roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot in the multiengine, retractable-gear-equipped airplane reported that he was flying in instrument meteorological conditions and leveled off at 8,000 ft mean sea level. He began to configure the airplane for cruise flight, and he realized that the right engine cross-feed fuel selector was positioned for the left tank. The left tank fuel indicator displayed empty, and the right fuel indicator displayed 45 gallons remaining. He believed that the fuel indicators had malfunctioned, and he established an approach to a nearby highway intersection. The pilot landed with the landing gear stowed on the asphalt highway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the lower fuselage longerons. Per the National Transportation Safety Board Pilot Aircraft Accident Report, the pilot reported that he became complacent during the flight and vowed to use a checklist in the future. The pilot has coordinated with his local Federal Aviation Administration Safety Team to help prevent similar accidents from occurring in the future. 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, during landing and as the tailwheel was settling on the runway, there was an "apparent change in wind direction," and the airplane veered left. He attempted to correct by applying right rudder and brake, but the airplane continued off the left side of the runway and ground looped. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing, the right horizontal stabilizer, and the elevator.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 at the airport, about the time of the accident, reported that the was wind from 300° at 9 knots. The pilot landed on runway 2L.
The pilot of the ski-equipped tailwheel airplane reported that, during the landing roll on a snow-covered sand bar, about 15 to 20 mph, the left ski impacted a submerged frozen sand berm. He added that the left ski "broke" and that the airplane nosed over.The vertical stabilizer and left wing 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 pilot of the float-equipped airplane reported that, before takeoff, the windsock showed "no significant wind" and that the control tower "confirmed using a southerly traffic pattern." He added that, during the takeoff from the waterway, the airplane initially accelerated as expected. He further added that "it became clear that the take-off run was not progressing as anticipated" and that he decided to abort the takeoff. He brought the power to idle and applied back pressure to the control yoke. The airplane slid onto the grass embankment at the end of the runway and came to rest on the adjacent taxiway.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.Weather observations from the airport showed that, from about 20 minutes before the accident to 60 minutes after the accident, the wind varied in direction from 360° to 050°, and the speed varied from 4 to 11 knots, with a peak wind from 360° at 30 knots. The pilot departed waterway 17W.
The pilot of the experimental, amateur-built airplane reported that he attempted to take off on a grass portion of his property that extended about 1,000 ft before reaching power lines. During takeoff on an approximate 130° heading, he noticed the airplane was not climbing fast enough to clear the power lines. He pulled up "hard" to clear the power lines but stalled the airplane. The left wing dipped down, and the airplane impacted the ground. The right wing separated from the fuselage, and the empennage was crushed behind the wings. Both main landing gear separated from the fuselage, and the nose landing gear folded back under the engine compartment. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. He added that he thought the wind was swirling and that the airplane may have encountered some wind shear. The recorded wind at an airport located about 13 miles west of the accident site, about the time of the accident, was from 320° at 4 knots.
The pilot reported that, during a low-altitude, practice agricultural application flight, he lost depth perception between the snow-covered ground and overcast sky. He added that the airplane impacted the ground and came to rest after sliding about 500 ft.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and fuselage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The Federal Aviation Administration's pamphlet, "Flying in Flat Light and White Out Conditions," states the following:Flat light is an optical illusion, also known as "sector or partial white out." It is not as severe as "white out" but the condition causes pilots to lose their depth-of-field and contrast in vision. Flat light conditions are usually accompanied by overcast skies inhibiting any good visual clues. Such conditions can occur anywhere in the world, primarily in snow covered areas but can occur in dust, sand, mud flats, or on glassy water. Flat light can completely obscure features of the terrain, creating an inability to distinguish distances and closure rates. As a result of this reflected light, it can give pilots the illusion of ascending or descending when actually flying level. However, with good judgment and proper training and planning, it is possible to safely operate an aircraft in flat light conditions.
The pilot reported that, during approach, the sun was in his eyes and "unexpectedly the stall warning briefly sounded." He said that he added power and saw tree branches off the right wing. The airplane struck the trees on the north side of the runway, descended in a clockwise spin, and impacted the ground.The fuselage and both wings sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the takeoff roll, as the airplane crested a hill about a third of the way down the grass runway, the airplane was close to the right edge of the runway. He added that he could not clearly distinguish the runway edges and applied left rudder, but in doing so, the airplane departed the runway surface to the left and nosed over in rough muddy terrain.The left wing 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 pilot reported that, just before touchdown, a wind gust lifted the right wing and drifted the airplane to the left of the runway. He added that the airplane touched down and ballooned in a nose-high attitude. The pilot added power and lowered the nose "to prevent a stall," and the airplane landed hard. The left wingtip struck the ground, and airplane came to rest in the grass to the left of the runway.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 pilot reported that the wind was light and variable.
While conducting touch-and-go landings and as the private pilot landed the airplane for the third time, the right main landing gear and nose landing gear collapsed, and the right wing was partially separated from the airplane. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that maintenance personnel had improperly secured an unused instrument lamp socket during recent maintenance, which allowed an electrical short of the landing gear controls. The landing gear control circuit breaker tripped, which stopped the landing gear from fully extending while it was transitioning to the down position. It also rendered the landing gear indicators and warnings inoperative so the pilot was unaware the landing gear was not fully extended.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped Piper reported that his airplane was not equipped with a radio and that the forward visibility was not good when taxiing while piloting the airplane from the rear seat. He entered a left downwind for the runway, saw no other aircraft while on final, and continued to land. He added that, during the landing roll, as he turned to clear the runway, his airplane collided with a Cessna airplane that was taxiing on the same runway after having landed on it from the opposite direction. He reported that he did not see the Cessna before the collision.The Piper sustained substantial damage to the right wing's front spar.The pilot of the Cessna reported that, while flying local in the traffic pattern, he announced his position and intent to land on the airport's common traffic advisory frequency during all landings while simultaneously visually checking right and left for traffic. He added that, as he was taxiing on the runway toward the exit after landing, he saw the Piper land in the opposite direction on the same runway. Subsequently, the Piper turned diagonally across the runway toward the Cessna, and the two airplanes collided. The Cessna sustained substantial damage to its right wing.Both pilots reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with either airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot stated that, after a thorough preflight inspection and passenger briefing, he started the engine and noted that there was an 80° left crosswind at 5 knots, gusting to 15 knots. He performed an engine run-up, checked the flight controls, and then departed to fly around the local area for about 20 minutes. He then returned to the departure airport, and because the airplane was only equipped with a single radio and there was traffic congestion, he did not monitor the weather or ask for a wind check. He performed a "high break" at traffic pattern altitude, and while on final approach with the flaps fully extended, he maintained a left-wing-low attitude to correct for the left crosswind. He performed a wheel landing, but as the tailwheel was lowering, the left wing raised "dramatically," and the right wingtip contacted the runway. He added power to abort the landing, but because the right wing was contacting the runway, the airplane pivoted to the right. The airplane went off the right side of the runway and nosed over. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions of the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. The reported wind conditions about 5 minutes before the accident included a variable crosswind between 80° and 170° left of the selected runway heading at 8 knots, gusting to 16 knots.
The accident flight was the airplane's first flight after undergoing restoration over the course of 2 years. Although the mechanic who had worked on the airplane with the pilot wanted the pilot to do a high-speed taxi test before flight, the pilot wanted to "hurry up" and test fly the airplane as he had a friend visiting and wanted to take him flying in the airplane.During the takeoff, witnesses observed the airplane pitch up into a nose-high attitude just after liftoff, stall, and descend in a nose-down attitude to ground impact. Examination of the wreckage revealed crush damage to the nose and the leading edges of the wings that was consistent with a nearly vertical nose-down flight path at the time of impact. Further examination of the wreckage revealed that the airplane's elevator control cables were misrigged, such that they were attached to the incorrect (opposite) locations on the upper and lower ends of the elevator control horn, resulting in a reversal of elevator control inputs. If the pilot had checked the elevator for correct motion during the preflight inspection and before takeoff check, he likely would have discovered that it was misrigged, and the accident would have been avoided.
The commercial pilot stated that he confirmed that the landing gear were down and locked before landing. After a smooth landing, the left wing began to sink. The pilot shut off the left engine, and the airplane veered left off the runway onto grass. The pilot then shut off the right engine. The left wing, left horizontal stabilizer, and left propeller assembly were substantially damaged. Examination of the left main landing gear (MLG) revealed that the fork bolt was ripped out of the torque tube, which damaged the tube and precluded a gear retraction test. Visual examination of the left MLG revealed that the overcentering tension on the down-lock assembly appeared to be rigged incorrectly; however, it could not be determined if the misrigging led to the failure of the left MLG. A review of the airframe maintenance logbooks revealed no recent maintenance to the MLG assembly. Based on the available evidence, the reason for the left MLG collapse could not be determined.
The pilot reported that he was practicing takeoffs and landings on the asphalt runway. The airplane bounced during the touchdown, and the airplane began a hard porpoise down the runway. The nose landing gear wheel cracked and separated from the airplane, and the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the vertical stabilizer, the rudder, and the left 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 was conducting agricultural operations when he noticed a "burnt wire" smell. He stated that smoke began to fill the cockpit, and he noticed flames outside the airplane. The pilot shut off the fuel selector and conducted a forced landing to a hay field. After landing, the fire consumed the majority of the airplane. Review of maintenance records revealed the airplane's original engine was replaced by a turbine engine under a supplemental type certificate (STC); however, the STC holder did not perform or authorize the installation. Although the STC involved replacing the fuel lines every 5 years, the investigation revealed no records indicating that the fuel lines were replaced in accordance with the STC. Fire damage prevented a detailed examination of the engine installation; therefore, the origin of the fire could not be determined.
The private pilot was approaching the airport to land during a cross-country flight. During the landing approach, the pilot noticed that the airplane would bank to the left at low speeds but that the bank resolved at higher airspeeds. As the airplane slowed on final approach, it banked left and subsequently impacted a field left of the runway. Postaccident examination of the airplane flight control system confirmed flight control continuity, and no anomalies were noted that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane.
The private pilot had not flown in several years and was receiving instruction from a flight instructor. Radar data indicated that the pilots were performing ground reference maneuvers during the flight. The data showed that the airplane maintained an altitude of 3,400 ft mean sea level, about 2,600 ft above ground level, before it made a left turn and entered a rapid descent. A witness reported that he heard the engine popping and backfiring, and it appeared as if the airplane wasn't moving forward. According to the witness, the nose of the airplane then dropped, and the airplane entered a spiral and completed eight or nine rotations, before it entered a straight nose-down dive that continued to impact A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any anomalies consistent with a preimpact failure or malfunction. It is likely that the private pilot was practicing a stall from which he did not recover before the airplane entered a spin. In addition, had the instructor been appropriately monitoring the private pilot's actions he would have been able to provide remedial action to recover from the stall/spin.
The flight instructor of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during a three-point landing touchdown, the airplane pulled to the left, and he heard a "pop." He added that the pilot who was flying and receiving instruction "locked up" the right brake. Subsequently, the airplane departed the runway surface to the right and ground looped.During an interview with a Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Safety Inspector, the pilot receiving instruction reported that, during the landing roll, the airplane drifted to the left, and he applied right brake to correct. He added that, upon braking, he heard the left tire blow, and the airplane departed the runway to the right. Subsequently, the airplane ground looped, the left main landing gear collapsed, and the left wing impacted the ground.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.The flight instructor reported that the tire "inner tube" on the left main landing gear failed during the landing roll.
While the pilot was approaching the airport for landing in gusting wind conditions, the landing runway was changed, and an airplane was cleared to takeoff while the pilot was on final approach. The pilot reported that he was distracted by the wind conditions, reconfiguring the approach for a different runway, and the airplane taking off ahead of him, and did not recall performing his normal before-landing procedures; though he "thought" that he extended the landing gear. The airplane landed with the gear retracted, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage. The accident is consistent with the pilot's failure to configure the landing gear before landing.
The commercial pilot and three passengers departed on an instrument flight rules cross-country flight. While on approach to the destination airport, the pilot indicated to the air traffic controller that the airplane was passing through areas of moderate-to-extreme precipitation. After clearing the airplane for the approach, the controller noted that the airplane descended below its assigned altitude; the controller issued a low altitude alert, but no response was received from the pilot. The airplane subsequently impacted terrain in a level attitude about 12 miles from the airport. Examination of the airframe, engine, and system components revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunction that would have precluded normal operation. An area of disturbed, flattened, tall grass was located about 450 ft southwest of the accident site. Based on the images of the grass, the National Weather Service estimated that it would take greater than 35 knots of wind to lay over tall grass as the images indicated, and that a downburst/microburst event could not be ruled out. A downburst is an intense downdraft that creates strong, often damaging winds.About 6 hours before the flight, the pilot obtained weather information through a mobile application. Review of weather data indicated the presence of strong winds, heavy precipitation, turbulence, and low-level wind shear (LLWS) in the area at the time of arrival, which was reflected in the information the pilot received. Given the weather conditions, it is likely that the airplane encountered an intense downdraft, or downburst, which would have resulted in a sudden, major change in wind velocity. The airplane was on approach for landing at the time and was particularly susceptible to this hazardous condition given its lower altitude and slower airspeed. The downburst likely exceeded the climb performance capabilities of the airplane and resulted in a subsequent descent into terrain.It is unknown if the accident pilot checked or received additional weather information before or during the accident flight. While the flight was en route, several PIREPs were issued for the area of the accident Page 2 of 11 WPR17FA085site, which also indicated the potential of LLWS near the destination airport; however, the controller did not provide this information to the pilot, nor did he solicit PIREP information from the pilot. Based on published Federal Aviation Administration guidance for controllers and the widespread adverse weather conditions in the vicinity of the accident site, the controller should have both solicited PIREP information from the pilot and disseminated information from previous PIREPs to him; this would have provided the pilot with more complete information about the conditions to expect during the approach and landing at the destination.
The pilot reported that, during the landing roll as the tailwheel was almost in contact with the ground, the airplane started to veer to the right. He attempted to correct to the left but lost directional control, and the airplane ground looped to the left. The airplane sustained substantial damage to its right wing and firewall.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 340° at 10 knots, gusting to 17 knots. The pilot landed on runway 23.
The solo student pilot reported that, during the landing flare, he "pulled aft yoke," which resulted in a "substantial balloon." He added that he "unconsciously pushed forward yoke resulting in a very hard flat or nose wheel first landing."The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall and fuselage.The student pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor in the helicopter reported that he was providing hovering autorotation training to a private pilot. The flight instructor reported that he rolled off the throttle to initiate the maneuver, and the private pilot "raised the collective too soon which resulted in the aircraft climbing." The rotor inertia decayed, and a main rotor blade struck the tailboom after the helicopter struck the ground. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the tail rotor drive shaft. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during his first approach to land, he performed a go-around due to excess speed on final approach. He added that he retracted the landing gear and flaps and remained in the traffic pattern. During the second landing, he extended the flaps and reduced power for a normal landing, but during the landing flare, he heard the propeller strike the runway, and the airplane skidded to a stop. The pilot reported that he "simply forgot to check if the [landing] gear was down on the second landing attempt." The fuselage sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.