roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The airline transport pilot departed on a cross-country flight to relocate his newly-purchased airplane to his home state. A fixed-based operator employee at the airport reported that the pilot overflew the airport and requested verification that his landing gear were extended. The employee confirmed that they were down. After overflying the runway the airplane descended and impacted trees and terrain. Another witness reported that after the low pass, the airplane started to climb and then turned right at an altitude of 250 to 300 ft above ground level. He added that as the airplane turned, its tail "wobbled," which he attributed to a loss of engine power. Then the nose pitched down before it descended below the tree line. The airplane separated into several pieces, and the forward fuselage and engine came to rest inverted behind the empennage.The signatures on the propeller were consistent with little or no power at the time of the accident. A postaccident examination of the engine, airframe, and flight controls revealed no preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operations. Investigators were not able to ascertain why the pilot asked for verification of the landing gear position. The landing gear were found retracted in the airplane wreckage.The airplane had been equipped with an aftermarket auxiliary fuel tank system; however, the system installed did not match the specifications of the supplemental type certificate (STC) identified in the maintenance logbooks or any other STC approved for the make and model of the airplane. The system had been installed about 9 years before the accident and before the pilot had purchased the airplane. The airplane had only flown about 4.5 hours since the fuel tanks were installed. The auxiliary fuel tanks were not vented properly which could have resulted in a vacuum preventing fuel flow through the lines and to the engine. In addition, neither auxiliary fuel tank was equipped with a fuel pickup line inside of the tank. During a turn into the selected fuel tank it is possible that the fuel could unport resulting in fuel starvation and a loss of engine power.Page 2 of 10 CEN18FA030The fuel selector valve was selected to the main tank which was empty; however, it is unknown what position change the pilot may have made following the loss of engine power. Evidence of fuel was found in the fuel lines and fuel pump following the accident. Although the amount of fuel onboard the airplane could not be determined, this evidence indicates there was likely sufficient fuel and that fuel exhaustion did not occur. Given the configuration of the auxiliary fuel tanks, the engine likely lost power due to fuel starvation. This resulted from the unporting of the fuel due to the auxiliary fuel tank's improper configuration and occurred during the right turn the airplane entered after the low pass over the airport.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll in gusting crosswind conditions, the right wing "suddenly" lifted, and he applied right aileron to correct. He added that the control application did not correct the raised right wing and that the left wing dragged on the runway, which resulted in the airplane nosing over.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and vertical stabilizer.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot reported in the National Transportation Safety Board Form 6120.1 Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report that the wind was from 020° at 6 knots, gusting to 17 knots. He added that the landing was on runway 34.An automated weather observation station at the airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 010° at 13 knots, gusting to 17 knots.
According to the student pilot, during a solo flight, he stayed in the pattern and performed takeoffs and landings. During the third landing, the airplane was high, and his approach angle was steep. He reported that he reduced the power and trimmed the airplane for landing. During the touchdown, the airplane bounced twice, and the propeller struck the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the cabin floor.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot was conducting a personal flight. He reported that he experienced a "complete loss of flight controls" during the landing flare. The main landing gear settled to the runway; during the landing roll, the pilot was able to reach the copilot-side control yoke and completed the landing, but the airplane received substantial damage. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the rivet in the universal joint for the pilot-side control yoke had failed, causing the universal joint to disassemble. The examination of the universal joint also revealed that the assembly seized and would not articulate as designed. The assembly seized due to galling wear between the center pin and the yoke ear holes and between the swivel blocks and the yoke ears, resulting in high alternating stresses in the rivet that held the half pins in place. The high alternative stresses in the rivet caused the rivet to fail by low-cycle reversed-bending fatigue fracture. The universal joint design was prone to galling wear and seizure.Maintenance records indicated the universal joint had been replaced 1.5 years before the accident and had acquired 199.1 hours of flight time since being installed. The component had been maintained in accordance with the requirements prescribed in the airframe manufacturer's service manual. No evidence suggested that the failure was related to improper maintenance or lubrication.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during a wheel-landing touch-and-go in crosswind conditions, as power was applied for takeoff, the airplane "hopped to the right and then to the left." He added that he applied "normal downward pressure to lift the tail and maintain a level attitude," but as he did so, the airplane continued to pitch forward and nosed over on the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the vertical stabilizer and windscreen. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot was conducting a personal flight to practice takeoffs and landings. The pilot stated that the airplane's engine lost total power while he was preparing to land. His attempt to restart the engine was unsuccessful. The airplane did not have sufficient altitude to reach the airport, so the pilot performed a forced landing into a field, resulting in substantial damage to the airplane's left wing. A postaccident examination of the airplane found that it had adequate fuel and that the airplane's electrical and mechanical fuel pumps were capable of delivering fuel. An engine ground run showed that the engine was capable of running. The temperature and dew point at the time of the accident were favorable for serious carburetor icing at any power setting. The pilot stated that, just before the loss of engine power, he applied carburetor heat in preparation for landing. On the basis of the available evidence, it is likely that the engine lost power after developing carburetor ice and that the application of carburetor heat was ineffective and had possibly exacerbated the problem by introducing hot, less dense air, which could further upset the fuel-air ratio. The pilot might have been unaware of the developing carburetor ice because the formation of ice would reduce rpm but might not result in rough engine operation. Thus, the reduction in rpm could have gone unnoticed given the normal engine power setting changes when the airplane was in the traffic pattern.
The pilot, flight nurse, and flight paramedic were conducting a flight for a public relations event. None of the three crewmembers had previously landed at this landing zone (LZ). A company flight nurse was on the ground at the LZ informing the flight crew of obstacles in the area. The pilot conducted a low reconnaissance and initiated a steep approach into the LZ. All obstacles were observed and called out by crewmembers as they continued the approach. The terrain appeared to the crew to be flat in all directions. The pilot began to set the helicopter on the ground from a stabilized hover. As the pilot lowered the collective to set the skids on the ground, the skid toes and the forward half of the skids made ground contact; however, from just aft of the pilot’s seat, the terrain sloped downward at a 10°-to-15° angle. Once the collective was lowered to the bottom stop, the helicopter rocked backwards to a tail-low attitude. The pilot and crew felt the tail stinger make ground contact and assumed that the tail rotor had impacted the ground. The pilot then applied upward collective and forward cyclic, which forced the front of the skid toes tightly against the terrain. The application of upward collective resulted in the helicopter entering an incipient dynamic rollover, aggressively rolling to a 45°-to-60° nose-low attitude. The pilot applied aft cyclic to counter the nose low attitude, and mast bumping occurred when the droop (static) stops came in to contact with the mast. The main rotor then separated from the mast and departed the helicopter. The circumstances of the accident are consistent with the pilot’s attempted recovery following a slope landing, which resulted in incipient dynamic rollover, mast bumping, and separation of the main rotor.
The non-instrument-rated private pilot and flight instructor were conducting a cross-country flight in night instrument meteorological conditions; the destination airport reported 2 1/2 nautical miles visibility in mist and an overcast ceiling at 500 ft above ground level about the time of the accident. After performing a missed approach at the intended destination airport, the controller cleared the airplane to an alternate airport and provided the weather conditions at that airport, which included 300 ft overcast cloud ceiling. One of the pilots asked the controller to verify the ceiling at the alternate airport and stated that he would tune the radio to the airport's AWOS (automated weather observation service) to listen for himself. Radar data showed that the airplane entered a right descending spiral shortly thereafter. About 25 seconds later, one of the pilots declared a mayday; there were no further communications from the airplane. Radar indicated that the airplane reached a descent rate of about 4,500 ft per minute before radar contact was lost. The accident site was located in a field about 1,500 ft from the last radar return; the damage to the airplane and distribution of the wreckage were consistent with a high velocity impact. Examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical anomalies.The relatively high workload associated with the missed approach and diversion along with the night instrument meteorological conditions present at the time were conducive to the development of pilot spatial disorientation. The airplane's rapid descent as depicted on radar and the high-energy impact are consistent with the known effects of spatial disorientation. Given the lack of mechanical anomalies found with the airplane, it is likely that the mayday declaration occurred after the onset of spatial disorientation and the subsequent loss of airplane control.
The pilot reported that, about 50 ft above the ground during a "low recon" over a river bar, he did not see power lines crossing the river until they were about 10 ft in front of the airplane. Subsequently, the airplane's empennage struck the wires; he then added power and initiated a climb. He returned to the airport and landed without further incident. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The commercial pilot was conducting an external load flight with two linemen hoisted beneath the helicopter on a long line. The pilot reported that, as he maintained a hover over the power lines, the long line contacted the shield wire as one of the linemen held onto a conductor bundle. The long line severed about midspan as the pilot turned the helicopter into the wind and attempted to move the linemen away from the conductor bundle. The two linemen were fatally injured when they fell about 100 ft to the ground. The pilot returned to the landing zone and landed uneventfully.The pilot did not report any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation. Video footage of the accident confirmed that the helicopter's synthetic long line severed after extended lateral contact with the braided steel shield wire.
The pilot was conducting an aerial application flight. He reported that he was almost finished spraying a river when he suddenly felt the helicopter yaw right then left. Subsequently, he raised the helicopter’s nose up and right to clear a line of trees that ran parallel to the river. When the helicopter reached the height of the treetops, the pilot realized that the airspeed was slow, so he held the collective down to start an autorotation. He then pulled full collective just as the skid impacted the ground hard. The helicopter then came to rest on its right side. Examination of the helicopter revealed that flight control continuity was established. The tailboom was found fracture separated, consistent with main rotor blade contact. Both main rotor blades exhibited impact damage and warping due to slight spanwise deflection opposite direction of rotation but with low inertia. The 1st-stage compressor inlet and blades exhibited damage consistent with foreign object ingestion. Foreign object damage was also noted in the compressor, and the case was pierced in several areas. Black, sludge-like material that contained aluminum debris was found throughout the gas path from the compressor to the combustor and turbine inlet, and it was mostly along the inner surface of the outer combustion case, consistent with splatter during N1 rotation.The ingestion of material throughout the engine and foreign object damage to the compressor is consistent with engine operation during the impact sequence. The reason for the uncommanded yaw could not be determined based on the available information because postaccident examination of the airframe, engine and fuel system revealed no evidence of any mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
According to the pilot, during a night approach, he realized that the airplane was short of the runway and applied power. The airplane rolled to the left and impacted the ground.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the leading edge of the right wing.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 conducting a helicopter flight to assist with herding cattle that had gotten loose. According to multiple witnesses on the ground, the helicopter impacted powerlines and then terrain. Video of the accident showed the helicopter facing away from the powerlines at the time of the collision with the powerlines. A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation at the time of the accident. The witnesses on the ground indicated that there was unlimited visibility and no precipitation at the time of the accident. Thus, the pilot was likely focused on the cattle and lost situational awareness regarding the helicopter's proximity to the powerlines, which resulted in the collision with the powerlines and terrain.
The pilot of the turbine-powered airplane reported that, while landing in a gusting crosswind, it was "obvious" the wind had changed directions. He performed a go-around, but "the wind slammed [the airplane] to the ground extremely hard." Subsequently, the airplane veered to the right off the runway and then back to the left before coming to rest. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the 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 located at the accident airport reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 270° at 19 knots, gusting to 25 knots. The pilot landed on runway 20.
The private pilot and passenger planned on a short flight around the traffic pattern in an open-cockpit, light sport airplane. Shortly after takeoff, as the pilot turned downwind, he heard a "crack," and the engine started to vibrate and lose power. The pilot applied power, but the engine did not respond. He turned sharply left and then tried to stop the turn and descend, but the airplane continued to turn and descend until it impacted terrain. A witness saw two objects fall from the airplane shortly after the engine sound "stopped." Both objects were retrieved. The first object was the passenger's knitted hat, the top of which was "chewed up" and had a line burnt/melted into it. The other object was one of the propeller blades. The accident is consistent with the passenger's hat exiting the cockpit and impacting the three-bladed pusher propeller, which led to the separation of one of the propeller blades and the subsequent loss of engine power.
The pilot reported that the airplane departed with 10 gallons of fuel to practice crosswind landings at a nearby airport. He added that, about 1 hour later and during an approach, he was aiming to land on the runway numbers. He reported that, shortly before flying over the airport perimeter fence, "either wind shear or [a] sudden downdraft dropped the plane." The nose landing gear struck the fence, and the airplane impacted the ground short of the intended runway.In a followup interview with the National Transportation Safety Board investigator-in-charge, the pilot reported that, during approach, the engine was running the entire time without issues. He added that, once he encountered the downdraft, he applied full power, but the airplane continued descending with "no appreciable response." He reported that he did not use carburetor heat during the approach.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and horizontal stabilator.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located on the airport revealed that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 210° at 8 knots, visibility 10 statute miles, clouds overcast at 1,100 ft, temperature 68°F, dew point 63°F, and altimeter 29.96 inches of mercury. The airplane was landing on runway 22.Review of the Federal Aviation Administration Carburetor Icing Chart for the given temperature and dew point revealed that the conditions were conducive to "serious icing (glide power)." (For more information, see Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin CE-09-35 in the public docket.)Page 2 of 7 GAA18CA038
The private pilot had recently purchased the Bonanza airplane, which he and an experienced flight instructor were using to conduct his first training flight in a Bonanza. During a visual approach, the engine's left cowling opened. According to the pilot, who initially survived the accident, the flight instructor assumed control of the airplane. Based on video from home surveillance cameras, the descent rate for the approach increased to about 1,000 ft per minute about 100 ft above ground level. About 7 seconds later, the airplane impacted trees and a power line located 1/2 mile from the runway threshold. The airplane was one of three Bonanza airplanes modified with a Robertson Short Takeoff and Landing (STOL) system. The flight characteristics for this modification included a strong pitch-down force while extending the flap from 15° to 30° position, which is greater than in Bonanzas without this STOL system. The investigation could not determine if the pilot or flight instructor was aware of this unique flight characteristic, which was not described in the STOL certification information. The pilot had compiled a list of airplane discrepancies, which included "cowling latch - pilot's side rear spring." It is likely a latch for the left engine cowling opened in flight because it was not properly secured during the preflight. The flight instructor and pilot were likely distracted by the open engine cowling and did not expect the strong pitch-down force during flap extension, which resulted in a high descent rate on short final.
The private pilot and 3 passengers departed the airport on a return cross-country flight; the wreckage was located the following evening in rugged, desert terrain about 0.56 nautical mile west of the departure end of the runway. About the estimated time of the accident, the reported wind was from 220° at 15 kts gusting to 18 kts, the calculated density altitude was 6,371 ft, and the airplane would have been taking off toward the setting sun. The airplane's estimated takeoff weight was about 25 lbs below its maximum gross weight. Examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The impact damage to the airplane was consistent with an aerodynamic stall/spin which, given the location of the wreckage relative to the runway, likely occurred during the initial climb after takeoff. It is likely that the airplane's high gross weight, the high density altitude and gusting wind conditions were factors which contributed to the pilot's failure to maintain adequate airspeed during the initial climb after takeoff. The low airspeed resulted in the airplane exceeding its critical angle of attack and a subsequent aerodynamic stall/spin.Toxicology testing of the pilot detected venlafaxine, an antidepressant medication, in liver and blood specimens. There were no documented adverse side effects to the pilot, so it is unlikely that this medication resulted in impairment or incapacitation. An autopsy identified moderate coronary artery disease without angina with 3 stent placements. Whether the pilot experienced impairing symptoms from his cardiovascular condition or if it contributed to the accident could not be determined.
The sport pilot was practicing takeoffs and landings in the tailwheel-equipped airplane. A witness reported that he saw the airplane depart and then return about 30 minutes later. During the landing, the airplane "cartwheeled," which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage. The pilot reported that he did could not remember the landing. The pilot added that a postaccident check of the flight controls revealed that they were functioning normally. Therefore, it is likely that the pilot lost airplane control during landing.