roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot in the experimental amateur-built tricycle landing gear equipped airplane reported that, he was not aware that a 10-mph tailwind existed during landing. He normally touches down at 90 mph, however with the tailwind, the airplane’s ground speed was 104 mph when the airplane touched down and a severe shimmy ensued. The pilot applied the brakes, however the left side brake failed, and the airplane veered right, exited the right side of the runway, and subsequently impacted a hangar. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and engine mounts.Post-accident examination of the airplane revealed that the left main landing gear wheel pant inboard bracket rivets failed, and the wheel pant severed the plastic hydraulic brake line.
The vintage tailwheel airplane was on final approach to the runway in a left crosswind. A witness, who was also president of the airport flying club, was mowing grass adjacent to the runway and saw the accident. He stated that the airplane approached the runway low and was “crabbing hard” to the left. The pilot then initiated a go-around. The engine noise increased, but the airplane attempted a go-around at a 90° left angle to the runway. The airplane cleared trees, experienced a “power on stall,” and descended nose first into a grove. The pilot reported that he was injured in the accident and did not remember anything after being 25 ft over the runway on approach; however, he reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions with the airplane. Examination of the wreckage by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector did not reveal any preimpact mechanical malfunctions. The inspector noted substantial damage to the fuselage and right wing.
The noncertificated pilot reported that both a gust of wind and improper application of rudder during takeoff in his powered parachute resulted in him impacting trees to the left of the departure runway. This impact resulted in substantial damage to the airframe tubing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the powered parachute that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the pilot, after he landed, he taxied the airplane to the top of the hill to pick up a load he was going to transport and then past it to turn the airplane around. He turned the airplane slowly to maintain control, and then taxied down the hill back to the load and noted the wind was now a tailwind. The pilot applied the brakes to stop the airplane, but the wind lifted the tail, and the airplane nosed over, resulting in substantial damage to the rudder and wings. The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, while on final approach for the night landing, a bird struck and broke the right-side windshield, which resulted in substantial damage. The pilot continued with the approach and landed without further incident. 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 the airplane shuddered after he completed maneuvers in a local practice area. After the shudder recurred, he realized that the engine was “barely running.” The pilot’s efforts to restore engine power were not successful. He subsequently lowered the landing gear and executed a forced landing to a highway. The airplane encountered a highway median area during the landing and sustained damage to the outboard portion of the right wing and the right aileron.On-scene observation of the airplane indicated that the wing fuel tanks appeared to be full. A postrecovery examination of the engine and airframe fuel system did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal engine operation.
The non-instrument rated pilot departed from California to reposition his airplane to southern Washington. He flew for about 7 hours, which included multiple fuel stops along his route of flight through eastern California and Oregon. Witnesses heard the airplane followed by the impact. One witness reported the engine sounded normal and the other witness reported hearing the engine sound increase before the impact. The impact occurred about 29 minutes after the last en route departure. The wreckage was located on the face of a mountain peak about 20 nautical miles (nm) from the pilot’s last departure airport.  Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical anomalies or malfunctions that could have precluded normal operation.The airplane impacted the ground at a near-vertical, nose-down attitude consistent with an inflight loss of control rather than a controlled flight into terrain.A friend of the pilot who helped plan the trip reported they checked the weather the day before the departure and the pilot was aware that the weather was not favorable for a direct flight, but the weather would be better if he flew up the east side of the Cascade Mountains. A review of weather information indicated updrafts and downdrafts from mountain wave development in the area at the accident time. A scattered to broken cloud cover from the ground with tops around 6,000 ft was also present and was corroborated by witness observations at the surface near the accident site, who reported rain, fog and strong wind at the time of the accident.The ceiling forecast was available in the form of graphical weather forecasts that had been issued earlier on the day of the accident. Forecasts indicated instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) prevailed on the pilot’s designated route of flight; Page 2 of 10 WPR22FA354however, it is unclear if the pilot received an updated forecast before the flight, or if he received the forecasts and chose to continue the flight regardless.The pilot had flown for almost seven hours preceding the accident and was likely feeling the effects of physical and mental fatigue which lowers one’s ability to reason and concentrate. Although the data typically used to determine spatial disorientation (SD) was not available for this accident, there is a high probability the pilot was unable to maintain spatial orientation when he encountered IMC, resulting in his subsequent loss of control of the airplane. Contributing to the pilot’s susceptibility to SD was the fatigue he was likely feeling after seven hours of flying, his desire to continue the flight despite evidence indicating that doing so was unsafe, and his lack of an instrument rating.  The limited postmortem toxicological testing detected the volatile substances ethanol, n-butanol, isopropanol, and acetone. Given this combination of substances, as well as the condition and delayed recovery of the pilot’s remains, it is likely that some or all of these detected substances were products of postmortem microbial activity and therefore not considered a factor in this accident.
The flight crew reported that, when the airplane climbed through flight level 360, the trimmable horizontal stabilizer (THS) trim wheel began to move “very quickly” forward and aft, creating small pitching oscillations. No message appeared on the airplane’s electronic centralized aircraft monitor, and no flight deck alerts annunciated. The crew decided to turn off the autopilot to isolate the malfunction. However, when the autopilot was off, the trim wheel continued to move erratically. The crew then reengaged the autopilot, and small pitch oscillations resumed. These oscillations, which were below the threshold to trigger a fault, were partially countered by flight control system inputs, but the trim wheel continued its uncommanded movement. The first officer (the pilot flying) then turned off the autopilot and manually flew the airplane for the rest of the flight while the captain (the pilot monitoring) managed the situation.   The flight crew contacted air traffic control to declare an emergency and advise that fuel would need to be jettisoned before the airplane returned to the airport. Afterward, fuel was jettisoned until the airplane reached its maximum landing weight. The airplane landed uneventfully, and the emergency was terminated after landing. The airplane’s Post Flight Report information showed the “PITCH TRIM ACTR [actuator] OVERRIDE SWITCH” fault message.The maintenance crew at the airport replaced the pitch trim actuator (a subcomponent of the THS actuator), and an operational test of the THS actuator was successful.  One possible scenario for the uncommanded pitch trim wheel movement involved a failure or malfunction of a subcomponent of the THS actuator (the No. 1 digital electronic module, which digitizes the analog signals from THS position sensors. Extensive testing of the THS actuator and its subcomponents, including the incident pitch trim actuator and the No. 1 digital electronic module, was conducted at the manufacturers’ facilities. However, the testing did not Page 2 of 12 DCA22LA212identify the specific reason for the uncommanded pitch trim wheel movements during the incident flight. As a result, the investigation was unable to determine the cause of the anomaly based on the available evidence. It is important to note that this investigation found that the anomaly appeared to be isolated to components that were either removed and repaired or replaced on the incident airplane. Further, the incident airplane had no pitch or pitch trim flight control faults related to the circumstances of this incident since the THS actuator was removed and replaced in November 2022.
The pilot stated that, during the takeoff roll in the experimental amateur-built airplane, he noticed that “something felt wrong” with his flight controls. The airplane briefly climbed before landing hard on the nosewheel, resulting in substantial damage to the engine firewall. During a postaccident examination of the airplane, a bolt that attached the control yoke to the flight controls was missing. The missing bolt and a nut were subsequently located within the fuselage of the airplane. The “hardware store” -type nut was not the castle type nut with cotter pin -type that was called for in the airplane’s engineering drawings. Review of the airplane’s maintenance records revealed that it had undergone 3 annual condition inspections since being constructed and that no documented maintenance to, or replacement of the flight control hardware had occurred. Based on this information, it is likely the builder of the airplane used improper hardware to assemble the flight controls, which resulted in the separation of the control yoke from the flight controls and the subsequent loss of control during takeoff.
The pilot reported that the primary runway was closed for repairs, so he elected to use a runway with a 6 to 8 knot crosswind. Also, there were workers and equipment near the runway and the pilot stated that they were a distraction. After touchdown, he felt the crosswind push the airplane to the right, but he overcompensated with left rudder. The airplane was then headed toward the edge of the runway and a construction barricade. He applied brakes; however, he could not bring the airplane to a stop on the runway surface. The airplane departed the runway and nosed over in the grass. The pilot was not injured. An inspector with the Federal Aviation Administration examined the wreckage and determined that the airplane’s vertical stabilizer and rudder were substantially damaged during the accident. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot and passenger were in cruise flight about 3,500 ft mean sea level (msl) flying offshore between 55 and 60 mph in the weight-shift-control (WSC) aircraft. The passenger reported that the pilot informed him that the flight might encounter turbulence, then about 5 minutes later, it felt like, “something punched the plane,” consistent with turbulence. The passenger reported that he then noted 8 of the right wing ribs were extending 3 to 4 inches aft of the aft edge of the wing sail, and the fabric of the right side of the wing was no longer stretched and the right wing area was much smaller than the left wing. He then felt an upward jar, and the aircraft entered a right descending turn that the pilot attempted to control. When “very close to the ocean,” he felt a force consistent with activation of the airframe parachute. After water impact, he struggled but managed to release his restraint and remained in the water about 30 minutes before being rescued.Examination of the wing, which washed ashore several months after the accident, revealed that the outer portion of the sail fabric on the right side of the wing had moved inboard along the leading edge tube and bunched at the juncture of the leading edge tube and wing strut. The inspection did not determine the condition of the ribs on the right side of the wing. The resulting fabric movement, combined with the passenger-reported displacement of multiple wing ribs, likely changed the airfoil shape and lift properties of the right side of the wing, resulting in the right descending turn described by the passenger. Although there was no structural failure of the right wing, it could not be determined  why the sail moved inboard along the leading edge tube or what ribs were remaining with the wing and the rib positions among the sail.Page 2 of 8 ERA22LA427While the passenger reported experiencing turbulence immediately before the observed wing issue, the available weather data did not support conditions conducive to turbulence, and no cumulus clouds were visible on satellite images or in the dataset around the accident time. Additionally, the passenger’s description of the airframe parachute activation occurring “very close” to the surface of the water suggested that it may not have been activated with sufficient time to fully realize the benefits of such a system.
The pilot was performing a maintenance test flight following a recent condition inspection. Due to a persistent fuel leak in the right wing fuel tank, the pilot had about 11 gallons of fuel in the left wing fuel tank and the right fuel tank was empty. Before takeoff, the pilot checked all flight controls with no anomalies noted. The pilot reported that shortly after being out of ground effect during the takeoff, the airplane began to roll to the left. The pilot attempted to correct with right aileron control but was unsuccessful. The pilot pulled the throttle to idle, and the left roll continued until the left wingtip struck the terrain. The airplane cartwheeled into a cornfield adjacent to the runway, came to rest upright, and sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. It is likely the known fuel imbalance resulted in a left roll tendency that could not be corrected with the flight controls during the takeoff.
After an uneventful flight, a jet airplane on a business flight was landing at its destination. The pilot reported to the tower controller that the airport was in sight and requested to land. The pilot further reported that, while on left base, he started to lower the flaps and extended the gear handle. He did not recall confirming whether the gear was down and locked but reported that there were no landing caution annunciations or aural warnings. Before making contact with the runway, the pilot noticed that the airplane floated longer than expected and upon touchdown realized that the landing gear was not extended. The airplane skidded down the runway and came to a stop just past the departure end of the runway. The pilot secured the engines and assisted the passengers out of the airplane. During the evacuation, the pilot reported that the airplane was on fire near the right engine. Shortly thereafter, the airplane was engulfed in flames.When the airplane was raised for recovery, all three-landing gear were free from their uplocks and dropped down to the extended position. Postaccident examination confirmed the main landing gear uplocks were in the gear release (unlocked) position. In addition, the left main landing gear door was also partially extended on the airplane after it came to rest. The landing gear handle was observed in the down (extended) position during the examination. Accounting for the position of the landing gear uplocks, the landing gear door upon landing, and the witnesses’ observation of the airplane not having its landing gear extended, it is likely that the pilot positioned the landing gear handle to the down (extended) position just before or during landing. Nevertheless, the pilot failed to ensure that the landing gear was down and locked before landing.Examination of the landing gear handle and landing gear circuit cards revealed no anomalies. Page 2 of 8 WPR22LA353A review of the ADS-B data revealed that the airplane’s airspeed was fast on the approach and landing. The airplane’s groundspeed was about 143 knots as it passed over the runway threshold, which was above the airspeed that the landing gear not extended warning system would activate (130 knots). Additionally, the airplane’s flaps were likely configured in the takeoff/approach setting (15°), which would not activate the landing gear not extended warning system. Stabilized approach criteria for airspeed and configuration were not maintained on the approach and landing.
The pilot and pilot-rated passenger were departing on a local personal flight. Witnesses stated that the as the airplane departed the engine did not sound like it was creating full power. During the initial climb, the airplane briefly climbed at a steep angle then turned left, descended, and impacted the ground about 500 ft from the departure end of the runway. Postaccident examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical anomalies that would have prevented normal engine operation. Given the witness statements, and the findings of the postaccident engine examination, it could not be determined whether there was a partial loss of engine power during the takeoff.Nevertheless, the conditions about the time of the accident, given the temperature and dew point, were favorable for serious carburetor icing at a glide power setting. Given this information, it is possible that during the ground operation, when the engine would typically be operating at low power, carburetor ice formed. This could have resulted in at least a partial loss of engine power during the initial climb. The available evidence for this investigation did not indicate whether or not the pilot applied carburetor heat before or during the flight. The witness reports of the airplane briefly climbing at a steep angle, the video showing the airplane in a steep descending left turn, as well as the signatures observed on the wreckage (aft crushing of the forward portion of the fuselage, the relatively uniform aft crush damage on the leading edges of both wings, and damage consistent with a relatively low energy state at the time of impact) were all consistent with the airplane encountering an aerodynamic stall before it impacted the ground. Given that there were no anomalies observed with the airplane’s flight controls during the postaccident wreckage examination, it is likely that the pilot exceeded the airplane’s critical angle of attack at an altitude too low to recover, which resulted in the subsequent loss of control and impact with terrain.Page 2 of 8 ERA22FA426
The pilot reported that, he did not maintain appropriate engine power or airspeed while on approach for landing.  The airplane stalled and landed short of the runway in a plowed field. The nosewheel collapsed and the airplane nosed over substantially damaging the vertical stabilizer and both wings. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was departing from a lake in a float-equipped airplane with passengers and hunting gear. He stated that the departure plan was to get the airplane on step into the wind, and then turn lengthwise and depart with a crosswind. During the takeoff run, the airplane “used a fair amount of water on step” before a gust of wind lifted the right wing. In an effort to correct for the gust, the pilot lowered the wing and added power, but the airplane was too close to the bank of the lake, which resulted in an impact with terrain and substantial damage to the fuselage, right wing and tail. The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. In the recommendation section of NTSB Form 6120.1, the pilot stated that a step turn departure may have been more appropriate.
The pilot of the accident airplane was participating in a closed-course air race and was varying between first and second place. During the 3rd lap of 6, the accident airplane began a climb as it neared outer pylon No. 4, where it appeared to tighten its left turn toward the inner portion of the racecourse. At the peak of the climb, the airplane entered an approximate 90° right bank and started a descent before it rolled left to an approximate 90° left bank. The airplane continued to descend in a steep left bank and nose-low attitude until it impacted terrain just beyond outer pylon No. 5.    Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of any preexisting mechanical malfunction that would have precluded normal operation.  As the airplane rolled 90° right and pitched up, followed by a 180° left roll and descent, the pilot’s lack of control inputs following the roll indicated that the pilot likely experienced an onset of higher G loads during the left roll, which ultimately led to G-induced loss of consciousness (G-LOC). The reason for the pilot’s initial roll to the right is unknown; however, it’s likely that the pilot’s aggressive roll to the left was an effort to maintain his position in the race.  It is possible that the pilot’s coronary artery disease and/or amlodipine use may have reduced his G-tolerance; however, the investigation was unable to determine if the pilot’s medical conditions or medication use contributed to the accident.
According to the pilot, during the landing roll on a gravel bar, she applied the brakes to slow the airplane, but felt an “unusual amount of forward momentum.” She pulled back on the stick, however, the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted, which resulted in substantial damage to the rudder and wings. The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.