roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that, while flying in formation inbound for landing, during the base leg to final approach turn, the airplane in front of his slowed down too much and he had to maneuver to give the airplane room to land. During the maneuver, the accident airplane encountered the preceding airplane’s wake turbulence and subsequently entered a spin at about 100 ft above ground level. The pilot was able to recover from the spin and collided with the ground hard in a wings level attitude. The wings and fuselage were substantially damaged. 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 to land on a mobile helipad. During the landing the helicopter landed “off center” and rolled over onto its side. The helicopter collided with the terrain and sustained substantial damage. The pilot did not report any mechanical anomalies that would preclude normal operation.  The helicopter was examined by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector after the accident. The examination confirmed that the airframe and main rotor blades were substantially damaged. No flight control anomalies were discovered that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the experimental airplane stated that his electronic cockpit display indicated 23 gallons of fuel prior to flight, but he did not visually inspect the fuel tanks as it would have required a step ladder. About 10 minutes after takeoff, the engine lost all power, and the pilot performed a forced landing in a field. During the landing, the airplane impacted a ditch and came to rest upright. The pilot checked the fuel tanks after the accident, and they were empty. Other than the fuel gauge, the pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions with the airplane. Examination of the wreckage by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed that main landing gear separated and the left wing strut sustained substantial damage.
According to the student pilot, the airplane “slightly ballooned up” during the landing flare. This resulted in the nose landing gear impacting the ground “harder than normal.” The impact with the ground resulted in substantial damage to the engine mounts. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
While enroute to the destination, the pilot noted moderate turbulence and decided to land and wait until the turbulence decreased. During the first landing attempt, there was turbulence and the pilot elected to perform a abort the landing after the airplane touched down briefly. After the second landing, during the landing roll, a gust of wind raised the right wing resulting in the airplane veering to the right. The pilot applied power to increase the airflow over the rudder and recenter the airplane, however the airplane was drifting to the left. The airplane departed the left side of the runway and nosed over. During the accident sequence, the airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings and right elevator. The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
During the climb out after takeoff, the airplane’s engine lost partial power. The pilot could not maintain altitude and performed a forced landing to a highway. Upon touchdown, the airplane bounced and then veered off the paved lane into a ditch. The airplane received substantial damage to the forward canards. Examination of the engine revealed the No. 1 cylinder exhaust valve had seized in the valve guide in the open position due to the buildup of carbon on the valve stem.
The student pilot was on his first solo flight and was attempting to land. Just before touch down, a gust of wind pushed the airplane off the left side of the runway, and it struck a ditch. Subsequently, the left horizontal stabilizer sustained substantial damage. The student pilot reported that the airplane had no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot stated that he did not perform weight and balance calculations prior to the flight in the airplane but did perform an engine run-up before departure with no issues noted. During takeoff he applied full power and rotated, initially climbing to between 20 and 30 ft above ground level. At that altitude the airplane stopped climbing and was not accelerating. He reported that while airborne with 800 ft of runway remaining, the airplane “stalled” and impacted the ground. He reported to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector that there wasn’t anything mechanically wrong with the airplane and that the engine was producing power during the entire event.Postaccident examination of the airplane by an FAA inspector revealed that the left wing was substantially damaged. The inspector also noted evidence of binding of the left aileron, but that was attributed to be associated with impact damage to the wing. There were no other issues noted with the flight controls. Postaccident calculations revealed that for the accident flight the airplane was likely at least 24 pounds above the maximum specified gross weight of 2,250 pounds. Although the pilot initially reported the altitude loss was associated with a wind shift, according review of weather data for the time and location of the accident revealed that there were no large fronts or boundaries in the area. Further, there was no wind above 10 knots until above 10,000 ft mean seal level, there were no AIRMETS for turbulence, and the wind at multiple nearby airports was from did not exceed a velocity of about 8 knots. Given all available information, it is most likely that the pilot exceeded the airplane’s critical angle-of-attack during the takeoff, which resulted in a stall/mush during the takeoff.Page 2 of 5 ERA23LA020
The pilot reported while taxiing at an uncontrolled airport, he observed that a construction crew was working on both sides of the taxiway. Approaching the construction area, the pilot turned right to avoid a skid loader that was in motion on the left side of the taxiway. The airplane struck a pickup truck on the right side of the taxiway, in which the which the right wing sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot departed on thefifth and final leg of the evening’s flights with no cargo and an unknown quantity of fuel. He reported that he had to deviate due to weather along the route of flight, and that the right engine began running rough after reaching cruise altitude. About 2.2 hours into the planned 2-hour flight, and about 25 miles from the destination airport, both of the airplane’s engines began “surging” and eventually “stopped producing power.” The pilot stated that he looked at the fuel gauges and they indicated empty. The pilot completed a forced landing to horse pastures, during which the airplane impacted fences, resulting in substantial damage to the wings and the fuselage. There was no evidence of fuel, fuel spillage, or odor of fuel at the scene. The pilot stated that the accident flight was longer than planned due to headwinds and weather diversions. The pilot also explained that there were known discrepancies with the fuel gauges. He also described that there had been a difference between the amount of fuel he requested at one fuel stop, what was actually dispensed, and the total amount he believed was on board when he departed on the accident flight, as he did not get a receipt, or confirm the amount dispensed.Based on the pilot’s own fuel planning numbers, full tanks at initial departure, and the fuel purchased at 2 of his 4 stops, the airplane had a fuel endurance of about 6.8 hours, of which .8 hours was for IFR reserve minimums. The total time of the 5 legs was approximately 7.2 hours.
The pilot stated that while the airplane was on the downwind leg for landing at the destination airport, he changed the fuel tank selection to the left main wing fuel tank. The airplane’s touchdown point was beyond a 1/3 down the runway, and the airplane lifted off about 2/3 down the runway for a touch and go. The airplane was about 100-150 ft above the runway, with no runway remaining, when the engine lost power. The pilot attempted a forced landing in a small clearing ahead of the airplane. The airplane stalled and impacted the terrain as the pilot maneuvered to clear trees along the flightpath. Both wings and the fuselage sustained substantial damage. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the airplane had useable fuel and there was no fuel contamination from drained fuel tank samples. An engine test run revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal engine operation. The previous airplane owner stated that sometimes when selecting different fuel tanks on the accident airplane with the selector, if the detent was not hit right on, it could be an issue. A lack of a positive selection of the fuel selector could have allowed engine operation for a short time, such as from downwind to landing, due to the limited fuel available downstream of the fuel selector. Also, a change in fuel system configuration while the airplane was in the traffic pattern does not mitigate the risks from an improper selection as afforded by making such a selection before reaching the traffic pattern altitude.Page 2 of 7 CEN23LA012
The pilot reported that about 30 minutes before arrival, the crew obtained weather information which showed a left crosswind component of 25 knots (kts) for runway 26. When they flew closer to the airport, the crew requested current wind from air traffic control and determined the crosswind component to be about 17 kts. On landing, the pilot lost directional control of the airplane as it weather-vaned. Despite the use of full right rudder, the pilot could not regain control of the airplane. As the wind subsided, the pilot corrected the airplane back to the runway centerline when another gust of wind pushed the airplane off the right side of the runway. During the runway excursion, the right wing collided with a runway light which resulted in substantial damage to the forward spar lower flange.The airplane was limited to a maximum crosswind of 20 kts. Several minutes after the airplane landed, the automated weather reporting station recorded wind from 190° at 16 kts with gusts to 27 kts.
The pilot reported that he had just purchased the airplane. During the second takeoff the airplane encountered a “violent variable wind gust”; the left wing rose unexpectedly, and the airplane stalled. The pilot reported that there was not enough altitude to recover and the airplane impacted the ground, which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing and fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. At the time of takeoff, wind was reported as 250° at 23 knots, gusting to 30 knots.
The solo student pilot reported that he landed hard during which the nose landing gear (NLG) tire “blew out”, and the NLG strut collapsed. Subsequently, the airplane skidded to a stop on the runway. The engine mount was substantially damaged. The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
During a post-maintenance test flight after an engine overhaul and annual airframe inspection, the pilot retracted the landing gear as he departed the runway. While on the downwind leg of the airport traffic pattern the pilot lowered the landing gear handle, but the landing gear remained retracted and stowed and the associated green indicator light was not illuminated. The pilot attempted to troubleshoot the anomaly and eventually performed an emergency landing. The airplane touched down on the partially extended nose landing gear and fuselage, resulting in damage to the left horizontal stabilizer and elevator. Postaccident examination of the landing gear system revealed that the left main landing gear actuator retaining ring separated from the actuator cylinder, exposing the internal rod and O-rings. The separation exposed a hole in the cylinder and a loss of hydraulic fluid followed, leaving the system unpressurized. The lack of system pressure resulted in the failure of the nose landing gear door actuator assembly and the subsequent gear-up landing. The retaining ring inside the actuator cannot be visibly inspected due to the position of the seat being recessed into the cylinder. The actuator does not have a specified overhaul time or cycle limit.
The pilot reported that during the approach to land the wind abruptly died down and the airplane began to sink as he passed over trees. He applied throttle to stop the airplane’s descent, but during the flare to land, the airplane was too fast and bounced on touchdown. The nose landing gear was damaged during the first bounce and the pilot was then unable to maintain directional control of the airplane. After departing the left side of the runway the airplane struck a fence and sustained substantial damage to both wings. 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, while attempting to depart from a lakeside beach, the tailwheel-equipped airplane encountered an unexpected wind gust during the ground roll. The airplane crossed over a water channel and the main landing gear sank into wet sand. The airplane then nosed-over into the lake, resulting in substantial damage to the wings and tail. The pilot reported that there were no preaccidcent mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he was performing a test flight in the experimental airplane after completing a modification to the pitch control system. While on downwind to land at the private airstrip, the engine lost partial power. During the base to final turn, about 300 ft above ground level, the airplane exceeded its critical angle of attack, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and loss of airplane control at an altitude too low to allow for recovery. The airplane impacted a cornfield short of the private airstrip and sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and both wings. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot stated that the partial loss of engine power was due to an excessive fuel pressure to the carburetor because he forgot to open a valve that bypassed fuel around the fuel pump that is used for engine priming and starting.
The pilot reported that while on a published instrument approach procedure a bird impacted the leading edge of the left wing, which resulted in substantial damage to the wing structure. He stated that there were no flight control difficulties and that he was able to land safely on the intended runway. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot, who owned the helicopter, was proceeding to a landing zone to drop off passengers. As he initiated his approach, the prevailing wind was a right, quartering tailwind. His approach was near vertical, with no forward airspeed. The helicopter began to rotate to the right, then the rotation accelerated, and the pilot was unable to maintain helicopter control. The helicopter impacted the ground and came to rest on its left side, and the pilot and all three passengers were seriously injured. The main rotor struck a reinforced concrete light pole during the impact sequence, and the main rotor hub and blades separated from the main rotor mast. This resulted in an engine overspeed and blade shedding of the free turbine blades, by design, to prevent rupture of the free turbine disk. Postaccident examination of the airframe, engine, digital engine control unit, and data from integrated avionics revealed no evidence of a preexisting mechanical malfunction or failure that would have precluded normal operation. Recorded data revealed that during the approach, engine power demand exceeded engine power available, resulting in a loss of tail rotor effectiveness (LTE), after which the pilot was unable to recover control of the helicopter.
The pilot reported that, during the landing approach the winds were shifting, but he was still confident a landing could be achieved. The airplane then touched down hard and bounced. He attempted to ease back pressure on the control yoke, but the nose began to lower. The nose wheel subsequently struck the ground with an accompanying loud noise. The forward fuselage and firewall were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation, and that the accident could have been avoided if he had applied full power and performed a go-around after the first touchdown.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the flare for landing, the airplane encountered a wind gust and the airplane landed hard and bounced. The airplane veered to the left and subsequently ground looped off the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the lower 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 initiating a landing to a ledge. As the landing skids contacted the ground, the pilot felt the helicopter settle tail first. Startled by this, he abruptly raised the collective, unaware that he was holding forward cyclic input. As power was applied, the rear skids lifted off the ground first, creating a nose low attitude. The helicopter subsequently rolled over onto its right side substantially damaging the fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that the glider was at 3,700 ft mean sea level when the canopy suddenly, without warning, separated from the glider. He subsequently landed uneventfully at his intended destination airport. Review of maintenance records revealed that about 2 years before the accident, a maintenance facility stop-drilled a hole to correct a canopy crack at the rear hinge along the glide frame. Metallurgical examination revealed that the drilled hole appeared to halt progression of the original crack along its initial propagation direction. However, both the new primary separation crack and a secondary crack propagated from the hole in diametrically opposite directions, which suggests they likely developed due to a stress state along the same plane. Additionally, both cracks propagated from internal surface corners of the hole, indicating the corners likely acted as stress risers that facilitated crack initiation. There was no approved method from the glider manufacturer to stop-drill a hole in plexiglass; however, manufacturer approval was not required as the glider was registered in the experimental category. The glider manufacturer stated that it was common practice for cracks in the plexiglass to be drilled-out to stop the crack progression as a temporary solution; however, for a proper repair, the canopy must be removed and re-glued.The presence of multiple cracks propagating out of the same stress riser of the internal hole corner indicated that the specific hole drilled did not prevent subsequent progression of further cracking and the eventual separation of the canopy. Page 2 of 6 ERA23LA013
The pilot was conducting a personal flight when the airplane had a total loss of engine power during cruise flight. The pilot stated that the flight departed with about 16 gallons of fuel distributed evenly between the left- and right-wing tanks, and both fuel tank gauges indicated about ¾ full before departure. About 30-45 minutes into the flight, the pilot noted that the left fuel tank gauge indicated about ¼ full while the right fuel tank gauge remained about ¾ full. The pilot decided to reposition the fuel selector valve to the right fuel tank to correct the fuel imbalance. The pilot stated that the location of his Apple iPad in the cockpit blocked his view of the right fuel tank gauge, so he made a “mental note” to check the right fuel tank gauge in about 30-45 minutes.The pilot reported that the flight continued uneventfully at 300 ft above ground level until the airplane had a total loss of engine power due to a lack of fuel in the right fuel tank. The engine did not restart after the pilot repositioned the fuel selector valve to BOTH, turned on the electric fuel boost pump, and engaged the electric starter. Both wings were substantially damaged during the subsequent forced landing in a wooded area.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The low altitude at which the loss of engine power occurred significantly reduced the amount of time available to the pilot to troubleshoot and restore engine power before the forced landing.
According to the pilot, he was on approach to a private turf airstrip when the accident event occurred. He said that after overflying the runway, he descended to 200 feet as he entered a tight left downwind leg of the traffic pattern over a nearby river. As he made the turn from downwind to final, he noted that his angle of attack instrument was reading well below critical angle, then within a second the plane rolled right and “slammed” into the ground. He offered the hypothesis that a sudden gust cut his lift and resulted in the stall/spin. He also stated that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. Witnesses at the airport describe that they saw the airplane on the downwind leg of the approach, and that the airplane was closer to the airport compared to other airplanes that had been landing on the same runway. The witnesses described that the airplane was low, about 30 to 40 ft above the ground, and in a steep bank at high speed when it impacted the ground approximately 500 yards from the end of the runway. Postaccident examination of the airplane by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector confirmed that the airplane’s fuselage and wings were substantially damaged.Given this information, it is likely that the pilot failed to fly the airplane at an appropriate airspeed/angle-of-attack during the landing approach, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall, and impact with terrain.
The pilot reported that he was descending to land following a normal balloon flight. About 1,000 ft agl, the wind shifted direction, and the balloon began drifting over areas unsuitable for landing. The balloon had been airborne for an hour and a half, and fuel in the two tanks were about 20 and 35.9 percent respectively. With low fuel becoming critical and few options for a suitable landing site, the pilot elected to land the balloon on a highway. During the landing, the balloon struck a bridge railing and came down in a wooded area next to a river. One of the passengers on board sustained serious injuries. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or malfunctions with the balloon that would have precluded normal operations. The pilot reported that he should have landed sooner.