roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot departed in the motorglider and impacted powerlines and terrain near the airport shortly thereafter. An individual who interacted with the pilot before the accident flight reported that “something was off” and that the pilot “seemed a little woozy.” A witness near the accident site reported seeing a low-flying airplane and stated that the engine sounded normal; however, she did not see the accident. Postaccident examination of the glider revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.Toxicological testing of the pilot detected impairing levels of ethanol and diphenhydramine consistent with the pilot having recently consumed alcohol before the flight. Therefore, it is likely that the pilot’s impairment from consuming alcohol contributed to his failure to maintain clearance from power lines.Diphenhydramine is available over-the-counter in many products used to treat colds, allergies, as well as insomnia because of its strong sedating effects. Patients are advised not to use diphenhydramine with ethanol because that increases drowsiness. Diphenhydramine alone would have caused drowsiness and diminished reaction time and performance; in combination with ethanol, these effects would be enhanced. Thus, the effects from the pilot’s use of diphenhydramine contributed to this accident.
The pilot was performing skydiving operations in the turboprop-equipped airplane. During the fourth flight of the day, after the skydivers departed the airplane, the pilot initiated a steep, turning descent with the power at idle, during which the airplane reached a maximum descent rate of 6,400 ft per min (fpm). While the airplane was on the base leg of the traffic pattern, the pilot attempted to arrest the descent by adding power; however, the engine did not respond to his movements of the power lever. He moved the propeller speed lever, which was also had no effect. He applied full nose-up trim and pulled the control yoke full aft against the stop, but the airplane would not maintain a level attitude, and subsequently collided with terrain short of the runway in a nose-low attitude.There were numerous publications from the STC holder and the engine and propeller manufacturers warning pilots to not use beta mode during inflight operations unless it is certified for those operations. If the power lever is placed below the flight idle gate into beta mode while inflight, the blade position will move to a fine blade angle. Depending on propeller rpm and flight speed, this adjustment may cause the moment from the aerodynamic load on the blade to shift from coarsening to fining, and may result in the propeller blades entering reverse and remaining “aerodynamically locked” in that position. No power lever input from the pilot can alter this, and using the feather valve is ineffective. It is likely that the only viable option to unlock the propeller is to shut down the engine to reduce the moments locking the propeller in place, given it could overcome windmilling speed loads on the blades.Postaccident examinations revealed no evidence of a mechanical malfunction with the engine, propeller, or airframe. A bench-flow test and subsequent teardown examination of the propeller governor revealed a few test points outside of limits that would not have precluded Page 2 of 13 WPR22LA114normal governor operation. The propeller rigging was incorrect and it is unknown if the rigging was changed on purpose to aid with faster descent rates; if this was the rigging at the time of the accident flight, it would have contributed to entering an aerodynamic lock sooner.  A performance study of the flight based on Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) data revealed high negative thrust values that can only be achieved with the power lever below the flight idle gate. It is likely that the propeller blade pitch angle was in beta and that the aerodynamic moment on the blades had reversed, locking the propeller in place and preventing the pilot from recovering control of the propeller.
According to a witness, during the takeoff, the airplane veered to the left and impacted a hangar and trees before coming to rest. Photos of the airplane showed that the airplane’s wings, fuselage, and empennage were substantially damaged. Multiple attempts to contact the pilot were unsuccessful, and the airplane could not examined following the accident. The witness’s description of the airplane’s flightpath is consistent with a loss of control during the takeoff; however, the reason for the loss of control could not be determined based on the available information.
The pilot reported that, during low-level flight, the airplane struck a power distribution line. Subsequently, the top section of the vertical stabilizer and rudder separated and sustained substantial damage. The pilot landed at a nearby airfield without further incident. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions of failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was conducting a night cross-country flight in instrument meteorological conditions. After passing the initial approach fix (IAF) for the RNAV (GPS) instrument approach at the destination airport, the airplane made about a 30° left turn, consistent with a teardrop entry into the procedure turn. The track data showed the airplane aligned with the outbound side of the holding pattern for about a mile before turning left again. As the airplane flew north of the published hold in its final minute of flight its altitude decreased from about 3,000 ft to about 2,600 ft before climbing back to about 3,000 ft and about 4 nautical miles (nm) from the initial approach fix (IAF), the airplane turned right, and descended rapidly in a spiral. The airplane traveled through heavily forested terrain and was highly fragmented.A witness who was inside a residence described hearing an airplane at a low altitude near the house. The witness described the noise as a loud or high pitch engine followed by silence. Another nearby witness saw the lights of the airplane but did not hear anything because they were in a car with the radio on. The witness stated the airplane was between 300 and 500 ft above ground level (agl). When they lost sight of the airplane as it descended behind houses, they estimated the altitude between 150 and 250 ft agl.A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot’s toxicology results revealed that sedating antihistamines diphenhydramine and doxylamine were present in tissue samples. It is possible that the combined effects of those drugs might have increased the pilot’s susceptibility to spatial disorientation. However, the diphenhydramine and doxylamine results in tissue cannot be used to establish whether the Page 2 of 10 CEN22FA131drugs contributed to spatial disorientation or were otherwise impairing the pilot at the time of the accident.Based upon the wreckage fragmentation, which was consistent with a high-speed impact, the constant descending turn and IMC, it is likely that the accident pilot experienced spatial disorientation and lost airplane control.
The accident helicopter was under contract to the United States Navy. The mission for the accident flight involved locating a training torpedo in the open waters, retrieving the torpedo using a recovery basket/cage system, then returning the torpedo to Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) by sling load. According to automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) data, after the helicopter departed, it proceeded north-northwest to an area about 44 miles away. After maneuvering in the area, the helicopter proceeded south-southeast to return to PMRF. As the helicopter approached the facility, it crossed the shoreline and began a shallow left turn as it maneuvered to the north, into the prevailing wind. As the helicopter neared the predetermined drop-off site, the left turn stopped, and the helicopter proceeded in a northeasterly direction. Multiple witnesses located near the accident site reported that as the helicopter continued the left turn towards the drop-off site, the turn stopped, and it began to travel in a northeast direction. The witnesses noted that as the helicopter flew about 200 ft above the ground, it gradually pitched nose down and impacted nose first, in a near-vertical attitude. An examination of the wreckage revealed the flight control fore/aft servo input link remained connected at its clevis end to the flight control fore/aft bellcrank, located adjacent to the main gearbox. However, the rod end was partially connected to the fore/aft servo input clevises and its bolt had mostly backed out of its normally installed position. The bolt exhibited no evidence of fractures or visible deformation and its threads exhibited no unusual wear. Therefore, the bolt likely backed out of its normally installed position during the accident flight due to the absence of its nut and cotter pin. This would have caused an uncommanded input to the Page 2 of 10 ANC22FA018fore/aft servo, resulting in the helicopter’s nose-down attitude, and the inability of the crew to control the pitch attitude of the helicopter. The fore/aft primary servo was installed on December 28, 2021. About 7.5 flight hours had elapsed from the time the fore/aft primary servo was installed until the day of the accident. The mechanic who installed the fore/aft servo input link to the fore/aft primary servo likely failed to correctly install the attaching hardware. The company’s certified inspector and who oversaw and inspected all of the work at completion, failed to ensure the hardware attaching the fore/aft servo input link to the fore/aft primary servo was installed correctly.
The pilot reported that he was performing touch and go landings when he stalled the airplane. The airplane departed controlled flight and impacted in a field near the airport and sustained substantial damage to the front of the fuselage and both wings. A post accident examination of the airplane showed no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operations.
The pilot reported that, while landing at a remote ice-covered airstrip, in flat light conditions, the airplane descended below the glide path and landed short of the airstrip.  The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no pre-accident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that, during the takeoff roll he encountered a right crosswind, and the airplane began to deviate to the left of the runway centerline. He attempted to correct the movement with application of right rudder, but the pilot was unsuccessful in correcting his course. To avoid a possible runway excursion, the pilot decided to fly in ground effect. He rotated and the airplane lifted off the runway; however, the left wing immediately dropped, and the airplane struck the ground. The pilot aborted the takeoff attempt, and the airplane landed in grass. The left wing was substantially damaged. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
During the takeoff roll, the pilot felt the airplane veer left, so he applied backpressure to the control yoke. The pilot reported that the airplane became airborne, settled back to the runway, became airborne again, then veered to the left and settled into a bean field off the side of the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings. An airport surveillance video of the accident showed that, during the takeoff roll, the airplane’s nose rotated for takeoff and the airplane did not appear to gain any altitude as it continued down the runway. Still in a nose-high attitude, the airplane lifted off and then began to drift to the left before it settled back to the ground into the bean field.A visual examination of the airplane did not reveal any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operations. The circumstances of the accident are consistent with the pilot commanding the airplane to rotate before rotation speed, resulting in a loss of control.
The pilot stated that, during the takeoff roll, she felt a “shudder” just before the gyrocopter became airborne. She immediately aborted the takeoff and reduced power with the aft cyclic still applied. The gyrocopter entered a steep nose-high attitude, and a main rotor blade struck the top of the vertical stabilizer. The gyrocopter departed the left side of the runway and landed hard, which resulted in substantial damage to the rudder. Also, the nosewheel fractured and separated from the airframe. Postaccident examination of the flight controls and the fractured nosewheel revealed no preimpact mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot receiving instruction reported that the purpose of the instructional flight was to practice various flight maneuvers, which were successfully performed. About halfway back to the departure airport, the pilot noticed the engine was “running rough.” The pilot proceeded to lean the airplane’s fuel mixture to correct the problem and noticed that the fuel flow gauge was “pegged.” The pilot continued to lean the mixture and adjusted the throttle, but no response was received from his inputs. The airplane began to lose altitude, and the pilot receiving instruction performed a forced landing to a flat muddy field. During the landing rollout, the nosewheel turned left in the mud, the airplane spun around, both wings and the propeller impacted the ground, and the airplane came to rest upright. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings.The flight instructor, who was also a mechanic, reported that, when the engine was running roughly, he tried to lean the mixture with no response. The flight instructor also reported that the fuel flow gauge needle had advanced into the manifold pressure side of the gauge and that the throttle had no response. The flight instructor assumed that the fuel control unit had a mechanical issue.Postaccident examination of the airplane found no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Testing of the fuel injection system found internal damage to the fuel control valve. The internal damage was likely consistent with fuel injection system contamination. In addition, the interior of the fuel pump had a dark deposit that was firmly adhered to the surface and could not be removed. When viewed under magnification, the deposit was found to be consistent with corrosion of the surface material. Thus, corrosion was likely present in the contamination. Page 2 of 8 CEN22LA128The engine manufacturer’s guidance stated that fuel injection system contamination may lead to “component damage, erratic engine operation, loss of power, or engine shutdown.” Although the source of the contamination could not be determined based on the available evidence, the contamination likely caused the fuel control system to fail, which led to the total loss of engine power during the accident flight.
The pilot in the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that during landing, the airplane touched down on the asphalt runway and bounced. The airplane veered left and exited the runway and nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to forward 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, while landing, the airplane bounced twice, which was followed by a noise that sounded like the airplane had sustained damage. The pilot aborted the landing and during the second landing attempt, the nose wheel landing gear separated, which resulted in the propeller striking the runway and 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 was conducting a personal flight in his experimental, amateur-built airplane. The flight data revealed that the pilot made multiple 90-degree turns before the airplane’s flight path became established over a highway. The airplane then entered a maneuver that was consistent with an aileron roll where it lost about 1,000 ft of altitude. A few minutes later the airplane entered a maneuver consistent with a split-S. Security video near the accident site captured the airplane in a steep nose-down descent before impacting the ground near airport hangars. Several objects from the airplane were seen falling to the ground south of the accident site. In another security video, an image of the airplane showed that the left horizontal stabilizer and elevator and the vertical stabilizer and rudder had separated from the empennage. A portion of the right horizontal stabilizer and elevator remained attached to the empennage. The left wing tip and canopy also separated. The accident site debris field revealed that the rudder and rudder surface skin were the furthest separated components from the impact crater and main wreckage, indicating that the rudder was likely the first component to fail. The remaining separated components were found in the debris field.The airplane data revealed that the pilot entered the split-S maneuver at an airspeed that exceeded the published manufacturer’s airspeed for that maneuver. The airplane then rolled to an inverted position and pitched down causing the airspeed to increase dramatically. The last recorded data point, at an altitude about 3,199 ft, showed the airspeed was 248 KIAS (262 KTAS), well above the published never exceed speed of 200 knots. The high airspeed allowed rudder flutter to occur, resulting in an in-flight breakup and subsequent impact with terrain.A postaccident examination of the airframe revealed damage consistent with an in-flight rudder flutter event that resulted in an in-flight breakup and subsequent impact with terrain. Page 2 of 12 WPR22FA100There were no indications of any pre-existing cracks or anomalies with the airframe structures, and no pre-accident anomalies were observed that would have precluded normal control of the airplane.
The helicopter pilot was flying about 450 ft above ground level over water paralleling a coastline. The engine suddenly developed a violent shaking and vibration, and engine power was lost. The pilot entered an autorotation, flew toward shallow water, and impacted the water hard about 10 seconds after the onset of the vibration. Examination of the engine revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunction; however, the examination and teardown were significantly limited due to corrosion as a result of postaccident saltwater immersion.Engine manufacturer guidance indicated that the helicopter was at an increased risk of stuck valves due to being operated in a region with high ambient temperatures, in addition to operating at lower altitudes and slower airspeeds. Within the year preceding the accident, a total of four engine cylinders had been overhauled and replaced due to stuck valves and low compression. The postaccident examination found no evidence of a stuck intake or exhaust valve. Given the engine’s repeated history of stuck valves and low compression, combined with the pilot’s reported sensations felt during the loss of power, and the lack of any evidence of catastrophic engine failure, it is likely the engine again experienced a stuck valve, which resulted in the loss of engine power and a forced landing in water.At the time of the accident, the helicopter was 37 flight hours past its manufacturer-required 100-hour inspection interval. Had the inspection intervals been followed, it is possible evidence of valve sticking may have been identified, as it had been several instances within the year before the accident.
The non-certificated pilot reported that during the initial climb after taking off, he lowered flaps and the airplane pitched up into a nose-high attitude. The pilot reduced power and attempted to land back on the runway, but the airplane exceeded its critical angle of attack, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and loss of airplane control at an altitude too low to allow for recovery. The airplane impacted trees and terrain. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right aileron, the left wing strut, and the fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airframe or the engine that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot reported that he had recently purchased and reassembled the airplane and had performed multiple takeoffs and landings before the accident takeoff. The pilot reported that the nose-high pitch after the flap application was “higher than expected.”
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped experimental airplane reported that, he mistook a parking lot for what he thought was an ultralight/light sport runway. While on final approach he observed power lines that obstructed the approach. He pulled up to avoid the power lines; however, he did not add engine power and the airplane stalled, landed hard and veered to the right where it struck a water drum and came to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to 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 pilot reported that, he decided to perform a downwind landing because the setting sun was shining directly down the active runway. During the landing, the airplane veered off track and the main landing gear sustained damage after striking a culvert. The pilot applied engine power and performed a go-around, and during the second landing attempt, the airplane veered off the runway and collided with bushes in the runway drop off. The wings and fuselage were substantially damaged. The pilot reported no preaccidentct mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll with a possible right quartering tailwind, he lost control of the airplane. He corrected by adding power, the airplane departed the runway, crossed the state highway, and impacted a fueling station. 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 in the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that, he planned for a wheel landing. Shortly after the main landing gear touched down followed by the tailwheel, the main landing gear lifted off the ground. The pilot pitched the airplane forward, but the airplane continued to bounce. The pilot again applied forward pressure to the control stick when the tail lifted, and the airplane subsequently nosed over. The rudder, wing struts and forward fuselage were 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 reported that after touchdown, he was unable to stop the airplane on the 5,092 ft runway due to snow and ice contamination. The airplane subsequently departed the end of the runway and impacted airport lighting equipment, which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot stated that braking action was reported as 3/1/3, which corresponded to medium braking action for the initial 1/3 of the runway, poor braking action for the middle 1/3 of the runway, and medium braking action for the last 1/3 of the runway. The pilot reported no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation and that he should have diverted to another airport with better runway conditions.