roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The non-instrument rated private pilot reported that, during a night cross-country flight, the airplane encountered ice that began to accumulate on the windshield and obscured the pilot's vision. The pilot reported that during landing he had no pitch control, the airplane landed hard, and bounced. On the third bounce, the nose landing gear collapsed. The airplane came to rest upright on the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot stated in his report that he allowed external factors to influence his decision making related to the flight. He noted that he wanted to make it back home for the Christmas holiday and that he had already missed a day of work. He also stated that he did not obtain updated weather information and that if he had he may have made the decision to not start the flight.
The pilot reported the airplane was topped off with fuel before the flight. He reported that the flight was normal, and he switched fuel tanks when he reached the initial approach fix for the instrument approach. The pilot then canceled his instrument clearance and continued a visual approach to the airport that was normal until he was on short final when the engine stopped producing power. The pilot stated he made one attempt to restore the engine power, which included switching fuel tanks. Unable to restore engine power, the pilot performed a forced landing to a field about one mile short of the runway. During the forced landing the airplane’s fuselage was substantially damaged and a postimpact fire ensued, consuming a majority of the fuselage.A postaccident examination of the engine revealed the engine had been exposed to the postimpact fire. Valvetrain continuity was established throughout the engine. The magnetos and spark plugs were functionally tested and performed normally. The cylinders were examined with a borescope and showed signs of normal wear. The engine fuel components were examined and appeared clear of debris. The remainder of the airplane’s fuel system could not be tested due to the postimpact fire. All of the metal propeller blades had chordwise scratches observed on the cambered side as well as nicks and gouges on the leading edges indicative of the propeller producing some amount of power at impact. The engine examination did not reveal any malfunction or failure that would have precluded normal operation of the engine; therefore, the cause of the reported loss of engine power could not be determined. Page 2 of 6 CEN23LA066
The pilot of the gyroplane reported that, typically after reaching a speed of about 45-50 mph during the takeoff roll and just before takeoff, the nosewheel becomes light. He stated that for the accident flight the nose became light as expected, but then suddenly dropped, and the nose gear contacted the runway hard. The gyroplane veered left, and he depressed full right rudder. The main rotor impacted the runway, and the gyroplane departed the runway and came to rest on its side, sustaining substantial damage to the fuselage, tail boom, and rotor system.A postaccident examination of the flight controls revealed no anomalies. Further examination revealed the nose gear appeared to be bent aft and right and exhibited damage consistent with a hard impact. The runway surface exhibited witness marks consistent with a hard impact of the nose gear.
The pilot was planning to complete a touch and go landing on the same runway he departed from 15 minutes earlier, which contained patches of snow and ice. When the airplane touched down, it encountered a patch of ice and skidded left. The plane collided with snow then nosed over and came to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported no mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during the landing for a touch-and-go, the airplane touched down with engine power at idle right of runway centerline and began to veer to the right. The pilot attempted to correct with left rudder control and then thought to apply power for a go-around. The pilot subsequently rejected the go-around and applied hard braking as the airplane departed the right side of the runway. The left wing sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane which would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during the takeoff, the fuel tank selector was mistakenly set to the auxiliary tank. Five minutes later the auxiliary tank ran out of gas, which resulted in a total loss of engine power. The pilot switched to the main tank; however, there was insufficient altitude available for a recovery. The airplane struck terrain about 100 ft short of the runway, which substantially damaged the left and right wings. 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 he made a normal touchdown, but he was unable to maintain directional control of the airplane during the landing roll. He reported that the airplane did not respond to his control inputs, and it veered off the left side of the runway, struck a ditch, nosed over, and came to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. A tower controller initially reported to local law enforcement that the airplane bounced on landing, but he later recanted his statement. Examination of the wreckage revealed the nose wheel was separated and the nose gear fork assembly was fractured. A metallurgical examination of the fractured pieces of the nose gear revealed fracture surfaces with features consistent with overstress fracture.Flight control continuity was confirmed, and the remainder of the examination revealed no pre-impact mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Based on the physical evidence, the landing gear likely fractured during a hard landing, causing the loss of directional control.
The pilot reported that, the airplane does not have an electrical system and needed to be hand propped to start the engine. There were no tire chocks or tie-down ropes on the ramp, so he asked an individual at the airport, whom he believed was a pilot and said that he had experience with assisting in hand propping an airplane. The pilot instructed the individual on the procedures and with the throttle set to 1/8 inch open, and the individual in the pilot’s seat, he then positioned himself in front of the airplane and spun the propeller. The engine started as expected and the engine immediately went to a high rpm setting. The airplane began forward movement under high rpm and speed and subsequently collided with a light pole and airport hangar after the individual in the cockpit could not stop the airplane. Both wings were substantially damaged. The pilot reported that after the collision, he found the throttle positioned to the full forward high rpm position instead of the idle position and that the individual reported that he went the wrong direction with the throttle. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The airline transport pilot stated that when he configured the airplane for landing, only the green nose landing gear position light illuminated. After performing a missed approach, the pilot attempted to manually lower the gear, but felt the system was “not engaging correctly” and continued to turn the manual gear extension handle until it would no longer turn.When the airplane was on final approach, the tower controllers advised that the landing gear “appeared down.” The pilot stated that the landing gear warning horn did not activate. During the landing roll, the left main landing gear collapsed, followed by the “folding” of the right main landing gear. Initial examination of the airplane revealed only minor damage, but a subsequent more comprehensive examination revealed substantial damage to the wing spar carry-through structure.Upon recovery, the nose landing gear was found down and locked. The landing gear doors were partially open, consistent with a transition phase between the retracted and extended position. Examination of the main landing gear revealed that the landing gear actuator upper bellcrank had been driven beyond the down limit switch and that its travel was stopped by the internal stop pin in the actuator. When the landing gear actuator was driven beyond the down limit and toward the internal stop pin, the main landing gear was released from its down-and-locked position, which allowed it to partially retract before landing. The reason for the overtravel of the gear actuator could not be determined based on the available information.
The pilot reported that, during departure, he could not climb the airplane, which stalled toward the end of the runway and descended into terrain at the edge of the airport property, resulting in substantial damage to both wings and fuselage. The pilot of a commercial airplane that departed shortly before the accident airplane reported poor climb performance during departure. A review of the topography for the runway that was used for both takeoffs indicated the possibility of downdraft conditions on the departure path of the runway. It is likely that the airplane encountered a downdraft during departure that exceeded the climb capability of the airplane and resulted in the airplane exceeding its critical angle of attack, entering an aerodynamic stall, and descending into terrain.
The pilot taxing N21462 stated he did not turn sharply enough when he applied power to position the airplane in the run-up area, and the airplane’s right wing struck the vertical stabilizer of N221MF which was stopped in the run-up area. The pilot of N21462 stated that his foot slipped and was not on the brake during the turn. N221MF sustained substantial damage to the vertical stabilizer, and N21462 sustained minor damage to the right-wing tip and outboard leading edge. The pilot of N21462 said that there were no mechanical anomalies with the airplane that precluded normal operations.
The pilot reported that on approach to the offshore oil platform the wind was gusting from the north. During approach to the helideck, he turned the nose of the helicopter to the northeast, so the disembarking passengers were near the stairway. Later, as he attempted to takeoff, the front skids lifted off the helideck and the wind from the north pushed against the helicopter. The skids became stuck on the helideck and the helicopter rolled over. The pilot was unable to regain control of the helicopter as it continued to roll off the helideck. During the uncontrolled descent, the pilot activated the emergency floats and the helicopter impacted the water. The occupants egressed the helicopter and were rescued from the water. Photos of the helideck revealed the metal safety skirting was damaged and partially separated. The operator’s chief pilot stated to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector that the pilot stated he made his approach from the south and terminated to a hover, rotated the nose right 45° which put the helideck stairs off the right side of the helicopter’s nose. During the subsequent takeoff, the aft right skid of helicopter likely contacted the helideck and helideck light, which resulted in dynamic rollover. He also reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.The operator’s General Operating Manual (GOM) states that platform takeoffs should always begin from a stabilized hover and as into the wind as much as possible. Postaccident examination of the helicopter revealed damage and witness marks to the aft right skid and did not reveal any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Page 2 of 9 CEN23LA064It is likely that the pilot’s improper takeoff technique allowed the helicopter to drift toward the helideck light, then when the skid contacted the light, that acted as a pivot point and resulted in dynamic rollover.
According to the pilot, during the landing flare, the airplane “bounced” back into the air. The pilot attempted to regain control of the airplane but was unsuccessful. The airplane collided with the runway and “skidded” off the left side before coming to a stop in the grass. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. A Federal Aviation Administration inspector examined the airplane after the accident and conformed that the fuselage had been substantially damaged.
The pilot of the multiengine airplane reported that, he had preflighted the airplane about 2 hours before his intended departure and asked ground crew to reposition the airplane. When the pilot was ready for departure, he reported that he did not do another preflight, but only walked around the nose of the airplane to get to the entrance door. After he started both engines, the airplane would not taxi forward. The pilot reported that he thought that he set the brakes, reduced both engines to an idle power setting, and exited the airplane. The pilot observed a chock on the airplane’s nosewheel, and after he removed the chock, the airplane began to move forward. He attempted to reboard the unoccupied airplane, however, was unable to and the airplane subsequently collided with a hangar. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the pilot, after flying for about 4 hours, the engine lost total power about 2 miles form the destination airport and the pilot performed a forced landing to a field, which resulted in substantial damage to the airplane’s fuselage and right wing. The pilot described that the fuel consumption during the accident flight was higher than he had expected based on the fuel consumption that he had calculated on previous flights. A Federal Aviation Administration inspector examined the airplane after the accident and confirmed that both of the fuel tanks were absent of fuel. In the “Recommendation” section of the NTSB Pilot/Operator Accident Report, the pilot stated that “a more accurate way to determine actual fuel on board and a higher reserve might have prevented this accident.” Based on this information, it’s likely that the loss of engine power was due to fuel exhaustion.
The flight crew reported that, the instrument approach was flown on autopilot to about 700 ft above ground level until the runway was visually in sight. They were 300 ft off the runway centerline, and 1 nautical mile from the runway threshold. The visual glideslope indicator was inoperative, and the runway markings were obscured due to dry light snow. The airplane subsequently landed hard on the unusable portion of the runway, about 800 ft short of the landing threshold, and the left mail landing gear tire blew, causing the propellor to strike the runway. The airplane veered off the runway substantially damaging the left wing. The pilots reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The airplane lost all engine power during a precision instrument approach for landing to the destination airport. After the pilot was unsuccessful in attempting to restart the engine, he performed an off-airport landing to a road, during which the airplane struck a pole and a postcrash fire ensued. There was substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. Postaccident examination revealed that about 12 of the camshaft gear teeth were fractured due to fatigue cracking. The airplane engine’s camshaft gear part numbers were affected by the engine manufacturer’s service bulletin (SB) for camshaft gear tooth fracture or cracks of the teeth. The SB called for the replacement of the camshaft gear with a newer model. The intent of the SB was to eliminate the possibility of camshaft gear tooth fracture, resulting in power loss or in-flight shutdown; compliance with the SB is not mandatory for Part 91 operations. Based upon the camshaft gear part numbers, the SB was not complied with but likely would have addressed the fatigue failure of the camshaft gear teeth.The maintenance records for the airplane were destroyed in the postimpact fire and could not be examined.
The pilot in the helicopter reported that, during cruise flight at dusk with night vision goggles on, he encountered a flock of birds at 1,500 ft above ground level. As the pilot initiated a climbing left turn to avoid the birds, he heard a loud bang accompanied by a pain in his left leg. The helicopter then began to vibrate, and the pilot initiated a precautionary landing in a nearby field without further incident. Bird remains were located throughout the pilot side of the cockpit. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the windshield. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot reported that upon engine startup for a local solo flight the airplane “almost immediately pivoted to the left.” The airplane impacted a two support beams of the shade hangar it was parked under, substantially damaging the left wing.  The pilot reported that the parking brake was set when the engine was started and that his feet were on the brakes. A witness reported that the airplane “started up with what sounded like an excessively high RPM.”  Postaccident inspection of the throttle, toe brake, and parking brake system by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector found no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor reported that the pilot receiving instruction was practicing an offsite landing in an open area. While descending on approach to the site, the airspeed decayed to 35 kts. The flight instructor prompted for an increase in airspeed, the pilot flying acknowledged, applied forward cyclic, right pedal, and continued turning left into the wind. They encountered an uncommanded left yaw and the pilot receiving instruction added right pedal until he reached full deflection. The flight instructor then assumed control of the helicopter and pushed forward on the cyclic as he lowered the collective. The instructor attempted to recover from the uncommanded left yaw; however, but the helicopter spun several times. Unable to gain forward airspeed, the flight instructor began a descent. The helicopter subsequently landed hard substantially damaging the underside of the fuselage. The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
After practicing maneuvers, autorotative approaches, and landings in the local area, the flight instructor and the student pilot were practicing autorotative landings from a hover following a simulated loss of engine power, off-airport, and over sandy terrain. While hovering about 3 ft. above the ground, the student pilot reduced engine power to enter an autorotation. Between 1 and 2 ft. above the ground, a gust of wind struck the helicopter from the right that resulted in the helicopter rolling and drifting to the left. The flight instructor then took control of the helicopter, but the left roll and drift continued, the left skid impacted the ground, and the helicopter experienced a dynamic rollover onto its left side. During the rollover, the main rotor blades impacted the ground and the tailboom and main rotor mast pylon were substantially damaged. The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the vintage tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that he made a three-point landing on the runway centerline, aligned with the runway, in light wind. Upon touchdown, the airplane swerved left. The pilot attempted to correct with right rudder and brake application; however, the airplane departed the left side of the runway and ground looped, resulting in substantial damage to the right wing and empennage. The pilot examined the tailwheel after the accident and noted that its locking mechanism had failed. Specifically, he believed that the spindle or brass thrust ring had failed internally.
The student pilot reported that, while on approach, the airplane encountered turbulence with wind gusts. During the flare, the airplane landed hard and bounced. A wind gust raised the right wing turning the airplane off the runway to the left side toward rising terrain. The pilot applied full power to avoid the terrain when the stall warning horn sounded. The airplane subsequently collided with terrain, substantially damaging both wings. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the twin engine-equipped airplane reported that while on an instrument flight rules cross-country flight at night, he became concerned about the amount of fuel aboard and considered stopping for fuel.  About the time he became aware of the fuel state, the airplane encountered instrument meteorological conditions and his attention was diverted from finding an alternate airport to maintaining his flight path.  When air traffic control cleared the pilot to go direct to the initial approach fix at his destination airport, the airplane experienced an uncommanded right yaw.  The pilot recognized that the right engine experienced a total loss of power and he began to secure that engine. He declared an emergency and requested radar vectors to the nearest airport. Then, the left engine began to “sputter” and experienced a total loss of power.  The pilot reported that he “was sure that it was fuel exhaustion.”  Unable to glide to an airport, the pilot aimed for the darkest landscape, to avoid any ground injuries, and the airplane impacted terrain resulting in substantial damage to both wings and the fuselage.  Post-accident examination of the airplane by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector noted no smell of fuel or indications of fuel present at the accident site.  The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. Based on this information, it is likely that the pilot exhausted the available fuel supply, with resulted in a total loss of engine power and subsequent forced landing.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that, after executing a normal three-point landing and during the landing roll, the airplane swerved to the left. He attempted corrective action, however the airplane then swerved to the right. The pilot applied brakes, and the airplane ground looped, substantially damaging the right wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The instructor pilot of the tundra tire-equipped airplane reported that, during a touch-and-go maneuver on a snow-covered runway, the airplane decelerated rapidly as the main landing gear wheels touched down into the deep snow, and he was unable to perform the go around maneuver. The airplane subsequently nosed over sustaining substantial damage to the wing lift struts and rudder. The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.