roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that during the landing roll in variable gusting wind conditions, the tailwheel equipped airplane started an uncontrolled left turn, and he applied throttle to regain directional control with no effect. The pilot further reported that the airplane exited the runway to the left, became airborne and rolled left, and the left wing impacted the ground. The airplane came to rest inverted.The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings, fuselage, and empennage.The pilot reported that there were no pre impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot was conducting a local flight when the airplane's engine started to lose power. The pilot attempted a forced landing to a field; however, the airplane collided with trees. Examination of the airplane's engine noted that compression was low in all cylinders, and rust was present inside the cylinders. The airplane was not operated for about 4 years and had flown about 2 hours since being returned to service. The partial loss of engine power is consistent with a degradation in cylinder compression, and it is likely that rust formed in the engine during the time the airplane was not being used.
While on final during a practice instrument approach, the engine lost total power. An attempted engine restart and switching of the fuel tanks was unsuccessful. The flight instructor took control of the airplane from the pilot receiving instruction, and executed a forced landing to a corn field. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings. The airplane was recovered from the field and about 1 cup of fuel was found in the right fuel tank, and the left wing fuel tank was about 3/4's full. The engine was functionally tested for about 10 minutes on the airframe with no anomalies noted. The pilot reported he did not check the wing fuel tanks during pre-flight and relied on the cockpit fuel gauges for fuel quantity.
The student pilot reported that he was preparing for his private pilot check ride, and after about 90 minutes of flying, he approached the airport and entered the traffic pattern for runway 21, a 2,205-ft-long runway. The student pilot added that, while established on "short final," he chose to perform a go-around because he was not "comfortable" with the approach. On the second landing attempt, the airplane floated past the intended touchdown point before landing on the runway, and the student pilot was unable to stop the airplane before it went off the departure end. Subsequently, the airplane struck a perimeter fence and an embankment, which resulted in the nose landing gear collapsing and substantial damage to the fuselage and left wing. The student pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The winds reported at an airport 4 miles east of the accident location were from 320° at 7 knots.
The commercial pilot stated that, during the landing roll following a normal landing, the airplane began pulling to the right. The airplane departed the right side of the runway and traveled down an embankment and through a barbed wire fence. When the pilot inspected the airplane, he noted that the right main landing gear (MLG) had collapsed. An examination of the landing gear found that the locking mechanism had been improperly rigged. Several weeks before the accident, the airplane's right MLG was damaged in an incident and had been replaced with a serviceable unit. A review of maintenance records noted that a gear retraction test was conducted after the replacement and described as satisfactory. It is likely that during this maintenance, the landing gear was improperly rigged, which resulted in its collapse on the accident flight.
Shortly after sunset, the pilot with two passengers departed on a local sightseeing flight of the city. The flight flew around the city, then proceeded back to the airport after civil twilight. The final portion of the flight and the landing approach were conducted over a lake. A review of radar's last return revealed the airplane about 0.6 miles from the airport at an altitude of 100 ft agl. The surviving passenger reported everything appeared normal during the flight, and as they neared the airport, it started to rain, and visibility was poor. The pilot pointed out 4 four red lights ahead of the airplane and stated to the passengers that was the airport. The passenger added that she could see out the side window and the airplane was about 4-6 ft above the surface of the lake. Shortly thereafter, the airplane impacted the lake.Postaccident examination of the airplane did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. A review of weather information noted the presence of thunderstorm activity and isolated rain showers in the area at the time of the accident.The pilot's toxicology report was positive for ethanol and clomipramine. Due to a delay in the recovery, it is likely that most, if not all, of the ethanol was from postmortem production. Clomipramine is a tricyclic antidepressant used to treat symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Clomipramine is not considered impairing. Additionally, the pilot's actions and communication with the passengers also indicate that the pilot did not experience a seizure or incapacitation, so a reaction to his medication was not likely.With reduced visibility due to rain and night conditions, it is unlikely the pilot could see the water. The four red lights, consistent with the runway's precision approach path indicator (PAPI) that the pilot pointed out to the passengers, reflected the airplane's low approach path. The accident is consistent with the pilot continuing the descent, while already below a normal approach path to the airport, which resulted in the controlled flight into terrain. Page 2 of 8 CEN16LA338
The student pilot was conducting a local, solo, personal flight. He reported that, while flying over his home about 1,700 ft above ground level, the engine "sputtered," and the tachometer decreased to between 1,300 and 1,500 rpm. The student turned the airplane around and proceeded back toward the airport; however, the airplane continued to descend and was not able to reach the airport. The student conducted a forced landing, and the airplane landed hard in a field. A postaccident examination of the engine revealed that the fuel pump impulse line was deteriorated and had disconnected during the accident flight. The carburetor fuel bowl was dry with no evidence of fuel. The most recent engine maintenance was completed about 9 months before the accident, and the fuel pump impulse line was not mentioned in the logbook entry. The accident is consistent with a total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation, which resulted from a deteriorated and disconnected fuel line.
As part of an air show, the commercial pilot was attempting to perform an inside loop immediately after takeoff. He had successfully accomplished the maneuver the previous day, as well as at many previous air shows. Witnesses observed the airplane lift off the runway and remain in a level attitude just above the runway surface before it climbed to perform the loop. Witnesses reported that the airplane descended from the top of the loop to a point in which its pitch attitude was between 10° and 20° nose-down until it impacted the runway. Video footage of the accident indicated that the pilot was in control of the airplane throughout the maneuver, and postaccident examination revealed no evidence of a preimpact mechanical malfunction or failure that would have precluded normal operation.Another performer at the airshow reported that, during the evening practice the day before the accident, he observed the pilot perform the same maneuver, and described it as "sketchy" because of the low altitude at which the pilot completed the loop. He added that he previously asked the pilot how to perform this maneuver and the pilot said that it was a "complete crapshoot"; at the top of the loop, the pilot would decide whether he would "pull through and continue the loop or rollout into a half-Cuban or an Immelmann," both of which are recovery aerobatic maneuvers.Prior to takeoff, the Air Boss reported to the pilot a density altitude (DA) of 4,600 ft. Postaccident calculations revealed that the DA at the time of the accident was about 5,221 ft, both of which are well above a standard day. The high density altitude conditions would have degraded the airplane's overall performance, resulting in decreased engine power available and reduced rate of climb. It is likely that the pilot failed to adequately compensate for the changes in airplane performance due to the high density altitude conditions, which resulted in a collision with terrain.
The pilot of the tailwheel and tundra tire equipped airplane reported that during landing on a soft grass airstrip he conducted a wheel landing instead of a three-point landing. The pilot further reported that during the landing roll, the main landing gear dug into the ground, which resulted in a nose over and substantial damage to both wing struts and empennage.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 FAA Airplane Flying Handbook FAA-H-8083-3A;SOFT-FIELD LANDINGThe tailwheel should touch down simultaneously with or just before the main wheels, and should then be held down by maintaining firm back-elevator pressure throughout the landing roll. This will minimize any tendency for the airplane to nose over and will provide aerodynamic braking. The use of brakes on a soft field is not needed because the soft or rough surface itself will provide sufficient reduction in the airplane's forward speed. Often it will be found that upon landing on a very soft field, the pilot will need to increase power to keep the airplane moving and from becoming stuck in the soft surface.
The private pilot stated that the tail-wheel equipped airplane started to veer left during the landing roll out in calm wind conditions. In an attempt to bring the airplane back to the runway centerline, the tail of the airplane started to rise off the runway and he "got too aggressive" with the brakes. The&nbsp;airplane nosed-over on to its back, which&nbsp;resulted in substantial damage of the vertical stabilizer, left wing tip, and fuselage.&nbsp;The pilot said there were no mechanical issues with the airplane or engine that would have contributed to the accident.
The pilot reported that, during a maintenance test flight, when the airplane reached rotation speed on takeoff, he applied elevator control to rotate. The elevator control could not be moved sufficiently aft for rotation and liftoff, and the pilot aborted the takeoff. During the aborted takeoff, the airplane travelled off the departure end of the runway and came to a stop on an airport access road. The airplane's left main landing gear collapsed and the left wing was bent during the accident. The pilot reported that he had performed a control system check prior to the flight and that the controls functioned normally during that check. Examination of the airplane revealed that the elevator control operated normally after the accident, but further examination revealed that a plastic elbow fitting for the windshield defroster duct was loose and could be&nbsp;rotated into a position that obstructed full motion of the control yoke. Examination of the elbow revealed that it was not an approved part and appeared to be the type of plastic elbow found in home supply stores. The recent maintenance performed was not in the area where the plastic elbow was located.
During aninstructional flight in the helicopter, the pilot under instruction set up for anapproach and landing to a flat and smooth gravel road. Once the skids were on the ground, the pilot under instruction lowered the collective toward the FULL DOWN position. The helicopter then began to rock in a fore and aft motion. The flight instructor took the controls as the intensity of the rocking increased; the helicopter then ascended in uncontrollable flight. The flight instructor subsequently landed the helicopter on the gravel road; it came to rest upright about 20 to 30 ft and at a little more than a 45° angle from the initial touchdown point. The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. Postaccident examination of the helicopterrevealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Thus, the reason for the reported on-ground upset could not be determined.
The pilot reported that he diverted to an un-published airstrip along his route due to poor visibility. The pilot further reported that after a normal landing, he was taxing to reposition the airplane and the right main landing gear dropped into a washed out ditch. The right wing impacted the ground and was substantially damaged.The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunction or failure with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot had completed a local glider tow operation and was landing at an airfield at the base of the mountains. He indicated that, after touchdown and the landing roll, a "large gust of wind" came from the right side of the airplane and lifted the right wing. The pilot stated that, to regain directional control, he applied rudder, lowered the tailwheel, and applied pressure to both wheel brakes. He indicated that the left brake grabbed "more efficiently" than the right brake, which caused the airplane to exit the runway and ground loop. The right wing contacted the ground. A postaccident examination of the tailwheel revealed no mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Although the weather information for the airfield shortly before the accident did not note wind gusts, given the pilot's statement and the surrounding mountainous terrain, it is likely that the pilot lost directional control after encountering a wind gust during the landing roll.
The commercial pilot was applying pesticide to a field when the engine experienced a partial loss of power and did not respond to throttle inputs. The airplane collided with tall crops and subsequently came to rest inverted. Examination of the engine and associated components revealed no evidence of pre-impact mechanical malfunction, and the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
According to the pilot, he was maneuvering at low altitude, while performing an agricultural aerial application flight. He reported that he decided to fly underneath power lines and misjudged the height of the lines in relation to the airplane. He recalled that the airplane's vertical stabilizer and rudder struck the power lines. He landed the airplane in a field and the landing gear collapsed. The vertical stabilizer, rudder, left wing and fuselage sustained substantial damage.The Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Safety Inspector that interviewed the pilot shortly after the accident, reported that the pilot stated that the sun was in his eyes as he passed under the power lines. He reported that the pilot did not immediately execute a precautionary landing after striking the lines; instead he made one more spray pass.The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies during the flight that would have prevented normal flight operations.During the course of the investigation, the NTSB Investigator-in-charge attempted to contact the pilot on multiple occasions to no avail. The pilot did not submit an NTSB Form 6120.1.
The flight instructor stated that, after the landing gear handle was placed in the gear-down position, he and the student pilot noticed electrical smoke and fumes but no fire. Although they restored electrical power, they were unable to fully extend the landing gear, which resulted in a gear-up landing. Postaccident examination of the main landing gear retraction actuator assembly revealed a broken snap ring within the manual crank extension housing, which allowed the actuator worm gear to reposition itself beyond the actuator worm sector travel limits. A review of the airplane's maintenance records found no record showing that the landing gear actuator assembly had been repaired/overhauled in accordance with the airplane maintenance manual. According to the maintenance manual, the actuator assembly is to be overhauled or replaced every 2,000 hours for gray- or green-colored assemblies. The assembly that was examined was green. The airplane had a total time of 6,184.5 hours. Given the condition of the landing gear actuator assembly, the operator should have been overhauled or replaced the actuator assembly in accordance with the manual.
The pilot was returning from a local flight when he intentionally ran the right fuel tank dry. After switching fuel tanks, he attempted to restart the engine, but the attempt was unsuccessful. During an emergency landing on a narrow road, the right wing impacted brush and trees, which resulted in substantial damage to both wings.
The father of the passenger reported that his son, who was the passenger and owner, had just purchased the airplane, that a prepurchase inspection was conducted, and that “everything looked good.” The pilot was conducting a personal, local flight in the airplane, which included normal maneuvers and several touch-and-go landings with no issues. However, after the last landing and while taxiing the airplane back to the ramp, the left main landing gear (MLG) collapsed. Examination of the left MLG’s truss structure, which is welded to the fuselage, revealed substantial damage to the fuselage frame structure. Examination also revealed that a weld joint where the truss mounts to the fuselage was cracked and broken. Rust was noted around the weld area, and it appeared that a previous crack had been repaired. The father reported that the area of the failure was hidden behind the bungee and was not visible during the prepurchase inspection. Given the evidence, it is likely that the left main landing gear collapsed due to the weld joint failure.
According to the pilot of the experimental light-sport airplane, following a personal flight, he made a straight-in approach to runway 13. He recalled that the tower reported the wind as 070° at 12 knots. During the approach, the airplane encountered "convective turbulence," but he established a stabilized approach over the runway centerline. He remarked that, about 5 ft above the runway, the airplane encountered what he estimated to be a 20-knot or greater wind gust. He reported that the airplane ballooned and touched down on the nosewheel, the propeller struck the ground, and he used differential braking to stop the airplane on the runway. The nose landing gear separated from the airplane, and the engine mounts and the spar box sustained substantial damage.The METAR at the accident airport indicated that, at the time of the accident, the wind was 040° true at 12 knots. There were no METARs throughout the day at the accident airport that indicated wind gusts. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or anomalies with the airframe or engine that would have prevented normal operation.
The pilot was conducting a local sightseeing flight at the time of the accident. A witness reported seeing the powered glider climbing out after takeoff and the engine "sounded perfect." He subsequently heard the sound of a "strained engine" similar to a propeller-driven airplane maneuvering during aerobatic flight. Shortly afterward, the sound of the engine stopped. A second witness observed the powered glider fly by with the engine running. It subsequently went out of sight below the tree line. Shortly afterward, he heard a loud noise that he initially attributed to work going on in the area. However, with thoughts of the low flying glider, he decided to drive to a nearby ridge where he observed the accident site.A postaccident examination and engine test run did not reveal any anomalies consistent with a preimpact failure or malfunction.Witness statements and satellite imagery indicated that building cumuliform clouds were present near the accident site. Weather radar data depicted a rain shower over the site about the time of the accident that appeared to be dissipating. With dissipating rain shower activity, the glider was in a favorable area for the existence of downdrafts. It is likely that the pilot encountered a downdraft that exceeded the maximum climb performance of the powered glider.
The student pilot reported that during a gusty crosswind landing the airplane touched down and drifted off the runway to the right. He further reported that he added power to abort the landing, but "with the carburetor heat still on, and the flaps at 30 degrees and the temperature of nearly 80 degrees Fahrenheit outside, we did not regain control." The airplane pitched up and the left wing hit the ground. Subsequently, the airplane was "vaulted" over to the right side of the runway and impacted terrain. which resulted in a collapsed right main and nose gear.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.The student pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.The flight instructor reported that the student pilot flared a little high and he thought the landing would be "just a little hard" and he allowed the student to continue. The flight instructor further reported that during the aborted landing, he attempted to help the student pilot maintain control of the airplane, but "it was too late".The automated weather observing system at the airport about 5 minutes before the accident recorded the wind at 180 degrees true at 12 knots, gusting to 16 knots. The student pilot reported that the landing was on runway 30. The same automated weather observing system about 15 minutes after the accident recorded the wind at 210 degrees true at 12 knots, gusting to 16 knots.
The pilot reported that as the helicopter was in a hover and backed off of the landing pad, the vertical stabilizer impacted rising terrain. The pilot further reported that he was able to land back on the landing pad 30 feet away with no further incident.A post examination of the helicopter revealed that the rear vertical stabilizer had received substantial damage.      The pilot reported that there were no pre impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.