roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that he landed on the main wheels, and while waiting for the tailwheel to drop, the "tailwheel jammed." He added that, when the tailwheel touched down, the airplane was difficult to control and veered to the left. He corrected for the veer, but the airplane veered to the right. He then conducted a go-around; however, once airborne, the airplane "did not appear to be producing proper power." He then aborted the go-around and opted to land on the remaining runway. About 25 ft above the runway, he set the airplane up for a wheel landing and descended. When the airplane was about 5 to 10 ft above the runway, the airplane "abruptly" sank and landed hard, and the main landing gear collapsed. Subsequently, the airplane came to rest nose down on the runway.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.During a telephone interview, the pilot reported that he believed the tailwheel had jammed before touchdown and that he had previously redesigned and altered the tailwheel. Further, the airplane produced insufficient power during the go-around. He reported that the tailwheel was mechanically "okay" when examined after the accident.Additionally, an airframe and powerplants mechanic reported that he examined the tailwheel assembly after the accident and found no defects and no binding.The pilot reported that the weather at the accident airport, about the time of the accident, was wind from 320° at 10 knots, gusting to 12 knots. The pilot landed on runway 31.Photographs taken at the accident site showed torsional twisting of the propeller, consistent with the engine producing power at the time of impact. The National Transportation Safety Board did not examine the engine.Page 2 of 6 GAA17CA445
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during an agricultural application flight and after he had completed two spray passes, he received a call from his ground crew, which informed him that he did not have enough chemicals to complete the application. Because of his heavy load, the position of his load pad, and the runway slope, the pilot chose to land with a tailwind. The pilot reported that he approached with a higher-than-normal airspeed and touched down about 1,500 ft from the approach end of runway 21. As the tailwheel came down, the airplane rolled over a depression in the runway, which unloaded the weight on the landing gear, and the airplane veered to the left. The pilot was unable to regain directional control before the airplane departed the runway and went over an embankment. The airplane sustained substantial damage to 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 automated weather observation station located about 14 nautical miles northwest of the accident site reported that, about 5 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 50° at 6 knots.
Although he had no night or instrument flight experience, the sport pilot departed in a non-instrument-certificated light sport airplane at night with an overcast ceiling and thunderstorms in the area. Radar data showed that the airplane proceeded on course for about 9 minutes and then entered a right descending turn that continued to ground impact, which was consistent with the pilot attempting to return to the departure airport and not paying attention to his altitude. Examination of the accident site revealed that the airplane struck open level farm land in a right wing-low, nose-low attitude. Examination of the engine and airframe did not reveal any evidence of preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. It is likely that the pilot continued visual flight into an area of instrument meteorological conditions, which resulted in the pilot experiencing a loss of visual reference and subsequent spatial disorientation.The pilot had a history of chronic insomnia treated with temazepam, a sedating benzodiazepine, and was regularly prescribed hydrocodone, an opioid analgesic. Toxicology testing detected these drugs and their metabolites in the pilot's system. The pilot was likely impaired by effects from his use of temazepam, and the impairing effects of temazepam were likely enhanced by the pilot's use of hydrocodone. It is likely that the pilot's decision-making was degraded due to his combined use of temazepam and hydrocodone.
The commercial pilot reported that during takeoff, the helicopter rolled to the right, and he was unable to arrest the roll with cyclic input. The right skid and main rotor blades struck the ground, and the helicopter spun 360° before it came to rest upright with the tail rotor assembly severed from the tailboom. Postaccident examination of the flight control system revealed flight control continuity with no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. In addition, the pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter at the time of the accident. Thus, it is likely that the pilot failed to maintain helicopter control while maneuvering during takeoff.
The pilot of an agricultural airplane reported that he planned to apply an herbicide and test the spray system at maximum pressure at a specified airspeed. He added that a ground tractor was also in the field applying the same chemical. During the flight, he saw the tractor and passed over it between about 50 and 100 ft above ground level (agl). While spraying at 10 ft agl, he noted pressure, output, airspeed, and ground speed. At the end of the field, he climbed and made a left, 180° turn for another pass. The pilot reported that he "lost focus" outside of the airplane while looking at the spray results, and when he noticed the tractor, it was too late; the airplane's wheel collided with the tractor. Examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the fuselage.The tractor driver reported that he heard someone call him on the radio and that he answered the pilot on the radio and saw the airplane coming "directly at him, very low." The tractor driver heard and felt the impact and was knocked from his seat by the collision. The tractor driver then called his supervisor for help. The tractor driver added that his supervisor and another ground sprayer had been "buzzed" by the pilot before.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll, the left wing started to lift, followed by the tail. He added that he applied full left aileron and full back pressure on the control yoke. The airplane then nosed over to the right and stopped. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.An automated weather observation station at the airport reported, about the time of the accident, wind from 100° at 7 knots. The airplane landed on runway 11.
During landing, the nose landing gear and right main landing gear collapsed, and the airplane veered off the runway. The pilot stated that it was likely that he switched the hydraulic pump off during the accident flight. Although both the hydraulic switch position and checking the hydraulic system pressure were included in his before-landing checklist, he could not recall their position and indication, respectively, during the accident approach. The pilot also reported that he had been experiencing issues with the landing gear microswitches, and the airplane's landing gear indicator light was inoperative as a result. Postaccident examination of the airplane and landing gear system revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. It is likely that the pilot's failure to properly configure the hydraulic switch, and his subsequent failure to recognize the error during his before-landing check, resulted in inadequate hydraulic pressure to extend and lock the landing gear. The airplane's inoperative landing gear indicator light likely contributed to the pilot's failure to recognize that the landing gear was not fully extended and locked before landing.
A witness, who was a repair facility employee, stated that, on the morning of the accident, the airplane was fueled and then flown for about 15 to 20 minutes without incident. The accident flight was the second flight of the day and was also about 15 to 20 minutes long. The witness's cell phone video revealed that the airplane was on short final for the runway as it descended and turned left; it then disappeared into a wooded area. The airplane collided with a tree and then impacted the ground and came to rest upright. First responders to the accident site stated that the fuel lines had been severed, and fuel was covering the ground under the airplane. The propeller blades did not exhibit signs of power during impact. Postaccident testing of the engine's distributors and fuel pump did not reveal any anomalies. However, postaccident testing of the injection carburetor revealed that the right float switch pin was dislodged from its cylinder, but it could not be determined when the pin became dislodged. The pin was reinstalled into its cylinder, and subsequent testing of the injection carburetor revealed that it was out of tolerance; however, the specialists at the repair station stated that, although several of the carburetor readings were out of tolerance, none of the indications would have caused a loss of engine power. Postaccident examination of the engine did not reveal any evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The fuel selector was found positioned to the auxiliary fuel tank line, not the main fuel tank line. The valve was impact-separated from the airplane, and its preaccident position could not be confirmed. Based on the available evidence, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The airline transport pilot was conducting a cross-country, personal helicopter flight. He reported that, while looking for a place to camp, he initially landed in one area; however, he decided it was unsuitable and lifted off, at which time he noticed the rotor rpm was low. He then twisted the throttle to full, and the rotor rpm immediately increased. The pilot then proceeded across a small ravine toward a hill traveling about 10 to 20 knots and about 25 ft above ground level. The low rotor warning horn sounded, and the engine began to lose power. The pilot added that, because he had already set the throttle to full power, he decided his only option was to lower the collective and fly downhill to gain airspeed and regain rotor rpm. The pilot leveled the helicopter just above the water's surface and increased the collective to cushion the landing. As the helicopter settled into the water, it rolled over onto its left side and then became partially submerged.Examination of the engine did not reveal evidence of any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Given the reported gross weight of the helicopter, accident site elevation, and temperature, the helicopter was operating at the upper limit of its performance capabilities. Performance charts indicated that the helicopter would not have been able to hover out of ground effect at that elevation; therefore, it is likely that, when the helicopter crossed the ravine and entered an out-of-ground-effect hover, there was insufficient available power to sustain the out-of-ground-effect hover due to the throttle already being positioned to full power, which resulted in the loss of rotor rpm.
According to the helicopter pilot, during an agricultural flight, he made a downwind turn to spray the intended field. During the low airspeed right turn, he increased the engine power, and the rotor rpm decreased. He reported that he leveled the helicopter to clear power lines, but the rotor rpm remained low. The helicopter descended, and the pilot landed the helicopter in a corn field.The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the tailboom and horizontal stabilizer. The nearest METAR located 15 nautical miles south-southeast from the accident site reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was calm.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
A Public Use aircraft in support of the U.S. Air Force, was taking off on a cross-country flight when it crashed shortly after takeoff. According the pilot, shortly after takeoff, the airplane failed to accelerate, and he was unable to initiate a normal climb. The airplane subsequently struck terrain and was consumed by fire.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the flaps were in the fully extended position. Additionally, maintenance personnel that launched the airplane, both stated that the airplane taxied from of the ramp area with the flaps fully extended. The pilot had performed a ground engine run to help maintenance personnel check that the replacement flap actuator was functioned properly and had no leaks. The pilot was asked to extend and retract the flaps several times. It is likely that the pilot was distracted by the airplane’s maintenance and associated ground tests and inadvertently failed to confirm the proper flap setting before takeoff.
The flight instructor reported that, during the landing flare about 20 ft above the runway, the student pilot "froze" at the flight controls. She added that she told the student pilot, "Add power – too high," but the student did not respond. The student pilot "hung on" to the flight controls, "forcing [the] instructor to push full power and physically [take the] airplane." Subsequently, the airplane landed hard, and the left wing impacted the runway.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The airline transport pilot stated that the cross-country personal flight proceeded normally until he entered the downwind leg for landing. During the landing approach in dark night conditions, he noted scattered thunderstorms ahead. During the final approach, he thought the airplane was too high, and he considered conducting a go-around. The airplane encountered a strong downdraft, heavy rain, and turbulence, and the pilot saw several lightning strikes ahead. The pilot decided to land and risk overrunning the runway rather than possibly entering the thunderstorm. Upon landing, the airplane overran the end of the runway, the second half of which had standing water on it, and then struck a berm. An automated weather observation facility 7 miles east of the accident site reported, at the time of the accident, variable winds from between 060° and 360° at between 16 and 20 knots, gusting to between 21 and 29 knots with a peak wind of 35 knots. A thunderstorm was present near the airport with lightning observed in all quadrants.
While on a personal flight, the airline transport pilot made several low passes over a lake in front of a friend's house. The friend and two other witnesses reported that, on its last pass, the airplane was flying at a low altitude when it pitched down slightly, impacted the surface of the lake, nosed over, and sank. The friend reported hearing the engine "sputter" followed by an increase in power before the impact, and one of the other witnesses reported that the engine was running throughout the low pass.A postaccident examination of the wreckage did not find any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane. Although the temperature and dew point were conducive to serious icing at glide power, the witness observations and forward bending of the propeller blades were consistent with the engine operating at cruise or climb power at impact.A portable GPS unit found in the wreckage did not contain any data about the accident flight. However, the GPS unit did record data consistent with previous flights where an airplane flew near the accident location. Additionally, one witness stated that the pilot was friends with a neighbor and had conducted numerous low passes over the lake during the previous 4 years.
The commercial pilot reported that the accident flight was the first flight following maintenance, which included the installation of right-seat rudder pedals with brake controls. The pilot stated that, during a preflight inspection of the airplane, he actuated the ailerons; however, he did not verify which direction the control yoke moved. He again checked the flight control movement before takeoff but did not verify which direction the aileron moved when he moved the control yoke. During the takeoff sequence, as the airplane became airborne, it immediately entered an uncommanded left roll. The pilot attempted to correct for the roll; however, he was unable to do so and subsequently reduced the engine power. The airplane then impacted the ground and came to rest upright on an adjacent runway.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that, when the control yoke was rotated for input of right aileron, the right aileron moved down, and the left aileron moved up, which is opposite of what would be expected. Examination of the aileron cables revealed that they remained attached to the "T" bar aileron control chains; however, the right aileron control cable was attached to the left aileron control chain, and the left aileron control cable was attached to the right aileron control chain; thus, the cables were connected backward. The cables were oriented such that they crossed underneath the flap handle and center console area. The two mechanics who performed the maintenance on the airplane reported that they had disconnected the aileron control cables to facilitate the installation of the rudder pedals and brake controls. After completing the maintenance, they checked the flight control cable tension and aileron movement; however, they did not observe which direction the control yoke moved when the aileron was moved. It is likely that the mechanics attached the aileron control cables backward during the reassembly of the aileron control system, which resulted in roll control that was opposite of that commanded by the pilot. Page 2 of 7 WPR17LA164
According to the pilot, he checked the wind sock at the airpark and made left traffic for a landing on the turf runway. As the airplane touched down, it encountered a wind gust from the left. The right wing struck the ground, followed by the left wing and the propeller. The nose landing gear collapsed, and the airplane came to rest upright on the main landing gear and the fuselage. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right- and left-wing spars.The pilot reported the wind was from 270° at 7 knots.The nearest METAR, 10 miles northwest of the airpark, reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was variable at 3 knots, the ceiling was overcast at 2,100 ft, and the visibility was greater than 10 statute miles.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 tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, while landing in crosswind conditions and as the tailwheel set down, the airplane veered left. Subsequently, the airplane exited the left side of the runway, struck a well head, and came to rest nose down.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 about 7 nautical miles from the accident site reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 280° at 11 knots. The pilot landed on runway 26.
The pilot reported that he noticed that a spray nozzle was leaking on the agricultural spray airplane. Subsequently, he performed multiple test flights over a nearby field while the head of the ground crew remained on the ground to monitor the leak. He added that he landed the airplane on the grass airstrip, adjusted the nozzle, departed for another visual check, and repeated as necessary. Following the tests and adjustments, the ground crewman told the pilot that the nozzle was not leaking, and the pilot returned to land. The pilot reported that, during the landing roll, he did not see the ground crewman visually check the runway before crossing the runway in front of the airplane in an all-terrain vehicle (ATV). He added that he immediately veered the airplane to the right and sped up to avoid striking the ground crewman with the propeller. However, the left wing struck the ATV and the ground crewman.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing leading edge, and the ground crewman sustained minor injuries.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, during the takeoff roll, multiple geese flew across the runway. One goose struck the propeller, and another struck the windshield. Subsequently, the airplane yawed to the right into tall grass, and the airplane then spun 180° and came to rest with the landing gear sheared off.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the float-equipped airplane reported that, following takeoff from a lake, he turned to left downwind about 750 ft above the water. He added that, once the turn was completed, the airplane encountered a strong downdraft, which "pushed [the] tail of [the airplane] down and away to [the] left," and the airplane began to descend. The pilot corrected with left rudder and was able to "straighten [the airplane] just prior to [the] right float tip contacting water." The airplane impacted the water, nosed over, and sank. The pilot egressed without further incident. 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 pilot reported on the NTSB Form 6120.1 that the wind was from the east/southeast at 15 to 20 knots, gusting to 25 knots. The pilot reported a takeoff to the east. A review of recorded data from an automated weather observation station located about 7 nautical miles east of the accident, about the time of the accident, revealed winds calm; 10 statues miles visibility; few clouds at 600 ft, scattered clouds at 1,200 ft, and an overcast ceiling at 3,200 ft; temperature 54°F; dew point 54°F; and an altimeter setting at 30.19 inches of mercury. The computed density altitude at 750 ft was 322 ft.The Federal Aviation Administration's Airport Facility Directory for an airport 2 nautical miles west of the accident site stated, in part: "strong East winds, rwy subj to strong downdrafts."Page 2 of 6 GAA17CA440
According to the pilot, the airplane touched down on the approach end of the grass airstrip. During the landing roll, he did not realize that his "right foot was resting against the right toe brake." The airplane exited the right side of the airstrip and struck trees. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right-wing spar and horizontal stabilizer.The pilot did not possess a Federal Aviation Administration pilot certificate.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.