roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
According to the pilot in the tailwheel-equipped, high-performance airplane, he performed a three-point landing about 70 mph. During the landing roll, the airplane veered to the right. The pilot reported that he applied left rudder and left aileron to keep the airplane on the runway. However, the airplane exited the right side of the runway and then ground looped to the right, and the left wing and left elevator struck the ground.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left-wing spar, ribs, aileron, and the left elevator.The METAR at the accident airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 010° at 7 knots.The pilot reported that the valve stem from the left main landing gear tire failed, causing the loss of control.
The commercial pilot and passenger departed in the helicopter from the pilot's residence near a lake. Two witnesses who lived near the accident site saw the helicopter flying fast over the trees from the south side of the lake to the north. One of the witnesses reported that the helicopter "swooped" down over the lake and flew over the water past their house. Shortly thereafter, the helicopter's skids touched the water and the helicopter impacted the lake.The passenger reported that the pilot descended close to the water and hovered while the passenger took pictures. The helicopter subsequently dipped to the right, followed by the main blades hitting the water; the helicopter descended into the lake and rolled onto its right side before beginning to sink. The helicopter sank in about 31 ft of water subsequent to impact. A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. It is likely that the pilot misjudged the helicopter's height above the water while maneuvering at a low altitude, which resulted in impact with the water.
The commercial pilot was performing a familiarization flight in the tailwheel-equipped airplane. The pilot reported that the airplane hit a bump after touching down, which caused the airplane to bounce and then veer to the left. The pilot applied right brake, which was not effective. The airplane subsequently went off the left side of the runway and into a ditch, causing substantial damage to the airplane. The pilot reported no mechanical malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
**This report was modified on October 27, 2023. Please see the docket for the original report.***The commercial pilot was conducting agricultural spray operations. He turned the airplane around for a spray pass and turned left to the west about 300 ft above ground level. During the left turn, the airplane descended and impacted the ground and subsequently burst into flames. The pilot was seriously injured from the impact and postimpact fire. A witness reported that he did not see any smoke or fire coming from the airplane during the flight. Data from a handheld GPS onboard the airplane revealed that the airplane had circled over the field being treated and then made four east-west spray passes. The recorded data ended before the airplane turned. It is likely that the pilot had finished with the east-west spray passes and intended to fly a few north-south passes to spray the southwest corner of the target field. Postaccident examination of the airplane did not reveal evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The propeller blades and propeller spinner exhibited rotational signatures consistent with the propeller being driven with mid to high power at the time of impact. The flap actuator was found in a position that corresponded to the flaps being extended 22° at the time of impact. The airplane flight manual stated that flaps may be used as a turning aid during agricultural operations provided that small deflections (5° to 8°) are used. It was not possible to determine from the available evidence the flap settings that the pilot used during the portion of the flight before the accident.Page 2 of 11 CEN18LA019The pilot's previous employer reported that the pilot had a history of making tight turns during agricultural operations and had been warned about the associated dangers. Based on the available information, it is likely that the pilot exceeded the airplane’s critical angle of attack while maneuvering during the aerial application flight, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and loss of control at an altitude too low to recover.
Following a 1.5-hour local flight, the pilot was returning to his home airfield. Due to inbound traffic to the airport, the pilot circled once to the west and descended for the runway. About 8 miles from the runway, he lowered the landing gear and set 10° flaps. While on the base leg, the engine did not respond to the throttle inputs. The pilot switched fuel tanks, turned on the auxiliary fuel pump, and increased the mixture. Engine power was not restored, and the pilot notified the tower that the airplane had a total loss of engine power. Traffic was too heavy on a nearby road, so the pilot performed a forced landing to a vacant field. The airplane touched down, and the pilot applied brakes. The airplane traveled for about 90 ft, hit a ditch, and nosed over. The pilot reported that he thought that he had about 45 gallons of fuel before takeoff, but he told the Federal Aviation Administration inspector that he had miscalculated his fuel. Only residue fuel was found during recovery of the airplane. The circumstances of the accident are consistent with a total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion.
The pilot reported that, during approach, the automatic weather observation station at the destination airport reported that the wind was from 170° at 12 knots. He added that there was "very massive choppy wind, including what could have been windshear, updrafts, and downdrafts." During the landing roll on runway 11, a wind gust blew the airplane off the runway to the left. The pilot attempted to recover, but the airplane impacted a ditch. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and right wing.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector reported that a postaccident examination revealed that the rudder cable that passed along the left side of the fuselage was separated into three pieces. The rudder cable was covered in debris, which contained red fibers. The rudder cable was splayed and exhibited signatures consistent with tension overload.The airplane's illustrated parts catalog contained a diagram titled, "Rudder Control System Installation," which displayed the cable along the left side of the fuselage cross over the right side of the airplane, in the tailcone section, and connect to the right side of the rudder horn, which provided right rudder authority.The airplane's most recent inspection was an annual, which was conducted 6 months before the accident flight. The FAA inspector interviewed the mechanic who performed the most recent annual inspection, and the mechanic reported that, during inspections, he used manufacturer data and FAA Advisory Circular, AC 43.13-1B, "Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices – Aircraft Inspection and Repair." He further reported, multiple times, that he should probably "tighten up" his inspections.AC 43.13-1B contained a section titled, "Cable System Inspection," which stated the following: Page 2 of 6 GAA18CA020"Aircraft cable systems are subject to a variety of environmental conditions and deterioration. Wire or strand breakage is easy to visually recognize. Other kinds of deterioration such as wear, corrosion, and/or distortion are not easily seen; therefore, control cables should be removed periodically for a more detailed inspection.At each annual or 100-hour inspection, all control cables must be inspected for broken wire strands. Any cable assembly that has one broken wire strand located in a critical fatigue area must be replaced."It further stated the following:"Close inspection in these critical fatigue areas, must be made by passing a cloth over the area to snag on broken wires. This will clean the cable for visual inspection, and detect broken wires if the cloth snags on the cable." It is likely that the red fibers found on the rudder cable were from a red cloth used to inspect the rudder cable during the annual inspection. It is also likely that, sometime during the flight or landing sequence, the right rudder cable separated, which subsequently restricted the pilot's ability to recover from the loss of control during landing.
According to the pilot in the tailwheel-equipped biplane, he was unable to determine the wind direction during his approach. He circled the airport multiple times and attempted to communicate on the common advisory traffic frequency. During the landing roll on the runway, the biplane experienced an "unexpected turn to (the) left similar to being weathercocked." The biplane exited the left side of the runway and continued across descending terrain before it nosed over.The METAR nearest to the accident airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 170° at 16 knots, gusting to 19 knots. The biplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and the rudder.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the biplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during landing, as the tailwheel was touching down, the airplane swerved to the right and hit a taxiway sign. Subsequently, the left main landing gear collapsed, and the left wing struck the ground.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and left wing.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 reported, about 30 minutes before the accident, that the wind was calm. The automated report further reported, about 30 minutes after the accident, that the wind was from 270° at 11 knots. The pilot landed on runway 08.
The pilot of the tundra-tired, tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during touchdown, he saw that the left emergency brake was partially engaged. He added that the left wheel was locked and that the airplane exited the left side of the runway. Subsequently, the right landing gear collapsed, and the right wing tip struck the ground.He added that, before the previous takeoff from a grass airstrip, he had performed his preflight checklist, which was normal. But, "upon reflection," he realized that he had changed his normal routine by shutting down the engine, setting the parking brakes, and exiting the airplane after completing the checklist. After re-entering the airplane, he only did a "visual left to right flow check." He then pressed and released the brakes and applied power holding the left rudder and brake down to turn the airplane in the direction of the departure and then departed after a "very short ground roll downhill."He further added that, by immediately turning left during the takeoff roll, he "may not have released enough pressure on the parking brake to turn it completely off." He believed that, due to the combination of the large smooth tire, wet grass, and downslope hill, he was unable to determine that the emergency parking brake was engaged.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and right wing.
During a telephone conversation with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator-in-charge, the pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during a wheel landing, the wind shifted from a crosswind to a quartering tailwind. He further reported that he applied full aft elevator but lost control of the pitch when the wind shifted, and the airplane nosed over about 5 to 10 knots groundspeed.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and vertical stabilizer. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot did not submit the NTSB Form 6120.1 Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report.
The pilot was conducting a local personal flight. His son reported that his father was returning to the departure airport when the accident occurred. One witness reported that the airplane “seemed slow and too low” during the approach to land and that it struck power lines near the approach end of the runway. Subsequently, the airplane descended rapidly and impacted the runway. Several other witnesses reported that the airplane impacted unmarked power lines that were above a power line marked with orange guide balls. The pilot did not recall the accident sequence. Postaccident examination of the airplane did not reveal any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Given the witness statements, it is likely that, during the approach to land, the pilot allowed the airplane to drop below the glideslope, and he failed to see and avoid the unmarked power lines that were above the marked power line.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during landing, he believed he "just hit a little to[o] hard," and the airplane porpoised. He added that he attempted to recover but could not get control of the airplane. Subsequently, the airplane exited the runway to the left and nosed over.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the empennage and the left 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 an air medical flight during early morning hours in dark night visual meteorological conditions and was flying an instrument approach to the destination airport. A review of air traffic control communications found that during the instrument approach, the pilot gave an incorrect readback twice to the terminal radar approach controller and flew through the approach course. The pilot reported that, before landing, he failed to visually check and confirm indications that the landing gear were down and locked; he also did not respond to warning tones that should have sounded to indicate this condition during the latter stages of the approach. Upon touchdown on the runway with the landing gear not extended, the airplane skidded on the underside of the fuselage and came to rest on the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right engine mount. Although the landing gear switch was found in the down position, it could not be determined when it was placed in that position. Evidence indicates that the accident occurred during the window of circadian low, and the pilot's sleep periods were fragmented in the days before the accident and he did not have a contiguous 8 hours of sleep that was typical of his sleep pattern when not working overnight periods; both of these factors likely contributed to the pilot being fatigued about the time of the accident. The pilot reported that he felt the effects of fatigue, including impaired judgment, as he approached the destination airport. The pilot's readback errors and his failure to extend the landing gear are consistent with performance degradation due to fatigue. The pilot cited being on a long duty period, failing to manage his rest, failing to manage the cockpit, and allowing complacency to set in as factors that affected his performance.
The private pilot departed for a cross-country flight in the high-performance single-engine airplane. Immediately after the airplane became airborne, it remained in ground effect longer than usual, and he perceived a change in engine power, and the airplane did not climb as expected. The pilot then chose to abort the takeoff; however, with limited runway available, the airplane overran the end of the runway and then struck a ditch and came to rest on the perimeter road. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any evidence of preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation, and review of data from the airplane's data recording system revealed that the engine was operating normally and accelerating appropriately. However, the data also indicated that the flaps were fully retracted during takeoff, rather than set to 50%, as recommended in the Pilot's Operating Handbook. The data further revealed that the pilot checked the operation of the flaps during the preflight check but failed to move them to the takeoff setting as required by the Before-Takeoff checklist. Although takeoff with fully retracted flaps is permissible, the airplane manufacturer does not provide performance data for that configuration, and the pilot was likely not used to the airplane's altered handling characteristics under such conditions.Although an accurate assessment of whether the pilot could have stopped the airplane after rotation could not be made due to the lack of performance data for a retracted flaps takeoff, it is likely that, with prompt recognition of the reduced performance, the pilot could have stopped the airplane before it overran the runway; however, surveillance video, recorded data, and the pilot's recollection indicated that he did not reduce the engine power and subsequently apply the brakes until the airplane reached the end of the runway.The pilot had recently been issued his private pilot certificate and had purchased the high-performance single-engine airplane about 1 month before the accident. He had accrued just over 22 hours of solo flight time, all in the accident make and model. It is likely that the pilot's lack of experience in the high-Page 2 of 10 WPR18LA012performance airplane led to his failure to respond to the airplane's altered flight characteristics due to the incorrect flaps setting.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped Pitts reported that he had departed from runway 3, flew out to the aerobatic practice box, completed his practice, and returned to the airport. He added that he entered a downwind for runway 3 and announced his location relative to the traffic pattern throughout the landing. He heard another aircraft making calls in the traffic pattern but nothing he was concerned about. After he landed, during the rollout, about midfield, he heard someone announce on the radio that there was an airplane on the runway. This was the last thing the pilot remembered before impacting the S600. The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped S600 reported that, while he was en route to the designated aerobatic box, he decided that he needed to return to the airport and land. He added that, because the winds were calm, he chose to land on runway 21. He made a right base call and did not hear anyone else on the radio. He touched down about 300 to 500 ft down the runway about 75 mph. He further reported that the impact with the Pitts came without warning. According to the Federal Aviation Administration inspector, the pilot of the S600 had taken off from runway 3 en route to the practice box. While en route, the pilot noticed a loose water bottle inside the cockpit and returned to the airport to drop it off. The pilot flew a tight right steep approach for runway 21. The inspector noted that all the S600 radio traffic calls were for runway 3. During the landing roll, the two airplanes collided. Postaccident examination revealed substantial damage to the forward fuselage. Both pilots reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with their airplanes that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot stated that, during landing, he pitched the airplane's nose up "slightly" and reduced engine power before the main landing gear wheels touched down on the runway. The nosewheel landing gear then touched down and collapsed. Postaccident examination of the nosewheel landing gear revealed that the trunnion casting was fractured. Metallurgical examination of the trunnion casting revealed fractures consistent with overstress. No evidence of preexisting cracks was observed on any of the fracture surfaces. No other mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation were noted. Therefore, it is likely that the pilot did not properly flare the airplane, which led to a hard landing and the subsequent collapse of the nosewheel landing gear.
The pilot had planned to make a 745-nautical mile (nm) cross-country flight. A flight plan found in the wreckage indicated the pilot's intention to fly to the southeast and reach two checkpoints along the route of flight. Radar data revealed that, after the airplane reached the first planned checkpoint, the radar returns were equidistant as the airplane continued flying to the southeast. The last minute of radar data showed that the airplane descended about 2,300 ft while northwest of the second planned checkpoint, with the last radar return off the anticipated route. A witness located near the accident site stated that he observed the airplane circling toward the ground. The wreckage was found 17 nm northwest of the second planned checkpoint. A postaccident examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of any mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Numerous pieces of windscreen and airplane were examined by the Smithsonian Institution's Feather Identification Lab. Of the 38 microslides that were prepared, 6 microslides contained bird feather fragments. Thus, given these results as well as the airplane's rapid descent from cruise flight, it is likely that a bird impacted the windscreen and caused the pilot to lose control of the airplane. It could not be determined from the available evidence if the bird strike hindered the pilot's ability to maneuver controls and/or incapacitated the pilot. The type of bird could also not be determined.Page 2 of 8 WPR18FA011
The pilot reported that, during final approach, the airplane was "out of alignment to the left edge of the runway." He decided to add throttle and realign with the runway, but as he reached for the throttle to add power, at that instant, he was "blinded" by sun glare, and he had "no memory of [the] events for approximately 6 seconds" after that point. He added that, just before impact, he saw the ground, but "there was nothing that could be done." The airplane impacted a parking lot in a nose-low, left-wing-down attitude.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, empennage, and both wings. During a telephone conversation with the National Transportation Safety Board investigator-in-charge, the passenger reported that, during landing, the airplane was crabbing to the left but traveling forward. He reported that, before the runway threshold, there was a momentary sun flash that "lit up the plastic windscreen." He further reported that the pilot applied power, pulled back on the control stick, and the airplane "spiraled" and "twisted" left and downward into a parking lot.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.It is likely that the pilot exceeded the airplane's critical angle of attack and then entered an aerodynamic stall/spin.