roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that, during the landing, the airplane veered left “uncontrollably,” exited the runway, struck vegetation and an airport perimeter fence. The left wing and left aileron were substantially damaged.  The pilot stated that the “elevators and brakes did not respond or stop the [air]plane once [it] deviated from the runway.”  Postaccident examination of the airplane flight controls and brake system revealed no evidence of any preaccident mechanical malfunction or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during takeoff roll the airplane was not performing as normal. The pilot aborted the takeoff, completed an additional engine run-up and no anomalies were noted. The pilot performed a second takeoff, and the airplane did not gain sufficient altitude to clear powerlines along the flight path. The pilot initiated a forced landing to a field and the airplane sustained substantial damage when it contacted the rough terrain. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed the No. 4 cylinder exhaust valve was stuck closed. No additional evidence indicated any preexisting mechanical malfunction or failure that would have precluded normal operation. Thus, the stuck valve likely caused the partial loss of engine power.
The pilot reported that, he was a little behind the airplane because of the short duration of the flight and he did not use a prelanding checklist to verify that the landing gear was extended before touchdown. The bottom of the fuselage was substantially damaged during the gear up landing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was landing the tailwheel-equipped airplane in light crosswind conditions. He reported that just before touchdown the airplane began to settle. He added power and after a hard three-point landing the airplane veered left. He corrected back to centerline; however, the airplane went right and then left again and exited the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the empennage and right horizontal stabilizer. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, while practicing stop and go landings, the airplane touched down and immediately veered left. The pilot attempted to correct with opposite rudder and brakes. During the braking action, the airplane subsequently nosed over and came to rest inverted, which resulted in substantial damage to the wing structure. The pilot stated that there was no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operations. At the time of the accident, the pilot was landing the airplane on runway 17 R (turf) with wind from 080 at 10 knots with gusts of 15 knots.
According to the pilots, who were both owners and builders of the airplane, while maneuvering during a local flight, the engine began to run rough. The engine power continued to decrease until they could not maintain altitude. Unable to reach a nearby airport, the pilot flying elected to perform an off-airport emergency landing. During the landing, the airplane impacted uneven terrain, which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed the No. 5 cylinder exhaust valve rocker arm attach stud/bolt had failed. About 5 flight hours before the accident, the owners had replaced the No. 5 cylinder exhaust valve, which included the removal and reinstallation of the rocker arm hardware. The push rod contained an oil passage hole on one end that allowed for lubrication of the rocker arm, and the other end did not contain an oil passage. According to the owner, during the installation he incorrectly installed the push rod in a backward position. The incorrect installation did not allow lubrication to reach the rocker arm, causing it to fail.
The student pilot was conducting a solo cross-country flight when he did not arrive at his destination as expected. The wreckage was located three days later at an elevation of about 2,560 ft mean sea level in an area of tundra and rock-covered terrain. Examination indicated that the airplane impacted terrain in a near-vertical attitude. There were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or anomalies of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation, and the propeller displayed evidence that the engine was producing power at the time of impact.Multiple witnesses along the route of flight reported seeing the airplane flying just above the trees in very poor weather conditions. Weather camera images taken near the accident site around the time of the accident showed near-zero visibility and clouds near the surface. Although these conditions had been forecast, there was no record of the pilot obtaining weather information from an access-controlled source before he departed on the flight. Review of the pilot’s flight training history and endorsements revealed that he did not possess a valid solo cross-country endorsement for the accident flight. The pilot’s flight instructor had not provided any instruction in flight by reference to instruments because the pilot’s airplane was not equipped for instrument flight.Although toxicology testing of the pilot indicated that he had used cannabis at some point before the accident, given that no psychoactive compounds were identified in blood and that urine and blood concentrations of the inactive metabolite, THC-COOH, do not necessarily reflect recent use, it is unlikely that the pilot’s use of cannabis contributed to the accident.Page 2 of 9 ANC22FA053Based on the wreckage signature and weather at the time of the accident, the pilot likely lost control of the airplane while maneuvering after encountering near-zero visibility in the dense cloud cover.
The student pilot reported that, during the flare for landing, the airplane experienced ground effect and was settling down to the runway when it was hit by “a very intense wind shear with a gust…” The pilot stated that the airplane yawed to the left and that he could not recover as the airplane exited the runway onto the grass. The airplane’s right wing was substantially damaged when it collided with a Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI). The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
During departure climbout for spray operations, the pilot heard a “pop” and observed white smoke trailing the airplane. The pilot made a forced landing, during which the airplane struck an airport perimeter fence that resulted in substantial damaged to both wings. Examination revealed that all compressor turbine (CT) rotor blades were fractured at varying spanwise locations. The power turbine (PT) rotor blades downstream of the CT blades exhibited impact damage and were fractured at varying spanwise locations. Metallurgical analysis of the CT blades revealed micro-voids were present along the material grain boundaries and rafting of the gamma prime which were indicative of creep. Metallurgical analysis of the CT blades revealed solutioning of the gamma prime which is consistent with exposure to temperature in excess of the engine operating limits. It was not determined if the exposure to elevated temperatures occurred before or during the event.
The pilot, who held a private pilot certificate with an airplane single-engine land rating, was transitioning to flying gliders and had about 27 hours of glider flying experience at the time of the accident. On the afternoon of the accident flight he had completed two instructional flights before being signed off for his first solo flight. After departing on the solo flight, the pilot released the glider from the tow airplane at the planned altitude of 2,000 ft above ground level (agl). The pilot knew he was about 2 miles from the departure airport, but he was having difficulty locating the turf runway due to the glare of the setting sun. After descending to about 1,100 ft agl, and still not being able to locate the runway, he selected a corn field for an off-airport landing. The glider’s fuselage and right wing were substantially damaged during the subsequent landing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures of the glider that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he departed with the airplane’s fuel tanks full and proceeded along a route recommended by local pilots to clear the surrounding terrain. The pilot noted that the airplane’s climb performance was “less than normal” and that the airplane was “struggling” to maintain a climb rate of 500 ft per minute. As the airplane approached terrain, the pilot considered a “hard turn,” but was concerned about losing airspeed and the proximity of the terrain and chose to continue at the airplane’s best rate of climb. The airplane subsequently began to scrape across trees in a level attitude, then settled into the trees. The airplane came to rest in heavily-wooded terrain at an elevation about 2,230 ft mean sea level (msl) southeast of the departure airport. Examination of the engine revealed that the induction air boot from the airbox to the fuel injector unit was severely degraded. No other anomalies were observed that would have precluded normal operation. Performance information from the airplane’s pilot operating handbook indicated that the expected rate of climb given the airplane’s gross weight and the atmospheric conditions present at the time of the accident was about 1,300 ft per minute at a best rate of climb speed of 113 mph indicated airspeed. Based on this information, the airplane would travel a horizontal distance of about 2.8 statute miles (sm) to reach an altitude of 2,500 ft msl. The accident site was located about 3 sm straight-line distance from the departure airport. The departure airport was located in a valley adjacent to a ridgeline that ran northeast/southwest. Another airport was located in the valley about 9 nautical miles south of the departure airport. Review of the sectional chart revealed that the accident site was located just north of a peak with a charted elevation of 2,289 ft msl, the highest terrain in the immediate vicinity of the departure airport.Page 2 of 8 ERA22LA307It is possible that the condition of the fuel injector airbox boot could have affected airflow over the fuel injector impact tubes and the performance of the fuel injectors. Although this effect could not be quantified based on the available information, it may have contributed to the pilot’s perception of decreased climb performance. If the pilot had concerns about the airplane’s climb performance after takeoff, the options available included returning to the departure airport, continuing south along the valley and gaining altitude before turning on course, or diverting to the airport to the south. However, the available evidence suggests that, after takeoff, the pilot turned the airplane toward the destination airport and the area of highest terrain surrounding the departure airport, where the airplane subsequently impacted trees and rising terrain.
The pilot reported that, shortly after departure, about 6,000 ft above mean sea level, the engine lost all power. He declared an emergency with air traffic control and stated that he needed to return to the airport. He subsequently switched fuel tanks and attempted multiple engine restarts, but power could not be restored. Unable to reach the runway, he performed a forced landing to a field, during which the airplane bounced, the right main landing gear collapsed, and the airplane slid until it came to rest upright, which resulted in substantial damage to the elevator.Following the accident, fuel was drained from the left and right main fuel tanks as well as the right auxiliary fuel tank. When the left auxiliary fuel tank was checked, no fuel was present. No contaminants were found in any of the fuel samples. The pilot stated that he departed with an estimated 68 gallons of fuel on board, after adding about 60 gallons in the main fuel tanks. The wreckage was sold before it could be examined by the National Transportation Safety Board; therefore, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The pilot reported that, upon landing, the airplane bounced and he elected to go around. He added power and heard the engine spool up. The airplane became airborne again, but at the top of the bounce, the pilot felt the right wing rapidly dip and he applied left aileron to correct it.  The right-wing started to rise, but before it leveled off, he heard it contact the corn. The airplane spun to the right and landed in the corn field, resulting in substantial damage to aft fuselage and empennage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was landing the tailwheel-equipped airplane in light crosswind conditions. He reported that after landing he was attempting to resolve a tailwheel shimmy when the airplane began to ground loop and exited the runway. The right main landing gear dug into soft dirt along the runway shoulder and the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that after encountering some unexpected wind shear about 10,000 ft mean sea level, he decided to terminate the flight and return to the departure airport. Given the ground wind conditions, the pilot entered a left traffic pattern to the gravel runway. For an unknown reason, the pilot turned final and lined up for landing on an adjacent parallel gravel roadway. The glider touched down normally and impacted a parked trailer with the right wing. The right wing sustained substantial damage to the leading edge. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the glider that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, the day before the accident, he filled the airplane to capacity with fuel and then flew 50 miles to his home base. On the day of the accident, he visually examined the fuel tanks through the filler caps but did not use a dipstick. The right tank was full, and he determined that the left fuel tank contained about 15 gallons. He selected the right tank for takeoff and initial cruise, however the selector valve handle felt stiffer than usual.About halfway into the flight as he was about to switch tanks, he noticed that the right fuel tank gauge was still indicating full, but the left tank was empty. He confirmed the right tank was selected, but a short time later the engine lost all power. He performed trouble shooting steps and moved the fuel selector valve back and forth, but it now felt loose. A forced landing was initiated at a nearby airport, however, the airplane landed short of the runway, struck a fence, and the right wing sustained substantial damage.Post-accident examination revealed that the right fuel tank had been breached on impact and contained no fuel, and although the left fuel tank was intact, it was empty. There was no fuel in the line from the fuel selector valve to the carburetor, and the carburetor bowl was empty. Both fuel caps were in place at their respective filler necks, all fuel lines fittings were tight, and there was no evidence on the airframe or wings of staining or streaks to indicate an inflight fuel leak.The fuel selector valve handle was pointing to the right tank and could be moved between positions but felt tight and had a rasping action. Once in the respective tank positions, the handle was loose, and no definitive detent was felt. Further examination revealed that the handle was slipping on the selector shaft, which remained stationary at the left tank position.Mooney specifications called for the handle to be keyed in position with a roll pin fitted to the shaft and secured with a set screw. Examination revealed that the roll pin had previously broken, and the handle was instead held in place with an oversized stainless-steel screw in place of the set screw. The screw appeared to have come loose, such that without the roll pin it was not positively attached to the shaft. Page 2 of 6 WPR22LA243Under this condition, movement of the handle did not result in movement of the fuel sector valve, and it was stuck in the left position throughout the accident and previous flights.A photo of the instrument panel that the pilot stated he took about 40 minutes before the loss of engine power indicated that the airplane was flying at an altitude of 6,500 ft. The left tank contained between 8 and 10 gallons of fuel. This should still have been sufficient for continued flight beyond the accident location. However, the accuracy of the gauges could not be determined, and the airplane was not equipped with a secondary fuel quantity reference device such as a totalizer. Additionally, because the pilot did not dip the tank before takeoff, the true quantity of preflight fuel could not be determined.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll, she had a small bounce before setting all three wheels on the ground. She was unable to apply enough rudder control to stop the airplane from entering an uncontrolled ground loop. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the light sport airplane reported that he was flying to an uncontrolled airport to attend an airshow later during the day. The destination airport traffic pattern was busy with several airplanes in the traffic pattern and a flight of three north of the airport. The pilot entered the traffic pattern by overflying the airport and crossing midfield onto a left downwind leg. At that point, a life flight helicopter reported 2.5 miles southwest. The pilot subsequently heard a report from the helicopter again and asked him where he was. The helicopter stated that he was on the right base leg for runway 11 and number two to land. The pilot of the airplane announced turning to final for runway 11. He was over the threshold at 20 ft above ground level when he saw the helicopter cross the runway several hundred feet ahead of him. The airplane then encountered the rotor wash, rolled right inverted and struck the runway, coming to rest on the runway. The pilot of the helicopter reported that he departed his home base about 2.5 miles from the airport to attend an airshow public relations event at the airport. He entered a right base leg for runway 11 and stated intentions to land No. 2 as there were four airplanes in the traffic pattern and airplane No. 3 (the accident airplane) was turning from left downwind to left base. The helicopter approached the runway numbers, sidestepped north to taxiway A1, and landed at a predesignated position on the taxiway for the airshow. After shutting down, the pilot was told by ground personnel that the airplane following him was involved in an accident.
The pilot stated that the airplane inadvertently became airborne during a high-speed taxi test.  After becoming airborne, the pilot elected to conduct a local flight to test the performance of the airplane and its newly-installed engine. While on approach back to the airport, the pilot stated that he allowed the airplane get too slow, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall at about 25 feet above ground level (agl).  The airplane then impacted the ground resulting in substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage. 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 on approach for the runway, he reduced power and made his right turn to final. As the airplane turned, he rolled it back to the left to line up with the runway. The airplane did not respond to the control inputs to the left and it continued to the right side of the runway. The pilot added full power to initiate a go-around but was unable to gain enough altitude to clear a tree and stop the right-hand turn. The pilot pulled the power to idle and landed on the right side of the runway. The airplane landed hard, left of the tree and to the right side of the runway. The left-wing strut contacted a hay bale which resulted in substantial damage to the left-wing strut. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot had previously accumulated about 40 total hours of flight experience, but the accident flight with the flight instructor was his first after having not flown for about six years. During the first approach to landing, the flight instructor directed the student to perform a touch-and-go landing. The student pilot stated that he felt “nervous” given the amount of time that had elapsed since he had last flown. The student thought that he subsequently landed the airplane hard and recalled hearing the sound of “crunching metal.” His next recollection was waking up on the runway as the airplane caught fire. The student pilot and the flight instructor were seriously injured and the airplane’s fuselage was substantially damaged during the landing and subsequent postimpact fire. Despite several attempts to contact him, the flight instructor could not be reached following the accident and did not provide a statement about the accident.
The pilot reported that the airplane was fueled before beginning the agricultural application flight.About an hour into the flight, the pilot was climbing the airplane following a spray pass when he heard a “bang” and the engine lost power about 350 ft above ground level (agl). The pilot maneuvered the airplane for a forced landing and stated that the airplane touched down with too much speed. It subsequently bounced and continued into trees, resulting in substantial damage to the airframe. Postaccident examination of the wreckage revealed that there was fuel on board, and examination of the engine did not reveal evidence of any mechanical anomalies that would preclude normal operation. The power turbine blade displayed some rubbing indicative of rotation of the power section at the time of impact; however, the rubbing damage was limited and was consistent with low or reduced power. The reason for the loss of power could not be determined based on the available information.
The pilot was attempting a soft-field takeoff in his light-sport airplane. A review of surveillance video revealed that, as the airplane began its initial climb, the pitch angle increased, and the airplane entered a steep left bank turn. The airplane turned left about 180° and descended behind trees. The airplane collided with a hangar and terrain before it came to rest in the driveway of a residence. The engine sounded normal from the beginning of the takeoff roll until impact. Postaccident examination of the airframe, engine, and propeller revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Review of postaccident medical records, including the autopsy data and toxicology reports, revealed no obvious medical issues that would have contributed to the accident. As such, the reason for the pilot’s failure to maintain control of the airplane on takeoff was not determined.