roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that, he was landing the tailwheel-equipped airplane on a dirt runway with a left crosswind. During the landing roll, before the tailwheel was fully lowered, the left wing lifted. The pilot applied the brakes firmly, and the airplane nosed over. The left-wing lift strut and the vertical stabilizer were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot had replaced the brakes pads and repacked the bearing on both main landing gear earlier in the day. He reported that the hydraulic system was not disturbed during this maintenance. The taxi to takeoff was uneventful. When the airplane took off from airport, the pilot noted that the right wheel was “sticking.” He pressed the brake and could not determine if the brake was operating correctly. He entered the traffic pattern and returned to land. Upon touchdown the right wheel brake was stuck, and the airplane immediately veered to the right. The pilot applied left rudder and brake to try to regain control of the airplane but was unsuccessful. The airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted which resulted in substantial damage to both wings, the fuselage, and the rudder. Postaccident examination of the airplane found that the right brake would not release until the bleed valve screw was loosened. Testing of the brakes system after the valve was released did not duplicate the stuck brake.
The pilot planned to take off and remain in the traffic pattern as part of a post-maintenance test flight of the airplane. After climbing to about 200 ft above the runway, the engine started to gradually lose power to about 15-20% engine power. The pilot had begun maneuvering the airplane for a forced landing when it entered an aerodynamic stall. The pilot attempted to recover from the stall; however, the airplane impacted terrain and nosed over, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage, left wing, wing struts, and empennage.Postaccident examination determined that the power supply wire for the experimental engine’s electronic control unit (ECU) was loose in the crimped terminal. It is likely that during the flight, the intermittent power source to the ECU activated the engine’s “limp mode,” which resulted in a reduction of engine power to a level that was insufficient to maintain altitude. The engine’s limp mode is a safety feature designed to protect the engine and powertrain in automotive applications.
The pilot reported that he and his passenger were on the second flight of the day when the accident occurred. He refueled the airplane with 8 gallons and departed on the accident flight with a total of 19 gallons of fuel on board. During the accident flight the pilot maintained equal levels of fuel in both wing tanks for about 1 hour 20 minutes into the 2-hour flight, when he placed the fuel selector to “BOTH.” Calculations based on time and fuel flow indicated that about 7.5 gallons of fuel was consumed during the flight.The pilot reported that he saw his fuel pressure gauge move from indicating green to 0 psi. The pilot turned on the fuel pump and soon after the engine started to “sputter” and then the propeller stopped. He attempted to restart the engine three times without success. Although the airplane was equipped with an emergency parachute, the pilot elected to execute a forced landing to an unpaved service road; subsequently, the landing gear collapsed and the airplane veered into a fence. The airplane’s wing and fuselage, including the windshield right pillar, sustained substantial damage. The right fuel tank delivery lines at the inboard side of the right wing separated from impact damage, and an undetermined amount of fuel continued to pour into the cabin area as the pilot and passenger were egressing the airplane.Postaccident examination of the engine and airframe revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The reason for the total loss of engine power could not be determined.
During a discovery flight, the passenger asked the instructor if they could land at a private airstrip near his residence. The instructor was not familiar with this particular airstrip, nor had he consulted the airplane’s performance charts to determine if a safe landing and takeoff could be completed, but he still agreed to land. After landing to the west, the instructor turned the airplane around to depart to the east, as the wind appeared calm. He performed a short-field takeoff and observed the engine speed advance as the airplane began to move down the runway. When the airplane was about midfield, the instructor noticed that both his digital and analog airspeed indicators displayed 0 knots. Shortly after making this observation, after the airplane had traveled about 3/4 of the total length of the 1,300-ft-long runway, he decided to abort the landing. The airplane subsequently collided with a fence at the end of the runway and trees beyond the runway edge. A postaccident examination of the airplane did not reveal any preimpact mechanical anomalies with the airframe or engine that could have precluded normal operation. Examination of the pitot/static system did not indicate any failures or blockages. Performance computations indicated that the airplane had the required performance to complete the takeoff from a paved, level runway; however, the departure runway was composed of dirt, which the takeoff performance chart did not account for. Performance charts also indicated that the airplane did not have the distance necessary to stop when the instructor aborted the takeoff to avoid impacting the fence at the end of the runway. Therefore, the instructor’s delayed decision to abort the takeoff resulted in a collision with a fence and a tree. His decision to land at the unfamiliar airstrip without determining whether the airplane’s performance capabilities were adequate to perform a safe takeoff and landing contributed to the accident. Page 2 of 7 WPR22LA320
The helicopter pilot reported that, he set-up for an approach over hilly terrain with a strong tailwind. Descending on a left base the helicopter began to drift due to the wind, so the pilot added collective pitch to control the descent rate however, the helicopter rapidly descended despite the control input. The pilot initiated a run-on landing to the unimproved featureless tundra that appeared level. Upon ground contact the helicopter dynamically rolled over on its right side. The fuselage was substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the pilot, he was distracted by communications difficulties due to issues with the airplane’s headset jacks while conducting an instrument approach. The pilot reported that the landing gear warning horn did not alert him as to the gear being in the “up” position and, in the resulting landing, he did not lower the landing gear. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the lower fuselage. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the landing gear warning horn was inoperative.
The private pilot reported that, during landing, the airplane “bounced three times.” Following the third bounce the “nose wheel hit the runway in an abrupt manner.”  This impact resulted in substantial damage to the forward 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 there had been light rain in the morning prior to the flight and when he took off from the turf airstrip to conduct an aerial application flight, the turf was wet from the rain. Following applying fertilizer to a nearby cornfield, the pilot returned to the airstrip to land. After the main landing gear and tailwheel touched down and as the pilot applied brakes to steer, the airplane skidded, and the right wing struck cornstalks in the adjacent field. The airplane then ground-looped and rolled over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and left wing and aileron. The pilot reported that there were no other preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation, and that there were no mechanical malfunctions with the brake system.
The accident flight was part of a training and demonstration flight that included a series of aerobatic maneuvers. Flight track data for the accident flight revealed that the airplane departed and maneuvered for about 7 minutes before impacting terrain almost directly under the last data point. No linear ground scar was observed at the accident site, which was indicative of the airplane having descended nearly vertically to ground impact. Additionally, the wreckage was found in an inverted orientation. Examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of a preimpact mechanical anomaly that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane structure, the flight controls, or the engine. Estimated weight and balance calculations revealed that the airplane’s weight and its aft center of gravity were likely at or near the limit for aerobatic flight. Given the purpose of the flight, the flight track, and the orientation of the wreckage, it is likely that the pilot lost control of the airplane while performing aerobatic maneuvers and that the airplane inadvertently entered an inverted flat spin. A fracture of the elevator torque tube at the aft bulkhead opening corresponded with the elevator control surface being in the full nose-up position when the airplane impacted the ground, which would have been a position consistent with the pilot attempting to recover from an inverted flat spin. The airplane’s weight and aft center of gravity likely contributed to the pilot’s inability to recover from the spin. Thus, the inverted flat spin likely continued until the airplane impacted terrain.Toxicology testing revealed subtherapeutic concentration of chlorpheniramine in the pilot’s blood, which likely did not cause significant symptoms. Hydrocodone and its active metabolites (hydromorphone and dihydrocodeine) were detected in the pilot’s urine but not in his blood, so they would not have had any therapeutic effect or side effect. Thus, the detected Page 2 of 9 ERA22FA384chlorpheniramine, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, anddihydrocodeine did not contribute to this accident.
The pilot reported that, just after take-off and while conducting the after-take-off checklist, the airplane drifted to the right and the right wing struck in a corn field. The airplane subsequently nosed over and came to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing, vertical stabilizer, and rudder. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot stated that he "landed long and thought he had plenty of room to stop”. Near the end of the runway, the pilot tried to veer into the grass on the right side of the runway to avoid going onto the highway. He thought he could make a U-turn in the grass but was unable. The airplane slid into a fence, which resulted in substantial damage to the fire wall.  The pilot said there were no mechanical malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operations.
The pilot was conducting a personal flight. During the initial climb after takeoff, the engine lost partial power, and the airplane was unable to maintain altitude. The pilot initiated a forced landing to a nearby field; during the landing roll, the airplane impacted uneven terrain and came to rest upright, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage.Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the No. 2 cylinder exhaust valve exhibited signatures consistent with a stuck valve, including a buildup of carbon deposits, and the exhaust valve could only be moved out of the valve guide with a significant amount of force. No additional evidence indicated any pre-existing mechanical malfunction or failure that would have precluded normal operation. Thus, the stuck exhaust valve likely caused the partial loss of engine power.
While on the takeoff roll from a stop-and-go landing, the flight instructor scanned the instruments and noticed that the airspeed indicator was at zero. He perceived that the engine was producing full power and that the airplane had “enough lift” but the airspeed needle was not moving. He considered aborting the takeoff but determined there was insufficient runway to stop. The airspeed needle began to move, and the flight instructor rotated the airplane for takeoff. The airplane would not climb, so he banked the airplane to maneuver around trees at the end of the runway. The airplane collided with the trees which resulted in substantial damage to the wing and fuselage. The flight instructor indicated that there were no mechanical malfunctions that contributed to the accident. The flight instructor indicated that they started the takeoff roll with about 1,300 ft of runway. Airfield information put 63 ft trees 500 ft from the end of the runway. Performance calculations revealed that to clear a 50 ft obstacle, a 2,000 ft takeoff distance was required.
The pilot reported that, during landing, the airplane “bounced”; however, he felt that he had “full control of the glide for the rest of the landing”. The airplane bounced again after which the propeller struck the ground and the nose landing gear collapsed when the airplane stopped. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the forward fuselage.
The pilot in the float equipped airplane reported that, during takeoff into the wind from a lake, the left wing suddenly lifted. The pilot attempted to correct with aileron input; however, the right wing contacted the water. The floatplane nosed over and partially sank. The left wing was 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 and the passenger/observer, who were both law enforcement personnel, were flying in a helicopter on a law enforcement mission when it struck a marked, 1-inch diameter, energized (161K volt) aluminum high-tension powerline cable. The high-tension powerlines were about 430 ft tall and about 3,800 ft long. A witness was driving on a nearby interstate when he observed the helicopter flying low and close to the powerlines. The witness reported that he was concerned the helicopter was going to hit the lines. He described the helicopter as hovering, and it did not appear to be in distress. The witness then saw the helicopter strike the powerlines and observed an “arc.” The helicopter spun a few times as it descended and went out of view.  The helicopter came to rest in heavily wooded and steep mountainous terrain, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage, main rotor, and tail rotor. A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions and failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was repositioning the airplane to a local airport for maintenance and an annual inspection. The pilot stated the engine start and runup were normal. During takeoff, shortly after the airplane exited ground effect, the left engine had a partial loss of power. The pilot saw powerlines and, to avoid them, initiated a forced landing on a road just past the end of the runway. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any mechanical anomalies that existed before the impact. The pilot reported that the airplane sat idle for several years and he last added fuel to the airplane about 2 years before the accident. A fuel sample from the accident airplane was green in color, consistent with the introduction of copper to aviation grade gasoline, which typically presents after the fuel has been stagnant for over 2 years. Although it’s possible that the condition of the fuel affected its combustion properties, further testing of the accident fuel for combustion could not be completed due to the disposal of the recovered fuel.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that the accident flight was uneventful from takeoff to touchdown. However, during the landing roll, the right brake was inoperative, causing the airplane to veer to the left and off the runway surface into a ditch, which resulted in the right main landing gear collapsing and the right wing impacting terrain.A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the right brake master cylinder piston rod had disconnected from the right rudder pedal attach point, and that the cotter pin was missing from the clevis pin. The airplane had undergone a conversion to a hydraulic toe brake rudder assembly about 3 years before the accident. However, the investigation was unable to determine, from the available evidence for this accident investigation, if the cotter pin was not installed, improperly installed, or subsequently damaged. The airplane’s an annual inspection was accomplished 12 days and about 1.3 flight hours before the accident. The mechanic who performed the inspection stated that he inspected the right brake system but did not recall or notice if the cotter pin was installed in the clevis pin. Given the short interval between the inspection and the accident, it is likely that the mechanic failed to adequately inspect the connection of the right rudder pedal to its brake system.
The pilot reported that, while taxiing after landing, the left wing struck a tree, which resulted in 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.
Relatives of the pilot said the pilot would often conduct low-altitude flights and perform aerobatic maneuvers over their home. They stated that on the day of the accident, the pilot overflew their home and made a total of three passes. During the third pass, the relatives estimated the airplane was about 100 ft above the ground flying from north to south when it entered a barrel roll and descended out of sight behind trees, where it impacted the ground. The family members stated that they thought the pilot started the maneuver lower than normal and that the maneuver was not flown smoothly. They described hearing the engine running steady and did not hear anything abnormal before the accident. Flight data from an onboard flight instrument and a separate witness video corroborated the relatives’ statements. Examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.Toxicology testing revealed that the pilot had used cannabis; its inactive metabolite THC-COOH was detected in his heart blood and lung tissue. No active THC was found in his blood or lung tissue. While the pilot’s pattern of cannabis use is unknown, given the lack of psychoactive THC or 11-OH-THC in his blood, it is unlikely that the pilot was under the influence of THC. Toxicology testing also detected diphenhydramine in the pilot’s liver tissue. While diphenhydramine carries a warning about the potential for mental and physical impairment in performing hazardous activities, there was no drug found in his blood. Thus, effects from the pilot’s use of diphenhydramine were not a factor in this accident.Page 2 of 8 WPR22FA312The accident is consistent with the pilot electing to conduct an ostentatious flight display at low altitude and his subsequent failure to perform a rolling aerobatic maneuver correctly, which resulted in a loss of control and impact with terrain.
The pilot reported that while landing the vintage tailwheel airplane on a turf airstrip, the airplane veered left when the tailwheel touched down. The airplane traveled off the runway and the right wing struck a tree, resulting in substantial damage to the right wing. Postaccident examination of the tailwheel revealed that the locking mechanism was worn, which likely resulted in the tailwheel not being appropriately aligned with the rudder position during the landing.
Concerned parties reported the pilot missing after not returning from a flight.  Multiple agencies conducted a search for the missing pilot and airplane, however, neither the pilot, airplane, nor wreckage debris was located. Radar data believed to represent the missing airplane showed a westerly track over the Pacific Ocean. The last known radar position was about 140 miles west of the Pacific shoreline.
The pilot reported that he was practicing autorotations when the accident occurred. After successfully completing several autorotations from the same direction, he elected to attempt one from a different direction, which put the helicopter into a tailwind. During the maneuver, when the pilot rolled off the throttle, the helicopter “lost RPM”. He attempted to add power but was too low to the ground and the helicopter landed hard and rolled onto its side. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and the pilot was seriously injured. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The airplane sustained a catastrophic engine failure shortly after takeoff due to a separated crankshaft counterweight. The pilot performed a forced landing, during which the airplane sustained substantial damage. The engine had been overhauled about 14 years and 950 flight hours before the accident. Examination of the remaining counterweights revealed that, during that overhaul, some of their retaining pins had been installed back to front. According to the engine manufacturer, such installation has been known to cause failure of the counterweights and the catastrophic damage observed. The correct installation is documented in the engine maintenance manual and reiterated in a service bulletin that was published 5 years before the engine was overhauled.
The pilot purchased the experimental, amateur-built airplane on the morning of the accident. He was planning to fly the airplane to his home airport in a different state. That morning, the previous owner and the pilot reviewed the maintenance logbooks, airplane characteristics, checklists, and examined the airframe and engine. After a thorough review, they started the engine and completed a run-up. The previous owner offered to stay in the airplane so the pilot could practice taking off and landing. The pilot declined and the previous owner exited the airplane. Witnesses observed the airplane align with the runway centerline and begin to accelerate. The pilot appeared to be making a 3-point takeoff with all the landing gear remaining on the runway surface. The airplane then became airborne at a slow speed and climbed to about 50-75 feet above ground level (agl). The airplane assumed a nose-high attitude and stalled as the left wing dropped down and collided with terrain adjacent to the runway; the airplane erupted into flames.The 87-year-old pilot had over 20,000 hours of total flight experience but had never flown the accident airplane.
The student pilot and flight instructor reported that the engine lost partial power during cruise flight.The instructor assumed control of the airplane, attempted to restore power, and performed a forced landing to a cleared area of wooded terrain, resulting in substantial damage to the airplane. The postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the exhaust valve in the No. 3 cylinder was stuck in the open position. Based on this finding, it is likely that the partial loss of engine power was the result of the No. 3 cylinder’s stuck exhaust valve. The engine maintenance records were not available for review, and the maintenance history of the engine could not be determined.