roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The commercial pilot reported that, before the accident flight, the airplane had been experiencing intermittent landing gear problems and that the purpose of the flight was to bring the airplane to a maintenance facility to examine the landing gear system. He added that, before the flight, the landing gear circuit breaker was pulled out "in order to keep the gear in the down position and eliminate the gear warning horn" for the flight. While landing, the pilot noticed that the left wing slightly dropped after touchdown, and the pilot corrected with aileron to maintain the runway centerline. Shortly thereafter, the pilot could feel the right main landing gear (MLG) slowly collapse. The pilot was unable to maintain the airplane on the runway centerline, and the airplane exited the runway surface. The airplane came to rest upright with the right MLG collapsed, and the right horizontal stabilizer was bent.During a postaccident examination, the landing gear were retracted and extended multiple times. Each gear retraction was normal; however, the gear extension cycles resulted in the left MLG and nose landing gear extending and locking, and the right MLG extending with no movement from the downlock actuator. The actuator was removed for further examination, and it was difficult to move. After removal, the actuator released, and the internal spring mechanism freely moved the actuator. The actuator was disassembled with no internal problems noted. According to the Pilot's Operating Handbook, Section 3, "Emergency Procedures, Landing Gear Malfunction Procedures," the landing gear pump circuit breaker was to be positioned to the "in" position for all landing gear malfunction scenarios.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the takeoff roll, the airplane started to veer left. As he recovered, the airplane "violently" turned to the right and exited the runway. He reduced the engine power, and the airplane nosed over.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left-wing lift strut and empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
Although the airline transport pilot received preflight weather briefings that forecast a risk of severe thunderstorms along his route, he chose to depart on an instrument flight rules (IFR) cross-country flight in his motorglider. About 45 minutes after departure, he asked air traffic control for any pilot reports or other information about the line of weather, which was located to the north along his route. The controller advised that there were areas of heavy-to-extreme precipitation and offered to provide vectors through the area of least precipitation when the pilot arrived in the vicinity. The pilot acknowledged and advised the controller that he would divert to another airport south of the weather if the conditions deteriorated. The controller continued to provide vectors and inform the pilot of the location and severity of the precipitation as the airplane continued north. About 10 miles south of the line of weather, the controller issued a slight left turn to avoid an area of heavy to extreme precipitation. The pilot advised that he saw an area to his right that looked like a viable route, and after discussion with the controller, chose to navigate around the weather on his own. When the controller checked in with the pilot a few minutes later, the pilot said that his ride was smooth, and he could see some lightning to his right. He then indicated that he had entered the clouds and could no longer deviate around weather visually. No further transmissions were received from the pilot, and radar contact was lost about 2 minutes later.The motorglider was highly fragmented at the accident site and was mostly confined to a small area about 75 ft in diameter. A large section of the left wing and the left flaperon were found in two separate locations about 4.5 and 3.5 miles away from the main wreckage, respectively, consistent with an in-flight breakup. Examination of the airframe and engine revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.A review of available weather information revealed that the pilot likely encountered a severe rotating thunderstorm (supercell), with associated hazards such as severe wind shear, updrafts and downdrafts, hail, lightning, icing, and possible tornado activity.The motorglider was not equipped for flight in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) and the flight manual specifically prohibited flying according to instrument flight rules, in IMC, in heavy Page 2 of 9 ERA17FA145rainfall, or during thunderstorm activity. Despite the weather information provided to him before the flight, the pilot chose to depart toward and continue into the area of severe convective activity. The violent conditions associated with the supercell thunderstorm exceeded the motorglider's design stress limitations and resulted in an in-flight breakup.
The airline transport pilot reported to local law enforcement that, while he was flying at 1,000 ft, the airplane's engine experienced a total loss of power. He subsequently conducted a forced landing onto a large trucking yard. The landing site was about 61 miles northwest of the departure airport and in the opposite direction of his intended destination. Examination of the airplane revealed that the fuel selector was set to the right fuel tank. The master electrical switch was "ON," the right fuel gauge indicated empty, and the left fuel gauge indicated between 0 and 5 gallons. The fuel tanks were intact and undamaged. It is likely that the loss of engine power was the result of fuel starvation. Responding law enforcement officers reported that they could smell a strong odor of alcohol emitting from the pilot's breath/person. A formal blood test, which was administered about 5 hours after the accident, revealed that the pilot had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.16%. The effects of ethanol on aviators are generally well understood; it significantly impairs pilots' performance, even at very low levels. Federal Aviation Administration regulations prohibit any person from acting or attempting to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft while having 0.040 gm/dl or more ethanol in the blood.
The pilot was performing a local flight in the airport traffic pattern. The engine began to "sputter" while the amphibian airplane was about 300 ft above the ground on the crosswind leg for the runway. The engine subsequently lost total power, and the propeller stopped rotating. The pilot conducted a forced landing in a nearby clearing among trees, and the hull and both wings were substantially damaged. The fuel system had ample fuel, and the fuel shutoff valve was open. The fuel filter assembly and both carburetors contained fuel. The postaccident examination and successful engine test run revealed no evidence of a mechanical malfunction or failure that would have precluded normal operation. Although the weather conditions were conducive for the formation of carburetor ice, the airplane's engine was equipped with carburetors with a variable-venturi design that are not generally prone to carburetor icing.
The student pilot in the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that he accomplished several takeoffs and landings on the asphalt runway during his solo flight in the pattern. He reported that, during his sixth landing, the airplane swerved to the left and subsequently swerved to the right during the landing roll. He attempted to control the airplane's direction with rudder pedal application, but he inadvertently applied the toe brakes, and the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both left side wing struts, the rudder, and the windscreen. The student reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, about 50 ft above the runway, a wind gust from the south caused the airplane to drift. The pilot added that she attempted to go around but was unsuccessful. The right wing impacted the ground, and the airplane cartwheeled. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings.The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. According to the pilot, the wind about the time of the accident was variable from 6° to 8°, gusting to between 10 and 12 knots. The airplane was landing on runway 28.
The pilot reported that, while approaching the destination airport in night, marginal visual meteorological conditions, he turned on the pilot-controlled runway lights. He added that he began a descent to the runway without observing the runway lights or airport and encountered "ground fog" about 200 to 300 ft above ground level (agl). He further added that he continued the descent to the runway while referencing the navigational moving map and GPS altitude on his electronic flight bag (EFB) application ForeFlight. Subsequently, while in a left turn, the airplane impacted terrain about 1 nautical mile south of the runway. The left wing, firewall, and 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. He added that, while en route, he reset his airplane-installed barometric pressure altimeter to the GPS altitude indicated on his EFB, which resulted in a "300 ft. error." An automated weather observing station, about 14 nautical miles west of the accident airport, recorded visibility at 2 1/2 statute miles, light rain, mist, and an overcast cloud ceiling at 300 ft agl.
The sport pilot and the passenger were making a local flight in the powered parachute. The passenger, who survived the accident, reported that, about an hour into the flight, the pilot turned to the east toward the passenger's home. After overflying the passenger's home at low altitude, the pilot maneuvered the powered parachute to the east toward rising terrain and trees. The passenger's wife was outside her home at the time of the accident and noticed that the aircraft was flying low, and other witnesses also reported seeing the aircraft flying low before the accident. According to the passenger, the aircraft did not climb quickly enough to clear the trees; the landing gear struck about three trees; and the aircraft dropped into the woods striking tree limbs on the way down.Postaccident examination of the wreckage did not reveal evidence of a preimpact mechanical malfunction or anomaly, and the passenger reported that he did not notice any significant change in engine speed before the aircraft struck the trees. The engine ran satisfactorily when tested after the accident.
The flight instructor and student pilot departed on a planned 3-hour instructional flight. While en route, the flight instructor stated that he wanted to show the student that there was more to flying than just training and that flying was also "fun." The pilots subsequently turned the airplane toward a large river valley in mountainous terrain. The pilots flew into an area of rapidly rising terrain and realized they needed to climb to avoid terrain. The flight instructor applied full power and pitched the airplane up into a climb; however, the terrain rose faster than the airplane was climbing. The flight instructor instructed the student pilot to start a right turn. Shortly thereafter, he felt the turn was too slow, and he took control of the airplane. The flight instructor stated that things were happening too fast for him to recover the airplane. The airplane subsequently impacted terrain in a box canyon, with ridgelines between 100 feet to several hundred feet higher than the accident site. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during approach and after fully extending the flaps, he felt the airplane was descending too quickly, so he added power. He added that "the aircraft was nearly down when [a] crosswind" drifted the airplane off the runway centerline. The pilot added more power, but the stall warning horn sounded, and the nose dropped. The airplane impacted a drainage pond to the left of the runway and came to rest inverted.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings and empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the amphibious airplane reported that, during a no-flap water landing, he noticed a higher descent rate than expected. He added that he applied full power to initiate a go-around but that the airplane landed hard on the water. The pilot and passenger egressed the airplane and were rescued without further incident.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.The pilot reported that he believed the airplane encountered "a windshift/shear to a tailwind as [he] transitioned high to low for landing approach toward the [south-southwest]." A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located about 6 miles west of the accident site reported that, about 17 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 090° at 9 knots.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll and as he pulled the power to idle and lowered the tail, he raised the flaps and that the airplane then encountered a "sudden and strong wind" that caused it to weather-vane. Subsequently, the airplane veered off the right side of the runway, the main landing gear collapsed, and the airplane came to rest nose down.The airplane sustained substantial damage to both right and left wings and both lift struts.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot, who was also the owner/builder of the experimental amateur-built airplane, reported that, after departure and while climbing through 3,500 ft mean sea level, he heard the engine sound abruptly change and observed a loss of rpm and higher-than-normal exhaust gas temperature readings. The pilot turned back toward the airport and attempted to troubleshoot the problem; however, the airplane continued to produce less power than expected. The pilot established a normal traffic pattern for the runway. After turning to final, the airplane started descending and had insufficient power to reach the runway. The airplane subsequently impacted terrain short of the runway. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that all six propeller bolts that held the propeller hub to the drive hub were fractured. Further examination of the bolts revealed that the fracture surfaces all exhibited similar features consistent with reverse bending fatigue, likely from not fitting tightly into the propeller hub holes. The pilot reported that he had converted the engine and that, given its unique conversion, the bolts that were typically used to connect the propeller hub to the drive hub were too short; therefore, he chose to use the bolts that were on the hub at the time of the accident. Given the condition of the bolts and the pilot's statement, it is likely the bolts did not fit tightly in the propeller hub holes, which led to their failure due to reverse bending fatigue.
The pilot reported that, during the landing, he was "going…[too] fast," overran the runway, and impacted trees. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings.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 of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, after landing at an airport along his route, he observed a leak from the left master brake cylinder. He added that he "wiped up [a] considerable [amount of] brake fluid from the floorboard," conducted a "thorough inspection" of the left brake, and then departed for another airport.He further reported that, during the landing roll, the airplane weathervaned into the crosswind, and he applied "full rudder and [the] application of brake found no brake available." He added that, after pumping the brakes, they began to function. The airplane veered off the runway to the right, and the left main landing gear collapsed. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.
The private pilot was conducting a cross-country flight at a cruise altitude of 5,000 ft mean sea level (msl) in day visual meteorological conditions when the airplane experienced a total loss of engine power. Over the next minute, the airplane continued a northerly track before it began a turn to the west as the controller identified the closest public airport, private strip, state highway, and open areas for potential forced landing sites, which the pilot acknowledged. About 3 minutes later, the airplane collided with trees and terrain and was consumed by postcrash fire. All engine accessories were destroyed by fire and could not be examined except for the engine-driven fuel pump, which revealed no anomalies. The engine displayed internal and external thermal damage, but internally displayed signatures consistent with normal wear and lubrication. Tree damage at the site was consistent with a rotating propeller at the time of tree contact.An NTSB performance specialist plotted potential glide ranges and trajectories for the airplane from the assumed point of engine power loss. About the time of the loss of engine power, the airplane was about 1 mile abeam an abandoned airport. This airport was not plotted on the visual flight rules sectional chart nor was it visible to the controller, and it may not have been readily visible to the pilot due to its location on the right side of the airplane. However, the airplane's projected glide distance and trajectories indicated that the airplane was within gliding distance of numerous open fields as well as a four-lane divided highway with a large grass median. It could not be determined why the pilot chose to forgo any of the potential suitable forced landing sites.
The pilot was receiving instruction in the tailwheel-equipped airplane. He reported that, during the landing roll, the airplane turned left and that he "over corrected with too much right rudder." He added that the airplane ground looped, exited the runway to the right, and came to rest in a nose-down attitude. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall.The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The airline transport pilot of the single-engine airplane was departing on a cross-country flight in dark night, visual meteorological conditions over sparsely lighted terrain. GPS and radar information showed that, shortly after takeoff, the airplane turned about 5° left during its initial climb over the runway before beginning a climbing right turn consistent with a direct heading toward the destination. The airplane continued the right turn past the on-course heading and entered a descent, which continued until impact with terrain about 2,500 ft from the departure end of the runway. The wreckage path orientation was consistent with a steep, powered descent and impact with terrain in a right descending turn. Examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions of the airframe or engine.It is unlikely that the pilot's high blood pressure or its treatment contributed to the accident and there is no evidence to suggest that he was suddenly impaired or incapacitated by his moderate coronary artery disease. Overall, it is unlikely that the pilot's medical conditions or use of medications contributed to the accident. The dark night conditions and sparsely-lighted terrain in the vicinity of the airport combined with the pilot's high cockpit workload during takeoff into instrument meteorological conditions, may have been conducive to the development of spatial disorientation; however, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether disorientation may have contributed to the accident.
The pilot reported that he had landed farther down the snow- and ice-covered runway than anticipated due to being "a little high and a little fast" during the approach. He added that he applied brakes but that he was not slowing down quickly enough and determined that there was not enough runway remaining to attempt a go-around. He controlled the airplane "the best [he] could until [he] hit the snow berm at the end of the runway"; subsequently, the airplane nosed over.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the windshield.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor was conducting an instructional flight in the airplane, which was owned by the student pilot. The flight instructor reported that he did not notice that the student pilot had not set the flaps to the appropriate position for takeoff, as required on the Before Takeoff checklist. Immediately after rotation, during the initial climb, the student pilot had difficulty maintaining directional control. The flight instructor took control of the airplane about 10 ft above the runway, the stall warning annunciator was audible, and the airplane began sinking. The flight instructor pushed the nose over but was unable to recover before the airplane landed hard and then departed the right side of the runway. The landing gear dug into the mud, the airplane then spun around, and the nose landing gear and left main landing gear collapsed, which resulted in substantial damage to the elevator and vertical stabilizer. The flight instructor reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during landing on a backcountry dirt airstrip in a crosswind, the airplane touched down and bounced. He added that he attempted to maintain directional control, but a "[wind] gust weathervaned the aircraft nose left," and the right main landing gear wheel dug into the ground during the second touchdown. Subsequently, the airplane ground looped to the left, and the right wing impacted the ground.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.