roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot was operating the helicopter out of ground effect at an airspeed below effective translational lift while approaching the helipad for landing when the nose of the helicopter began a yaw to its right, which the pilot could not arrest with the application of left pedal. The yaw rate increased, and the helicopter rotated around the main rotor mast 2.5 times as it descended into terrain and vehicles.The pilot reported and a postaccident examination confirmed that there were no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation at the time of the accident. The helicopter's slow airspeed, its operation out of ground effect, the uncommanded right yaw, and the lack of mechanical anomalies are consistent with a loss of tail rotor effectiveness, which resulted in the pilot's loss of control.
The airline transport pilot departed in the weight-shift control aircraft and climbed to just above tree height before entering a turn to the crosswind leg of the traffic pattern. Witnesses reported that the aircraft appeared to stall in the turn before making an uncontrolled, turning descent toward the ground. Although the pilot had received about 13 hours of instruction in weight-shift control aircraft, the accident flight was his first flight in the accident aircraft, and he did not have an endorsement for solo operation of a weight-shift control aircraft. Examination of the wreckage did not reveal any preimpact mechanical malfunctions. It is likely that the pilot failed to maintain airspeed during the turn, which resulted in an exceedance of the aircraft's critical angle of attack and an aerodynamic stall.
The pilot reported that, during the landing roll, the biplane veered right. He applied left rudder and brakes, the left wingtip scraped the runway, and the biplane exited the runway to the left. He then applied more brakes to avoid a drainage ditch, and the biplane nosed down. The biplane sustained substantial damage to the lower, left wing spar. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the biplane that would have precluded normal operation.
After completing a three-leg cross-country training flight in the helicopter, the solo student was hover-taxiing about 15 ft above the taxiway surface. Witnesses reported that gusting winds prevailed and that they saw the helicopter enter a spin, followed by a nose-low impact with the ground. The helicopter was substantially damaged. The pilot was seriously injured and unable to recall the accident sequence. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was conducting a cross-country flight when, about 20 minutes from the destination airport, the engine lost partial power. The pilot switched fuel tanks, turned on the fuel pump and carburetor heat, and reduced engine power. The engine subsequently lost total power and the pilot performed a forced landing to a highway. During landing, the right wing impacted a light pole and the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. A postimpact fire ensued and consumed a majority of the airplane. Both fuel tanks were breached and thermally damaged. The fuel selector was not located. Examination of the engine revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or anomalies. Compression was obtained on each cylinder when the engine was rotated by hand at the crankshaft. The carburetor was intact and free of debris. The electric fuel pump was operational. The single-drive magneto was impact damaged, but produced spark at each of the 12 leads.Based on the available information, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The pilot reported that, he intended to do touch-and-goes in the local traffic pattern.  While on the downwind leg, the air traffic controller cleared him to land.  During the landing roll, past the halfway point on the runway, he increased the engine power to full to takeoff and told the controller that he was doing a "go-around".  The controller immediately instructed him to exit the runway on to the last taxiway so the pilot "cut the entire power", applied brakes and full right rudder, but the airplane skidded, exited the runway and impacted a concrete barrier.   The airplane sustained substantial damage to the forward, lower fuselage.  The flight safety officer reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot added that he wanted to do touch and goes but did not accurately communicate his intentions to the air traffic controller.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, after landing on a gravel road, he looked to the right and unintentionally steered the airplane to the right into a small ditch.  He applied power to force the airplane out of the ditch back onto the road, however, the right main landing gear "locked up due to the weeds wrapping around it".  The airplane ground looped and nosed over.The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the pilot, during a chemical application pass over a field, he saw that the engine torque "had crept up." He attempted to reduce engine torque but noticed that the power lever "felt stuck." Shortly thereafter, he again tried to move the power lever. When it would not move, he increased pressure and it "broke free." The engine power decreased to idle, and the pilot's subsequent power lever inputs had no effect. The pilot then performed a forced landing, during which the left wing impacted a tree and the airplane cartwheeled before coming to rest upright on its landing gear, resulting in substantial damage to the wings, fuselage, and empennage.A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Due to the severity of the damage to the forward section of the airplane, the cause for the momentary binding and subsequent loss of engine power control could not be established.
The pilot reported that the airplane bounced during landing. He added that, during the second touchdown, the airplane was not aligned with the runway, and the airplane ground looped. The airplane exited the runway to the left and impacted a drainage ditch. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right 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 passenger completed a cross-country flight across an area of mountainous terrain. After departing on the return flight, the pilot flew into a box canyon within a nearby mountain range. Flight track data showed the airplane at 400 ft above ground level as it entered the mountain range just before the track ended. An alert from the airplane's emergency locator transmitter indicated that the airplane impacted a mountain slope 26 minutes after departure at an elevation of about 10,300 ft mean sea level. The airplane was mostly consumed by a postcrash fire, which precluded an examination of the flight controls, magnetos, fuel pump, and other fuel system components. Examination of the remaining flight control systems and the engine did not reveal any anomalies that could have precluded normal operation, and signatures on the propeller blades indicated that the propeller was turning at the time of the impact.Performance calculations showed that the airplane likely exceeded its maximum gross takeoff weight at the time of the accident. The combination of high gross weight and high-density altitude conditions likely resulted in degraded climb performance and increased the time required to reach a suitable altitude to maintain clearance from surrounding terrain. Based on the airplane’s estimated weight, the airplane would have required about 28 minutes at a maximum airspeed of 75 kts to climb to an altitude of 500 ft above the approaching terrain.The circumstances of the accident are consistent with the pilot's failure to maintain clearance from trees and terrain and his decision to fly into terrain that required climb performance that exceeded the airplane’s performance capabilities. Impact signatures at the accident site indicated that the airplane collided with trees over a mountain slope. The steep impact angle suggests that the airplane was either slow when it collided with the trees or contacted the trees following an aerodynamic stall. Due to a lack of evidence, the investigation was unable to determine if the pilot had intended to overfly the mountain slope as part of his route of flight or if he was repositioning the airplane to execute a turn in search of lower terrain when the accident occurred. Page 2 of 10 WPR19FA266Although the pilot's autopsy showed evidence of severe premature coronary artery disease, the airplane's known final movements were not consistent with the loss of control more typical of sudden severe impairment/incapacitation associated with acute cardiac events. Thus, it is unlikely that the pilot's coronary artery disease contributed to this accident.
The pilot reported that, during takeoff in ground effect, the airplane encountered a wind gust from the left, and the right wing struck the ground. The airplane drifted right, the main landing gear impacted a fence parallel to the runway, and the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, empennage, 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 reported that during a short field takeoff from a small unimproved airstrip, as the airplane climbed through tree top altitude, the indicated airspeed decreased by 20-30 knots and the left wing dropped rapidly. The airplane descended and impacted trees beyond the airstrip. The wings and fuselage sustained substantial damage and the pilot sustained serious injuries. The passenger sustained minor injuries. The pilot stated that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation and that the wind likely diminished during a critical phase of the climb out, and due to the slow airspeed, the left wing stalled resulting in an uncontrolled left roll.
The pilot reported that, during approach to land will full flaps, he decided to perform a go around and applied full power. The airplane started turning left and he applied right rudder. The airplane was "low and slow" and was unable to gain altitude. The airplane continued to drift left then subsequently, landed hard in an adjacent field left of the runway.The pilot further reported that, during the go around, he did not adjust the flap setting to the takeoff setting. 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.The pilot added that he did not remember if the stall warning horn was going off, but believed that the airplane aerodynamically stalled before impact.The pilot reported that the wind was from 040° at 20 knots, gusting to 30 knots. The airport's automated weather observation station reported that, about 5 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 050° at 12 knots, 10 statute mile visibility, sky clear, temperature 23°C (73°F), dew point 7°C (45°F), altimeter 29.98" Hg. The airport field elevation was 2412 ft. The pilot was departing on runway 32.The pilot operating handbook checklist titled "Balked Landing/Go-Around" stated in part:1. Autopilot – DISENGAGE2. Power Lever – FULL FORWARD3. Flaps – 50%Page 2 of 5 GAA19CA5704. Airspeed – 75-80 KIASAfter clear of obstacles:1. Flaps – UPThe manufacturer published a performance chart titled "Balked Landing Rate of Climb." The calculated rate of climb with full flaps during the balked landing was about 1,168 ft per minute.
The solo student pilot reported that, shortly after the airplane landed, it ballooned and then bounced twice. Subsequently, the airplane pitched down, and the nose landing gear struck the runway and then collapsed. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the engine frame. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
While on approach for landing, the pilot activated the experimental airplane's landing gear extension switch and noticed that the right main landing gear indicator light was not illuminated. He recycled the landing gear, checked the circuit breaker, and performed an emergency landing gear extension; however, the right main landing gear did not extend. During the landing, the right wing contacted the runway and terrain. Examination of the airplane revealed that the hydraulic fluid reservoir contained a minimal amount of fluid. No visual leaks were noted with the hydraulic system. The reservoir tank was located aft of the firewall and was not visible during a pre-flight inspection due to fuselage structure. The airplane's annual condition inspection was expired; the pilot stated that he knew the inspection was out of date and was working on completing the inspection.
The solo student pilot reported that, while landing, the airplane bounced and landed hard and that the airplane then began to veer right. He taxied off the runway without further incident. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage aft of the nosewheel. The student reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during the approach, he noticed the airplane was high, so he reduced power and lowered the nose. While correcting, he was talking to his passenger and became distracted. He realized the was not at a good landing attitude, so he added power and pulled back on the yoke. Subsequently, the airplane landed hard, the nose landing gear collapsed, and the fuel system ruptured. The airplane veered left and exited the runway onto adjacent grass. The airplane was destroyed by postaccident fire. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot added as a safety recommendation that maintaining a sterile cockpit must always be a priority during landing.
The student pilot was approaching the airport to land at the conclusion of a solo cross-country flight. As he turned the airplane from the base to final approach leg of the traffic pattern, the engine started to run rough, and subsequently lost all power. He attempted to restart the engine, but was unsuccessful. He then performed a forced landing into 70-ft-tall treetops. The airplane came to rest in the treetops, resulting in substantial damage to both wings. Examination of the engine revealed two pieces of debris inside the carburetor airbox downstream from the air filter element. The debris was consistent with epoxy/sealant used during repairs of the airbox. The airbox appeared to have been repaired and patched several times, and some of the sealant on the repairs appeared to be loose. When the debris was placed in the carburetor venturi for reference, it blocked about 50 to 75% of the opening. If the sealant debris came loose inside the airbox while the engine was running, it is likely that it would follow the air path into the carburetor venturi and block the air flow into the carburetor. The weather conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to carburetor icing; however, the pilot reported applying the carburetor heat on the downwind traffic pattern leg and did not notice any anomalies with the engine at that time. Had significant ice built up in the carburetor during the descent, it is likely that the engine would run roughly soon after the application of the carburetor heat and continue to do so as the ice melted.
The pilot was conducting a practical test with a designated pilot examiner to add a multi-engine rating to her pilot certificate. After performing airwork in the local area, they returned to the departure airport to conduct takeoffs and landings. The pilot initiated the takeoff and reported that the airplane accelerated to 85 mph, then rotated as normal. She then reported that the airplane “discontinued climbing”; shortly thereafter, the examiner took control of the airplane. The examiner stated that there was inadequate runway remaining on which to land; however, the airplane would not fly out of ground effect. He maneuvered to avoid obstructions and the airplane impacted terrain with a descent rate between 400 to 600 feet per minute.Postaccident examination of the front engine and its systems revealed no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction. The rear propeller was found in the feathered position. Onboard engine monitor data for the accident flight revealed that, during the accident takeoff, the front engine was operating normally, while the rear engine was operating at a level below idle power. A successful postaccident test run of the rear engine revealed no evidence of malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The airplane owner’s manual advised that, during takeoff, the pilot should apply rear engine power first, followed by front engine power, and monitor the engine instruments throughout the takeoff roll for signs of power loss. A placard on the instrument panel advised, “Do not initiate single engine take-off.”Although the reason that the rear engine was operating at such a low level during the accident takeoff could not be determined, both pilots should have recognized that the rear engine was not operating as expected during the takeoff roll and aborted the takeoff. The continuation of the takeoff in this condition resulted in the airplane’s inability to climb and its subsequent descent and impact with terrain.  Page 2 of 7 ERA19LA282
The noninstrument-rated pilot departed on a visual flight rules cross-country flight in dark night conditions. Shortly after departure, the airplane entered a left turn followed by a rapid spiraling descent. The airplane impacted terrain in a near-vertical attitude. Examination of the airframe and engine did not detect any preimpact anomalies which would have precluded normal operation. Weather at the time of the accident included the potential for low stratiform-type clouds in the area of the accident site, and it is likely that the pilot encountered these clouds while climbing after takeoff. There was no record of the pilot obtaining a weather briefing before the flight, and the weather information he may have accessed before or during the flight could not be determined.The pilot indicated to two different people before the accident flight that he was tired; however, based on the information available, the extent to which the pilot’s fatigue contributed to the accident could not be determined. Review of the pilot’s logbook indicated that he had about 9.5 hours of night flying experience, and according to a friend, wanted to gain more experience flying at night. The pilot had only 3.4 hours of simulated instrument time and no experience in actual instrument meteorological conditions (IMC).The dark night and likely IMC present in the area at the time of the accident and the pilot’s limited experience in flying at night and in IMC were conducive to the development of spatial disorientation; the airplane’s rapid spiraling descent before impact is consistent with the known effects of spatial disorientation. It is likely that the pilot’s visual flight into IMC shortly after takeoff resulted in spatial disorientation and a subsequent loss of airplane control.
Before departing on an approximate 1 hour and 20-minute instructional flight, the instructor and student idled on the airplane on the ground for about 30 minutes. While conducting maneuvers, the engine “audibly slowed down drastically” and the propeller and throttle controls did not respond to pilot inputs. The instructor performed a forced landing to a field, resulting in substantial damage. Examination of the wreckage revealed that the right main fuel tank was intact and void of fuel. The left main fuel tank was full. The fuel selector was found in the right main tank position and the selector valve operated normally after the accident. Based on the available information, it is likely that the entirety of the flight was conducted with the right main fuel tank selected, which resulted in fuel starvation and a total loss of engine power.
The pilot reported that he conducted a normal three-point landing. During the landing roll, the airplane ground looped to the left, and the left wing struck the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing spar and the rudder. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot, who was also a flight instructor, stated that the airplane owner contacted him for tailwheel instruction in his recently purchased airplane. The owner did not hold a pilot certificate, but the pilot agreed to fly the airplane with the owner as a passenger. The pilot stated that, during landing approach, “the airplane banked to the left and pitch[ed] down about 8 or 10 degrees.” The pilot attempted to regain control of the airplane, but the controls were “very stiff.” He recalled heading toward the trees and tried again to move the controls; this time, the airplane pitched up slightly, but not enough to slow the descent. The airplane impacted trees and the ground, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage, wings, and empennage.The pilot reported that he thought the passenger applied control inputs during landing, which resulted in his inability to control the airplane. He stated that the airplane “definitely did not stall.” He also reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The owner of the airplane did not provide a statement regarding the accident.
The student pilot reported that, shortly after takeoff from his private cement pad and about 2 ft above ground level, the helicopter "darted forward and left." He attempted to correct the drift, but the helicopter began "swinging back and forth," the left skid impacted the ground, and the helicopter then dynamically rolled over. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the main rotor blades and tailboom. The student reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation. The student added that the he "did not have the cyclic in a neutral position when he lifted off" and that the accident flight was his first flight in the helicopter.
The student pilot reported that, during a solo flight in the pattern, the airplane encountered a "moderate wind" from the left during landing. The pilot corrected with right rudder application, and the airplane touched down on the right side of the runway centerline. The student retracted the flaps to perform a touch-and-go landing and increased engine power. Subsequently, the airplane veered left and exited the runway. The airplane then impacted a ditch and came to rest. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing spar. The student reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.