roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot noted water in the fuel tanks while performing a preflight inspection and sampled the fuel until it appeared clear of contamination. He refueled the airplane, performed an engine run-up, and took off. During the initial climb, the airplane reached about 200 ft above ground level before the engine lost total power; the pilot landed on the remaining runway. The airplane overran the departure end of the runway and impacted a ditch, which resulted in substantial damage. Postaccident examination of the airplane's fuel system revealed that it was contaminated with water throughout. Testing of the airport fuel tank revealed no evidence of contamination, and no other airplanes fueled around the time of the accident airplane reported contamination. It is likely that some water remained in the airplane's fuel system after the preflight inspection, which resulted in a total loss of power in flight when the contaminated fuel reached the engine.
The pilot reported that, while being vectored for an instrument landing system approach on an instrument flight plan, he flew through some clouds, and the airplane encountered multiple birds. One bird struck the left wing, which resulted in substantial damage to the wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, upon landing and approaching the taxiway he intended to exit, he lifted his feet from the "rudderbars" to engage the brakes. The airplane abruptly entered a left turn, and he thought he used the right rudder, but he mistakenly used brake pedal. Immediately thereafter, the airplane nosed over.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right 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 he believes the accident could have been avoided "if [he] had kept [his] feet on the rudderbars until [the airplane] had exited the runway."
The pilot was conducting a personal cross-country flight when the airplane had a total loss of engine power while on a 3-mile base leg for the runway at the intended destination. The airplane collided with trees and terrain during the forced landing, which resulted in substantial damage to the composite fuselage and wings.Based on recorded engine data, most of the flight was flown above the maximum continuous engine speed of 5,500 rpm and, as a result, the actual fuel consumption rate during the flight exceeded the fuel consumption rates listed in the Pilot Operating Handbook performance section. The engine operates between two modes, economy and power, which have significantly different fuel consumption rates. Although the airplane was equipped with an analog tachometer and analog fuel quantity indicator, it was not equipped to display instantaneous fuel flow rate, total fuel used, or the engine operating mode (economy vs. power).Postaccident fuel consumption calculations, based on the engine running in power mode for 68.4% of the flight and economy mode for the remaining 31.6% of the flight, suggest that the engine likely used at least 15.2 gallons of fuel. The pilot reported that the airplane’s fuel gauge indicated 17 gallons before the flight, but postacccident testing revealed that the fuel gauge consistently indicated 1.0 to 1.5 gallons more than the amount in the fuel tank. The airplane likely had 15.5 to 16.0 gallons of fuel before engine start; as such, the pilot likely departed with less fuel than he thought was on board. However, the airplane would likely have had enough fuel to complete the flight had the pilot operated the engine at or below the airplane manufacturer’s maximum continuous speed limit.
The pilot was conducting a visual flight rules cross-country flight. He filed a flight plan before departure but declined a formal weather briefing. Although the weather information he gathered about the flight could not be determined, he indicated to his spouse before departure that the weather at his intended fuel stop was “not good,” but that he had sufficient fuel onboard to continue to the destination airport without refueling. GPS data showed that the airplane proceeded directly toward the airport where he intended to refuel, and while approaching the airport for landing the pilot reported via radio that he was “hung up” and would maneuver for a left downwind. There were no further radio communications from the pilot. GPS data revealed that, about the time the pilot made the final radio call, the airplane was about 500 ft above ground level; it then banked left and rapidly descended into rising terrain. The wreckage was located on a hillside about 4 nautical miles southeast of the airport.The distribution of the wreckage was consistent with a high speed impact. Examination of the airframe, engine, and associated systems revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Although the pilot held an instrument rating, his instrument currency could not be determined, and his wife, who flew with him often, stated that he rarely filed or flew instrument flight rules flights.Weather camera images revealed the presence of low cloud layers and limited visibility in the area of the accident site around the time of the accident. Despite his apparent awareness of forecast marginal visual flight rules conditions and temporary instrument meteorological conditions, the pilot chose to depart and continue into an area of low cloud ceilings and rising terrain. It is likely that, while maneuvering at low altitude toward the airport, the pilot's in-flight visibility was limited by the cloud conditions, which resulted in spatial disorientation and a loss of control. Page 2 of 12 ANC19FA033The pilot had a history of high blood pressure and diabetes, and toxicology revealed medications that were consistent with appropriate medical treatment and were not considered impairing. The pilot’s downloaded glucometer readings during the flight had no indications of an adverse diabetic event; therefore, the pilot’s diabetes and use of diabetes medication did not contribute to the accident. The coronary artery disease observed during the autopsy was below that generally considered significant. Although the pilot’s medical conditions placed him at increased risk for a sudden impairing or incapacitating cardiovascular event, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether such an event occurred.
The pilot of the gyroplane departed on a local personal flight in visual meteorological conditions at an unknown time. Several witnesses  saw the gyroplane descending straight down and impacting the ground near the departure airport. All major components of the aircraft were located at the accident site. No preimpact anomalies were noted with the gyroplane. The pilot had built the gyroplane from a kit about a year before the accident. As best as could be determined from his flight records, the pilot had received about 36 hours of flight instruction in the gyroplane. Autopsy and toxicology testing of the pilot revealed no evidence of physiological impairment or incapacitation, and the reason for the gyroplane's descent and impact with terrain could not be determined.
The pilot reported that, during landing with 40° flaps, he reduced power and began the flare. He added that he heard the stall warning horn and felt a buffet and then the airplane "pitched down [then] straight back to flare." He said the airplane was "high and slow," and it landed hard. The nose landing gear collapsed, and the airplane bounced and then slid to a stop.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the engine mounts.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel, tundra tire-equipped airplane reported that, before takeoff, while holding short of the runway, he set the parking brake and performed the engine runup. He released the parking brake, taxied onto the runway, and took off for a flight to a nearby airport.The pilot reported that he performed the Before Landing checklist before conducting a short- and soft-field landing on the damp, grass portion of the grass/gravel runway. He added that, about 2 seconds after touchdown, the tail began to lift. He confirmed that his feet were on the floor without actuating the brakes, and he maintained full back elevator control. As the airplane transitioned onto the gravel portion of the runway, the airplane nosed over.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and empennage.Postaccident examination revealed that the parking brake was partially engaged. The pilot reported that the parking brake system was not damaged, but the system would not return to the "off" position without "jostling the cable." He added that he believed the parking brake system had become "sticky, requiring lubricant." However, given that there was no issue with the parking brake during takeoff, it is unlikely it resulted in the nose-over upon landing.
The pilot reported that, during the landing roll, he applied "aerodynamic braking to slow the aircraft." The airplane departed the runway when he attempted to exit it onto a taxiway. The left main landing gear wheel fairing struck a taxiway light, and the leading edge of the right wing struck runway signage. 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 pilot reported that, during the landing flare, the airplane stalled and then fell the final 3 to 5 ft to the runway and landed hard. Subsequently, the nose landing gear tire "blew out," which resulted in the mounting framework collapsing. The airplane then veered right and exited the runway, and the right wing impacted a runway sign. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the engine mount and right 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 takeoff, the airplane "did not gain altitude normally." About midfield, the airplane had climbed only a few feet, and the right wing hit tall grass that outlined the 40-ft-wide runway. The pilot aborted the takeoff, and the airplane departed the right side of the runway and came to rest nose down. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the engine mounts. According to the Pilot's Operating Handbook, the airplane's wingspan was 32 ft 9 in. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot had departed on a cross-country flight. About 1,000 ft above ground level, the engine lost partial power. The pilot made a forced landing in an open field, during which the left wing sustained substantial damage as it contacted the ground. The airplane had a recurring engine performance deficiency that the pilot was aware of, and he used a temporary fix to work around the issue. The mechanic who performed maintenance on the engine before the accident thought that the issue involved the carburetor. Postaccident examination of the carburetor revealed no malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation.Postaccident examination of the engine revealed multiple incorrectly set valve clearances and multiple cylinders with lower-than-acceptable compression. Thus, the mechanic who performed maintenance on the engine failed to identify the engine’s out-of-adjustment valves or the low-cylinder compression.
The pilot and passenger of the helicopter were conducting a wildlife survey when the engine and main rotor began to lose rpm. The pilot lowered the collective, rolled the engine throttle control to full power, and attempted to regain the engine and main rotor rpm without success. The pilot conducted a forced landing to an opening in the canopy of vegetation below the helicopter, during which the helicopter rolled over onto its left side, resulting in the separation of the tail boom and substantial damage to the fuselage and main rotor.An examination of the helicopter and engine revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation; and the reason for the loss of performance could not be determined with the available information.
The commercial pilot of the experimental airplane reported that he was unable to enter the destination airport airspace, so he remained outside of the airspace at a reduced power setting. After adjusting the mixture control, the engine experienced a complete loss of power and the propeller stopped rotating. About 1,600 ft above ground level (agl), the pilot initiated a steep dive to increase airspeed and attempt to get the propeller to windmill and the engine to restart; however, the propeller would not rotate, so he pulled out of the dive about 300 ft agl and aligned with traffic on an interstate for a forced landing. During the landing, the right wing contacted a truck and the airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. A postaccident engine test run revealed no anomalies, and the test was unable to determine why the propeller would not windmill above the published speed. The atmospheric conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to the accumulation of carburetor icing at glide and cruise power settings. The pilot did not use the carburetor heat during the reduced engine power operation; therefore, it is likely that the carburetor accumulated ice, which resulted in the total loss of engine power.
The commercial pilot was conducting a visual flight rules scheduled passenger flight with five passengers. During the return leg to the company’s base airport, the pilot requested, and was given clearance to, a short gravel runway of 1,858 ft that terminated at parallel cross-runways and had inbound airplanes. The wind was reported as variable at 3 knots, and the outside air temperature was 88°F which was 25° warmer than usual. The pilot stated that he conducted a steeper than normal approach and performed a normal 30° flap landing flare; however, the airplane floated halfway down the runway. He initiated a go-around by advancing the throttle to takeoff power and retracting the flaps to 20° as the main landing gear briefly touched down. Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) data indicated that the airplane arrived 0.1 mile from the runway threshold at 149 ft above ground level (agl) and 110 knots of ground speed, which was 32 knots faster than the short field landing approach speed listed in the pilot operating handbook. A witness in the air traffic control tower (the ground controller) stated that the airplane “bled off a lot of airspeed,” during the landing attempt and climbed out in a very flat profile. The tower local controller stated that after liftoff, the airplane’s right wing dropped and the airplane appeared to be turning right into conflicting landing traffic, so he twice instructed the airplane to “left turn out immediately.” The pilot stated that he attempted to comply with the tower controller’s instruction, but when he applied left aileron, the airplane appeared to stall, rolled rapidly right, and descended in a right-wing-low attitude. It subsequently impacted the surface between runways. A postimpact fire ensued, and the pilot helped the passengers egress. The airplane was destroyed by postimpact fire. Given the evidence, it is likely that the pilot decided to land on the short runway to expedite the arrival and did not perform an appropriate short field landing approach, which resulted in excessive airspeed and altitude over the runway threshold, a long landing flare, rapid Page 2 of 10 ANC19LA031deceleration, and a self-initiated go-around from a slow airspeed. Had the pilot initiated the go-around as he approached the runway with indications of an unstable visual approach, the airspeed would have been well above stall speed, which would have allowed for the desired positive climb out on runway heading. The pilot likely attempted to comply with the tower local controller’s urgent commands to turn while the airplane was near the limit of performance (the temperature was about 25 degrees warmer than average, which would have resulted in a higher density altitude than the pilot was accustomed to and degraded aircraft and engine performance). The pilot’s maneuvering resulted in the exceedance of the critical angle-of-attack of the high wing (right wing) during the left turn, and an aerodynamic stall.
The helicopter pilot of the aerial application flight departed from the rooftop helipad of a truck to spray a field. He reported that as the helicopter turned, descended, and leveled off, he realized that the main rotor rpm began to decay. The pilot increased throttle, lowered the collective, and applied aft cyclic to increase rotor rpm; however, the tailboom contacted the ground and the helicopter rolled inverted, which resulted in substantial damage. The pilot added that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions with the helicopter.
The student pilot reported that he experienced an "unexpected high degree" of banking and controllability issues with the experimental, light-sport, weight-shift-control aircraft during the initial climb, so he decided to land. During the landing roll, the aircraft bounced. The aircraft then touched down on the nose landing gear, rolled onto the left wing, and then slid to a stop. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and the airframe. The student reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the aircraft that would have precluded normal operation.
The tailwheel-equipped airplane touched down on the runway centerline in a 7-knot right quartering tailwind and started to drift left. The pilot corrected with right rudder input, but the airplane started to drift left again. He then applied right brake and rudder input, and the airplane changed direction 30°; however, the left wing and left horizontal stabilizer contacted the runway before the airplane came to a stop. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing, left elevator, and left horizontal stabilizer. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions with the airplane.
The pilot reported that the airplane's gross takeoff weight was 300 lbs less than the maximum allowable takeoff weight. He performed a short-field takeoff from the 1,800-ft-long gravel surface, and the initial climb continued as expected. However, the climb performance then degraded and became insufficient to clear 80-ft-tall trees located about 1,000 ft from the departure end of the runway. The airplane collided with treetops, descended, and subsequently impacted a lake and became submerged. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the stabilator. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The airplane owner and a mechanic had reassembled the airplane's wings and re-rigged the flight controls; the pilot had subsequently been having trouble with aileron control during test flights. The accident flight was the fourth test flight of the day to diagnose and fix the issue. During takeoff, the airplane "quickly" became airborne and began to roll to the left about 15 ft above the ground. The pilot applied full right aileron; however, the airplane continued to roll left and descend, and the airplane impacted the ground in a left-wing-low attitude, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing spar, bottom fuselage, cowling, engine, landing gear, and firewall. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed improper rigging of the ailerons. The improper rigging and improper aileron cable tensions most likely resulted in a loss of aileron control during takeoff.
The solo student pilot reported that, while practicing a soft-field takeoff, he applied full power and pitched the airplane's nose "above the horizon." The airplane became airborne, the wind pushed the airplane to the left, and the airplane struck a hay bale on the left side of the runway. The student turned the airplane toward the runway and landed on the remaining runway without further incident. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and empennage.The chief flight 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 34 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 240° at 4 knots. The same automated station reported that, about 26 minutes after the accident, the wind was from 240° at 9 knots. The student was departing from runway 17.The chief flight instructor reported that the student's flight instructor told him not to practice soft-field takeoffs during a solo flight. The instructor stated that the student required more practice on the takeoff technique.
The commercial pilot had completed one banner tow flight and was dropping the banner and picking up a second banner when the accident occurred. The operator reported that the pilot could not recall the events of the accident; however, witnesses saw the pilot conduct the banner drop from about 250 ft above ground level. After dropping the banner at an idle or nearly idle engine power setting, the airplane pitched up and abruptly banked left, impacting the ground about 180° from its previous heading. The operator suggested that the pilot's attention may have been diverted following the drop, and while operating at a low engine power setting, the airplane slowed and experienced an aerodynamic stall. The operator reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airframe, engine, banner, or the tow equipment that would have precluded normal operation.It is likely that the pilot failed to maintain adequate airspeed during the banner drop and pick-up procedure and exceeded the airplane's critical angle of attack. This resulted in an aerodynamic stall and subsequent loss of control at an altitude that precluded recovery.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, while landing off-airport on rough grassy terrain, the airplane struck a "bump" and bounced. After touching down again, the pilot applied brakes with the tail up, attempting to stop the airplane before it reached the top of a hill. However, the airplane reached the top of the hill and then proceeded downhill with the tail up and hit additional bumps. Subsequently, the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and left wing lift strut.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during a cross-country flight, while in cruise altitude at 3,000 ft mean sea level, the engine lost power. He subsequently performed a forced landing to a muddy wheat field. Examination at the site revealed that the left and right main fuel tanks were intact; the left tank was empty and the right tank contained about 25 gallons. The wing tip tanks were breached during the accident, but burns in the field were indicative of fuel being in the wing tip tanks at the time they were breached. The fuel selector was found in the left tank position. Further examination revealed that the fuel line from the fuel selector to the engine-driven fuel pump contained no fuel. A test run of the engine revealed no anomalies. Given the absence of fuel in the left tank, the position of the fuel selector at the accident site, and the engine's nominal performance during a postaccident test run, it is likely that the engine consumed all of the available fuel in the left fuel tank, which resulted in fuel starvation and a subsequent total loss of engine power.