roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
After completing an aerial application flight, the commercial pilot was returning to the base airport over 15 nautical miles away when the airplane impacted terrain and was consumed by a postimpact fire. Although the wreckage was significantly fragmented and damaged by fire, no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airframe or engine were noted that would have precluded normal operation. Examination of the accident site and wreckage revealed cellular tower guy wire and right wing damage that was consistent with the pilot's failure to maintain clearance from the guy wires while intentionally flying at a low altitude in visual meteorological conditions.
The pilot stated that he was landing his tailwheel-equipped airplane on a gravel surfaced runway that had recently been graded on both sides, with excess dirt and gravel being deposited in the center of the runway.  Upon touchdown the airplane veered sharply to the left, and the right wing impacted the runway's surface. The airplane continued to the left, exited the runway, and the right main tire gripped the paved surface of the adjacent runway causing the airplane to snap back to the right. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and right aileron. The pilot stated that there were no preaccident mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot indicated that he purchased the airplane the day of the accident. Before departure, he conducted an airplane run-up and taxied to the runway for takeoff; the takeoff was uneventful, and engine indications were normal. However, the airplane encountered an uncommanded roll at an altitude of about 100 ft above ground level. He attempted to level the wings but was unsuccessful. The nose of the airplane pitched down, and the airplane collided with the ground. A witness who watched the run-up before takeoff stated that a runway windsock indicated a gusting crosswind (with a slight tailwind component); he then observed what seemed like a rapid aileron input during the takeoff, and the airplane stalled. Postaccident examination of the engine and flight controls revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Thus, it is likely that the pilot was unable to regain control of the airplane when the airplane encountered a wind gust.
According to the pilot, during the taxi from the runway to parking, he made a left turn into his parking space. He reported that he had parked at this location many times before, and that his main concern at the time, was to ensure that he did not run over the rope tie downs on the parking space. During the left turn, although the main landing gear remained on the asphalt, the right wing extended beyond the asphalt, and into the grass area where the right wing struck a light pole. The light pole had been erected about 45 days prior, and was positioned in the grass, about 5 feet away from the asphalt. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing spar.The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane that would have prevented normal flight operations.
The commercial pilot and a colleague constructed the single-place, composite airplane with the intention of using it for air racing purposes. Rather than using the single piston engine and propeller specified by the original plans, they opted to power the airplane with two turbojet engines. The engines were designed and intended for use only on model aircraft and were mounted one per side on the lower fuselage, just aft of the cockpit.The airplane was in the very early stages of its flight test program and had flown only two previous flights with an accumulated total flight time of about 0.8 hours. The purpose of the accident flight was to begin exploring the crosswind handling characteristics and capabilities of the airplane. About 200 ft above ground level (agl) during the first landing approach, the pilot conducted a go-around and climbed to pattern altitude for another approach. While in the landing flare about 10 ft agl, a gust of wind from the right side disturbed the airplane, and the pilot applied power to go around. He heard one engine "spool down" and confirmed a power loss on the left engine via the instrument indications. The wind gust and power loss caused the airplane to track left toward an array of unused airliners stored at the airport. Since the airplane's single-engine minimum control speed had not yet been determined, preflight planning called for reducing power on the remaining engine and landing in the event of an engine power loss; however, the pilot maintained about 30-40% thrust on the right engine to avoid impacting one of the airliners. The asymmetric thrust resulted in a loss of directional control, and the airplane was destroyed when it struck a wooden office trailer and the ground. There was insufficient evidence to determine the reason(s) for the loss of engine power, and none of the three most likely causes (fuel flow interruption, air flow interruption, or flameout due to rapid and large throttle input) could be definitively ruled out.
During preflight inspection of the airplane, the pilot discovered three baby birds in the cockpit. After removing the birds, he continued his preflight inspection, looking for a nest. He noticed that the rag normally used to cover one of the elevator openings was missing, but he did not find a nest inside. Immediately after takeoff, about 100 ft above ground level, a fire started within the engine compartment, and smoke began to enter the cockpit. The pilot turned the airplane back toward the runway, but lost control as the airplane touched down because his visibility was limited by the smoke. The occupants egressed the airplane, which was subsequently consumed by fire. Postaccident examination of the wreckage revealed remnants of a bird nest between the exhaust manifold and the engine firewall, which was the likely origin of the fire.
The commercial pilot reported that, during the landing roll following a normal touchdown in variable, gusting wind conditions, the airplane veered slightly to the left as she applied brakes, and she corrected with right rudder. She applied brakes a second time, and the airplane again veered left but did not respond to brake or rudder control inputs. The airplane exited the left side of the runway and struck a runway distance remaining sign, resulting in substantial damage to the left wing and left horizontal stabilizer.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no preaccident mechanical anomalies with the airframe or landing gear components that would have precluded normal operation. Given the lack of mechanical anomalies found, it is likely that the pilot lost control of the airplane during the landing roll.
According to the pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane, he executed a wheel landing in gusting crosswind conditions. He reported that the airplane swerved left, he applied right rudder and right brake to no avail, and then he applied both brakes to prevent a runway excursion. The airplane nosed over and exited the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing strut, rudder and vertical stabilizer.The pilot reported that there were not any mechanical anomalies or malfunctions with any portion the airplane prior to the accident that would have prevented normal flight operations.
During the landing approach at the conclusion of the sightseeing flight, the commercial pilot of the balloon began a "quick" descent from an altitude of about 500 ft in order to land in a field that was about ¼ mile away. The pilot then activated the burners in order to slow the balloon's descent rate. About 50 ft above the ground, the pilot turned off the burners and pulled the quick deflation port at the top of the envelope. The basket impacted the ground, and the pilot and one passenger were ejected from the basket. The pilot continued to hold onto the quick deflation port line, and was dragged alongside the basket as the balloon subsequently became airborne. The balloon continued across the field until it contacted trees and came to rest. The pilot reported there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the balloon that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that while taxiing in the ramp area after landing, he was focused on an airplane parked to his right and was not monitoring the proximity of a vehicle parked to his left. Subsequently, the left wing struck the parked vehicle.The left wing spar was substantially damaged. The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that his approach to landing was faster than normal. He further reported that after the airplane bounced on touchdown he elected to abort the landing, but reported that it was too late because the airplane was at the end of the runway and impacted a fence, and nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the empennage.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 about 4 miles to the east, revealed that, about 20 minutes after the accident the wind was 180 degrees true at 11 knots, visibility 10 statute miles, and sky clear. The airplane landed on runway 03. The Federal Aviation Administration has published the Advisory Circular (AC) 91-79A. This AC discusses the effect of a tailwind on landing distance and states in part: The effect of a tailwind on landing distance is significant and is a factor in determining the landing distance required. Given the airplane will land at a particular airspeed, independent of the wind, the principal effect of a tailwind on operational landing distance is the change in the ground speed at which the airplane touches down.
The pilot departed for the seventh of fifteen planned aerial application flights that day; the engine subsequently lost total power. The pilot conducted a forced landing to a rice field. A fuel sample drained from the airplane following the accident was cloudy and contained floating debris. Postaccident examination of the fuel system revealed a significant amount of debris, including grass, leaves, insects, and dirt, in the fuel control filter and airframe filter bowl. Further examination of the fuel filter assembly revealed that the inlet and outlet holes of the filter housing, as well as the filter inlet hose, contained debris of sufficient quantity to result in a disruption of fuel flow to the engine. Whether the pilot conducted a preflight inspection could not be determined; however, a fuel sample taken prior to the flight would likely have displayed contamination.
According to the flight instructor, during the landing roll, two deer ran on to the runway. He reported that the airplane struck one of the deer, exited the right side of the runway and nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to vertical stabilizer and rudder.The flight instructor reported that there were not any pre-accident mechanical failures or anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation prior to the accident.The pilot did not submit the 6120 Report of Aircraft accident Form as requested by the investigator.The comments section of the FAA Airport Facilities Directory for the accident airport includes the comment: WILDLIFE ON & INVOF (in vicinity of) ARPT.
The commercial pilot was seated in the left seat and conducting a familiarization flight in the airplane. After completing airwork, he returned to the airport and conducted a circling approach, then entered the airport traffic pattern. The right seat pilot read the before landing checklist, and the pilot performed the items accordingly. He stated that, after extending the landing gear, he noted three green lights, indicating that the landing gear were extended and locked. Upon touchdown, the right main landing gear collapsed. The airplane veered off the runway and into a grass area.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the right main landing gear actuator assembly had numerous bent parts and was broken out of its mounting structure. The rigging for the landing gear system could not be checked, nor could functional gear swing test be performed due to damage sustained in the accident. No further testing was conducted. The reason for the landing gear collapse could not be determined.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during the takeoff roll in gusty wind conditions, the airplane encountered a strong wind gust. He further reported that shortly after takeoff, the right wing dropped, followed by the left wing; and the left wing impacted the ground. The airplane sustained 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 260 degrees at 29 knots, wind gust 40 knots. The airplane was departing on runway 22.The pilot attempted to takeoff with about an 18 knot right crosswind component.According to the airplane manufacture the maximum demonstrated crosswind component for takeoff and landing is 15 knots. The FAA Airplane Flying Handbook FAA-H-8083-3A (2004) discusses operations in crosswind conditions and states in part:Takeoffs and landings in certain crosswind conditions are inadvisable or even dangerous. If the crosswind is great enough to warrant an extreme drift correction, a hazardous landing condition may result. Therefore, the takeoff and landing capabilities with respect to the reported surface wind conditions and the available landing directions must be considered.Page 2 of 6 GAA16CA227It is imperative that pilots determine the maximum crosswind component of each airplane they fly, and avoid operations in wind conditions that exceed the capability of the airplane.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll, as the airplane slowed down, the tailwheel lifted off the ground. He further reported that the airplane veered to the right despite left rudder and brake application, exited the runway, and ground looped. According to the pilot there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and empennage.
The private pilot was on a cross-country pleasure flight and returning to the airplane's home base. Upon arriving at the destination, he flew over the runway and noted that the wind was from the southwest between 7 and 8 kts. He entered the airport traffic pattern on the downwind leg for runway 19, then turned onto the base and final legs. While on final approach and flying between 10 and 15 ft above ground level, the airplane suddenly veered to the left. The pilot added partial power and the engine responded; however, the airplane clipped a tree, then impacted the ground. The pilot indicated that there was no preimpact failure or malfunction of the engine or airplane and that the airplane was above stall speed when it veered to the left.However, data downloaded from the GPS receiver indicated that the pilot allowed the airplane to slow near its stall speed. Therefore, it is likely that the pilot exceeded the airplane's critical angle of attack and the airplane experienced an aerodynamic stall.
The non-instrument-rated commercial pilot was making a visual flight rules internal-cargo company flight in the helicopter. He was returning to base in the helicopter after dropping off 1 employee and 12 dogs at a remote dog camp situated on a glacier surrounded by mountainous terrain. The pilot had previously completed 5 of the day's 7 planned roundtrip flights from the base to the dog camp.  According to the dog camp manager, the weather was deteriorating with snow and wind increasing when the pilot departed on the accident flight. The dog camp manager's observations and radar data indicated that the pilot attempted to depart via the normal route to the south but turned around. He likely encountered low visibility conditions and then attempted several departures by routes to the north of the dog camp. About 8 minutes after departure, the helicopter impacted snow-covered mountainous terrain about 2 miles northeast of the dog camp. Postaccident examination of the helicopter revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Given the deteriorating weather conditions when the pilot departed, it is likely that the pilot continued visual flight into an area of instrument meteorological conditions, which resulted in the pilot experiencing a loss of visual reference and subsequent controlled flight into terrain.During the impact sequence, the two cargo straps used to secure two wooden dog boxes to the rear cabin floor failed, and the dog boxes shifted forward, striking the back of the pilot's fiberglass seat. It could not be determined if the forward movement of the dog boxes during the accident sequence contributed to the injuries sustained by the pilot. Immediately before departing from the dog camp on the accident flight, the pilot told the dog camp manager that, due to the degrading weather conditions, he would not be coming back for the last scheduled trip of the day, and the dog camp manager told the pilot that he agreed with him. However, the pilot then told the dog camp manager, "but don't give up on me yet," a statement consistent with self-induced pressure to complete the day's series of flights. Page 2 of 18 ANC16FA023On one of the day's previous flights, the pilot reported to the base manager, who was exercising operational control at the time of the accident, that he had encountered icing conditions while in flight. The base manager told the pilot "to do what he thought was best." However, flight operations in icing conditions are prohibited by the helicopter's rotorcraft flight manual and the operator's operations manual, and the pilot's statement should have prompted the base manager to suspend the flights. If flight operations had been cancelled for the day when the pilot reported the icing conditions, the subsequent flights, including the accident flight, would not have occurred. The base manager's failure to appropriately exercise operational control and terminate the flights may have been due to the difference in experience between the base manager, who had been operating these flights for 8 years, and the pilot, who had been operating these flights for 25 years.
The commercial pilot reported that, after loading the helicopter with chemical for the agricultural application flight, he completed a pre-takeoff checklist, noted that all instrument indications were normal, and initiated a takeoff from the loading truck platform. As the helicopter climbed over the tree canopy, the rotor and engine rpm began to rapidly decay. The pilot initiated a right turn in an attempt to gain airspeed and recover rotor rpm; however, the attempt was unsuccessful, and he initiated a forced landing within an almond orchard. The helicopter landed hard and came to rest upright.The postaccident engine test run revealed a stuck, partially-open hot air valve used for engine inlet anti-icing. The open hot air valve allowed compressor bleed air to escape the power flow path, thereby reducing the maximum power that the engine could produce before reaching its maximum exhaust gas temperature limitations. The manufacturer of the engine reported that, with the partially-open hot air valve, the engine would only produce about 80% of its maximum power.Further examination of the hot air valve revealed a lack of dry film lubricant on the flow surfaces in addition to corrosion buildup throughout the valve assembly. The dry film lubricant reduces friction between the sliding elements, allowing for smooth, unimpeded motion of the valve. The lack of lubricant coating in these areas would increase the sliding friction such that the closing spring would be unable to overcome the friction forces, causing the valve to remain open even when commanded closed. It is likely that the valve became stuck before the accident flight, which would have resulted in reduced power available for takeoff.The engine overhaul manual indicated that an inspection of the hot air valve should occur with an overhaul of the engine. A review of the engine logbooks revealed that the engine was overhauled about 9 years before the accident and that the helicopter had accumulated about 598 hours since the overhaul. There were no logbook entries pertaining to the inspection of the hot air valve. Page 2 of 7 WPR16LA104
The pilot reported that during the landing flare she inadvertently allowed the nose of the airplane to drop and the nose wheel touched down first. Subsequently, the nose wheel collapsed and the airplane veered off the runway to left, stopping about 75 feet into the grass parallel the runway. During the runway excursion, the propeller dug into the terrain and the left wing impacted the ground. The left wing was substantially damaged. The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during the landing flare a gust of wind caused the airplane to balloon 10 to 15 feet above the runway. The pilot further reported that the touchdown was hard, the left main landing gear collapsed, and the airplane veered off the left side of the runway. An automated weather observing system, about the time of the accident, reported the wind from 310 degrees true at 14 knots, gusting to 20 knots, for the landing on runway 29. The fuselage was substantially damaged. The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot stated that while maneuvering low-level in an attempt to locate a suitable gravel bar for an off-airport landing, a wind gust lifted the right wing. The airplane entered an aerodynamic stall from which he was unable to recover before impacting terrain. The airplane sustained substantial damage to thewings and fuselage. The pilot reported no pre-impact mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot was conducting a solo personal flight in the weight-shift-control aircraft. Video footage showed the airplane taking off, climbing to an estimated altitude of 300 to 400 ft, banking sharply left, descending, and then impacting terrain in a steep, nose-down attitude. The student did not have any solo endorsements on his student pilot certificate. The student had logged 14 hours in a different weight-shift-control aircraft but had never flown the accident aircraft type. The student's flight instructor said that he did not feel the student was ready to fly solo and that he had not endorsed him for solo flight. He further stated that the student mismanaged takeoffs and landings and had the tendency to "leave the [control] bar out" after takeoff instead of letting it come back, which increased the aircraft's pitch attitude and caused it to climb too steeply. It is likely that the student increased the aircraft's pitch attitude too much during the initial climb, which led to his loss of aircraft control and an aerodynamic stall.