roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot in the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the approach to land on a grass airstrip, he avoided power lines and buildings that were located at the approach end of what he perceived to be the runway. Before the landing flare, he realized that what he perceived as the runway was a wheat field. The airplane's main landing gear became entangled with the wheat stocks, and the airplane impacted the ground. The airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. Substantial damage was sustained to the engine mounts, the rudder, the vertical stabilizer, and the wing strut.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, while participating in a slow flight competition, he was over the target area for the radar speed check about 30 ft above the ground, at 17 mph ground speed, when the left wing stalled. He added that he did not have sufficient altitude to recover. Subsequently, the airplane impacted the ground.The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor reported that, during a long cross-country flight, they encountered deteriorating weather conditions, and to remain visual flight rules, he altered course and destination. En route and while approaching a ridge line, he "noticed that [the airplane's] airspeed started to drop toward 65 miles an hour." He added that "[he] thought that maybe [the airplane was] picking up carburetor ice and [he] reached for the carburetor heat and pulled it out." The student pilot reported that, after the flight instructor stated, "watch your airspeed," he looked at the rpm gauge and noted that it was indicating 1,800 to 1,900 rpm. He added that the flight instructor took over the flight controls and that the airplane then impacted the top of a ridge. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing.Atmospheric conditions reported at the time of the accident around the accident site were conducive to serious icing at cruise power. It is likely that carburetor ice accumulated due to the student pilot's failure to apply carburetor heat and the flight instructor's delayed application of carburetor heat, which resulted in a partial loss of engine power.
The crew of the Part 121 scheduled passenger flight reported that the landing approach at the destination was stable. The first officer, who was the pilot flying, stated that the airplane was slightly high and fast when he began the landing flare and he pushed the nose down to correct. He then determined that he had overcorrected and began to recover by pulling the control column aft when the airplane landed firmly on the main landing gear and the aft fuselage impacted the runway.&nbsp;Postflight inspection revealed an area of abrasion damage to the aft fuselage and the underlying stringers and frames and damage to the aft pressure bulkhead.
The flight instructor in the amphibious, float-equipped, weight-shift-controlled trike reported that he was demonstrating multiple touch-and-go landings for the student pilot, who was in the front seat of the tandem-seat trike. He added that, during the final approach, the wind was "light and variable," and the landing was "smooth and stable." He further added that, as power was applied to takeoff, a "gust of wind and dust came in from our left and got under the wing." Subsequently, the trike veered off the runway to the right and rolled over.The wing and fuselage sustained substantial damage.The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the trike that would have precluded normal operation.An automated weather observation station at the accident airport recorded that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 330° at 9 knots. The flight instructor reported the takeoff was from runway 5.
The helicopter flight instructor stated that he was providing the student pilot with his first introductory flight in a helicopter. The flight instructor was holding the dual controls lightly while the student pilot practiced hovering. The helicopter was hovering over a concrete area on the airport and had drifted over grass. The flight instructor then told the student pilot to hover back over the concrete. As the helicopter was proceeding back to the concrete, the student pilot made an abrupt movement on the cyclic to the right, and the right skid contacted an unknown object, which caused a dynamic roll-over. The student pilot's written account was similar, except he stated that the flight instructor had taken control of the helicopter and was hovering toward the concrete when a sudden downward push of wind caused a forceful movement to the right. Examination of the wreckage revealed that the right skid had contacted the ground, which resulted in a dynamic rollover and substantial damage to the main rotor blades and fuselage. No preimpact mechanical malfunctions were noted nor did the pilots report any. The wind at the airport was recorded as calm about the time of the accident.
The private pilot was conducting a personal flight in the amphibious airplane, which he had recently purchased from the commercial pilot who was onboard the airplane. The private pilot stated that he entered a 30° right bank turn and that, about 6 to 7 seconds into the turn, the engine lost total power. The commercial pilot tried to restart the engine while the private pilot leveled the airplane and looked for a place to land. The commercial pilot told the private pilot to switch the fuel selector from the right main tank to both tanks, which he did, but the engine would not restart. The commercial pilot took control of the airplane and subsequently conducted a gear-up, forced landing to a field, which resulted in substantial damage to both floats, the wing struts, both wings, the fuselage, and the firewall. Postaccident examination of the fuel system revealed no evidence of any mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The commercial pilot reported that the right main tank had about 5 to 7 gallons of fuel in it when the airplane entered the right turn and that the engine "definitely died due to fuel starvation," which had happened to him before when he owned the airplane. According to the airframe manufacturer, in an uncoordinated turn, it is possible to unport fuel to the lines that carry fuel to the engine, which would result in a power loss. The chances of a loss of engine power occurring increases when there is a low quantity of fuel in the tank. Therefore, it is likely the fuel unported during the right turn because the right tank was low on fuel, which resulted in fuel starvation and the subsequent loss of engine power.
The flight instructor reported that, during the turn to final approach, the glider appeared to be above glidepath, so the student pilot used dive brakes to descend. He added that, once the glider returned to a normal glidepath, the student retracted the dive brakes, but the glider continued in a "higher than normal" descent rate. The flight instructor took control of the glider and landed short of the intended runway in trees.The glider sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the glider that would have precluded normal operation.The student pilot failed to submit a written statement after multiple requests.
The private pilot reported that, shortly after starting the takeoff roll for the local flight, the canopy lifted up and then separated from the airplane. The airplane subsequently veered left, exited the runway, and struck an airport runway sign during the aborted takeoff, which resulted in substantial damage to the canopy and wing. Postaccident examination of the airplane did not reveal any anomalies with the canopy, canopy attachment bolts, mounting bolt holes, latches, or locking mechanism that would have precluded normal operation.Two normal checklists (the Before Starting Engine and Taxi checklists) in the airplane's pilot's operating handbook call for the pilot to check that the canopy is closed and locked before takeoff. The pilot stated that he did not remember checking that the canopy was locked and also stated that he was fairly sure that it was not latched; thus, it is likely that the pilot did not ensure that the canopy was properly secured before takeoff.
The commercial pilot reported that, after completing the local air tour flight in the helicopter, he approached the private helipad location from the south. On approach and about 50-60 kts, the pilot began to arrest the helicopter's descent to view the windsock and determine the proper approach to the helipad. The pilot reported that the wind was from the south, so he decided to make the final approach from the north. About 200 ft above ground level and west of the helipad, the pilot initiated a left turn, and the helicopter started an uncommanded descent. The pilot applied power to stop the descent, but the helicopter continued sinking toward terrain. Due to the low altitude, the pilot committed to land and leveled the helicopter. During the landing, the back of the landing gear skids struck the terrain, which resulted in the main rotor blades contacting and severing the tail boom. Postaccident examination did not reveal any anomalies with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation, and both the pilot and the operator reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures. The pilot's calculated weight and balance was within limits at the time of the accident. A video of the accident sequence was consistent with the pilot's statement. It is likely that, during the descent to land, the helicopter encountered a vortex ring state (settling with power) condition, which resulted in a rapid descent and hard landing.
The flight instructor reported that, during a demonstrated soft-field takeoff, the right lift strut impacted the tops of three trees. The flight instructor continued to his destination without further incident. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the elevator. The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he was conducting a night flight to comply with the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61.57 (b) night takeoff and landing experience requirements. He added that, on his second approach, the airplane encountered wind shear during the landing flare. The airplane was blown about 40° nose left of the runway centerline. The pilot tried to correct to the right, but the airplane stalled and landed hard. The nose landing gear tire separated from the wheel, and the airplane bounced. The airplane settled on the runway, and a propeller strike occurred as the airplane slid off the left side of the runway. After the runway excursion, the nose landing gear wheel burrowed into the dirt surface, and the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and the empennage.The METAR reported that the wind about the time of the accident was from 050° at 8 knots. Critical wind shear or low-level wind shear were not observed at any time during the day or night per the METAR on the date of the accident.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 before the flight, he added 10 gallons of fuel, for a total of 35 gallons of fuel. The flight to his destination was uneventful. While the pilot was descending to land, the airplane’s engine sputtered and then lost total power. The pilot checked that the fuel selector was positioned to both tanks and checked the magnetos before searching for a suitable place to land. The pilot made a forced landing adjacent to a road, and the airplane collided with a gully and came to rest inverted; the airplane sustained substantial damage to wings and tail. During the recovery of the airplane, the recovery crew reported removing about 10-13 gallons of fuel from the left-wing fuel tank and about 6-8 gallons from the right-wing fuel tank; the vented fuel caps remained in place at their respective wings. Examination of the cockpit revealed that the fuel selector was positioned to the right fuel tank. Examination of the engine revealed no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. A twist was noted in the carburetor float bracket; however, it could not be determined if this twist would have caused an issue with the flow of fuel through the fuel system.
The pilot reported that, during landing and while in ground affect, "the airplane suddenly, and without an aural stall warning, lost lift and was forced onto the runway." Subsequently, the nose gear landing collapsed, and the airplane veered off the runway to the right. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The automated weather observation system located about 15 miles from the accident site reported that, about 6 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 230° at 10 knots. The pilot landed on runway 19.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during takeoff, the "wind got more gusty than [he] could handle being too low and slow." The airplane aerodynamically stalled and impacted the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located about 5 nautical miles west of the accident airport revealed that, about 42 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 200° at 18 knots, gusting to 28 knots. The takeoff direction is unknown.
The pilot reported that, during the takeoff roll, the airplane encountered a wind gust and veered left off the runway centerline. He added that the airplane became airborne but that he did not have "enough time" to avoid a parked helicopter. Subsequently, the left wing impacted the helicopter. He then reduced the engine power, and the airplane landed without further incident. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The automated weather observation system about 5 nautical miles from the accident site reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 230° at 12 knots, gusting to 17 knots. The pilot was departing on runway 22.
The private pilot reported that, while en route on a cross-country flight, the engine began to "shake." The pilot attempted to return to the airport; however, the engine experienced a total loss of power. The pilot subsequently initiated an emergency descent; however, the airplane struck trees and terrain about 1 mile from the approach end of the runway. The crankshaft and remaining cylinders remained intact, and the engine crankshaft rotated smoothly when the propeller was turned by hand. The No. 4 cylinder's exhaust pushrod shroud and exhaust pushrod were both bent. An examination of the engine revealed that the No. 4 cylinder was fracture-separated from the crankcase. The piston, sections of the No. 4 cylinder, and sections of the crankcase were missing. The No. 4 exhaust valve stem was fractured about halfway along its length, and the fracture surface was consistent with reverse bending fatigue crack propagation, which typically results from a stuck valve. The lower half of the stem and face were missing. The No. 4 exhaust valve guide clearance was excessive, and the valve's guide and tip area contained carbon deposits. The cylinder walls contained circular gouges consistent with the exhaust valve face diameter. It is likely that the carbon deposits on the valve stem resulted in the valve getting stuck, which initiated the reverse bending fatigue crack and led to the exhaust valve face stem fracturing and dropping into the cylinder and the subsequent catastrophic engine failure. The engine maintenance records were incomplete and prevented a determination of when the last clearance check of the No. 4 cylinder was performed or when it was last overhauled/replaced.
The pilot reported that, during the landing roll, the tailwheel-equipped airplane veered to the left, and he "could not keep the [airplane] on [the] runway using full right rudder." The airplane exited the left side of the runway, continued to turn to the left about 180°, hit an embankment, and the right main landing gear collapsed. Subsequently, the right wing impacted the ground, and the airplane came to rest nose down.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 060° at 7 knots. The pilot landed on runway 19.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, while landing in a crosswind and as the tailwheel set down, the airplane veered to the right. He added that, despite left rudder input, the airplane exited the right side of the runway and impacted a 20-ft-deep drainage ditch.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 automated weather observation system on the airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 240° at 15 knots. The pilot landed on runway 20.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll in a crosswind, the airplane "started weathervaning…with some sideways sliding." He added that he decided to go around, but about 2 ft above the ground, "knowing I [he] couldn't climb fast enough to clear the top of the…[hangars] on the east side of the runway, I [he] pulled power back." The airplane touched down again, exited the left side of the runway, crossed a ditch, and came to rest on the taxiway.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot reported the wind as variable, gusting to 15 knots. The pilot landed on runway 34.
The pilot reported that, while maneuvering at a low altitude during an agricultural application flight, a wind gust lifted the right wing and the left wing descended striking the "wheat" crop. Subsequently, the airplane was "sucked" into the wheat, and it then impacted the ground and came to rest inverted.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.The automated weather observation system about 4 nautical miles from the accident site, about the time of the accident, reported that the wind was from 160° at 13 knots.
The pilot reported that, during his approach, he turned to base too early. His approach glide angle was too high, and "I reduced power but also nosed the plane over in order to descend." The airplane's airspeed increased, and the airplane ballooned during the landing flare. The airplane touched down hard, porpoised on the runway, and a propeller strike occurred. He taxied to park and noticed that the firewall had sustained substantial damage.
The private pilot reported that, during departure for the planned local flight in a motorized glider, just as the nosewheel lifted off, a wind gust from the left pushed the motorized glider to the right. The pilot pulled back on the control stick to climb and simultaneously applied left rudder and aileron. The pilot added that the motorized glider became airborne, but the airspeed was insufficient, and it then entered a "stalled left spin." An automated weather reporting facility located 7 nautical miles south of the accident site recorded that the wind was from 160°at 4 knots. The accident is consistent with the pilot failing to obtain adequate airspeed at takeoff, which resulted in the motorized glider entering an aerodynamic stall/spin immediately after takeoff.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane stated that, during the landing roll, the airplane veered slightly left of the runway centerline. To correct for the veer, the pilot applied right rudder, and the airplane subsequently veered right. The pilot was unable to regain directional control, and the airplane continued off the right side of the runway onto soft gravel, which resulted in a rapid right ground loop. The left landing gear leg fractured, and the left wing and elevator impacted the runway surface, which substantially damaged the left aileron and fuselage. The pilot stated that he had no experience flying this model of airplane on wheels. According to the airplane owner, the airplane’s rudder and brake system was unique and could be difficult to operate. The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot was making a personal local flight in the glider. The glider's canopy opened during initial climb while on an aerotow, and the pilot attempted to close the canopy. The glider entered an uncontrolled descent, impacted the departure runway and came to rest about 1,500 ft from the beginning of the runway. The glider's side-opening canopy separated from the fuselage and was found along the wreckage path. Postaccident examination of the canopy latching mechanism revealed that it was intact, and the forward and rear canopy latching pins were firmly attached to the canopy frame. The latching mechanism was actuated and functioned normally. The investigation could not determine why the canopy had opened. No mechanical anomalies were noted that would have precluded normal glider operation.The pilot was taking the medication gabapentin, which could have slowed his response time; however, the primary issue seems to have been his distraction by the open canopy. Whether effects from his medication use contributed to the pilot's lack of attention to flying the glider at the time of the accident could not be determined from the available evidence.