roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
While on a final approach for the runway, the pilot reported that the engine sputtered momentarily and then stopped running. The pilot attempted to restart the engine but was unsuccessful. Unable to make it to the runway, he performed a forced landing into dense trees and the airplane collided with terrain. The fuselage and left wing sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported that after the accident he drained about 3 gallons of fuel from the fuel tank. However, the airplane was not examined until three days after the accident occurred, so this could not be verified. Three gallons of fuel in the tank would have placed the fuel just above the fuel inlet on the fuel tank. The flight time for the flight was estimated over 3 hours and 30 minutes, not including a flight the day before the accident. The airplane would have consumed over 17.5 gallons of fuel from the estimated 25-gallon fuel tank on the day of the accident based on an estimated fuel burn rate of 5 gallons per hour. After the accident, fuel was added, and the engine started without hesitation and ran at various power settings without any anomalies. It is likely that the low fuel state unported the fuel from the fuel inlet which resulted in a loss of engine power due to fuel starvation.
The pilot departed for a local flight to practice instrument approaches, and after completing two approaches to a nearby airport, was returning to the departure airport. While maneuvering to enter the airport traffic pattern the engine suddenly lost power completely. The pilot attempted to troubleshoot the loss of engine power by switching fuel tanks and adjusting the engine controls, but was not successful. He subsequently ditched the airplane into a river and the airframe was substantially damaged during the landing. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the intact fuel tanks each contained a quantity of fuel less than their unusable capacity. Additionally, downstream components of the fuel system contained only trace amounts of fuel. Examination of the engine and airframe revealed no evidence of any mechanical malfunction or failure that would have precluded normal operation. Data recovered from an engine data monitor revealed that, about 1 hour into the flight, the exhaust gas temperature (EGT) of all the engine’s cylinders suddenly increased before then rapidly decreasing, consistent with the sudden loss of engine power described by the pilot. The sudden increase of EGT that preceded the rapid decrease is consistent with a leaning of the engine’s fuel mixture (consistent with what would occur following an interruption or exhaustion of the available fuel supply). Given the lack of fuel found during the postaccident examinations of the airplane, and based on the engine monitor data, it is likely that the pilot misjudged the amount of fuel onboard the airplane before departing on the accident flight, which resulted in fuel exhaustion and a total loss of engine power.
The pilot had just purchased the airplane and was flying it to his home airport. He made a stop, added fuel, checked the oil, and continued to his home airport. About an hour after departure, he noticed a drop in oil pressure and then heard a clanking sound in the engine before it lost total power. He diverted to the nearest airport but landed short of the runway in a field. The airplane slid into the airport perimeter fence, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that it contained only 2 quarts of oil out of a total capacity of 12 quarts.  There were oil leaks around all the cylinder pushrod housings, with the leak around the No. 1 cylinder being the worst. All spark plugs were dark, indicating oil burn. The No. 1 connecting rod was fractured and separated from the crankshaft, and the connecting rod bearings were destroyed. Heat distress signatures were found on the crankshaft connecting rod location and the No. 1 connecting rod bearings displayed significant scoring consistent with a lack of oil lubrication. Based on this information, it is likely the loss of engine power was the result of oil starvation to the connecting rod bearings.
The solo student pilot reported that, during landing, the airplane “bounced” and that he attempted to recover but upon exiting the runway surface he pulled the yoke back resulting in an aerodynamic stall and subsequent impact with the ground. Examination of the wreckage by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed substantial damage the left wing, engine mount, vertical stabilizer, and rudder. The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot departed the airport for an unknown destination. ADS-B data captured the accident flight as it departed from the runway and climbed to about 5,500 ft mean sea level (msl). It then entered a descending right turn with increasing speed and impacted shallow water on the bank of a lake. Examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. A gear marking in the engine case was consistent with the engine producing power at the time of the accident.The pilot had a documented history of angioplasty and hypertension, and toxicological evidence indicated he had used medications consistent with treating cardiovascular disease. He likely was at increased risk of a sudden impairing or incapacitating cardiovascular event. An autopsy was conducted on the pilot; however, due to the condition of the remains, a thorough examination could not be conducted. It could not be determined if an impairing condition or natural disease contributed to the accident.Some, or all, of the ethanol detected by toxicological testing may have been from postmortem production; however, the limited results also do not exclude the possibility of ethanol consumption or related impairment. Additionally, the pilot’s toxicology results indicate that he had used multiple medications (including hydrocodone, citalopram, zolpidem, gabapentin, and amitriptyline) that are potentially impairing and/or potentially indicative of other medical conditions (such as depression, chronic pain, or medication-treated diabetes) that could have impairing effects on performance.The airplane’s descending right turn, along with the near-vertical impact signatures, were consistent with an inflight loss of control from which the pilot was unable to recover.Page 2 of 7 CEN23FA016
During a practice soft-field takeoff maneuver on a paved runway, the pilot “held the yoke fully back, ready to lower the nose when the nosewheel became airborne.” When he applied power, the airplane seemed to “take off vertically” and veer to the left. The pilot reduced power; however, the airplane veered to the left, travelled off the left side of the runway, and landed on the grass, then descended down an embankment and impacted a hangar. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.Examination of the airplane by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed no preimpact mechanical malfunctions, failures or anomalies with the flight controls, brakes, or nosewheel steering, nor did the pilot report any.
The pilot and his wife were at the conclusion of a cross-country flight. The pilot reported that he completed a normal approach and during touchdown the airplane veered to the left. After he was unsuccessful in his attempt to align the airplane with the runway using control inputs, the pilot elected to abort the landing, at which time he added full power and retracted the landing gear. The propeller subsequently struck the runway before the airplane started to climb. The pilot circled around the airport and the airplane impacted the ground about 0.5 nm north of the approach end of his landing runway. A postcrash fire ensued and the airplane sustained substantial damage.Postaccident examination of the airplane’s flight control system did not reveal any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Propeller strikes near the approach end of the runway indicate that the pilot retracted the landing gear before establishing a positive rate of climb during the aborted landing, which resulted in the propeller contacting the runway. As there was no evidence of a preimpact mechanical anomaly with the engine, it is likely that the airplane’s subsequent degraded performance during the aborted landing was the result of the propeller strike.
After the pilot reduced the engine speed to idle while landing, the main landing gear touched down and the airplane bounced. The pilot then floated the airplane down the runway to decelerate the airspeed. The airplane touched down again in a nose high attitude then veered off the left side of the runway. The pilot applied full power to abort the landing, but the airplane continued off the left side of the runway and contacted vegetation before proceeding down a slope, which resulted in substantial damage to the left aileron and left horizontal stabilizer. The right main landing gear leg also separated from the airplane and came to rest in the debris path. Postaccident examination of the landing gear assembly revealed that the right main landing gear leg was normally secured to a support assembly within the airframe by a bolt, washer, and nut. The bolt remained attached with its associated hardware, but the bolthead had fractured in overstress. In addition, there was downward deformation at the lower support of the main landing gear support assembly, likely due to an exceedance of the yield strength of the metal and consistent with overload separation. As the bolt and damaged area of the support assembly are designed to transfer the landing gear loads directly to the airframe, the evidence in this case suggests that the right main landing gear support assembly failed as the result of the pilot’s failure to maintain directional control during an attempted go-around, which resulted in runway excursion and a separation of the right main landing gear.
The purpose of the flight was to ferry the tailwheel-equipped airplane for its new owner. The pilot initially told investigators that during the takeoff roll from a 2,300 ft asphalt runway, the skies were clear, and the wind was calm. He stated that he rotated at the 500 ft mark at an airspeed of 65 knots, and the airplane lifted off and climbed to about 50 ft agl. Shortly after, the airplane descended back onto the runway. He added that he did not hear an audible stall horn warning and that after the airplane touched down, the airplane veered off the runway. The airplane ground looped, resulting in substantial damage to the right-wing lift strut, right-wing aileron and the fuselage. The pilot’s initial statement was that the left brake failed (seized) as he saw left tire skid marks on the runway. However, he later told a Federal Aviation Administration inspector that his original statement was incorrect, and the airplane never left the ground and there must have been a brake seizure or dragging of the right brake that he overcompensated for with left rudder, resulting in the runway departure. The pilot did not respond to attempts by the NTSB investigator-in-charge to clarify the differences in his statements. Postaccident examination of the left main landing gear brake and both main gear wheel bearings revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot conducted an hour-long local flight to break in the newly-installed engine, and was returning to the airport for landing when the engine lost all power. After a failed attempt to restart the engine, the pilot initiated a forced landing into a water canal. The airplane impacted a berm and came to rest in the canal, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing and engine mount. About one cup of fuel was recovered from each fuel tank during recovery from the accident site.Examination of the engine revealed that the fuel line from the fuel injection servo to the flow divider, which connected at the baffle union fitting on the aft side of the firewall, leaked when the engine-driven fuel pump actuated during the manual rotation of the propeller. The B-nut fitting could be tightened a half revolution until it seated onto the fitting by hand. There was no physical damage to the fitting, nor any accident-related impact damage within the surrounding area of the fitting. Review of the task cards for the engine installation provided by the repair station indicated that the installation was completed and signed off by both a technician and inspector. Based on the available information, it is likely that the B-nut was not properly torqued onto the baffle union fitting and that, during the accident flight, the B-nut loosened, resulting in a fuel leak, fuel exhaustion, and a total loss of engine power.
After the pilot and the pilot-rated passenger taxied to the ramp after landing, their two passengers (who were seated in the rear of the airplane) exited the airplane and were rushing to get to a waiting ride. The first passenger exited toward the engine (forward), while the second passenger exited toward the tail of the airplane. The pilot stated that he was busy following the checklist to turn off the airplane and the two passengers exited without him knowing. The power was at idle, and before he could shut off the mixture control, the first passenger was struck by the propeller. According to the pilot-rated passenger, while the pilot was trying to shut down the engine, the passengers exited the airplane, and the first passenger ran into the propeller. According to the surviving passenger, she exited the left side of the airplane, and the first passenger exited the right side of the airplane. No instructions were given to them as they exited. She could hear that the propeller was turning as she walked away from the airplane to get into her ride. Although the pilot stated that the passengers exited without him knowing, the airplane had seats for only 4 occupants. Review of the airplane manufacturer’s published guidance indicated that entry and exit from the airplane was accomplished through either of two entry doors, one on each side of the cabin at the front seat positions; the door handles used to open the doors were located on the forward part of the armrests for the front seats. Unlike an automotive type of door handle, they had to be rotated from a “LOCK” position, past a “CLOSE” position, and then aft to a “OPEN” position, so that the door could be pushed open to be able to exit the airplane. Review of photographs also indicated that the mounting positions of both the left and right door handles were located about 3 feet forward of the rear seating position, in close proximity to each of the pilots, and were not accessible to the rear seat passengers Page 2 of 9 ERA23LA022unless the passengers reached around the front seats, which the pilots were occupying at the time. No checklist or amplified procedure for the conduct of normal operation was discovered that required the opening of the airplane’s doors before engine shutdown. The manufacturer’s and Federal Aviation Administration guidance also indicated that stopping the engine was the most effective way to ensure the passengers arrived and departed the vicinity of an airplane safely. No medications were found during toxicological testing of the fatally injured passenger that would have contributed to the accident.The pilot and pilot-rated passenger likely unlatched and opened the doors before shutting the engine down and disembarked the passengers without instructions for deplaning.
After departing on a cross-country flight, the pilot returned to the departure airport due to poor weather conditions along the route. After landing, the pilot discussed the poor weather with a friend and told him he wanted to fly to another airport where he could leave the airplane and continue his trip using a commercial airline. His friend recommended that he stay where he was until the weather improved. The pilot subsequently received two weather briefings informing him that visual flight rules (VFR) flight was not recommended along his planned route due to instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The pilot departed on the flight and was in communication with flight service while airborne when the communications ended abruptly and an emergency locator transmitter (ELT) activated. An eyewitness saw the airplane flying in and out of clouds before disappearing into the clouds near the accident site location. The airplane wreckage was found along a steep mountainside at an elevation about 1,866 ft mean sea level. Examination of the wreckage did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The weather forecast information applicable for the accident time indicated that an AIRMET was valid for mountain obscuration conditions, and a Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) near the accident site valid at the accident time stated that IMC conditions were likely.Toxicology testing detected the antidepressant amitriptyline and its active metabolite nortriptyline in the pilot’s blood at therapeutic levels. While these substances are associated with side effects such as drowsiness and dizziness, the operational findings of this accident do not suggest performance issues related to fatigue. Gabapentin and norcyclobenzaprine were detected in the pilot’s urine and not in his blood, so no therapeutic or side effects would Page 2 of 8 ANC23LA002be expected. Thus, the effects from the pilot’s use of amitriptyline, gabapentin, and cyclobenzaprine were not likely a factor in this accident.The pilot had high urinary glucose; the cause was unknown but could possibly be dietary, from kidney disease, from diabetes medications, or from being diabetic. However, no glucose was detected in his vitreous fluid and his hemoglobin A1C indicates his average blood glucose levels would be around 120 mg/dL. Thus, it is unlikely that the pilot had low blood glucose, which is the concern for flight safety.Based on the available information, the circumstances of the accident are consistent with the pilot’s decision to conduct a visual flight rules flight into instrument meteorological conditions, which resulted in controlled flight into terrain.
The pilot reported that the purpose of the flight was to practice pattern work. After two uneventful takeoffs and landings, he attempted a third takeoff. After liftoff, the right wing dipped, and he corrected with left aileron. The right wing continued to drop, and he added additional left rudder and nose down elevator to avoid a stall. The airplane enterd an aerodynamic stall/spin and impacted a cornfield to the north of the runway. The pilot was seriously injured. An inspector with the Federal Aviation Administration examined the wreckage and determined that damage to the wings and fuselage was substantial. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
During the landing roll, the pilot was about to brake and turn onto a taxiway when he saw something in his peripheral vision and felt something impact the airplane. After taxiing to the ramp, he noted substantial damage to the left elevator then subsequently found two deceased deer on and near the landing runway. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the amphibious airplane reported that, during the tailwind departure from the mountain lake, the airplane was about 40 ft above water level, at an airspeed of 57 miles per hour (mph), when the airplane encountered windshear. The airspeed decreased suddenly by 10-15 mph and the airplane entered a 600 foot per minute descent rate that the airplane was unable to out climb with takeoff power. The airplane subsequently collided hard with the water and bounced before coming to rest. The wings and fuselage were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during landing roll, he let “the control column go to a neutral position” after touchdown, and a gust of wind raised the left wing. The airplane veered off the runway to the right, subsequently colliding with a windsock and coming to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to 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, while on short final to land, the airplane yawed to the right. The pilot stated that full left rudder was needed to keep the airplane straight. The airplane subsequently touched down hard and departed the right side of the runway. All three landing gear collapsed and the left wing buckled, which resulted in substantial damage to the airplane.A postaccident examination of the airplane and engines was conducted, including test runs of both engines. No anomalies were noted that would have precluded normal operation or contributed to the loss of control during landing. Engine data from the accident flight were recovered, and no anomalies were noted in the data. Thus, the reason for the pilot’s loss of control during landing could not be determined based on the available evidence for this investigation.
The pilot reported that, while conducting a touch-and-go landing, the airplane encountered a wind gust from the right, that lifted the right wing. The airplane departed the runway surface onto grass and impacted a runway sign. As a result of the impact, the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings, and the fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during the takeoff roll he noticed a vibration, and a possible loss of power, and the airplane veered to the left off the narrow (35 ft) runway when he decided to abort the takeoff. He therefore aborted the takeoff and subsequently the airplane impacted a dirt berm and came to rest in a ditch.Postaccident examination of the engine revealed no evidence of mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. The engine was run at various power settings with no anomalies noted. The pilot subsequently stated that he had since flown in another Mooney after the accident and, having experienced the effect of a rough surface on the landing gear, that the vibrations were likely an effect of the rough runway surface on the nose gear.
The private pilot and flight instructor were performing a cross-country instrument flight rules training flight at night, and while enroute, diverted from their planned destination to a non-towered airport to refuel. After landing at the diversion airport, the pilot attempted to navigate via taxiways toward the ramp environment. As the taxi progressed toward the ramp, the blue taxiway edge lights ended, and a “significant glare” from the hangar lights directly ahead obscured the pilot’s forward view through the dirty windscreen. Believing that they had entered the ramp area, the pilot turned toward the fueling area, but the airplane then departed the paved surface onto grass and slid into a ditch. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and horizontal stabilizer. The pilot stated that there were no preimpact anomalies or malfunctions affecting the airplane’s operation. Had the pilot and flight instructor elected to discontinue taxiing the airplane after losing sight of the ground ahead due to the darkness and glare, it is likely that the accident would not have occurred.