roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The student pilot was flying the airplane over a remote river valley as his friends and relatives were driving their all-terrain vehicles in the valley. The pilot executed a touch-and-go landing on a gravel bar, and, just after takeoff, the airplane entered a steep climb and turned to the left. During the left turn, the wings of the airplane rolled perpendicular to the ground, and it descended in a near-vertical, nose-down attitude to ground impact. A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. The flight profile was consistent with the pilot exceeding the airplane's critical angle of attack, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and loss of control at an altitude too low to allow for recovery.
The pilot reported that, during the landing, "the nose dropped suddenly," and the airplane "bounced" on the runway. Subsequently, the propeller struck the ground.A postaccident examination revealed that the airplane had sustained substantial damage to the firewall.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The airplane impacted trees and terrain while on approach to land on a privately-owned grass runway. There were no witnesses to the accident. The airplane came to rest about 2,100 ft from the approach end of runway 24 and about 250 ft left of the extended runway centerline. The accident site was located about where the turn from a left base leg to final approach for landing on runway 24 would be made. Examination of the wreckage indicated that the airplane initially struck trees with its left wing and then impacted the ground in a nose-low attitude. The airplane's close proximity to the initial tree impact, and the attitude at which it struck the ground indicated that the airplane had little forward velocity. Examination of the airplane, its control systems, and engine did not reveal any preimpact anomalies. Based on the available evidence, it is likely that the pilot did not maintain adequate airspeed during the turn from the base leg to final approach, which resulted in the airplane exceeding its critical angle of attack and an aerodynamic stall at a low altitude.
The commercial pilot was conducting a cross-country flight to a family residence in the turbine-powered, single-engine airplane. The pilot was familiar with the route, which traversed a mountain pass and remote terrain. Before departing on the flight, the pilot communicated with a family member at the residence via text messages and was aware the weather was windy but that the mountain tops were clear. There was no record of the pilot obtaining a preflight weather briefing from an official, access-controlled source, and the pilot indicated to a friend before departure that he had not accessed weather cameras. Weather forecast products that were available to the pilot revealed possible turbulence at low altitudes and icing at altitudes above 12,000 ft along the route of flight, and weather cameras along the planned route and near the destination would have indicated deteriorating visibility in snow showers and mountain obscuration starting about 1.5 hours before departure. The airplane departed and proceeded toward the destination; radar data correlated to the accident flight indicated that the airplane climbed from 4,600 ft to 14,700 ft before turning west over the mountains. Text messages that the pilot sent during the initial climb revealed that the mountain pass he planned to fly through was obscured, and he intended to climb over the mountains and descend through holes in the clouds as he neared the destination. Radar data also indicated that the airplane operated above 12,500 ft mean sea level (msl) for about 30 minutes, and above 14,000 msl for an additional 14 minutes before entering a gradual descent during the last approximate 20 minutes of flight. Review of weather information indicated that cloud layers over the accident area increased during the 30 minutes before the accident, and it is likely that the airplane was operating in icing conditions, although it was not certified for flight in such conditions, which may have resulted in structural or induction icing and an uncontrolled loss of altitude. The airplane wreckage came to rest on the steep face of a snow-covered mountain in a slight nose-down, level attitude. The empennage was intact, the right wing was completely separated, and the forward fuselage and cockpit were partially separated and displaced from the airframe with significant crush damage, indicative of impact with terrain during forward flight. Page 2 of 10 ANC17FA004There was no indication that the airplane was equipped with supplemental oxygen; pilots are required to use oxygen when operating at altitudes above 12,500 ft for more than 30 minutes, and anytime at altitudes above 14,000 ft. It could not be determined if, or to what extent, the pilot may have experienced symptoms of hypoxia that would have affected his decision-making. The airplane wreckage was not recovered or examined due to hazardous terrain and environmental conditions, and the reason for the impact with terrain could not be determined; however, it is likely that deteriorating enroute weather and icing conditions contributed to the outcome of the accident.
According to the noncertificated pilot of the unregistered airplane, he was flying at a low altitude when he encountered a wind gust. He then lost control of the airplane, and it subsequently impacted trees, which resulted in substantial damage to the airframe. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions of the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot reported that, during the agricultural application flight in the helicopter, the fuel pressure warning light illuminated. The pilot scanned the instruments and noted that the fuel pressure was low and that the fuel quantity was indicating between 40% and 50%. Subsequently, the engine started to lose power. The pilot entered an autorotation and set up the helicopter for landing in the flattest area. Subsequently, the helicopter landed hard, which resulted in substantial damage to the tailboom and main rotor assembly. Postaccident examination of the helicopter revealed that the fuel tank was intact, undamaged, and empty of fuel. Given this evidence, the engine likely lost all power due to fuel exhaustion. Despite the lack of fuel, the fuel quantity gauge indicated that 42% of the fuel was remaining (or about 60 gallons). Disassembly of the fuel transmitter revealed that the float guide pin was separated from the float assembly at the tack weld. The separation of the float guide pin allowed the float to slide down the center torque shaft and prevented the potentiometer drive plate at the bottom from rotating when the fuel quantity changed, which led to the fuel quantity gauge displaying an incorrect fuel level. A review of the airplane's maintenance records revealed that the fuel transmitter was overhauled about 11 months before the accident. Given the evidence, it is likely that, during the overhaul, maintenance personnel improperly welded the float pin guide to its mount and subsequently did not adequately inspect it, which led to its eventual separation from the assembly at the welded area.
The helicopter experienced a loss in rotor rpm while maneuvering during a low-level wildlife survey. The commercial pilot then performed a forced landing to a field. Postaccident examination of the helicopter revealed that one of the engine magnetos had an internal timing, efficiency gap failure, which would have resulted in improper engine ignition timing and loss of engine power/rpm. Examination also revealed that the magneto distributer gear was loose and that the distributer gear bushing was flapping around.
The airline transport pilot was conducting an agricultural application flight. The pilot stated that, while making a right turn and flying the airplane in a circular swath to "trim-up" on the outside edges of a center-pivot irrigated field, the right wingtip "got too far into the cotton crop" and that he subsequently lost airplane control. The airplane then impacted terrain, cartwheeled, and came to rest upright. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, empennage, both wing spars, and all flight control surfaces. The accident is consistent with the pilot failing to maintain clearance from terrain while maneuvering during agricultural application operations.
The private pilot stated that the airplane experienced an abrupt, total loss of engine power during the initial climb on takeoff. He lowered the nose and conducted a forced landing to an open field; upon touchdown, the nose landing gear collapsed and the engine mount sustained substantial damage. An examination of the airplane revealed no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Nearby temperature and dew point were plotted on a carburetor icing probability chart. Although the atmospheric conditions present at the time of the accident were conducive to the development of serious carburetor icing at a cruise power settings, the pilot stated that an operational check of the carburetor heat during the pre-takeoff engine run-up produced a drop in rpm, consistent with an absence of carburetor ice. Further, the pilot did not report reduced power output during the engine run-up or upon application of takeoff power; therefore, it is unlikely that carburetor ice resulted in the sudden loss of power experienced after takeoff.
The private pilot was departing for a local flight in the experimental, amateur-built airplane, which he had recently purchased. Airport surveillance video showed the airplane in a nose-high attitude and the wings rocking left and right during the initial climb. After a brief period of straight and level flight, the airplane entered a steep left turn with a nose-high attitude. The left wing dropped, and the airplane entered a nose-down spin that continued to ground impact.The postaccident airframe and engine examination did not reveal evidence of any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. It is likely that the pilot failed to maintain adequate airspeed during the climbing turn after takeoff and exceeded the airplane's critical angle of attack, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall/spin.Although the pilot had received 1.0 hours of flight training in the accident airplane in the 30 days before the accident, he only performed 2 solo takeoffs and landings. This training did not include training on stall characteristics, which the Federal Aviation Administration recommends. If the pilot had received stall training in the airplane, he would likely have been aware of the appropriate airspeeds and pitch attitudes to use while maneuvering after takeoff, and this may have prevented the accident.
The No. 1 engine fire was caused by a fuel leak that originated from a high cycle fatigue crack on the fuel nozzle No. 1 fuel manifold supply line. Fuel nozzle No. 1 is located at the 12 o'clock position on the engine, so the fuel that leaked from the crack ran down the diffuser case and ignited on the engine case surface. The diffuser case reaches high enough temperatures during engine operation to auto-ignite Jet A fuel. The greatest concentration of soot/discoloration was observed from the 6 to 9 o'clock positions between the forward flange of the HPT case to the aft flange of the diffuser case, consistent with fuel collecting at the bottom of the engine and in the lower half of the thrust reverser cowls and creating a rich fuel to air mixture.Engine vibration testing was performed on multiple PW4000-94 and -100 inch series fan engines featuring a TALON II combustor. The testing identified a combustor tone that excites a natural (resonant) frequency in the fuel manifold assemblies. The amplitude of the combustor tone varied significantly between the four engines tested and the reason for this variation has not yet been determined.Pratt & Whitney released service bulletins for both the PW4000-94 inch and -100 inch fan engines recommending the installation of brackets and clamps on the fuel manifold assemblies. Engine vibration testing was performed on the same engine before and after installation of the brackets and clamps and the testing confirmed that the design was effective in dampening the elevated vibration levels driven by the combustor tone.
The pilot reported that during the final approach the airplane was "high and fast" and touched down hard. The pilot further reported that the airplane became airborne again and during the second touchdown the nose gear collapsed. Subsequently, the airplane slid to a stop coming to rest on the right edge of the runway. The fuselage and firewall sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
During an instructional flight, the helicopter was about 40 to 50 ft above ground level and at 60 knots when the flight instructor intended to demonstrate a simulated engine failure and run-on landing. Although the flight instructor had intended to recover from the maneuver before an actual run-on landing, he noticed that he did not have enough rotor rpm to recover and chose to continue with the run-on landing. The helicopter then landed hard on a taxiway and slid about 300 ft before coming to rest upright. The flight instructor added that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation. Examination of the helicopter by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed damage to the aft engine bulkhead and wrinkles in the helicopter panels near the tailboom and rotor gear box.
The airline transport pilot was conducting a personal flight in the tailwheel-equipped airplane in the airport traffic pattern. He reported making two uneventful stop-and-go landings before the accident takeoff. The third takeoff was uneventful until the tail became airborne, and the airplane began to veer to the right. He applied back stick pressure to become airborne, and upon liftoff, the airplane continued to yaw right. He reduced airplane pitch to increase airspeed, but the airplane continued to yaw right, and it subsequently entered an uncommanded right roll with a slight nose-up pitch attitude. The pilot was unable to regain control with full left rudder and left aileron inputs, and the airplane impacted terrain in a right-wing-low attitude. The airplane subsequently nosed over and came to rest inverted. Although the pilot believed a failure of the horizontal stabilizer caused the loss of control during takeoff, a postaccident laboratory examination determined that all observed separations were consistent with overstress failures due to impact-related damage; no materials anomalies were identified with any of the submitted components. It is likely the pilot did not maintain proper yaw and roll control during takeoff, which resulted in excessive adverse yaw upon liftoff. The pilot reported having flown 10 hours in the accident airplane make/model.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll, the airplane veered to the right and he applied left rudder to stop the veer. Subsequently, the airplane continued to the right, ground looped, and the left wing impacted the runway.The left aileron sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the multiengine retractable landing gear airplane reported that during takeoff, two deer ran onto the runway as the airplane became airborne and that he heard and felt one of the deer hit the left main landing gear. He further reported that he diverted to an airport with an operating control tower, where he performed two passes in front of the tower, and was informed by tower personnel that it "appeared" that the left main landing gear was no longer "attached to the airplane". The pilot reported that he decided the best course of action was to land with the landing gear retracted, and on short final he moved the mixture controls to idle cut off, feathered the propellers, and turned both fuel selectors off. The airplane landed gear up and all persons on board evacuated immediately.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.In an email exchange with the Director of Operations of the flight company, he reported that there were no reported mechanical anomalies with the airframe or engine prior to the deer impact.The Federal Aviation Administration Chart Supplement airport page for the departure airport in part states: "Deer and large flocks of geese on and invof [in the vicinity of] arpt."
The tailwheel endorsed pilot who was receiving additional instruction from an appropriately rated flight instructor acting as a safety pilot in the tailwheel equipped airplane reported, that during the landing roll before the tail settled to the runway, a gust of wind "pushed" the airplane to the right edge of the runway. He further reported that he attempted to abort the landing to avoid parked aircraft. Subsequently, the airplane impacted an airport perimeter fence during the aborted landing.The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings, the right aileron and the rudder.The pilot reported that there were no pre impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.A review of the local weather on the airfield, about the time of the accident, recorded the wind from 180 degrees true, at 12 nautical miles per hour (knots), with gusts to 20 knots. The pilot landed runway 23.
The pilot of the multi-engine tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll, after the tailwheel had touched down, the airplane veered sharply to the left. The pilot further reported that the airplane was close to the left runway edge, so he allowed the airplane to continue off the runway, in effort not to overcorrect to the right. During the runway excursion, the right main landing gear collapsed in soft terrain.The right wing sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he ferried the straight float-equipped airplane to a grass airstrip for an annual inspection. During landing on the grass airstrip in crosswind conditions, the pilot reported that upon touchdown he applied back pressure to the controls and added power, but the airplane lifted and came back down quickly. The crosswind had drifted the airplane to the left and as the airplane began to slow on the runway the pilot felt the left float buckle. Subsequently, the left wing and nose impacted the ground and the airplane nosed over, coming to rest inverted.The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings, the fuselage, and the rudder.The pilot reported that there were no pre impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot reported the wind as 060 degrees true at 10 nautical miles per hour, and not gusting. The pilot landed on runway 31.The pilot reported that the grass had just been cut, and that it would have been better if there had been dew on the grass. He further reported that the crosswind drifted the airplane to the left causing the left float to collapse. He wrote that he should have returned home and come back the following day when there was dew on the grass and no headwind.
The pilot of the high-performance airplane reported that, on his third simulated forced landing, while turning left base to final in a slip, he realized that the airplane was too low and not aligned with the runway. He applied full throttle to go around. The airplane responded suddenly by changing attitude but continued to descend and impacted terrain and the airport perimeter fence. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and the fuselage. The pilot further reported that the slow airspeed coupled with the unexpected high torque from advancing the throttle during an uncoordinated left turn were factors in the accident. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The recently certificated pilot reported that, during the initial climb, he heard a whistling noise and noticed that the passenger door was not secured. Subsequently, he returned to the departure airport to secure the door. He added that, during the landing flare, he believed that the wind decreased significantly, which resulted in him having "too much right rudder engaged." The airplane touched down 30° relative to the runway centerline, veered off the runway to the right, and the nose gear collapsed. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot reported that, before taking off from the 1,200-ft-long grass/gravel private airstrip, he performed an engine run-up and set the flaps to 20 degrees. He applied full engine throttle and accelerated to 45 knots airspeed for rotation/takeoff. After applying back pressure to the yoke for takeoff, the airplane would not lift off the runway. The airplane "passed the point of no return," and the pilot continued the takeoff. The airplane impacted a metal post near the end of the runway, traveled down an embankment, impacted terrain, cartwheeled, and came to rest inverted. The pilot reported that all engine instruments were in the "green" during the takeoff roll. An engine test run revealed no anomalies that would have precluded the engine's ability to produce rated horsepower. Examination of the airframe revealed the flaps were in the fully retracted or 0° position. According to the supplemental type certificate pilot's checklist, the flaps should be set at 20° for a short field takeoff. The improper flap setting reduced the airplane's lift and resulted in a longer takeoff roll.
The commercial pilot was conducting a local flight when the engine experienced a partial loss of power. The pilot stated that he switched the fuel selector from the right to the left tank, applied full throttle, set the mixture control to full rich, and extended the wing flaps. The engine seemed to continue running during the forced landing. The airplane impacted a stand of almond trees and came to rest in a nose-down attitude about 1 1/2 miles from the destination. The pilot reported no mechanical anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation and stated that there was enough fuel to get to the destination, "but not all in the tank that was being drawn from."A postaccident examination revealed that the right wing tank, which was undamaged, was void of any usable fuel; about 4 ounces of fuel was drained from the tank. Also, there was no evidence of a fuel leak from either wing tank. The fuel selector was observed positioned to draw fuel from the left tank, which contained about 7 gallons of fuel. Further examination revealed that the fuel control unit's inlet finger strainer was clean and free of obstructions. Additionally, the fuel supply line contained a small amount of clean, blue-colored fuel when disconnected. No water or particulate contaminates were detected in the fuel system.A postaccident engine run revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The partial loss of engine power was likely due to the pilot's improper in-flight fuel management, which resulted in fuel starvation to the engine after all of the usable fuel in the right wing tank had been consumed.