roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot stated that, immediately after departure, he heard a loud pop and the control yoke oscillated violently. He declared an emergency and diverted to an airport with a longer runway and emergency services. The control yoke and airplane continued to oscillate until the airplane was on final approach, then the oscillation stopped. The pilot landed the airplane without further incident.A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the right elevator had mostly separated from the horizontal stabilizer and only a small portion of the inboard elevator remained attached. There was a small puncture on the right side of the rudder, likely from the elevator impacting the rudder when it separated in flight. The elevator trim push-pull tube remained attached to the trim actuator; however, there was no bolt, nut, or cotter pin attached to the aft fork connection, and the trim tab was missing. The push-pull tube did not exhibit any preaccident damage or anomalies. The remainder of right elevator and trim tab were not located. The elevator trim system was re-rigged two days before the accident. The maintenance personnel stated that they did not ensure that the push-pull tube hardware was reinstalled. The load applied between the push pull tube and the trim tab held the bolt in place for 4 flight hours, and it’s likely that every time there was no load on the bolt it was able to move. Once the bolt finally backed out, the trim tab would have been free to move without control. It is likely that the freely moving trim tab resulted in the airplane oscillation and ultimately the in-flight separation of the elevator. Page 2 of 7 CEN22LA202
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that, he decided to initiate a landing on a dry lakebed. During the landing roll, the airplane sank in mud, rapidly decelerated and nosed over. The left-wing strut was 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 reported that shortly after departure, about 700 ft above ground level (agl), the windshield was sprayed with oil. He turned and entered the downwind leg of the traffic pattern and attempted to land on the runway. He reported that he was too high during the approach and aborted the landing. On the second attempt to land on runway 30, the oil spray was getting worse, and the pilot made a precautionary landing resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage.The postaccident examination of the airplane and interview with the mechanic revealed that the expansion plug was improperly installed and had separated from the end of the crankshaft, causing oil to exit through the propeller spinner resulting in the oil spray on the windshield.
The flight instructor reported that after she demonstrated a soft-field takeoff, she directed the student to conduct one. During the takeoff roll, the student maintained excessive back pressure on the control yoke and was told by the instructor to reduce the back pressure. Once the airplane lifted off the runway it started to veer to the left; the instructor again informed the student to reduce back pressure to decrease the pitch, but the student maintained a grip on the controls and held excessive right rudder. The instructor stated, “I have the controls,” but the student “locked up and blocked” them and failed to relinquish the controls. The instructor was able to reduce the pitch, but directional control was lost, and the left wing contacted the runway surface, and the airplane departed the runway and flipped over, which resulted in substantial damage to the wings and airframe. The instructor stated that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot and two passengers departed on a cross-country flight, proceeding along the shoreline about 1,000 ft above mean sea level (msl). About 10 minutes after takeoff, the pilot declared an emergency with air traffic control and advised that the engine had lost power. He subsequently advised the controller that he was going to land on a bridge. According to one of the passengers, the pilot told them where he was going and said not to worry, it was going to be ok. The passenger did not hear anything wrong with the engine, and though the pilot seemed concerned, he was not panicking. The bridge had a deck width of about 56 ft, and the edges of the deck had numerous obstacles, including sidewalks, railings, and streetlights. The bridge was configured with four traffic lanes separated by a raised concrete median. After touchdown, the airplane struck two vehicles before coming to rest; a postimpact fire ensued. During the impact sequence, the airplane was substantially damaged, the pilot was fatally injured, the two passengers were seriously injured, and five people on the ground received minor injuries. Images of the airplane taken before touchdown indicated that the propeller was windmilling, consistent with a loss of engine power, and there was no sign of in-flight smoke or fire.The area that the airplane was flying over at the time comprised residential neighborhoods and high-rise buildings and was bordered by water. Traffic on the road and the bridge was congested, as it ran along the shoreline, and large amounts of recreational boat traffic existed in the area. There were no flotation devices onboard and one of the passengers could not swim. This may have influenced the pilot’s decision to land on the bridge rather than the water. Page 2 of 12 ERA22FA226Examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of preimpact failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. The carburetor heat air valve was functional, and the carburetor heat knob was found in the closed (off) position. Although the fuel selector valve was found between the “BOTH” and “RIGHT” fuel tank positions, fuel was found downstream of the fuel selector during the postaccident examination, which indicated that the valve was likely moved after the engine had stopped drawing fuel from the line.Weather observations indicated that relative humidity exceeded 50% in the area of the accident site and along the route of flight, and review of atmospheric soundings revealed conditions conducive to the development of moderate carburetor icing at the airplane’s altitude. Based on the available information, it is likely that the pilot's failure to use carburetor heat resulted in an accumulation of ice within the carburetor, which subsequently resulted in a total loss of engine power.
The operator of the uncrewed aircraft system (UAS) reported that, during a demonstration flight at a company event, the UAS made a left turn and the right wing skin, along with the flaps and ailerons, separated from the UAS. He further reported that, after separating the wing skins opened and floated behind the UAS as it rolled right, spun, and impacted terrain. Substantial damage was identified to the entire UAS, to include the fuselage, both wings, and empennagePostaccident examination by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed that the right-wing skin had delaminated/separated from the wing spar consistent with a failed bond between the wing skin and wing spar.
The pilot reported during takeoff he felt no wind and the windsock at the end of the runway showed no wind.  As the main wheels lifted off the runway, he felt a hard wind gust that turned the airplane left. The pilot continued to feel turbulence and the airplane’s nose subsequently hit the ground and the airplane slid sideways to a stop. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
At the conclusion of a cross-country flight the pilot landed between 1,000 and 1,500 feet from the approach runway threshold, and about one second later he heard a sound and felt a “pop.” He thought the airplane was leaning to the right, which he attributed to a blown right main landing gear tire. He did not apply the brakes, turned off the runway, and when clear of the runway the right main landing gear collapsed. The right side of the stabilator was substantially damaged as a result of the collapse.Postaccident examination of the right main landing gear revealed a pin that secured the right main landing gear shock absorber rod to the landing gear shock absorber compressor plate was missing. The remains of the pin were not identified; therefore, the reason for the missing and/or fractured pin was not determined. A review of the maintenance records revealed that about 8 months before the accident (about 5 flight hours hours earlier), the shock absorber rubber disks of both main landing gear were replaced. That maintenance did not require removal of the pin.
After the pilot of the air medical helicopter landed, the medical crew boarded and he prepared the helicopter for takeoff. The pilot stated that he was adjusting a light switch while his right hand was on the cyclic control when he heard a loud “bang.” He subsequently noticed that the rod from the airframe-mounted wire cutter was bouncing back and forth. The pilot then shut down the engines and the crew exited the helicopter. A postaccident examination of the helicopter revealed substantial damage to the main rotor blades that was consistent with them having contacted the wire cutter. The examinations otherwise did not reveal evidence of any anomalies of the flight control system that would have precluded normal operation. Based on this information, while the pilot indicated that he was holding the cyclic control at the time of the event, given the damage to the helicopter and the lack of anomalous findings with the flight control system, nor the existence other external influences like substantive wind, it is likely that he inadvertently moved the cyclic, which resulted in the main rotor briefly moving into a position where it contacted the wire cutter.
The pilot stated that the airplane experienced a total loss of engine power after flying for about 30-45 minutes. The pilot was unable to restart the engine and performed a forced landing on a dirt field. During the approach for landing, the airplane stalled about 20-30 ft above the ground and impacted the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the frame, wing struts, and empennage. The pilot stated that the loss of engine power was due to fuel exhaustion.
The pilot of the airplane was departing at night, and reported that as the airplane accelerated during the takeoff he felt the nose landing gear had “shimmied.” About this time he increased the pitch attitude for rotation and felt the nose wheel leave the ground, but it touched back down and the airplane then veered to the left. The pilot was unable to correct and the airplane departed the left side of the runway, encountered a ditch, bounced into the air, then landed hard. During the hard landing the nose landing gear collapsed, and the fuselage and engine mount were substantially damaged. The pilot and a flight instructor examined the airplane after the accident both were unable to identify evidence of any mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
During takeoff from the turf runway in calm wind conditions, the pilot lost directional control. The airplane’s right wing impacted some bamboo, the airplane spun to the right, and impacted the terrain in a slight nose low attitude. The airplane came to rest upright and sustained substantial damage to the right wing and fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he was attempting a soft field takeoff from a grass/dirt runway when the right elevator struck the ground. The airplane veered to the right, and the pilot applied corrective aileron and rudder control inputs and continued the takeoff. As the airplane approached the runway departure end, the pilot pulled back on the control yoke to get the airplane airborne. The pilot was unable to get the airplane airborne and it impacted and became partially submersed in a saltwater canal at the departure end of the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the engine firewall, left wing, and right elevator. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operations. The pilot reported that he did not hear or feel the impact of the elevator with the ground when the elevator struck the ground.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll, the right wing lifted, and the airplane veered right. He attempted to initiate a rejected landing, but the airplane exited the runway onto the grass to the right of the runway. The left wing contacted the ground substantially damaging the left wing, left elevator and fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that prior to spraying any field, he would make two surveillance passes. During the second surveillance pass on the day of the accident, although he was aware of a power line in the vicinity, the pilot did not ensure safe clearance from the power line. The landing gear struck the power line and the airplane impacted terrain. Both wings and the fuselage 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 purchased the agricultural airplane the day before the accident. During the engine run up before takeoff to return the airplane to his home airport, the engine popped and backfired during the magneto check. The seller and his helper cleaned the magnetos and replaced a couple of spark plugs, and the airplane returned to pilot’s home airport and operated during several subsequent flights with no anomalies. On the day of the accident, the pilot was performing aerial application when, during the fourth load of the day, his legs started to get warm and he saw a fire on the left side of the engine. The pilot performed an emergency landing and the airplane nosed over during the landing roll. When the pilot egressed, the airplane was still burning.  The airplane was powered by an air-cooled radial engine. Examination revealed that the fire had initiated just aft of the engine, in the forward lower left portion of the cowling, near one of the segments of the exhaust manifold. The presence of an exhaust leak where that segment of the exhaust manifold was not secured by a clamp was discovered. Areas of exhaust impingement, with associated thermal and fire damage were visible, as well as an area of burn-through, beneath the front of the cockpit floor. Fire-damaged and fire-severed hoses were present, one of which was the oil tank outlet hose, which resulted in an oil-fed fire. Additional examination revealed evidence of gaps and holes in other areas of the exhaust manifold as well as evidence of other leaks.According to the airplane manufacturer’s written guidance, the exhaust system should be checked for cracks and signs of burning every 50 hours. Additionally, regulatory requirements for annual and 100-hour inspections included inspecting exhaust stacks for cracks, defects, Page 2 of 7 ERA22LA224and improper attachment. The airplane’s most recent annual inspection was completed about 7 days before the accident.It is likely that the popping and backfiring the pilot experienced during the engine run-up before the first flight was an indication of an exhaust manifold problem, and given the areas of exhaust staining and impingement observed during postaccident examination, it is likely that the exhaust system had been leaking for some time before the accident.
The pilot had recently purchased the airplane and wanted to fly with an instructor to familiarize himself with it before flying home to Texas. In the days before the accident, the pilot began two flights with a flight instructor in North Carolina in the accident airplane; however, both flights were cut short because the airplane was not producing full power and the engine was backfiring. On the day of the accident, the instructor contacted the accident pilot to inquire about the troubleshooting. The pilot reported, and logbook entries confirmed, that the spark plugs were cleaned and the fuel servo was adjusted, and that the airplane was returned to service. The pilot also stated to the instructor that he planned to depart to Texas that afternoon. When the instructor suggested that the pilot wait and get more experience in the airplane, the pilot stated that he “felt capable” and was departing in order to “beat the weather.” The accident occurred on the first leg of the pilot’s return flight to Texas. Automatic dependent surveillance – broadcast (ADS-B) data revealed that, about 2 hours and 20 minutes after departure, the pilot performed two 360° turns before proceeding toward a nearby airport, where he contacted the tower controller and received a landing clearance. About one mile from the runway, the pilot declared mayday and reported a loss of engine power. No further transmissions were received; the airplane impacted terrain and a postimpact fire ensued. Examination of the engine did not reveal any evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures; however, the examination was limited in scope due to impact damage and thermal damage sustained in the postcrash fire.Recorded engine data revealed that the oil pressure briefly dropped to zero about 11 to 15 minutes before the reported loss of engine power, which corresponded with the two circles the pilot performed before contacting the tower controller; however, the pilot did not communicate any engine issues before the mayday call.Page 2 of 9 ERA22FA223Review of maintenance records revealed several entries regarding loss of manifold pressure or backfiring, starting several years before the accident. During the six years before the accident, the airplane accumulated about 22 hours. The most recent engine overhaul was completed almost 33 years before the accident. The manufacturer’s recommended time between engine overhaul was 12 calendar years. Given the repeated, documented maintenance issues before departure and for years before the accident, it is likely that the loss of engine power occurred due to an undiagnosed engine issue that the investigation was not able to identify.
Flight track data indicated that the pilot was returning to the departure airport. The pilot had flown to a nearby airport and then performed several flight maneuvers in a nearby practice area. He performed a touch and go landing and then remained in the traffic pattern. The air traffic controller instructed the pilot to widen his downwind leg, due to traffic, and changed the landing runway to the parallel runway. The pilot performed a right turn to the base leg, and after the airplane was established on final, it abruptly turned to the north and descended rapidly. The airplane impacted an intersection about ½ nautical mile (nm) northwest of the approach end of the runway. The airplane impacted the ground and a traffic light pole and came to rest on a sidewalk. A postimpact fire ensued and the airplane was destroyed.Two witnesses reported that the airplane was not in an aerodynamic stall or spin. One witness reported that the airplane appeared to be in a “gentle” left-hand turn and descent, with about 15-20° of bank. They did not observe any flight control movements, nor was there any smoke or fire from the airplane. There were no abnormal engine noises, and the airplane was structurally intact while in flight. A review of local area security camera footage showed the airplane established on final approach. The airplane then turned abruptly to the north and descended rapidly before it impacted the ground. Postaccident examination revealed no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.A review of meteorological data showed that low-level windshear was possible. Additionally, the estimated density altitude at the airport was 8,578 ft above msl at the time of the accident. However, based on the witness statements and the security camera footage, neither Page 2 of 8 CEN22FA197windshear nor the high density altitude appeared to play a role in the airplane’s sudden departure from the approach path. The reasons for the loss of control in flight could not be determined.
The pilot was on a visual flight rules cross-country flight. About an hour into the trip, at 6,500 ft and about 10 miles from his destination airport, the pilot realized that both engines lost power. Examination of the airplane after the accident revealed that the left-wing fuel tank was empty, and the right-wing fuel tank was about 2/3 full. The right tank fuel selector was in the crossfeed position, and the left tank fuel selector was in the “ON” position. Both engines lost power when they were starved of fuel.
The pilot receiving instruction was on a visual approach to the runway during an instructional flight, at which time the engine lost total power. The flight instructor took control of the airplane and made multiple attempts to restart the engine, which were unsuccessful. The flight instructor declared an emergency and executed a forced landing to a park area about 1 mile north of the runway. During the forced landing, the airplane impacted terrain and a perimeter fence. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the right wing and engine mount. Examination of the engine and fuel system revealed a loose “B” nut fitting on the fuel line between the fuel injector and fuel manifold. The engine had recently been installed by maintenance personnel; the airplane had flown about 2.7 hours after the installation and before the accident. There was no visible impact damage to the “B” nut on the line or the fitting. Given this evidence, the “B” nut on the fuel line was likely not properly tightened during engine installation, which allowed the nut to loosen with normal engine vibration and allowed air to enter the system which resulted in total loss of engine power.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that, during the landing, the airplane touched down on all three wheels. He tried to maintain runway centerline by applying rudder control, however the airplane started to veer to the left and he applied power to go around. The airplane subsequently collided with a runway marking sign substantially damaging the right-wing strut. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.