roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The airline transport rated pilot and passenger departed on a cross-country business flight in a twin-engine, turbo-propeller-equipped airplane in day, visual meteorological conditions. Shortly after takeoff, the airplane banked left, descended, and impacted terrain about 1/2 mile from the end of the runway. There was not a post-crash fire and fuel was present on site. A postaccident airframe examination did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.Examination of the left engine found signatures consistent with the engine producing power at impact. Examination of the right engine revealed rotational scoring on the compressor turbine disc/blades, and rotational scoring on the upstream side of the power vane and baffle, which indicated that the compressor section was rotating at impact; however, the lack of rotational scoring on the power turbine disc assembly, indicated the engine was not producing power at impact. Testing of the right engine's fuel control unit, fuel pump, propeller governor, and over-speed governor did not reveal any abnormities that would have accounted for the loss of power. The reason for the loss of right engine power could not be determined based on the available information.
The pilot of the amphibious, float-equipped airplane reported that he failed to retract the landing gear before landing on water. The fuselage sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, while landing on the narrow, unimproved airstrip in gusting wind conditions, the airplane drifted right of center, and he was unable to recover. Subsequently, the right wing impacted trees off the right side of the unimproved airstrip. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.An automated weather observation system about 26 nautical miles from the accident site reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 010° at 9 knots, gusting to 15 knots. The pilot reported weather conditions as good other than gusting wind when entering and in the river valley.
The flight instructor reported that, about 30 minutes into the local, instructional flight with a pilot receiving instruction onboard, the fuel selector was moved from the right tank position to the left tank position. Shortly thereafter, the engine began to run roughly and lose power. The fuel selector was then moved back to the right tank position, which restored engine power. The instructor then chose to return to the departure airport. About 2 minutes after switching the fuel selector to the right tank, the engine lost power again, and the instructor took control of the airplane and followed the emergency procedures, but his attempts to restore power were unsuccessful. The instructor conducted a forced landing to a levy, during which the airplane sustained substantial damage, and the right main landing gear collapsed. During postaccident examination of the right and left fuel tanks, no fuel contamination was found, and the tanks contained sufficient fuel. Test-runs of the engine with the fuel selector positioned to the left and right tank positions revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. The reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The pilot of the experimental amateur-built airplane reported that he was performing a "test flight" and had previously accumulated about 2 hours of total flight time with the airplane. He added that, during the takeoff roll, the airplane veered to the left, and he responded by applying right rudder and aft pitch to rotate the airplane. He added that, as the airplane lifted off the runway, the airplane continued to the left and impacted weeds and a ditch.The elevator, wings, and right aileron 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 airline transport pilot reported that, during the landing roll in the tailwheel airplane, he was unable to maintain directional control after encountering a quartering tailwind gust from the right. The airplane subsequently ground looped, causing substantial damage to the left wing.A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no anomalies with the tailwheel assembly, rudder, or control continuity to the rudder that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the helicopter reported that, during the landing on the unimproved dirt parking lot, dust started to kick up, and he transitioned to looking through the "chin bubble" for a visual point of reference. When the helicopter was about 5 to 6 ft above the ground, the pilot felt a sudden impact, followed by subsequent impacts from the two additional rotor blades impacting what was later found to be a tree. The helicopter "violently" fell to the ground and rolled onto its left side. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and main rotor system.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot in the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, following a personal flight, he made a three-point landing on runway 16. He recalled that, during the landing flare, the airplane encountered a wind gust, and following touchdown, the airplane exited the left side of the runway and ground looped to the left. The airplane slid down an embankment, and the right wing struck the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right-wing spar and aileron.The METAR at the airport reported that the wind was from 180° at 5 knots with 10 statute miles visibility and clear skies.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
**This report was modified on July 17, 2020. Please see the docket for this accident to view the original report.**The flight instructor reported that he was teaching his student to hover in the helicopter. The helicopter was in a 2-ft hover and began drifting to the left. The left rear skid got caught in a crack in the runway, and the helicopter rolled left. According to the flight instructor, the student pilot pulled up on the collective, and the instructor attempted to push the collective down; however, the student pilot reported that he was not aware the flight instructor had transferred control of the helicopter to him and was "tracking the progress of the flight instructor." A dynamic rollover occurred, and the helicopter rolled onto its left side.The flight instructor reported that wind gusts may have been a factor in the accident.According to the METAR that the flight instructor was monitoring about the time of the accident, the wind was from 210° at 8 knots. The METAR reported no wind gusts and no convective activity that day. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the tailboom and the main rotor system.The pilots reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.   Page 2 of 6 GAA17CA406
Before takeoff, the private pilot completed an engine run-up and noted no anomalies. However, witnesses and the passenger described the engine as "pinging," "popping," and "skipping a beat" during the takeoff roll and shortly after takeoff. The pilot turned the airplane on course toward the destination when the "engine started sputtering and died." The pilot attempted an engine restart by turning on the fuel boost pump, switching fuel tanks, checking the mixture lever, and cycling the magneto switch; he was unable to restart the engine. Due to the low altitude at the time of the loss of engine power, the pilot did not deploy the airframe parachute system and instead performed a forced landing to a wooded area. Damage to the crankshaft prevented a functional test of the engine; however, a teardown examination revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot was conducting a personal flight and reported that the airplane had been "topped off" before takeoff. Due to a stronger-than-anticipated headwind en route, he decided to divert to an intermediate airport to add fuel so that the airplane would have an adequate fuel reserve. Shortly afterward, while the airplane was in cruise flight, the engine "abruptly stopped, [with] no coughing or sputtering." The pilot attempted to determine the cause of the problem. He noted that the fuel selector was set for both tanks and that each tank was about one-quarter full. The pilot also attempted to restart the engine but was not successful; as a result, he executed a forced landing to an open field. The pilot noted that the airplane's airspeed might have decayed on final approach to the field, resulting in an aerodynamic stall and hard landing.Data from the airplane's avionics system indicated that engine performance was normal until about 15 minutes before the accident. At that time, the fuel flow varied over a 4-minute period. Afterward, the fuel flow returned to normal, and the engine's performance appeared stable. However, about 5 minutes before the accident, the fuel flow began to vary again and ultimately decreased to zero. The corresponding engine parameters also decreased at that time, which was consistent with a loss of power.The engine data revealed that a loss of fuel flow to the engine precipitated the loss of power. However, a postaccident examination and a test run of the engine did not reveal any anomalies consistent with a loss of engine power. Specifically, the engine test run demonstrated operation of the engine, and no airframe fuel system obstructions or evidence of fuel leakage were observed. In addition, the fuel consumption for the accident flight was about one-half of the total usable fuel capacity, which excluded fuel exhaustion as a cause for the loss of engine power.
The solo student pilot was practicing takeoff and landings. She reported that, on her fifth and final landing, the control tower advised her to spend minimal time on the runway due to a jet that was No. 2 to land behind her. She added that she rushed the landing and was too fast to level off during the flare. Subsequently, the nosewheel touched down first, and a porpoise ensued. Following the porpoise, she taxied off the runway without incident. A postaccident examination revealed that the airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, shortly after takeoff from a seaplane base in the float-equipped airplane, the flap handle would not move, likely due to the headset cord wrapped around the flap handle base, so he maneuvered the airplane to the right downwind to return to land. The engine subsequently lost all power and the pilot performed a forced landing onto a residential street. The airplane sustained substantial damage after impacting a tree, a light pole, and multiple houses.A postaccident examination of the engine and fuel system revealed that the fuel tanks were almost full, and fuel was present in the fuel lines with the exception of the line from the fuel flow transducer to the fuel manifold. The manifold itself contained only residual fuel. No leaks or debris in the fuel system were observed. The fuel selector was in the “off” position at the scene of the accident, but the pilot stated that he turned it from “both” to “off” after the accident to prevent fuel leaks and fire.The engine test run revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Given the lack of fuel in the lines to the manifold and in the manifold, it is likely that the total loss of engine power was the result of fuel starvation during the flight; however, the reason for the fuel starvation could not be determined.
The commercial pilot reported that he departed on a cross-country flight with 26.5 gallons of fuel and that he planned to make an intermediate stop to refuel before proceeding to the destination airport. The intermediate fuel stop airport was 97 nautical miles (nm) from the departure airport. About 45 minutes into the flight, when the airplane was about 3,000 ft above ground level and 5 nm east of the intermediate fuel stop airport, the engine lost power. The pilot assumed that the airplane was out of fuel and subsequently realized that the airplane would not be able to reach the intended airport. As a result, the pilot made a forced landing to a hayfield, during which the airplane sustained substantial damage.The pilot was using the fuel totalizer to keep track of the amount of fuel during the flight. The pilot reported that the fuel totalizer indicated 14 gallons at the time of the engine failure. The pilot also reported that, at that time, the fuel selector indicated "BOTH" and the fuel gauges indicated that the left tank was 3/8 full and the right tank was empty. Aircraft recovery personnel reported that, when they drained fuel from each tank, the left tank was almost empty, and the right tank had less than 1.7 gallons remaining. According to the Cessna 180 Owner's Manual, the unusable amount of fuel was 1 gallon. Additionally, no fuel streaking stains were observed on the top of either wing, which would have been consistent with fuel that was vented overboard. The pilot reported no mechanical anomalies with the airplane or engine that would have precluded normal operation. Thus, the loss of engine power resulted from fuel exhaustion. Because of his experience in the airplane make and model, the pilot should have known the airplane's fuel burn and should have planned to divert sooner rather than rely on the fuel totalizer and the fuel gauges.
The commercial pilot was conducting his sixth agricultural load application of the day. Witnesses observed the airplane make a low-altitude turn and subsequently enter a spin with a nose-low attitude . The airplane subsequently impacted a rice field adjacent to the field being treated.Postaccident examination of the airframe, engine, and propeller revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot's autopsy revealed that he had severe coronary artery disease with evidence of associated heart muscle injury. No evidence was found indicating that the pilot was aware of his health issues. The coronary artery disease increased the pilot's risk of a cardiac event, which would have resulted in shortness of breath, dizziness, lightheadedness, or an irregular heart rhythm (arrhythmia) with decreased cardiac output and loss of consciousness. The combination of the normal stress associated with low-altitude maneuvering and decreased cardiac output likely resulted in a sudden decrease of blood flow to the brain and the pilot's incapacitation, which resulted in his loss of airplane control.
The pilot reported that he overflew a remote airstrip, which was bounded by a lake on the approach end. He added that he circled back to land and that, during final approach, he encountered "glassy water and bright sun." Subsequently, the airplane landed short of the runway in the lake, sunk in more than 500 ft of water, and was not recovered.The Federal Aviation Administration aviation safety inspector who interviewed the pilot reported that he stated that the sun and the reflection off the lake gave him the impression that the airplane was higher than it was. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the special light sport, amphibious airplane stated that he had planned a local personal sightseeing flight, which included departing from an airport, landing on a lake about 20 miles away, then returning to the departure airport. During the approach to landing on the lake, the pilot left the landing gear in the extended position, which was the wrong position for a water landing. Once the airplane touched down on water, it decelerated quickly, nosed over, and then came to rest inverted. The pilot added that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. When the airplane was recovered from the lake, damage was observed on both wings and the fuselage. The landing gear were observed in the extended position, and the landing gear selector was also in the landing gear extended position.
The pilot of the Cessna reported that, as he taxied into the runup area between another Cessna and a Siai-Marchetti, the airplane's right wing impacted the rudder of the Siai-Marchetti. The Siai-Marchetti sustained substantial damage to the rudder. The Cessna sustained minor damage to the right wing.Both pilots reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with their respective airplane's that would have precluded normal operation.
The airline transport pilot was conducting a personal, cross-country flight. He reported that, about 10 minutes after takeoff, the oil pressure decreased to 0, and the engine experienced a loss of all power. The pilot conducted a forced landing on a soft field about 1 mile short of an airport, during which the airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall and lower fuselage. A review of the airplane's maintenance records revealed that the vacuum pump had been replaced the day before the accident. Examination of the engine revealed that three connecting rods exhibited thermal and impact damage, and three rod journals were found dry and exhibited thermal discoloration, indicative of oil starvation. Disassembly indicated that a gasket typically used for carburetors was installed on the vacuum pump. The installed gasket did not completely cover the high-pressure oil orifice on the vacuum pump mounting fixture, which resulted in oil leakage, subsequent oil starvation to the engine, and the loss of engine power.
The private pilot reported that, after departure, he followed the course of a river at an altitude about level with the treetops. Although the pilot was aware of powerlines in the area, he did not see them before the airplane collided with the powerlines about 90 ft above ground level. The airplane subsequently nosed down and impacted the river, resulting in substantial damage.According to the manager of the airport from which the airplane departed, it is not uncommon for pilots to fly at low altitudes in that area to avoid turbulent air in the summertime. He further reported that the power lines were not equipped with aerial marker balls. Following the accident, the airport manager agreed to install signage in the fixed base operator at the airport to caution pilots of the presence of power lines in that area.
The commercial pilot was conducting an agricultural aerial application flight. The pilot reported that the helicopter made an uncommanded right yaw during a turn. The pilot stated that he applied full left pedal to counter the yaw and that the helicopter centered briefly, but then the right yaw started again, which continued as the helicopter descended and impacted the ground. Because the helicopter was likely operating out of ground effect at a high power setting, the uncommanded right yaw was likely the result of a loss of tail rotor effectiveness (LTE). According to Federal Aviation Administration guidance, the procedures to recover from LTE are early detection followed by applying forward cyclic to regain airspeed, applying right (not left) pedal to maintain rotor rpm, and reducing collective to reduce the high power demand on the tail rotor. On the basis of the available information, the pilot lost control of the helicopter when he responded improperly to the LTE by adding left pedal rather than by applying forward cyclic and right pedal and reducing collective.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll, the airplane drifted to the right and that he applied left rudder to correct. The airplane exited the runway to the right and ground looped to the right. The left wing and left elevator impacted the ground and sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot and the passenger were making an instrument flight rules personal cross-country flight in the airplane. Radar data showed that the airplane was in cruise flight about 7,000 ft mean sea level (msl) until the pilot began a descent toward the initial approach fix for the GPS approach to the destination airport. Cloud tops in the area were about 6,200 to 6,900 ft msl; thus, the airplane likely entered clouds (instrument meteorological conditions) as it descended. The final 2.5 minutes of the radar data revealed erratic turns left and right, which were consistent with the pilot becoming spatially disorientated while descending in instrument meteorological conditions. The last radar point recorded the airplane about 2,950 ft msl or about 2,100 ft above ground level (agl); the reported cloud base at the destination airport was 1,200 ft agl. A witness reported that low overcast clouds were present as he heard the airplane fly overhead. The witness saw the airplane exit the clouds in a steep angle of descent with the engine operating at high power. The airplane disappeared behind a tree line and a few seconds later impacted a reservoir. The deviation from the intended flight path, erratic maneuvering, and steep descent in instrument meteorological conditions are consistent with spatial disorientation. A postaccident examination of the airplane and engine did not reveal any mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The engine and propeller exhibited signatures consistent with high engine power at impact. The vacuum pump remained intact and did not exhibit any preimpact anomalies. Although the pilot held an instrument rating, his total instrument flight experience could not be determined. The pilot's autopsy revealed severe coronary artery disease that put him at risk of an acute coronary event; however, it is unlikely that symptoms of shortness of breath, chest pain, palpitations, or fainting would lead to the type of airplane performance findings present in this case. Therefore, it is unlikely the pilot's heart disease contributed to the accident.  Although the coroner's toxicology testing identified ethanol, the fact that it was absent on two other tests of liver and brain tissue indicates it was from sources other than ingestion and did not contribute to the accident. There is no evidence of a medical condition or substance that contributed to this accident. Page 2 of 10 CEN17FA258
The commercial pilot completed a preflight inspection with no anomalies noted. He indicated that, shortly after takeoff, when the airplane was about 200 to 300 ft above ground level, the engine experienced a total loss of power. During the subsequent forced landing, the airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and fuselage. Postaccident examination of the engine and fuel system revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation; thus, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.