roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The private pilot was departing from runway 21 for a cross-country flight; the windsock indicated a 15 kt or greater right crosswind. A nearby weather station reported wind from 280° at 20 kts gusting to 28 kts about the time of the accident. The rear seat passenger reported that, during the takeoff roll, the airplane became airborne twice and the pilot applied right rudder to return to the runway centerline. The airplane then continued left over the grass next to the runway and travelled several hundred feet before impacting a sport utility vehicle (SUV) parked in an aircraft tie-down area about 250 ft from the runway 21 centerline. The passenger reported that, before impact, the pilot was "vigorously pumping the rudders back and forth (left and right)." A witness reported that he could not see the airplane when it started its takeoff, but when it came into view, the airplane appeared to be "having difficulty." The nose was slightly up, and the right wing was down, and the tail was "oscillating." Examination of the accident site revealed skid marks on the runway and tire tracks in the grass leading to the main wreckage. The total distance from the beginning of the skid marks on the runway to the SUV was 953 ft. The skid marks showed that the airplane veered to the left, departed the runway, and momentarily became airborne twice before settling back to the ground, then continuing another 262 ft to impact the SUV. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Given the lack of mechanical anomalies and the wind conditions present at the time of the takeoff, the accident is consistent with a loss of control during takeoff in crosswind conditions.
The airline transport pilot reported that, about 30 minutes after departure for the cross-country personal flight in visual conditions, he noticed a vibration. He checked the engine instruments and did not see anything abnormal. However, he noted that the airplane's airspeed and altitude were rapidly decreasing, so he applied full power to both engines, but the airplane continued to descend, indicative of a partial loss of engine power, so he chose to conduct a forced, off-airport landing in a field. The airplane impacted terrain and then came to rest after impacting a ditch.Postaccident examinations of the airframe and engines revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The reason for the vibration and the subsequent partial loss of power could not be determined.
The sport pilot reported that, about 15 minutes into the pleasure flight, the engine began "sputtering" and losing power. The pilot attempted to correct the problem by adjusting the throttle and applying the engine primer without success. The pilot then selected a field for a forced landing, during which the right main landing gear struck a power line. The airplane then flipped over and subsequently impacted a carport rooftop. Examination of the engine revealed that one of the four spark plugs was loose in the cylinder, which led to a loss of compression and partial loss of engine power. The pilot's safety recommendation stated, "closer inspection of checking spark plugs before flight."
The non-instrument rated commercial pilot departed on a cross-country flight in his high performance airplane. There was no record of the pilot receiving an official preflight weather briefing. However, the pilot may have obtained text weather information from a weather service while enroute. Images taken during the flight showed the airplane flying above an overcast cloud layer. Review of satellite imagery indicated that the overcast layer covered the area near the accident site and continued to the intended destination. Marginal visual to instrument meteorological conditions were reported near the accident site about the time of the accident. The investigation could not determine if there were breaks in the low overcast or how the pilot got below the overcast. However, a witness saw the airplane flying at a very low altitude and reported dark night conditions were present. The witness subsequently heard a loud crash, which he thought was the airplane, and called 9-1-1. The airplane was not on fire in flight and he did not see any subsequent fire or explosion. The smell of fuel was present in the area, which led emergency responders to the wreckage within a wooded area. The wreckage path through the woods was a nearly straight 150-ft descending path. Linear separations of tree branches and the S-shaped bending of a propeller blade were consistent with the engine producing power at impact. A postaccident examination of the wreckage did not reveal any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane.
The pilot reported that, during his second flight, following the installation of a new autopilot, he noticed on short final that the mixture was set too lean. He added that, "with a gloved hand," he pushed the mixture in to a richer setting and accidently turned on the autopilot, which was located directly above the mixture control. The autopilot was set to navigation mode, heading mode, and altitude mode from a previous flight. The pilot reported that he was "fighting the auto pilot" and that the airplane aerodynamically stalled, which resulted in a hard landing.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during a "medium speed taxi" on a runway in crosswind conditions, the airplane taxied over ice and drifted to the right. The pilot further reported that he corrected to the left, reduced throttle power, and the airplane taxied onto packed snow, "regaining lateral traction." The pilot attempted to correct with right rudder, but the airplane continued to veer to the left, exited the runway, and came to rest inverted.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and left wing lift struts.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot reported that, shortly after takeoff in the experimental amateur-built airplane, the engine experienced a total loss of power. He was unable to restore power, and the airplane was substantially damaged during the subsequent forced landing. An examination of the engine and related systems revealed that one of two batteries required for operation of the electronic ignition system had a short and would not take a charge. When this battery was replaced with a known serviceable battery, the engine and systems functioned as designed. An examination of the remaining systems revealed no other anomalies.
According to a representative from the airplane rental facility, the noninstrument-rated pilot had departed on a cross-country flight. The pilot had received multiple weather reports from Lockheed Martin Flight Services, during which the weather briefer indicated that mountain obscuration and low ceilings existed along the flight route. Flightpath data provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) indicated that, shortly after departure, the airplane flew to the northwest, directly into the area that was showing adverse weather conditions. Sometime later, radar data showed that the airplane began a descending right turn from about 2,525 ft mean sea level. The track ended less than 1 minute later over open water about 7 miles northwest of the departure airport. An alert notice was issued after an FAA air traffic control facility lost radar contact with the airplane. A search and rescue effort was initiated; however, the airplane and occupants were not found.
The private pilot and an examiner were conducting a practical examination flight in a multiengine airplane. The pilot stated that, after takeoff and about 100 ft above ground level, he raised the landing gear and heard a "thud"; seconds later, the airplane began an uncommanded turn to the right, consistent with a right engine failure. The examiner took control of the airplane and determined that it lacked the climb performance to clear the obstacles in its path. He then retarded the throttles and landed gear-up in the grass between the runway and hangars on the airport. During the landing, the left wing struck a concrete drain and was substantially damaged.Examination of the airplane revealed that the right engine single-drive dual magneto had separated from the accessory pad and was laying in the engine compartment. Because both magnetos were attached to the engine at a single point, the right engine lost power completely when this event occurred. The two nuts and clamps used to attach the magneto to the mounting studs were missing; the mounting studs appeared undamaged. Given this information, it is likely that the mounting nuts loosened over time, allowing the magneto to separate from the engine. The airplane's most recent 100-hour inspection was performed about 3 weeks (27 flight hours) before the accident. A required item of that inspection was to check studs and nuts for proper torqueing and obvious defects. Had the loose mounting nuts of the magneto been detected and corrected at this time, the magneto likely would not have separated from the engine.
The non-instrument-rated private pilot departed at night on a visual flight rules (VFR) cross-country flight without obtaining an official weather briefing. If the pilot had received an official briefing, he would have been informed of instrument flight rules (IFR) conditions present on his route of flight. Radar data showed the airplane traveling on a heading towards its destination at varying altitudes. The pilot's communications with an air traffic controller indicated that he was trying to avoid restricted airspace, and then, when asked by the controller what his intentions were, the pilot stated that he was trying to stay out of the clouds. As the airplane made multiple 360° turns, the controller attempted to keep the airplane in controlled airspace before losing communications and radar contact with the airplane near the accident site.Examination of the accident site indicated the airplane impacted terrain in a nose-down attitude at a high airspeed consistent with a loss of control. The attitude indicator was disassembled, and scoring was identified suggesting that the gyro rotor was spinning and, therefore, likely operational at the time of impact. There was no evidence found of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane.Based on upper air data, infrared satellite imagery, and surface observation data, the flight likely encountered precipitation, lowering ceilings, and IFR conditions around the time the airplane began to make the 360° turns. The IFR conditions encountered by the flight were conducive to spatial disorientation, and it is likely that the pilot experienced spatial disorientation and lost control of the airplane. The pilot had depression, anxiety, and insomnia, for which he was prescribed a number of potentially-impairing medications, most of which were identified during postaccident toxicology testing. However, whether these conditions or their treatment contributed to the pilot's poor decision-making in continuing a night VFR flight into IFR conditions or his susceptibility to spatial disorientation could not be determined from the available information.Page 2 of 10 WPR17FA044
The commercial pilot planned to land the helicopter at the top of a high mountain peak. Three passengers were onboard, and the helicopter was loaded just below its maximum gross weight. The enroute climb was uneventful, and after reaching the peak, the pilot performed an orbit over the landing site. While surveying his landing options, the helicopter's low rotor rpm warning horn sounded, and he corrected by lowering the collective and increasing engine power. The horn stopped, and he continued to circle the area while reviewing an engine limit manifold pressure chart and determining that he had enough engine power available to proceed.Hikers were close to his intended landing area, so he initiated an approach with a tailwind toward the lower face of a ridgeline with the intention of turning back to land into the wind. As he approached the landing spot, the low rotor rpm horn sounded again, and he lowered the collective. The helicopter descended rapidly, and due to terrain, there was no escape path, so he warned the passengers to brace for impact. The helicopter landed hard and sustained substantial damage.The helicopter was operating at the upper limit of its performance capabilities at the reported gross weight and calculated density altitude. Performance charts indicated that the helicopter would not have been able to hover at that altitude, and as such, a successful landing, while not impossible, would have been challenging. The activation of the warning horn during the initial orbit would have been another indication to the pilot that there was limited engine power available for landing.The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation, and the accident is consistent with the pilot's failure to maintain rotor rpm while operating near the helicopter's performance limits.Page 2 of 10 WPR17LA043
The private pilot reported that he performed several touch-and-go landings at a nearby airport and then returned to his home airport to perform several more touch-and-go landings. As he approached the runway for the third landing, he added throttle to adjust his glidepath; however, the engine did not respond. The pilot added that the engine continued to run but did not produce enough power to maintain altitude. The airplane continued to descend, and its landing gear caught a power line. The airplane then impacted terrain. Fuel was present on site. Examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The examination noted that the propeller blade tips were bent forward with gouges and chordwise scoring on the leading edges, consistent with the engine producing high power. The pilot reported that he did not apply carburetor heat on the approach; however, weather conditions in the area were conducive to the formation of serious carburetor icing at cruise power settings. Although the pilot did not apply carburetor heat and reported that the engine did not produce enough power to maintain altitude, the postaccident examination did not reveal any airplane mechanical malfunctions or failures, and propeller signatures indicate the engine was producing high power during the accident sequence. Thus, the reason for the pilot’s descent below glidepath could not be determined based on the available information.
The private pilot obtained a full weather briefing before departing on a long cross-country flight. The destination airport was forecast to be under visual meteorological conditions, but there was an AIRMET and Center Weather Advisory (CWA) issued for low instrument flight rules (IFR) conditions later that day. The briefer told the pilot to check the weather again en route to see if the AIRMET and CWA had been updated. At the time the pilot stopped for fuel, another CWA was issued for low IFR conditions at his destination airport; however, there were no records to indicate that the pilot obtained this information during the fuel stop or after departing on the last leg of the flight.A review of air traffic control communications revealed that, about 10 minutes before arriving at the airport, the pilot reported that he had obtained the current weather conditions at his destination airport. The most recent observation, about 1 hour before the accident indicated good visibility; however, the weather reporting equipment did not provide ceiling heights. It is unknown if the pilot obtained weather information from nearby airports, which were reporting low instrument meteorological conditions (visibility between 1/4 and 1/2 mile and ceilings 200-300 ft above ground level [agl]). Additionally, three pilot reports (PIREPs) describing the poor weather conditions were filed within the hour before the accident. The controller did not relay the PIREPs or the CWA information to the pilot, so the pilot was likely unaware of the deteriorating conditions.Based on radar information and statements from witnesses, the pilot's approach to the airport was unstabilized. He descended below the minimum descent altitude of 440 ft, and, after breaking through the fog about 100 ft agl, the airplane reentered the fog and completed a 360° right turn near the approach end of the runway, during which its altitude varied from 100 ft to 300 ft. The airplane then climbed to an altitude about 800 ft before radar contact was lost near the accident site. The airplane came to rest inverted, consistent with one witness's statement that it descended through the clouds in a spin before impact; postaccident examination revealed no preimpact anomalies with the airplane or engine that would have precluded normal operation. Although the pilot was instrument rated, his recent instrument experience could not be established.Page 2 of 13 ERA17FA074The circumstances of the accident, including the restricted visibility conditions and the pilot's maneuvering of the airplane before the impact, are consistent with a spatial disorientation event. It is likely that the pilot experienced a loss of control due to spatial disorientation, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and spin.
During a local personal flight, the airline transport pilot was performing a series of steep turns to the right with the fuel selector positioned to the right tank, which contained about 4.5 gallons of fuel. When the airplane rolled out of a steep turn, the engine began to sputter and lose power. The pilot subsequently performed a forced landing to a field, during which the airplane flipped over and sustained substantial damage to the left wing. After the accident, the pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation and that the loss of engine power was likely the result of fuel starvation due to the low quantity of fuel in the right fuel tank. This likely occurred during the steep turn to the right as the fuel inside the right fuel tank flowed outboard and away from the fuel pickup located on the inboard side of the tank.
The airline transport pilot reported that all indications were normal during takeoff in the experimental amateur-built airplane. The airplane accelerated normally and became airborne, then the left wing raised, which the pilot assumed was the result of the left crosswind conditions. He applied a correction to the left; however, he overcorrected and the airplane entered a steep left bank. After regaining control of the airplane, the pilot noted that the airplane was about 60° from the runway heading, and he thought that the airplane was too low to correct back to runway heading. The pilot reduced power to land on airport property; however, the terrain was rough and the left wing sustained substantial damage during the landing. The pilot stated that there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane.
The non-instrument-rated private pilot elected to conduct the cross-country flight over mountainous terrain without obtaining a weather briefing or filing a flight plan. As he approached his destination, the pilot requested a descent from his cruising altitude of 9,500 ft mean sea level (msl), which was approved by air traffic control. The controller instructed the pilot to maintain visual flight rules flight throughout his descent. Instead, the pilot descended the airplane into a cloud layer between 7,000 ft msl to 5,000 ft msl despite his instructions from air traffic control. Radar data and satellite weather imagery depicted the airplane in a steady-state descent inside a solid cloud layer which tracked north, directly toward the destination airport. The radar track ended at 5,400 ft. msl abeam a mountain peak at 6,500 feet elevation. The accident site was located at 5,400 ft in steep, mountainous terrain about 15 miles south of the destination airport at the same position as the last radar target.Examination of the wreckage revealed no pre-impact mechanical anomalies and signatures consistent with controlled flight into terrain.The pilot had a history of disregard for established rules and regulations. The pilot's airplane was about 2 months overdue for an annual inspection. He was counseled numerous times by an experienced flight instructor about his unsafe practice of operating the airplane in instrument meteorological conditions without an instrument rating, but he continued to do so over a period of 2 years and again on the accident flight. His contempt for rules and regulations was consistent with an anti-authority attitude, which is hazardous to safe operation of aircraft. The pilot had used the potentially-impairing stimulant phentermine at some time before the flight, but the samples available for testing were inadequate to quantify impairment. Page 2 of 9 ERA17FA073Therefore, it could not be determined if the pilot's use of phentermine contributed to this accident.