roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The private pilot was landing the airplane at the conclusion of a cross-country flight when the engine experienced a total loss of power in the airport traffic pattern. The pilot attempted to restart the engine without success and subsequently landed the airplane in a field, where it impacted a fence and irrigation equipment. The pilot stated the right fuel tank was selected at the time of the accident. Postaccident examination revealed that the right tank contained 14 to 15 gallons of fuel, and that the left fuel tank contained about 1 gallon of fuel. The fuel selector was in the right tank position. The engine functioned normally during a postaccident test run. Given the lack of engine anomalies, it is likely that the airplane was operating on the left tank at the time of the accident, and the loss of engine power was the result of fuel starvation; it is likely that the pilot moved the fuel selector to the right tank position during his attempt to restart the engine.
The pilot reported that, as the tailwheel was contacting the ground, a "sudden gust of wind" lifted the right wing and that the airplane weather-vaned to the right. Subsequently, the airplane ground looped and exited the right side of the runway.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and aileron.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 accident airport, about the time of the accident, reported that the wind was from 270° at 9 knots. The pilot landed on runway 16.
The flight instructor of the multiengine airplane reported that, during a simulated single-engine landing, while the pilot receiving instruction was flying, the airplane veered to the left. He added that he took control of the airplane "immediately" and added right rudder to correct, but the airplane exited the runway, and the nose landing gear collapsed.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the nose landing gear structure.The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station at the accident airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 180° at 14 knots, gusting to 21 knots. The airplane landed on runway 19R.
The pilot reported that two private airports were near each other, and he mistakenly landed at the wrong airport. He added that, once he realized his mistake, he referenced the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) chart supplement and visual flight rules sectional chart and observed a published runway length of 2,600 ft for departure. The pilot reported that he referenced the Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH) and noted that the calculated takeoff distance was 1,350 ft.The pilot reported that, during the takeoff roll, he decided to abort the takeoff with about half of the runway remaining because the airplane had not reached the speed he expected. During the aborted takeoff, the airplane pulled to the left of the runway centerline "slightly" when the brakes were applied, and the left wing struck two fence posts along the runway. The collision with the fence posts pulled the airplane off the runway surface to the left and into a ditch and a barbed wire fence.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 FAA Aeronautical Information Services Office was asked by the National Transportation Safety Board investigator-in-charge to evaluate the published runway dimensions at the accident airport. Upon review, the FAA determined that the runway dimensions provided for the airport should have been 2,483 ft by 25 ft rather than 2,600 ft by 25 ft. The FAA submitted the revised dimensions to the National Flight Data Center for publication. According to takeoff performance calculations with the FAA Koch Chart, the airplane would have likely experienced a 60% increase to the normal takeoff distance. When factoring in this increase with the airplane's POH takeoff distance chart, the ground roll required was about 1,808 ft, and the total distance Page 2 of 6 GAA17CA239to clear a 50-ft obstacle was 3,128 ft. Numerous trees were located at the end of the runway. The distance to clear the 50-ft obstacle exceeded the published runway length and revised runway length.
The two private pilots were making a local flight in the airplane, which was equipped with dual flight controls. Both pilots were qualified to fly the airplane, and it could not be determined which pilot was manipulating the flight controls at the time of the accident. Following a flight of about 30 minutes duration, witnesses observed the airplane make a full stop landing, taxi back, and take off to the east. The engine sounded normal during the takeoff and initial climb. One witness then observed the airplane shaking, then tipping left and right, followed by an abrupt turn to the left. The nose of the airplane dropped, and the airplane descended rapidly to ground impact. The wreckage was found in a wooded area about 1/2 mile northeast of the airport in an inverted, nose-low attitude. An examination of the wreckage did not reveal evidence of any preexisting mechanical malfunctions or anomalies. Although the right fuel tank selector handle was installed backwards, the fuel valve was in the correct position for fuel to feed normally.Toxicology testing of the left-seat pilot revealed the presence of diphenhydramine; however, the level detected was too low to quantify and was unlikely to be impairing.Although the exact amount of fuel on board at the time of the accident could not be determined, estimates of the airplane's gross weight indicated that the airplane was between 54 lbs and 156 lbs over maximum gross weight. Based on the witness observation that the wings were rocking before the airplane abruptly turned left and then descended, it is likely that the pilot failed to maintain adequate airspeed while maneuvering aggressively, which resulted in exceedance of the critical angle of attack and an aerodynamic stall.
On April 18, 2017, about 1350 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 172, N8368B, was substantially damaged when it impacted terrain in Euharlee, Georgia. The private pilot and passenger were seriously injured. The airplane was registered to PMG Project Management Group, and privately operated. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the flight, which was conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The flight departed from Spartanburg Downtown Memorial Airport (SPA), Spartanburg, South Carolina, and was destined for Skyway Manor Airport (T79), Pearland, Texas.The investigation of this event is being conducted under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The NTSB provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The NTSB does not plan to issue a final report or open a public docket.
The noninstrument-rated private pilot was making a visual flight rules (VFR) cross-country flight in the airplane over mountainous terrain. Radar data revealed that the airplane initially flew in a northerly direction after takeoff and then turned west toward the destination; this route was consistent with a route the pilot had followed on previous flights. About 17 minutes after takeoff, the airplane was about 19 nautical miles (nm) northwest of the departure airport. The last radar return, which occurred about 18 minutes after takeoff, showed that the airplane was about 20 nautical miles (nm) northwest of the departure airport and about 0.47 nm southeast of the accident site on a southwesterly heading at an altitude of 8,869 ft mean sea level (msl). Shortly thereafter, the airplane impacted remote, snow-covered, mountainous terrain on a northerly heading at an elevation of 7,697 ft msl. The changes in heading and altitude between the last radar return and the impact suggest that the pilot began maneuvering the airplane after radar contact was lost. A survey of the accident site revealed a linear debris path and damage to the airplane that were consistent with controlled flight into terrain. Examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal evidence of any mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.Review of weather information strongly suggests that clouds, light rain, snow, or mixed precipitation was falling and instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) likely existed in the accident area.  It is likely that the pilot encountered IMC conditions and was maneuvering in an attempt to return to VFR flight when the airplane collided with terrain.
The sport pilot reported that the takeoff in the experimental, amateur-built gyroplane was normal; however, while continuing to climb through 500 ft above ground level, the aircraft stopped climbing and started to descend. The pilot-rated passenger reported hearing a decrease in engine power, but the engine continued to operate. The pilot started to turn back to the airport, then chose to land in a field. He saw a powerline and he turned sharply; the gyroplane hit the powerline then fell and impacted the side of a ditch. The gyroplane kit manufacturer installed a turbocharged, 135-hp Rotax 912 ULST that was modified from the 100-hp Rotax 912 ULS engine. During a postaccident examination, the engine started without hesitation and was run at idle power, but only for a brief time, since the propeller was broken. The brother of the accident pilot, who was a co-owner of the aircraft, reported that the engine had a history of not developing full power. He stated that the engine would develop about 3,500 rpm instead of developing full power at 5,200 to 5,300 rpm. On numerous occasions, he adjusted the manifold pressure probe by trial and error to get the engine to develop full power. The engine would operate properly, then the problem would reoccur, and he would repeat the process. The gyroplane had operated successfully for 7.9 hours since the last time the engine had not produced full power until the time of the accident. The owners reported that they did not understand the operation of the turbocharged engine or its associated components, and that the kit manufacturer did not provide operating manuals that explained the operation of the gyroplane or its turbocharged engine.
The commercial pilot stated that he was conducting an aerial application flight when he heard two "pop" sounds and the engine lost power. The pilot continued flying about 1/3 of a mile before being forced to land. He turned left to avoid a fence and landed in a newly planted wheat field, during which the airplane rolled over five terraces before it spun 180° and came to a stop. The airplane sustained damage to the propeller/engine, right lower wing, and firewall. Examination of the radial engine revealed a crack on an engine cylinder located at the 3 o'clock position of the engine. According to logbook entries, an airworthiness directive regarding a visual inspection for cylinder cracks was completed at the most recent annual inspection, about 37 hours before the accident. It could not be determined if the crack was not detected during the most recent inspection or if it originated after the inspection.
The pilot reported that he overshot the wet, grass runway during landing and impacted a ditch. However, he added that he should have touched down at a slower speed and that the wet, grass runway affected the braking performance.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the engine mount.The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, after departing on the personal flight, he observed that the manifold pressure was low and the airplane performance was poor. The engine began running roughly and lost partial power. The pilot maneuvered the airplane for an emergency landing on a nearby highway. During the descent, the airplane impacted power lines, then impacted the ground and came to rest vertically against a grove of trees along the highway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.Examination of the engine, engine accessories, and airframe did not reveal evidence of any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The propeller assembly showed blade damage consistent with some degree of rotation at impact; however, the amount of power to the propeller could not be determined. Based on fueling documents provided and the pilot's statements, there was likely sufficient quality fuel for the engine to operate normally. The reason for the loss of partial engine power could not be determined.
The pilot reported that, during approach, while flying from the rear seat of the tandem-seat, high-wing airplane, he "needed to lose speed and altitude." He placed the airplane in a right-wing-low, forward slip, and he added that the airplane had poor forward visibility at slower speeds. He aligned the airplane with the center of the runway and "pulled the nose up slightly to slow [down]," and a "wind gust" came from the right and "pushed" the airplane over the trees. He "saw [the] tree tops coming up fast under [his] left wing," and "out of shear instinct, [he] banked slightly right to avoid going in nose first." The airplane collided with the tree tops.The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and the empennage.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 3 nautical miles from the accident site, about the time of the accident, reported that the wind was variable at 3 knots. The pilot landed to the southwest.
***This report was modified on October 15, 2018. Please see the docket for this accident to view the original report.***The commercial pilot and three passengers were making a personal cross-country flight in the airplane. After a refueling stop, the airplane taxied to the runway and departed. Security video and flight data showed that the airplane had just departed the airport and was about 280 ft above the ground when it stalled and spun to the left, impacting the ground in a nose-down attitude. Post-accident examination of the engine and airframe revealed no evidence of a mechanical anomaly or failure that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane. The recorded weather at the airport at the time of the accident included a right-quartering headwind at 8 knots gusting to 17 knots. The flight data revealed that the airplane slowed to an estimated airspeed (ground speed with correction applied for reported wind conditions) of around 49 to 51 knots just before the stall occurred, which was near the airplane's published power-on stall speed of 46 knots; however, the gusting wind conditions likely resulted in a further decrease of the airplane's airspeed and increase of its angle-of-attack.
The pilot and passenger were on a cross-country personal flight in a single-engine airplane. As the airplane approached the destination airport, the engine lost power. The pilot turned on the fuel boost pump and switched fuel tanks, but engine power was not restored. The pilot selected a field for a forced landing, during which the airplane impacted a tree and sustained substantial damage to the left wing. During the recovery of the airplane, about 5 gallons of fuel were drained from each wing fuel tank.An engine test run was conducted by connecting a fuel line to the airplane's right-side fuel line. The fuel boost pump was operated, and the engine started and ran with no anomalies. A review of the airplane type certificate data sheet indicated that the airplane was equipped with two wing fuel tanks for a total capacity of 65 gallons, with useable fuel of 55 gallons.Given the available information, it is likely the engine lost power due to fuel exhaustion.
The commercial pilot, who was also the owner of the experimental, light-sport airplane, stated that the airplane approached the grass strip with "all systems operating correctly" and that he performed a side slip to lose altitude and align the airplane with the field. The airplane descended "very quickly," and at touchdown, the nose landing gear dug in and collapsed, and the airplane then nosed over and came to rest inverted. A Federal Aviation Administration inspector witnessed the accident, and a video of the accident was posted on a local media website. The inspector's description and the landing shown in the video were consistent with the pilot's description of events. The airplane landed hard in a flat attitude, the nose landing gear collapsed immediately, and the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted.
The pilot reported that, during taxi on a parking ramp at night, he decided to make a 180° left turn to position the airplane before picking up a patient. He added that, during the turn, the right wing impacted a fence post.The right wing sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
On April 14, 2017, about 1600 eastern standard time, JetBlue Airlines flight 240, an Embraer E-190, N373JB, encountered turbulence during approach to land at Orlando International Airport (KMCO), Orlando, Florida. One flight attendant sustained serious injuries. The airplane was not damaged. The flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 as a regularly scheduled international passenger flight from Lynden Pindling International Airport, Nassau Bahamas. The captain stated that, during the approach to land, the passenger seat belt sign was illuminated and that he could see a scattered/broken cumulous layer of clouds between about 8,000 and 10,000 feet. He expected to encounter turbulence, so he called the flight attendants and told them it was going to be bumpy during the descent and that they were to sit down. Shortly after, the airplane encountered moderate turbulence for about 4 to 7 seconds. A flight attendant then informed the flight crew that one of the aft flight attendants had fallen. After landing, the flight attendant was transported to the hospital where she was diagnosed with a broken fibula.
The pilot reported that after departure for the personal flight, the airplane climbed to about 200 ft above ground level but he could not maintain level flight; he had to apply full right aileron and right rudder. The airplane rolled left, and he simultaneously reduced the engine power and applied forward elevator in an attempt to arrest the roll. Despite his attempts, the pilot could not regain control of the airplane and deployed the ballistic recovery system parachute (BRS). The airplane touched down hard off the airport, and the nose landing gear collapsed. As a result of the impact, the pilot was unable to egress under his own power; the engine continued to run, and the BRS drifted into the propeller. The engine continued to operate until the BRS suspension lines stopped the propeller. The examination of the aileron system revealed that the control tube was disconnected from the control mixer weldment. The stop nut that normally is affixed to the bolt connecting the aileron control tube to the control yoke tube was found on the cabin floor. The bolt end had a hole for a cotter pin, but no cotter pin was located. There were no markings on the nylon insert of the stop nut, which is consistent with the nut not being adequately attached during assembly.During the last condition inspection, about 4 months and 24 flight hours before the accident, an airframe and powerplant mechanic had adjusted the aileron control mixer. It is likely that during that maintenance activity, the nylon hardware was not properly attached to the aileron control tube.
Witnesses observed the airplane touch down left of the runway centerline in gusting crosswind conditions and then attempt to go-around. As the engine noise increased, the airplane yawed 90&deg; left and banked left, perpendicular to the runway. The airplane's nose pitched up, and the airplane subsequently entered an aerodynamic stall and rolled inverted before impacting a ravine about 400 ft left of the runway. Examination of the wreckage did not reveal any preimpact mechanical malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. The airplane was equipped with a 450-hp radial engine. It is likely that, upon application of engine power to initiate the go-around, the pilot failed to adequately compensate for the extreme left-turning tendencies of the high-powered engine, which resulted in a subsequent loss of control and aerodynamic stall.
The accident pilot and a friend flew in the friend's airplane to pick up the accident airplane after recent repairs were completed due to a previous ground loop event in 2016. The accident pilot's friend and the mechanic observed the airplane during the takeoff. The airplane accelerated straight and normal and flew "cleanly" off the turf runway. Shortly after rotation, the airplane rolled left until the airplane impacted trees in a near inverted attitude adjacent to the runway. The mechanic stated that he thought the airplane experienced a departure stall during the takeoff. A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The witness observations are consistent with the pilot's loss of control after exceeding the airplane's critical angle of attack during takeoff, which resulted in a power-on, aerodynamic departure stall.
The commercial pilot was conducting a postmaintenance test flight. He reported that no evidence of water was found in samples from the main fuel tanks during the preflight inspection. He added that, during approach to the runway, the engine lost power. He attempted to restore power but was unsuccessful. There was no remaining runway in front of him, so he turned the airplane to avoid a ditch and landed on the soft ground. The airplane nosed over, which resulted in substantial damage to the empennage and firewall. During postaccident examination of the airplane, water was found in the fuel lines, engine fuel bowl, and carburetor. An examination of the engine and fuel systems revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. It is likely that the loss of engine power resulted from water contamination of the fuel system.
The pilot reported that, during cruise flight, the engine "quit" while at 1,500 ft above ground level. He added that he landed the airplane in a large, flat pasture, but during the landing, the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the tail and wings.In a telephone conversation with the recovery specialist, the pilot reported that the fuel tanks had not been breached during the landing, and he recovered 1.5 gallons of fuel from the right fuel tank and 2.5 gallons of fuel from the left fuel tank. The airplane was equipped with an engine monitoring unit. About 1 hour 13 minutes of data were recorded during the accident flight. The data showed a sudden decrease in exhaust gas temperatures and cylinder head temperatures for all cylinders about the same time. For further information, see the JPI Engine Monitoring Unit data plot in the public docket for this accident.The 1967 Cessna 180 Owner's Manual states, in part: "2.5 gallons [in] each tank [is] unusable in normal flight maneuvers."