roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during touchdown, the wind shifted to a tailwind. He added that he attempted to go around but was unable. Subsequently, the airplane drifted to the left of the runway, the right main landing gear collapsed, and the right wing impacted the ground. The right wing sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.An automated weather observation station located on the airport reported that, about 5 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 220° at 14 knots, gusting to 19 knots. The airplane landed on runway 7.
During takeoff and the initial climb for the personal flight, the commercial pilot noticed that the engine was losing power. When the airplane reached about 400 ft above ground level, the engine lost total power. During touchdown for the subsequent forced landing to a road, the pilot noticed flames coming into the cockpit near the passenger's feet; both occupants egressed as quickly as possible after landing. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the cabin was consumed by fire; the fire appeared to have originated in the vicinity of the engine side of the firewall, forward of the copilot-side rudder pedals. Examination of the engine revealed that the No. 4 cylinder head was cracked from the exhaust valve to one of the spark plug holes. The fuel pressure gauge line was burnt about 3 inches from the carburetor. A witness had reported that the airplane's engine was running roughly and "shaking" before the accident. Thus, it is likely that increased engine vibration from the cracked No. 4 cylinder resulted in a loosened fuel line fitting and fuel leak, which subsequently led to the loss of engine power and in-flight fire.
The commercial pilot was initiating a personal flight and noted no discrepancies with the brakes during the preflight inspection, the engine run-up, or the initial portion of taxiing aside from the left brake pedal not lining up exactly with the right brake pedal, which had been that way for a while. When the pilot attempted to slow the airplane during the taxi, the right brake pedal travelled to the floor, which resulted in asymmetric braking. In an effort to avoid trees, the pilot intentionally ground looped the airplane and added power, which exacerbated the turn and resulted in the right wing impacting the ground. Postaccident examination of the right brake revealed no fluid in the reservoir and a leak at the slave cylinder, which likely resulted in the asymmetric braking and ground loop.
The commercial pilot stated that he filled the airplane's fuel tanks the day before the accident; he departed on the banner tow flight with an estimated 4.8 hours of fuel endurance. After about 4 hours of flight, which included 6 full-power climbs with banners, the engine lost total power. During the subsequent forced landing, the pilot switched from the left fuel tank to the right fuel tank and attempted to restart the engine to no avail. The airplane landed in a marsh, which resulted in substantial damage to the airframe and firewall. During postaccident examination of the airplane, about 1 gallon of fuel was recovered from the right fuel tank, while no fuel was recovered from the left fuel tank. It is likely that the pilot exhausted the fuel supply in the left fuel tank, which resulted in the total loss of engine power.
The private pilot was landing the airplane after a cross-country flight with a passenger onboard. The pilot reported that, during the landing roll, the left brake locked and the airplane veered to the left, departing the side of the runway into a ravine. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no mechanical anomalies with the braking system that would have precluded normal operation, and the locked brake condition could not be duplicated; therefore, the reason for the loss of directional control could not be determined.
The pilot of the helicopter reported that, during landing, the helicopter "encountered LTE [loss of tail rotor effectiveness]." He added that he maneuvered the helicopter to an open field adjacent to the intended helipad and that the tail rotor impacted a barbed wire fence.The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the empennage.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the helicopter that would have precluded normal operation.The Federal Aviation Administration's Helicopter Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-21A, contained a section titled "Loss of Tail Rotor Effectiveness (LTE)," which stated:        Loss of tail rotor effectiveness (LTE) or an unanticipated yaw is defined as an uncommanded, rapid yaw towards the advancing blade which does not subside of its own accord. It can result in the loss of the aircraft if left unchecked. It is very important for pilots to understand that LTE is caused by an aerodynamic interaction between the main rotor and tail rotor and not caused from a mechanical failure. Some helicopter types are more likely to encounter LTE due to the normal certification thrust produced by having a tail rotor that, although meeting certification standards, is not always able to produce the additional thrust demanded by the pilot.
The student pilot stated that he departed in the helicopter with 37 to 42 gallons of fuel on board; however, he had only used an average fuel burn for his endurance estimates and did not make adjustments for pressure, temperature, or other performance metrics. He indicated that, about 2 hours into the flight, the helicopter "ran out of fuel." He performed an autorotation to a grassy lot and the helicopter landed hard, which resulted in structural damage. Examination of the wreckage revealed that the fuel system was intact, that both fuel tanks were undamaged, and that each tank contained about 1 gallon or less of fuel, which was consistent with the unusable fuel quantity for each tank. The student pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation of the helicopter. Thus, because the student did not account for the pressure, temperature, and other performance metrics for his preflight calculations or in-flight fuel monitoring, he did not have sufficient fuel on board to complete the flight.
The flight instructor reported that, during a training flight to practice touch-and-go landings, while the airplane was climbing through 500 ft, the engine started to "sputter." The student pilot, who was flying the airplane, stated that she switched the fuel tanks just before the engine lost power but that she was unsure which tank she had selected. Due to the low altitude, the flight instructor took control of the airplane and performed an emergency landing in a marsh, during which the right wing and airframe sustained substantial damage.An examination of the airplane and engine did not reveal evidence any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Before takeoff, the airplane had 25 gallons of fuel onboard, and the airplane had been flown about 1 hour before the engine lost power. According to the engine operating manual, the engine's fuel consumption rate was 12.5 gallons per hour, which would have resulted in about half of the fuel supply still being available when the engine lost power, assuming that the supply of fuel in the selected fuel tank had not already been exhausted. However, the postaccident quantity of fuel onboard the airplane could not be verified due to the airplane having rested in the marsh after the accident. Therefore, based on the available evidence, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.
The commercial pilot stated that, during the takeoff roll, the airplane swerved to the right, and he corrected to the left and aborted the takeoff; however, the airplane departed the left side of the runway and collided with an embankment. At the time of the accident, a quartering tailwind was present. The pilot had no previous experience in the accident airplane make and model or in any other multiengine airplane equipped with engines capable of producing 300 horsepower. During a postaccident conversation with a mechanic, the pilot stated that the airplane "got away from him" during the attempted takeoff. Because a postaccident examination of the airplane did not reveal any evidence of a preimpact mechanical malfunction or failure of the airplane's flight controls or nosewheel steering system that would have precluded normal operation and the pilot did not have any previous experience operating this make and model of airplane, it is likely that the pilot lost directional control during takeoff with a quartering tailwind.
According to the pilot, as he approached the airport, he requested a wind and weather PIREP. An unknown person replied on the CTAF to expect winds out of the west. With the intent of landing on runway 2, the pilot overflew the airfield and observed a light crosswind from the west. He landed the high-performance airplane on a 2,580-ft-long turf surface.The pilot recalled a shift in wind direction during landing. The airspeed as he crossed the runway threshold was about 90 knots, and the airspeed "increased dramatically" during the landing flare and touchdown. The pilot applied the brakes; however, the airplane overran the departure end of the runway and collided with a tree. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the engine mounts and the fuselage.According to the pilot, witnesses to the accident recalled that the airplane landed in variable wind conditions and touched down with a 20- to 30-knot tailwind.The pilot reported that there were 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, the airplane ground looped.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot, who was the builder of the experimental, amateur-built airplane, was approaching the airport for landing on a 3-mile left base leg at the conclusion of a cross-country flight. Shortly after being cleared for landing, witnesses observed the airplane make a steep left turn and dive toward the terrain.Ground scar analysis and wreckage fragmentation revealed that the airplane collided with terrain in a near-vertical, nose-low attitude; the wreckage was consumed by a postcrash fire. Examination revealed no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies that would have precluded normal operation of the airplane or engine, although a thorough examination of the flight control system could not be completed due to the extent of the thermal damage.The airplane was equipped with a 'cruciform' (mid-mounted horizontal stabilizer) tail. Several years before the pilot completed the airplane, the kit manufacturer disseminated a report to owners regarding the design and aerodynamic characteristics of the cruciform tail. It stated that the airplane's tail "may stall on approach and turbulent conditions or upon crossing another airplane's wake (or its own wake in a turn)" and that "rapid action must be taken to avoid diving straight into the ground." A report partially sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration detailing the airplane's aerodynamic characteristics stated that, "during post stall and high yaw maneuvering the horizontal/elevators seemed to have inadequate effect" which "seemed to be caused by blanking of the horizontal tail and elevators by the vertical stabilizer at the highly yawed condition."Given these reported characteristics and the lack of mechanical anomalies found, it is likely that the pilot exceeded the airplane's critical angle of attack while turning from the base leg to final approach and the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall; the pilot was unable to recover from the near-vertical descent at low altitude. Page 2 of 11 WPR17FA185
The private pilot stated that he performed a preflight inspection of the airplane and did not notice any hydraulic leaks near the landing gear system. After takeoff, he retracted the landing gear and noted that the amber landing gear "UP" indicator had illuminated. While on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern, the pilot attempted to extend the landing gear, but they did not extend completely and lock. He then departed the traffic pattern and performed the landing gear malfunction procedures in the pilot operating handbook to no avail. Next, he performed several maneuvers to lock the landing gear in the down position for about 1 hour but was unsuccessful and chose to return to the airport and perform a gear-up landing. After landing, the pilot tried to maintain directional control of the airplane; it came to rest on the runway and sustained substantial damage to the left horizontal stabilizer.Postaccident examination of the hydraulic system revealed that there was no hydraulic fluid in the reservoir and that hydraulic fluid was leaking from the rubber landing gear down return line. The line was removed, and a leak was noted. The airframe manufacturer's service manual indicated that all rubber parts in the landing gear system, which includes the rubber landing gear down return line, should be replaced every 5 years. Examination of the airplane's maintenance records revealed that there were no maintenance entries related to servicing or replacing that line. Because the landing gear down return line was improperly maintained and was never replaced, it is likely that the line failed and leaked hydraulic fluid, depleting the amount of fluid needed for the landing gear system to maintain hydraulic pressure to extend and lock the main landing gear.
The pilot reported that, during the approach to the desert airport, the wind had increased to about 15 knots, and it was gusting. He reported that, during landing, "a gust of wind hit me from the opposite direction of flight causing a stall." The airplane stalled about 8 ft above the runway and landed hard.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the engine mounts.The METAR at the nearest airport (7 miles from accident airport) reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 210° at 4 knots. An hour later, the METAR reported that the wind was 10 knots, gusting to 17 knots.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that, during proficiency training in the tailwheel-equipped airplane and during the landing roll, he began to apply brake pressure. As the main landing gear wheels rolled over a water bar, he shifted in his seat and inadvertently applied more brake pressure. Subsequently, the airplane nosed over.The gravel runway was sloped and had two water bars that cross over the runway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the empennage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot stated that he had already completed several landings and had just taken off and started a left crosswind turn about 500 ft above ground level when the engine lost total power. He immediately lowered the nose of the airplane, checked the fuel selector position, and applied carburetor heat. The engine restarted, and the pilot began a climb; however, the engine stopped running again, restarted, and then quit a third time. By this time, the pilot-rated passenger had taken control of the airplane and performed a forced landing to a field, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage and right wing. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that adequate fuel remained in both fuel tanks, and a test run of the engine showed that it ran through its entire power band without interruption. The examination did not reveal any evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Although the weather conditions were conducive to the formation of carburetor ice at cruise/glide engine power settings, the airplane was operating at a high power setting; thus, it is unlikely that ice formed in the carburetor during takeoff.
The pilot receiving instruction reported that, during the landing roll before stopping, the tailwheel-equipped biplane "made a sudden move to [the] left." He added that the flight instructor's quick reactions kept the biplane on the runway and going straight.The pilot then regained control of the biplane, and the left wing dropped and "despite corrective inputs on the controls would not respond to further control inputs," and the airplane then ground looped to the right. Subsequently, the left main landing gear collapsed, and the biplane came to rest nose down on the runway.The biplane sustained substantial damage to all four wings and fuselage.The pilot reported that "it was [his] personal contention and belief that the upper left gear failed[,] resulting in substantial damage to the [biplane] and the resultant ground loop." He added that "[he] did not believe that this particular incident could have been prevented."A review of a video of the accident showed, in part, a loss of control early in the landing roll, followed by a subsequent loss of control and ground loop to the right.
The pilot/operator was taxiing the airplane for takeoff. While the airplane was moving about 15 mph and about 2,700 rpm, a blade from the metal two-blade propeller separated. After the separation, the pilot maintained control of the airplane and shut down the airplane. The engine mount sustained substantial damage from excessive vibrations caused by the propeller blade separation.An examination of the fractured propeller blade revealed that it had failed due to fatigue cracking that had initiated from a nick in the leading edge. Measurement of the nick revealed it was within tolerance for a field repair although a field repair had not been performed. The airplane was frequently used at unpaved runways and airstrips in remote locations. It is likely a nick was sustained on the propeller during the backcountry operations; however, it could not be determined when that nick occurred or when the fatigue crack was initiated. The airplane manufacturer owner's manual indicates that the propeller should be checked for nicks during the preflight inspection. It is likely the pilot/operator did not adequately inspect the propeller during the preflight inspection. Had an adequate inspection been completed, the nick likely would have been identified and could have been field repaired.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane stated that he intended to make a wheel landing with the flaps fully extended following the positioning flight. He stated that he felt a "little bump" shortly after the airplane touched down on the right main landing gear (MLG), and the airplane began to swerve left. The pilot reported that he was unable to regain directional control with full right rudder and right brake inputs. The airplane continued to swerve left and departed the left runway edge; the right MLG collapsed after it entered soft terrain. The airplane came to rest heading about 180° opposite the intended runway heading. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing, both main wing spars, and the right elevator.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed several damaged MLG components. Laboratory examination of the damaged MLG components did not identify any evidence of preexisting damage or cracks. The damaged MLG brace tubes and the piston inside the right hydrasorb shock unit had fractured from overstress. The overall damage to the MLG was consistent with a hard landing. It is likely that the internal piston shaft of the right hydrasorb shock unit failed first in bending overstress during the hard landing, which was followed by the overstress failure of both the left and right MLG brace tubes.
According to the powered-glider pilot, during takeoff, he noticed a slower-than-usual acceleration but continued the departure. He reported that, "after lift-off, the glider exhibited a poor climb rate although the engine was running smooth." Moments later, the glider stopped climbing and then descended and struck the roof of a building located about 800 ft southwest of the departure end of the runway. The glider came to rest upright after colliding with another structure and was consumed by a postcrash fire. The pilot recalled that, during the startup sequence, he was "anxious to get back to my home base" and that he had not used the checklist. The pilot reported that he had taken off with the propeller in the cruise setting and the wing spoilers deployed.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the glider that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during an off-airport landing on wet, marsh vegetation, he used "excessive braking," and the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing lift struts and rudder.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
During the initial climb on an instructional flight, the private pilot and instructor noticed a partial loss of engine power. The pilot performed a forced landing into a hay field and the airplane nosed over. Following the accident, the mechanic who normally performed maintenance removed and discarded all twelve spark plugs, as several were worn. A subsequent examination and test run of the engine revealed a leaking fuel hose due to a loose B-nut. The loss of engine power was consistent with an inadequate fuel supply due to a fuel line leak. Further, it is likely that the worn spark plugs would also have contributed to the loss of engine power.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, during landing, the airplane bounced. On the third bounce, the airplane veered off the runway to the left, the nosewheel impacted a sandbar, and the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the empennage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot did not submit the National Transportation Safety Board Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report Form 6120.1.
The pilot was transporting bulk fuel to a remote lodge. During the landing to the dirt and gravel runway, the tail of the airplane came down, and the pilot heard a loud bang. He reported the empennage "went clear" to the ground and that he had no rudder authority. The pilot attempted to control the airplane, but the airplane departed the runway and impacted a ditch, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing, fuselage, and empennage. The tailwheel spring assembly and a fractured attachment bolt were recovered from the airplane. An examination revealed that the deformation of the bolt and appearance of the fracture surface were consistent with bending overstress. The spring and a portion of the bolt exhibited corrosion and pitting; signs of fatigue were not noted.The airplane flight manual states to lower the tail smoothly during the landing roll. Because the deformation of the bolt and the fracture surface were the result of overstress, it is likely that the pilot allowed an excessive landing load on the tailwheel when it touched down, which resulted in a loss of control and a subsequent runway excursion and impact with terrain.