roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that during a cross-country flight at night, he was attempting to deviate due to deteriorating weather. During which, he failed to maintain terrain clearance and the airplane contacted the top of a tree. The pilot subsequently landed the airplane uneventfully at an airport about 23 miles away from where the tree contact was made. Examination of the airplane by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed damage to the wings and windshield. The inspector did not observe any preimpact mechanical malfunctions, nor did the pilot report any.
The airline transport pilot was conducting a test flight following a recent replacement of the turbo wastegate controller, at which time the mechanic also tightened the intercooler hose. The pilot reported that, during the ground roll and initial climb, the engine tone was continuous, and both the manifold pressure and rpm indications were normal. As the airplane reached about 300 ft mean sea level, the engine lost power. The pilot attempted to restore engine power by switching the fuel tanks and cycling both the "low" and "high" settings of the fuel boost pump but was unsuccessful. He leveled the wings and extended the flaps to prepare for a forced landing, and a few seconds later, the airplane impacted a slough about 1/2 mile southeast of the departure end of the runway. A postaccident examination of the fuel system did not reveal any anomalies or obstructions. Further, examination of the engine did not reveal any mechanical malfunctions, except for the separation of the intercooler from its mounts, which had resulted from the accident. During a test run, the engine was not able to produce rated horsepower until the intercooler was removed; however, the engine was still able to produce normally aspirated engine power with the intercooler installed. The Pilot's Operating Handbook warned against using the "high" fuel boost pump position when the engine-driven fuel pump is operating because it can result in an excessively rich fuel/air mixture and engine failure. Thus, the pilot's attempt to restart the engine with the fuel boost pump at the "high" setting may have prevented engine power from being restored; however, even if engine power had been restored, given the airplane's low altitude when the engine lost power, it is unlikely that the pilot would have had sufficient time to complete a successful engine restart and continue safe flight. The investigation could not determine the reason for the total loss of engine power during initial climbout.Page 2 of 9 WPR16LA066
The private pilot reported that, just after landing, the airplane began to veer left and exited the side of the runway. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the nose landing gear fork and the right main landing gear strut were fractured in a manner consistent with overload. Examination of the damage to the airplane revealed that the main landing gear attachment points sustained upward crushing and the tail was bent downward; damage consistent with a hard landing. Control continuity was established, and no anomalies were revealed that would have precluded normal operation. Recorded wind information for the time of the accident indicated a 50- to 60-degree crosswind at 8 knots with gusts to 19 knots for the selected runway. Shortly before the airplane landed, a general wind shear warning was broadcast on the airport's tower control frequency. Wind shear was present in the area at altitudes below 2,000 ft above ground level (agl), and review of weather information valid at the time of the accident indicated several areas of clear air turbulence extending from the surface through 14,000 ft agl. Given the damage to the airplane, the surface wind profile, and upper level winds over the terrain, the accident flight likely encountered gusting wind conditions and low-level wind shear while landing. The airplane landed hard, damaging the landing gear, which resulted in the pilot's subsequent inability to maintain directional control.
According to the pilot, during approach, the airplane encountered a wind gust and the landing gear struck the top of the airport's perimeter fence. The airplane flipped over and slid to a stop. According to the airport facility directory the fence was in excess of 200 feet from the approach end of the runway which was 3,237 feet in length. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings, the rudder and the vertical stabilizer. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or anomalies with the airplane prior to or during the flight that would have prevented normal flight operation.There weren't any wind reporting facilities at the airport.
The pilot of a tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll, the left main landing gear slowly collapsed forward. During a postaccident examination of the airframe by the pilot it was revealed that the left main landing forward gear tube had collapsed, which resulted in substantial damage to the landing gear mounting bracket.Photographs provided by the pilot substantiated that the landing gear had collapsed forward.
A private pilot and a pilot-rated passenger were on a personal cross-county flight in a Beechcraft M35, and a private pilot was on a local personal flight in a Bellanca 8KCAB when the airplanes collided in mid-air over an ocean harbor. Before the collision, the Beechcraft, a low-wing airplane, was descending from 3,500 ft, and flying in an east-northeast direction. The Bellanca, a high-wing airplane, was flying toward the sun in a west-northwest direction with intermittent radar returns between 3,000 and 3,500 ft. Radar data showed the tracks of both airplanes converge with the airplanes approaching each other nearly head-on. The last radar return from the Beechcraft, just before the collision, was at 3,300 ft. Following the collision, both airplanes descended, impacted the ocean, and sank.Postaccident examination of the recovered wreckage of both airplanes revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of either airplane.  Postaccident examination did not identify any paint transfer marks on the airframe of either airplanes; however, not all the parts of the airplanes were recovered.Ethanol was found in the tissues of each pilot, however, it is most likely that the ethanol was the result of post mortem production. Diphenhydramine, which can cause drowsiness and slow psychomotor reaction time, was detected in the Bellanca pilot's tissue; however, the lack of a blood sample precluded determination of the level of the drug present, and it could not be determined whether the Bellanca pilot was impaired by the effects of diphenhydramine.All three pilots had a limitation on their Federal Aviation Administration medical certificates for eyeglasses; but two, the Beech pilot-rated passenger and the Bellanca pilot, only required them for near vision, which was not a factor in this accident. The Bellanca pilot had had cataract surgery on both eyes more than a year before the accident; this would be expected to significantly improve her vision and, therefore, likely did not contribute to the accident. Overall, it is unlikely that any problem with distant vision in any of the three pilots contributed to the accident.Page 2 of 16 WPR16FA065It could not be determined why the Beechcraft pilot did not see the Bellanca. The Bellanca pilot was flying toward the sun, and sun glare could have contributed to her inability to see the approaching Beechcraft.
The commercial pilot reported that, during a cross-country helicopter flight, the main rotor blades seemed minimally out of track. After departing on the last leg of the flight, he noticed a slight "hop" as he made an ascending 180° right turn, but later stated that he had experienced worse with gusting winds and door-off operations. In straight and level flight, the blade track appeared to be no different than on the previous legs. During the descent toward the destination, he noticed that the hop became more apparent when the blades were unloaded. Maintenance personnel subsequently found a crack in one main rotor blade from the trailing edge forward to the spar at a point midspan near the beginning of the trim tab.Examination revealed a visible crack on the top skin, with an opposing crack on the bottom skin. The crack surfaces were flat and light grey with features indicative of fatigue cracking from the trailing edges of the upper and lower skins forward to an internal "C" channel. No gross mechanical damage was visible, and abrasions visible after stripping paint from the blade appeared to be too small to initiate the fatigue crack. The blade had been in service for about 2/3 of its service hour life and more than half of its cycle life at the time of discovery. The reason for crack initiation could not be determined.
The pilot reported during night visual meteorological conditions, he struck multiple birds at an altitude of about 300 to 400 feet above ground on final approach. The pilot continued the approach and landed without further incident. A postaccident examination revealed substantial damage to the right wing.The pilot reported there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot was flying over the ocean and just off the coast when an air traffic controller asked him to descend to 500 ft. The pilot reduced engine power and applied carburetor heat until he reached the assigned altitude, and he then attempted to increase engine power and level off; however, even with the throttle full forward, the engine power remained at its previous setting. The pilot attempted to resolve the situation, but he was unable to maintain altitude and ditched the airplane in the ocean Although weather conditions were conducive to serious icing at glide power, the pilot had applied carburetor heat during the descent which should have melted any carburetor ice during the descent. A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The cause for the partial loss of engine power could not be determined.
The pilot reported that he was flying over a snow covered dry lake bed and decided to "drag" the left main landing gear to "better assess the surface condition." When the tire touched down, the pilot reported, "Drag rapidly increased and sucked the aircraft down." The pilot attempted to abort the landing by adding full power, but the airplane sunk further into the snow, turned to the right, and nosed over. The fuselage and vertical stabilizer sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported there were no other mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot was performing the fourth in a series of landings at dusk. While on final approach, the low-wing airplane's landing gear impacted a tractor-trailer traveling on the highway perpendicular to the runway. All three of the airplane's landing gear separated, and the pilot performed a go-around followed by a "belly" landing to the parallel grass runway.Following a similar accident about 19 years earlier, the airport installed a precision approach path indicator (PAPI) to provide visual glidepath guidance for pilots. The PAPI was inoperative at the time of the accident, and the airport had not issued a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) to alert pilots of this fact. It is likely that the pilot's visual references were reduced due to the dusk conditions, and it is probable that, had the PAPI been operative and providing corrective feedback to the pilot, he would have adjusted the airplane's excessively low glidepath accordingly.
The owner of the airplane reported that the solo student pilot told him that the airplane "bounced upon touchdown." He further reported that the solo student pilot executed a "go-around," and "determined the climb out rate was insufficient to clear the trees and the airspeed and altitude were insufficient to permit a safe course adjustment to avoid the tree line." The airplane touched down on a field with "plowed soft soil," the nose wheel collapsed, and the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing, the vertical stabilizer, and the rudder.The owner did not report any preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that after landing at an unfamiliar airport, and while taxiing, the airplane's right wing impacted two airplanes that were parked in the parking area, which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing. 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 private pilot reported that, about 90 minutes after takeoff and about 19,000 ft, the engine of the high-performance pressurized airplane lost total power. Although the loss of power happened at high altitude, for the next 11 minutes, the pilot did not perform any troubleshooting steps, which were limited in scope and would not have taken long to complete, and instead diverted directly to an airport. After arriving at the diversion airport with altitude remaining, the pilot performed a circling descent maneuver over the runway. During the landing approach, he moved the landing gear selection lever to the "down" position, but the gear did not extend, so the pilot chose to land the airplane on snow adjacent to the runway. Just before touchdown, the main landing gear extended, but the nose landing gear remained retracted. Upon touchdown, the airplane's nose dug into the snow. The airplane then abruptly stopped, sustaining substantial damage to the forward fuselage and both wings.Examination of the engine and landing gear did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation, and the engine performed normally during a subsequent test run. Given the engine ran normally during the test run, it is possible that, if the pilot had attempted to troubleshoot the problem, engine power could have been restored. The reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined. According to the owner, there was a previously undiagnosed landing gear problem that, on two previous occasions, had resulted in the delayed deployment of the landing gear after flying at high altitudes in cold weather. Given the airplane was flying at high altitude in cold weather when the event occurred, a reoccurrence of the landing gear anomaly could not be ruled out.
The commercial pilot reported that, following a normal touchdown and during the landing roll, the airplane suddenly veered to the left. The pilot corrected for the left swerve with the application of right rudder and brake. The airplane subsequently entered a right swerve. The airplane did not respond to the pilot's application of left rudder and brake inputs. The pilot reported that there was a 15-ft descending embankment and trees off the right side of the runway and that, to avoid a runway excursion, he lowered the left wing and intentionally ground looped the airplane to the right. The left wing subsequently contacted the runway surface.A postaccident examination revealed a fracture to the left main landing gear wheel casting. The wheel fracture was located along the inner bearing race shelf and resulted in the bearing being exposed. The bearing race flange had fractured circumferentially and radially in two places. Further examination of the fracture surfaces revealed areas of fatigue, which were the result of casting oxide imperfections that had been present since the wheel was cast and had developed under typical loading of the landing gear. Additionally, the observed alternating fracture features were consistent with spectrum loading, typical of those experienced by a landing gear wheel. Ultimately, the wheel failed as a result of progressive fatigue cracking. The wheel had been cast in 1942, and the owner reported that the airplane had accumulated 3,520 hours since new with 10 hours since the last inspection.
The pilot reported that during a night takeoff, shortly after the airplane lifted off the runway, he "felt a force" on the tail. He further reported that the angle of attack changed to an "extreme angle", the airspeed decreased, and the stall warning horn was audible. Subsequently the left wing impacted the ground, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing. According to the pilot there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located on the airport revealed that, at the time of the accident, conditions were wind 30 degrees at 19 knots, wind gust 27 knots. The airplane was departing on runway 26.
According to the pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane, he made an approach to his private sod airstrip after observing rain showers in days previous. The pilot reported that as the main wheels made contact with the surface the airplane immediately nosed over. A photograph taken following the accident and provided by the operator showed that the runway was water saturated and muddy. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings' lift struts and the rudder. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or anomalies prior to or during the flight that would have prevented normal flight operation.
The pilot reported that, during landing, the gyroplane was too high above the runway. He attempted to "cushion the landing" by forcing the nose up as he "gunned the engine a couple of times." The fluctuations in torque caused the gyroplane to turn right, and he corrected with hard, left rudder application. Because the gyroplane was configured with the front wheel mechanically linked to the rudder for directional control, the front wheel was turned completely left, which resulted in the gyroplane turning "violently" left upon touching down hard and then rolling onto its right side. The gyroplane sustained substantial damage to the main rotor drive system and the empennage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the gyroplane that would have precluded normal operation and that the accident was caused by pilot error.
The pilot reported that, during the landing roll on a dirt airstrip, the airplane skidded on a thin layer of frost on the dirt. He applied the brakes, and as the airplane transitioned to dry gravel, it nosed over. He added that he believed that the braking pressure he applied was excessive for the gravel portion of the airstrip. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right-wing lift strut and rudder. 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, at departure, the airplane had 39 gallons of fuel and that, about 1 hour 40 minutes after departure, the engine lost power. He adjusted the fuel mixture and throttle to no avail. While he was maneuvering for an off-airport landing, the left wing impacted a pole. The airplane then rotated counterclockwise and impacted an open field, and the nose landing gear broke off. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the engine mount, fuselage, and both wings. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The sheriff's deputy who responded to the accident reported that he saw fuel pouring out of the left wing. The Federal Aviation Administrator inspector who examined the airplane reported that the fuel selector lever was positioned to the right tank. The right wing tank contained between about 8 and 10 ounces of fuel with no visible signs of leakage. The wing-to-fuselage lower trim panel was removed, and the vent line and fuel supply lines were intact and secured. The left wing tank contained about 4.5 gallons. Fuel seepage stains were seen on the forward part of the pilot door. The inspector added that the overall engine condition was good.
The pilot reported that he was performing a visual approach for landing when the engine lost total power. Unable to restore engine power, the pilot performed a forced landing to a river. After recovery, the external engine components were dried, cleaned, and reinstalled (magnetos, fuel manifold), and the starter was replaced due to water immersion. The engine was then placed in a test cell where it started immediately, accelerated smoothly, and ran continuously without interruption.Radar and on-board data revealed that the airplane experienced lateral g-forces in the turn to final and during its approach in a gusting crosswind, consistent with a slip. Although the airplane’s operating handbook cautioned against prolonged slips or skids or other “radical or extreme maneuvers which could cause uncovering of the fuel outlet,” whether the slip during the accident flight was sufficient to uncover the fuel port and result in the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The pilot reported that, after landing on a dirt runway and while taxiing down the runway to the parking area, the nose landing gear encountered soft terrain and collapsed, and the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and rudder. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was attempting to rescue a gyroplane pilot who made a forced landing in a phosphate pit and gypsum pond by having him grab the right skid of the helicopter and lift him to safety. The pilot anticipated that he would have to compensate for the change in the helicopter's center of gravity when the gyroplane pilot grabbed the skid. The gyroplane pilot’s first two attempts to grab the helicopter’s right skid were unsuccessful. The helicopter pilot stated that the gyroplane pilot’s third attempt was more aggressive than the previous two attempts and that he was not prepared for the sudden center-of-gravity shift that resulted once the gyroplane pilot grabbed the right skid. The helicopter then entered a dynamic rollover to the right and impacted the gypsum pond, resulting in substantial damage to the main rotor blades, tail rotor, and the tailboom.
The student pilot obtained automotive fuel from a gas station close to his departure airport to fuel the gyroplane before departing on a solo cross-country flight. About 45 minutes into the flight, there was a “loud bang” from the engine, and it subsequently lost total power and could not be restarted. The pilot performed a forced landing in a swamp, during which the rotor blades impacted terrain. Post-accident examination revealed fuel contamination consisting of water and sediment. New fuel was added, and a subsequent test run of the engine revealed no anomalies. It is likely that the loss of engine power was the result of the fuel contamination, and that the accident would have likely been prevented if the student pilot had performed an adequate preflight inspection to detect water in the fuel.
The flight instructor reported that she provided takeoff and landing training from and to a helicopter landing platform. During landing, the student pilot had control of the collective and the antitorque pedals, and the instructor maintained control of the cyclic. The instructor added that, during landing on the platform, "the student lowered the collective suddenly, and also pulled back up (on the collective) suddenly." Additionally, the student grabbed the cyclic and pulled aft when he increased the collective. The helicopter bounced on the platform and tilted backward. The helicopter rolled onto its right side, the instructor closed the throttle, and the main rotor blades struck the ground. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the main and tail rotor drive systems and the fuselage. The instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.