roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The private pilot reported that, before the accident flight, he had conducted a cross-country, personal flight uneventfully with the fuel selector positioned to the left fuel tank. After landing, the pilot added 15 gallons of fuel to the left tank and about 5 gallons of fuel to the right tank. The passenger reported that, before the return flight, the pilot told him that he was going to use the right fuel tank for the return flight. Engine start, taxi, engine run-up, and takeoff were normal. The pilot reported that, when the airplane reached about 500 ft mean sea level, he noticed that the airplane was not climbing as expected and that the engine rpm had reduced to less than 2,000. He added that, as he started a "slow bank" left turn back toward the airport, the airplane would no longer climb. He considered switching fuel tanks but chose not to because the engine was developing some power and he was concerned switching tanks might cause a total loss of power. Once the pilot realized that the airplane would not reach the runway, he conducted a forced landing into a wooded area. During the landing, the left wing struck a tree, and the airplane then came to rest inverted. Both wings sustained substantial damage. Examination of the airframe and engine revealed that the fuel selector was positioned halfway between the left and right tank positions; no other preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures were found that would have precluded normal operation. It is likely that the midrange position of the fuel selector led to the engine being starved of fuel, which resulted in a partial loss of engine power.
The flight instructor in the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that the pilot flying was receiving instruction for a tailwheel endorsement. He added that, during the seventh landing of the day, the pilot extended the downwind to allow for traffic that landed ahead of them. He further added that, during the wheel landing touchdown, as the tail was settling to the ground, a wind gust "turned the airplane's tail," which resulted in a ground loop on the runway. The left wing, engine mounts, and windscreen sustained substantial damage. The flight instructor and pilot receiving instruction reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.An automated weather observation station at the accident airport recorded wind from 240° at 6 knots. The flight instructor reported that the landing was on runway 22.
The student pilot reported that the flight was his first solo cross-country, and the arrival and departure at his first airport were uneventful. About 8 miles from the second airport, he listened to the airport's automatic weather observation system, which reported that the wind was coming from 020° at 5 knots. He entered the left traffic pattern for runway 34, and while on the downwind leg abeam the end of the runway, he reduced engine power to idle and lowered the wing flaps to 10°. He then turned onto the left base leg and maintained 70 knots and lowered the wing flaps to 30° on final approach, maintaining an airspeed of "between 50 and 54 knots." At the runway numbers, he began to pull back on the control wheel to initiate the landing flare. The airplane's nose then abruptly pitched up and left, which he believed felt like a wind gust. He tried to correct by releasing back pressure on the control wheel and using rudder and ailerons to move back to the right, but the airplane was still left of the runway centerline. Subsequently, the airplane bounced hard numerous times, the propeller struck the runway, and the airplane then departed the runway to the left. During the runway excursion, the nose landing gear collapsed, and the airplane skidded across a taxiway, eventually stopping in the grass. The fuselage and firewall were substantially damaged.The student pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.Review of the Pilot's Operating Handbook indicated that the airspeed for a normal landing should have been between 60 and 70 knots with the wing flaps down.
The airline transport pilot and private pilot-rated passenger were in cruise flight when radar contact was lost. Wreckage and impact signatures revealed that the airplane impacted the ground in an inverted, left-wing-down, nose-down attitude. The cockpit canopy, vertical stabilizer, and rudder were found about 1 mile from the main wreckage. Examination of the engine found no abnormalities that would have precluded normal operation.Examination of the airframe revealed biological matter in a dented section underneath the horizontal stabilizer, as well as bird feathers in the cockpit under the passenger seat. DNA and microscopic examination of the specimens were consistent with a rock pigeon. All fracture surfaces examined were consistent with overstress failure; there were no indications of any preexisting damage such as cracks or corrosion. The fracture surfaces of the spars, skins, stabilizers, and other components from the horizontal stabilizer, vertical stabilizer, and rudder assemblies exhibited features consistent with secondary fractures (such as from ground impact or after the bird strike). There were no clear indications that any of the components that fractured in overstress did so prior to ground impact or independently of the bird strike. It is possible that the pilot made an evasive maneuver before or during impact with the bird, that in combination, resulted in an overstress structural failure of the, vertical stabilizer and rudder, which in turn resulted in the pilot's inability to maintain control of the airplane.      Page 2 of 9 WPR17FA134
The pilot reported that, while maneuvering the helicopter at low altitude for an agricultural application flight, an unsecured clipboard that was on the seat next to him fell and became lodged under the antitorque pedals. Unable to free the clipboard, the pilot chose to make a precautionary landing. About 5 to10 ft above ground level, the pilot lost tail rotor authority, and the helicopter began to rotate to the right. After about two rotations, he was able to land the helicopter. During the touchdown, the stinger folded into the tail rotor. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the tailboom.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, immediately after takeoff, the airplane drifted hard to the right. He applied left aileron and left rudder to no avail. Subsequently, the right wing and landing gear impacted the ground, and the airplane came to rest nose down.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and fuselage.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 about 14 nautical miles from the accident site reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 200° at 15 knots, gusting to 22 knots. The pilot was departing on runway 32.As a recommendation, the pilot reported that a higher takeoff speed would have helped him better control the airplane.
The airline transport pilot applied takeoff power to complete a touch-and-go landing. The airplane's nose turned right, and the pilot corrected with a left rudder application, but the airplane continued turning right. The pilot reduced engine power and then aborted the takeoff and applied left braking, but the airplane continued to the right, departed the runway, and travelled through a depression in the ground before coming to rest. When the main landing gear (MLG) dropped into the depression, the tail section struck the ground, which substantially damaged the tail structure. The pilot reported that the "right main tire lost all pressure." Examination of the right MLG wheel revealed that the tire and the inner tube had rotated independently of each other on the rim and that the inner tube valve stem was severed. Based on the available evidence, the investigation could not determine whether the tire was flat before the accident or was caused when the MLG hit the depression.
The pilot of the twin-engine airplane reported that, while on a visual approach for landing, he transmitted the appropriate radio calls and noted that all the airplane lights were illuminated. He added that the airplane touched down about 400 ft down the runway, at which time he noticed a truck approaching the runway from the south. The pilot observed the truck hesitate and then cross the runway towing a large trailer with a tractor loaded on the back. The pilot swerved the airplane to the left to avoid impacting the trailer, but the right wing impacted the trailer. The pilot reported that, after the collision, the truck driver apologized and stated that he thought he could "beat" the airplane across the runway.The truck driver reported that he looked both ways down the runway and did not observe any aircraft. He added that, while he was crossing, he saw an airplane. He accelerated the truck, but the airplane impacted the end of the trailer.The airport manager reported that the truck driver was not one of the airport's employees but had volunteered, without compensation, to cut and bale hay at the far corner of the airport. He added that all weather station or other repair technicians are escorted to their location by airport staff. He also reported that this was the first time that he had allowed the truck driver to cut hay on the airfield and that he had thoroughly briefed the driver to stay 50 ft away from the runway. The driver reported to the airport manager that he took the quicker and drier route instead of taking the longer and safer route because he was concerned with getting his truck and trailer stuck in an area that was known to be more saturated after the previous night's precipitation. After the collision, the airplane was destroyed by postimpact fire. In an effort to improve safety, the Precinct 4 Commissioner created a standard operating procedure that encompassed operating procedures, training curriculum, and a training manual that was derived from Advisory Circular 150/5210-20 Change 1. Page 2 of 5 GAA17CA365
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll, the right wing suddenly raised. He applied aileron and rudder corrections; however, the left wing impacted the ground as the airplane ground looped.The left wing was substantially damaged.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that the approach appeared normal, but during the landing on the 1,500-ft-long gravel strip, the airplane firmly struck the runway and bounced. He added that the bounce was high and that the remaining runway was too short to correct the landing with power. The pilot chose to go around, applying full power and 20° of flaps for the balked landing procedure. During the climb, the airplane drifted left toward 50-ft-tall trees about 150 ft from the departure end of the runway. Unable to climb over the trees, the airplane struck the tree canopy, the nose dropped, and the pilot instinctively reduced power as the airplane descended through the trees and impacted terrain. The wings and fuselage were substantially damaged. The pilot reported no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot in the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that he attempted to land on a 600-ft-long turf surface. He overflew the landing site three times to assess its suitability. During the touchdown, the airplane bounced, and the pilot initiated a go-around. He reduced the flaps to 10°, turned the carburetor heat off, and applied full throttle; he could not remember the airspeed or trim position. The airplane did not climb and touched down in a ravine just beyond the initial landing area. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the forward left side of the fuselage.In the National Transportation Safety Board Pilot Aircraft Accident Report, the pilot reported that the accident could have been prevented if he had "More training in high altitude takeoffs and landings. More training in go-around techniques in bush planes."The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot and his passenger were landing at the conclusion of a cross-country flight. During the right turn from the base leg to the final leg of the airport traffic pattern, the engine lost partial power. The pilot attempted to restore power by switching from the right fuel tank to the auxiliary fuel tank, but engine power was not restored. The airplane was substantially damaged during the subsequent forced landing to a field.A postaccident examination revealed that the right fuel tank had at least 5 gallons of fuel remaining, 4 gallons of which were unusable. The left fuel tank contained 5 gallons of fuel, and the auxiliary fuel tank was full, containing 15 gallons of fuel. An examination of the engine and fuel system revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation, and the loss of engine power could not be duplicated during an engine test run. Given the low fuel state of the right wing, it is likely that the loss of engine power was the result of fuel starvation as the fuel unported during the right turn.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the three-point touchdown, the airplane "immediately veered left," and he applied full right rudder. He added that he subsequently "applied power," but as he did so, the right main landing gear collapsed as the airplane ground looped counter-clockwise on the runway. The right wing sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.An automated weather observation station at the accident airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 090° at 5 knots. The pilot reported that the landing was on runway 15.
The pilot reported that he was in the pattern performing touch-and-go landings. During a left descending turn from downwind to base, about ten large birds came into view below the airplane's nose. He recalled that they appeared quickly and that he was unable to take evasive action. He heard and felt a strike, followed by "an appreciable drag on the left side." He also saw visible damage to the left wing. The pilot landed the airplane without further incident. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing ribs and leading edge.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot was making his first solo flight in a powered parachute from his turf airstrip. After liftoff, the pilot added power, and the aircraft climbed to about 35 ft above ground level in a continuous left turn until it collided with power line wires that paralleled the airstrip. Postaccident examination of the airframe and a test run of the engine revealed no evidence of any pre-impact mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot had diabetes and heart disease; however, it is unlikely that these conditions or the treating medications contributed to the accident. Toxicology testing detected two potentially impairing medications, the antidepressant paroxetine and the central nervous system depressant anticonvulsant/anti-tremor medication primidone. The investigation was unable to determine if the effects of the pilot's depression or the medications paroxetine and primidone impaired the pilot's decision making or contributed to the accident.A review of the pilot's logbooks revealed a single entry for an instructional flight of 1.2 hours in a powered parachute, 6 hours of ground instruction on powered parachutes, and no solo endorsement for powered parachutes. The logged ground and flight instruction occurred about 1 year before the accident, so it is likely that the pilot's lack of both recent and total experience in powered parachutes contributed to the accident.
The pilot reported that he departed for a parachute jump flight with 12 gallons of fuel onboard. He added that, after the parachute jumpers exited the airplane about 10,500 ft mean sea level (msl), he initiated a left spiraling descent back to the airport. He further added that he "heard and felt the engine start [to] quiet down as if it was shutting down." He then began to make right descending turns and verified that the fuel selector was in the "both" position. He added that the cylinder head temperature was decreasing, so he switched back to left descending turns and that the "fuel starvation due to banking happened two more times." The pilot reported that he entered left downwind about 4,000 ft msl, pushed the throttle and mixture controls full forward, and determined that the "engine wasn't producing much power." He added that, during short final, he realized the airplane was too low, so he landed the airplane on a highway "on-ramp." During the forced landing, the airplane impacted a guard rail and a post.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and both wings.The pilot reported that he "suspected engine power loss due to fuel exhaustion."During a postaccident examination, the Federal Aviation Administration inspector drained about 12 gallons of fuel from both wing tanks and the gascolator. In the Description section of the Cessna 182A Owner's Manual, it states that there are 1.5 gallons of unusable fuel per fuel tank (3 gallons) and that, when not in level flight, there are an additional 3.5 gallons of unusable fuel per fuel tank (10 gallons).
The pilot reported that, during a positioning flight, about 500 ft, he was flying along a highway, and the airplane struck transmission wires. He added that he turned back to the departure airport and landed without further incident.The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.According to an employee of the power company, the struck transmission wires were about 93 to 100 ft above the ground.
The private pilot topped off the airplane's four fuel tanks (20 gallons each, 18.5 of which was usable) before the estimated 2 hour 20 minute flight. He departed with the left main fuel tank selected and switched to each of the other three tanks for about 30 minutes each before turning the selector back to the left main tank for the remainder of the flight. About 20 minutes after switching back to the left main tank, the engine experienced a total loss of power. The pilot reported that the airplane would not maintain altitude, so he focused on making a forced landing and did not use the emergency checklist (which included switching to another fuel tank) to restart the engine. The airplane stalled right before touchdown and landed hard, which resulted in substantial damage to both wings and the fuselage.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the left main fuel tank was intact and empty. The left auxiliary fuel tank was breeched, and a small amount of fuel was found in the tank. The right-wing fuel tanks were not compromised, and about 13 gallons of fuel were drained from the auxiliary tank and about 11.5 gallons were drained from the main tank. Although a fuel supply line to the fuel manifold was found loose during postaccident examination, no fuel stains were observed on the attaching b-nut, fire sleeve, or surrounding area. Based on the condition of the b-nut and lack of stains surrounding the b-nut, the fuel supply line was likely not loose before the accident. During a postaccident engine test-run, the b-nut was correctly installed, and the engine started immediately and ran without hesitation. Examination and the test-run of the engine revealed no evidence of any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Given that the pilot was operating the airplane on the left main fuel tank at the time the engine lost power and that the tank was found empty, the loss of engine power was likely due to fuel starvation, which resulted from the pilot's mismanagement of the fuel. The pilot's failure to use the emergency checklist and select a different tank when the loss of power occurred contributed to the accident.Page 2 of 7 ERA17LA212
The private pilot and two passengers were conducting a local sightseeing flight when the engine "sputtered ever so slightly" and then regained power. Three to 5 seconds later, engine power dropped to about 700 rpm. The pilot checked the engine controls in an attempt to regain engine power; when power was not restored, he initiated a forced landing to a field. During the forced landing, the airplane landed about 3/4 down the length of a field and impacted adjacent trees.During an initial examination, about 1 ounce of water was found in the gascolator. Continuity was established from the cockpit engine controls to the respective engine components. Fuel was found in the carburetor bowl and in the wing fuel tanks. A follow-up engine examination and functional test run did not produce any anomalies that would have prevented normal operation and production of rated horsepower. It is likely the water contamination found in the gascolator resulted in the partial loss of engine power.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll, the right wing lifted about 4 to 5 ft, and the airplane "pivoted on the left landing gear." He added that, once the airplane settled back onto the runway, he applied brakes and the airplane nosed over.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.An automated weather observation station at the accident airport recorded that, about 12 minutes after the accident, the wind was from 210° at 4 knots. The airplane landed on runway 11.
The pilot reported that, during the landing, as the nosewheel touched down, the airplane "hopped a bit" and began to veer left. He applied right rudder and brakes to no avail. He released the rudder and brakes, and the airplane exited the left side of the runway and impacted a raised taxiway.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.