roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The airplane engine’s rpm became erratic, and the pilot decided to divert. About 5 miles from the intended airport, the airplane began to shake, and the pilot made an off-airport landing. Postaccident examination revealed several holes in the engine crankcase. The oil filter adapter was found loose, and the fiber gasket was protruding beyond the castings. Removal of the oil filter adapter revealed that the fiber gasket had torn. The failure of the fiber gasket allowed oil to exit the engine, resulting in oil starvation and a subsequent total loss of engine power.  During postaccident testing, the gasket failure in the accident adapter could not be replicated, and the reason for the failure could not be determined. The testing did reveal that the adapters were difficult to install properly and that, when the proper torque was achieved, the adapter housing could still be rotated about its hub when manual pressure was applied, indicating that the housing was loose. In response to this accident investigation, the supplemental type certificate holder issued a service bulletin that stated that the adapter should be inspected for oil leakage and gasket damage. The service bulletin also provided detailed instructions to eliminate rotation of the housing during installation and identify rotation after installation. In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration issued an airworthiness directive that requires operators to replace the oil filter adapter fiber gasket with a copper gasket to prevent an engine power loss due to oil starvation.
The helicopter pilot reported that he and the safety pilot were delivering fuel to a remote camp. During short final with the safety pilot on the controls and while the helicopter was about 50 ft above ground level, the descent rate increased. The safety pilot raised the collective, but the helicopter continued to descend, and the main rotor rpm began to decay. The helicopter then yawed right, rolled left, and impacted terrain. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and main rotor blades. The helicopter pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
During a cross-country flight, the pilot initiated a descent to his intended destination. During the descent, the pilot informed air traffic control (ATC) that he could not retard power on the right engine. Later in the descent, the pilot decided to shut down the right engine. The pilot communicated his desire to land at the nearest airport to ATC, and ATC provided the pilot with the clearance to divert. Radar data showed the airplane in a steady descent toward the airport. When the airplane was at an altitude of about 2,500 ft mean sea level, the pilot contacted ATC and stated that he was trying to get the airplane under control; radar data showed the airplane in a 360° right turn at the time. The pilot contacted ATC again and stated that he was going to land on a highway. No further transmissions were received from the pilot. After the right turn, the airplane continued in a descent through 1,300 ft mean sea level, at which point radar contact was lost. A witness saw the airplane and stated that the airplane was low and slow but appeared to be in stable flight with both propellers spinning. She did not see any smoke coming from the airplane. She saw the airplane flying northeast to southwest when it suddenly descended nose first into the ground. The airplane impacted a gravel road adjacent to a 100-ft-tall grain silo about 1 mile from the highway and about 3.3 miles from the airport.Examination of the airframe flight controls, throttle quadrant rigging, and engines revealed no mechanical anomalies. The left and right engine fuel control units (FCU) were disassembled and showed no pre-existing mechanical anomalies that could have prevented normal operation. Some contaminants were found in the Py air sections of both FCUs. According to the manufacturer, if an FCU’s Py bleed was partially restricted with debris, modulation of power could be altered. However, each FCU’s Py bleed had no restrictions or blockages. Examination of the fuel pumps, propeller governors, and overspeed governors of both engines revealed no mechanical anomalies that could have prevented normal operation.Page 2 of 10 CEN19FA161According to the Cessna 425 single-engine performance chart, the airplane could have maintained level flight with one engine inoperative if the landing gear and flaps were retracted and the inoperative engine’s propeller was feathered. At the time of impact, the airplane’s landing gear was extended, the flaps were at 10° down, and the right engine propeller condition lever was about 0.25 inch from minimum and not in the feather detent position. The reason for the pilot’s reported problem with retarding the right engine’s throttle could not be determined. It is unknown why the pilot made a right turn into the inoperative engine toward the end of the descent, and the reason for the pilot’s loss of control could not be determined.
The newly certificated private pilot rented the airplane to continue building flight experience in preparation for future flight training. Radar data showed that the airplane departed normally and proceeded to an area that the pilot had used as a practice area during his flight training. The airplane began to maneuver within this area, climbing to a maximum altitude of 5,300 ft mean sea level before it descended over a river and below radar coverage. Two witnesses in the area of the accident site saw the airplane “performing tricks,” during which it descended toward the surface of the water and pulled up abruptly. The airplane then entered a nose-low descent that continued until impact with the water. Both witnesses reported that the airplane impacted the river in a nose-low attitude at high speed. Examination of the recovered wreckage revealed no mechanical failures or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The circumstances of the accident are consistent with the pilot’s loss of control while maneuvering at high speed and low altitude.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, while landing on a private, dirt airstrip, he lost sight of the airstrip, and the airplane veered left. Concerned the airplane would ground loop, he applied minimal right rudder. He then chose to abort the landing and applied full power. As the airplane was about to become airborne, it exited the runway to the left, and the main landing gear encountered water. The pilot reduced the engine power to idle, and the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the 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.
The pilot reported that, during a vertical descent into a privately owned field and while the helicopter was about 20 ft about ground level, the helicopter yawed right. He then lowered the collective, and the helicopter continued to yaw right, descended, and landed hard. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the cabin assembly. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot added that he mistook the right yaw for a loss of tail rotor effectiveness and should have applied pedal corrections.
The pilot reported that, after touchdown, he realized that he was not going to be able to stop the airplane before the end of the runway and that aborting the landing was not an option because he did not believe that the airplane would clear trees at the end of the runway. The pilot chose to run the airplane off the end of the runway, and the airplane subsequently struck bushes and impacted terrain. 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 pilot reported that, during an agricultural application flight, while the airplane was between about 15 and 40 ft above ground level and traveling westward with the sun in his eyes, the rudder struck a wire and separated. The pilot subsequently landed the airplane without further incident. The pilot added that he thought the airplane had already cleared the wire when the collision occurred. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the rudder. 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, during the takeoff roll, the trim was set to a "significant nose up attitude," and the airplane prematurely became airborne. The airplane climbed about 10 ft above ground level, stalled, and then descended and impacted the runway. The engine caught fire, and the occupants egressed. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and the fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
During the daytime visual flight rules flight, the private pilot experienced engine trouble. He was able to keep the engine running utilizing the auxiliary fuel pump and diverted to the departure airport.  The pilot was unable to make it to the airport and descended into a residential neighborhood where the airplane was substantially damaged when it struck a tree. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the main fuel tanks had a sufficient quantity of fuel and that the auxiliary fuel tank was nearly empty.  The fuel selector valve handle was found in the auxiliary fuel tank position.  It is likely the pilot did not position the fuel selector switch to one of the main fuel tanks prior to consuming all the useable fuel in the auxiliary tank. This omission likely resulted in a total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation.
The helicopter pilot was performing an agricultural application flight. He approached the field from the east and completed a survey of the area that he intended to spray about 100 ft above ground level (agl). After maneuvering around the area, he decided to complete the east-west spray passes on the south side of the field and work north in order to have a crosswind during the passes. While flying east about 100 ft and 50 knots, he initiated a right turn, and the helicopter descended. As the helicopter continued the right turn and passed through a southwest heading, the gusting wind from the northeast resulted in a tailwind condition. During the descent with full throttle applied, the main rotor rpm began to decrease. The pilot lowered the collective and pitched forward to gain airspeed, but the main rotor rpm continued to decrease. About 50 ft agl, he started to jettison the spray load and was unable to increase the rotor rpm; the helicopter subsequently impacted the ground and came to rest on its side resulting in substantial damage to the tailboom. A postaccident examination of the helicopter did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The circumstances of the accident are consistent with a loss of main rotor rpm while descending with a tailwind, which resulted in an uncontrolled descent into terrain.
The solo student pilot reported that, during takeoff with a right quartering headwind and while between about 20 and 30 ft above ground level, the airplane aerodynamically stalled and then impacted the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. The student reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, just before touchdown, a wind gust lifted the left wing, and the right wing impacted the runway. The right wheel touched down, and the airplane ground looped to the left. 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.
The flight instructor reported that, while the student pilot was practicing crosswind landings with the instructor shadowing on the flight controls, he emphasized the importance of maintaining crosswind correction and suggested beginning the landing flare closer to the runway. The student flared too early, and the airplane ballooned. The airplane drifted left in a "nose high, low airspeed situation." The instructor called for a go-around and attempted to take control. The student maintained a "very strong grip" on the control stick, and the instructor was unable to make any significant control inputs. The airplane landed and skidded off the left side of the runway and impacted runway lights.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and the fuselage.The instructor 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 8 minutes after the accident, the wind was from 080° at 11 knots, gusting to 19 knots. The student landed the airplane on runway 05.
The pilot reported that, during takeoff from a private dirt airstrip which had a 3% uphill slope and was crowned in the center of the track, he struggled to correct for torque, P-factor, and crosswind, and the airplane veered left. He was able to correct to the right and continued the takeoff roll. The airplane again veered left, and the left wing struck a tree. The airplane exited the left side of the runway and briefly ascended before descending into brush and coming to rest. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot departed on the cross-country flight with the airplane about 730 lbs over its maximum gross weight. While in cruise altitude at 27,000 ft mean sea level (msl), the pilot reported to air traffic control that he observed weather on his radar along his route and ahead of his position. The areas of weather included thunderstorms with cloud tops up to 43,000 ft msl. The controller acknowledged the weather; however, she did not provide specifics to the pilot, including the size and strength of the area of precipitation or cloud tops information, nor did she solicit or disseminate any pilot reports related to the conditions, as required.The airplane entered an area of heavy to extreme precipitation, likely a thunderstorm updraft, while in instrument meteorological conditions. Tracking information indicated that the airplane climbed about 300 ft, then entered a right, descending spiral and broke up in flight at high altitude. The recovered wreckage was found scattered along a path about 2.6 miles in length. Both wings separated, and most of the empennage was not located. The airplane was likely about 148 lbs over the maximum allowable gross weight at the time of the accident. Examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of a preaccident malfunction or failure that would have prevented normal operation.The pilot, who owned the airplane, did not possess an instrument rating. The pilot-rated passenger in the right seat was instrument-rated but did not meet recency of experience requirements to act as pilot-in-command. Toxicology testing detected a small amount of ethanol in the pilot’s liver but not in muscle. After absorption, ethanol is uniformly distributed throughout all tissues and body fluids; therefore, the finding in one tissue but not another is most consistent with post-mortem production.Page 2 of 10 ERA19FA188Hazardous weather avoidance is ultimately the pilot’s responsibility, and, in this case, the airplane was sufficiently equipped to provide a qualified pilot with the information necessary to navigate hazardous weather; however, the controller’s failure to provide the pilot with adequate and timely weather information as required by Federal Aviation Administration Order JO 7110.65X contributed to the pilot’s inability to safely navigate the hazardous weather along his route of flight, resulting in the penetration of a thunderstorm and the resulting loss of airplane control and inflight breakup.
The pilot reported that a left crosswind existed during the landing roll on the asphalt surface. When the tailwheel contacted the runway, the airplane's left wing lifted, and the right wing struck the ground. The airplane exited the runway to the left and stopped. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor reported that he was going to demonstrate a simulated engine failure on takeoff for the student pilot. After climbing the airplane several hundred feet, he reduced the engine power to idle and pitched the airplane to maintain best glide speed. He applied back pressure to the yoke during the landing flare and realized the airplane was going to land harder than desired. The airplane landed hard on the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings.The instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot was conducting a solo flight during which he was practicing full-stop landings. During his third landing, the nosewheel bounced. He added power to regain control of the airplane, but the airplane veered off the left side of the runway and continued down an embankment before coming to a stop. Examination of the airplane revealed buckling of the firewall and engine mount.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane. The accident is consistent with the pilot’s loss of directional control during his attempted recovery from a bounced landing.
The pilot reported that, during landing on a remote, unimproved airstrip, he overshot the touchdown point by about 150 ft. During the landing roll, the airplane veered right, and he decided to go around. During the takeoff climb, he pulled up because he realized that the airplane was not going to be able to clear trees, and the airplane aerodynamically stalled. The left wing dropped and struck trees, and the airplane spun 180° and impacted the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings, the empennage, and the fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that he was concerned about the condition of the landing and taxi surfaces of the private, grass airstrip due to heavy rainfall. He overflew the field but was unable to determine the condition. He determined that it would be safer to land on a road perpendicular to the runway. Upon landing on the road, the airplane suddenly veered right. The pilot applied opposite rudder, but the airplane exited the road and nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing lift strut and rudder.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 from 360° at 7 knots. The pilot was landing the airplane to the west.
The flight instructor in the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, after landing, the airplane veered left. In an attempt to correct back to centerline, the pilot receiving instruction applied full right rudder. The instructor immediately applied full left rudder and brake to prevent a ground-loop, but the airplane ground looped to the right, the left main landing gear collapsed, and the left wing impacted the ground.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.The instructor reported that a Federal Aviation Administration inspector examined the airplane's systems and found no anomalies.The airport's automated weather observation station reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was variable at 3 knots. The pilot landed the airplane on runway 34.
The aircraft experienced a vibrational excitation environment which exceeded the previously measured accelerations used to establish an autopilot ground-sensing threshold. The excessive oscillations activated the ground-sensing system, which transitioned the autopilot from Autoland into "ground" mode and commanded a reduction in rotor speed.
The student pilot reported that he was conducting the first landing of the second solo flight in the pattern. During the landing, the airplane bounced four times. The student taxied the airplane off the runway and shut down the engine. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the engine mounts. The student reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot and three passengers departed on a local sightseeing flight at a music festival. The helicopter impacted a densely wooded area and came to rest between trees on its right side. The surviving passenger stated to the media that the helicopter’s engine made sounds “like your car does when it runs out of fuel.”  Examination of the helicopter at the accident site indicated evidence of main rotor blade rotation; however, damage to the engine drive system did not reveal evidence of engine power at the time of impact. Additionally, the oil pressure warning light bulb filament was found stretched consistent with illumination at the time of impact, which according to the helicopter’s operating handbook, may be one indication of a loss of engine power. About 5 gallons of fuel was drained from the helicopter following the accident, with no evidence of fuel contamination. Examination of the airframe, flight controls, and engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he performed a wheel landing on the dirt surface airstrip. During the landing roll, he attempted to avoid several large rocks that were in the airplane's path by applying right rudder and right brake. The airplane veered right, and he applied too much brake pressure, and the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right-wing lift struts and the rudder. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, while landing on a grass runway, the airplane nosed over. The pilot acknowledged that he likely landed with the brake pedals depressed. He checked the wheels, and they moved freely. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, both wings, and the vertical stabilizer.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 10 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 210° at 8 knots. The pilot was landing the airplane on runway 19.
The pilot reported that the airspeed was slow during landing, and "when I began my flare…[the airplane] dropped onto the runway hard and bounced." He added full power and full right rudder to abort the landing, but the airplane exited the left side of the runway. The airplane became airborne, but the landing gear wheels encountered tall grass and the airplane did not have sufficient airspeed to stay airborne. The airplane descended into the mud on the left side of the runway, collided with a drainage culvert, and nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing, 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.