roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The flight instructor reported that the purpose of the flight was to provide a proficiency checkout for the pilot, which is an organizational requirement before pilots are authorized to fly their airplanes. After completing area work, they returned to the airport. The pilot landed the airplane and taxied back to the departure end of the runway. The flight instructor then assumed control of the airplane to demonstrate a rejected takeoff after a simulated engine failure. About 50 to 100 ft above the ground, he retarded the throttle, lowered the flaps to 40°, and lowered the nose. An excessive sink rate developed, and the airplane touched down slightly nose up, bounced, then rolled to a stop.Postaccident examination revealed substantial damage to the fuselage. The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during takeoff, he heard a "bang," and "it felt as though the airplane hit a brick wall." He added that, during the climb, he examined the engine instruments, which appeared normal. About 800 ft above ground level, he looked out the left pilot window and observed that the fixed left main landing gear was "oddly positioned up next to [the] seat/door." The pilot reported that he contacted air traffic control, declared an emergency, and performed a "gear up" landing at the destination airport.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left stabilizer.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.After the accident, the following was added to the Airport Facility Directory: "Deer and other wildlife on and in vicinity of airport." It is likely the airplane hit a deer on the runway.
The pilot reported that, during landing in gusting wind conditions, "there was a shift in wind speed and direction," and the airplane bounced and landed hard. The main landing gear collapsed, the propeller struck the runway, and the airplane then exited the runway to the right.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.A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located on the airport reported that, about 5 minutes after the accident, the wind was from 230° at 11 knots. The airplane landed on runway 26.
The pilot reported that, during touchdown, the airplane bounced, and he chose to go around. He applied full power, set the carburetor heat to cold, and began incrementally retracting the flaps. The airplane drifted left of the runway centerline toward a parking lot but was not gaining sufficient altitude. The pilot started looking for a spot to execute a forced landing when the airplane impacted a tree.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to both wings and the fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The flight instructor was providing dual flight instruction to a student pilot in the helicopter. About 10 minutes into the flight, while in a 3-5 ft hover, the student began to lose helicopter control and the helicopter began to spin to the right. Because the student could not regain control, the instructor took the controls, but the helicopter did not respond to cyclic inputs and left pedal input. At this point, the instructor assumed there was a loss of thrust from the tail rotor. He rolled the throttle off, and the helicopter settled to the ground and landed hard. After the landing, the instructor observed that the tail rotor and tail rotor driveshaft were not spinning and heard a grinding noise near the connection of the transmission output shaft and the tail rotor driveshaft. The instructor found that the tail rotor guard had broken off the helicopter and was about 20 ft away. The instructor could not recall if or when the tail rotor guard struck the ground. Examination of the helicopter revealed that the tail rotor driveshaft had failed near the output shaft of the tail rotor drive assembly. Substantial damage was incurred to the tail rotor and tailboom. Maintenance records were not available. Because neither the student nor the instructor could regain helicopter control, it is likely that the tail rotor driveshaft failed in flight, which led to the loss of tail rotor thrust and subsequent loss of tail rotor control.
The private pilot and a passenger were conducting a local personal flight. Based on witness statements, the airplane was performing aerobatic maneuvers, including steep climbs and descents and sharp turns. Following one 90° climb followed by a "pivot" and a nearly vertical descent, the witness lost sight of the airplane behind trees and then saw a plume of dust rise above the trees. Another witness reported seeing the airplane "free fall again, nose first," but this time the airplane did not pull up. About a quart of fuel was found in each fuel tank; however, fuel was found in the fuel lines from the fuel tanks to the carburetors, and fuel likely leaked out of the fuel tanks while the wreckage was inverted at the accident site. The composite propeller exhibited little rotational damage likely due to the throttle being at the idle position during ground impact. Examination of the wreckage revealed no preexisting conditions that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that he completed a normal landing to the south at a grass airstrip near a lake that was surrounded by 75-ft-tall pine trees. He added that he and his passengers ate lunch at the airstrip, and during that time, he noticed "mostly calm" wind with an "occasional gust from the south." The pilot further reported that, due to the runway gradient, he decided to take off downhill to the north because the wind sock was indicating a calm wind. He reported that, during the soft field takeoff, the takeoff roll was normal, but that, about 100 ft above ground level, he noticed that the "climb had slowed" and the "airspeed was dropping." The pilot lowered the nose, the airplane "descended quickly," and then touched down on the runway with about 30 ft remaining. Subsequently, the airplane overran the runway, crossed a road, and impacted a dumpster and trees.The fuselage and both wings sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that the airplane was 25 lbs under maximum gross weight. 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 (AWOS) 13 nautical miles from the accident site, reported, about the time of the accident, wind from 240° at 6 knots. A review of four hourly AWOS recordings, south and east of the accident site, around the time of the accident, revealed that the wind was variable from the southwest to west at 5 to 10 knots, gusting 15 to 18 knots. The pilot reported that the takeoff was on runway 33. The calculated density altitude was 3,700 ft. According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) density altitude Koch Chart, the airplane would have likely experienced a 32% decrease in the normal climb rate and a 50% increase in the normal takeoff distance.Page 2 of 6 GAA17CA526The FAA's Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, FAA-H-8083-25B, contained a section titled, "Effect of Obstructions on Wind," which stated in part:"Another atmospheric hazard exists that can create problems for pilots. Obstructions on the ground affect the flow of wind and can be an unseen danger. Ground topography and large buildings can break up the flow of the wind and create wind gusts that change rapidly in direction and speed. These obstructions range from man-made structures, like hangars, to large natural obstructions, such as mountains, bluffs, or canyons. It is especially important to be vigilant when flying in or out of airports that have large buildings or natural obstructions located near the runway.The intensity of the turbulence associated with ground obstructions depends on the size of the obstacle and the primary velocity of the wind. This can affect the takeoff and landing performance of any aircraft and can present a very serious hazard."It is likely that, during the initial climb in high-density altitude conditions, the airplane encountered a quartering tailwind gust as the airplane climbed above the trees, which resulted in a loss of lift and an inability to gain altitude during the initial climb.
The pilot reported that, during the approach to land on a down-sloped, grass runway, the airplane was "a little high." He added that he attempted to land short of a rise in the runway, which resulted in a hard landing followed by a bounce. After the airplane settled back on the runway, "[he] believed we [the airplane] could still stop in time." He applied the brakes, but the airplane failed to slow, and he attempted to skid the airplane sideways "with little effect." As the airplane went over another rise in the runway, it floated off the ground. Subsequently, the airplane came to rest in the trees beyond the end of the runway.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.The pilot reported that the weather at the accident site, about the time of the accident, was wind from 105°, gusting to 10 to 15 knots. The pilot landed on runway 27.An automated weather observation system about 13 nautical miles from the accident site reported, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 070° at 8 knots.
Following the aerial photography portion of the flight, the commercial pilot climbed the airplane to 3,500 ft mean sea level and proceeded toward the destination. About 5 minutes later, he felt "light buffeting" as the airplane rolled left. He attempted to counteract the left roll by applying right control stick pressure, but the airplane continued to roll left. He input right rudder to stop the left roll and decided to return to the airport of origin, 10 nautical miles away. He used the rudder to maneuver the airplane and landed uneventfully. After parking the airplane, he moved the control stick left and right several times and the outboard end of the left aileron fell to the ground.Review of airplane maintenance records revealed that, about 9 years before the accident, the left wing tip was replaced due to "hangar rash," though there was no specific mention of damage to the left aileron. There were no other logbook entries that mentioned the left wing or left aileron. Metallurgical analysis of the aileron hinge bracket revealed two fatigue fracture origins that led to two regions of final overstress fracture. The fatigue fractures occurred under low stress over an extended period of time. No anomalies were noted in the origin regions and there was no specific evidence of bending at the fracture area. Since there was no specific evidence of bending, it could not be determined if the previous damage to the wing tip resulted in unidentified stress to the fracture area. Wing tip damage as a result of hangar rash could have resulted in residual tension in the aileron tube and precipitated the low-stress fatigue fracture; however, the severity of previous damage to the wing tip and whether the aileron was affected could not be determined.
After a cross-country flight and during the landing roll at the destination airport, the airplane's left main landing gear collapsed, causing substantial damage to the aileron.An examination of the landing gear found the bell crank pivot bolt and gear down-lock broken.A review of the airplane's maintenance manual revealed that the landing gear system is to be disassembled/inspected every 10 years/5,000 landings, after an initial inspection after 20 years or 10,000 landings.  Additionally, the maintenance manual indicates that the main landing gear bell crank pivot bolt is to be inspected for wear every 3 years (or 500 landings), after an initial inspection at 3 years or 1,000 landings. A review of the airplane maintenance records did not reveal an entry were the landing gear inspections had been accomplished. The records revealed the airframe had accumulated 5,799.3 hours at the time of the last annual inspection, that was dated September 1, 2016.It's likely that the landing gear pivot bolt developed a crack over time, which then failed during landing, causing the gear to collapse.
The private pilot and passenger departed for a personal cross-country flight. Radar data indicated that the flight track after takeoff was consistent with the course to the destination airport. During the first few minutes of flight, the radar data indicated that the airplane was in a climb. However, during the last 2 minutes of flight, as the airplane neared its level-off altitude, the airplane's speed had decreased and was approaching the stall speed, which was between 68 and 73 knots, depending on the airplane's bank. The calibrated airspeed was calculated to be about 62 knots at the last radar return. At that time, the airplane had entered a right turn and was rapidly descending. The airplane impacted terrain about 9 miles from the departure airport.Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Signatures at the accident site and the damage to the airplane indicated a near vertical impact, which was consistent with an aerodynamic stall.
The student pilot reported that, while landing in a "strong" crosswind, the airplane touched down on the runway centerline but then veered hard to the left. He attempted to correct by using rudder and aileron inputs, but he overcorrected, and the airplane veered sharply to the right and exited the runway. He applied full throttle to abort the landing; however, the airplane veered left across the runway, then continued off its left side. The airplane continued down an embankment, the nose impacted an "upslope" on the far side of a ditch, and the airplane came to rest inverted.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the empennage and both wings.The student 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 about 1 mile from the accident site reported, about 15 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 190° at 13 knots and that, about 15 minutes after the accident, the wind was from 210° at 17 knots, gusting to 21 knots. The student pilot landed on runway 12R.
The pilot reported that that the sun was in his eyes as he was landing his low-wing airplane. He said that there were 3-ft-high berms in the area where the airplane touched down and that the runway was about 30 ft wide. The left wing struck the berm and the weeds. The propeller then impacted the berm, followed by the right wing and tailwheel. The right wing sustained substantial damage. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions of the airplane.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during the landing roll, as the tail settled onto the grass airstrip, the airplane veered to the left. He added that he applied right rudder and brake inputs, but the left wing exited the airstrip and struck farm equipment, which caused the airplane to rotate counter-clockwise before coming to rest.The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and the right wing lift strut.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
During a personal cross-country flight, the non-instrument-rated private pilot reported to air traffic control that the airplane would be descending below the marine layer clouds to fly along the coastline to the intended destination. Before the pilot's descent, he asked the controller about the cloud base altitude, but the controller did not have that information. The pilot stated that he would descend to 1,500 ft. The controller asked the pilot if he was going to follow the shoreline, and the pilot replied, "yes, at 2,100 [ft]." Shortly afterward, the controller advised the pilot to contact the next sector. About 13 minutes later, the pilot attempted to contact the next sector, but that sector controller was not able to understand the transmission. The controller instructed the pilot to contact approach control in 15 miles. No further communications from the pilot were received. The wreckage evidence indicated that the airplane impacted rising terrain.Witnesses in the area did not see the accident airplane but heard a loud noise about the time of the accident. The witnesses reported a thick fog layer near the accident site. The airframe and engine examinations found no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The accident site was in an area that had a low- to mid-level pressure troughs, which induced an onshore flow toward the mountainous terrain along the coastline. The persistent onshore flow was favorable for the development of a marine layer and mountain obscuration. An AIRMET that was valid for the time of the accident indicated mountain obscuration and instrument flight rules (IFR) conditions along the coastal water; the accident site was less than 1-mile northeast of the coastline. The closest official weather observation site to the accident site, which was located 15 miles northeast of the accident site, reported an overcast ceiling at 2,600 above ground level (agl). An unofficial weather site that was 5 miles east-northeast of the accident site reported a temperature and dew point that were nearly equal and a relative humidity above 85%. These conditions increased the potential for instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) in the area. In addition, the cloud ceilings near the accident site were likely at 800 ft mean sea level according to the upper air sounding data.Page 2 of 9 WPR17FA196A review of archived ForeFlight data and DUATS and Leidos records revealed that the pilot received several weather briefings in preparation for the flight, and that the briefings identified marginal VFR and IMC conditions along the intended route of flight. Thus, the pilot had sufficient weather forecast information to understand that IFR and mountain obscuration conditions would have existed northward along the coastline.
The pilot reported that, during an instrument flight rules cross-country flight, he realized the airplane was "very low on fuel." He added that, with air traffic control's assistance, he diverted to an airport along his route, which was about 30 nautical miles from the intended destination. He further added that he had difficulty locating the airport visually, and when he did locate the runway, the airplane was "too high" to land. Subsequently, as the pilot continued descending and maneuvering toward the runway, the engine lost power, and he landed in a field. He added that, the airplane "hit the field hard," bounced, and struck a utility pole before stopping.The pilot further reported in the NTSB Pilot/ Operator Aircraft Accident/ Incident Report that he was informed that no fuel was found in the airplane and that the right fuel cap was not installed. He reported that he added fuel to both fuel tanks at the departure airport and that there was a "possibility/ likelihood" that he did not secure the right fuel cap during preflight. He added that, during the diversion, he did not complete the "forced landing checklist."The airplane was destroyed. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
During a telephone conversation with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator-in-charge, the pilot reported that, immediately after takeoff, the airplane encountered a wind gust, and the right wing dipped. Subsequently, the airplane drifted to the right, and the right wing impacted terrain and a taxiway sign. He added that he "lost control during takeoff."The right wing and fuselage 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 airport reported, about the time of the accident, wind from 270° at 10 knots. The pilot reported the takeoff was from runway 33. The pilot did not submit the NTSB Form 6120.1 Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during landing on a grass runway, a wind gust pushed the airplane off the runway to the left. The right wing impacted a tree, and the airplane spun clockwise 180° 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 pilot reported that the wind was from 360° at 15 to 20 knots, gusting to greater than 20 knots. The airplane landed on runway 31.
The pilot reported that, while landing uphill on an unimproved gravel airstrip, the tailwheel-equipped airplane landed "smooth." He added that, while taxiing to the crest of the hill, a wind gust forced the airplane to become airborne. The airplane then drifted to the left, and he attempted to correct with full right aileron and maximum power. The airplane continued to bank left until "the wind forced the tail in a counter clockwise motion," which resulted in the airplane landing on the right main landing gear (MLG). Subsequently, the right MLG collapsed, and the right wing and right horizontal stabilizer struck the ground. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing lift strut and the right horizontal stabilizer and elevator.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot reported the weather at the time of the accident to be wind from 360° at 20 knots, gusting to 25 knots. The pilot landed on about a 360° heading.