roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The accident occurred during a two-leg cross-country flight. The airplane was fully fueled before the return flight. After takeoff, the flight climbed to about 9,000 ft above mean sea level (msl) and proceeded direct to the intended destination. Midway through the flight, the engine began “sputtering for a quick second” and subsequently lost power. The pilot’s attempts to restore engine power, which included adjusting the mixture, were not successful. The propeller continued to windmill during the gliding descent. The pilot executed a forced landing to an open marsh area, and the fuselage and both wings were damaged during the impact sequence.Postaccident examinations of the fuel-injected engine and airframe fuel system did not reveal any anomalies consistent with a loss of engine power. The left-wing fuel tank vent was clogged with dirt due to the ground impact. The left-wing fuel vent orifice within the fuel tank bladder contained a small amount of debris; however, the vent was not fully obstructed and remained operational. The right-wing fuel vents were clear. Fuel was recovered from both wing tanks at the accident site.Engine monitor data revealed that the oil pressure, fuel flow, and exhaust gas and cylinder head temperatures were stable during the initial portion of the flight. However, at the time of the loss of engine power, the fuel flow abruptly dropped to near zero and remained there for the duration of the flight. Engine speed and manifold pressure data was not recorded. The exhaust gas temperatures initially increased and then decreased abruptly.  The data recovered from the engine monitor suggested that the loss of engine power was due to an abrupt decrease in fuel flow. However, the engine and airframe fuel system examinations did not reveal any discrepancies consistent with a loss of fuel flow, specifically, or a loss of engine power, in general. The amount of fuel drained from the airplane following the accident Page 2 of 7 CEN22LA403indicated that fuel was present in both fuel tanks at the time of the power loss. The minor debris observed in the right fuel tank vent was not significant enough to obstruct the vent line and did not contribute to the loss of engine power.
The student pilot reported that, while on final for a touch and go landing, the airplane was a bit high, but with plenty of runway remaining. The airplane touched down and bounced twice. The student pilot elected to go around. During the go around the left horizontal stabilator struck a runway light which resulted in substantial damage. The student pilot continued to fly the traffic pattern and subsequently landed without further incident. The student pilot stated that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operations.
During the landing roll, the nose gear collapsed, and the airplane departed the runway, substantially damaging the fuselage and engine mounts. The pilot reported that he applied the brakes upon touchdown for a short field landing and believed the nose gear collapsed due to “pushing down the nose.” A postaccident examination of the landing gear system revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot stated that he was practicing touch-and-go landings in the accident airplane. While approaching the runway at an altitude of about 400 feet, and while in the turn from the base to the final leg of the traffic pattern, the pilot described that he allowed the airspeed to get too slow and the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall. The airplane subsequently impacted trees and terrain, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage and wings. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the air tour flight reported that he was performing a pedal turn to put the nose of the helicopter into the wind for landing when he overshot the turn with the tail. The pilot tried to correct by performing another rotation, but the low rotor rpm light illuminated, and the low rpm horn sounded. The pilot attempted to lower the collective to regain forward airspeed, but the helicopter landed hard on the skids, bounced, and rolled over onto its left side. A witness reported that the helicopter approached from the north and entered a spiral descent before “it went down” from an altitude of about 80-100 ft. above ground level. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, main rotor blades, and tail rotor blades. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal helicopter operation.
The pilot, seated in the left seat, said that the instructor pilot, seated in the right seat, asked her to perform a magneto check inflight. During the magneto check, the pilot inadvertently turned the engine ignition key to the off position resulting in a total loss of engine power. As the pilot turned the key to restart the engine, the head of the ignition key broke off. The instructor pilot transferred the controls to the pilot and attempted to move the ignition key but was also unsuccessful. The instructor pilot took the controls and performed an emergency landing into a school football field. The airplane landed hard and sustained substantial damage to the firewall, both wings, engine mount and fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
During an instructional flight, the student pilot reduced engine power to idle and applied the brakes as the airplane taxied toward the end of the runway. However, the airplane did not respond to this brake application. The flight instructor assumed control of the airplane and applied brakes, but the airplane still did not respond. While the flight instructor was attempting to mitigate the situation, the airplane exited the right side of the taxiway and impacted a ditch.Examination of the airplane’s brake system revealed a leak on both main landing gear brake caliper O-ring seals. Both brake calipers were removed and disassembled, and both O-ring seals were flattened, consistent with excessive use and wear. The flattened O-ring seals prevented the proper seal within the brake calipers, which resulted in the complete loss of brake fluid. The complete loss of brake fluid prevented the use of the airplane brakes, which caused a subsequent loss of directional control.
The flight instructor reported that he and the commercial pilot receiving instruction were practicing simulated autorotations with power recovery. During one autorotation, as the helicopter was flared at the conclusion of the autorotation, the flight instructor increased the engine throttle and waited for the pilot receiving instruction to increase collective. When he did not feel the collective control move, the flight instructor pulled up on the collective, but the helicopter struck the ground before it could ascend. The pilot receiving instruction stated that during the flare, he did not feel the engine power increase like he had felt on previous autorotations; the helicopter sank fast and struck the ground. The main rotor of the helicopter severed the tail boom during the hard landing.Examination of the helicopter and a subsequent engine test run in a test cell did not reveal any anomalies that would explain a loss of engine power. Based on the available evidence, the accident was the result of the pilot receiving instruction’s failure to increase collective at the conclusion of the autorotation and the flight instructor’s delayed remedial response, which resulted in a hard landing.
The pilot reported that, during the landing roll on a remote gravel bar, the airplane veered to the right. He applied left rudder but was unable to correct and the airplane ground looped to the right, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing, left aileron and elevator. 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 he was on approach for landing with variable wind conditions; however, METAR data showed there was a crosswind at the time of the accident. He further stated that he “flared early, got slow, attempted a go around and ended up in a full power stall.” The airplane collided with terrain near the approach end of the runway. Airport surveillance video supports the pilot’s account of the accident. The Federal Aviation Administration inspector who examined the wreckage reported that there was substantial damage to the forward fuselage and both wings. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane.
A flight attendant (FA) was injured when the flight encountered turbulence during descent.  According to the captain, he conducted a preflight briefing with the FA and advised of the possibility of light to moderate chop, mainly below 12,000 feet, during the descent into the Detroit area.  During the initial descent, at approximately 20,000 feet, the aircraft encountered light turbulence with a few encounters of moderate turbulence for about a minute.  The captain gave the final indication (two chimes) shortly afterward and then overheard the FA give the final public address (PA) over the intercom. The remainder of the descent was mainly smooth with a little light chop. Shortly after arriving at the gate and having completed the normal shutdown procedures, the FA came to the cockpit and indicated that she had been injured and requested that the captain report it.  According to the FA, she was in the forward galley when the airplane encountered turbulence; she impacted the left side of her body on the galley counter.  She indicated that she took a direct hit to her ribs and then fell backward and struck the cabin door with her back.After deplaning was complete, the flight crew gathered their belongings and exited the aircraft. As they exited, the FA showed signs of being in pain; as her left side was becoming more painful.  The flight crew helped her to the next gate where she sat down and was met by the paramedics who briefly evaluated her before she was transported to the local hospital where she was diagnosed with a fractured rib.
According to a friend, the pilot had not flown for 20 years, and purchased the accident airplane the day before the accident flight. The pilot’s friend witnessed and recorded video of the accident takeoff, which revealed that the airplane became airborne and entered a slow speed, nose-high climb that continued into a left turn. The airplane then pitched nose-down and began descending while the engine could be heard operating smoothly and continuously to ground contact.  The airplane was found in a nose-down position in a field near the runway with significant damage to the engine and cockpit area. All primary flight control surfaces remained attached, and the empennage was bent upward and forward but remained partially attached. The wreckage examination did not reveal evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.Toxicology testing detected diphenhydramine in the pilot’s cavity blood and urine. The concentration of diphenhydramine in cavity blood was reported qualitatively, indicating a level below the laboratory reporting threshold. Given the potential for postmortem redistribution and contamination in cavity blood, it is unlikely that the pilot’s use of diphenhydramine contributed to the accident. The takeoff described by the witness and video appeared consistent with entry into a low altitude aerodynamic stall. The distribution of the wreckage and relatively low energy signatures exhibited by the wreckage at the accident site were also consistent with an aerodynamic stall. Based on this information, it is likely that the pilot exceeded the airplane’s critical angle of attack during the initial climb, which resulted in anaerodynamic stall, loss of control, and impact with terrain.Page 2 of 7 ERA22FA391
According to witnesses, the airplane took off on runway 08 and then turned back toward the airport. The pilot made a radio call that he was turning downwind for landing. The accident occurred during the fifth flight of the phase 1 test flights after the pilot finished building the airplane. Witnesses heard changes in the engine rpm they described as the engine revving, going to idle, and surging. They also reported that the airplane was traveling “fast,” with pitch oscillations; the airplane approached the gravel runway in a right-wing-low turn as if it was going to land. The airplane then pitched down abruptly before striking trees about 60 to 80 ft before penetrating the side of a hangar, where it came to rest.  Data downloaded from an onboard device showed the airplane turned crosswind after takeoff then entered a right downwind for the runway. Once abeam the departure end of the runway, the airplane stopped its climb, began a descent, and turned toward the approach end of the intersecting gravel strip. The data also showed that the engine rpm changed from idle to maximum three times in the last 8 seconds of flight. Examination of the airplane revealed no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The reason for the rpm oscillations and pitch variations could not be determined with the available information. Given the witness statements and that the pilot was turning toward the gravel runway, it is likely that he was experiencing an issue with the airplane that could not be determined with the available information.Page 2 of 8 ANC22FA069
According to the student pilot, he entered a cross-control slip to the right on short final to descend. About 150 ft agl, the airplane was trimmed for landing with flaps applied, but the nose of the airplane remained oriented to the right of the runway centerline, and he aborted the landing. The student was instructed to lower the nose to increase the airspeed, but the airplane continued to turn right, and the flight instructor came on the flight controls. The flight instructor reported that he immediately reduced the angle of attack and executed standard stall recovery techniques. The airplane continued to descend and touched down on rising unimproved terrain with a left sideload. The left main and the nose landing gear collapsed, and the left wing struck the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing ribs, spar and aileron.Post-accident examination of the airplane’s primary flight controls revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunction or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot and one passenger were departing from a lake for a local flight in the weight-shift-control aircraft. The pilot’s wife reported that the aircraft did not become airborne at the usual location. Video captured by an onboard camera revealed that, after becoming airborne with the engine operating about 300 rpm below the takeoff rpm setting, the aircraft began a slow climb while flying toward the south edge of the lake. Near the south end of the lake, with the engine operating at the same rpm, the climb stopped and the pilot abruptly manipulated the controls, likely to avoid trees ahead and prevent an aerodynamic stall. Around this time, the pilot’s wife heard a “pop” sound. The aircraft then entered a left descending spiral, impacting the tree canopy then the ground.Examination of the flight controls revealed no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction. Damage signatures observed on one propeller blade indicated that the pop sound heard by the witness was likely the sound of the propeller blade impacting a control cable during the impact sequence. Examination and postaccident operational testing of the engine and propeller revealed that the propeller blade angle was set higher than optimal for the propeller/engine combination, preventing the engine from attaining the published takeoff power setting of 5,800 rpm. Additionally, calculations of the engine rpm during both the accident flight and one previous takeoff recorded by the onboard camera revealed the rpm to be consistent with the engine operating at or near its published maximum continuous power setting (5,500 rpm), rather than the takeoff power setting (5,800 rpm).Given the weights of the occupants and the fuel found onboard after the accident, the aircraft was a minimum of 29 lbs over design gross weight at the time of the accident, but could have been as much as 62 lbs, or about 5.8%, over the design gross weight at the start of the flight. The density altitude at the time of the accident was about 2,950 ft mean sea level.Page 2 of 8 ERA22FA387It is likely that the combined effects of the pilot’s operation of the aircraft in an overweight condition, the engine operating at less than the specified takeoff rpm throughout the flight, and the increased density altitude reduced the aircraft’s climb performance, resulting in impact with trees and terrain.
The student pilot was on a visual final for a low approach when he applied engine power to stabilize the descent. The engine did not respond, and the airplane continued to descend and landed hard on the runway. The airplane then nosed over and sustained substantial damage. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the left and right wing fuel tanks contained useable fuel. Examination of the airframe and engine revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The student pilot stated that the engine did not respond, but it is likely that the student pilot delayed the application of engine power and when he applied engine power, it exceeded the response capability of the airplane/engine that he perceived as delayed. The student pilot also reported that he’d applied carburetor heat for about 10 seconds when he was about one mile from the runway. There was no engine roughness during the application. He then turned it off. An accident report form was not received from the student pilot. Weather conditions were conducive for serious carburetor icing at glide power.
According to the pilot, he was attempting to land the helicopter on a portable dolly, and he was following a marshaller to land on the dolly. As he lowered the collective, the helicopter’s skids fell off the back of the dolly, and the tail rotor struck the ground. The helicopter subsequently rolled over on its left side resulting in substantial damage to the main rotor and tail rotor systems. The pilot added that there were no mechanical issues with the helicopter.
The pilot was returning to his home airport at the conclusion of a cross-country flight and was attempting to make a visual approach to land at night. A review of radar data revealed the airplane overflew the airport about 500 ft above the ground before making a sweeping, descending left turn onto final approach before the data ended 0.2 miles from the end of the runway. At that time, the airplane was traveling at a groundspeed of about 86 knots at an altitude of about 33 ft above ground level (agl). Airport surveillance video captured the airplane on landing rollout. The airplane was observed departing the left side of the runway before it started a climb and impacted trees. Postaccident examination of the airplane and the engine revealed no evidence of any pre-impact mechanical deficiencies or malfunctions that precluded normal operation. The pilot’s autopsy examination and postaccident toxicological findings did not reveal any medical factors that would have resulted in the pilot becoming suddenly impaired or incapacitated. Based on the available radar data, the pilot had not stabilized the airplane during the approach to the runway and was at a critically low altitude when the airplane was .2 miles from the end of the runway. Surveillance video also suggested the airplane was not stabilized after it touched down. Visible tire marks on the runway confirmed that it departed the left side of the runway during the landing rollout. The pilot may have attempted to regain control of the airplane after the unstabilized approach, touchdown, and runway excursion by attempting to abort the landing; however, the airplane subsequently collided with trees. Based on this information it is likely that the pilot performed an un stabilized approach that resulted in a loss of directional control during landing, ultimately resulting in a runway excursion and collision with trees.Page 2 of 8 ERA22FA386
The pilot reported that, during the return flight to the airport, the glider encountered more downdrafts than he expected, and that the glider did not have sufficient altitude to reach the airport. During the subsequent forced landing into trees and shrubby, the glider’s fuselage and wings sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures of the glider that would have precluded normal operation.
Following an engine overhaul, the pilot conducted several test flights around the airport traffic pattern. After landing, the airplane was fueled with aviation fuel, and the pilot began another flight. During the takeoff roll, a witness observed that the airplane seemed “sluggish,” and the engine sounded “weak.” The pilot realized the engine was not producing full power but decided it was too late to abort the takeoff. As the airplane approached the top of a 70-ft-tall tree line, the pilot exceeded the critical angle of attack; the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall and descended into trees. The airplane came to rest suspended from the tree canopy, and a postcrash fire ensued. The pilot was able to egress the airplane and jump to the ground.Postaccident examination of the engine and components, which were extensively damaged by fire, did not reveal evidence of any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The reason for the partial loss of engine power could not be determined based on the available evidence.
The pilot reported that while maneuvering about 900 ft above ground level (agl), he reduced the engine throttle to 1,000 RPMs to begin a descent to 500 ft agl to overfly a lake. Shortly thereafter, the engine “sputtered”, and he began to troubleshoot the engine problem “all while looking for a place to land.” He then realized the engine issue could be carburetor ice. He reached for the carburetor heat handle, and the airplane impacted a power line. The airplane impacted the water and sustained substantial damage to the left wings and fuselage. The passenger reported that the airplane was “running completely fine the entire ride, we then began flying really low [and the pilot] said, ‘this is where I like to do some water dancing.’” The pilot continued to fly low over the water around the curves of the lake, and the engine continued to operate without an issue. While flying level, the passenger noticed the airplane was about the altitude of some power lines when the airplane impacted the power lines and then the water. A nearby boat assisted with their egress from the water.Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast data was consistent with the passenger’s recollection of the flight path and circumstances.
The pilot in the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that, while landing on a private grass strip, he noticed water on the north end of the landing area. He stated that he landed long to the south of the wet area with a 5 kt tailwind. When the airplane touched down, it encountered standing water. The airplane subsequently nosed over, coming to rest inverted. The wings and vertical stabilizer were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.