roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
After exiting the clouds during the landing approach at the uncontrolled airport, the private pilot of the small jet canceled his instrument flight plan with air traffic control. He stated that, although there was no precipitation when he exited the clouds, he suspected the runway may be icy due to the weather conditions. The pilot saw an airplane holding short on the taxiway at the end of the runway and assumed it was preparing to takeoff, which he stated led him to believe that the runway condition was good. Although the pilot announced his location and intentions on the airport's common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF), he did not inquire about the runway condition via CTAF/UNICOM. Witnesses reported that the approach looked normal. After touchdown, the pilot applied brakes and realized he had no braking action. He subsequently retracted the speed brakes, spoilers, and flaps, and added takeoff power. The airplane yawed to the left and the pilot reduced engine power to idle while applying rudder to correct the airplane's track. The airplane continued off the runway, where it traveled through a fence and across a road before coming to rest inverted. The pilot and mechanic seated in the airplane that was holding short of the runway during the landing reported that they were only taxiing to a maintenance facility and did not intend to take off. They reported that the taxiways were icy. A witness who assisted the pilot following the accident reported that the roads at the time were covered in ice and "very slick." Recorded data from the airplane showed that the pilot flew a stabilized approach and that the airplane touched down near the approach end of the runway; however, given the icy runway conditions, the airplane's landing distance required exceeded the available runway by more than 8,000 ft. Airport personnel had not issued a NOTAM regarding the icy runway conditions. The airport manager stated he was not at the airport at the time of the accident, and that he was still trying to learn the new Page 2 of 7 CEN17LA078digital NOTAM manager system. The employee who was at the airport was authorized to issue NOTAMs, but had not yet been trained on the new system.
The solo student pilot in a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that he had completed five touch-and-go landings and maneuvers in the local area before returning for a full-stop landing. While on final approach about 50 ft above ground, he reduced throttle to idle and allowed the airspeed to slow, and the left wing dropped abruptly. The left main landing gear touched down on the runway, the airplane veered to the left into grass, and it then nosed over. The left wing lift strut and the rudder sustained substantial damage.The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The student pilot failed to submit the National Transportation Safety Board Form 6120.1 Pilot/ Operator Aircraft Accident/ Incident Report.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during short final approach in gusting wind conditions, the airplane drifted left. The airplane landed left of the runway in soft dirt and nosed over.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing lift struts.The pilot reported that, about 10 minutes before the accident, the wind was reported as light and variable at the airport. The airplane was landing on runway 7R.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The sport pilot of the experimental, amateur-built, amphibious airplane flew to meet a friend to camp for the night along a river. He landed on the river to the north, flying over power lines during the landing approach, and pulled the airplane onto the shore. The pilot offered to help his friend search for a life vest that had floated downstream after he finished unloading the gear from the airplane. Multiple witnesses watched as the pilot departed northbound on the river, made a 180° turn southbound, then flew over the river, beneath treetop level, and out of sight. They reported hearing a loud "boom" and the engine noise stop just before a power outage occurred. One witness reported seeing the airplane flying 30-40 ft above the river when it "suddenly flipped backwards and then hit the water." One witness reported that the sky was grey and overcast, and that the sun was setting about the time of the accident, making the power lines difficult to see. The powerlines directly overhead of the accident site displayed striations consistent with the airplane impacting the powerlines.Examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of a preexisting anomaly or malfunction that would have precluded normal operation. Toxicology testing on the pilot detected two medications, which were unlikely to have caused impairment, and the autopsy revealed an enlarged heart; however, there was no evidence of a heart attack or any other incapacitating event. It is likely that, while flying along the river at low altitude, the pilot failed to see the powerlines, which resulted in an in-flight collision with the powerlines and impact with the river.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the final approach, the airplane was too low, which he failed to notice and correct. Subsequently, the airplane landed short of the runway threshold in about 3 ft of snow and nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left lift strut, firewall, and empennage. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during the landing roll, the airplane veered to the left. He applied flight control inputs; however, the airplane exited the side of the runway and collided with terrain, resulting in the airplane nosing over and coming to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the aft fuselage, wings, and vertical stabilizer. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of a mechanical failure or malfunction that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the pilot, the single-engine airplane was equipped with a short takeoff and landing system, and before takeoff, he "lowered the full length flaperons to 30°." The airplane climbed out at 70 mph, and as it reached an altitude of 75 ft above ground level, it encountered a crosswind gust from the right. The right wing pitched up, and the pilot attempted to recover the airplane by applying right aileron, followed by right rudder, and then lowering the nose; however, he could not stop the roll to the left. The airplane collided with the ground adjacent to the runway and sustained substantial damage to its airframe. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The reported wind condition at the departure airport at the time of the accident was variable at 3 knots.
The pilot reported that, during the takeoff roll on a narrow runway about 70 to 80 knots, he noticed that the engines were not at full power. He advanced the throttles "a little further," but when he did so, the left main landing gear dropped off the left side of the runway into soft mud. Subsequently, the airplane veered off the runway to the left, the nose gear collapsed, and the airplane stopped in the mud.The fuselage and engine firewalls 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 79-year-old private pilot was making a local personal flight in his airplane when he reported over the aircraft emergency frequency that he was losing vision in one of his eyes. About the same time, a radar target using the emergency transponder squawk code was acquired traveling northbound along the coastline. The airplane wreckage was subsequently located on a beach close to the last radar target. The damage to the airplane was consistent with a high-speed, left wing-low impact due to a loss of control.According to the pilot's son, the pilot had been diagnosed with multiple chemical sensitivity and had a history of sudden vision loss, sometimes in just one eye but at other times in both eyes, which had been attributed to his chemical sensitivity. He had not reported the episodes of vision loss or the chemical sensitivity on any of his Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) medical applications. His most recent FAA medical certificate had expired 5 years before the accident, and it had been 5 years since he had accomplished a flight review. The pilot continued to fly, and his flight instructor, who had given the pilot his last flight review and flew with him 1 year before the accident, reported a significant degradation in the pilot's flying skills.
The airplane was on the final approach leg of the traffic pattern to the turf runway. The private pilot recalled that the airplane was 800 ft above ground level (agl) and aligned with the runway, but he had no further recollection of the flight. A witness observed the airplane flying "low and slow" about 20 ft agl when the nose pitched upward, the airplane "stalled," and the left wing struck the ground. The airport owner stated that the trees at the approach end of the runway were damaged, and broken branches were found scattered at the base of the trees immediately after the accident. The fuselage and wings sustained substantial damage consistent with collision with trees and terrain. The pilot stated that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot reported that, during his solo cross-country flight, he performed touch-and-go landings and takeoffs. The student pilot reported that there was a notice to airman identifying that the precision approach path indicator (PAPI) lighting was not in service at the second of three airports on his itinerary. The student pilot was cleared for a touch-and-go at the airport with no PAPI, and he reported that his landing was flat. He recalled that the airplane bounced but that he completed the touch-and-go and departed the airport for the final leg of his itinerary. He reported that he landed and shut down the airplane at his home airport, and "it was then that I noticed the bent prop tips. I immediately notified management." Further examination of the airplane by the operator revealed substantial damage to the firewall. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
A witness reported that he was outside his house when he heard an airplane "flying aerobatics." He said that he heard the airplane conduct two to three passes and that he could hear the engine "cycling under load as they do in airshows." He then went to the other side of the house, at which point he saw the airplane in a hammerhead climb (climbing straight up); the airplane then entered a slow, spiraling descent straight down, during which he did not hear engine noise. The airplane made about four spirals before it went out of sight behind rising terrain. The witness added that it did not appear that any attempt was made to recover from the descent. He was uncertain about what altitude the airplane was at when it was at the top of the hammerhead maneuver. The airplane wreckage was found less than 1/4 mile from the pilot's private grass airstrip. The examination of the wreckage revealed no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Given the witness statement, it is likely that the pilot lost airplane control while conducting aerobatic flight maneuvers and that there was insufficient altitude to recover.
The commercial pilot was landing on his 1,100 ft-long private grass airstrip. He set up for a landing to the north due to obstacles and the runway's upslope in that direction. A witness reported that the wind was "blowing hard," gusting, and variable at the time of the landing. The witness described the approach as normal until just before touchdown, when the left wing dropped and the right wing rose. The airplane then collided with the ground and came to rest on its nose with structural damage to the left wing and forward fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures before the accident, and the witness reported that the engine sounded normal during the event. Recorded weather information from nearby airports indicated wind from the south; one airport reported gusts of up to 29 knots. The pilot subsequently reported that the accident was the result of wind gusts that he had not anticipated.
The private pilot reported that, during a cross-country flight, the airplane encountered ice that began to accumulate on the wing and landing gear. He then attempted to divert to another airport. Subsequently, ice accumulated rapidly on the windshield and obscured the pilot's vision. The pilot maneuvered the airplane near the diversion airport for about 45 minutes; however, the weather deteriorated, so the pilot diverted to another airport. The pilot stated that, while attempting to land while looking out the side window, the airplane stalled about 30 ft above the ground, which resulted in a hard landing. A review of weather information for the area where the reported icing encounter occurred revealed no probability of icing at the reported time and altitude of the encounter and only about a 10% chance of trace icing during the hour following the encounter. Based on the available information, the airplane likely encountered unforecast icing during the flight, which resulted in structural icing that obscured the pilot's vision and increased the airplane's stall speed. When the pilot attempted to land, the airplane stalled at a higher-than-expected speed, which resulted in a hard landing.
The solo student pilot reported that, during his ninth landing of the day, the nose gear collapsed, and the left wing dipped down striking the runway. Subsequently, the airplane exited the runway to the right. The Federal Aviation Administration inspector who responded to the accident reported that the distance from the first point of impact to the final stopping point was about 320 ft. He added there were indications that the right aileron and wing tip contacted the runway first. There was also a sheared nose gear hub pin/bolt found 35 ft from the initial point of impact.There were multiple impact points along the debris path, and the second point of impact was the left wing tip, indicated by the blue-and-white paint markings from the wing tip on the runway. The third impact was the airplane's nosewheel assembly. The runway showed markings left by the tire on the surface for about 20 ft. The markings also indicated an extreme side load on the tire. The wheel/tire hub assembly was found at the end of the tire mark with one of the nose strut forks.Additionally, there were seven gouges in the runway surface from the propeller striking the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and the firewall.The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.The weather observation station at the accident airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was 220° at 14 knots, gusting to 20 knots. The student pilot landed on runway 28L.Page 2 of 6 GAA17CA111
The airline transport pilot reported that, during the landing roll at the end of a cross-country flight, when he attempted to lightly apply the brakes, the airplane began to yaw from side to side. The airplane subsequently exited the right side of the runway and sustained substantial damage to the right wing spar. During the landing, the right main landing gear collapsed. An on-site examination revealed that the right main landing gear torque link assembly had separated at the hinge attach point due to the failure of the torque link bolt. Although the bolt was located at the accident site, the bolt's nut, cotter pin, and washer were missing. Further examination revealed that the torque link bolt threads had been rounded over and exhibited remnants of material consistent with the threads of the mating nut. In addition, remnants of the cotter pin that was installed through the bolt hole were visible. The sheared cotter pin and threads from the nut that remained within the bolt threads suggest that the torque link bolt/nut assembly was overloaded, which resulted in the landing gear collapse. A Federal Aviation Administration special airworthiness information bulletin had been issued about 3 years before the accident to advise owners, operators, and maintenance technicians of the make and model airplane of the need to inspect the main landing gear torque link assembly to ensure the correct thickness of washers and to ensure that the washers are installed properly, and a Cessna service bulletin had also been issued previously regarding the washers. However, no maintenance records were available to determine the airplane's maintenance history or compliance with the applicable bulletins.
The pilot was landing to the south after his personal flight. He stated that, during the landing, the airplane's ground speed "picked up," and he thought he had a tailwind. The airport owner thought the airplane was traveling at a high speed on approach. The pilot stated that he chose to land, and, as the airplane touched down, it "skipped" off the runway. The airplane then crashed into a wooded area off the departure end of the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to the wings, engine, and fuselage. The pilot could not recall what happened between the time the airplane "skipped" off the runway and when emergency personnel arrived. The engine throttle and fuel/air mixture controls were found in the full forward position, and the carburetor heat knob was found in the ON position. The flaps were retracted. The airplane appeared to be partially configured for a go-around; however, the pilot should have aborted the landing when he realized the airplane was traveling too fast.
The purpose of the flight was to take nighttime aerial photographs of several cruise ships in a nearby harbor. The helicopter with the commercial pilot and the passenger/photographer aboard departed from the operator's ramp area, and proceeded to the harbor where it made numerous orbits. Following the orbits, the helicopter flew toward a jetty, and witnesses on one ship reported that the helicopter started spinning as it went straight down into the water. The helicopter came to rest upright in about 18 ft of water. All major components of the helicopter were recovered except the outboard 3/4 of one main rotor blade. The fracture surface at the separation point was jagged and angular consistent with an overstress failure at impact. The intact main rotor blade exhibited coning, which was indicative of low rotor rpm at impact. There were no rotational signatures between the cooling fan and scroll or the upper sheave and the airframe, which indicated that the engine was not operating at impact. Examination of the helicopter revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.The carburetor heat control knob in the cockpit was in the full down or "OFF" position and unlocked. The slider on the carburetor heat airbox was in a midrange position; the airbox was deformed, and the slider cable was displaced. At impact, if the airbox moves out of position, it will likely stretch the cable, which will move the slider valve. The helicopter was equipped with a carburetor heat assist device; lowering the collective mechanically added heat and raising the collective reduced heat. If the pilot was not manipulating the collective, the assist device would not have an effect. Carburetor heat would only be controlled by the pilot's manipulation of the carburetor heat control knob. If the control knob had been up in an "ON" position, it likely would have been bent and still up.The airframe manufacturer has issued safety notices regarding carburetor ice and low rotor rpm blade stall. One safety notice stated that failure to maintain rotor rpm can result in low rotor rpm stall, and the helicopter can fall at an extreme rate. Another safety notice stated that main rotor blade stall due to low main rotor rpm caused a very high percentage of helicopter accidents. If the pilot had maintained main rotor rpm, he might have been able to make a successful autorotation and touch down less violently on Page 2 of 8 WPR17FA047the water, which might have allowed the occupants to egress the helicopter. However, performing an autorotation to water on a dark night would be a difficult maneuver.The meteorological conditions at the time of the accident were conducive for the formation of carburetor ice, but the carburetor heat control knob was in the "OFF" position. It is likely that the pilot's failure to apply carburetor heat resulted in a loss of engine power due to carburetor ice. During the ensuing forced landing, the pilot did not maintain adequate main rotor rpm, and the helicopter descended rapidly to impact.
The private pilot was conducting a cross-country personal flight. He reported that he entered the downwind pattern at his home airfield and prepared the airplane to land using the manufacturer's checklist, which included selecting the fullest fuel tank, setting flaps to 5°, and lowering the landing gear. While on an extended downwind leg, the pilot noticed that the airplane had descended to between 700 and 800 ft above ground level, so he added engine power to climb back to pattern altitude, but the engine stopped producing power. The pilot turned the airplane toward the runway, which he estimated was more than 1.5 miles away. He realized that he was not going to be able to glide the configured airplane to the runway, so he performed a forced landing to a field but landed short in a wooded area. Examination and testing of the engine did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Maintenance had recently been conducted on the fuel selector's union fitting. The mechanic who conducted the maintenance reported purging the lines of air and conducting a successful postmaintenance test flight before releasing the airplane to the pilot. The reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The commercial pilot reported that he was practicing touch-and-go landings in the experimental, amateur-built airplane. During the final approach, he noted that he would be landing farther down the runway then he desired, so he initiated a go-around. However, when he advanced the throttle, the engine power decreased. The pilot subsequently landed on the remaining runway, but the airplane overran the runway end and came to rest in a marsh, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing. A Mazda automotive engine had been modified by the pilot for use in the accident airplane. The postaccident engine examination revealed that two park apex seals had been installed in each of the three corners of each rotor to seal their edges. However, the two top seals from one of the rotor sides were missing; they were not recovered after the accident. According to a Mazda rotary engine conversion guide, this engine is susceptible to premature apex seal failures, which can be greatly reduced by lubrication delivered directly by a two-stroke sump designed to burn with a minimum of deposits; the sump was tested and functioned normally. The investigation determined that the absence of these seals would have resulted in low compression and degraded power. Because there were no other mechanical malfunctions or failures noted that could have affected engine performance, it is likely that the engine lost partial power due to the missing apex seals, which likely failed and were expelled from the engine for reasons that could not be determined. Page 2 of 7 WPR17LA048