roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The flight instructor reported that, during a training flight in the helicopter, he briefed the student pilot on the procedures required to land with a simulated stuck left pedal. The student began a descent to enter a shallower-than-normal glidepath to the runway surface, and he completed his final checks for the maneuver and continued the approach. During the approach the flight instructor directed the student pilot to use "throttle manipulation to control the yaw caused by a fixed input on the anti-torque system." Upon contacting the runway, the helicopter veered left, and the instructor chose to abort the landing. As the helicopter lifted off, it began to rapidly yaw left while drifting left of the runway. Recognizing that the helicopter was in a spin, they attempted to correct by leveling the helicopter long enough to regain tail rotor authority. The helicopter's left skid impacted mud on the left side of the runway, and the helicopter rolled onto its left side. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the main rotor, fuselage, and tailboom. The instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation. A manufacturer's service letter, SL 19-002 A, stated, "During in-flight tail rotor control failure simulation, pilots should never use the twist grip to control yaw." Therefore, the flight instructor's direction to the student to use the throttle to correct the yaw was incorrect and led to ground impact and a dynamic rollover.
The pilot reported that during final approach, he flew a minor crab angle due to a right crosswind. After touchdown, the airplane veered right and traveled off the right side of the runway. The nose gear struck a concrete slab and then collapsed. The airplane sustained damage to the firewall, engine mount, and left wing. Examination of the airplane did not reveal any preimpact mechanical malfunctions, and control continuity was confirmed from the rudder to the rudder pedals. In addition, the pilot did not report any preimpact mechanical malfunctions with the airplane. The recorded wind at the airport about the time of the accident was a nearly direct right crosswind at 8 knots, gusting to 16 knots.
The pilot reported that, during landing and while decelerating, the airplane veered left. He applied full right rudder, but there was "little to no change in the yaw" with the control stick full aft. He added that the tailwheel had "unlocked" when it contacted the runway because the airplane yawed left. He added engine power to increase airflow for better rudder effectiveness, and the airplane began to straighten out, but it then exited the runway to the left, and the right main landing gear collapsed. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right-wing lift strut. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was conducting a local personal flight in the experimental, airplane. He reported that the engine operated "flawlessly" during the flight; however, on final approach for landing, the engine completely lost power. The pilot trimmed the airplane for its best glide speed and attempted to land, but the airplane impacted the top of a tree and power lines adjacent to the runway and was subsequently destroyed by a postcrash fire. Fire damage precluded examination of the airplane's fuel system. The internal components of the engine valves and drive train were connected. Several of the internal engine components were not aircraft-engine-specific parts; however, whether these components contributed to the loss of engine power could not be determined. The reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined based on the available information.
Shortly after landing on water, the amphibious airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. The passenger in the front right seat drowned following the accident, likely as a result of being incapacitated by head injuries sustained during the impact. The landing gear were found extended and the landing gear selector was found in the "down" position. The airplane was equipped with a visual landing gear indicator as well as an audio annunciator that was designed to provide a reminder of the gear position to the pilot once the airplane had slowed to its landing approach speed. During the nearly 7 years that the pilot had owned the airplane, the landing gear annunciator system had been out of adjustment and did not give an audible alert until after landing. The pilot was aware of the discrepancy but did not have the system repaired or adjusted.The circumstances of the accident are consistent with the pilot's failure to configure the landing gear for the water landing. The pilot stated that he was likely distracted by both passengers, who were talking throughout the flight, including during the descent, and landing approach. It is likely that his distraction due to the talking passengers contributed to his failure to configure the gear and to recognize that it was not configured properly before landing.
The pilot reported that, while conducting an agricultural application flight, he thought the airplane was above some power lines, but the landing gear got tangled in the top line, and the airplane was pulled downward. The pilot attempted to correct by pulling "hard on the stick and pushed the power forward," and the airplane became airborne, but the left wing was pulled downward again. The pilot attempted to lift the wing by using right rudder and was able to maintain flight. The airplane was again pulled downward until it impacted the ground. The airplane was destroyed by postaccident fire. 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, while on approach for landing on runway 26, the wind was reported to be from 240º at 8 knots. One second later, the wind shifted and was from 180º at 6 knots. The pilot flew the final approach with a left crosswind and crossed the threshold at 50 knots. As he leveled the airplane and was about to touch down at 45 knots, the airplane lifted about 7 ft, and the nose pitched up 20º. The pilot pushed the control stick forward and began to add power, but the airplane "violently slammed" onto the runway, and the left main landing gear collapsed. He added full right rudder and aileron to keep the airplane on the runway, but it veered left into tall grass. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall and engine mount.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, upon touchdown, the passenger seated in the front seat of the tandem-cockpit airplane "mistakenly applied full braking," and the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the vertical stabilizer.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, while turning the airplane after finishing a fertilizer application, the "wind was under the wing pushing [the airplane]." He tried to "pull the aircraft out of the turn," but it aerodynamically stalled. He returned the stick to neutral, and while regaining control, the left main landing gear (MLG) and wingtip struck the ground, which caused the landing gear to bend underneath the wing. The airplane bounced, and the pilot decided to return to the departure airport. During landing, he attempted to keep the left MLG off the ground as long as possible, but the left wing impacted the ground, and the airplane exited the runway to the left.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 was conducting a personal flight in the experimental amateur-built airplane, and after departing the local area, noticed the DC electrical bus voltage decrease from 13.6 volts to 12.5 volts. He initiated a turn back to the airport and about 2 minutes later, the DC bus voltage decreased to 0 volts and the engine stopped producing power. The pilot performed a forced landing to an open field, during which the airplane sustained substantial damage. The airplane was constructed such that the engine was electrically dependent on a single alternator and a single battery to provide required electrical power to operate the fuel pump and ignition systems. Examination of the airplane revealed that the alternator circuit breaker, which was located behind the instrument panel and out of view of and inaccessible to the pilot, was tripped. Based on the pilot's description of events, it is likely that an electrical load drew an excessive current through the alternator circuit breaker, which resulted in it tripping and interrupting the electrical power supplied by the alternator. The engine's electrically-operated fuel and ignition systems continued to function on battery power for about 2 minutes before the engine stopped running. The pilot's reported inability to restore electrical power (and subsequently, engine power) at a low altitude resulted in the forced landing.
While performing the Before Landing checklist following an instructional flight in the multiengine airplane, the flight instructor and pilot receiving instruction noticed that the nose landing gear light did not illuminate when the gear was extended, and the nose gear appeared only partially extended. The pilots performed the emergency gear extension procedure, which was unsuccessful, and subsequently attempted maneuvers to extend the gear; however, the nose gear would not extend. The pilots returned to the airport and landed in the soft, wet grass next to the runway, during which the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted, resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage and empennage. Postaccident examination of the nose landing gear system and emergency gear extension system did not reveal any anomalies that could have resulted in the failure of the nose gear to extend; however, a detailed examination of the system was not possible due to the extent of the impact damage.
The pilot was attempting to reposition the helicopter to a helipad after refueling at a riverfront heliport. On his first approach to the helipad in a gusting, quartering tailwind, the pilot felt the onset of a loss of tail rotor effectiveness (LTE) and aborted the approach and went around. He climbed the helicopter over the water, turned back toward the helipad, and again felt the onset of LTE. The nose of the helicopter began a yaw to the right, and application of full left pedal failed to arrest the yaw. The helicopter then entered an uncontrolled right spin around its mast and descended to water contact, resulting in substantial damage to the airframe. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions of failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, while conducting an agricultural application flight, he misjudged the height of the power wires, and as a result, the airplane's right wing struck the lower wire. The airplane subsequently impacted the ground and rolled several times before coming to a stop, and a fire ensued. The airplane was destroyed by postaccident fire.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, while landing on a wet, grass runway, the airplane suddenly veered right. The airplane exited the runway and impacted a water-filled drainage ditch. Subsequently, the airplane came to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the aft fuselage, vertical stabilizer, and left wing.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.