roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The private pilot was conducting a local area flight when the airplane experienced a partial loss of engine power. The pilot stated that he applied carburetor heat, switched fuel tanks (from left to right), activated the electric fuel pump, and verified magneto operation; however, despite his corrective actions, the engine continued to operate at 500 rpm. He chose to make a forced landing on a nearby highway. The pilot reported that, shortly before the landing flare, the left wing struck a road sign, and the airplane swerved left into the grass median. A postaccident examination revealed that the left wing fuel tank did not contain any usable fuel; less than 1 quart of fuel was drained from the tank. A visual inspection of the left wing fuel tank revealed that it was intact and appeared undamaged. Further, there was no evidence of a fuel leak from either wing tank. The fuel selector was found positioned to draw fuel from the right fuel tank, which contained about 10 gallons of fuel. The fuel samples collected from each wing tank did not contain any water or particulates. The fuel supply line located between the engine-driven fuel pump and the carburetor did not contain any fuel, and the carburetor bowl contained residual fuel. The electric fuel pump functioned normally when tested after the accident. The partial loss of engine power was due to the pilot's improper in-flight fuel management, which resulted in fuel starvation to the engine after all of the usable fuel in the left wing tank had been consumed.
The pilot reported that, during takeoff from a grass airstrip, she applied full power and pulled back on the yoke for a soft- and short-field takeoff. She added that, after the nose came off the ground, a wind gust pushed the airplane to the left. The airplane "straddled a drainage ditch until the nose wheel caught on something," and the airplane came to rest inverted.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing, right wing lift strut, and empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located about 7 miles north of the accident site reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 320° at 11 knots. The airplane was departing from runway 18.
The private pilot reported that, during landing at a high density altitude airport, the airplane bounced. He applied full engine power to go around; however, the engine experienced a total loss of power. The pilot attempted to restart the engine but was unsuccessful. The airplane subsequently touched down and overran the runway. Examination of the airplane revealed that the fuel mixture control arm in the engine compartment was striking an improperly-routed hose; however, the full travel of the mixture arm did not appear to be impeded. The examination of the engine did not include removal of the spark plugs or fuel controls; therefore, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The pilot reported that he had been practicing touch-and-go landings and short takeoffs and landings in gusting wind conditions. On the fourth landing, the airplane encountered a wind gust, and he lost directional control of the airplane. He attempted to go around, but the left wing struck desert brush, and the airplane spun to the left. The airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings, the rudder, and the horizontal stabilizer.Per the National Transportation Safety Board Pilot Aircraft Accident Report, the pilot reported that the accident could have been prevented if, "in the wind conditions, I…[had] carried a little more airspeed to help with the gusts." 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 landing, the airplane ballooned into the air, and he executed a go-around. After ballooning, the airplane descended, and the empennage impacted a fence. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the empennage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The solo student pilot reported that, while on final, "there was turbulence," and "just before landing [he] felt a strong crosswind pushing [him] to the right." Subsequently, the airplane touched down, veered off the right side of the runway, encountered a small ditch, and impacted a fence.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the rudder.The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The automated weather observation system at the accident site reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 180° at 10 knots. The pilot landed on runway 5.
The noninstrument-rated private pilot and the passenger were on a personal cross-country visual flight rules (VFR) flight in the airplane, and the pilot was in contact with air traffic control and receiving flight following services as he deviated due to weather along the route of flight. The pilot talked with a controller about diverting to a nearby airport, but he opted to continue, stating that the flight would likely be clear of the weather shortly based on the information he was receiving from his on-board equipment. Weather radar and satellite imagery indicated that the flight encountered instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) before it departed from controlled flight and entered a steep descent that continued to terrain impact. Examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot had received about 71 hours of simulated instrument flight training and had accumulated about 16 hours in actual instrument conditions, though his most recent instrument training flight was more than 1 year before the accident. The pilot's decision to continue VFR flight into IMC may have been influenced by an overreliance on his limited instrument training that led him to underestimate the difficulty of maintaining airplane control in actual instrument conditions. After the airplane entered IMC, the pilot likely experienced spatial disorientation and lost control of the airplane. Although the pilot was using two medications (imipramine and doxylamine) that may have affected his aeronautical decision-making and increased his susceptibility to spatial disorientation, it could not be determined whether effects from these drugs contributed to the accident.
The pilot returned to a private airstrip after a 35-minute flight and planned to perform a touch-and-go takeoff. However, after takeoff and while climbing, the engine started to run rough and then lost power. The pilot selected a field for the forced landing, during which the airplane impacted terrain hard and then came to rest upright. An examination of the airplane revealed that the right fuel tank appeared empty, that fuel was visible in the left tank, and that only residual fuel remained in the header tank, which was breached during the accident. A fuel pump circuit breaker was found open, and the fuel selector was found in the "off" position. The examination of the engine revealed that the engine's three-bladed propeller did not exhibit rotational signatures, indicating that the engine was not running at impact. The spark plugs were removed and appeared normal. The engine was then rotated by hand, and thumb compression and continuity through the drive/valve train were established. Both carburetor float bowls were removed and were empty of fuel; no contaminants or obstructions were noted. The gascolator was removed, and only a small amount of fuel was found; the fuel pump was removed, and only minimal fuel was found. An engine test run was then conducted at power, and the engine ran for several minutes; no anomalies were noted. The fuel source was removed to see how long the engine would run on the residual fuel in the system. Within several minutes, the engine began running rough and then lost power. A postrun examination of the carburetor float bowls, fuel pump, and gascolator revealed an absence of fuel in each, similar to their condition before the engine test run. The accident is consistent with fuel starvation, likely due to the fuel not transferring from a wing fuel tank to the header tank, either due to an open fuel pump circuit or because the right wing fuel tank was empty.
The flight instructor reported that he was providing tailwheel instruction for the pilot, who was in the front seat of the tandem-seat airplane and did not possess a tailwheel endorsement. Following multiple landings earlier in the flight, the pilot was practicing a high-speed taxi in tailwind conditions. Upon reaching about 20 mph ground speed, "directional control began to be lost." Subsequently, the flight instructor applied brakes, and the airplane nosed over. The vertical stabilizer and left-wing lift strut sustained substantial damage.The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.An automated weather observation station at the accident airport recorded that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 170° at 9 knots. The flight instructor reported they were taxiing north on runway 31.
The pilot reported that he accomplished a high reconnaissance of the field before maneuvering to descend for an agricultural application. He recalled that his attention was split between visually acquiring the intended application area and the indications on his digital map mounted in the cockpit. He descended below a tree line into the intended application area, but "I was still attempting to compare the crop on my field to my map, and was not looking outside the aircraft as diligently as required." He diverted his attention outside the cockpit and noticed power lines at eye level. He immediately lowered the collective and applied forward cyclic, but the main rotor mast struck the power lines. He landed the helicopter in the field; however, the main rotor blades sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The sport pilot, who was also the owner of the experimental, amateur-built, tailwheel airplane, stated that he was demonstrating maneuvers for the purpose of developing his brother's familiarity with the make and model airplane. The sport pilot's brother was a pilot-rated passenger, was seated in the right seat, and had not previously flown the make and model airplane. After completing about 1 hour of maneuvers, the sport pilot's brother attempted to take off in calm wind. During the takeoff roll, as the tail became airborne, the airplane began to swerve. The sport pilot's brother overcorrected for the swerve, and the airplane departed the right side of the runway. The sport pilot attempted to regain control and climb over obstacles, but the airplane stalled and impacted a field. Examination of the wreckage revealed damage to both wings and the fuselage. No preimpact mechanical malfunctions were observed, nor did the pilots report any.
The pilot reported that he made an approach to a grass airstrip in light rain conditions with mist. During the landing flare, the airplane encountered a rain shower, and the pilot's visibility was obscured. The pilot began the landing, but he lost sight of the runway. The airplane touched down left of the runway centerline and veered off the left side of the runway. He recalled that "by the time I was aware of my position it was not possible to correct," and the airplane impacted trees. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wing spars and engine mounts.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The incident sequence began after N43WW departed runway 36 right and was instructed to enter right closed traffic and N520ER reported east of the Lakefront Airport for landing. The air traffic control services provided by the control tower operator caused the incident. The services provided during the sequencing and spacing of the two aircraft landing on the runway were not in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration Joint Order (FAA JO) 7110.65, Air Traffic Control, directives. When the pilot of the N520ER reported 6.5 nautical miles east of the airport, the air traffic controller instructed the pilot to enter a right base for runway 36 right. N43WW was already established in the downwind for runway 36 right, both aircraft were maneuvering for runway 36R and no instruction or traffic advisories were issued by ATC to ensure sequencing and spacing to the runway. The pilot of N520ER initiated a go around and subsequently overflew N43WW which was on landing rollout on the runway. The closest proximity between the two aircraft on final approach was estimated to be about 516 feet.The FAA JO 7110.65, Air Traffic Control, paragraph 3-8-1 requires air traffic controllers to establish a sequence of landing traffic to avoid collisions at the runway and to ensure proper spacing. Additionally, when the conflict alert activated, the controller did not issue a required safety alert or traffic advisory for the conflict.
During initial climb from a coastal airport for the personal flight, when the airplane was about 300 ft above ground level, the engine lost total power. The private pilot ditched the airplane in the ocean near the shore. The pilot was rescued, but the airplane sank and was not recovered. The airplane's most recent annual inspection was completed about 7 months before the accident. The airplane's engine was overhauled about 6 months before the accident and had accrued 138 hours of operation from the time of overhaul until the accident. During that time, the oil had been changed and the filter element inspected three times with no abnormalities noted. Because the airplane was not recovered from the ocean and could not be examined, the reason for the total loss of engine power could not be determined.
The pilot reported that, during approach in visual meteorological conditions, he referenced the RNAV instrument approach for the runway to assist with vertical guidance "as [there] is no VASI [visual approach slope indicator]" for that runway. He added that he thought he was high enough as he crossed the adjacent highway, but the airplane hit a semi-truck that was traveling across the airplane's flightpath. The airplane continued on short approach, landed, and the main landing gear collapsed. Subsequently, the airplane veered to the left off the runway.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left and right engine firewalls and nacelle tanks.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was conducting a cross-country flight when, during cruise at 3,000 ft mean sea level, he heard an unusual sound from the engine and engine power decreased to 1,500 rpm. The pilot unsuccessfully attempted to restore engine power, then light smoke began to enter the cockpit. The pilot subsequently declared an emergency with air traffic control and selected a forced landing site. During touchdown on a soft field, the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted, resulting in substantial damage.Examination revealed that the engine's No. 4 cylinder had separated about halfway along the cylinder barrel from a fatigue crack that initiated at a cooling fin valley on the exterior surface. The fatigue crack grew around the circumference of the cylinder through approximately 30% of the cross section, and the remaining cross section succumbed to overstress. Once the cylinder fractured, the other components, such as the piston and connecting rod, sustained subsequent damage. Metallographic cross section of the cylinder at and near the fracture revealed the presence of corrosion pits under the remaining paint and primer. While the alloy used in the engine’s cylinders was not necessarily susceptive to pitting, other issues, such as crevice corrosion near an unpainted area or use in salt environments, can lead to similar corrosion features. Corrosion pits can be a common cause of fatigue cracking. Although the accident engine had accrued about 2,249 hours since its most recent major overhaul about 21 years before the accident which exceeded the engine manufacturer's overhaul recommendations of 2,000 operating hours or 12 years in service, whichever occurred first, the No. 4 cylinder had been installed new about 9 years before the accident. However, the presence of pitting corrosion to the extent that it resulted in failure of a cylinder is consistent with inadequate inspection and maintenance of the engine.Page 2 of 8 ERA17LA176
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll and while he transitioned from rudder control to brakes, "a gust of wind hit my [the airplane's] tail." The airplane veered off the runway to the left, the right main landing gear collapsed, and the right wing impacted the ground.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The automated weather observation system at the accident airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 250° at 6 knots. The pilot landed on runway 35.
The private pilot reported that, shortly after takeoff for the personal flight, the airplane began to yaw left and that he applied right rudder input in an attempt to regain yaw control; however, the airplane did not respond. The pilot subsequently initiated a forced landing, during which the airplane impacted the ground in a nose-down attitude, and it then came to rest oriented about 90o perpendicular to the runway.Postaccident examination revealed that the forward right rudder cable, between the front and rear seats, had detached at the rear seat foot pedal connection. The cable had pulled through its swage sleeve, indicating that the swage had not been adequately compressed. The cable appeared to have been recently replaced; however, during a review of maintenance records, no logbook entry was found documenting the replacement.
The commercial pilot reported that, during the takeoff roll, the right main tire "went flat and possibly blew." The airplane veered right and went off the side of the runway, where it impacted a ditch, bounced, turned sideways, and slid to a stop. The pilot saw fuel running out of the engine compartment and the airplane caught fire. The airplane continued to burn, and the engine compartment, cockpit, fuselage, empennage, and left wing were largely consumed by fire. The photographs taken of the wreckage at the accident site revealed that the airplane, including the main landing gear wheels, brakes, and tires, were largely consumed by fire, and fire damage precluded examination or testing of the wheels, brakes, and tires.
The flight instructor stated that a preflight visual inspection of the airplane's fuel tanks indicated that the fuel in each tank was just above the tabs, which corresponded to 30 total gallons of fuel on board; he added that a pretakeoff engine run up revealed no anomalies. He and the student pilot then departed on the instructional flight and flew for about 30 minutes using fuel from the left fuel tank before switching to the right tank. The student reported that, when they switched fuel tanks, the left tank gauge indicated "just above half" full, and the right tank gauge indicated "slightly higher" than half full. Shortly thereafter, the student activated the carburetor heat and reduced engine power to idle to perform a simulated engine failure and forced landing; however, when the student applied the throttle at the conclusion of the simulation, engine power did not increase. The flight instructor performed a forced landing, during which the airplane impacted a tree. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the fuel selector was positioned to the left fuel tank, which was undamaged and contained no fuel. The right fuel tank contained about 14 gallons of fuel. The fuel lines from the engine firewall to the carburetor did not contain fuel. The fuel quantity transmitters were not tested, and their accuracy was not determined. No mechanical anomalies were noted that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane, and the loss of engine power is consistent with fuel starvation.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during a go-around, the airplane veered to the left off the runway. He added that the main landing gear went into the mud, and the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The automated weather observation system about 4 nautical miles from the accident site reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 200° at 6 knots. The Federal Aviation Administration inspector reported that the pilot landed to the north.
The helicopter pilot reported that, while maneuvering at a low altitude for an agricultural application flight, he began flying along the north side of the intended spraying field. He added that he was paying attention to the trees along the field to maintain adequate clearance. He further added that the main rotor blades struck transmission wires and that he then heard a "high pitch sound" coming from the engine and the rpm decrease. The nose pitched up, and the helicopter impacted the ground and rolled onto its right side.The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot reported that he had noticed the transmission wires earlier in flight but that he later forgot where they were located.
The pilot reported that, during the landing flare, it felt like "[something] pushed [the airplane] real hard from behind." He added that he applied power, but the airplane continued in a rapid descent. The airplane landed hard, bounced, and veered to the left upon the second touchdown. The pilot added full power and right rudder to recover, but the airplane exited the runway to the left and impacted a small hill. 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.A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located on the airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 310° at 12 knots, gusting to 19 knots. The airplane landed on runway 25.