roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that, during the landing flare, the airplane encountered wind shear and landed hard. He added that, during the bounce, he applied power to go around, but the airplane yawed to the left "severely." The pilot added right rudder and reduced power to abort the takeoff in an attempt to land back on the runway. The airplane was "about 6 ft. [above ground level]" and continued left, and the left wing impacted a ditch. Subsequently, the propeller struck the ground, the airplane rotated 180°, and the airplane came to rest.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and both wings.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.There were no nearby National Weather Service reporting stations. An online commercial weather service provider reported that a nearby station reported, about the time of the accident, wind from 315° at 1.6 mph, gusting to 3.4 mph. The pilot reported sky clear, visibility 10+, temperature 74°F, and altimeter setting 29.90 inches of mercury, and he observed the wind direction from 270° at a light-and-variable speed, gusting to 7 knots. The airplane landed on runway 35.
The pilot of a nonpowered glider reported that, while on the downwind for landing, the glider was higher than normal due to lift that was encountered. He added that, while on final approach, the glider encountered a gusting headwind, which reduced the ground speed. The glider was unable to maintain sufficient altitude and touched down short of the intended runway. The fuselage sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the glider that would have precluded normal operation.The automated weather observation system located 9 miles east of the accident airport reported that, about 2 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 260° at 14 knots, gusting to 23 knots. 27U was the intended runway.
The solo student pilot reported that, during landing, the airplane porpoised, and the propeller struck the runway. He added that he initiated a go-around, landed, and taxied back to the ramp without further incident.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and firewall.The student reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The automated weather observation station located on the airport reported that, about 37 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 250° at 8 knots, gusting 16 knots. The same weather observation station reported that, about 23 minutes after the accident, the wind was from 250° at 10 knots. The airplane was landing on runway 24.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll in crosswind conditions, while correcting to maintain the runway centerline, the "upwind wing lifted," and the airplane swerved off the runway to the left. During the runway excursion, the left wing lift strut impacted a runway sign. The left wing sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.An automated weather observation station at the accident airport reported, about the time of the accident, wind from 150° at 3 knots. The pilot reported that the landing was on runway 8.
The private pilot and two passengers were departing in the airplane from the 4,422-ft-long asphalt runway. A witness reported that, while still over the runway, the airplane began to lose altitude, then entered a nose-high attitude. The airplane subsequently entered a left-turning descent consistent with an aerodynamic stall. Examination of the wreckage did not reveal any preimpact mechanical anomalies; although the ignition key was found in the left magneto position, the preimpact position of the key could not be determined.Performance calculations revealed that the airplane should have used less than half the available runway distance to clear a 50-ft obstacle at maximum gross weight with flaps extended to 10°. Weight and balance calculations revealed that the airplane was operating about 59 lbs over its maximum allowable gross weight at the time of the accident, and the flaps were found in the retracted position. It is likely that the pilot noticed the airplane's degraded climb performance after takeoff and attempted to compensate by increasing the airplane's pitch attitude, which resulted in decaying airspeed, an exceedance of the critical angle of attack, and an aerodynamic stall.
The pilot of the experimental amateur-built airplane reported in a written statement that he had recently purchased the accident airplane, and upon receiving it, he completed numerous taxi runs in a straight line but did not attempt to take off due to poor weather. He added that the airplane was hard to taxi in a straight line. He further reported that, days later, with improved weather, he decided to complete a "test flight." He reported that, during the initial climb, the airplane "immediately started to drift to the left," and as the airplane continued to climb, the airplane "continued to make a left turn." He added that he applied right rudder and aileron and increased the power from 1/2 to 3/4 full but that the airplane continued to the left. He reported that he flew in the local area for about 20 minutes and could not resolve the left turning issue and that he was then concerned about the remaining fuel quantity, so he attempted to land at his private airstrip. He reported that he attempted two approaches, but the airplane continued turning to the left toward trees, and he performed go-arounds. During the third approach, he decided he would attempt to "touch down as quickly as possible," but during the landing flare, the airplane continued to the left and impacted trees. The airplane was destroyed.The pilot reported, "after replaying the accident in my mind, I decided that when I was doing my test taxiing, I might have been introvertly [sic] pressing the left trim button on the control stick. I might have done this several times which resulted in the crash."The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot did not submit the NTSB Form 6120.1 Pilot/ Operator Aircraft Accident/ Incident Report. He also did not report that he had received any recent flight training. Page 2 of 6 GAA17CA536A Federal Aviation Administration aviation safety inspector reported that he located the electric rudder trim switch on top of the control stick and observed the rudder trim servo in the full-left-trim position. He further reported that the accident airplane was unregistered because the registration certificate had lapsed. He reported that the pilot, who was also the owner of the airplane, was required to renew the registration certificate. He added that the pilot reported to him that he had not flown as pilot-in-command for 20 years.A technical representative for the experimental airplane kit manufacturer reported that the original kit design did not include electric trim for any flight control surfaces.
The pilot reported that he extended the landing gear while in the traffic pattern. He added that he became distracted by a helicopter that was transitioning to the airport, and while on base to final approach, he mistakenly raised the landing gear. The airplane subsequently touched down with the landing gear retracted. The fuselage sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The glider pilot reported that, during landing in gusting wind conditions, the glider bounced, so the pilot added "more spoiler" to help the glider settle back onto the ground. He added that a wind gust "rotated" the glider to the left, and the glider bounced about 3 to 4 ft. After the second bounce, the glider landed hard "with the nose yawed to the left."The glider sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the glider that would have precluded normal operation.A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located 16 nautical miles east of the accident airport reported that, about 40 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 30° at 17 knots, gusting to 20 knots. The pilot reported that the wind was from 360° at 15 knots, gusting to 20 knots. The glider landed on runway 1.
The commercial pilot and passenger departed in the airplane from the airport, which was located at an elevation of 6,752 ft mean sea level (msl). Airport surveillance video showed that the airplane became increasingly slow during the initial climb after takeoff. A witness reported that, as the airplane approached the end of the runway, it stopped climbing and entered a nose-high pitch attitude that the witness described as "hanging by the prop." The airplane then turned 90° to the downwind leg of the airport traffic pattern and sank as the wings rocked back and forth before it disappeared behind trees. The wreckage orientation indicated that the airplane maintained a southerly heading before it descended into the tree line. The airplane impacted the ground in a nose-down attitude with partial forward bending of the tail, consistent with an aerodynamic stall. Postaccident examination of the airplane did not reveal any preimpact anomalies.The density altitude about the time of the accident exceeded 9,100 ft msl. The effects of high density altitude conditions on takeoff performance include increased takeoff roll distance and reduced rate of climb. Review of performance charts indicated that the airplane should have been able to climb at a rate around 440 ft per minute; however, the video indicated that the airplane was climbing at a rate of 340 ft per minute. It is likely that, experiencing degraded airplane performance due to the density altitude, the pilot responded by increasing the airplane's pitch attitude in an attempt to improve its rate of climb. The pilot subsequently exceeded the airplane's critical angle of attack, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and impact with terrain.The pilot's primary flight experience was in turbine engine-equipped rotorcraft, and he had recently received a checkout in the accident airplane make and model that included high density altitude operation and mixture leaning procedures. The airplane's mixture control was found in the full rich position after the accident; however, the position of the control before and during the takeoff could not be determined. If the pilot departed in the high density altitude environment without leaning the fuel/air mixture control or subsequently enrichened the fuel/air mixture control to troubleshoot the airplane's Page 2 of 10 WPR17FA171reduced takeoff performance, this would have further reduced the available engine power and the airplane's climb rate.
The pilot reported that, while maneuvering at low altitude during agricultural spraying, he noticed "some shuddering (stalling)" on multiple downwind low passes. He added that, on the fourth attempt to spray on a downwind line, he experienced "severe shuddering and loss of altitude," so he applied full power and dumped the entirety of the aerial application product. He further added that, after dumping the load, the airplane was about 10 to 15 ft above ground level and still would not climb. The pilot reported that he continued to "pull back on the stick," entered a right turn to avoid obstacles ahead, and the airplane "continued to [aerodynamically] stall until impact." The fuselage and both wings sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.An automated weather observation station 18 nautical miles south from the accident site reported, about the time of the accident, wind from 140° at 12 knots. The pilot reported that the wind had "picked up to 20-25 mph" and that the flightpath was "nearly directly downwind at the time of impact." The pilot reported that the airplane was not equipped with a stall warning device.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane was in the rear seat during the personal flight, and the airplane owner was in the front seat. The pilot made an approach to runway 17. He reported that, just before the landing gear touched down, the airplane encountered a wind gust from the right. The airplane's nose turned to the right, and the airplane touched down on the runway. During the landing roll, the airplane exited the right side of the runway. The airplane owner then took control of the airplane, which subsequently struck a runway light and then ground looped to the left.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the horizontal stabilizer and the upper left side of the fuselage just aft of the cabin. The pilot reported that the wind was from 210° at 8 knots.The nearest METAR located 25 miles northeast of the airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 260° at 6 knots and variable between 230° and 290°. The skies were clear with 9 statute miles of visibility.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. Per the National Transportation Safety Board Pilot Aircraft Accident Report, the pilot noted that the accident could have been prevented if he had carried more airspeed during the landing to combat the wind conditions.
The Federal Aviation Administration aviation safety inspector reported that, during a preflight inspection, the student pilot and designated pilot examiner observed propeller damage. Further inspection by maintenance personnel revealed substantial damage to the firewall and fuselage consistent with a hard landing. The airplane was flown by numerous renter pilots before the damage was found, and none of them claimed responsibility for the damage. The time of the accident and the identification of the pilot(s) are unknown.
While the noncertificated pilot was taxiing the airplane to a hangar after a local flight, he lost directional control, and the airplane then rolled into a ditch, which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot reported that the left brake actuator had failed. A review of the airplane's maintenance logbooks revealed that the last annual inspection was completed more than 10 years before the accident. During postaccident examination of the airplane immediately after the accident, a Federal Aviation Administration inspector could not examine the brakes because of the instability of the airplane on the jacks and because the wheels were covered in mud. The owner did not make the airplane available for further examination; therefore, the reason for the loss of directional control could not be determined.
The private pilot and three passengers departed on a local flight in day visual meteorological conditions. Radar data identified the flight shortly after takeoff at 1,800 ft mean sea level (msl), traveling on a northwesterly heading. As the flight continued, the altitude varied between about 1,100 ft and 1,800 ft as the airplane conducted three 360° turns. Following the third turn, the airplane was heading west, climbing from 1,800 ft to 2,000 ft msl as it approached a ridgeline that ran perpendicular to its flight path. Data indicated that the airplane then entered a left turn; the data ended in the vicinity of the accident site at an altitude about 1,900 ft msl. The wreckage was located on steep, mountainous terrain at an elevation about 1,900 ft msl. The airplane collided with the densely-vegetated terrain in a nearly wings-level attitude about 50 ft below a ridge that ran perpendicular to the main north/south running ridgeline. The highest point of the ridge line near the accident site was about 2,800 ft.  The accident site was located south of a pass in an area commonly used by pilots to transition the inland mountains of the island. The lowest point of the pass was about 2,100 ft. Postaccident examination of the wreckage did not reveal evidence of any mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation, and a witness reported that the engine was producing power until impact.It is unknown if the pilot was attempting to cross the ridge through the pass, was planning to fly along the ridgeline when the impact occurred, or was going to attempt to climb over the higher ridge. Regardless, the pilot decided to fly at low altitude, providing him little margin for error and he failed to maintain sufficient altitude above the mountainous terrain.
The student pilot was practicing basic hovering skills under the supervision of the flight instructor. Due to the high air temperature and minimal airflow over the engine, the engine oil temperature had increased beyond the approved limits. The flight instructor decided to fly a low-altitude circuit along the perimeter of the airport to increase the airflow and cool the engine. The low-altitude circuit was performed at an altitude of about 100 ft above ground level and at a speed of about 60 knots. About halfway around the circuit, the oil temperature had returned to normal, and all other engine indications were normal at that time. However, during the turn at the southwest corner of the airport, which was about three-quarters of the way around the circuit, the helicopter began to lose altitude and would not respond to the flight instructor's control inputs. The flight instructor was unable to regain control, and the helicopter subsequently impacted the ground.Postaccident examination of the helicopter did not reveal any anomalies consistent with a preimpact failure or malfunction. In addition, the flight instructor stated that there were no issues with the helicopter before the accident. Impact marks showed that the main rotor blades struck the ground before the landing skids, which was consistent with a bank angle of at least 40° at the time of the accident.According to information that the helicopter manufacturer provided, the engine power and helicopter performance required to maintain altitude while maneuvering exceeded the power and performance available with the elevated density altitude conditions at the time of the accident flight, which resulted in a loss of altitude and an impact with the ground.
The student pilot reported that, during landing, the airplane bounced. She added that, upon the second touchdown, the airplane landed on the nose landing gear, and it collapsed.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall.The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilots reported that, following a formation flight and landing of four airplanes and while taxiing to park, the lead airplane reduced power to idle, and the engine quit.After multiple attempts to restart the engine, the lead pilot signaled the other pilots to pass on the left side and continue to park. As the second airplane taxied past, the third airplane followed.The pilots added that the third airplane's pilot had limited forward visibility due to the nose attitude of the airplane and that the pilot was unaware that the lead airplane was stationary. Subsequently, the third airplane passed the lead airplane with insufficient clearance, which resulted in the third airplane's right wing colliding with the lead airplane's left elevator and the third airplane's propeller striking the lead airplane's left wing.The lead airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and left elevator.The pilots reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplanes that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of a retractable-landing gear-equipped airplane reported that he landed with the landing gear extended. He added that, during the landing, the airplane bounced, and the "landing gear retracted and the aircraft settled onto its belly."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 pilot reported that he "may have failed to deploy the landing gear" and did not recall hearing the gear warning horn.A flight instructor witness reported that, while his student was performing an engine run-up, he saw the airplane on final about 400 ft from the threshold with the landing gear retracted. He added that he thought the airplane was going to do a low approach, so he turned to check on his student, but when he looked back up, he saw "the [airplane] was on the runway" sliding.The Federal Aviation Administration inspector reported that, when he arrived on scene, he observed the gear handle in the "up" position.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll in crosswind conditions, when "transitioning from rudder to braking, the tail started rapidly swinging to the left due to wind." He added that "rudder correction was ineffective," and he applied wheel brakes, but the airplane continued in the ground loop clockwise, the left main landing gear collapsed, and the left wing impacted the runway. The left wing sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.An automated weather observation station at the accident airport reported, about the time of the accident, wind from 040° at 8 knots. The pilot reported that, while on short final, the air traffic tower controller announced, "wind 050 at 12." The pilot added that the landing was on runway 36.
The student pilot and a noncurrent private pilot were conducting a local, personal flight. The student reported that he did not remember the flight or any details surrounding the accident other than that the private pilot was operating the airplane at the time of the accident. The private pilot did not provide an account of the accident.A witness reported seeing the airplane making touch-and-go landings and noted that, during the last landing, the airplane landed near the departure end of the runway, attempted to stop, but the left main tire skidded, and with about 40 yards remaining, power was added for a takeoff attempt. The airplane then travelled off the runway end onto grass, impacted the top of the airport's barbed wire perimeter fence, and came to rest nose down. The fence's top rail and about 260 ft of wire were found separated from the fence, a large part of the wire was twined around the airplane, and the top rail was found on the path between the runway and the wreckage, indicating that the airplane became airborne after the pilot added power.Examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal evidence of any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Given the evidence, it is likely that the pilot did not establish a proper approach for landing, which resulted in the airplane landing long, and that his subsequent delayed decision to go around with insufficient runway remaining led to the airplane impacting an airport perimeter fence.