roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped, high-wing airplane stated that he descended over the river and flew a low reconnaissance flight over the water to find a suitable floatplane landing site for the future. A witness, who was located on a boat ramp, recorded the airplane as it flew over the water at an altitude of about 10 to 20 ft. The airplane banked and turned as it followed the contours of the river while on a southern heading before disappearing out of view about a mile away as it made another turn around a bend in the river.The airplane continued to fly south over the water.  According to the pilot, he initiated a climb back toward cruising altitude well before reaching a set of power lines spanning the river. The pilot reported then hearing an “extreme bang” followed by a loss of engine power. His attempts to troubleshoot were unsuccessful, and he reported that he attempted to land on a field adjacent to the river but impacted the power lines as he was turning onto final approach. The power lines were about 30 to 40 feet over the water and spanned the width of the river. They were neither physically marked nor required to be marked, but they were depicted on the sectional area chart for that area. Postaccident examination of the engine did not reveal any discrepancies that would preclude normal engine operation. While the magnetos were worn down at the block electrodes, they produced spark when tested. A carburetor icing chart was used to determine icing probability, yielding a potential for serious icing at glide power based on the weather conditions at the time. However, the nearest available weather used for this analysis was from an airport 7.5 nautical miles (nm) away, and it is likely that the pilot maintained sufficient power during maneuvering and his climb. Based on this information, no evidence supporting the reported loss of engine power was found during the course of the investigation. Therefore, it is likely Page 2 of 7 ERA22LA283that the pilot did not climb sufficiently before reaching of the power lines, which resulted in an in-flight collision with the power lines and impact with the river.
The pilot said that upon touchdown, the airplane bounced slightly and began to veer left. He added power to abort the landing, but the airplane continued left off the runway. The pilot then reduced power and the airplane struck two parked trailers, which resulted in substantial damage to both wings and the fuselage. The pilot reported there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
After about 1 hour of flight in the agricultural airplane, the pilot was landing on his home airstrip on runway 14. The airplane touched down on centerline and bounced. The pilot attempted to correct for the crosswind; however, the airplane touched down again and ground looped off the side of the runway. The wings and the empennage sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operations. The reported wind at the time of the accident was from 350 degrees at 6 knots, gusting to 15 knots.
Shortly after takeoff, the experimental amateur-built airplane was seen by a witness near the accident site flying about 20 ft above a wheat field. The pilot performed an off-airport landing in the field, which resulted in the nose landing gear collapsing. The pilot sustained serious injuries, and his only recollections of the accident were that he thought the field was flat but encountered a bump during the landing and that he shut off the fuel selector after the accident. The pilot passed away more than 30 days after the accident.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed an adequate supply of fuel in both fuel tanks with no contaminants found. No discrepancies were noted during a visual inspection of the engine compartment, but during an attempt to start the engine following activation of the auxiliary fuel pump, a fuel hose from the gascolator to the engine-driven fuel pump separated from the outlet fitting of the gascolator due to inadequate clamping force. The hose was re-installed onto the fitting, and the engine was started and found to operate normally at low power; a full-power engine run was not performed due to impact-damaged propeller blades. While the airplane designer reported that a loose fuel hose at the outlet of the gascolator could introduce air into the fuel supply, it could not be determined whether this condition existed prior to, or was a result of the impact, and the reason the pilot performed an off-airport landing shortly after takeoff could not be determined.
The airplane owner/pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane had not been flying often and hired the flight instructor to help her regain proficiency. This was their fourth flight together and they planned to perform touch-and-go practice takeoffs and landings. The flight instructor reported that, on the third landing, the airplane touched down at a slightly-lower than desired speed. The airplane then swerved left as it decreased in speed and he instructed her to maintain the runway centerline. The airplane subsequently ground-looped to the left and impacted a runway sign. The flight instructor stated that it was too late for him to take over control of the airplane. The airplane’s right wing was substantially damaged. The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he was conducting a third maintenance test flight after a new engine had been installed with the airplane’s co-owner and two other passengers on board. The airplane was full of fuel and no preflight weight and balance calculations were completed. During the takeoff roll, the pilot rotated about 51 kts, which was 20 knots below normal rotation speed, and the airplane became airborne briefly before it settled back on the runway. The pilot then added nose up trim, rotated at 55 kts, and climbed slowly. The pilot continued to climb the airplane when the co-owner heard the stall warning horn. The pilot made a left turn to avoid terrain at the south end of the runway and then setup for a forced landing as the airplane was unable to maintain altitude. During the forced landing, the airplane impacted trees and terrain. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and both wings. The pilot reported that the airplane was overweight and that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. A postaccident weight and balance calculation determined that the airplane was about 359 lbs over the maximum takeoff weight.
The pilot reported that he was practicing pattern work and landings. After completing one landing, he back taxied, departed and entered the traffic pattern. While in the traffic pattern he lowered the landing gear; however, it did not extend properly. Multiple attempts to recycle the landing gear and manually extend the gear using the emergency extension procedure were not successful. He elected to return to a tower-controlled airport. The tower controller subsequently confirmed that the landing gear was only extended on the right side. The pilot executed an emergency landing which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the emergency gear extension handle was in the up and stowed position, and the emergency gear extension system worked as designed. The landing gear hydraulic power supply contained a reversible electric-motor driven hydraulic pump that was found inoperable. The electric motor was disassembled, and the brushes were found to be worn beyond limits. In addition, hydraulic fluid and dust were present on the permanent magnets, stator, and windings.
The student pilot reported that he was landing during a solo flight when the accident happened. He stated that the final approach was “going well and [he] was tracking centerline all the way up until touchdown.” As the airplane entered ground effect it yawed to the left. The airplane touched down and “side loaded.” The student pilot reported that he started to initiate a go-around, but then decided it best to abort the go-around and reduced the engine power to idle. The airplane exited the left side of the runway and received substantial damage to its fuselage. The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The vintage military jet was being operated under an experimental certificate. The airplane experienced a partial loss of engine power over an ocean at flight level 240. Specifically, the engine rpm reduced and stabilized to about 5,000. The pilot knew that 6,800 to 7,200 rpm would be required to maintain altitude and return to an airport. After two unsuccessful attempts to restore engine power, the pilot ejected at 3,000 ft mean sea level.The fuel system was examined at a maintenance facility after the wreckage was recovered from the ocean. The examination revealed that a bearing failed in the high-pressure fuel pump governor, which prevented pump output pressure from increasing above 850 pounds per square inch (psi); the operating range limit was between 1,900 to 2,200 psi.
The pilot reported that he conducted a long cross-country flight and landed with 10 gallons of fuel between the two wing fuel tanks. He subsequently departed without refueling and about 15 to 20 miles from his destination, the engine began to sputter. The pilot switched the fuel selector to the left tank, which momentarily resolved the partial loss of engine power, but the engine again sputtered when the airplane was about 3 miles from the destination. The pilot switched the fuel selector back to the right tank, after which the engine lost total power. He determined that the airplane had insufficient altitude to reach the runway, so he completed a forced landing on a road, during which the airplane struck an object, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing.The right fuel tank was found nearly empty, and the tank was intact with no areas of fuel leakage observed. The left tank contained less than 1/2 gallon of fuel; however, a fuel leak was observed at the wing root as a result of impact-related damage, and the fuel was measured several days after the accident. Therefore, the exact quantity of fuel that remained in the left wing tank at the time of the accident could not be determined.Postaccident testing of the engine found that it produced normal power after fuel was added to the right tank. Although the investigation could not determine the total fuel remaining in the left tank due to damage sustained in the accident, it is likely that the pilot exhausted the airplane’s total fuel supply during the approach to landing. The pilot reported that he should have refueled before departing on the accident flight and that he was “over trustful” of the fuel gauges.Page 2 of 7 ERA22LA276
According to the pilot, while attempting to depart from a turf runway with a third load of fertilizer and ¾’s tab of fuel in each tank, the airplane lifted off the ground and was only one to two feet in the air when it settled back down. The left landing gear struck a berm at the end of the runway that was hidden by tall grass and separated from the airplane. The pilot reduced the weight by dropping the fertilizer and returned to land. The airplane touched down on the right main landing gear and tail wheel and the pilot kept the left wing up as long as possible.  The left wing and fuselage sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he was departing from a remote unimproved landing site. During takeoff, at about 200 feet above ground level, the engine lost all power. The pilot made a forced landing to a gravel sand bar, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage and both wing lift struts. The pilot stated that he believed that the carburetor developed ice as weather conditions were conducive to carburetor icing and he failed to apply carburetor heat. The pilot reported that there were no pre-accident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor reported that during a discovery flight, the customer in the right seat locked his arms forward during landing and the instructor was unable to overpower him. The airplane subsequently landed hard with the nose wheel first and bounced. The instructor conducted a go-around and landed safely. A postaccident examination revealed substantial damage to the airframe.
The glider pilot reported that, during an early afternoon flight, the glider began to encounter a sink rate. The pilot attempted to find thermals in the area, without success, and decided to return to the departure airport. As the glider continued to lose altitude, the pilot elected to ditch in a lake. The glider landed flat in the water and decelerated rapidly, which resulted in substantial damage to both wings. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the glider that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the retractable gear airplane reported that, while conducting a practice instrument approach, he felt the gear go down and thought that he saw three green landing gear lights, and no gear unsafe indicator light. The main landing gear touched down and the nose dropped down lower than normal. The propeller struck the ground and the left main gear collapsed. The airplane received substantial damage to the left aileron.According to the pilot, a mechanic discovered the landing gear motor circuit breaker had popped, which disabled the landing gear from fully extending and lock in the down position and disabled the warning light system. Once the circuit breaker was reset, the landing gear functioned normally.
The pilot reported that, during the landing roll, the airplane nosewheel went into a “shallow dip” on the runway. The airplane began drifting to the left of the runway centerline and briefly became airborne as the pilot attempted a go around. However, as the airplane approached trees, the pilot closed the throttle and applied maximum brakes. The airplane impacted trees and came to rest in a grassy area at the end of the runway. 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.
According to the pilot, she performed the approach at the airplane’s reference landing speed (Vref) plus 10 knots. The airspeed adjustment and the gusting conditions resulted in a touchdown 1,000 ft beyond the touchdown zone on a 4,002 ft-long runway. The pilot applied the brakes with no response, ultimately guiding the airplane to the left at the departure end to avoid lights and other infrastructure. The airplane traveled into the runway’s grass apron, descended an embankment, and came to rest upright with substantial damage to the nose and right wing.The cockpit carpet and panels, as well as an exterior access panel just aft of the nose landing gear bay, were removed and revealed hydraulic (brake) fluid in the area. The nut that secured the 45° fitting to the 90° fitting of the brake hose at the pilot’s right brake master cylinder was found to be loose.According to the airplane’s Service Manual, the service interval for “Brake System Plumbing – Inspect for leaks, hoses for bulges and deterioration…” was after the airplane’s first 100 hours, and then “Every 200 hours” and “Every 12 [months]” thereafter. The most recent annual inspection was performed 12 months, 9 days, and 126.1 aircraft hours before the accident. While the airplane was 9 days past the manufacturer’s recommended inspection interval, the inspection required by regulations was not due for 3 weeks.  Page 2 of 8 ERA22LA272
The pilot was landing the airplane in gusting wind conditions. He reported that during the landing flare he encountered wind shear that pushed the airplane down and to the right. The airplane landed hard on the grass adjacent to the right of the runway. At 1156, the recorded weather at GAI included wind from 300° magnetic at 11 knots, gusting to 21 knots, and the pilot landed on runway 32. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the main landing gear and engine cowling. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the pilot he was conducting some pleasure flying and sightseeing in a float-equipped airplane.  He flew over a lake and decided to do a touch-and-go landing on the lake. He said while on final approach the wind shifted and the left wing “dropped.” The wing contacted the water and the airplane spun to the left. The right front float collided with the water and the airplane landed on the tail. The pilot taxied to the shore and noticed the damage to the horizontal stabilizer. An examination by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector confirmed substantial damage to the right horizontal stabilizer and rudder. The pilot reported that there was no pre-accident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, while in cruise flight about 1,000 ft above ground level, the engine began running rough. The pilot subsequently made a forced landing into a wooded area, which resulted in substantial damage to the airplane. Postaccident examination revealed that no fuel was present in the fuel line from the engine-driven pump to the carburetor. The carburetor bowl was completely dry, and the fuel tank was empty when viewed with a borescope. No anomalies were observed with the fuel cap vent, filler neck, carburetor, engine cylinders, magnetos, or the engine’s mechanical continuity.Based on the available evidence, it is likely that the airplane’s fuel supply was exhausted due to the pilot’s inadequate fuel planning, leading to a loss of engine power and forced landing. The airplane was not equipped with a fuel quantity gauge, which likely contributed to the pilot’s lack of awareness of the airplane’s low fuel state.
According to the student pilot, he was practicing touch-and-go landings. During the landing flare, the student pilot said that it “felt like a normal landing, but the airplane started to porpoise.” Once the airplane touched down, the student pilot tried to recover control of the airplane by pulling back on the yoke but, the airplane started to skid. He then overcompensated by applying too much rudder input, and the airplane veered off the runway, colliding with a taxiway sign. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the left horizontal stabilizer. The student pilot reported that there was no pre-accident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
After touchdown on the runway, the airplane’s left main landing gear collapsed. The airplane skidded to the left, departed the runway surface, and struck a taxiway sign. The left wing was substantially damaged. Postaccident examination revealed that the left main landing gear torque tube had fractured, which resulted in the gear collapse. Further examination of the torque tube revealed that it failed from fatigue cracks that originated in multiple locations. A service bulletin issued by the airplane’s manufacturer required replacement of the torque tube at 4,000 hours time in service to prevent fatigue failure of the torque tube; however, the airplane had accrued about 5,000 hours total time, and the tube was original to the airplane. While compliance with the service bulletin was not mandatory, replacement of torque tube would have likely prevented the accident.
After takeoff during an air medical flight, about 150 ft above ground level (agl), the pilot heard a "thump,” and the helicopter pitched up. The pilot immediately executed an emergency landing, and all occupants exited the helicopter uninjured. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the fenestron blades. Examination of the helicopter at the accident site revealed that the fairing cover was missing from fenestron assembly and was found fragmented about 600 ft in all directions. There was no evidence of a bird strike. The fairing cover fragments that were found showed damage consistent with ingestion into the rotating blades of the fenestron. All attachment hardware for the cover were accounted for and showed no evidence of preaccident failure. The damage to the fenestron housing was consistent with object ingestion. No preaccident failures or malfunctions were found with the fenestron body, fenestron blades, gearbox, or fenestron drive. The helicopter flew about 5.8 hours without incident after the most recent maintenance of the fenestron and no uncorrected maintenance anomalies were found in the maintenance logbooks. The reason for the separation and subsequent ingestion of the fenestron fairing cover into the fenestron blades could not be determined.
The flight instructor was providing initial flight training to the student. After completing hover and pattern work, they transitioned to a raised grass helicopter practice pad on the airport. After the student completed a successful set-down, the instructor asked him to lift the helicopter into a hover. As the helicopter lifted off the ground, it began to move aft, and the instructor applied forward cyclic. However, the helicopter continued, and he felt the right skid touch the ground. The helicopter then started to roll, and sensing that this could be the beginning of a dynamic rollover event, he reduced collective pitch control, however the helicopter yawed to the left and rolled over. The fuselage and tailboom were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
Shortly after takeoff, the pilot transmitted over the radio that he had lost “almost all pitch control,” but thought that he would be able to return and land at the departure airport. Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) data showed that the airplane climbed to about 1,550 ft mean sea level (msl) before entering a descending right 180° turn toward the departure airport. The airplane leveled off about 1,000 ft msl and continued toward the airport. About two minutes later, the airplane entered a descent from 975 ft that continued to ground contact.Witnesses reported that they observed the airplane flying at low altitude when it suddenly descended into the ground in a steep, nose-low, wings-level attitude.  Postaccident examination of the wreckage revealed that the bolt, castellated nut, and cotter pin that connected the balance weight to the elevator control assembly were missing. Soot was observed within the area of both connection points, including where the bolt and washer would have been installed, consistent with the hardware not being installed at the time of the accident. It is likely that the bolt separated while in flight, resulting in a loss of elevator pitch control. The missing bolt, nut, washer, and cotter pin were not located.  The airplane was painted and returned to service about 28 days before the accident, which included removal and reinstallation of all the flight controls. It could not be determined if the securing hardware (nut and cotter pin) were installed at the time of the reinstallation of the elevator.  Toxicology testing of the pilot revealed the presence of ethanol in liver tissue; however, the detected ethanol likely was from postmortem production. Thus, it is unlikely that ethanol contributed to the accident.  Page 2 of 9 WPR22FA216