roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that shortly after takeoff and during the initial climb, about midfield of the departure runway, the engine lost total power. Unable to land on the remaining runway, he executed a 90° left turn and selected a grass field as an off-airport landing site. During the forced landing, the nose landing gear collapsed, and the airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. A postaccident examination and engine test run revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The director of aviation safety for the flight school reported that the student pilot was on her first solo cross-country flight and that, during the approach to land, the airplane was fast and high. Subsequently, the airplane landed nose low, and the propeller struck the ground. The student did not know the propeller or fuselage had been damaged during the landing and continued the rest of her intended flight without further incident.The next assigned flight crew discovered the damage, and an examination by the maintenance department revealed that the airplane had sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.The director of aviation safety reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot completed one circuit in the traffic pattern that was uneventful, then performed a three-point landing. As the airplane's speed decreased, it began to veer to the right side of the runway. The pilot applied left aileron and full left rudder; however, the airplane continued off the right side of the runway. He applied full power to attempt to abort the landing, but the airplane went down an embankment before it came to rest, which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing, right horizontal stabilizer, right elevator, and fuselage. The right main landing gear separated from the airplane during the accident sequence and, therefore, could not be tested. Although the pilot stated that the right brake "seized upon landing," an examination of the brake system did not reveal any evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Thus, it is likely that the pilot lost control of the airplane during the landing roll, which resulted in a runway excursion.
The pilot of the experimental, amateur-built airplane reported that, during takeoff, he raised the nose after reaching about 20 mph, and about 40 mph, the airplane lifted off the runway. He "held the stick back just a little [too] long and it started to tip stall to the left and [he] pushed the stick forward." He added that he applied right aileron and rudder because the airplane was drifting to the left side of the runway. Subsequently, the airplane aerodynamically stalled and bounced on the runway, and the right wheel separated from the airplane. He then, with full power, continued to fly and make right aileron and rudder inputs to get back over the runway. The airplane impacted the ground and came to rest inverted.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, empennage, and wings.The automated weather observation system at the accident airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 090° at 4 knots. The pilot was departing from runway 18.
The private pilot indicated that after being cleared to land on the runway at the towered airport, he heard the controller state that the tower was closing. The pilot stated that, after turning onto the final segment of the traffic pattern and seeing the runway numbers, the runway lights extinguished. The pilot lost sight of the runway but continued to land. The airplane landed in the grass south of the east/west runway and impacted a taxiway light, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing and lift strut. A review of the airfield lighting logs showed the lights were on at the time of the accident and transitioned to pilot-controlled lighting about 5 minutes after the accident. Further, archived radar data indicated that the airplane's last radar target appeared before the lights extinguished, which would indicate that the lights were on at the time of the accident.
The pilot reported that, during approach to land in night conditions, he noticed that the airspeed displayed on a newly installed electronic flight instrument was reading slightly different than the airspeed indicator. He added that his altitude judgement was affected "by the scarcity of observable objects in the landing area, the 'black hole' effect, which was likely worsened by the brightness of the [electronic instrument]." When the pilot looked up from the instrument panel, he saw tree branches approaching. The airplane struck the trees and came to rest inverted.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor was demonstrating an autorotation with a 180° left turn at a density altitude of about 6,470 ft. He entered the maneuver from 700 ft above ground level (agl) and about 80 kts indicated airspeed, established engine rpm, and started the 180° turn. About 1/3 of the way through the turn, he felt he needed a “desirable” speed through the turn and moved the cyclic forward and adjusted the collectively accordingly. The flight instructor stated that when he should have been 2/3 through the turn, he felt that he did not have the cyclic and collective control of the helicopter and he knew they were going to crash. He further stated that he continued “teaching,” and called out “rpm, airspeed, and outside,” while pointing to the tachometer, airspeed indicator, and intended landing spot; he also made control inputs and continued to fly what “had become an unresponsive aircraft.” He also stated that there was no flare at the end of the autorotation and no time for an engine rpm recovery. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The helicopter manufacturer’s Safety Notice SN-38 stated that if any of the parameters for rotor rpm, a stabilized airspeed, a stabilized rate of descent or turns (if any) completed are not correct, an immediate power recovery should be initiated; salvaging the situation by coaching the student or trying to correct below 100 ft agl (200 ft when operating at or above 4000 ft density altitude) should not be attempted. Had the flight instructor aborted the autorotation early on, it is likely he would have regained helicopter control.
The flight instructor reported that, during the student pilot's solo flight in the traffic pattern, after completing a series of takeoffs and landings, the student decided to practice a soft-field takeoff. During the takeoff, the student applied back pressure and full throttle; however, he did not add sufficient right rudder. Subsequently, the airplane veered off the runway to the left, struck the precision approach path indicator lights, and then came to rest.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and engine mount.The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The helicopter pilot reported that, while positioning the helicopter on a trailer for maintenance, the helicopter landed on the trailer with the left skid off the platform, and the tail rotor struck the ground. The pilot added that the helicopter climbed about 50 ft, and he reduced power. During the descent, the main rotor blade struck the tailboom, and the helicopter impacted the pavement.The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, tailboom, and main rotor blades.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot/owner reported that the engine lost partial power after takeoff and that he then conducted a forced landing to a field. The airplane nosed over during the landing, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage and vertical stabilizer. The pilot reported that he subsequently disassembled and examined the airplane and that he found water in the fuel tank, which explained the partial loss of engine power. The pilot's failure to conduct an adequate preflight inspection and to detect water in the fuel system before takeoff led to the partial loss of engine power.
The pilot reported that he had completed one high- and two low-reconnaissance flights over the snow-covered runway in his tundra-tire-equipped, tailwheel airplane. Before landing, he intended to fly a low pass and drag the main landing gear along the surface of the runway to determine the depth of the snow. He said that, as the main landing gear wheels touched down atop the frozen layer of crusty snow, the wheels broke through, and the airplane's tail began to rise. In an effort to prevent a nose-over, he applied full power, but the airplane subsequently nosed over.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the rudder and both left and right lift struts. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot reported that, during the cross-country flight, he thought that the airplane had experienced an electrical failure, and he chose to divert to an airport. During final approach to the diversion airport, the student descended the airplane too low and then attempted to correct it by increasing engine power. Subsequently, the airplane impacted a grassy area just before the runway, which resulted in all three landing gear separating. Examination of the wreckage revealed that the electrical system was functional but that an avionics panel had failed. The failed avionics panel likely distracted the student pilot and led to his failure to maintain a proper glidepath during the approach, which resulted in the runway undershoot. The student reported that there were no other preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight crew of Virgin Atlantic flight 4C stated that they taxied on taxiway K for takeoff at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), Jamaica, New York. While starting the right engine, a fault message appeared, and ATC instructed them to stop in the runup area adjacent to K1 and K2. The captain stated that the area was poorly lit and unmarked, and that they stopped well to the right of centerline and set the parking brake. He stated that, as they were about to check the minimum equipment list and flight crew operating manual, their airplane was struck and sustained substantial damage.According to the pilot of Egypt Air flight 986, the airplane was taxiing to runway 04L when the Virgin Atlantic crew requested to hold. After ATC directed the Virgin Atlantic airplane to stop in the runup area, ATC instructed the Egypt Air airplane to line up. The Egypt Air captain stated that they were taxiing on the centerline and as they tried to pass the stopped Virgin Atlantic airplane, the right wing of the Egypt Air airplane impacted the left wing of Virgin Atlantic airplane and sustained substantial damage. The investigation revealed that a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) JFK air traffic control tower supplemental hot clipboard notice stipulated that, on taxiway K in the areas of K1 and K2, two heavy airplanes are not permitted to pass. Therefore, ATC should not have directed the Egypt Air airplane to pass the Virgin Atlantic airplane.
The commercial pilot was conducting a flight in an experimental airplane to assess engine performance after installing a replacement engine control unit (ECU) with updated programming. During the flight, the engine monitor provided an alert regarding a high engine coolant temperature. Shortly afterward, the engine seized. The pilot attempted two engine restarts, including a complete reboot of the ECU, without success. The pilot made a forced landing in an open field. The airplane struck a barbed wire fence, causing damage to the nose landing gear, engine cowling, right wing strut, and right wing skin. Also, the pilot noticed that the coolant expansion tank had overfilled due to overheating. A postaccident examination revealed that the ECU had caused the engine fuel-air mixture to be too lean, resulting in excessive cylinder head temperatures, which caused the engine to seize. The excessive cylinder head temperatures also resulted in the unseating of the head gasket, which pressurized the coolant jacket and evacuated engine coolant overboard. Coolant was found in three of the four cylinders, and oil was mixed in the coolant under the thermostat, resulting in the rapid rise of coolant temperature.
The solo student pilot in the high-performance airplane reported that, during approach, the airplane descended through turbulence. He added that the automated weather observation system reported wind "variable between 110 and 160" and that he was landing on runway 8, so he "crabbed to the right." During the landing flare, he aligned the airplane with the runway centerline and "was quickly pushed left." The student added full power to go around, and about 30 to 50 ft above the ground, "a gust of wind caused [him] to bank/turn left," and the airplane impacted the ground.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and right wing.The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The Federal Aviation Administration inspector reported that the student pilot did not possess a high-performance endorsement.A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located on the airport revealed that, about 5 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 140° at 8 knots and variable from 110° to 170°. The airplane landed on runway 8.
The pilot reported that the engine surged during an attempted takeoff, and she aborted the takeoff. She let the engine idle for about 5 minutes and then attempted another takeoff. However, the engine surged again. The pilot applied the brakes and aborted the second takeoff. As the pilot was trying to determine the problem and was planning to taxi back to the hangar, the airplane started rolling across the runway and the pilot lost braking capability. The airplane rolled across and off the runway into a ditch. The brakes caught fire which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing and fuselage. The pilot reported that the airplane was at its maximum gross weight at the time of the accident.The pilot operating handbook for the accident airplane stated that after heavy braking, especially when the airplane is near gross weight, the pilot should allow the brakes to cool for about 20 minutes before additional heavy braking, as the brakes may overheat. It is likely that due to insufficient time to allow the brakes to cool, during the second aborted takeoff sequence, the brakes overheated, which resulted in a brake fire and led to the pilot's loss of braking capability.
The pilot reported that, during the preflight inspection, in preparation for the local flight to accomplish three touch-and-go landings, he removed the fuel filler caps and visually confirmed what appeared to be an adequate amount of fuel in each tank. The pilot did not use the fuel dip stick to confirm the quantity. The pilot reported that the fuel selector was selected to the right-side fuel tank before departure. After the second takeoff, about 600 ft above ground level (agl) and just before turning crosswind, the engine surged once or twice and then experienced a total loss of engine power. The pilot checked the engine controls and turned left back toward the runway. About 300 ft agl, he switched the fuel selector to the left fuel tank. Seconds later, the engine regained power; however, the airplane had descended low enough that the airplane collided with the tops of mesquite brush and then the ground. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the right fuel tank was empty and that the left fuel tank contained about 10 gallons of fuel. There was no evidence of a breach or fuel leak.The fuselage was substantially damaged. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.Page 2 of 6 GAA18CA059
The director of aviation safety at the flight school reported that the airplane received substantial damage to the fuselage after a hard landing. Four days before finding the damage, the airplane had been used by the accident pilot for a flight toward his commercial training. After completing the training flight, no discrepancies were declared.Data from the airplane's flight data management unit showed that the airplane landed flat on the runway, which resulted in subsequent bounces.The director of aviation safety of the flight school 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 that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 280° at 3 knots. The pilot landed on runway 25R.
Two airline transport-rated pilots departed on a personal, local flight to practice maneuvers. While returning to the departure airport and on the downwind leg, the rear seat pilot inadvertently pulled the fuel shutoff valve, which resulted in a total loss of engine power. The front seat pilot attempted to push the fuel shutoff valve back in but was unable to do so. The rear seat pilot then conducted a forced landing, during which the airplane impacted a tree about 2,000 ft short of the runway threshold, which resulted in substantial damage to both wings. Earlier in the year before the accident, both pilots frequently flew an airplane with a carburetor heat control that was in a similar position as the accident airplane's fuel shutoff valve. The rear pilot stated that he may have inadvertently pulled the fuel shutoff lever instead of the carburetor heat control. Therefore, it is likely that habit patterns developed from operating an airplane with different flight controls contributed to the rear seat pilot inadvertently pulling the fuel shutoff valve.
The student pilot stated that the preflight, engine run-up, and takeoff were normal with no anomalies noted. About 15 minutes into the solo cross-country flight, the engine lost total power, and he performed a forced landing to a tree-covered area. During the forced landing, the airplane impacted a power line and trees. Examination of the airplane revealed oil residue on the back of the engine, lower engine cowling, and the right main landing gear strut. The top mounting nut on the generator was missing, and the two lower mounting nuts were loose. Evidence of oil leakage past the generator mounting gasket was identified after removal of the generator from the engine. A hole in the engine crankcase was noted above the No. 1 cylinder. In addition, examination of the engine run-up and taxiway area, consistent with where the student pilot completed his engine run before the flight, showed a large oil stain and residual oil. The aircraft records did not reveal any recent maintenance to the generator or engine accessories; however, it is likely that when the generator was installed, the nuts were not properly tightened, leading them to back off over time, which led to the loss of oil.
The flight instructor and the student pilot, who was the pilot flying, departed for the third leg of the cross-country flight. The student pilot indicated that shortly after takeoff, when the airplane was about 70 ft above the runway, the engine sputtered and then lost power. He stated that he attempted to land straight ahead but did not maintain proper airspeed. The video from an onboard camera showed that after the engine lost power, the student pilot pulled back on the yoke, and the airplane rapidly descended toward the runway and impacted the ground likely following an aerodynamic stall. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the radiator coolant level was low enough that the fluid was not visible through the radiator cap. The examination revealed a coolant leak around the water pump housing nipple due to an improper seal of the hose to the nipple attachment. In addition, the radiator recovery and overflow bottle were improperly installed, which prevented the system from refilling coolant into the radiator during the engine cooling period in between flights. The intake port sides of the cylinders had antifreeze particles embedded into their surfaces consistent with overheating. The top portion of the No. 1 piston exhibited melted metal deposits from spark plug electrodes consistent with preignition and detonation, and the No. 2 piston exhibited discoloration and burnt-on carbon deposits consistent with the piston overheating for a period of time.It is likely that the airplane had lost a significant amount of coolant during the previous legs of the cross-country flight, which led to an overheated cylinder and subsequent engine failure. In addition, the student pilot failed to maintain airspeed after the partial loss of engine power. The airplane exceeded its critical angle of attack, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall at an altitude too low to recover.
The pilot reported that, while the airplane was about 3,500 ft above mean sea level, the engine produced a "very rapid metallic banging/clanging noise," along with an instant loss of engine rpm. The engine was creating a "violent shaking" of the entire airframe. After about 20 seconds of applying carburetor heat, the pilot applied full mixture and started adjusting the throttle to obtain more power. He reported that, with more power applied, the shaking became more violent, along with a loss of engine rpm. The pilot realized that the engine power at this point was not sufficient to hold altitude. During a forced landing to a field, both wings and the fuselage sustained substantial damage. Examination of the airframe and propeller found no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Examination of the engine revealed the No. 3 piston area displayed internal impact marks from the piston impacting the exhaust valve. The No. 3 exhaust valve was open and displayed impact marks from contact with the piston. The No. 3 valve spring seat (upper exhaust) was impact damaged with fractured pieces of the valve key (exhaust) and the valve stem cap (exhaust) laying on the bottom of the rocker area of the cylinder head. The No. 3 exhaust valve assembly moved freely inside the valve seats and was contacting the top of the piston.Based on the available evidence, the partial loss of engine power was likely due to the No. 3 valve key (exhaust) failing, which resulted in a substantial reduction in engine power output. The reason for the failure was undetermined, as the service history of the valve key was unknown.