roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The flight instructor and student pilot were returning to their home airport in dark night visual meteorological conditions. Radar captured the airplane's progress as it flew toward the airport. The airplane maneuvered north of the airport, descended to about 200 ft above ground level (agl), turned left toward the airport, climbed to about 500 ft agl, and overflew the airport before turning north. Shortly thereafter, the airplane entered a descending right turn and subsequently impacted terrain in a left-wing-low attitude. The airplane was mostly consumed by a postimpact fire. The airplane's altimeter at the accident site indicated an altitude about 3,650 ft higher than the accident site elevation; however, impact and fire damage precluded functional testing of the altimeter and the reason for the discrepancy could not be determined. No other anomalies were detected with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.The area north of the airport and in the vicinity of the accident site was unpopulated with no cultural lighting. Due to the lack of ground lighting and the dark night conditions, the pilots would have had few visual references by which to perceive their altitude and proximity to terrain. Although such conditions are conducive to the development of spatial disorientation; the airplane's radar track and impact attitude are consistent with a controlled flight into terrain event rather than a loss of control due to spatial disorientation. The reason for the pilots' maneuvering at low altitude could not be determined based on the available information.
According to the pilot in the experimental, tailwheel-equipped airplane, when the tailwheel touched down during the landing roll, the right wing lifted, and the airplane veered to the left. The airplane exited the left side of the runway and continued about 100 ft down sloping terrain where it came to rest upright. The pilot and passenger exited the airplane and noticed smoke coming from the engine compartment. The pilot used a fire extinguisher from the airplane to spray the area of the smoke. However, the airplane continued smoking. The airplane was destroyed by a postcrash fire.The pilot reported that the wind was calm at the time of the accident. The METAR nearest to the accident airport reported the same.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot reported that, while in cruise flight, the engine started to sputter then experienced a total loss of power. The pilot attempted to restore power without success and conducted a forced landing to a field, where the airplane nosed over. The pilot stated that he did not use carburetor heat following the loss of engine power. A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunction or failures that would have precluded normal operation. A review of the recorded weather information in the area indicated that the atmospheric conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to the accumulation of serious carburetor icing at any power setting. The total loss of engine power was likely due to an accumulation of carburetor ice. Had the pilot immediately applied carburetor heat, it is possible that it would have cleared the ice and restored engine power.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll in crosswind conditions, a wind gust abruptly lifted the right wing. The pilot attempted to correct with control inputs but was unsuccessful. The airplane continued to veer to the left and came to a stop in a canal. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The automated weather observation system about 13 nautical miles from the accident site reported that, about 7 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 160° at 4 knots. The pilot reported that he landed to the east.
During a prebuy inspection flight, the airline transport pilot reduced engine power to test the airplane's slow-speed handling characteristics. He then increased the throttle to restore full engine power, but the engine seemed to "bog down" and lose power. He then lowered the airplane's nose, and engine power was restored. The pilot then chose to return to the airport, and while on approach, the engine again began to lose power, but lowering the airplane's nose did not increase the rpm this time. The pilot realized the airplane would be unable to reach the airport, so he conducted an off-airport landing in a residential area, during which the airplane impacted a fence. A postaccident engine run revealed that, after running at various power settings, when the power was reduced, the engine bogged down and backfired through the power takeoff (PTO) carburetor, and the rpm would not increase. The PTO cylinder ignition coil was replaced with a serviceable coil, and the engine was restarted for several minutes and run through various power setting. The engine accelerated normally without backfiring, hesitating, or stumbling.It is likely that, during the accident flight, the PTO cylinder ignition coil broke down, which resulted in an intermittent spark at the PTO spark plug and a partial loss of engine power.
The pilot and passenger onboard the experimental airplane were descending toward the destination at the conclusion of a cross-county flight when the engine rpm began to vary and the engine eventually lost power. The pilot initiated a forced landing to a clearing at a nearby construction site, during which the left wing impacted an obstacle, resulting in substantial damage.Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the fuel pump’s diaphragm, located on the drive shaft, was ruptured. The diaphragm was designed to prevent fuel system contamination. Remnants of the diaphragm were observed on the accessory side of the pump and the diaphragm was located inward from its original position on the drive shaft. It is likely that this ruptured diaphragm caused the fuel system to be contaminated with air and or oil and resulted in the loss of power to the engine. No other mechanical anomalies were revealed that would have precluded normal operation.
The airplane arrived to the airport as a refuel stop the day before the accident. During the landing, the airplane ground looped and sustained unknown damage to the airplane. Over the course of that day and the day of the accident, the pilot, who was also a mechanic, completed repairs to the airplane with the assistance from persons at the airport. A portion of the repairs included welding to the right main landing gear link assemblies, and any additional repairs to the airplane were unknown. During takeoff the day following the ground loop, the airplane veered to the left of the runway and struck a berm. The airplane became airborne and then impacted a steel culvert structure adjacent to the runway. The pilot died of his injuries 17 days after the accident. Persons who spoke to the pilot before and after the accident reported the pilot had minimal flying experience in recent years in the accident airplane. The pilot stated during his hospital stay after the accident that there were no mechanical issues during the accident takeoff.
The solo student pilot reported that, during landing, the airplane landed hard and bounced. He added that the airplane porpoised before coming to rest on the runway.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the engine mounts.The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during landing in a gusting crosswind, the airplane landed on the left wheel first. He added that "all of a sudden it was like a huge gust of wind took the plane and just threw it to the right." The propeller struck the runway, and the airplane then exited the runway to the right and came to rest inverted.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located on the airport revealed that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 190° at 9 knots, gusting to 17 knots. The airplane landed on runway 26.The Pilot's Operating Handbook contained a section titled, "Crosswind Landing," which stated, in part: "The maximum allowable crosswind velocity is dependent upon pilot capability rather than aircraft limitations. With average pilot technique, direct crosswinds of 15 knots can be handled with safety."
The commercial pilot of the jet trainer airplane departed on a local personal flight and flew for about an hour before returning to the airport. Witnesses saw the airplane make a high-speed pass over the runway at low altitude. Some thought the pilot may have been conducting a go-around. The airplane then entered a steep left bank, estimated to vary between 45&deg; and 90&deg;, then impacted the ground. The airplane was destroyed by impact and a postcrash fire, which precluded a thorough examination of its systems, including the flight controls; however, the engine displayed signatures of power production at the time of impact. Toxicology testing and autopsy of the pilot did not detect any impairing substances or identify significant physiological issues that may have resulted in incapacitation. It is likely that the pilot experienced an in-flight loss of control while maneuvering at low altitude; however, the reason for the loss of control could not be determined based on the available information.
The pilot reported that, during takeoff from a beach, a wind gust pushed the airplane down, and he was unable to arrest the descent. Subsequently, the right wing impacted the beach first, then the left wing, the left landing gear collapsed, and the airplane came to a stop. The airplane 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.According to the pilot, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 40° at 10 knots, gusting to 18 knots, and visibility was 10 miles. It is unknown from which direction the airplane was departing.
A glider was being towed for an introductory flight with the student in the front seat and the glider flight instructor in the rear seat. The glider flight instructor recorded the flight using a digital video camera. At the end of the first video, the tow plane and glider were on the upwind leg of the airport traffic pattern, during initial climb, and the glider was about 200 ft above ground level. The glider's airspeed indicated about 60 knots, and the glider's position relative to the tow plane was consistent with a high-tow position (that is, the glider was positioned slightly above the wake of the tow plane). The video then stopped for unknown reasons. About this time the instructor diverted his attention away from the tow plane. When the instructor looked back toward the tow plane, he did not immediately see it, but then noted that it was below and right of the glider.Analysis and extrapolation of the tow plane and glider flightpaths revealed that during this time the tow plane turned toward the crosswind leg, stopped climbing, and began to descend while the glider continued to climb. The video then showed that the glider's nose then yawed right, and the yaw string was nearly 90° right. The glider's yellow tow rope release handle moved partially aft, and then a snapping sound was heard followed by the tow rope release handle extending further. The tow plane's elevator was in the "up" position at that time, and the glider then turned left and returned to the airport. The tow plane descended nose down into the backyard of a residence and was consumed by postimpact fire.Microscopic examination of the tow rope separation revealed features indicative of overstress separation. This evidence and the snapping sound heard on the second video are consistent with the tow rope breaking about 1 second before the glider instructor fully pulled the tow rope release handle. The up-elevator and nose-down tow plane descent was consistent with the tension on the tow rope lifting the empennage of the tow plane. Examination of the tow plane did not reveal evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation, and there was no evidence that the pilot attempted to cut the tow rope with the tow plane's guillotine.Page 2 of 9 ERA18FA006The tow pilot had a history of hypertension, high cholesterol, and nonocclusive coronary artery disease. The pilot was taking medications to treat these conditions, but they were not considered impairing. According to the tow pilot's autopsy report, his heart was enlarged and he had mild-to-moderate atherosclerosis. Although the pilot's significant coronary artery disease increased his risk for an acute cardiac event, no evidence was found during the autopsy indicating that such an event occurred.On the basis of the available evidence, the investigation could not determine if the tow plane pilot experienced a medical event during the accident flight or why the airplane stopped climbing at 200 ft rather than continuing to climb to the tow-release altitude.
The commercial pilot stated that, after departure in the balloon, the surface wind increased to about 20 knots during the 1-hour flight. Due to the balloon's direction of flight approaching restricted airspace, the pilot decided to land at the first suitable landing site, which was bordered by power lines and trees to the north and residential homes 100 yards to the south. He landed the balloon in a steep descent to reduce the risk of the basket being dragged on the ground and briefed the passengers to bend their knees and brace for impact. The basket made firm ground contact upon landing and tipped over. The wind dragged the basket about 30 ft before it came to rest. One passenger sustained a broken foot during the hard landing.The pilot reported that wind conditions were predicted to be light, and that the conditions he experienced were not forecast. He further stated that he was not familiar with the local flying area, and had he familiarized himself with the area, including potential landing areas and weather patterns, he may have been able to avoid being pressured to land in high-wind conditions.
According to the pilot, he began the takeoff roll from a runway intersection and pitched the airplane's nose up for maximum climb to avoid trees; however, he stated, "I over-rotated and entered a power-on stall." He attempted to correct by lowering the nose, but the airplane rolled to the left and entered the trees before impacting a house.The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and the fuselage.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 airplane reported that, while on an instrument flight rules approach to land in instrument meteorological conditions at night, he was "a little late descending" on the glideslope. He added that, during the approach, he increased the descent rate and became "a little right of course." He noticed approach lights but became "fixated" on the instruments while attempting to correct for being off course. Subsequently, the airplane struck the tops of trees, and he immediately pulled up. He landed without further incident.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing, empennage, and fuselage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The automated weather observation system at the accident airport reported, about the time of the accident, that the wind was from 140° at 5 knots, visibility 3/4 statute mile, light rain, and clouds overcast at 200 ft. The pilot landed on runway 9 and flew the RNAV GPS runway 9 approach.
The private pilot reported that, after takeoff, he climbed the airplane to 200 ft above ground level, at which point it experienced an "appreciable" loss of engine power, the flight controls became "sluggish," and the airplane would no longer climb. He noted that the engine was operating about 275 rpm below the nominal full-power setting of 2,275 rpm at takeoff. The pilot chose to conduct a forced landing to a field directly off the departure end of the runway. During the landing roll, the airplane struck fences, which resulted in substantial damage to both wings. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the No. 2 cylinder exhaust valve was stuck in the open (compressed) position without rocker-arm contact. The valve remained in the open position through several rotations of the crankshaft. The stuck exhaust valve would have resulted in the partial loss of engine power and the airplane's inability to climb.
The Ultramagic balloon pilot reported that, during a balloon festival, after a local sightseeing flight, he landed the balloon and decided to wait for the ground crew to locate the balloon before deflating. He added that, as the balloon was deflating, he "heard a basket sliding across the top of [his] balloon." The balloon rotated counter-clockwise, and the balloon basket, still loaded with passengers, rolled upside down. The Ultramagic balloon sustained substantial damage to the burner rack. One passenger sustained serious injuries.The Lindstrand balloon pilot reported that, during landing, there were two balloons in his flightpath. He added that he climbed and passed the first balloon but was unable to pass the second balloon, and "I brushed him with my basket on the top of his balloon." He landed the balloon without further incident.The Ultramagic pilot and the Lindstrand operations manager reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the balloons that would have precluded normal operation.
The purpose of the training flight was to practice autorotations with power recovery. The flight instructor reported that, as the helicopter descended through about 40 ft, he instructed the student pilot to increase the landing flare and roll on throttle for power recovery. As the helicopter continued to quickly descend to about 8 ft, they raised the collective, and the flight instructor felt resistance in the collective. The rpms began to drag down, and he tried rolling on the throttle to bring the rpms back up. The flight instructor reported that he believed that the student had tensed up on the throttle and collective as he tried to keep the helicopter level and cushion for the landing. The student pilot reported that, in hindsight, he was pulling up on the collective, but his hand (wrist) was locked, which prevented the governor to roll on and increase power. The helicopter subsequently landed hard, which resulted in substantial damage the fuselage. The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation
The private pilot of the multi-engine airplane reported that, shortly after takeoff, the right engine experienced a partial loss of power and the airplane yawed to the right. The airplane entered the clouds about 1,100 ft msl and became more difficult to control. The pilot lowered the nose to increase airspeed and the airplane exited the cloud layer in a nose-down, right-wing-low attitude. He stated that he corrected the airplane's attitude and landed in a corn field. Examination of the airplane, engines, and the right engine fuel controls revealed no anomalies. Based on the available evidence, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
A pilot-rated witness saw the airplane in the traffic pattern conducting what seemed to be a normal approach to landing. The witness stated that, during the landing flare, the pilot appeared to be "over controlling the plane" and that he subsequently performed a go-around without touching down. The airplane remained in the traffic pattern for the second approach. The witness then saw the airplane about two-thirds of the way down the runway, and it was not climbing at the same rate as it had during the previous two departures. As the airplane passed the departure end of the runway, the right wing dropped, and the airplane descended straight down below a stand of trees and then reappeared with the nose slightly up and pointing generally to the left of the runway centerline. It then disappeared behind the trees again and crashed. The witness reported that the engine sounded normal during the entire flight. This evidence indicates that the pilot lost airplane control and that the airplane likely entered an aerodynamic stall during the attempted go-around.Examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot purchased the airplane about 5 months before the accident, and the accident flight was his first flight in the airplane. He had not recorded a flight review in about 25 years.About 3 years before the accident, the pilot applied for a Federal Aviation Administration medical certificate, which was denied for multiple physical and mental health reasons, and the pilot did not appeal the denial. Thus, the pilot was ineligible to fly any aircraft. According to personal medical records, the pilot had obsessive compulsive disorder, depression/anxiety (not further specified), paroxysmal atrial fibrillation/supraventricular tachycardia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. He had also had a hernia and had undergone back surgery. Although individually controlled, the pilot's numerous physical health issues in the year preceding the accident likely exacerbated his underlying psychiatric illnesses.Page 2 of 8 ERA18FA005Postaccident toxicology testing identified sertraline, which is used to treat depression, and its metabolite desmethylsertraline in blood and liver; however, this medication does not generally affect judgment or decision-making, thus it is unlikely that the effects from the pilot's medications contributed to the accident. However, it is likely that his depression and anxiety affected his judgment and contributed to his improper decision to initiate the flight in an airplane he had never flown, especially given he had not flown for several years and was not eligible to fly any aircraft; this poor decision-making ultimately led to the accident.
The pilot reported that, during a familiarization flight, he took off and "noticed a strong left turning tendency." He added that he "kept the power at a higher, time restricted setting," which resulted in the coolant temperature rising above the 180°F maximum operating temperature. Although there were no indications of performance degradation, he "became concerned" that the airplane could lose engine power due to overheating and decided to make a precautionary landing. During the landing, the airplane bounced, and he decided to go around. Subsequently, the airplane struck a hangar roof about 75 ft left of the runway centerline and then came to rest on the opposite side of the hangar.The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and the fuselage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.