roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The commercial pilot was flying his newly purchased airplane across the country to his home. After a flight of about 560 nautical miles that would have taken about 5 hours and consumed at least 51 gallons of the airplane's 58.8 usable gallons of fuel, an airport employee heard the pilot on the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) announcing his intention to land. The airplane landed but did not taxi to the ramp. The employee attempted to communicate with the pilot over the CTAF, but the pilot's transmissions were garbled. The airplane then departed on runway 4, and the employee heard no further transmissions from the pilot. No witnesses to the accident were identified. The wreckage was discovered in a heavily wooded area about 1,000 ft east of the departure end of runway 4, a location consistent with the pilot turning right during initial climb before the airplane descended and impacted terrain.A postaccident examination of the airplane and engine did not find any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The wreckage distribution and impact damage indicated that the airplane collided with the trees in a nose-low attitude consistent with a loss of control. Damage to the wings precluded an accurate measurement of the fuel on-board the airplane; however, fuel was found in the carburetor bowl and fuel pump, and damage to several tree branches was consistent with the engine operating when the airplane collided with trees. The flaps were found fully extended, which is the proper setting for landing. For takeoff, the airplane's flaps should have been in the fully retracted position, and the extended flaps would have added a significant amount of drag and degraded the airplane's climb performance. It is likely that the pilot forgot to retract the flaps after landing at AIZ and attempted to take off with them extended
The pilot of the tail-wheel equipped Fairchild airplane reported that after landing on the 2,400-foot long by 100-foot wide private grass runway, he pulled off to the right of the runway about 2/3 of the way down with his engine at idle power to watch a Stearman airplane, which he had been flying in tandem with, land. The Fairchild pilot further reported that the Stearman appeared to be approaching a little fast, touched down about 1/2 way down the runway, and started drifting to the right, toward the stopped Fairchild. The pilot of the tail-wheel equipped Stearman biplane reported that during the landing roll he was looking out of the left side of the Stearman, misjudged the width of the grass runway, and "clipped [the Fairchild] on [the] edge of runway". The Stearman then impacted a tree, resulting in substantial damage to the lower left wing and both right wings.The Fairchild sustained substantial damage to the engine cowl and firewall.The Fairchild pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The Stearman pilot reported that it was possible that the tailwheel bracket was broken prior to the airplane colliding with the Fairchild and impacting trees. In a postaccident interview with the investigator-in-charge (IIC), the Stearman pilot reported that during the initial preflight and taxi of the airplane, the tailwheel bracket "looked good" and he had no issues steering during taxi and takeoff.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll in crosswind conditions, the airplane encountered a wind gust, the tail swung to the right, and the airplane veered off the runway to the left. During the runway excursion, the right main landing gear impacted an airport sign and collapsed.The right wing lift strut sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The automated weather observing system at the airport near the time of the accident reported the wind direction at 330 degrees true at 7 knots. The pilot reported that he landed on runway 5.
Before departing on a revenue sightseeing balloon flight, the commercial pilot briefed the passengers about landing procedures. After being airborne for nearly 1 hour with increasing wind (which was forecast), the pilot identified a landing field and initiated an approach. Before landing, he again briefed the passengers that they needed to hold onto the handles with both hands, and to expect a "bouncy and hard landing." As the balloon approached the field, the pilot noted that the surface winds had significantly increased and informed the passengers to face the direction of travel with their knees bent, to expect a bounce, and that, after touchdown, the basket may tip onto its side. Before touchdown, he had to again instruct one passenger to hold on; he then pulled the envelope deflation line. After a hard landing, the basket leaned onto its side, and the passenger who was instructed to hold on and who was only using one hand to do so, put her arms outside the basket. Another passenger grabbed her, and the basket then became airborne slightly, followed by another landing. The basket tipped over, and the balloon was dragged a short distance across the field before stopping. One passenger sustained a fractured vertebrae and wrist, while the other occupants were not injured.
The 280-hour student pilot had just purchased the experimental, light sport airplane in which he had no experience or training. The pilot declined a suggestion from a mechanic who assisted with the sale to perform a familiarization flight with another pilot who had operational experience with the airplane. The mechanic stated that the pilot started the engine to depart on the flight home; however, he experienced problems taxiing, shut down the engine, and stated that the nosewheel steering was not working. The mechanic explained that the airplane was steered by differential braking and again suggested that the pilot conduct a familiarization flight. The pilot again declined, restarted the engine, and taxied the airplane to the runway for takeoff. The pilot stated that, just after rotation, the engine surged and the left wing subsequently dropped and impacted terrain. The mechanic watched the airplane take off and stated that the engine sounded "strong and even" and that the airplane became airborne in a relatively flat attitude. He heard several reductions and increases in engine power as the airplane sank, climbed, rolled, and yawed until the left wing impacted the ground off the left side of runway. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no mechanical anomalies with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. It is likely that the pilot failed to maintain airplane control during the takeoff and initial climb and that his lack of experience in the accident airplane and his refusal to obtain familiarization training before attempting to fly it directly resulted in his failure to maintain control.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll in cross wind conditions, he was unable to maintain control of the airplane. The pilot further reported that the airplane veered to the left and exited the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right aileron and right elevator. The pilot reported that there were no pre impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot landed runway 17, and reported the wind as 110 degrees true, 10 nautical miles per hour (knots), with gusts 15-20 knots.A review of local weather from an automated weather observation station located on the airfield, showed that at the time of the accident the wind was reported as 080 degrees true at 6 knots.
The air traffic control tower was operating with all positions combined and the local controller provided approval for an airport vacuum truck to conduct runway sweeping on the first 4000 feet of runway 02. Also operating on the airport movement areas were several other airport and state organization vehicles. The weather was 3/4 statute mile visibility with a ceiling of 200 feet overcast and the local  controller could not visually observe the vehicles on the runway. In accordance with standard operating procedure, the local controller used a red "runway unavailable" memory aid to assist with remembering that the vehicles were on the landing surface. As several of the vehicles began to clear the runway, the local controller removed the red memory aide. The vacuum truck remained working on the runway. A short time later, the air traffic controller cleared the flight crew of an MD-83 aircraft to land on runway 20 while the vacuum truck was still on the approach end of runway 02.The aircraft landed and stopped about 200 feet from the vacuum sweeper which was still on the runway.The local controller was operating with combined ground and local positions but did not combine the ground and local radio frequencies. The airport vehicles were communicating with the controller on the ground frequency and were unaware of inbound air traffic communicating with the controller on the local control frequency.
The pilot reported that, after departure, he flew south along a river for about 5 miles. He then turned east toward his destination airport and needed to climb over a mountain ridge. During the climb, the landing gear impacted the top of trees; subsequently, the airplane nosed down and impacted terrain. 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.
The private pilot reported that he had started, warmed up, and then shut down the engine about 1 hour before the accident flight. Shortly after takeoff for the personal flight, the airplane's engine lost total power. Subsequently, the pilot conducted a forced landing on a hill, which resulted in substantial damage to the nose landing gear, fuselage, and left wing. The pilot said that he had fueled the airplane that morning with 82-octane automotive fuel that he had recently purchased from a service station. However, postaccident examination revealed that the fuel was yellow in color and smelled like "aged" automobile fuel. The top spark plugs appeared aged, and the electrodes were corroded, which could have affected engine performance. The airplane was not equipped with a fuel vapor return line to prevent fuel vapor lock. Given that old automotive fuel was found in the fuel system and that a fuel vapor return line had not been installed, it is likely that the engine lost power due to vapor lock. It is also likely that the corrosion of the spark plugs and the spacing of the electrode gaps contributed to the loss of engine power.
The pilot reported that the purpose of the flight was to reposition the airplane to another airport for refuel. During preflight, he reported that the airplane's two fuel gauges read "low," but the supplemental electronic fuel totalizer displayed 55 total gallons. He further reported that it is not feasible to visual check the fuel quantity, because the fueling ports are located near the wingtips and the fuel quantity cannot be measured with any "external measuring device." According to the pilot, his planned flight was 20 minutes and the fuel quantity, as indicated by the fuel totalizer, was sufficient.The pilot reported that about 12 nautical miles from the destination airport, both engines began to "surge" and subsequently lost power. During the forced landing, the pilot deviated to land in grass between a highway, the airplane touched down hard, and the landing gear collapsed.The fuselage and both wings sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot reported in the National Transportation Safety Board Pilot/ Operator Aircraft Accident Report that there was a "disparity" between the actual fuel quantity and the fuel quantity set in the electronic fuel totalizer. He further reported that a few days before the accident, he set the total fuel totalizer quantity to full after refueling, but in hindsight, he did not believe the fuel tanks were actually full because the wings may not have been level during the fueling. The "Preflight" chapter within the operating manual for the fuel totalizer in part states: "Digiflo-L is a fuel flow measuring system and NOT a quantity-sensing device. A visual inspection and positive determination of the usable fuel in the fuel tanks is a necessity. Therefore, it is imperative that the determined available usable fuel be manually entered into the system."Page 2 of 6 GAA17CA032
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll the airplane started to veer to the right, he attempted to correct with left rudder, which resulted in a ground loop to the left.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing, right horizontal stabilizer, and right elevator.The pilot reported that there were no pre impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor in the weight shift aircraft, which was equipped with a floor mounted, foot operated throttle, reported that upon startup, the pilot receiving instruction inadvertently applied full throttle while putting his right foot on the pedal power control unit. Subsequently, the weight shift aircraft started to move towards a parked jet, so the flight instructor turned the aircraft sharply and the aircraft tipped onto its side.The weight shift aircraft sustained substantial damage to both wings.The flight instructor reported that there were no pre impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The airline transport pilot reported that, while climbing to cruise altitude, about 9 minutes into the cross-country flight, he felt a severe shudder and the engine experienced a total loss of power. Simultaneously, oil began to coat the windscreen. The pilot maneuvered for a nearby airport; however, as he neared the airport, he realized that the airplane would not reach the runway and elected to land in an open area of desert vegetation. Postaccident examination of the engine revealed a hole in the crankcase above the Nos. 3 and 4 connecting rod journals. The Nos. 3 and 4 pistons were fractured into several pieces, which were located within the engine. The No. 3 connecting rod had separated from the crankshaft. The No. 3 cylinder intake valve head was broken at the bottom of the valve guide; the valve head was not located within the engine. A visual examination by a metallurgist was unable to determine the initial failure mode given the postfracture mechanical damage to the fractured end of the valve stem and the absence of the separated valve head; however, due to the quantity and severity of damage found throughout the engine, the likely initial point of failure was a fracture to the intake valve in the No. 3 cylinder.
The pilot reported that he flew to a tower-controlled airport to practice simulated engine failure approaches and landings. During departure following his fifth approach, he wanted to know what time it was and began looking for his phone, including reaching behind the seat to find it. He further reported that he must have been pulling back on the yoke while searching, and when he looked forward, the airplane was in a right yaw. He reported that he did not remember anything after that but believed that the airplane aerodynamically stalled and subsequently impacted the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot rented the airplane, then flew to another airport to pick up a passenger for a local area flight. After departing with the passenger, they briefly returned to the airport to fix a headset. They departed for the second time, and shortly after, the engine abruptly lost power. The pilot performed a forced landing in a residential area, which resulted in substantial damage to the airframe and serious injury to the pilot and the passenger. The passenger reported that during the flight, the pilot stated that "something was wrong with the throttle." The pilot later stated he believed there may have been a problem with the throttle connection. A postaccident test run of the engine verified the mechanical integrity of the powertrain and valvetrain. Although it is possible that the engine lost partial power due to an unknown problem with the throttle connection, this could not be conclusively determined based on the available evidence.
In a telephone interview with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Investigator-in-Charge, the pilot stated that, during the initial climb after an aerial pickup of a banner, the towline became entangled with the right horizontal stabilizer and the right elevator. Subsequently the airplane pitched down, impacted the ground, and nosed over.A postaccident examination revealed substantial damage to the right-wing lift strut and the empennage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.After multiple requests, the pilot did not return the NTSB Form 6120.1 Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report.
Shortly after takeoff for the personal flight, about 15 to 20 ft above ground level, the experimental amateur-built helicopter suddenly yawed right, followed by a partial loss of engine power. The private pilot then performed a partial nose-up, collective-down maneuver, but due to the low altitude and not being able to maintain sufficient rotor rpm, he chose to land in soft dirt off the side of the runway; the helicopter landed hard. The pilot had recently changed the alternator belt. A postaccident examination of the helicopter revealed that, during the maintenance, the pilot failed to properly tighten the tension bolts, which resulted in inadequate voltage to sustain ignition and the subsequent partial loss of engine power.
Two witnesses reported that, during the first takeoff attempt, the accident airplane's engine was "sputtering," and the pilot aborted the takeoff about halfway down the 2,355-ft-long runway. The noncertificated pilot reported that, during the accident takeoff, the airplane would not climb out of ground effect. (The witnesses stated that the engine sounded normal.) When the airplane reached about 100 ft above ground level, the pilot attempted to return to the airport; however, the airplane descended and impacted shallow water about 600 ft short of the runway. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed damage consistent with a Review of weight and balance data and loading information revealed that the airplane's gross weight at the time of the accident was about 50 lbs over its maximum allowable gross weight and that the center of gravity was at or beyond the forward limit. The pilot's loading of the airplane placed it outside of its operating envelope, which likely significantly degraded its performance. Postaccident examination of the engine found one exhaust valve stuck in the "open" position. If the valve had been stuck during all or a portion of either takeoff, the airplane's acceleration and climb performance would have been significantly degraded. It is likely that the airplane was unable to attain a positive climb rate due to a combination of the stuck exhaust valve and the pilot's operation of the airplane over its weight limit. It is also likely that, while attempting to return to the airport instead of landing straight ahead, the pilot failed to maintain adequate airspeed and exceeded the airplane's critical angle of attack, which led to an aerodynamic stall.
The pilot was attempting to land the airplane after a cross-country flight. The pilot reported that he experienced difficulty controlling the airplane on the first attempted landing and conducted a go-around. During the second approach, the wind sheared at altitude, and the pilot had control problems. When the airplane touched down, he applied the left brake while pulling completely aft on the flight control yoke. The airplane rolled left, and the left wing struck the runway. The airplane subsequently nosed over, which resulted in substantial damage. The wind was recorded from 200° at 14 kts with gusts to 18 kts. It is likely the pilot did not maintain directional control during the landing with gusting wind conditions.
As the private pilot approached his destination airport for landing, he lowered the landing gear handle but did not have a down-and-locked indication in the cockpit. He used the emergency gear extension handle to lower the gear; however, he felt no resistance on the emergency gear handle. After checking the wing-mounted landing gear mirrors, it appeared that the landing gear was extended. The pilot circled and landed. Upon landing, the right main landing gear collapsed, and the airplane skidded off the runway to the right, which resulted in substantial damage to the right horizontal stabilizer and elevator. Postaccident examination of the landing gear system revealed a leak near the hydraulic pump, and no resistance was felt on the pump handle. Due to the leak, it is likely that there was not enough hydraulic pressure to extend and lock the landing gear in the down position when the pilot attempted to lower the gear, which is consistent with the pilot not feeling any resistance on the emergency landing gear handle in flight. A review of recent maintenance records for the airplane did not reveal any previous landing gear anomalies.
The pilot reported that while in a left turn during an aerial application flight the airplane encountered a gust of wind and began to "shake", so he leveled the wings momentarily before continuing the turn. He further reported that he was looking at the field instead of where he was turning and when the airplane was 30-50 feet above the ground he looked up and saw electrical wires. The right wing tip struck the electrical wires and the airplane made a forced landing in a nearby pond.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the both wings and fuselage.The pilot also reported that during the day of the accident he was under stress and his head was "in another place". The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor reported that he was going to perform several touch-and-go landings with a student pilot before departing for a long cross-country flight. After taxiing up and down the runway a few times, he performed an engine run-up with no anomalies noted. During takeoff, when the airplane was about 30 ft above ground level, the engine started to lose power and then seconds later lost total power. The flight instructor tried to land the airplane on the runway but landed hard. The left main landing gear separated, and the left gear contacted the runway and fractured the main spar. Postaccident examination of the airplane and engine did not reveal any evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The weather conditions were conductive to the accumulation of serious carburetor ice at glide power settings; however, the loss of engine power occurred during a full power setting. The investigation could not determine if carburetor ice accumulated during the prior ground operation. Thus, the reason for the total loss of engine power could not be determined.