roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that he was spraying a corn field and had descended back toward the field to make his next application pass. During the pass, he underestimated the height of the corn and the airplane settled more than expected. The main landing gear struck the corn, the airplane veered to the left, and the airplane impacted the ground. The engine separated and the airplane continued to spin to the left before it came to rest upright. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and the empennage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot stated that his landing to runway 36L was firm but not hard enough to “break anything”. He did not perceive that there was any side loading. The pilot applied brakes and felt the airplane pull to the right, so he steered the airplane to the grass on the right. The pilot stated that the right main landing gear collapsed, and the right wing hit the ground. An onsite examination revealed that the airplane struck a runway sign as it departed the runway to the right. Three separate tracks, consistent with both main and the nose landing gear, extended from the side of the runway and terminated at the airplane. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. After the airplane was lifted the right main landing gear extended and the downlock was found to be broken. A postaccident examination of the downlock and right main landing gear revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operations. At the time of the landing wind was 300° at 7 knots with gusts to 19 knots.
The pilot reported that during the takeoff roll, when the airplane reached 70 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS), he rotated the airplane for takeoff. He pitched the nose of the airplane for the takeoff climb and at 77 KIAS he retracted the landing gear. The airplane drifted to the right, the right wing dipped, and the nose began to pitch down. When the pilot checked airspeed, it indicated 64 KIAS and the airplane felt “sloshy.” The pilot reported the airplane was descending toward the trees at the end of the runway as the stall warning horn sounded. The airplane then collided with the trees and descended to impact with the terrain before a fire erupted. The pilot and passengers were able to exit the airplane before it was engulfed by the flames. The pilot reported the engine rpm’s did not diminish and there were no abrupt changes in power during the takeoff.A witness saw the airplane as it departed runway 28 (2,495 ft long). According to the witness, the airplane rotated about 3/4 of the length down the runway. The witness then saw the landing gear retract and the airplane appeared to struggle to climb. The wings wobbled and the airplane yawed to the right. An examination of the airframe, engine, and turbocharger did not detect any preimpact anomalies. The airplane was modified via supplemental type certificate with a turbocharger that allowed for operation of the airplane at weights above the original airplane’s type certificate design. Using the original manufacturer’s performance chart, takeoff distances and airspeeds are increased, and for the accident flight, the pilot rotated the airplane between 5 to 16 knots early depending on his expectation of a 50 ft obstacle. This early rotation likely rendered the airplane incapable of climbing.Page 2 of 7 CEN22LA336
The pilot reported that during the first approach to runway 36R, the preceding airplane struggled with the wind, so the pilot aborted the approach and reentered the pattern for another attempt. During the second attempt, he utilized a technique that required flaps extended 10°, left wing down, and right rudder. The left main landing gear touched down first followed by the tailwheel as the pilot used full left aileron to counter the left crosswind. During the landing roll the airplane slid to the right and departed the runway. The airplane impacted a ditch and the main landing gear collapsed, which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing and fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. At the time of the accident the wind was from 300° at 17 knots with gusts to 27 knots.
The pilot had accrued 954 total hours of flight experience but had only flown about 3.2 hours during four flights in the experimental amateur-built amphibious accident airplane. The pilot departed from a grass area next to a runway at the airport where he kept the airplane. After an uneventful local flight he returned to the airport to land. He performed go-arounds during the first two landing approaches due to being either too high or too fast. During the third landing attempt, the pilot thought the approach looked “OK” but then he noticed that he was too low, and too slow, so he increased engine power and applied slight up elevator. The pilot explained that the engine was on top of the wing (mounted in a pusher configuration) and normally when power was added the airplane would initially pitch down but would level off and then climb. The pilot described that this time though when he was too slow (about 45 knots), he added an extra amount of power, which pushed the nose down and made the airplane descend. He then “got scared,” “gave too much up elevator,” and believed that the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall. The airplane then struck the ground and a fence at an airspeed of about 55 knots. The pilot was seriously injured and postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the fuselage was substantially damaged. The pilot reported that during the accident flight, the flight controls and engine all operated normally.
Shortly after takeoff the engine sustained a total loss of engine power caused by fatigue failure of the crankshaft gear, necessitating the pilot to perform an off-airport forced landing that resulted in substantial damage. The fatigue fracture initiated from multiple origins at a corner of a keyway cut in the gear. The crankshaft gear underwent magnaflux inspection and was approved for return to service associated with an engine overhaul nearly 8 years and 247 hours earlier. While there was no evidence of plating at the fatigue initiation site, it could not be determined from the available evidence whether the fatigue existed in the part at the last inspection or how fast the fatigue crack was growing.
The pilot reported that he landed on the green dot and steered toward the north edge of the runway to clear quickly as instructed by air traffic control. The airplane started to “get loose” and the pilot attempted to recover with no response. The airplane “rapidly turned to the left” and ground looped. A postaccident examination revealed 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. At the time of the accident the pilot was landing on runway 27 with wind from 070° at 8 knots.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll, he encountered a gusting left crosswind. He was unable to maintain directional control and the airplane veered off the runway to the left. The airplane subsequently collided with a drainage ditch and nosed over 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.
During an instructional flight in the glider, the student pilot reported that, he turned onto final approach early as he felt that he was low. The student lined up with the airstrip and reported that the touchdown was not smooth, and the glider was angled slightly to the right. The glider bounded and turned more to the right. Before he could make a correction, the glider veered off the right side of the airstrip and collided with terrain. The flight instructor reported that, he should have been more proactive when the student delayed in turning to the base leg due to his confusion with the runway appearance as he thought that the student could handle things himself. The glider’s empennage was substantially damaged. Neither pilot reported that there were any preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the glider that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot had made multiple aerial application flights before the accident flight. Automatic dependent surveillance - broadcast (ADS-B) data showed that the airplane made multiple passes over the field north of the tower, which was located in the field. During the final pass over the field, the airplane turned north toward the western guy wires. The airplane struck the guy wires and impacted the terrain north of the tower. The operator’s representative stated that the pilot had been briefed about the field’s obstructions, specifically the location of the tower and its guy wires located in the intended field to be sprayed with fungicide. He stated that the pilot had previously flown over the field more than once. The airplane was destroyed by postcrash fire and impact forces, which prevented confirmation of flight control continuity. The propeller displayed S-shaped bending consistent with power generation. No mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal airplane operation were noted.Toxicology testing revealed that the pilot had used cannabis. The psychoactive compounds delta-9-THC and delta-8-THC were detected in his heart blood at low concentrations. THC can decrease vigilance and has effects for several hours. However, because of the fat storage and slow release of THC, low concentrations in blood can reflect use several days ago. How recent or frequent the pilot’s use of cannabis was unknown, as was the type of product. Given these unknowns, while the pilot was found to have cannabis in his system, it could not be determined if the concentration would have been impairing and influenced his vigilance about avoiding the antenna hazard.Page 2 of 6 CEN22LA335
The pilot had planned to fly the airplane on a short flight back to the owner’s hangar following an annual inspection. According to the pilot, the engine lost all power during climbout from the departure airport. The airplane impacted the ground, struck a fence and came to rest upright. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no preimpact mechanical anomalies of the airplane or engine that would have precluded normal operation. The airplane contained 15 gallons of fuel in each wing fuel tank before the annual inspection began. The maintenance facility ran the engine at maximum power with the fuel selector positioned on the left fuel tank for at least 45 minutes during the annual inspection. Fuel consumption calculations indicate this would have nearly depleted the left fuel tank of fuel. No additional fuel was added by the mechanics or the pilot before the accident flight nor was there any discussion between the pilot and mechanic regarding the amount of fuel remaining in the airplane. It is likely that the pilot departed without a thorough preflight inspection or he would have observed the low fuel quantity and switched to the right fuel tank before departure. The pilot stated that he switched tanks once during the accident flight after the power loss. As the fuel selector was found in the right tank position at the accident site, it is likely that he departed on the left fuel tank. This evidence suggests that the pilot’s improper fuel management resulted in fuel starvation and a total loss of engine power. Further, the departure airport did not sell the type of fuel required to power the accident airplane. However, it is unlikely that this would have influenced the pilot’s decision as he believed he had sufficient fuel to complete the flight. Page 2 of 8 WPR22LA271
The pilot departed from a grass strip for a personal cross-country flight with a passenger. Radar data and the location of the accident site indicate the airplane made a left turn after takeoff and descended into trees, coming to rest about ¼ mile from the airport. The data also showed the airplane’s airspeed decreased after takeoff. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and postimpact fire. The day before the accident flight, a resident of the airpark reported that the accident airplane had stopped near their residence located near the departure end of runway 14. The pilot had said to the resident that his cowling had opened and that he needed to secure it before taking off. The airplane departed a few minutes later and returned to the airport about 45 minutes later. On the day of the accident, the passenger reported to a friend during a video chat that the pilot had trouble starting the engine before the flight and the friend could see that the engine cowling was open. In addition, photos of the airplane taken during its takeoff roll showed that the right aft edge of the engine cowling was not flush with the fuselage. Given the recurring problem with the cowling latch, it is likely the latch was not properly secured during the preflight, which allowed it to open during the flight. The pilot likely became distracted with the opened engine cowling, which then led to a loss of control inflight.Toxicology testing revealed that the pilot had used cannabis, but whether he was experiencing effects of the drug at the time of the accident could not be determined. The potentially sedating antihistamine cetirizine was also detected in the pilot, but testing was unable to determine if it was at therapeutic levels and therefore more likely to cause any side effects. Thus, this investigation was unable to determine if effects from the pilot’s use of cannabis and cetirizine were a factor in this accident.Page 2 of 7 WPR22FA264
The pilot of the airplane stated that after departure he heard a “very loud pop” from the engine and then saw smoke enter the cockpit. After the smoke cleared, he decided to perform an off-airport landing even though the engine continued to operate. He stated that he did not check the engine gauges to evaluate any anomalies. The pilot reported that the engine was operating after he heard the “loud pop” noise. During the approach to the field, the pilot added engine power to avoid hitting power lines. The airplane impacted a soccer goal, a streetlight, and a portable toilet, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage and right wing.Postaccident examination of the engine found the spark plug wire boot for the No. 6 cylinder was not connected to the spark plug and was found resting on the exhaust pipe. The rubber boot likely sustained thermal damage when it contacted the exhaust pipe; there were no other mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.A review of the maintenance records showed that 79.7 hours had accumulated on the engine since the last inspection, which was a condition inspection. It possible that the spark plug wire boot was not secured during the last maintenance work performed. Based on the available records, investigators were not able to determine why the spark plug wire boot was unsecured.
The student pilot reported that he was completing his first solo cross-country flight. At the destination airport, he performed one go-around because the airplane was too high. He performed a second go-around as the airplane was not aligned with the runway. During the third attempt, he flared too high. The airplane subsequently landed hard and bounced four times before coming to rest on the runway. The student pilot added that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunction. Examination of the airplane by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed that it was substantially damaged due to two fractured engine mounts. Damage to the nosegear and propeller was also observed.
The pilot departed the airport on a banner towing operation that would follow the Pacific Ocean shoreline. The airplane carried 36 gallons of fuel in 2 18-gallon fuel tanks and towed a banner. His flight profile was 500 ft agl and about 2,000 ft offshore. The pilot began the flight with the fuel tank selector in the left-tank position. After about 16 minutes of flight, the pilot switched to the right tank and the fuel tank selector remained in the right-tank position for about 2 hours 36 minutes. The pilot reported that shortly after he switched back to the left tank the engine sustained a total loss of power. With little altitude to recover, he elected to land in the water, near the shoreline; the wings and fuselage were substantially damaged in the landing.On-scene examination of the airplane after recovery from the water revealed that there was no fuel in the right tank. A postaccident examination of the airplane and engine revealed saltwater corrosion on some engine components, but no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. Carburetor ice conditions were calculated to be serious, but only at glide power, which was not the conditions at the time of the total loss of power. Fuel samples taken at the airport’s fuel pump and from the airplane tanks revealed no contamination. A review of maintenance records for the airplane revealed no outstanding anomalies.  Given that the pilot had the right tank selected for about 2 hours 36 minutes, the fuel burn rate was less than estimated by the pilot; however, the discovery that there was no fuel remaining in the right tank and no breaches of the right tank, it is likely the right tank ran empty before the pilot switched to the left tank.   Page 2 of 8 WPR22LA268
The pilot reported that during the landing roll to runway 18R the airplane encountered a strong gust of wind and the airplane turned to the right. The pilot was unable to correct, and the airplane rotated 270°. The airplane tipped up on the left wing and left horizontal stabilizer which resulted in substantial damage to the left horizontal stabilizer and aileron. The pilot stated that there were no mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operations. At the time of the accident the wind was from 270° at 8 knots with gusts to 20 knots.
The pilot reported that he was traveling north on the taxiway and had intended to apply the left brake to taxi the airplane toward the runway, but he inadvertently applied the right brake. The airplane departed the taxiway and went down an embankment where it impacted trees. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings. 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 the landing roll, the airplane encountered a wind gust and veered to the right. He attempted to correct back to runway centerline; however, the left wing dipped down, the main landing gear collapsed, and the airplane ground looped. 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 pilot reported that he was maneuvering at low altitude to apply fungicide to a corn field. The collective flight control stiffened to a point that the pilot was unable to arrest the helicopter’s descent rate. The pilot attempted to use cyclic control to flare the helicopter and arrest the descent; however, the cyclic control was not responsive, and the helicopter impacted the ground. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the tail boom, fuselage, and main rotor system. The pilot stated that he suspected that the flight controls’ hydraulic assist system malfunctioned. During the on-site inspection, no obvious anomalies were found with the flight control system. Flight control continuity was confirmed on site. All 3 servos (2 forward and 1 aft) passed bench functionality tests and the hydraulic pump, reservoir, and fluids were normal. The right forward servo had a slightly bent piston shaft, but still was fully functional. The bent shaft was consistent with impact damage. The spool drives of each servo were examined and exhibited signatures consistent with normal operation. An examination of the hydraulic system components revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operations. The reason for the reported flight control malfunction could not be determined.
The pilot reported that, while maneuvering to apply chemical to a field at low altitude, the top of the vertical stabilizer struck a set of power lines. The pilot reported that “the rudder was hammed and [he] had no rudder control.” The pilot made a forced landing in a wheat field. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the vertical stabilizer. The pilot reported no preaccident failures or malfunctions with the airplane before the collision with the power lines that would have precluded normal operations.
The pilot was uncertain how much fuel was onboard the agricultural application helicopter before 8 to 10 gallons were added prior to departing on the accident flight. The helicopter had been filled with minimal fuel because of a heavy load of pesticide. After a flight to the field of about 4 minutes, he started the aerial application. During his first pass the engine rpm started to drop; he did not have enough altitude to initiate an autorotation and the helicopter descended before colliding with the ground. A postaccident examination of the fueling system revealed no fuel remained within the intact fuel tank. Additionally, examination of the engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures. Based on this information, the engine likely lost power due to fuel exhaustion.
About 5 to 10 minutes after takeoff, the engine lost total power. The pilot performed a forced landing to a field, during which the airplane collided with a fence and drainage pipe, resulting in substantial damage. Examination of the engine and ignition system did not reveal any preimpact mechanical malfunctions. Examination of the fuel system revealed that the carburetor was absent of fuel and only a trace amount of fuel remained in the gascolator. A subsequent borescope examination of the fuel tank revealed that it was intact and that a small, immeasurable amount of fuel was in one corner of the tank, but the tank was otherwise empty. Based on the lack of mechanical anomalies and the absence of fuel in the intact fuel tank, it is likely that the loss of engine power was the result of fuel exhaustion.
The pilot reported that while conducting agricultural spraying operations he first circled the field to be sprayed and noted a windmill at the south end of the field. He started to spray the field and when conducting a spray pass lined up with the windmill, he pulled up to clear the windmill, but encountered a “pocket of dead air” which resulted in the airplane hitting the windmill. The pilot returned to the airport and upon landing the airplane’s left main landing gear collapsed and the airplane went off the side of the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to its fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane before the accident.
After about 2.5 hours of cross-country night flight, the engine lost all power near an airport where the pilot planned to refuel. The pilot stated that he thought that he ran out of fuel and executed a forced landing to a vegetated field about 1 mile from the airport. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and front of the fuselage. Examination of the airplane did not reveal any mechanical anomalies with the engine that would have precluded normal operation. The left-wing tank was found dry and the right fuel tank was found with about 1 inch of unusable fuel at the accident site. The fuel selector switch was found in the left fuel tank position. The pilot did not know how much fuel was onboard the airplane at the time of departure and had delayed refueling the airplane due to the price of fuel.