roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The flight instructor reported that he and the student pilot were conducting touch-and-go landings. As the pilot turned from base to final, a “fairly significant crosswind” that had shifted while they were in the traffic pattern, pushed the airplane left of the runway centerline. After realigning the airplane with the extended runway centerline, right aileron and “nearly full left rudder deflection” were required to stay on course. When the airplane was on short final, about 200 ft agl, it encountered windshear and descended rapidly impacting the ground about 200 ft short of the runway threshold. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the engine mounts. The pilots reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The flight instructor reported that he took control of the airplane to initiate a go-around but was unable to arrest the descent before ground impact. About the time of the accident, the student pilot was landing on runway 31 with wind from 360o at 9 knots.
The airplane’s engine lost partial power and the pilot was unable to maintain altitude. He executed a forced landing to a terraced farm field. During the landing, the airplane struck one of the terraced areas and nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the rudder, engine mounts, and lower right wing. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the ball end of the No. 2 cylinder exhaust valve rocker was not seated in the pushrod. Additionally, the head of one of the bolts securing the rocker arm bracket had fractured and the bolt head was found in the rocker cover. Based on the available evidence it is likely that the fractured bolt head allowed enough movement of the No. 2 cylinder rocker arm bracket for the pushrod to become separated from the ball end of the rocker arm. This prevented the exhaust valve for the No.2 cylinder from opening and thereby reducing the power output of the engine.
The pilot was conducting aerial spray applications of a chemical to a field. He had checked the oil quantity of the 90° gearbox during the preflight check but did not recall the quantity of oil at the time. The pilot had operated the helicopter for about 45 minutes and, while making a turn, lost control of the helicopter. The helicopter descended and impacted terrain. Maintenance records revealed no anomalies. Postaccident examination of the 90° gearbox revealed severe damage to the internal components and no evidence of lubricating oil inside the housing. The pinion was severely deformed, which resulted in the loss of rotational drive to the tail rotor assembly and the subsequent loss of control. Examination of the oil level sight glass revealed that the inside was covered with a material that did not allow for sufficient viewing of the oil level. It is likely that, when the pilot looked at the oil level sight glass during his preflight check, he interpreted what he saw as an adequate amount of oil.
The pilot reported that while landing his amateur built tailwheel equipped airplane, he experienced a ground loop to the left. Subsequently the right main wheel fell inside of a hole. The pilot stated the impact with the hole removed the right wheel causing structural damage to the right-side of the fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The cross-country flight was being conducted by a flight instructor and pilot in conjunction with an instrument rating course from a Part 141 flight school. According to the flight instructor, upon reaching the decision altitude, they transitioned to a visual descent to the runway. During the descent, the airplane impacted trees and the flight instructor assumed control of the airplane and continued to the runway for landing. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, right wing, and both horizontal stabilizers.The pilot stated that after terminating use of the view limiting device and she transitioned to visual references, she continued to glance back at the glideslope indicator, which showed that they were low on the approach. Shortly thereafter, a tree appeared in front of them, about the same time as they felt the impact. She stated that the precision approach path indicator (PAPI) would not turn on and there was not a current Notice to Air Mission (NOTAM) for the outage. The pilot reported no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that during the takeoff roll the airplane began to drift left of the runway centerline. He applied right rudder, but did not have enough rudder authority to correct the airplane’s direction. The airplane drifted off the left side of the runway and struck an embankment resulting in substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot also reported that, if he had let the tail lift off the ground more gradually, he likely would have had enough rudder authority to maintain centerline. 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 following a local flight, on final approach to land, about ¼ mile from the runway, he glanced down at the airspeed indicator, and then glanced up and “all of a sudden” a flock of birds flew into the airplane. He stated it was “like a wall” or like a “machine gun” going off in his flight path. He reported that the birds collided with the airplane and after that point he “was a passenger”. He recalled the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall and spin and subsequently descended and impacted trees and terrain. The fuselage and wings sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane.
After a stable approach, in 20-30 knot headwinds, the airplane touched down smoothly on the centerline of runway 18. The pilot reported that almost immediately, the airplane turned to the left. The pilot attempted full right rudder and moderate braking, but he could not arrest the turn. The airplane went onto the grass perpendicular to the runway and down a drainage embankment, resulting in substantial damage to the forward fuselage. The pilot suspected a problem with the left brake. Examination of the brake system did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operations. At the time of the accident, the pilot landed the airplane on runway 18 with wind from 190° at 20 knots with gusts to 29 knots.
A review airport security camera footage showed the airplane was attempting to depart to the east. About a quarter way down the length of the runway after the beginning of the takeoff roll, the airplane departed the runway to the left (north). Airport security video footage showed the airplane travel over a flat grass field with the engine running. The footage did not show the airplane become airborne at any time, and the tailwheel appeared to remain on the ground during the runway excursion. The airplane came to rest after it impacted the cabin of an unoccupied, parked fuel truck. The pilot reported he recalled taxiing for takeoff and applying engine power for the takeoff; however, he was unable to recall any additional events.Postaccident examination of the airframe revealed no mechanical anomalies.The postaccident emergency care did not identify any medical conditions the pilot had that might have contributed to the accident. The pilot’s pre-accident use of atorvastatin, famotidine, and fexofenadine, all non-impairing medications identified by toxicology testing of the pilot’s samples, also did not contribute to the circumstances of this accident. It is likely a loss of control occurred during the takeoff, which resulted in a runway excursion and a collision with an object. Based on the available evidence, the reason for the loss of control could not be determined.
The pilot was conducting a night cross-country flight when he noticed the engine oil pressure gauge indicating lower that it had been earlier in the flight. Although the engine was running fine, he started to look at the possibilities of gliding to an airport if needed. The pilot decided that he was not in an emergency situation; however, he altered his intended flight path to avoid a mountainous area and remain over a highway. After passing the highway and nearing an airport, the oil pressure dropped to near zero and the pilot started to make plans for an emergency landing. He attempted to turn the lights on at a nearby airport but was unsuccessful. The pilot decided to continue to another airport, which was about 22 nautical miles from his position. About halfway to the next airport, the engine noise started to change, followed by a reduction of engine power. He said the engine oil pressure gauge indicated zero and he subsequently added full power while looking for a place to land. Soon afterwards, the engine made “horrible noises” and lost all power. The pilot landed the airplane on a narrow graveled road between a chain link fence and a water canal. During the landing sequence, the right wing struck the fence, which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing, both ailerons, the left horizontal stabilizer, and the left elevator.Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the No. 3 piston oil control ring was stuck in its ring land resulting in an excessive blow-by condition. The blow-by condition caused the engine crankcase to pressurize and vent oil from the crankshaft oil seal, crankcase breather system, and the No. 3 combustion chamber until the sump was depleted of oil. This oil depletion resulted in the thermal distress and material deformation of the No. 2 connecting rod bearing and crankshaft journal and the subsequent separation of the No. 2 connecting rod. Page 2 of 7 WPR22LA081
The pilot reported that he was starting a formation flying clinic and that the purpose of the flight was to gain familiarization and proficiency in the airplane. After completing a flight in the local area, he returned to demonstrate several wheel landings. The landing touchdown was normal; however, the pilot lowered the tailwheel to the runway at a higher speed than usual. To reduce the load on the tailwheel, he reduced the back pressure on the control stick. The airplane started to drift to the right and his efforts to regain control were not successful. The airplane subsequently departed the right side of the runway into “relatively softer ground” adjacent to the runway. The left main landing gear “folded inboard at the oleo strut and the left wing contacted the ground.” The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane before the accident. He noted that holding the control stick at the aft limit until the landing was complete might have prevented the accident.
The pilot reported that, before takeoff he noticed a visible layer of frost covering the airplane’s wings. He removed the frost with a towel and proceeded with the engine warm up and preflight checks which lasted about 20 minutes. During the initial climb, the airplane felt “mushy” and failed to gain altitude. The pilot elected to conduct an off-airport landing to a brush covered field. During the landing the airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. The pilot reported that the frost must have reformed before takeoff and that there were no pre-accident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor stated that he was demonstrating an autorotation to the pilot receiving instruction as part of the company’s flight training program. The flight instructor entered the autorotation at an altitude of about 1,500 to 2,000 ft above ground level and reduced the engine’s power to flight idle during the descent. When the helicopter reached its power recovery altitude, the instructor attempted to increase the engine’s power; however, the engine did not respond. Subsequently, he attempted to recover engine power three times but was unsuccessful. The pilot committed to a touchdown autorotation. On touchdown, the helicopter rocked forward then aft on its skids, and the main rotor blades struck the tailboom, which sustained substantial damage.A postaccident examination of the engine, governor, and fuel control revealed no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. As a result, the reason for the partial loss of engine power could not be determined from the available evidence for this investigation.
The pilot and pilot-rated passenger completed several takeoffs and landings before departing to their destination. The pilot reported that, during the accident takeoff, the airplane “had no power to climb” and was “sinking.” The airplane descended into trees and impacted terrain in a near-vertical attitude just past the departure end of the runway. The pilot-rated passenger stated that the pilot pitched the airplane “higher than he needed” and “held the high pitch attitude” until the airplane descended into the trees, and pilot-rated witnesses reported that the airplane exhibited an “unusually high” nose-up pitch attitude during the takeoff. Postaccident examination of the engine and engine monitoring system data revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the engine. Given the passenger and witness statements regarding the airplane’s nose-high pitch attitude, it is likely that the pilot exceeded the airplane’s critical angle of attack during the initial climb after takeoff, resulting in an aerodynamic stall and subsequent impact with terrain.
During the night visual flight rules cross-country flight, the pilot monitored weather conditions on his tablet computer and observed “unspecified meteorological conditions,” which encompassed his intended destination. The pilot elected to divert to an alternate destination and climbed to 4,500 ft msl. The pilot noted that he had a kneeboard with destination airport information, and after diverting, he made notes denoting changes to reflect the new destination.  He did not recall if he changed the pattern altitude for the new destination. He attributed this omission to distraction during the flight while he modified his flight plan via the airplane radio. As he approached the new destination, the horizon was not “definite,” but he could see the lights of the city and began a shallow descent. While descending, he noted that the city lights disappeared, and as he contemplated why this happened, the airplane struck the ground. He reported that there were no mechanical problems with the airplane before the accident and he “just flew it into the ground.” The field elevation at the original destination was 1,561 ft msl, and the elevation new destination was 2,999 ft msl.
The pilot reported that while landing at his destination airport and entering ground effect on final approach, the airplane “was blown left” from the runway centerline and ballooned. The pilot pushed the nose over to keep the airplane from stalling. As the wheels touched down, the airplane veered to the left and exited the left side of the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and flap. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operations. At the time of the accident, the pilot was landing the airplane on runway 13 with wind 180o at 8 knots, gusting to 14 knots.
The pilot departed on the local accident flight after having repaired his airplane following a landing incident that occurred 18 months earlier. Shortly after departure, he observed a partial loss of engine power and was unable to maintain altitude. He immediately returned to the airport, but, while maneuvering toward the runway, he made a tight left turn, which likely resulted in an exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack and an accelerated stall. The airplane entered a nose-down dive and impacted a rooftop.Postaccident examination of the airframe did not reveal any preimpact mechanical anomalies that could have precluded the pilot from controlling the airplane. Examination of the engine revealed that most of the internal components were likely operational at the time of impact. However, the catalytic converter contained several broken pieces of ceramic substrate that had separated during the previous accident. As there were no other preimpact mechanical anomalies with the engine, it is likely that broken substrate blocked the engine exhaust gas path following combustion, which resulted in a partial loss of engine power during the accident flight. The pilot straightened the bent exhaust tailpipe after the landing incident and re-welded the catalytic converter. However, he did not inspect, repair, or replace the catalytic converter before the accident flight even after debris was emitted from the tailpipe on subsequent engine starts.
The pilot and passenger departed in the helicopter on the on-demand passenger flight. Cockpit imagery indicated that, while enroute, the pilot experienced a sudden loss of consciousness. The helicopter departed controlled flight and impacted terrain. Examination of the helicopter revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.Autopsy of the pilot was limited due to extensive traumatic injury. While the pilot’s cardiovascular system showed no evidence of natural disease, an arrhythmia or other electrical disorder would not leave evidence on autopsy; thus, the cause of the pilot’s sudden incapacitation could not be determined. Varying levels of ethanol were detected in the pilot’s liver, lung, kidney, and muscle tissue. Butanol and propanol were also detected in some tissues. Given the differing ethanol tissue concentrations, the state the body was recovered, and the presence of butanol and propanol in some tissues, it is likely that the identified ethanol was from sources other than ingestion.
The pilot reported that during cruise flight the oil annunciator light illuminated, the oil pressure decreased to zero, and the engine tachometer neared its maximum limit. Soon thereafter, the engine lost power. During the forced landing, the pilot activated the whole airplane parachute system at an altitude of about 2,000 ft above ground level. The airplane descended via the parachute and landed upright in a lake. The pilot and passenger were able to swim to shore and were not injured. The airplane’s fuselage and left elevator were substantially damaged during the landing. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that all of the crankshaft connecting rod journals showed evidence of lubrication distress. Additionally, the No. 3 main journal bearing shifted, resulting in the blockage of the oil ports and elongation of the crankcase lock slot. The No. 6 connecting rod bearing was fused to the crankshaft journal. The No. 1 cylinder rod bearings were fused together on the crankshaft, and the bearing surface was smeared and torn. The bearing metal melted and re-solidified along the edges.It is likely that the shift of the No. 3 main journal bearing blocked the oil port and restricted oil to the engine and propeller, resulting in destruction of the bearing of the No. 6 cylinder. This likely resulted in the fracture of the connecting rod, breach of the crankcase, and the catastrophic failure of the engine. The engine overspeed reported by the pilot is consistent with a loss of oil pressure to the propeller governor, which would have lowered the blade pitch and increased engine rpm. Review of maintenance logbook records revealed the No. 2 cylinder was replaced about 500 hours before the accident flight, at which time the engine had accumulated about 2,420 hrs. It is possible that the crankcase thru bolts were incorrectly torqued after the No. 2 cylinder Page 2 of 7 ERA22LA109change about 500 hours before the accident flight, which could have resulted in a shift of the No. 3 main journal bearing.
The pilot reported that, following an uneventful flight, the right main wheel brake failed during the landing roll and the tailwheel-equipped airplane subsequently ground looped, resulting in a collapse of the right main landing gear and substantial damage to the right aileron. Postaccident examination revealed that the brake pad had separated from the brake assembly. The brake pad was found on the airplane’s taxi route. Examination revealed that the pad did not properly fit into the assembly, which could result in its coming loose and separating. Additionally, the brake pad was not authorized for use in the accident airplane make and model.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll, the airplane started to turn to the right, and he applied left rudder input to correct. The airplane then began turning to the left and he was late on applying right rudder input to correct. The airplane exited the side of the runway and ground looped. The right wing and right elevator were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot receiving instruction had not flown a float-equipped airplane in 3 years, so the flight instructor considered the training flights as review. The flight instructor stated that, during their 2-hour morning flight, the pilot receiving instruction sat in the front seat and that he tended to “fly too slow” and “turn sharply.” The instructor had to “push the nose down on several occasions.” After eating lunch and refueling the airplane, the afternoon flight began, with the pilot receiving instruction sitting in the rear seat. The flight instructor estimated that they had been flying for about 1 hour when the accident occurred. Neither the flight instructor nor the pilot receiving instruction had recollection of the accident, but the flight instructor recalled thinking that the pilot receiving instruction might not have been able to see the instruments well from the rear seat or that he was being inattentive.A witness stated that the airplane made two passes over a lake and that, as the airplane descended toward the lake during the second pass, the right float made a small splash as it touched the water. The airplane then climbed a couple hundred feet, turned to the right in a steep angle, and descended toward the ground in a near-vertical nose-down attitude. The witness did not hear the engine during the descent. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Given the reported application of carburetor heat during all approaches, it is unlikely that carburetor icing affected engine performance. After learning about the witness’ observations, the flight instructor stated that the pilot receiving instruction had been “making really steep turns” and “was too slow on airspeed.” The flight instructor further stated that he was too slow to correct the pilot. Thus, it is likely that the Page 2 of 8 ERA22LA107pilot receiving instruction maintained insufficient airspeed and banked too steeply, which resulted in an exceedance of the airplane's critical angle of attack and a subsequent aerodynamic stall, and that the flight instructor did not take action in time to prevent the accident.
According to the pilot, he was performing the first flight after a condition inspection. He put the helicopter into a hover, noted the “throttle locked up and [the helicopter] got away” from him. The helicopter rolled onto its side and impacted the ground, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage and tailboom. Furthermore, he reported an overspeed and “hard vibration” prior to the rollover. A post-accident examination of the helicopter revealed no evidence of any pre-accident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.  In addition, the throttle governor was bench tested with no anomalies noted.