roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that during takeoff on a dirt runway he rotated the airplane and as it "went through a dip in the airstrip" he felt a "thump" [tail strike]. The pilot further reported that the airplane became airborne and he continued the flight uneventfully.During a postflight inspection, it was revealed that the airplane sustained substantial damage to the bulkhead and lower skin of the tail cone.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll after his fifth landing, the airplane veered hard left. He corrected to the right, but as the airplane straightened out, the left main landing gear impacted a runway light, spinning the airplane around. Subsequently, the left main landing gear collapsed, and the airplane came to rest on the left side. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the elevator. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot further reported that he received his tailwheel endorsement 3 months before the accident.
The pilot reported while en-route about 2,500 feet above ground, under dark night visual meteorological conditions, multiple birds struck both wings and the cowling. The pilot further reported that the airplane had a "harsh rolling tendency to the right and reduced engine power." Subsequently, the pilot declared an emergency with air traffic control and landed without further incident at an airport about 3 nautical miles away. The right wing sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during takeoff from a tidal flat, a strong quartering tailwind gust "hit the tail" and he corrected with rudder. The pilot further reported that as soon as the airplane became airborne another strong quartering tailwind gust pushed the airplane inline to impact a driftwood tree that was lying on the tidal flat. The airplane proceeded to strike and bounce off of the driftwood tree and then descended toward a water channel. The pilot reported that he "did not know exactly what happened", other than the airplane touched down on the other side of the water channel and the main landing gear collapsed. Subsequently, the left wingtip hit the ground and the airplane slid to a stop backwards. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The purpose of the personal flight was to practice stalls in the homebuilt, experimental airplane. The private pilot reported that he practiced several stall maneuvers and that the airplane handled well. After executing a touch-and-go landing, the pilot took off and established the airplane on downwind, about 1,000 ft above ground level, to set up for a full flaps landing. He lowered the flaps and set the engine power to idle. The pilot then discovered that the control stick would move but that he had no control of the airplane. The airplane impacted the ground and was totally consumed by postimpact fire. The pilot did not remember the crash.  He had flown the airplane the day before the accident and did not report any mechanical anomalies. The pilot indicated that he did not believe that the airplane stalled. Due to the extent of the postimpact fire damage, it was not possible to determine any preimpact malfunctions or failures of the engine, flight controls, or flight control surfaces. Thus, the reason for the loss of control could not be determined.
According to the pilot of the twin-engine airplane, he descended from 7,000 ft and leveled off at 3,000 ft. After leveling off, the fuel quantity indicators fluctuated then showed empty. He recalled that, about 5 minutes after leveling off, the right engine began to run very roughly, so he enriched the right engine's mixture and activated the auxiliary fuel pump. He added that, subsequently, "the right engine failed and the left engine simultaneously began losing power." The pilot declared an emergency with air traffic control, began receiving vectors, and the left engine lost power.The pilot pitched the airplane for best glide distance. He selected the nearest suitable landing area, extended the landing gear and flaps, and landed the airplane in a field. During the landing roll, he turned the airplane to the right to avoid a collision with obstacles, and the nose landing gear bounced several times and separated from the airplane. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage bulkheads, longerons, and stringers. The pilot believed that, due to his failure to visually check the fuel level, he overestimated the amount of fuel on board. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot reported that he entered the downwind leg of the airport traffic pattern higher than pattern altitude to avoid a traffic conflict. While on downwind, he switched the fuel selector and turned on the electric fuel pump. As he turned from downwind onto the base leg of the traffic pattern, he reduced engine power to idle and initiated a glide toward the runway. On final approach, the pilot realized that the airplane was too low; he added engine power, but the engine "failed to respond." He cycled the fuel pump, the engine surged, and the airplane impacted treetops and landed short of the runway. The pilot further reported that, after landing, he taxied the airplane to the ramp, thus it is unlikely there was a fuel issue.A postaccident engine examination and test run revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor in the multi-engine airplane reported that during a biennial flight review the pilot released the brakes and added full power for takeoff. The flight instructor further reported that during the takeoff roll he utilized the left engine mixture control to simulate a left engine failure, but the pilot "froze" at the flight controls and the airplane veered to the left. The flight instructor attempted to fail the right engine via the right mixture control in order to regain directional control, but his hand came off the mixture control and the airplane exited the runway. During the runway excursion, the flight instructor "finally got [his] hand back on the right mixture and pulled it to idle cut-off"; subsequently, the nose landing gear collapsed.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of a glider reported that during the landing roll, near the location where he wanted to stop, he felt a "thump." He further reported that he observed a person lying on the ground on the runway and did not see the bystander previously. According to the pilot-rated passenger, who was also the airport manager, the bystander was taking photographs of the glider and had moved onto the runway surface during the landing roll. Subsequently, the bystander was struck by the left wing. He further reported that he also did not see the bystander before the collision. The airport manager reported that the airport had a sign near the runway, which stated "Caution Aircraft Operations." Postaccident, the airport manager reported that he installed cones delineating the boundary of the runway and added an additional sign stating "Remain Behind Cones."The bystander sustained a serious injury.The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the glider that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot was departing on a local flight in the experimental airplane that he had built when the right gull-wing cabin door rotated open upon liftoff. A witness saw the pilot reaching for the fully open door as the airplane continued to overfly the runway at a low altitude. The airplane subsequently entered an aerodynamic stall at a low altitude and descended into terrain about 1,675 ft past the end of the runway and 183 ft left of the extended runway centerline. A postimpact fire destroyed the airframe.The right gull-wing cabin door was found in a ravine about 600 ft from the main wreckage. Although the door had separated from the fuselage while the airplane was in flight, there was no evidence that the door had struck any portion of the airplane. The door latch handle and associated latch pins were found in a partially secured position. A functional test of the door latch mechanism did not reveal any anomalies. Testing of the door latch indicator system was not possible due to extensive postimpact fire damage to the fuselage and instrument panel. Based on the witness description and the physical evidence, it is likely that the pilot failed to ensure that the right gull-wing cabin door was properly latched before takeoff. The pilot likely became distracted by the open door and, as a result, did not maintain adequate airspeed after takeoff, which resulted in the airplane exceeding its critical angle of attack and experiencing an aerodynamic stall at a low altitude.
The solo student pilot reported that, while on final approach following a cross-country flight, he experienced what felt like a down draft or wind shear. The airplane touched down hard on the runway, bounced, and on the second touchdown, the nosewheel impacted the surface first. The student pilot taxied the airplane to the ramp without further incident. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed substantial damage to the firewall. The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures 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 5 minutes before the accident, the wind was 040° at 5 knots. The airplane landed on runway 30.
The pilot of a recently purchased tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, following two go-arounds and during the landing roll, the airplane veered to the left. The pilot further reported that he attempted to abort the landing but was unsuccessful. The airplane continued and veered off the runway. During the runway excursion, the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings, fuselage, and empennage. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot reported that, about 10 minutes into the banner tow flight, the engine began to run roughly. He adjusted the throttle, propeller lever, mixture, and carburetor heat; however, the engine started to backfire and continued to lose power. The pilot performed a precautionary landing on a race track; during the landing roll, the airplane struck a fence before coming to rest. The engine continued to operate during the landing roll until the airplane struck the fence. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the No. 1 cylinder top and bottom spark plug electrodes exhibited mechanical damage; no mechanical damage was noted on the other spark plugs. The No. 1 piston looked like it was "sandblasted" compared to the other cylinders. Further disassembly of the engine was performed; no debris was noted in the carburetor box, carburetor, and No. 1 cylinder. Maintenance was performed on the engine 2 days before the accident to troubleshoot "hard starting, low static RPM, and a rough engine." The maintenance entry indicated that both No. 1 cylinder spark plugs were damaged and that new spark plugs were installed. A comparison of the photographs of the spark plugs removed from the No. 1 cylinder during maintenance and the spark plugs removed from the No. 1 cylinder after the accident showed similar mechanical damage. Although no debris was found during the postaccident examination, it is likely that both sets of No. 1 spark plugs were damaged by debris in the No. 1 cylinder; the source of the debris could not be located.
According to the commercial pilot, the multiengine airplane was about 5 miles from the airport when it was cleared to land on runway 3R. Then, about 1.5 miles from the airport, he accepted a landing clearance change from the air traffic controller to land on runway 3L instead of 3R. The pilot increased engine power and set up to land on runway 3L; however, the airplane was "fast" on final approach and landed "long." The pilot "stood" on the brakes, the left tire "blew out," and the airplane veered off the left side of the runway. After departing runway 3L, the airplane traveled through the grass and impacted asphalt of another runway, which was raised about 7 inches above the ground. When the nose landing gear struck the asphalt, it collapsed, and the airplane then came to rest. During the accident sequence, the fuselage and wings were substantially damaged. The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The wind at the airport around the time of the accident was from 140°at 7 knots.
The commercial pilot was conducting a local aerial application flight in the restricted-category military surplus helicopter. After loading the helicopter with herbicide, the pilot departed from the staging area; however, during the initial climb, as the helicopter was about 50 ft above the ground, the outboard portion of one of the two main rotor blades separated. The main rotor blades then struck the tailboom, and the helicopter entered an uncontrolled descent to the ground. Metallurgical examination of the fractured main rotor blade revealed a crack with fatigue features emanating from multiple origins in the area of the inertia weight attachment hole.The helicopter manufacturer, Bell, also a restricted-category type certificate holder for the same model helicopter as the accident helicopter, had published a military alert bulletin (MAB) about 30 years before the accident (revised about 9 years before the accident) and an operations safety notice (OSN) about 9 years before the accident applicable to the main rotor blade that fractured during the accident flight; operators were instructed to conduct initial visual inspections of the blades in the area of the inertia weight screw heads and subsequent inspections at intervals of 8 hours or 32 flights, whichever occurred first. However, the OSN only applied to the airframe serial numbers under the responsibility of Bell. Both the operator and the type certificate holder of the accident helicopter, Rotorcraft Development, indicated that they were not aware of the MAB or the OSN until after the accident. Additionally, a preventive maintenance services inspection program that was published by the previous type certificate holder for the accident helicopter (Garlick Helicopters) did not contain requirements to inspect the main rotor blade per the aforementioned MAB and OSN. Performance of the recurrent inspection required by the MAB and the OSN likely would have detected the fatigue cracks on the main rotor blade before its failure during the accident flight. The Federal Aviation Administration did not require sharing of safety information, such as the MAB and the OSN recurrent inspections, between restricted-category type certificate holders.  Page 2 of 7 ERA17LA032
Before landing at the conclusion of the personal flight, the commercial pilot extended the airplane's retractable landing gear and observed a green light indicating the landing gear were down. During landing, the right main landing gear collapsed, followed by the left main landing gear, and the airplane veered off the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage, elevator, and right horizontal stabilizer. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the landing gear circuit breaker was tripped and that the landing gear warning horn was not functional. Further examination of the landing gear system revealed intermittent sticking of the landing gear solenoid, which resulted in the power pack continuing to run for longer than necessary, which would subsequently trip the landing gear circuit breaker. Replacement of the solenoid corrected the issue. The examination did not reveal any other anomalies of the landing gear system. Given the pilot's report of observing a positive indication that the landing gear extended, as well as the anomalies of the landing gear system that were discovered during the postaccident examination, the method and sequence of the landing gear collapse could not be determined.
The airline transport pilot conducted a normal preflight inspection in preparation for a return cross-country flight. About a minute after engine start, she heard a "pop," followed by the smell of smoke, an erratic engine sound, and the illumination of the oil light. Ground and fire department personnel responded and extinguished the engine fire. Examination of the engine and compartment noted that part of the fuel drain line had a small hole next to an adel clamp. Although pieces of the drain line assembly were partially consumed by fire, the fire was likely caused by fuel leaking from the hole in the fuel drain line and onto the bottom cowling and firewall areas and igniting. Although it is likely that the hole in the drain line was the result of contact with the adel clamp, due to fire damage, the examination was unable to determine why the clamp may have rubbed a hole in the line or if the clamp was properly installed. However, the fuel drain line routing installation appeared consistent with the manufacturer's assembly instructions.
While approaching the airport, the private pilot reduced engine power in preparation for landing. At that time, the airplane began to vibrate and shake. The engine then lost total power, while the propeller continued to windmill. He attempted to restart the engine using the emergency checklist procedures but was unsuccessful. He determined that he would not be able to reach the runway and maneuvered toward a nearby pasture for an emergency landing. During the landing rollout, the airplane struck a fence, damaging the left wheel hydraulic brake line, which caused a loss of brake pressure. When the pilot applied the brakes, he lost directional control, and the nose landing gear collapsed.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the firewall was damaged and the fuselage skin aft of the firewall was wrinkled. An unmeasured amount of fuel was present in all four fuel tanks, and fuel was present at the fuel injector nozzles; thus, adequate fuel was onboard for the flight. Oil was present in the crankcase, and cylinder compression was attained on all cylinders when the propeller was rotated by hand. While rotating the engine, a grinding/crunching noise occurred once but was not repeatable. A subsequent partial teardown examination of the engine did not reveal any evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Thus, the reason for the total loss of engine power could not be determined.
According to the pilot, after multiple previous landings that night to runway 34L, the airplane was thrown "off course" after it encountered a crosswind. The pilot pulled the power off briefly during the landing, and the airplane touched down. However, he reported that he made a late decision to go around and reapplied the power to establish a climb. He added that the airplane was "off course" at a low airspeed and that he applied full power, but he panicked and reduced his right rudder application, and the airplane veered to the left. The airplane stalled and impacted the ground, the nose landing gear became embedded in the mud, and the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing root and empennage.According to the airport security camera video, the airplane descended over runway 34L and made an immediate sharp left 270° turn to the left of the runway heading and rapidly ascended. After the sharp left turn, the airplane was airborne for about 534 ft before impacting the ground and nosing over. White paint transfer markings observed on the runway surface and damage to the airplane's left wing indicated that the airplane had impacted the runway surface during the accident sequence. About 25 minutes before the accident, the published METAR for the accident airport reported that the wind was from 320° at 6 knots. There were no reported wind gusts at the time of the accident, and there were no published wind gusts at the airport for the remainder of the day.The pilot reported that he had 99 hours of total flight time, 78 hours of which were in the accident airplane make and model, and 4 hours of which were within the 90 days before the accident. 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 GAA17CA055
The commercial pilot reported that he was practicing aerobatics in the experimental, amateur-built biplane over a river. During the maneuvers, as he input left aileron, the control stick was stiff, and he believed he observed abnormal movement of the upper left aileron. He then applied more force to free the control stick and input right aileron; however, the airplane rolled left and entered a spin. The pilot was unable to recover from the spin and subsequently parachuted from the airplane. The airplane came to rest at the bottom of the river. Examination of the recovered wreckage revealed that most of the left wings' parts, including the ailerons and aileron control tubes, were not recovered. As such, control continuity could not be verified or tested.
The airline transport pilot reported that the twin-engine, historic airplane was flying about 155 mph and 1,000 ft above ground level. Upon entering the left downwind leg of the airport traffic pattern, the pilot extended the landing gear. While the gear was in transit, the crew felt a jolt, as if a bird had impacted the front of the airplane. The pilot made a normal landing, parked the airplane, and noted damage to the left horizontal stabilizer and elevator.A crew from another airplane reported to the pilot that they observed an object depart the accident airplane during landing gear extension. A postaccident examination revealed that the left inboard landing gear door separated in flight and impacted the engine nacelle, left horizontal stabilizer, and elevator. The landing gear door was later found in a residential neighborhood about one mile north of the airport. The gear door was equipped with two arresting cables that were intended to prevent the door from hyperextending. The arresting cables were not installed in the correct position, and the investigation could not determine how long the arresting cables had been incorrectly installed. The landing gear door connecting rod was bent and fractured into two pieces at the safety wire drill hole. The fractured connecting rod was consistent with an overstress failure in bending. If the arresting cables had been installed correctly, it is likely that the landing gear door would not have separated from the airplane when the connecting rod failed.