roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that after touchdown on the runway, a gust of wind pushed the tail of the airplane to the left. The pilot was unable to maintain directional control and the airplane departed the runway and nosed over in a grassy area adjacent to the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported that there were no pre-accident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The reported winds about the time of the accident were light and variable at 3 knots.
The student pilot reported that during landing the airplane “dipped steeply to the right” due to a gusting wind. The student pilot corrected for the dip by applying left aileron and power before touching down on the ice-covered runway. After touchdown, the airplane skidded to the left with the nose pointed to the right and departed the runway. Upon departing the runway, the nose landing gear dug into the snow which resulted in substantial damage to the engine mount. 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 student pilot was landing with an 80° right crosswind at 9 knots gusting to 14 knots.
The pilot reported that, while in a climb on the left crosswind leg of the airport traffic pattern, the engine stopped producing power. He made a left turn toward the airport, activated the electric fuel pump, and changed the fuel selector valve position from the left-wing fuel tank to the right-wing fuel tank. Despite the pilot’s attempts, the engine would not restart, and the pilot made a forced landing in a vineyard. The pilot stated that he believes he unported the available fuel in the left tank while in the climbing left-hand turn. The left wing and left elevator were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was flying the last airplane to land in a group of six airplanes. During the landing, the main landing gear touched down on the grass runway and the airplane bounced once. When the airplane touched down again, the nose landing gear collapsed, the propeller blades contacted the grass, and the airplane nosed over. Postaccident examination of the nose landing gear scissor link showed that the fracture face had failed from fatigue, which resulted in a separation of the nose landing gear piston assembly. Based on witness reports, ground scars, and damage to the nosewheel fairing, it’s likely the scissor link failed either during the initial touchdown or when the nose wheel touched down after the bounced landing. The strut remained attached to the airplane at the engine mount.The aircraft logbooks showed that a bushing on the scissor link had been replaced several months before the accident. There was insufficient evidence to determine the source of the fatigue crack and whether a mechanic would have been able to identify the fatigue during a visual inspection.
The flight instructor reported that, during an instructional flight with the student pilot at the flight controls, just prior to touchdown, the airplane started drifting left of center. The instructor told his student to go around, but the airplane had already reached the edge of the runway. When the instructor took control, the airplane had already exited the runway and came to rest on the adjacent dirt terrain, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing.  The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot and pilot-rated passenger departed on a local flight; about 20 minutes into the flight the engine started to lose power. The pilot attempted to regain power, but the engine did not respond. He noticed the ocean tide was low, so he elected to land on the beach. The airplane landed hard and veered into the water, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing. Examination of the engine did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation; however, the airplane was submerged in ocean salt water for a day before it was removed, resulting in heavy corrosion throughout the engine.
The flight instructor reported that the student pilot aborted the first landing attempt due to crosswind conditions. During the second landing, the airplane bounced, then weather vaned and exited the runway to the right, substantially damaging the right wing tip before coming to rest.  The instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane what would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of a Yakovlev Yak-52 reported that he was in the number three position, off the lead airplane’s left wing while in a four-airplane formation flight. The pilot of the lead airplane initiated a left turn and the formation followed. While in the left turn, the pilot of the number three airplane felt “a bump” from underneath and observed the number four airplane pass under his right wing, and ascend toward the lead airplane. The pilot of the number three airplane realized there had been a mid-air collision, broke away from the formation to the left, and executed an emergency landing. The number three airplane’s right wing sustained substantial damage. The pilot of a Ryan Navion reported that, he was in the number four position off of the number three airplane’s left wing in the four-airplane formation flight. The pilot of the lead airplane initiated a left turn and the formation followed. When the pilot of the number four airplane “felt to level off”, his airplane collided with the number three airplane from underneath. He then executed an emergency landing. The fuselage, vertical stabilizer, and rudder were substantially damaged. The pilots of both airplanes reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplanes that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot landed at the departure airport and dropped off passengers before the accident flight. The pilot then left the airplane while it was being fueled and returned after fueling was completed. The pilot walked around the airplane while talking on a cellular phone, which was not consistent with a proper preflight inspection of the airplane due to his diverted attention. After the engines were started, the airplane taxied to the departure runway. A witness stated that he did not see or hear an engine run-up before takeoff. The witness said the airplane’s takeoff was normal and later heard an audible change in engine sound after it had become airborne. Surveillance video recorded the airplane in a nose-down, left bank attitude before entering a left roll into an inverted attitude and impacting the ground.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the left cockpit fuel selector was in the OFF position, which likely led to fuel starvation and a loss of left engine power. Additionally, the left engine propeller exhibited features of low/no power. The right propeller exhibited features consistent with higher power and a blade angle near takeoff/climb power. The initial left roll of the airplane likely resulted from the loss of left engine power. Examination of the engines revealed no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures. Flight control continuity of the airplane was confirmed and the continued left roll after the loss of left engine power indicated a loss of control by the pilot.
The pilot reported that shortly after he exited the runway after landing, the nose landing gear collapsed. According to his written statement, “neither the flaps had been retracted yet or a command given to retract the landing gear.” He immediately shut off the mixture to the engine, took photos of the cockpit controls, and exited the airplane.  Examination of the accident site and wreckage by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector revealed that the flaps were in the down position, the nose landing gear was fully retracted, the left main landing gear was about 80% retracted, and the right main landing gear was about 50% retracted. A visual examination of the taxiway revealed a 25 ft ground scar. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. Postaccident examination of the landing gear system revealed no evidence of any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during the local flight the engine lost partial power. He applied the carburetor heat and the engine power was restored. The pilot left the carburetor heat on for the remainder of the flight. While on final approach to land,  the engine lost total power. The airplane landed short of the runway and sustained substantial damage to the engine mount.Postaccident examination of the engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The engine was started and ran normally during the postaccident examination.  The reason for the reported loss of engine power could not be determined.
The pilot reported that the landing gear hydraulic pump indicator relay and diode were replaced before he departed on the accident flight. Maintenance personnel performed ground checks and function tests that indicated the landing gear hydraulic pump was operational with no defects. The pilot confirmed that during takeoff and approach for landing all functions of the landing gear indication system were normal. The pilot reported that he moved the flap lever to the 10° down position during the landing roll to prevent the airplane from “dancing around.” Subsequently, the landing gear retracted, causing the airplane’s tail section to skid along the asphalt runway, with the nose landing gear remaining extended and locked. Postaccident examination of the landing gear system revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The landing gear function check was performed using steps outlined in the manufacturer’s maintenance manual. The function checks revealed normal operating parameters, with no anomalies noted throughout the examination. The pilot reported that, to prevent the airplane from dancing around during the landing roll, he normally retracted the flaps to get more weight on the wheels and better brake effectiveness. The pilot recalled that he raised the flap lever to the 10° flap down position.  As the airplane’s speed decreased, the main landing gear retracted, and it is possible that the pilot unintentionally retracted the landing gear during the landing roll. Page 2 of 6 WPR23LA136
The pilot was flying to an airport that was about 33 nautical miles away from the departure airport, and after takeoff climbed to an altitude of 2,000 ft before descending to 1,500 ft. About 8 minutes into the flight the airplane’s engine "coughed and stopped running." In response, the pilot switched the fuel selector to the other tank, turned on the boost pump and wingtip fuel tank pumps, and attempted to restart the engine, but was unsuccessful. He then returned the fuel selector back to the original tank and made another attempt to restart the engine, but that effort was similarly unsuccessful. The pilot then selected a field and performed a forced landing. During the landing the airplane struck a tree, seriously injuring the pilot and substantially damaging the fuselage and left wing.A Federal Aviation Administration Inspector examined the airplane at the accident site and reported that he found the fuel selector on the right tank position and that both the right main and wingtip fuel tanks were empty. He found a small amount of fuel in the left main fuel tank (later determined to be about 2 gallons) and no fuel in the left wingtip fuel tank. The inspector otherwise found no evidence of fuel leakage at the accident site. A post recovery examination of the wreckage also found that there was no fuel in the fuel pump or fuel injector lines. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane, and in a postaccident telephone interview stated that the airplane, "…just didn’t have enough fuel."
During a flight test, the unmanned aircraft’s flight control computer registered a low battery voltage reading and entered an automatic land in place flight maneuver. The aircraft was hovering over a large bush at the time and the ground station operator (GSO) attempted to override the system, but the system rejected the commands. The GSO attempted to change the land in place waypoint, but the system again rejected the command. The aircraft performed its land in place maneuver and collided with the bush, which resulted in the aircraft tipping over and coming to rest inverted. The operator reviewed the aircraft systems and found the low voltage threshold to be overly restrictive. In addition, software prevented the flight crew from overriding the land in place command and regaining control of the aircraft by changing the waypoint.
The pilot planned to land at a Bureau of Land Management backcountry landing strip he had previously visited over 100 times.  After completing multiple low passes to assess the snow depth and overall conditions of the landing area, he executed a soft field landing in a 3-point, full stall attitude.  During the rollout, the drag from the snow was greater than expected and he was unable to maintain control.  The airplane nosed over at low speed and came to rest inverted.  The vertical stabilizer, rudder, and right-wing struts sustained substantial damage.  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, during cruise flight, he observed an increase of cylinder head temperature along with “abnormal engine operation” and decided to make a precautionary landing, off airport. During the landing roll in the tailwheel equipped airplane, the right main tire “sunk” in the soil and the tail of the airplane began to rise. Despite the pilot’s control inputs, the tail continued to rise, and the airplane nosed over coming to rest inverted. The vertical stabilizer and rudder were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was performing an aileron roll when the airplane suddenly entered an uncommanded high-g maneuver, and he lost control of the airplane. He was able to release his seat belt and parachute to the ground. The left wing and aileron separated from the airplane before impacting a muddy field.The mostly intact left aileron, attached torque tube, and both trailing edge ribs separated from the wing and the torque tube fractured from the bellcrank in the fuselage. The forward halves of the upper and lower flanges and the forward flange of the outboard trailing edge rib were separated cleanly from the wing consistent with an adhesive type failure at the interface between the carbon and adhesive. The aft halves of the upper and lower flanges of the outboard trailing edge rib were separated from the trailing edge skins with a cohesive type failure through the adhesive. The lower flange also had evidence of foam core material in the bond line.The available evidence suggests that the outboard trailing edge rib failed along the bond lines between the rib, rear spar, and trailing edge skins, which resulted in a loss of control when the left aileron separated from the wing and the left wing separated from the airplane.
The flight instructor reported that his student began the transition to flare on a normal, full stop landing. During the flare, the airplane’s nose yawed to the left. The instructor added right rudder to correct; however, the left wing pitched up. The instructor attempted to correct by applying left aileron to level the wings. He encountered resistance from the student’s flight control inputs, and the airplane touched down on the right main gear, putting a side load on it. The instructor announced that he had taken control of the airplane and initiated a go-around. The pitch trim was set to full nose up, and the instructor could not reduce the trim forces since the trim switch was set to the student’s side. The airplane pitched up and out of ground effect, and the right wing stalled and struck the ground, resulting in the nose and left wing also striking the ground. There were no injuries. An inspector with the Federal Aviation Administration examined the wreckage and determined that the damage to the fuselage and both wings was substantial. The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during a night cross country flight, the airplane encountered icing conditions while on an instrument approach. The pilot observed about 4 inches of ice had formed on the wing, running about one foot aft. The pilot reported he put the landing gear down about 5 miles from the runway. The pilot continued the approach and stated he broke out of the clouds about 300-400 ft agl and had “minimal control.” The airplane impacted snow-covered ground and came to rest about a half mile from the runway. The airplane was destroyed by a post-impact fire. In an email, the pilot stated the “airplane was in good shape.”At the time of the accident there was an icing AIRMET that covered the location of the accident. The Socata TB21 Pilot Information Manual states “Flight into known icing conditions is prohibited.”
The accident flight was a short, 15-minute return flight, from island to island, with about 19 gallons of fuel onboard. Since the pilot had not flown in several months, he veered north of course to practice a slow speed descent and the power settings that he would be using during his landing approach. He slowed and reduced power, which was followed by a total loss of engine power. The pilot was unable to restore engine power and ditched the airplane in a bay. Postaccident examination of the airplane and fuel-injected engine did not reveal any preimpact mechanical malfunctions. Fuel, mixed with sea water, was observed in both wing tanks and the center tank. Data were extracted from an onboard engine information system; however, the unit did not contain any relevant engine performance parameters.
The pilot reported that, while flying low over a snow-covered frozen lake, the gyrocopter was closer to the surface than he realized. The pilot increased engine power to attempt to climb away from the surface, however, the nosewheel impacted snow on the surface and the gyrocopter nosed over, rolled, and came to rest on its side. The fuselage, horizontal stabilizer, and rudders were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the gyrocopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that the airplane sustained a loss of engine thrust during the initial takeoff climb, but the engine continued to run. The pilot elected to land on the remaining runway; however, during the landing flare, the airplane landed hard on its nose and the nose landing gear collapsed. Additionally, the pilot stated that he defueled about 40 gallons of fuel from the airplane after the accident.    A visual inspection of the fuel system was conducted, and continuity was established from the main fuel tanks throughout the system; however, fuel was not observed within the fuel system. A postaccident engine ground run was accomplished, and the engine performed at various power settings. Due to a damaged propeller, the propeller governor was removed and functionally tested; it performed within manufacturer's specifications.Postaccident examination of the airplane’s engine revealed no evidence of any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Examination of the propeller governor indicated no visible signs of damage and the governor control lever moved freely from stop to stop. The propeller governor was functionally tested and performed within the manufacturer's specifications. While it’s likely that the loss of engine thrust may have been fuel related, it could not be substantiated due to the available evidence.
The flight instructor reported that, he planned to complete back-to-back flight lessons with two students. His students completed the preflight inspection and each tank measured about half full. The flight instructor verified that the fuel gauges indicated sufficient fuel for both lessons. During the second flight lesson with a student pilot at the controls, the airplane experienced a total loss of engine power. The flight instructor took control of the airplane and force-landed on a golf course. The airplane collided with trees during landing, resulting in substantial damage to the right wing. The flight instructor reported that the airplane ran out of fuel, and that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that the airplane’s engine lost all power shortly after takeoff at an altitude of 400 to 500 above ground level (agl). The airplane then entered an aerodynamic stall, descended, and impacted the ground before coming to rest inverted. The pilot had just purchased the airplane and did not have any flight time in the accident make and model airplane.The previous owner was present when the accident occurred. He stated that he did not believe that the accident was a result of a loss of engine power. He noted that the engine runup was normal and the wind was 35 to 40 knots with gusts at the time of the accident. He saw the airplane after takeoff and it appeared to be bouncing around because of the wind. It then stalled and fell to the ground. He could not hear the engine noises due to the wind.A postaccident examination, which included an engine run, did not reveal any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.Based on the available evidence, the accident was likely the result of the pilot’s decision to fly the airplane in which he had no experience in strong, gusting wind. This led to exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack and an aerodynamic stall that the pilot had insufficient altitude to recover from.
According to the pilot, prior to the flight, he determined the highest obstacle enroute was 6,100 ft with several 5,000 to 5,500 ft peaks along the route. In addition, he noted that during the flight, the end of evening nautical twilight would occur. After departure, he dialed 5,500 ft into the autopilot and leveled off. He went to don the night vision goggles and noted that they were on the copilot seat on top of an aircraft logbook. He went to move the logbook to the pilot door compartment, where it was typically stowed for flight, and decided to check the flight times against the times that maintenance was due. At that point, he noticed the cloud ceiling was lowering and dialed in 5,000 ft into the autopilot, then “went back heads down” to continue his review of the logbook. Then, the flight nurse asked for an updated estimated time enroute, and when the pilot looked up, he saw the helicopter was approaching a tree covered peak. He applied aft cyclic in order to climb; however the tail boom struck several trees, resulting in the vertical stabilizer separating from the tail boom. The pilot subsequently performed a forced landing to a road, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage and tail boom. The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.