roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
According to the pilot, he was on a local flight at an altitude of 1,000 ft when he noticed the engine starting to lose power. The pilot said he switched fuel tanks, but engine power was not regained. The pilot conducted an emergency landing on a road and the airplane collided with a bus and then a pole. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the fuel tanks were intact, and that the left fuel only contained a residual amount of fuel, while about 10 gallons of fuel remained in the right fuel tank. An engine test run was then attempted at the accident site, and the engine ran normally using the right fuel tank but did not run consistently with the left fuel tank selected. Based on this information, it is likely that the pilot mismanaged the airplane’s fuel supply and starved the engine of fuel, which resulted in the total loss of engine power and subsequent forced landing.
The pilot of the personal flight reported that the flight was destined to his privately-owned airstrip, which was covered with approximately six inches of “very wet and dense” snow. During landing rollout, the airplane’s deceleration was typical but then decelerated faster than the pilot “could imagine.” The airplane tail rose very quickly, and the airplane then nosed over coming to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left and right wings, the vertical stabilizer, and the rudder. The pilot reported that there was no preaccident failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot also reported that the accident could have been prevented by using a snow depth limit of four inches if its liquid water content is unknown, and if landing in similar conditions, to land with a little power to keep the tail down.
The pilot reported that, during takeoff, the airplane reached an airspeed of about 35 mph and “hit an ice / snow berm”. The airplane became airborne, stalled, and impacted the terrain. The ski dug into the snow and the airplane flipped over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and left strut.  The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that she encountered unexpected winds while flying at night. After multiple encounters with strong wind gusts and turbulence, the pilot lost control of the airplane and it started to spin downward. She was able to successfully recover from the spin, but was forced to search for a suitable landing site as she was unable to maintain altitude. The pilot executed a forced landing in an open snow-covered area and the airplane stopped abruptly, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage.The pilot reported no mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot and his flight instructor were on a local flight and were practicing maneuvers before returning to their home airport. Shortly after the student switched fuel tanks, the engine unexpectedly lost all power. The flight instructor confirmed that the throttle was full forward and the mixture was full rich. Unable to reach an airport due to their altitude, the flight instructor performed a forced landing to a local interstate highway. During the landing, the airplane’s nose landing gear collapsed and the right wing was damaged. The pilots were not injured. Examination of the engine, including a test run, revealed no evidence of any mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. During the examination of the carburetor, about 1 ounce of cloudy water was found in the carburetor bowl; no water was found in the gascolator. The flight instructor reported that no water was observed during the preflight inspection. Based on this information, it is likely that, as the student switched fuel tanks, previously undetected water from within the fuel system was introduced into the carburetor, resulting in the total loss of power.
The airplane, rented by the pilot, departed on a reported short cross-country flight. Flight track data showed that after takeoff, the airplane climbed to an altitude of about 1,000 ft above ground level and traveled southeast. Near the end of the flight, the airplane performed a 360° turn and began a rapid descent. The highly fragmented wreckage was located adjacent to a railroad track in a residential area. The airplane damage was consistent with a high angle and high energy impact with terrain. Examination of the airplane revealed no preimpact mechanical deficiencies that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane. Following a death investigation, the coroner classified the manner of death as a suicide.
The accident occurred as the pilot was conducting a logging operation in a helicopter that had an overhauled engine recently installed. The helicopter sustained a loss of engine power when the pilot added power while laying a log into the log landing zone. Unable to maintain altitude, the pilot elected to make a forced landing onto open terrain. As the helicopter descended toward the open terrain, its landing gear impacted cut logs before the helicopter rolled down a hill and came to rest inverted.On the day before the accident, the pilot experienced what seemed to be a slower than normal governor response (governor lag) to an increase in power requirement. The company mechanic made engine adjustments and the pilot continued with the logging operations. On a later flight, the pilot heard “rushing air” while landing a log. He immediately returned to the service landing area and again consulted the mechanic. They confirmed the bleed band function, and the mechanic made an adjustment. They performed a ground run to confirm the adjustment did what they wanted it to and ended operations for the night. The engine was removed from the airframe and placed on a test stand following the accident. The power turbine governor (PTG) exhibited a random intermittency during functional testing, and a subsequent partial teardown revealed the locking feature of the adjusting screw of the N2 topping governor and roller assembly was not correctly clamped. A visual examination of the N2 topping governor lever and roller assembly revealed that the adjustment screw was not being retained by the locking tab and could easily be rotated. It was extended almost out of its threaded seat. The tab locking screw lockwire was undamaged and in its original location. Additionally, it was observed that the lock screw was free to turn within the lockwire hysteresis band, and no damage was noted on the threads of the screw and topping governor lever.Page 2 of 9 WPR23LA097The PTG was inspected and installed on the accident engine in April of 2020; the PTG time since overhaul was about 1,875 hours.    The loose hardware retaining the adjustment screw in the N2 topping governor lever and roller assembly most likely caused an uncommanded rotation of the rockshaft and the subsequent opening of the bleed band. With the bleed band open air to the gas producer (GP) turbine was lost, resulting in a sudden loss of power. The loss of cooling air to the GP turbine also resulted in the thermal distress of the 2nd stage GP turbine blades.
The pilot and his passenger prepared for a night flight in the flying club’s airplane to maintain the pilot’s currency. He tried to start the engine three times, priming the engine a total of 11 times, and “pumping” the throttle during one attempt, but it did not start. Concerned that he may have flooded the engine, he waited 5 minutes before attempting another start with full throttle and mixture at idle/cutoff. After this attempt, the passenger noted smoke and he realized that the engine was on fire. He told his passenger to egress and attempted to extinguish the fire with the onboard fire extinguisher; however, the fire substantially damaged the airplane’s the fuselage, engine mounts, and firewall. The pilot reported no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The Pilot’s Operating Handbook for the airplane suggested priming 1 to 3 times before engine start.
The pilot receiving instruction was conducting takeoffs and landings to regain tailwheel currency. During the second landing’s roll out, the airplane began to veer left of the runway centerline. The pilot applied correction with right rudder; however, he overcorrected and the airplane veered to the right. The pilot and the flight instructor both applied left rudder and brake to counteract the veer to the right. However, the veer to the right developed into a ground loop and the left main landing gear leg fractured. The airplane dropped onto the fractured end of the landing gear leg and came to rest upright. A metallurgical examination of the fractured landing gear leg revealed small fatigue cracks along the radius of the brake line retainer clip bore and outboard face. These small fatigue cracks concentrated stress in the radius, facilitating a premature overstress fracture due to the stresses on the part during the landing.
The student pilot reported that, during landing, the airplane bounced. She added power to go around, pitched the yoke of the airplane back too aggressively, and the airplane stalled. The airplane impacted the runway, and continued into the snow covered grass.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and stabilator. The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot stated that he encountered a crosswind from the left during a landing attempt and the airplane drifted right. The right wing impacted tree branches that resulted in a loss of directional control. The airplane then collided with an adjacent bush, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
During the landing roll of a night landing, the airplane contacted a 12-inch high snowbank on the right side of the runway and nosed over, which resulted in substantial damage to the rudder. The pilot reported that there was about 15 ft of unplowed snow on the right side of the runway and about 6ft of unplowed snow on the left side of the 50 ft wide runway. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
When the experimental airplane was on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern, abeam the numbers, the engine started to run rough and vibrate. The pilot added power and the engine smoothed out. The pilot ensured the backup electric fuel pump was in the “on” position and turned the airplane to land on the runway. While on short final, the pilot reduced power and received a low rpm warning from his avionics. When he increased the throttle, the engine stopped producing power. A high sink rate developed, and the airplane landed hard on the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to the empennage.Postaccident examination of the airplane and engine did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The airplane was operating in an area conducive to the formation of serious carburetor icing at glide power settings. The airplane was fueled with 93-octane automotive fuel which could make carburetor icing more likely. The airplane was not equipped with a carburetor temperature gauge or a carburetor heat control, nor were they required.
The pilot was attempting to make a crosswind landing and flared too high. He tried to recover by adding power, but it was too late, and the gyroplane landed hard on the left main landing gear. The gyroplane then bounced back and forth on both main landing gear before it rolled over and substantially damaged the main rotor blades and tail section. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures of the gyroplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The glider pilot reported that the day was a “good ridge day” and about 45 minutes into the flight he saw two large birds flying in a thermal. He attempted to enter the same thermal that the birds were in, turning towards a mountain ridge, the same direction the birds were circling.  The pilot was carried out of the thermal and entered an area of sinking air which resulted in the glider impacting the ridge.  The impact resulted in substantial damage to the wings and fuselage.  The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the glider that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll, the airplane encountered a gust of wind, and veered to the right. The pilot attempted to correct with left rudder and brake and applied full power to abort the landing, however the airplane continued to veer to the right. The pilot then reduced power, and the airplane subsequently exited the right side of the runway and ground looped. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor reported that she and her student pilot were practicing landings on runway 34. The instructor stated that the student pilot compensated for a crosswind out of the east. The student reported that she compensated with right aileron and left rudder; however, upon touchdown and landing roll-out, she did not release the left rudder pressure and the airplane began to veer to the left. The instructor attempted to correct the deviation and bring the airplane back to runway centerline, but the airplane impacted a ditch on the side of the runway and flipped over.  Both wings and vertical stabilizer were substantially damaged. The pilots reported there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operations.
The pilot was taxiing for departure at a large international airport. As he taxied from the ramp toward the taxiway that he had been cleared to take to the departure runway, the right wing of his airplane lifted. The airplane’s left wing then contacted the ground, and the airplane began to slide across the ground. In a statement following the accident, the pilot described that he had inadvertently taxied into the jet blast of an airplane that was about 500 feet away, which he was unable to see because his view was obscured by another large airplane parked on the ramp. The pilot subsequently shut his airplane’s engine down, exited the airplane, and tried to hold its wing down and keep it from contacting the ground again. He described that the jet blast made it difficult to keep the airplane from tipping over again and that he was lifted in the air several times as he tried to hold the right wing down. After serval minutes, several individuals assisted the pilot with moving the airplane out of the jet blast. The airplane’s left wing spar was substantially damaged during the accident.
Shortly after taking off, the pilot was instructed to change from the airport tower frequency to the departure control frequency. Numerous radio transmissions followed between tower personnel and the pilot that indicated the airplane’s radio was operating normally on the tower frequency, but the pilot could not change frequencies to departure control as directed. The pilot subsequently requested and received approval to return to the departure airport. During the flight back to the airport, the pilot made radio transmissions that indicated he continued to troubleshoot the radio problems. The airplane’s flight track showed the pilot flew directly toward the runway aimpoint about 1,000 ft from, and perpendicular to, the runway during the left base turn to final and allowed the airplane to descend as low as 200 ft pressure altitude (PA). The pilot then made a right turn about .5 miles from the runway followed by a left turn towards the runway. A pilot witness near the accident location observed the airplane maneuvering and predicted the airplane was going to stall. The airplane’s airspeed decreased to about 53 knots (kts) during the left turn and video showed the airplane’s bank angle increased before the airplane aerodynamically stalled and impacted terrain. Postaccident examination of the airframe, engines, and review of recorded engine monitoring data revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.Toxicology testing showed the pilot had diphenhydramine, a sedating antihistamine, in his liver and muscle tissue. While therapeutic levels could not be determined, side effects such as diminished psychomotor performance from his use of diphenhydramine were not evident from operational evidence. Thus, the effects of the pilot’s use of diphenhydramine was not a factor in this accident.Page 2 of 10 WPR23FA092The accident is consistent with the pilot becoming distracted by the reported non-critical radio anomaly and turning base leg of the traffic pattern too early during his return to the airport. The pilot then failed to maintain adequate airspeed and proper bank angle while maneuvering from base leg to final approach, resulting in an aerodynamic stall and impact with terrain.
While enroute in instrument meteorological (IMC) conditions, the pilot of the twin-engine, piston-powered airplane declared an emergency following a loss of power to the right engine. The pilot secured the engine and was provided vectors by air traffic control for an instrument approach procedure at the nearest airport, which he successfully completed. The pilot reported that he flew the approach and landing with the wing flaps retracted and visually acquired the runway about 500 ft above the ground. The airplane touched down on the first third of the runway at 120 knots. The pilot knew he would not be able to stop the airplane on the 3,500-ft-long runway but committed to the landing rather than risking a single-engine go-around in IMC. After landing, the airplane continued beyond the departure end of the runway and impacted a berm, collapsing the landing gear and resulting in substantial damage to the airplane.Examination of the engine revealed catastrophic damage consistent with detonation and oil starvation. The damage to the No. 5 cylinder was consistent with a subsequent overpressurization of the crankcase, which likely expelled the crankshaft nose seal and the oil supply. Detonation of the cylinder(s) can create excessive crankcase pressures capable of expelling the crankshaft nose seal. The crankshaft nose seal displacement likely created a rapid loss of oil and the resulting oil starvation of the engine. The fractured connecting rod and high-temperature signatures were consistent with oil starvation. No source or anomaly that would result in engine detonation was identified. According to the Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH) for the accident airplane, during a single-engine inoperative approach, the pilot should maintain an airspeed of 116 kts indicated (KIAS) or above until landing is assured. Once landing is assured, the pilot should extend the gear and flaps, slowly retard the power on the operative engine, and land normally. The airplane’s best single-engine rate of climb speed (blue line) was 106 KIAS, and its minimum controllable Page 2 of 7 ERA23LA112airspeed with one engine inoperative (Vmca) was 76 KIAS. The maximum speed for full flap extension (40°) was 132 KIAS. The POH also stated that a single-engine go-around should be avoided if at all possible.The pilot’s decision to commit to the landing was reasonable given the circumstances and the guidance provided by the POH; however, it is likely that his decision to conduct the landing without flaps and the airplane’s excessive airspeed at touchdown resulted in the runway overrun.
The pilot reported that while on approach for landing, the airplane started to lose altitude quickly. After the co-pilot noticed the high decent rate and the slow airspeed, he advised the pilot to add power. However, the airplane continued to descend and impacted terrain in a right wing and nose low attitude, about 30 yards short of the runway approach threshold, which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tail wheel-equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll, when the airplane was slowed to taxi speed, it began to drift left. The pilot was unable to maintain directional control of the airplane and it exited the runway to the left. During the runway excursion, the airplane entered a snow-covered field adjacent to the runway, nosed over, and came to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wing struts and vertical stabilizer. 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 25 with wind variable at 20-25 knots, gusting to 35 knots.
The pilot reported that, during landing on a snow-covered frozen lake in a tundra tire-equipped airplane, the main landing gear wheels broke through the hard-packed snow, and the airplane subsequently nosed over, sustaining substantial damage to the wings, lift struts and rudder. The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he observed a thin layer of snow that covered his destination runway. He performed a normal approach and landing, but after landing he impacted a snow drift on the runway. The airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted which resulted in substantial damage to the wing and tail structure.The pilot reported no mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported he was conducting an instrument approach in dark night conditions, and during the approach he thought the airplane was too high. The pilot performed a left turn circling procedure to lose altitude. During the turn, the pilot loss sight of the runway and the airplane impacted terrain. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and both wings. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor reported that prior to his arrival, the student pilot conducted a preflight inspection of the airplane. The flight instructor then visually inspected the airplane and did not observe any anomalies. On the takeoff roll, with the student pilot at the controls, the left side of the engine cowling opened just after rotation. The flight instructor took control of the airplane and reduced the engine’s power setting to relieve stress on the cowling and abort the take off. However, the flight instructor determined that “was not the solution,” applied full power to the engine and elected to initiate a turn toward an alternate runway. The airplane continued to descend and was unable to reach the alternate runway. The flight instructor landed the airplane in muddy terrain off the runway. During the landing roll, the airplane’s right main landing gear separated, and the right wing impacted the surface, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage and right wing. The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.