pilot got high and slow on short final and that he told the pilot to lower the nose and add power. He stated, “[pilot] was slow to respond [and] pulled the nose up (stick fully aft) for the landing.” The instructor stated he was too late to add power, and the airplane stalled about 5 to 8 ft above the grass. The main landing gear collapsed, and the airplane nosed over. The instructor reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot receiving instruction reported that while over the grass parallel to the runway threshold, he began to flare the airplane. The instructor stated the flare was initiated too high but to continue the landing. The airplane leveled out, and the instructor stated to “keep pulling.” The pilot reported the instructor began to manipulate the controls with the pilot, and the instructor pulled back on the control stick. The airplane entered an extreme nose-high attitude, stalled, and impacted the terrain. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the vertical stabilizer and rudder.
The pilot had departed in the accident airplane to orbit the airport following recent maintenance to the airplane. Shortly after takeoff, the pilot transmitted to his ground crew that the oil pressure had decreased; one witness told the pilot to land. A witness reported that the airplane was on the downwind leg for the runway when the engine lost power. Witnesses observed the airplane turn from the base leg to final for the runway, and shortly after, it stalled and entered a steep nose-down descent. One witness reported the airplane stalled while performing “S” turns During the descent, when the airplane was about 500 ft above ground level the airplane appeared to flare. The ground scars and wreckage fragmentation patterns indicated that the airplane impacted terrain in a nose-down attitude with high forward velocity. A video of the airplane showed that the airplane was in a left bank attitude during the nose-down dive. The airplane rolled right and pitched up just before impact. The video also showed that the propeller was rotating through the duration of the video.The airplane had not been flown in about 6 years before the accident flight. Before the flight, the engine was removed from the airplane and sent out for maintenance. The cylinders were removed, the oil control rings were replaced, and the engine was reassembled with new seals and gaskets. The engine was placed on a test stand and ran at takeoff power for about 2 hours before it was reinstalled on the airplane. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the front and rear counterbalances and counterbalance bearings were thermally discolored consistent with abnormal wear. The front secondary counterbalance bearing failed and was fused to the crankshaft. The rear counterbalance bearing exhibited severe scoring and displaced bearing material. An abundance of metallic debris was located throughout the engine and oil system, including the scavenge pump filter, engine oil filter, and sump plug. Page 2 of 11 WPR22FA331While the engine had accumulated metal debris within the engine oil filter, there was evidence of the oil pressure bypass operating, which would allow oil to continue to flow throughout the oil system. The reason for the reduction in oil pressure and the subsequent loss of engine power was not determined.
The pilot reported that while entering the traffic pattern after a local flight, a large bird “dived” and struck the middle of the right wing, resulting in substantial damage to the right wing structure.  He stated that there was no control difficulty and he was able to land safely on the intended runway.  The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight crew stated that the flight was on the final stage of the arrival for landing. The seatbelt sign had been on, the flight attendants had just completed their final pre-landing preparations, and had been instructed to take their seats, when suddenly the flight experienced a sudden jolt due to clear air turbulence. When the turbulence occurred one of the flight attendants was in the process of seating herself and as she placed her hand on her jumpseat to lower it, the turbulence occurred causing her to fall and experience an abrupt and intense pressure on her left hand as her fingers were bent backwards. Her hand immediately began to swell. The injured flight attendant was assisted by another flight attendant, the flight crew was informed, and a medical emergency was declared. After landing the flight attendant was given medical care and diagnosed with a fracture of the 4th metacarpal bone in her left hand.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane was practicing takeoffs and landings on a turf runway. While on his third landing of the day he touched down and the airplane suddenly started to move to the left.  He applied right rudder but the airplane did not respond as he expected it to, and it continued left off a steep embankment.  During the runway excursion the fuselage was substantially damaged.  The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot and his flight instructor were preparing to depart on a local flight when the accident occurred. They taxied to the runway and continued the pre-takeoff and engine runup tasks. While at the holding pad, the weather deteriorated significantly to include thunderstorms, heavy rain, and high wind gusts to 54 knots. The pilots elected to hold their position to wait until the weather conditions improved. The instructor applied down elevator control and moved the left aileron into the wind. Review of available weather data indicated that a microburst caused the left wing to raise and the airplane rolled over, coming to rest inverted. The flight instructor in the left seat was seriously injured, and the commercial pilot in the right seat was fatally injured. The airplane was substantially damaged.The surviving flight instructor reported that they received a weather briefing before the flight and that there was a small area of precipitation about 7 miles to the south, slowly moving north; they expected the area of precipitation would be in the vicinity after their departure. He stated that the cell did not appear to be developing significantly when observed on their radar.An examination of meteorological data revealed that the pilots requested and received a weather briefing from a commercial flight planning service about 1 hour and 18 minutes before the accident. The briefing included convective SIGMETs for the area. The surface observations received included wind gusts to 36 knots and thunderstorms in progress to the south. If the pilots had checked the current weather at the airport 7 miles to their south before taxiing, they would have noticed that the weather there was deteriorating rapidly. The examination of the weather products revealed that the pilots were provided and reviewed the weather information that they encountered.Page 2 of 9 ERA22LA395The wreckage was examined to determine the survivability aspects of the accident. The cockpit canopy was crushed and the overroll bar was fractured. About 4.4 inches of vertical space between the middle floor tunnel cover and the overroll bar was lost. The cockpit seats and restraints were undamaged. The amount of force applied to the airframe during the upset event could not be determined. The rolling motion of the airplane likely moved the pilots out of position before impact. This change in position, in conjunction with the decrease in occupiable space from the overhead structure deformation and stretch of the seat belts, caused the injuries sustained by the occupants.
The pilot reported that, he entered the traffic pattern to land on the private runway. The airplane touched down on the runway’s asphalt surface and bounced. The pilot decided a go-around would not be successful and continued with the landing. He applied maximum brake pressure, retracted the wing flaps, and deflected the elevator upward. Despite his attempts, the airplane continued off the end of the runway and descended into a ditch. The right wing was substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
Two days before the accident flight, the helicopter flight crew conducted a timber logging flight. The No.1 engine started without issue, but the No. 2 engine start was aborted after it sustained a hot start, as confirmed by the No. 2 engine T5 temperature digital gauge indication of 999° C, a subsequent indication of --- ° C, and finally 001° C. The engine was allowed to cool, and about five minutes later the PIC started the No. 2 engine without issue, followed by the No. 1 engine; the flight crew then completed an eight-hour flight day. The helicopter remained in service until the day of the accident. On the day of the accident, while performing their normal logging operation flight, the flight crew heard a loud “bang” twice and decided to make a precautionary landing. With the engines turning, no anomalies were confirmed by maintenance personnel, and they continued flight operations. The flight crew did not perform an out-of-ground-effect hover power check to determine whether they had single-engine capability. After picking up about a 4,000 pound load during climb out of the confined area, another loud “bang” occurred, followed by a series of successive “bangs” that resulted in a vertical descent and hard impact with terrain, which resulted in a subsequent rollover onto the helicopter’s right fuselage.Postaccident examination of the helicopter’s No. 2 engine revealed overtemperature distress of the gas generator turbine (GGT) section. All stage 1 turbine blades revealed overtemperature distress. Most of the stage 2 turbine blades exhibited deformation about the leading edges and blade tips.During examination, the turbine coupling shaft was unusually difficult to remove, indicative of overtemperature effects, and the turbine forward shaft exhibited a dark blue discoloration indicative of thermal deformation. The metallurgical examination of 11 stage 1 turbine blades revealed evidence of bulk deformation, coating Page 2 of 9 WPR22LA330cracking/melting, and creep voiding/surface cracking consistent with overtemperature exposure. The PIC stated that he did not report the hot start event to the operator’s director of maintenance because he understood a hot start to entail a T5 temperature of 950° C sustained over 2 seconds. However, guidance from the engine manufacturer indicated that hot start criteria are based on a combination of temperature over time, and that hot starts may occur at temperatures of approximately 750° C within about 15 seconds. Given the circumstances of the event and physical evidence from the postaccident engine examination, it is likely that the No. 2 engine hot start that occurred 2 days before the accident contributed to the failure of the stage 1 turbine blades due to overtemperature, which resulted in the No. 2 engine loss of power and subsequent impact with terrain. According to the FAA, serious engine damage occurs if a hot start is allowed to continue.
The pilot reported that, during a go around maneuver at an off-airport site, he “did not maintain sufficient speed leading to a low wing stall at insufficient altitude to correct.” Subsequently, the airplane impacted terrain, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing, wing lift strut, and fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.