roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that, during final, "all seemed normal until [he] felt the plane drop." He added that he heard the stall warning horn chirp and added full power "[too] late." The left wing sheared off after impacting a street sign, and the airplane came to rest on the left side of the runway.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 about 12 miles north of the accident airport revealed that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 210° at 9 knots. The airplane was landing on runway 17.
The pilot reported that, during cruise flight, the airplane began vibrating, followed by a loud bang. The pilot saw the propeller separate from the airplane and he subsequently performed a forced landing to a road. During the landing roll, the left wing impacted a guy wire, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing. Postaccident examination revealed that the crankshaft separated at the forward main bearing journal. The area of separation exhibited beach marks propagating from the woodruff key area throughout most of the separated surface area. The flywheel mounting flange attached to the crankshaft and the flywheel mating surface showed material deformation at several screw holes and two fractured screw shafts that remained in their holes in the mount. A 1/4-inch wide area of fretting was noted around the outer circumference of the mounting flange and flywheel mating area. The trigger shaft, which was attached to the flywheel, displayed scuffing and material deformation at the locations of the flywheel mounting flange screw heads. The pilot/builder reported that he found no torque values in the manufacturer’s assembly manual during assembly of the flywheel and he was uncertain of the torque that he applied to the screws, although he thought that it was sufficient. It is likely that he did not adequately torque the screws during installation of the flywheel, which allowed the screws to loosen over time, resulting in elongation of the screw holes and fretting on the flywheel mounting flange and flywheel mating surface. The loose flywheel assembly would have increased vibration throughout the engine, along with torsional loads that ultimately resulted in the separation of the forward crankshaft and propeller assembly. A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular shows the recommended torque to be used for a specified fastener. Builders can also contact the manufacturer, who can supply them with a general torque table. The maintenance history of the airplane was not obtained during the investigation.Page 2 of 9 WPR17LA119
The pilot was returning from a local flight when, on final approach for landing, he applied throttle with no response from the engine. The airplane landed in a field short of the runway, colliding with bushes and a fence before coming to rest in a river. After removal from the river, the airplane was subsequently flipped over by gusty winds and remained inverted for 5 days before the postaccident examination, which revealed no fuel in the wing tanks or gascolator. The amount of fuel onboard the airplane at the time of the accident and whether fuel drained from the airplane during the time it was inverted could not be determined. No other anomalies were observed that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane. Based on the available information, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that he was performing a wheel landing on a turf runway. He recalled that he was too aggressive and too early moving the stick forward during the touchdown and landing roll. The airplane's tail lifted, the nose pitched down, and the propeller stuck the ground. The airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the vertical stabilizer and the rudder.Per the National Transportation Safety Board Pilot Aircraft Accident Report, the pilot reported that the accident could have been prevented "by not being so early moving the stick forward in a taildragger during a wheel landing."The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot, who was the owner of the airplane, reported that the airplane's landing gear did not fully retract when he raised the gear handle after takeoff. He attempted to lower the landing gear using emergency procedures without success. He subsequently conducted a full-flap landing, and as the airplane settled onto the runway, the main landing gear retracted into the landing gear bay. The airplane veered off the runway and the right horizontal stabilizer was substantially damaged as the airplane skidded to a stop.Examination of the airplane revealed that there was insufficient hydraulic fluid in the system to manually pump the landing gear into the fully-extended position. The pilot reported that the airplane's hydraulic system had been over-pressurized by a mechanic a few years before the accident and that there had been trouble with hydraulic leaks ever since. He reported that he added hydraulic fluid to the reservoir every 12 flight hours; however, there were no aircraft maintenance logbook entries concerning the work performed. He also reported that, a few days before the accident, he had filled the hydraulic reservoir and then flew the airplane for between 45 and 60 minutes. He did not recheck the hydraulic fluid level after that flight.
The pilot reported that, during the landing flare in gusting crosswind conditions, the "pilot side wheel briefly touched down" and then "a wind gust pushed the plane down," which resulted in the nose gear impacting the runway hard. He added that he subsequently heard "a snapping popping bang under my feet" and that the airplane bounced. He further added that, when the airplane settled back to the runway, it skidded to the right off the runway.The firewall sustained substantial damage.The pilot 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 airport recorded that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 280° at 13 knots. The pilot reported that the landing was on runway 30.
The pilot reported that, during takeoff from a private turf airstrip, about 50 ft above the ground, the airplane encountered a wind gust that "quickly" lifted the left wing and pushed the airplane to the right. He added that he attempted to level the wings, but he "did not have enough aileron." Subsequently, the airplane impacted terrain in a nose-low, right-wing-down attitude. The fuselage and both wings sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot reported that the temperature was 85°, the sky was clear, and the wind was from 200° at 5 knots and not gusting. He took off from runway 23.An automated weather observation station, about 14 nautical miles from the accident airport, recorded wind from 170° at 9 knots, gusting to 20 knots.
The pilot reported that, during the landing, as the main gear touched down, a wind gust "carried" the airplane off the right side of the runway. He added that, when the nose gear touched down, it sunk into the soft ground, and the airplane "flipped over on its back." The airplane sustained substantial damage to its canopy and empennage.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 the weather at the accident site about the time of the accident was wind from 330° at 12 knots, gusting to about 20 knots. The pilot landed on runway 06.An automated weather observation system about 14 nautical miles from the accident site reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 310° at 8 knots, gusting to 16 knots.
The flight instructor and student pilot were conducting an instructional flight. After completing airwork, they returned to the airport to perform touch-and-go takeoffs and landings. The student reported that the first landing was "hard" and that the wind was gusting; however, they continued the subsequent takeoff. He reported that, during the initial climb, the airplane drifted right of the runway centerline. The student pilot had the flight instructor take over control of the airplane and shortly thereafter, it impacted trees. A witness reported that, about 100 ft above ground level during the takeoff, the airplane began to lose altitude and the wings wobbled; it impacted trees near railroad tracks and a highway adjacent to the airport. Another witness described a similar sequence of events and stated that there was, "more than enough runway and overrun to abort but [the airplane] seemed to keep trying to climb until it finally crashed." Examination of the airplane and engine revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Wind conditions recorded by nearby weather reporting stations were consistent with an 8 knot gusting tailwind. Additionally, the density altitude about the time of the accident was 8,500 ft, which would have resulted in a reduced climb rate. It is likely that the combination of wind conditions and the density altitude greatly reduced the airplane's takeoff performance and that the instructor subsequently exceeded the airplane's critical angle of attack while attempting to climb the airplane, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and a loss of control.
The pilot reported that, during the landing, while over the threshold of the airstrip, he aerodynamically stalled the airplane. He added that the airplane touched down and bounced and then drifted left and bounced again while exiting the airstrip. Subsequently, the left wing hit a tree, and the airplane came to rest nose down.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and left wing.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot and a flight instructor planned to conduct an inflight calibration of an angle of attack indicator. Following a zero g-force maneuver, engine oil pressure decreased to 3 psi and engine speed increased to 3,140 rpm. Immediately after the engine overspeed, a total loss of power occurred. The pilot performed a forced landing to the departure airport without further incident. Examination of the engine revealed one of the two rear crankshaft counterweights (6th order) separated from the crankshaft, with a 6th order counterweight connecting pin lodged in the crankcase between cylinder Nos. 4 and 6. An impression in the No. 1 connecting rod matched the shape of a 6th order counterweight connecting pin. The oil sump contained significant debris, including four counterweight pin retaining snap rings, four counterweight pin retainer plates, and two 6th order counterweight connecting pins. Based on the examination, the lack of oil pressure and subsequent engine rpm overspeed/surge likely caused the separation of the crankshaft counterweight and engine failure.
The private pilot was performing a visual flight rules cross-country flight after purchasing the airplane. After flying for about 1 hr 20 minutes, the airplane suddenly entered a spiraling descent from cruise flight. Witnesses observed the airplane flying erratically at low altitude before it impacted an open field; they stated that the engine was running until impact.Toxicological testing of specimens taken from the pilot found 55% carbon monoxide saturation of blood. At carbon monoxide levels above 40%, people typically experience incapacitating symptoms such as severe confusion, agitation, seizures, loss of consciousness, and death. Examination of the airplane's heat exchanger showed that the outside casing had either previously been repaired or had been originally constructed of metals with different properties. About one-half of the casing was discolored and exhibited varying signs of corrosion (the other half did not). Small holes were found where corrosion had occurred in the casing material. The holes from the corrosion provided a means for carbon monoxide to enter the cockpit from the exhaust system. Federal guidelines for annual aircraft inspections require an inspection of the exhaust systems for cracks, defects, and improper attachment during each 100-hour or annual aircraft inspection. Maintenance logbooks indicated that the airplane's most recent annual inspection was completed less than 1 month before the accident. The available maintenance logbooks did not contain any record of repairs or replacement of the heat exchanger. However, the condition of the heat exchanger is indicative of an insufficient annual inspection that did not detect and correct the corroded heat exchanger.It is likely that impairment caused by acute carbon monoxide poisoning led to the pilot's loss of airplane control. The corrosion in the heat exchanger allowed carbon monoxide to enter the cabin. Page 2 of 8 CEN17FA207
The private pilot was attempting to take off on the experimental, amateur-built airplane's first flight. When the airplane was about 30-50 ft in the air, the engine experienced a partial loss of power and the pilot landed on the remaining runway. The airplane landed hard, the landing gear collapsed, and the airplane nosed over. Examination of the engine revealed several air leaks in the induction system, including the vacuum takeoff port cap on the carburetor and the rudder seal on the left induction manifold adapter. It is likely that the compromised induction system resulted in the partial loss of engine power.
The pilot reported that, while landing in gusting crosswind conditions, as the tailwheel contacted the runway, the airplane "violently yawed" to the left. He added that he immediately applied full left aileron and full right rudder control inputs; however, the airplane ground looped to the left, and the right wing contacted the ground.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing, right horizontal stabilizer, and elevator.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 on the airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 150° at 11 knots, gusting to 14 knots. The pilot landed on runway 22.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll, the airplane decelerated and began drifting to the right. He added that he applied left rudder, but the airplane continued to the right, so he added more left rudder. The airplane ground looped to the left, the right main landing gear collapsed, and the right wing impacted the ground.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right aileron and empennage.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 the initial lack of rudder response was due to the placement of his feet on the rudder pedals. His feet were too high on the pedal, "causing the toe brakes to inadvertently be engaged during landing."
The private pilot stated that, during the landing roll, the right brake of the experimental amateur-built airplane failed. The airplane subsequently departed the runway and impacted an airport fence, resulting in substantial damage. The airplane was equipped with a castering nosewheel and steering was accomplished through differential brake pressure; therefore, the pilot did not have any other means to either stop the airplane or maintain directional control once it had slowed to a speed below which rudder authority was available.Postaccident examination revealed that the right brake disc had detached from the wheel hub. None of its attachment bolts were found, and the attachment bolts on the left brake disc were loose. The bolts and discs had holes to accommodate safety wires, but no safety wires were found on either assembly.The pilot had recently purchased the airplane following the completion of a condition inspection. Before the inspection, the airplane's builder had adjusted the landing gear, which necessitated removal of the brake discs. The builder could not recall using safety wires to secure the brake discs during the reinstallation, and the mechanic who performed the subsequent inspection also could not recall if safety wires were used.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing touchdown, the airplane "veered hard to the right." He attempted to "regain directional control" but was unable to do so and applied full power to abort the landing. During the aborted landing, the airplane departed the runway surface to the right and nosed over in dirt about 145 ft from the runway surface.The right wing 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 Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Safety Inspector who examined the airplane postaccident reported that he found no anomalies with the brake system or wheels.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll, the airplane veered to the left. He added that he applied brakes, but the airplane continued to the left. Subsequently, the airplane ground looped 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 the winds were light and variable.
The pilot of the ski-equipped airplane reported that, as the tailwheel touched down on the glacier, the snow was deeper and softer than he had expected. He added that, during the uphill landing, he chose not to stop the airplane and risk getting stuck. Instead, he completed a turn at the top of the landing area but was unable to straighten the direction of travel enough for a takeoff. Subsequently, to straighten the airplane before the takeoff, he completed a left 360° turn.During the downhill takeoff, the airplane had poor acceleration and insufficient airspeed to fly, so he aborted the takeoff. As he reduced the engine power, the airplane slowed to what he felt to be a reasonable speed, and he initiated a left turn to taxi back to the top. Subsequently, the right ski dug into the snow, and the airplane came to rest inverted.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 private pilot stated that, during the flight, the right lens fell out of his eyeglasses. Aware of powerlines at the approach end of the runway, and with his vision impaired, he flew a higher than normal landing approach to ensure obstacle clearance. The airplane subsequently landed long, exited the end of the runway, and impacted a stone mailbox, resulting in substantial damage. The pilot reported there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot was conducting an agricultural application flight when the airplane experienced a loss of engine power. The airplane subsequently impacted an adjacent field in a nose-low, left-wing-low attitude. Due to his injuries, the pilot did not recall the details of the accident flight, loss of engine power, or impact sequence.The location of the wreckage, the debris field, and the damage to the airplane are consistent with the airplane being in a turn at the time of the accident. An examination of the engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. An examination of the fuel system revealed that the internal foam baffles in both fuel tanks were discolored and deteriorated, and they disintegrated into very fine particles when touched. According to the owner/operator, during routine maintenance 5 days before the accident, a mechanic found blue foam, which he identified as coming from the foam baffles, in the fuel filter at the engine. Subsequent periodic inspections of the screen revealed no contaminants. The postaccident examination of three fuel injector nozzles revealed that they were plugged with an unknown substance. In addition, evidence of water was found in the fuel flow divider. It is likely that, given the condition of the foam baffles and the owner's previous identification of foam in the fuel system, that the particles found in the fuel injector nozzles were from the foam baffles. This contamination, in combination with the water found in the fuel flow divider, likely resulted in the loss of engine power.
The private pilot reported that he was practicing aerobatics near the departure airport and that the airplane was in a 45° nose-up maneuver when he heard a "loud knock" from the engine, followed by a significant "shake." He leveled the airplane, reduced the manifold pressure, and then turned the airplane back toward the airport. Subsequently, the engine rattled and began to shake more, followed by a total loss of power. The pilot's attempts to restart the engine were unsuccessful. He planned a high base leg and sideslip onto the final approach leg of the airport traffic pattern to ensure the airplane would reach the runway. During the landing flare, the airplane floated, touched down beyond the midpoint of the grass runway, and bounced. The pilot applied hard braking, but the airplane rolled off the end of the runway, down an embankment, and nosed over.Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that it was seized and that one counterweight, which was normally secured to the crankshaft at two places, was separated at one location. The retaining ring for one side of one counterweight, which was properly installed, fractured due to overstress, and its associated washer fractured due to reverse bending fatigue. The fracture of these components allowed the roller to separate and jam between the crankcase and crankshaft, which resulted in mechanical interference. The roller's contact with the counterweight bushings and/or counterweight washers could have been caused by a several things; however, because the fatigue crack initiation sites were destroyed by postfracture damage, the root cause for the overstress fracture of the retaining ring and fatigue fracture of the washer associated with the counterweight could not be determined.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll, the airplane "went hard right." He applied full left rudder and brake, but he could not regain directional control. The airplane veered off the runway to the right, the left main landing gear collapsed, and the left wing impacted the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.