roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
While approaching class B airspace, the airline transport pilot was in communication with a controller who later stated that the pilot's speech was slurred, and the controller repeatedly asked if the oxygen system on the airplane was working properly. As the airplane approached a nearby airport, about 85 miles from his destination airport, the pilot stated he had the airport in sight and repeatedly requested a visual approach. The controller instructed the pilot to continue his flight to his destination, in a southwest direction. As the controller attempted to maintain communications, the pilot dropped off radar shortly after passing the nearby airport and subsequently landed at the nearby airport, which was not his destination airport.According to a surveillance video and impact marks on the runway, the airplane landed hard about halfway down the runway and slid to a stop on the left side of the runway. The airplane fuselage and wings were mostly consumed by postimpact fire.After authorities arrived onsite, the pilot was arrested for operating an aircraft under the influence of alcohol. The pilot was found to have a blood alcohol level of .288, which likely contributed to the pilot landing at the incorrect airport and his subsequent loss of airplane control during landing.
While enroute, during a cross-country flight, the experimental amateur-built airplane experienced a complete failure of the electrical system, which resulted in a complete loss of engine power. The pilot subsequently made an off-airport landing in a meadow, however during final approach, the airplane aerodynamically stalled, landed hard, bounced, and nosed over. The airplane was equipped with a backup electrical circuit system which was labeled the essential bus. The pilot reported that during the accident sequence he failed to switch the power supply to the backup power. It is likely that the primary electrical system that the pilot installed failed for unknown reasons, and if he had switched to the secondary electrical system, the airplane would have likely restored electrical power.
The glider pilot took off utilizing the auto launch (vehicle-tow) method. Photos taken by a witness revealed that the glider overran the towline, which resulted in a slack towline.  The glider then pitched up and, after reaching about 100-150 ft above ground level, rolled to the left and impacted terrain in a near vertical attitude. The tow vehicle driver stated that the truck had not yet accelerated to 60-65 mph needed for the release of the tow cable from inside the cockpit; instead, the truck had only accelerated to 55 mph before the spotter told the driver to stop as the glider impacted the terrain. A slack towline can be caused by a change in speed of either the glider or tow vehicle. If not corrected, a slack towline can result in the loss of control in flight. Also, a change in wind gradient can have a noticeable effect on a glider’s speed during ground launches. When a slack towline is encountered, a pilot should communicate with the tow vehicle to change speed, adjust pitch to control airspeed, or release the tow rope and land straight ahead.The investigation could not determine why the slack towline occurred. Nevertheless, the pilot did not follow recommended procedures for responding to a slack towline and subsequently lost control of the glider.
The pilot reported that he was conducting an aerial survey to spot bears. After spotting bears, he flew multiple low-altitude passes to maintain sight of the bears. While maneuvering uphill at a low altitude, his attention was drawn to the bears and away from terrain. When he regained focus, he decided to turn the airplane right, away from rising terrain, but about 90º into the turn, the airplane descended and impacted terrain, and a postcrash fire ensued. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot added that he should have let the observer observe the bears during the low passes.
The pilot was conducting a local flight to ensure that the airplane was operating normally for an upcoming trip. While returning to the airport, the engine experienced a loss of power and the airplane was unable to maintain altitude. The pilot conducted a forced landing to a corn field, during which the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. The pilot later examined the engine and determined that one of the engine's electrical switch boxes had an open circuit, which prevented electrical charge from reaching the cylinder Nos. 1, 3, and 5 spark plugs. The other switch box, which provided charge to the Nos. 2, 4, and 6 spark plugs, operated normally. It is likely that the loss of engine power was the result of the open circuit and subsequent lack of ignition to three cylinders.
According to the pilot, at an altitude of 3,000 ft about 8 miles offshore while conducting fish spotting operations, the engine began to shake and lose rpm. To avoid ditching in the ocean waters, he navigated to the shoreline and the nearest airport. When it became evident that the airplane would not reach the airport, he ditched the airplane in the shallow waters of the ocean surf to avoid bystanders on the beach. The airplane sustained substantial damage to right elevator.Examination of the engine revealed that the No. 2 cylinder exhaust valve spring and guide had liberated and were located inside the damaged rocker cover. The piston and interior of the No. 2 cylinder exhibited mechanical impact damage and a hole was present in the face of the piston. The exhaust valve and exhaust valve keepers were not located. The reason for the liberation or failure of the No. 2 cylinder's exhaust valve could not be determined.
The pilot reported that, while lifting off from a landing deck on top of an industrial truck, the helicopter's right rear skid hooked into an opening on the deck. The helicopter dynamically rolled right and impacted the ground. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the main and tail rotor systems, fuselage, and empennage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was conducting a test flight following minor maintenance he had performed on the airplane. While attempting to land on water in calm wind conditions (he described the water as “glass smooth”), the pilot applied forward stick and immediately found himself underwater. He later stated he believed he lost depth perception when he leveled out above the water's surface prior to touchdown and pushed the nose down to land. Witnesses report the airplane nosed over just prior to landing.
The airplane was in cruise flight when all electrical instrumentation was suddenly lost, and the pilot started to smell burning wires. A few seconds later, the smoke began to fill the cockpit and fire started to enter the lower part of the cockpit by the left side rudder pedals. The pilot initiated an emergency descent and subsequently landed in a field. The pilot egressed the airplane and the fire continued to burn until first responders arrived.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed extensive thermal damage to the engine and its surrounding area, which precluded identifying the exact origin of the fire. However, there was significantly more charring and fire damage to the left side of the engine compartment and engine mount powder coating. Based on the pilot’s statement and the charring of the engine mount powder coating, it is likely that the fire started on the left side of the engine compartment.A service bulletin issued by the airplane manufacturer identified a potential leaking of Kavlico pressure sensors that were installed in the aluminum manifold located on the upper left side of the airplane’s firewall. However, the accident airplane’s manifold and both sensors were destroyed by the postaccident fire. Although a sensor failure is a possible cause, there are many potential failure points in fuel and oil supply and pressure indication lines that could have resulted in the fire. Due to the extensive thermal damage, the origin of the fire could not be determined based on available evidence.
The pilot reported that, during landing, the airplane bounced. He initiated a go-around, but the airplane veered left, exited the runway, and impacted trees. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the lower fuselage. 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 approach to land, he corrected for a left crosswind. After crossing the threshold, he reduced power and as the airplane was about to touch down, it "rolled" left, and the left wing struck the runway. He added that the airplane immediately "righted itself" and that he then landed it. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The airport's automated weather observation station reported that, about 36 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 210° at 11 knots, gusting to 19 knots. The same automated station reported that, about 24 minutes after the accident, the wind was from 210° at 17 knots, gusting to 25 knots, with a peak wind reported 3 minutes after the accident from 220° at 27 knots. The pilot landed the airplane on runway 21.
The pilot receiving instruction reported that, during a landing on a high altitude, grass runway, sprinklers "doused the windscreen to the point we really couldn't see."  He applied the brakes, but they were "ineffective" and the airplane slid and was not decelerating, he elected to abort the landing.  During the go around, the airplane impacted the perimeter fence at the end of the runway and shortly after "scraped the top of a ridge."  The airplane was able to maintain flight and landed at a nearby airstrip without further incident.  The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and horizontal stabilizer.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot departed on a maintenance check flight with his mechanic to troubleshoot an oil temperature discrepancy. During takeoff, after the airplane lifted off the ground and transitioned into a climb, the engine began to lose power. The pilot was unable to maintain altitude, and the airplane descended to the ground. Postaccident examination revealed that the turbo waste gate was likely not functioning at the time of the accident. In addition, photographs taken moments after the accident showed that the throttle cable had detached from the arm of the throttle body metering unit and the bolt holes in both the rod end and throttle arm were intact. Further, maintenance records showed that the mechanic’s assistant (who was not a certificated mechanic) had removed and re-installed the throttle cable during the airplane's most recent inspection 1.5 flight hours prior to the accident. The assistant performed the removal by memory, and the reinstallation of the throttle assembly was likely not confirmed by the mechanic. The pilot was able to advance the throttle during takeoff, but the passenger observed mid-range fuel flow that was not consistent with takeoff power, which suggests that the throttle cable likely uncoupled from the throttle arm sometime during the takeoff sequence. As there were no anomalies with the airplane, the mechanic's improper installation of the throttle cable during recent inspection likely resulted in a detached throttle cable during takeoff, which resulted in a loss of engine power, subsequent descent, and impact with terrain.
The pilot reported that he was transitioning to a new airplane. He stated that, during takeoff, it was the first time with his left hand on the control stick and right hand on the throttle. About 10 ft above the runway, he intended to pitch the nose up to initiate a climb. However, he inadvertently pulled back on the throttle control with his right hand. The airspeed decreased, the left wing aerodynamically stalled, and the airplane impacted an adjacent corn field.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.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 an agricultural application flight, he stalled the airplane while in a low-altitude turn. In an attempt to recover, the pilot dumped the chemicals, but the airplane continued to descend and impacted a hillside. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and 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 reported that, while on the base leg for his third nighttime landing, the runway lights turned off. Despite his failed attempts to turn on the runway lights, he completed his base-to-final turn about 200 ft above ground level. With the runway lights not illuminated, he decided to use the blue taxiway lights parallel to the runway as his reference to land. While on final approach, the airplane struck a tree and impacted the ground inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and left wing. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the engine or airframe that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during his second touch-and-go landing, the airplane encountered a crosswind. He overcorrected with rudder input, and the airplane then ground looped and exited the runway to the left. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
Upon takeoff, the pilot heard a “bang” and could not control the airplane. The pilot was able to get the wings level before the airplane hit the ground. The airplane bounced, went through a ditch, and came to rest inverted, resulting in substantial damage to the empennage. Examination of the airplane revealed a broken attachment fitting of the right horizontal stabilizer. The fabric covering was removed from the right and left stabilizers. The attachment corner of the right stabilizer frame was fractured. Pitting, multiple broken welds, and corrosion were found around the fracture. The right stabilizer frame had been fabricated and was not a Federal Aviation Adminstration/parts manufacturer approval-approved part. Maintenance records revealed that the stabilizer assembly had been removed for inspection, refurbished, and replaced multiple times. The most recent maintenance was performed about 4 months prior to the accident, when an annual inspection was completed and new sleeves for the forward attachment points were fabricated and installed on the stabilizer assembly.
The glider pilot reported that, during an aerotow takeoff, the glider weather vaned off the paved surface of the runway about 200 ft into the takeoff roll. The pilot stated that the glider's tailwheel was too small to roll on the unpaved surface and that the glider's acceleration in the dirt "was not as fast as it needed to be." The tow plane became airborne before the glider, and shortly after the glider became airborne at low airspeed, about 10 to 15 ft above ground level, the glider settled into sage brush and contacted the ground, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage and right wing. The glider pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the glider that would have precluded normal operation, and that the accident could have been prevented by releasing from the tow plane "before leaving the ground."
The flight instructor reported that he had demonstrated a simulated engine failure and recovery at altitude to the pilot under instruction, and he subsequently asked the pilot to perform a simulated engine failure and recovery. The instructor allowed the pilot to descend over an open field, and he recalled instructing the pilot to "recover" and abort the landing about 200 ft above ground level. However, the pilot failed to do so, and the flight instructor took the controls. The airplane subsequently stalled, impacted terrain, and nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and the engine mounts. The instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was practicing agricultural application passes along the operator's airstrip. A witness reported that the pilot's initial passes were completed without incident, although the pilot "seemed to be slightly aggressive in the turns." After landing, the pilot mentioned turning at an airspeed of 60 mph, and the witness informed him to never fly below 80 mph. The pilot took off and completed three more practice passes. After the pilot's final pass, he executed a "very steep field exit" and held the airplane in a nose-up attitude longer than required to clear the obstacles. He entered a left 270° turn and, after rolling wings-level, the airplane entered an "extremely slow" climb before abruptly rolling into a steep left bank that continued until impact. The pilot reported that the did not recall any of the events leading to the accident. A postaccident examination revealed damage to the forward fuselage, both wings and the empennage. The examination did not reveal any anomalies consistent with a preimpact failure or malfunction. It is likely that the pilot exceeded the airplane's critical angle of attack while maneuvering, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall at an altitude that precluded recovery.
The noncertificated pilot had purchased the aircraft several weeks before the accident and had flown it before the accident flight. However, the pilot’s flight experience could not be determined. A friend of the pilot indicated that the pilot was making modifications to the airplane, including a new instrument panel, steerable nosewheel, and spoilers. However, no maintenance records were located. A camera mounted to the airplane had recorded the accident flight. The video showed that after the airplane lifted off the runway and as it pitched up, it immediately entered a left bank and yaw and began drifting sharply to the left. This was immediately followed decrease in engine power, which indicates that the pilot likely attempted to abort the climb. However, as the airplane continued left over tall grass, the engine power increased, consistent with the pilot attempting to climb out. The airplane continued to make a flat climbing left turn toward a tree line perpendicular to the runway. Seventeen seconds after takeoff, the aircraft struck the top of a tree, rolled left, and descended toward the ground as the video recording ended. Examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. The rudder trim was bent in a right 35° angle; however, it could not be determined the trim had placed in this position prior to the accident flight, or as a result of the impact. Even if the rudder trim were bent before impact, it is unlikely that the rudder trim would create an abrupt turning of the airplane that could not be counteracted. Videos that the pilot took with his cell phone from the ground 6 days before the accident showed the airplane maneuvering and landing several times. Another video taken that day showed two individuals taxiing in the accident airplane likely after a flight. The accident pilot asked, "What do you think about that?" The individual in the right seat responded, "It still, freaking, pulls hard to the right." It is unknown if the comment referenced ground control or flight control. The comment indicates that a potential control irregularity of the airplane existed before the accident flight; however, the individual did not Page 2 of 9 ERA19FA225specify the nature of the control irregularity, and the investigation could not determine what the control irregularity was, based on the available evidence. It is likely that the noncertificated pilot was faced an airplane control issue immediately after takeoff and elected to continue the flight instead of landing in the grass.
After a 30-minute local flight, the pilot returned to the departure airport to conduct touch-and-go takeoffs and landings. While descending toward the airport, he applied carburetor heat when the engine power was below 1,200 rpm, and intermittently applied power during the descent. After touching down, the pilot applied throttle to take off, and about 40 to 50 ft above ground level, the engine lost total power. He slipped the airplane to land on the remaining runway, then applied brakes to prevent a runway overrun. The airplane nosed over, resulting in substantial damage. Examination of the engine revealed minor discrepancies and mis-timed magnetos that likely existed during the initial takeoff, but would not have caused the reported loss of engine power. The weather conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to the formation of carburetor icing at glide (idle) and cruise engine power settings. Thus, it is likely that, during the descent and approach when carburetor heat was applied only when operating at a reduced power setting, carburetor ice formed, which subsequently resulted in a total loss of engine power during the initial climb.
The airplane had been stored in a hangar and not flown for 3 years. On the day of the accident, the pilot departed on a flight to a nearby airport, where he added 100 low-lead aviation fuel to the automotive fuel already contained in the wing tanks and subsequently departed on the return flight. About 150 ft above ground level after takeoff, the engine lost partial power. The airplane descended and impacted terrain, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage.A fuel sample from the carburetor revealed some contamination; however, the contaminant was not identified. Although it is possible that the loss of engine power was the result of fuel contamination, the engine was not examined following the accident and a mechanical failure could not be ruled out; therefore, the reason for the partial loss of engine power could not be determined based on the available information.
The pilot departed on a local personal flight in day visual meteorological conditions. According to flight track data, after departure from the airport to the north, the airplane made a left turn to the southwest. The airplane continued to travel southwest over a major highway and then continued to the west. Over the final 1.5 minutes of the approximate 3-minute flight, the airplane's speed increased from about 104 kts to about 151 kts and the altitude descended from 1,050 ft to about 300 ft at the last data point. The airplane impacted a tree, parking lot, and building and the airplane was destroyed from fragmentation upon impact with terrain and the postimpact fire.A witness near the accident site thought that the airplane was going to land in an open field nearby. He stated that the airplane was "very low" and it "banked to the right" before impact. The witness reported that the engine sounded "totally revved with a high pitch" and the engine did not produce any abnormal sounds.Postaccident examination revealed no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Autopsy and toxicological testing of the pilot revealed no evidence of physiological impairment or incapacitation.   The circumstances of the accident are consistent with an inflight loss of control; however, the reason for the loss of control could not be determined based on the available information.