roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot in command reported that during the loading of the seventh and final passenger, the airplane tipped onto its tail and impacted the ramp surface. He further reported that the tail stand was not installed and neither he nor the co-pilot noticed the omission before passenger loading began. According to the National Transportation Safety Board Accident/ Incident report form 6120.1 submitted by the operator; after a review of pictures sent to company maintenance, no "major damage" was visually identified, the airplane was released for service, and the flight crew completed the revenue flight. After the airplane reached a company domicile, the airplane was "grounded" after a further visual inspection revealed substantial damage to the aft bulkhead.      The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that while landing on a wet grass runway, he touched down long, skidded about 200 feet, and was unable to slow the airplane. Subsequently, the airplane overran the runway and struck a fence about 20 feet beyond the end of the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to the firewall.The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that the purpose of the flight was to use most of the fuel remaining in the fuel tanks so that he could store the airplane over the summer. While returning to the airport, the engine experienced a total loss of power. During the subsequent forced landing to a small field, the airplane hit a tree, resulting in substantial damage. The pilot stated that when the airplane was recovered, both fuel tanks were empty.
The commercial pilot telephoned his wife from his car and told her he was en route to his company's airplane hangar and was going to kill himself. She alerted her husband's employer, who then alerted the police department. The pilot took the airplane without the company's permission and then flew it into a 138-ft-tall silo. The autopsy report cited the manner of death as being "consistent with suicide."
The pilot reported that during a biennial flight review, the flight instructor requested that a simulated loss of engine power landing be performed while in the traffic pattern. On the base leg, it was determined that they would not reach the runway, and power was added so that a normal landing could be completed. The pilot further reported, that while on short final, the flight instructor called for more power to be added, which resulted in a pitch up attitude. Subsequently, the pilot reacted by pitching the airplane's nose down, but he inadvertently reduced power to idle. The airplane continued to sink and touched down in the grass a few feet prior to the runway threshold, which resulted in a collision with the runway threshold. The nose and right main landing gear collapsed, and a runway excursion off the left side of the runway occurred.The right 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 of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll in crosswind conditions the airplane veered off the runway to the left. The pilot further reported that in order to avoid hitting a drainage ditch he "braked too hard" and subsequently the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall. According to the pilot there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during landing, the main landing gear touched down first, followed by the nose landing gear. He reported that the nose landing gear tire deflated upon contact with the runway surface. During a telephone conversation with the National Transportation Safety Board investigator, the pilot stated that the main landing gear touched down at airspeed of about 40 knots, and the airplane rolled to the right side of the runway and came to rest about 5 feet from the edge of the runway. The Airframe and Powerplant mechanic that recovered the airplane reported that the nose landing gear wheel was broken in half and damage was sustained to the upper and lower firewall on both the pilot and copilot sides. According to the manufacturer's pilot operating handbook: The stall airspeed for this airplane with flaps down, power off is 49 knots.The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or anomalies with any portion of the airplane prior to touch down that would have prevented normal flight operations.
The sport pilot reported that he had conducted two uneventful touch-and-go landings in the light-sport airplane. After the pilot climbed the airplane to about 200 ft above ground level, the engine lost total power. The pilot tried to turn back to the airport, but the airplane lost altitude and struck some trees about 50 ft short of the runway. The pilot observed fuel "pouring out" of the airplane and shut off the electrical system before exiting the airplane.During a postaccident test run of the engine at several power settings, the engine performed normally with no anomalies noted. The reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
According to the pilot, during the landing touchdown, a gust of wind lifted the airplane's right wing and forced the airplane to the left side of runway 32. The pilot reported that he overcompensated with right rudder and the airplane exited the right side of the runway. The left main landing gear collapsed and the airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings.The pilot reported that there were no mechanical anomalies or malfunctions with any portion of the airplane that would have prevented normal flight operations.The meteorological aerodrome report at the nearest weather reporting facility at the time of the accident was about 11 miles northeast reported: 310353Z 07005KTS 10SM FEW075 FEW150 SCT200 11/02 A3013 RMK AO2
The pilot reported that after a long straight-in final approach, as he reduced power for the landing flare, the airplane dropped "flat" and bounced hard on the runway. The pilot further reported that he added power to cushion the touchdown after the bounce, but the right main landing gear had collapsed after the initial impact. Subsequently, the airplane veered off the runway to the left and nosed over.The fuselage, wings, and vertical stabilizer were substantially damaged.The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot, who was exercising sport pilot privileges, departed on a personal flight in his recently purchased experimental, amateur-built airplane, and, when he did not arrive at his intended destination, a search was initiated. The wreckage was spotted 2 days later in a heavily wooded area about 6.7 nautical miles from the departure airport. Examination of the accident site revealed damage to trees consistent with a steep descent to ground impact, with no evidence of any bird remains in the vicinity wreckage area. The airplane sustained extensive thermal damage from a postcrash fire; however, examination of the remaining portions of the airframe, flight controls, engine, and engine accessories revealed no evidence of pre-impact failure or malfunction.The pilot had undergone 4-vessel coronary artery bypass grafting and had a history of hypertension and high cholesterol, which placed him at increased risk for an acute cardiac event such as another heart attack, angina, or an arrhythmia that could have cause symptoms ranging from chest pain and shortness of breath to palpitations and loss of consciousness. However, it could not be determined from the limited information available from the autopsy whether he was impaired or incapacitated at the time of the accident. Therefore, the reason for the steep descent could not be determined based on available evidence.
The pilot reported that he was conducting a local sightseeing flight in visual meteorological conditions when the airplane inadvertently entered instrument meteorological conditions. While maneuvering, he lost visual reference with the ground. The airplane entered a steep descending turn, and collided trees. Both wings separated from the airframe and the fuselage was crushed. Weather conditions reported at an airport that was located about 17 nautical miles from the accident site, included, overcast clouds at 1,100 feet above ground level. The elevation of the accident site was about 1,700 feet mean sea level. The pilot reported that he experienced no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll in gusty wind conditions, the airplane veered off the runway to the left, impacted an irrigation ditch, and nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left lift strut.  According to the pilot there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. According to the pilot, the weather at the time of the accident was wind variable at 5-7 knots, and wind gusts 10 knots. The airplane landed on runway 25.
The commercial pilot was landing the tailwheel-equipped airplane; it departed the left side of the runway during the landing roll and subsequently nosed over. A skid mark associated with the left main wheel was observed on the runway following the accident. A postaccident examination did not reveal any anomalies of the brake system. Left and right rudder/brake pedal travel was not restricted, and the brake system was intact and operational. Weather information indicated that there was a 20° right crosswind at 8 knots about the time of the accident. Given the absence of mechanical anomalies, it is likely that the pilot failed to maintain directional control during the landing roll.
According to the pilot, on short final during landing, he thought that he had cleared the trees on the approach end of the private airstrip. He reported that he aimed for his landing spot, but the propeller struck a tree and the airplane impacted the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the both wings and the fuselage.The pilot reported that there were no mechanical anomalies or malfunctions during the flight with any portion of the airplane that would have prevented normal flight operations.
The airline transport pilot and a passenger departed on a local area flight; shortly after takeoff, the engine experienced a total loss of power. To the northwest of the accident site was an open field and a road; both were available to use for landing but presented challenges. The field had been recently plowed and there was auto traffic on the road. It was likely that the pilot was attempting to land on the road but struck power lines during the descent. The airplane came to rest in a lemon orchard and was subsequently consumed by a postcrash fire. Visual examination of the engine revealed thermal damage. The engine crankcase was disassembled; the main bearings on the left crankcase half were dark in color and exhibited pitting. The camshaft drive gear cluster displayed nine broken teeth, most of which were found in the oil sump. Metallurgical examination revealed that three of the camshaft drive gear teeth failed in fatigue, which subsequently resulted in the overstress failure of the other six teeth. The fatigue initiated at sharp corners formed during hand-grinding of the forward faces of the teeth while dressing the edges and removing burrs from the teeth during manufacture.  Airplane logbook entries revealed that the engine was assembled by a third party and installed new on the airframe about 13 years before the accident.
The flight instructor and student pilot departed for an instructional flight from an airport on an island en route back to their home airport on the mainland. A review of radar data indicated that the airplane took off with its transponder in the "off" position; therefore, no altitude information was available. The data indicated that, after taking off, the airplane flew north. The track ended 3 minutes later over open water about 5 miles north of the departure airport. After the airplane was reported missing, a search ensued. Although an oil slick consistent with drift models was present in this area, neither the airplane nor the occupants were found. Four minutes before the airplane took off, the reported weather at the departure airport included 9 statute miles visibility and a broken cloud ceiling at 800 ft above ground level (agl); however, the remarks section reported that the ceiling varied between 600 and 1,000 ft agl. In addition, satellite imagery indicated that there was a thick marine layer just north of the airport.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll, a gust of wind lifted the right wing "straight up into the air." The pilot further reported that she attempted to regain control, but the airplane continued to the left and impacted terrain next to the runway in a side load configuration, which resulted in a main landing gear collapse. The fuselage and both wings were substantially damaged.The airport's automated weather observing system, about the time of the accident, reported the wind at 180 degrees true at 10 knots, gusting to 21 knots, for the landing on runway 28.The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The solo student pilot reported that while on a cross country flight the airplane's engine started to "sputter" and then stopped. During the off airport forced landing the airplane impacted a ravine. According to the student pilot, prior to the loss of engine power, 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 engine mount. The airplane recovery specialist reported that he drained about two gallons of fuel from the airplane's fuel tanks prior to the airplane being moved. According to the manufacturer the airplane has 3 gallons of unusable fuel.As a safety recommendation the student pilot reported that he should have visually inspected the fuel with a fuel hawk dipstick.
The pilot reported that during the landing roll in crosswind conditions, the airplane drifted off the runway to the right and the left wing impacted a runway sign.A postaccident examination revealed substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.An automated weather observing station 5 nautical miles from the accident airport, about the time of the accident, recorded the wind at 090 degrees true at 11 knots. The pilot reported he landed on runway 7.
The pilot of a tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll, a "strong gust" of wind lifted the left wing and the airplane veered off the runway to the right. During the runway excursion, the airplane impacted a concrete barrier wall in the ramp area. The firewall sustained substantial damage. The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The nearest automated weather observing station 15 nautical miles away from accident airport, about the time of the accident, reported the wind at 210 degrees true at 4 knots. The airplane landed on a 270 degrees magnetic heading.
The pilot reported that he was practicing off airport landings on a soft gravel strip. The pilot further reported that during the landing roll, he applied excessive brake and the airplane nosed over.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right forward lift strut 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.
The private pilot reported that the landing was "normal" but that, during the landing roll, he noticed that the experimental, amateur-built airplane started veering to the left. Shortly thereafter, the right wing suddenly dropped and impacted the runway. He was unable to maintain directional control of the airplane, and it veered off the runway because the right main landing gear (MLG) had collapsed. Postaccident examination of the right MLG assembly revealed that the right main tire and wheel had separated from the airplane and that a strut had separated about midpoint. Examination of the fracture features of the right MLG assembly revealed that they exhibited matte-gray features on slant angles, consistent with a ductile overstress fracture. No evidence of preexisting cracks or significant corrosion was observed. The right MLG assembly likely failed due to a hard landing and/or side loading on the MLG.
A witness reported that he observed the airplane lift off and fly low over the length of the runway several times before it entered the traffic pattern to land. The airplane approached the runway normally; however, it touched down about halfway down the runway at a high rate of speed. Toward the end of the runway, the airplane turned sharply and exited the runway surface. The airplane went down an embankment and abruptly came to rest at the bottom, which substantially damaged the firewall and right wing. The pilot did not report any anomalies with the airframe or engine.
The pilot reported that during the landing roll, full right rudder was applied to compensate for crosswind conditions. The pilot further reported that as a turn was made to exit the runway, the tail swung to the right and the airplane ground looped. During the ground loop, the right main landing gear collapsed and the right wing was substantially damaged after impacting terrain. An automated weather observing system at the airport, about the time of the accident, reported the wind at 300 degrees true at 9 knots, for the landing on runway 32.The pilot did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the Federal Aviation Administration, Aviation Safety Inspector that arrived at the scene shortly after the accident, he located the uninjured pilot in command (PIC) and a passenger rated pilot who were the only occupants of the airplane. The inspector reported that the PIC told him that he had fueled the airplane prior to the flight. The PIC told the inspector that he had flown 2.5 hours on the right tank which indicated 3.9 gallons of fuel remained per the electronic fuel quantity indicator, at which time he switched to the left tank which indicated 15 gallons of fuel remained per the electronic fuel quantity indicator. The PIC reported to the inspector thatafter switching tanks the engine ran for an additional five minutes and ceased operation. The PIC told the inspector that he contacted air traffic control (ATC) stating that he had experienced an "engine failure", and that they would not make it to the nearest airport. The pilot landed the airplane on a highway five miles from the destination airport. During the landing the nose gear collapsed and the airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall.During a post-accident examination of the airplane by the FAA Inspector, there wasn't any usable fuel found in the left or right fuel tanks, and the paved surface where the airplane landed did not contain any evidence of fuel spillage. The airplane landed 5 miles from the nearest airport. The pilot's destination airport was 17.5 nautical miles southwest of the accident site. The distance between the departure airport and the destination airport was about 415 nautical miles. According to the pilot operating handbook, the range of the accident airplane is 880 nautical miles.The NTSB Investigator contacted the fixed base operator who reportedly fueled the airplane prior to the flight in order to acquire the fuel records. The operator did not have any fuel records for the accident airplane.Page 2 of 6 GAA16CA259
The commercial pilot was conducting an aerial application flight about 25 ft above ground level when the airplane suddenly made an uncommanded descent and impacted a wheat field. The airplane came to rest inverted and sustained damage to both wings, wing struts, fuselage, and tail surfaces. Although the pilot noted some discrepancies with the airplane after it was rebuilt, examination of the wreckage, including the horizontal jackscrew assembly, did not reveal any evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
When the private pilot was about 1 hour into a cross-country personal flight, as the airplane was descending to the destination airport, the engine suddenly lost all power. The pilot prepared for an approach to a nearby field and attempted to restart the engine but was unsuccessful. The airplane came to rest upright in swampy terrain and sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and nose section. Examination of the wreckage after recovery revealed that both wing fuel tanks remained intact, and no fuel was observed in either fuel tank or the carburetor. Postaccident examination of the engine did not reveal any evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Examination of the airplane's flight records, the fueling records, and the operator's account of the airplane's flight and fueling history revealed contradictory information that could not be reconciled, so the reason for the lack of fuel could not be determined.
The private pilot reported that, during the climb-to-cruise portion of the cross-country interisland flight over open ocean water, the engine began to run roughly. The pilot applied carburetor heat, which resolved the engine roughness. The pilot decided to continue his flight. As the flight approached his destination, the engine began running roughly again, accompanied by a significant loss of engine rpm. The pilot applied carburetor heat and adjusted the mixture, but the engine power was not restored. He then ditched the airplane into the water just offshore of the island.The airplane wreckage was recovered from the water 3 days after the accident, and it had sustained significant damage from tidal forces. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.Weather conditions in the area at the time of the accident were conducive to the formation of carburetor icing at glide and cruise power and serious carburetor icing at glide power. If the pilot had either kept the carburetor heat on or applied it earlier, the loss of engine power and subsequent ditching could have been avoided.
The student pilot reported that, during cruise flight in the experimental light sport airplane, he encountered moderate turbulence. Shortly thereafter, the engine experienced a total loss of power. Following an uneventful landing in an open field, the pilot found that a fuel line was pinched between his seat and the fuselage. After repositioning the fuel line, he was able to start the engine and took off to return to the airport. While in the airport traffic pattern, his seat shifted, and the engine lost power a second time. The pilot initiated a forced landing to a nearby road; however, just before touchdown, the pilot "banked hard left" to avoid hitting a vehicle on the road. The airplane subsequently experienced an aerodynamic stall and impacted the ground. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the fuel line located behind the pilot's seat could be compressed by hand. Movement of the seat allowed for the fuel line to be pinched, resulting in an interruption of fuel flow to the engine. After installing a new propeller, a test run of the engine was completed with no anomalies observed.