roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot declared an emergency to air traffic control after the airplane’s engine began to run rough while en route to the destination airport. He received radar vectors to an alternate airport but was unable to reach that airport. During the subsequent off-airport landing, the airplane impacted trees and sustained substantial damage to the wings and fuselage.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed the magneto case’s cover screws were loose and there was corrosion present on the magneto housing. The corrosion would have resulted in the magneto’s capacitors not properly grounding to the magneto case due to the corrosion, which also resulted in electrical arcing near the points and melting that was found on the cam follower. Without a proper attachment of the magneto case due to the loose cover screws, there would have been a slight case separation that would result in a simultaneous failure of both magneto sides due to a lack of ground.A review of airframe logbooks showed that there was no logbook entry, as required by regulation, stating that the magneto was removed and replaced after a 500-hour inspection of the magneto was performed by a repair station. An invoice from a maintenance facility to the pilot stated that the magneto was removed and replaced for a 500-hour inspection. The repair station’s Airworthiness Approval Tag for the magneto stated that the installer of the magneto must comply with the magneto manufacturer’s Service Bulletin SB651, which was not performed based on the corrosion and electrical arching found during the postaccident examination.
The pilot of the tail wheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll with a crosswind, the airplane began to swerve right as the tail wheel touched the ground. The airplane then veered off the right side of the runway and collided with a ditch. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage just above the right main gear attachment. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was enroute to the next field he would spray and used a handheld GPS unit to navigate. When he finished imputing information into the GPS, he looked up and saw power lines across his flight path. The pilot pulled up on the collective and cyclic to climb; however, the helicopter struck the upper power line. The pilot entered an autorotation, during which the pilot felt unusual vibrations, but had full authority of the flight controls. The helicopter settled into a mature stand of corn, which resulted in structural damage to the tail boom and main rotor system. The pilot stated that he should have climbed to 500 ft agl before he used his GPS to navigate to the next field.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, while departing a remote rough and soft unimproved airstrip, the airplane’s tail rose off the ground just before the abort point and the airplane lifted off and entered into ground effect. Due to the high density altitude, the airplane was unable to gain sufficient airspeed to clear vegetation at the end of the airstrip. The pilot aborted the take off and the airplane came to rest in vegetation off the end of the airstrip. The right elevator was substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of N694V, a tailwheel equipped RV-8, reported that he was taxiing for a visual flight rules (VFR) departure with the intention of conducting a flight in the local area. He was taxiing under the direction of ground marshals in accordance with procedures in effect for the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) AirVenture 2022 fly-in. He was briefly “blinded” by the sun reflecting off the polished wing skin of another airplane and began a shallow S-turn to compensate. As he looked over the left side of his engine cowling, he noticed an airplane emerge from the blind spot. He applied full brakes but was unable to stop before the propeller contacted the empennage of an RV-4, N79KM. The pilot of N79KM, a tailwheel equipped RV-4, reported that he was stopped due to other airplanes in front of him on the taxiway. The RV-4, N79KM, sustained substantial damage to the vertical stabilizer, rudder, and elevator. The RV-8, N694V, sustained minor damage to both propeller blades. The pilots of both airplanes reported no failures or malfunctions with their respective airplanes before the accident.
The pilot reported that, during approach to landing, he became aware that the left rudder pedal was not responsive. He declared an emergency and landed uneventfully. Examination revealed that the left rudder cable fractured due to corrosion and severe cable wear at the left pulley location. Nearly all wires on the cable were worn to a chisel-like point, leaving a small number of wires in the core strand to fracture in ductile overstress during final separation. The cable corrosion and wear were likely accelerated due to sliding contact with the left pulley.Issues with the rudder control system installation were evident on both pulleys. Rubbing damage on the face of the left pulley indicated that the pulley was contacting adjacent structure at the outer diameter. This contact likely interfered with pulley rotation, leading to the accelerated corrosion and wear of the control cable from sliding contact within the pulley groove. Although no rubbing damage was observed on the right pulley, the cable contact pattern was offset from the groove centerline, indicating an alignment problem in the rudder control system at the right pulley.Review of the maintenance logs revealed that the last inspection of the flight controls was completed about 8 months before the accident, and an entry about 3 months later noted a stuck pulley and corrosion of the left rudder cable. The maintenance response to the entry stated, “upon further inspection, determined cable not corroded. . . No defects.” Given the findings of the postaccident examination, it is likely that the accident would have been prevented had maintenance personnel taken more proactive action at that time.
The pilot reported that, he was conducting touch-and-go landings in gusty crosswind conditions. After touchdown and during the landing rollout, the airplane encountered a strong wind gust and veered to the right.  He attempted to correct for the veer to no avail. The airplane subsequently exited the runway and impacted weather reporting equipment located on the airport, which resulted in 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.
During an aerial application flight while spraying a corn field, the helicopter’s tail section struck a powerline. The pilot did not see the powerline, which crossed over the middle of the cornfield perpendicular to the spray pass he was performing, but he knew what he had struck as soon as the helicopter came into contact with it. He had already begun to pull up out of the field when the helicopter struck the powerline and was still moving forward at approximately 50 mph. As the helicopter slowed and he reached about 200’ agl, the helicopter began a yaw to the right that developed into an uncontrollable spin in the same direction. As the helicopter began spinning faster and faster, the pilot rolled off throttle to minimize the torque induced rotations. During the touchdown, the helicopter impacted in an approximately level attitude, and then rolled over on its right side, and was substantially damaged. The pilot noted that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures of the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation and that the accident could have been avoided if more “field recon” procedures were done to be certain that powerlines are avoided.
The student pilot was conducting a zero-flap takeoff when shortly after liftoff the airplane entered an unintentional right roll that neither the student pilot nor his flight instructor could correct with full left aileron and left rudder input. The airplane continued to roll right until the right wingtip struck the ground. The nose landing gear and left main landing gear separated from the airplane during the hard landing. The airplane sustained substantial damage to a fuselage longeron, the left side of the stabilator, and the right aileron.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of any preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. Flight control cable continuity was confirmed for the ailerons, rudder, and stabilator. The aileron system exhibited binding due to impact-related damage to the right aileron.The airport’s weather station reported a calm wind condition about 5 minutes before the accident. However, the airport manager reported that the surface wind at the time of the accident was from the southwest at 16.5 knots, gusting 19 knots. A postaccident weather model for the airport included a west surface wind (277°) at 9 knots. Based on the wind model data, the airplane likely departed runway 7 with an 8 knot left quartering tailwind. The unintentional right roll was likely due to the student pilot not maintaining adequate roll control after liftoff.
Prior to landing, the pilot obtained a weather report, which included wind from 190° at 10 knots. The first attempt to land on runway 23 “felt high” and the pilot elected to perform a go-around maneuver. He landed “long” during the subsequent landing and was unable to slow the airplane before it overran the end of the runway. He stated that he was unable to perform a go-around maneuver due to trees at the departure end of the runway. The airplane came to rest against trees, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage. The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The wind reported at an airport about 6 nm east around the time of the accident was 170° at 7 knots gusting to 16 knots.
The instructor reported hearing a popping and banging sound while hover-taxiing during an instructional flight followed by an uncommanded right yaw. The instructor attempted to regain control, but the helicopter collided with the ground and rolled over onto its right side. Postaccident examination of the helicopter revealed that the tail rotor gearbox had fractured and that the tail rotor assembly had separated from the helicopter. Additional examination of the tail rotor blades, which had remained attached to the tail rotor drive shaft and gearbox, revealed corrosion and interior delamination of the blades. There was also erosion present on the blade leading edges, which likely provided a path for moisture to ingress, thereby resulting in the observed corrosion as well the failure of the bonding adhesive within the blade. It is likely that this condition resulted in an imbalance of the blades that imparted a vibratory loading onto the tail rotor gearbox that ultimately resulted in its failure during the accident flight. Review of partial maintenance records provided by the operator revealed that the tail rotor blades installed on the accident helicopter were not the blades that were noted in the maintenance logbooks, and the service history of the installed blades could not be determined.
The student pilot reported that, the airplane was high and slow while on approach for landing.  Shortly after the airplane touched down hard, the airplane bounced, and drifted left of runway centerline. She applied full engine power for a go-around, but the airplane continued to drift left, and settled hard on an adjacent taxiway. The left-wing was substantially damaged. The student 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 landing at an unimproved airstrip, the airplane landed short and impacted a berm. The airplane veered off the runway and came to rest on its nose. The airplane sustained substantial damage to 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 reported that, while in cruise flight at about 4,000 ft mean sea level (msl), he advanced the throttle to initiate a climb, but the engine began to lose power. In an effort to regain power, he further advanced the throttle and propeller levers and switched the fuel selector to the left tank to no avail. He subsequently made a forced landing in a small gully, which resulted in substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. When the pilot was asked if he applied carburetor heat after the loss of power, he stated that he did not, as there was no visible moisture in the area, and he thought carburetor ice would be unlikely. A postaccident examination revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. According to a carburetor icing probability chart, the ambient conditions present at the time of the accident were conducive to the development of serious icing at cruise power. It is likely that the loss of engine power was the result of the formation of carburetor icing, and had the pilot applied carburetor heat, engine power would likely have been restored.
A flight instructor was conducting a flight review for the pilot. After a normal flight, as the airplane approached its destination, the flight instructor extended the landing gear. He felt the landing gear drop but he did not see a safe landing gear light indication on the instrument panel. He cycled the landing gear 3-4 times and the safe landing gear down light flickered but did not indicate a safe down condition. The flight instructor elected to land the airplane as gently as possible on the runway. During the landing he felt the tires touch the runway, and the landing gear collapsed a few seconds later. The airplane slid on the runway on its belly, which resulted in substantial damage to formers and stringers below the belly skin. When a local mechanic lifted the airplane and lowered the landing gear, the gear down light did not illuminate. The mechanic secured the landing gear with bars and towed the airplane off the runway.  A detailed examination of the landing gear system, including the cockpit gear indication, throttle warning horn, and landing gear mechanical linkages did not reveal any failures or abnormalities that could have contributed to the gear collapse. The entire landing gear system performed correctly, and no faults were discovered. The flight instructor’s report of a landing gear light malfunction could not be duplicated. A review of the airframe logbook entries did not reveal any discrepancies or uncorrected defects with the landing gear system.
The pilot of an Air Tractor AT-802A was applying chemical on the first pass over a cotton field in a southerly direction. Simultaneously, an AT-802 was ferrying in a southeasterly direction, between 400 and 500 ft above the ground. As the AT-802A pilot completed his pass and climbed to reverse the direction of turn, his airplane collided with the ferrying AT-802 passing overhead. The AT-802A continued in a left turn and crashed into a soybean field, killing the pilot. The AT-802 began to spin and descended vertically to the ground; its pilot was seriously injured. The surviving pilot of the AT-802 later reported that he was unaware that the other pilot was operating in the area. The two pilots were not communicating by radio. Although there may have been some sun glare that could have affected the AT-802A pilot’s visibility, the investigation revealed that both pilots were in positions to see the other airplane in ample time to avoid a collision. An examination of both wreckages did not reveal evidence of a preexisting malfunction or failure that would have prevented normal operation of the either airplane.Although the Professional Aerial Applicator’s Support System (PAASS) slogan, “Ferry above five (hundred) and stay alive” was known to the AT-802 pilot and was commonly known in the aerial application industry, this investigation revealed that both pilots consistently climbed above 500 ft agl during their reverse-direction turns while applying chemical. If the pilot of the AT-802 had flown his airplane at or above 1,000 ft agl, the collision would likely have been avoided.Page 2 of 12 ERA22FA338
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, he was landing upslope on an off-airport landing site. During the landing rollout and as he was applying the brakes, the airplane encountered a “divot” on the landing surface. The airplane subsequently nosed-over which resulted in substantial damage to the wings, lift struts, vertical stabilizer and rudder. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The aerial application flight, which was operated within the load limitations of the airplane, was the pilot’s 5th flight of that day. The pilot stated that shortly after takeoff, about 15 ft above ground level (agl), the airplane would not continue to climb. The pilot advanced the throttle, but the engine did not seem to respond. The airplane was in a nose-high attitude when the right wing impacted a corn field near the end of the grass airstrip. The airplane came to rest in the corn field and sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and wings.Postaccident examination of the engine and accessories revealed no mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Earthen debris within the engine, internal rotational scoring, and the exhaust duct torsional buckling were consistent with engine operation at the time of impact. Some contaminants were noted within the engine accessories; however, these contaminants were consistent with environmental exposure during the impact sequence and the presence of rust due to the length of time between the accident and subsequent examinations. The reason for the reported partial loss of engine power could not be determined.
The pilot reported that, he was departing in the float-equipped airplane in strong gusty wind conditions. After accelerating on the water for about 3 seconds, the airplane suddenly became airborne and crabbed into the wind about 60° to 90° from the intended takeoff path and started to climb as it continued to track away from the intended flight path. As the climb continued, the airplane stalled and impacted the water in a nose low attitude which resulted in substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was conducting an air medical flight in the helicopter during early morning hours in dark night visual meteorological conditions. About 9 miles out from the intended landing zone, he contacted on-scene fire department personnel and asked for site information. The fire department personnel reported that there were high voltage power lines on the south side of the landing zone. The pilot made an approach and was looking out for the powerlines but could not locate the wires. He was wearing night vision goggles and could see the tower but not the wires. He also could not determine which way the wires were running off the tower. The pilot used the landing light and moved it up and down to try and find the wires but could not locate them. He thought the wires were farther out from the landing zone and not below the helicopter. However, as the helicopter descended for landing, the main rotor blades contacted the wires and the helicopter fell about 30 to 50 ft. All three crew members egressed after the pilot shut down the engines. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the main rotor blades, main rotor gearbox, and motor mounts; additionally, the left engine was hanging off the side of the helicopter.
The pilot explained that during the 20-minute flight, the weight-shift airplane was “in good working order with no known problems.” He completed his final approach, and at 2-3 feet above the runway surface, the left wing “stalled.” The airplane rotated to its left, the left main landing gear touched the surface, which rotated the airplane further left, and just after the nose landing gear touched down, the airplane departed the runway to its left about “55 degrees” off the runway heading.The pilot “applied full power” to clear the drainage swale to the airplane’s front but was unsuccessful. The airplane passed through the swale and rolled onto its left side which resulted in a serious injury to the pilot’s ankle and substantial damage to the wing structure.The pilot repeated that there were no pre-accident mechanical anomalies with his airplane that precluded normal operation.
The helicopter flight instructor was performing straight-in autorotation with power recovery maneuvers with a student pilot. On the third autorotation, the flight instructor stated that the student started the maneuver at 700 ft above ground level (agl) with the main rotor rpm at 100%. During the glide, when the RPM decayed to 90% and the airspeed decreased to 60 knots, the instructor intervened, and he attempted to recover the lost RPM. About 100 ft agl, the instructor prepared for a roll-on landing. The helicopter subsequently landed hard, rolled over on it’s left side and sustained substantial damage when the main rotor blades severed the tailboom. The instructor reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The non-instrument-rated pilot and student-pilot rated passenger were en route during a cross-country flight when they encountered instrument meteorological conditions. Air traffic control (ATC) communications and flight track data were consistent with the pilots being aware of deteriorating weather conditions along their desired route of travel and attempting to navigate around clouds before the pilot reported to ATC that they were in the clouds. The pilot’s final radio call to ATC was that they were “still in the soup” and the airplane subsequently descended rapidly and exceeded the airplane’s do not exceed airspeed (Vne) by 70-80 knots true airspeed (TAS) before the radar data ended. Witnesses heard a loud noise and then saw the airplane spiraling over their home along with separated pieces of the airplane falling from the sky before they impacted terrain.The debris field was about 1 mile long, and the first pieces of wreckage in the debris field were portions of the vertical stabilizer, indicating portions of the empennage separated from the airplane first. The observed damage was consistent with structural failure initiated by flutter of the rudder and no pre-existing anomalies were found during examinations of the wreckage.The accident is consistent with the non-instrument-rated pilot continuing to fly toward deteriorating weather conditions despite his knowledge of those conditions and his lack of qualification to fly in them. The pilot likely became spatially disoriented and lost control of the airplane after entering instrument meteorological conditions and losing the ability to see visual references. The airplane then entered a descent and exceeded its airspeed design limits to a point where rudder flutter occurred, which resulted in structural failure of the airplane.Page 2 of 12 WPR22FA266