roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The pilot reported that during takeoff from a private dirt airstrip with an air density altitude near 6,100 feet, the airplane became airborne in ground effect, but was not able to "build airspeed sufficient to pitch for Vy (best rate of climb)". The pilot further reported that the wind pushed the airplane over an orchard and he intentionally put the airplane into an aerodynamic stall prior to impacting terrain.A post-impact fire ensued and the airplane was destroyed.The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot reported that during the takeoff roll he heard a "bang" which he initially assumed to be a rock hitting the fuselage, but later believed to be an engine failure. An examination of the postaccident photographs of the two-bladed propeller showed, approximately 1/3 of the outer portion of one propeller blade was snapped off across the cord perpendicular to the leading edge and the second propeller blade showed "S" bending, torsional twisting, and tip curl, which are all indications consistent with the engine producing power at the time of impact.
The private pilot was conducting a personal cross-country flight in the airplane, which he had recently purchased. Radar data showed that about 15 minutes after takeoff, the airplane was in cruise flight when it suddenly entered a left descending turn that continued to terrain impact. Examination of the wreckage did not reveal any evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions, and weather was not a factor. The 78-year-old pilot had a medical history that included coronary artery disease, high blood pressure, and the placement of a pacemaker. The pilot's heart disease could have contributed to the accident; however, the autopsy provided limited information and a readout of the pilot's pacemaker showed no evidence of arrhythmia around the time of the accident. Toxicology testing detected ethanol that was from postmortem production rather than ingestion. The investigation could not determine if some other medical event resulted in incapacitation   or why the pilot may have lost control of the airplane.
The airline transport pilot stated that a preflight check of the flight controls revealed no anomalies, and he and the passenger taxied the float-equipped airplane from its dock onto the lake for takeoff. The pilot reported that, shortly after takeoff, the flight controls felt abnormal, and he elected to return to the lake for landing. He stated that he could not correct the airplane's bank angle before touching down, and the airplane landed hard on the water in a right bank. The pilot and passenger egressed, and the airplane subsequently sank. Attempts to locate and retrieve the airplane following the accident were unsuccessful; therefore, no examination of the airplane was performed, and the reason for the pilot's reported control difficulties could not be determined.
The pilot/owner of the single-engine, tailwheel-equipped airplane was attempting to depart from a private turf runway. During the takeoff, a wind gust contacted the airplane from the left side, and the airplane veered to the right. The airplane's right wing and propeller then struck a fence post. The pilot tried to fly the airplane back to the runway, but it impacted terrain and slid into a tree. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. Examination of the wreckage revealed substantial damage to both wings and the fuselage. The recorded weather at an airport located about 15 miles from the accident site, about the time of the accident, included a left quartering headwind at 9 knots.
The flight instructor stated that during an instructional flight, he configured the airplane for a simulated engine failure by applying carburetor heat and decreasing the engine power. The student pilot followed emergency procedures, used the checklist, and prepared to land. When the carburetor heat control was pushed back in and the throttle was advanced, the engine suddenly lost power. The flight instructor tried restarting the engine to no avail and initiated a forced landing, during which the airplane struck a fence. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the original inline fuel strainer was replaced with an aftermarket inline fuel strainer with a manual sump valve on the strainer bowl. The inline fuel strainer drain knob from the original fuel strainer was removed from the instrument panel. The fuel strainer was drained and found to be filled about 3/4 with water. The student pilot stated that the only sumps that were drained during the preflight inspection were the wing tank sumps. He further stated that he did not know about the fuel strainer having a sump and that the flight instructor never told him about it. The flight instructor stated that he performed a preflight inspection after the student pilot had drained the wing tanks and fuel strainer sumps. He further stated that he thought the student pilot found some water in the left wing tank but did not drain the fuel strainer. It is likely that the engine lost power due to water in the inline fuel strainer, which led to the forced landing.
The sport pilot was conducting a personal local flight at night. The pilot reported that he was unable to locate the destination airport because it was dark. The airplane was low on fuel, so he decided to land the airplane on an interstate highway. During the landing roll, the airplane's right wing hit a wire road divider post, which resulted in substantial damage to the airplane. The pilot stated that the airplane did not have any mechanical failures during the flight. A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot reported that during an "introductory flight" for two passengers, he departed the airport and flew into a canyon where the airplane encountered an "unforeseen immense downdraft". He further reported that he immediately initiated a right turn to exit the canyon but it became clear that a turn was not possible due to the mountainous terrain. Subsequently, the pilot decided to make an emergency landing on a mountain road. After touchdown the airplane skidded off the dirt road and down an embankment. A post-crash fire resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage and both wings.The pilot reported that there were no pre impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.As a safety recommendation the pilot reported that he should have given himself more altitude before entering the canyon.
The pilot was taking his private pilot checkride and was demonstrating a short-field landing. During the landing, the wind was gusting, and he decided to go around. During the go-around, the left wing dropped and struck the runway. The designated pilot examiner (DPE) took control of the airplane and completed the go-around. He then returned control of the airplane to the pilot, and the pilot then performed another short-field landing with a full stop. After the full-stop landing, he taxied to the fixed-base operator (FBO) at the airport, and he and the DPE exited the airplane and went into the FBO to complete the paperwork for the check ride. After the DPE had completed the paperwork, the pilot returned to the airplane intending to fly back to his home airport. During his preflight inspection, he noticed that the wing was damaged. Examination of the wing revealed that both wing spars were substantially damaged.
The pilot reported that he was receiving instruction in an airplane with retractable landing gear. He further reported that during landing, the airplane touched down and began sliding on the concrete runway, and he "knew something was wrong". The flight instructor reported that he was the pilot in command of the airplane and that on final both pilots were on the controls. He further reported that he realized there was an issue when he heard metal on pavement.The airplane impacted the runway with its landing gear retracted, causing substantial damage to the fuselage and bulkhead.The pilot receiving instruction reported that there were no pre impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. There was a post-accident landing gear aural warning horn check/test conducted, with no maintenance issues found.
The private pilot reported that, as he was nearing his destination and the end of a cross-country, personal flight, he flew over his parents' home. The pilot stated that, after passing over the home, he made a sharp right turn and that the airplane then stalled with insufficient altitude to recover and descended to the ground. Examination of the accident site revealed impact marks consistent with the airplane colliding with terrain in a nose-down attitude. Postaccident examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. It is likely that the pilot exceeded the airplane's critical angle of attack while making the sharp right turn, which led to an aerodynamic stall at too low of an altitude to recover.
The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that he landed on an asphalt runway after completing an aerial application flight. He reported that during the landing roll, he ground looped the airplane to the right, the airplane exited the runway to the right, and the left wing struck the taxiway indicator sign. The left aileron sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that there were no mechanical failures or anomalies with any portion of the airplane that would have prevented normal flight operation.
The pilot reported that he was taxiing the airplane parallel to the airport hangars. He reported that he planned to taxi to the run-up area for a planned departure, but the airplane's left wing struck the hangar door casing and spun the nose of the airplane counterclockwise into the hangar door. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing and spar carry through. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane that would have prevented normal flight operations.
The student pilot of the light sport airplane reported that, during the initial climb after takeoff, the engine experienced a total loss of power. The pilot made a left turn to land on a grass runway parallel to the departure runway; the airplane sustained substantial damage during the forced landing. The pilot reported that one of the spark plugs had come out of the 2-cylinder engine; however, it could not be determined if the displacement occurred before or during the impact. No further examination of the engine was performed, and the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined based on the available information.
The flight instructor reported that during a public-use flight in a single-engine airplane, he was providing instruction to an airline transport pilot who was only rated for multi-engine airplanes. The flight instructor further reported that the pilot receiving instruction was the pilot flying and was "fast" on final approach. During the landing flare, the airplane ballooned and bounced once. After the bounce, the flight instructor applied aft flight control pressure because he believed the airplane was going to touch down nose wheel first. The subsequent landing roll was completed without further incident. After loading additional passengers, the flight instructor completed the return flight to their domicile without further incident. During a post-flight inspection damage was found to the tail hook and aft fuselage area. Further inspection revealed that the airplane sustained substantial damage to the aft bulkhead, which was likely the result of a tail strike during the bounced landing during the previous flight. The flight instructor reported that he did not hear the tail strike during the bounced landing and he did not inspect the empennage before departing for the terminating destination.   The flight instructor did not report any mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot took off for the solo flight. At 400 ft above ground level, the engine sputtered and experienced a total loss of power. The student pilot conducted a forced landing to a golf course. During the rollout, the airplane clipped trees and struck a small berm, which resulted in the collapse of the nose landing gear and substantial damage to the engine firewall.Examination of the airplane revealed severe impact damage on the dome of the engine's No. 3 piston and the cylinder head. The exhaust valve was separated at the stem, and the intake valve was fractured. Fracture analysis of both valves and their associated fragments revealed a fatigue failure of the exhaust valve stem transition area at the valve head. The other fracture surfaces were consistent with overstress. The fatigue failure of the No. 3 cylinder exhaust valve led to the total loss of engine power.
The commercial pilot, his passenger, and his 80- to 100-lb dog were on a cross-country flight and had just leveled off at 2,500 ft when the engine suddenly stopped producing power. The pilot was unable to restart the engine and made a forced landing to a field. During the landing, the airplane struck a tree and a fence, which resulted in substantial damage to the firewall, fuselage, and wings. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed the right fuel tank had 15 gallons of fuel in it and that the left tank was empty. The fuel selector valve was found between the "left" and "both" tank positions. The front right seat had been removed before the flight to accommodate the pilot's dog, who sat on the floor during the flight. The pilot said he departed with the fuel selector valve in the "both" position, but during the flight, the dog must have inadvertently moved the valve's handle toward the "left" tank position, which resulted in the loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion. A functional check of the fuel selector valve revealed no mechanical issues, and the valve seated securely into each detent. The pilot reported that there were no mechanical deficiencies with the engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot of the tricycle landing gear-equipped airplane reported that he executed a normal approach to the asphalt runway. He recalled that the airplane touched down on the main landing gear and bounced. He reported that when the airplane settled to the runway after it bounced, the nose gear struck the ground hard. The student pilot taxied the airplane to the ramp per the control tower's instruction and shut down. A post flight examination of the airplane by the flight school revealed substantial damage to the firewall. The student pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane during the flight that would have prevented normal flight operations.
The pilot of a tailwheel equipped airplane reported that during the landing roll in crosswind conditions the airplane veered to the left and the left main landing gear exited the runway. The pilot further reported that he applied right rudder to correct for the veer, and as the left main landing gear returned to the pavement the wheel separated from the gear leg. He reported that the leg drug along the runway and the airplane came to a stop nose down, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage.The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
On June 28, 2016, at 0743 mountain standard time, the Facebook Aquila unmanned aircraft, N565AQ, experienced an inflight structural failure on final approach near Yuma, Arizona.  The aircraft was substantially damaged.  There were no injuries and no ground damage.  The flight was conducted under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a test flight, the aircraft did not hold an FAA certificate of airworthiness.This was the first flight of the full-scale aircraft.  The flight launched in restricted airspace from Yuma Proving Ground's (YPG) Site 8 UAV runway. There were no anomalies noted during the 90-minute flight.According to the operator, at 0704, a simulated landing at 1,250 feet above sea level was performed to test the autoland feature of the autopilot.  Autoland is the normal, and only, landing maneuver of the aircraft. The maneuver was executed normally, tracking the centerline and glidepath, and obeying the wave-off command.  At the time of the simulated landing, the crew noted that the wind had increased above the intended test limit of 7 knots at flight altitude.At 0737, the crew commanded a landing to the designated landing site. During the final approach, the aircraft encountered an increasing amount of turbulence and wind speeds of up to 10 knots at the surface and 12 to 18 knots, as measured by the aircraft at flight altitude. The operators post-flight telemetry analysis showed that the aircraft experienced significant deviations in pitch, roll, and airspeed, consistent with turbulence during the final approach.At 0743, while on final approach at 20 feet above the ground, the right outboard wing experienced a structural failure with a downward deflection. Four seconds later, the aircraft impacted the ground at a groundspeed of 25 knots in an approximately wings-level attitude. The aircraft sustained substantial damage as a result of the impact and wing failure. As a result of the aircrafts design (skid landing gear, low-slung engines and propellers), the operator expected some damage during normal landings.Page 2 of 6 DCA16CA197The operators analysis of available data indicates that the structural failure was likely initiated by a wind gust that lofted the aircraft above the glidepath about 5 seconds prior to failure. The autopilot responded to this gust by lowering the nose of the aircraft to reestablish itself on the glidepath. The airspeed then increased to 28 KIAS from the normal 24 KIAS. As the aircraft descended back onto the glidepath, the autopilot started to deflect the elevons upwards.The operator determined that the combination of high airspeed, up elevon, and low angle of attack, resulted in increased downward lift (and torsion) on the outer wing panels. This loading exceeded its structural limit and resulted in a downward deformation and failure of the right wing. At the time of the last gust (5 seconds prior to touchdown) the aircraft was near idle power and the inboard propellers were commanded to the windmilling state - the highest drag configuration available to the autopilot.
The commercial pilot was conducting a banner-tow flight. He reported that the airplane experienced a total loss of engine power after being airborne for at least 3 hours 9 minutes. He informed the tower controller of his emergency, released the banner, and conducted a forced landing to a nearby street. The airplane collided with a power line during the forced landing. The pilot reported that he had used a higher-than-normal engine power setting to maintain altitude throughout the accident flight.A postaccident examination of the fuel system established that the left fuel tank was empty, that the right fuel tank contained residual fuel, and that the gascolator contained a few ounces of fuel. A subsequent test run established that there were no anomalies with the engine that would have precluded normal operation.The operator had a policy that limited all banner-tow flights in the accident airplane to 3 hours or less to avoid fuel exhaustion. The operator also noted that environmental considerations, such as operating at a high-density altitude and/or in windy conditions, could require a higher-than-normal engine power setting and increased fuel consumption. Additionally, the operator told its pilots that banner-tow flights operating in such conditions should be reduced to between 2 hours 30 minutes and 2 hours 45 minutes. The pilot had received a verbal briefing within a month of the accident that covered the operator's policy regarding the maximum allowable flight duration in the accident airplane while towing banners and acknowledged knowing these procedures.
The flight instructor and student conducted a preflight inspection of the helicopter in preparation for the student's first flight. The flight instructor reported that, after engine start and before takeoff, he saw the lights on the panel flicker and smelled smoke. About the same time, he noticed ground personnel running toward the helicopter. He and the student exited the helicopter, and ground personnel extinguished an engine fire. Examination of the engine's exhaust band clamp assembly revealed that the clamp's two U-shaped retainer portions had fractured at spot weld locations. The incident is consistent with the failure of the exhaust band clamp, which allowed hot exhaust gases to enter the engine compartment and a fire to ensue.
The pilot was landing his tailwheel-equipped airplane on a rough and uneven, gravel covered, off-airport landing site adjacent to a river. Prior to landing, the pilot overflew the landing site multiple times at different altitudes for inspection. During the landing rollout the right wing struck tree branches, which resulted in a ground-loop. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings, empennage and left horizontal stabilizer. The pilot stated that there were no preaccident mechanical anomalies with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. In the recommendation section of the NTSB Accident/Incident Reporting Form 6120.1, the pilot stated that the accident may have been prevented if he would have increased his familiarization of off-airport operations, or selected a more suitable landing site.
The private pilot reported that he departed an airport with full gas and headed east to another airport to perform a touch-and-go landing. After the touch-and-go landing, the engine "never really seemed to perform" on climbout. He attempted to restore power without success, and the airplane began descending. The pilot conducted a forced landing to a field, where the airplane nosed over and sustained substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage. The weather conditions at the time of the accident were conducive to serious carburetor icing at a descent power setting. The loss of engine power likely occurred due to the accumulation of carburetor ice during the descent. 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 typical engine power setting changes when the airplane was on approach for the touch and go.
The pilot planned to perform takeoff and landing practice in the airport traffic pattern. The pilot performed a run-up check of the engine before departing and completed a successful circuit around the traffic pattern. During the second takeoff, while the airplane was about 300 ft above the ground, the engine rpm reduced from 2,500 to 1,800. The pilot declared an emergency and then landed the airplane in a grassy area between two parallel runways. During the landing, the nose landing gear collapsed and the airplane nosed over, which resulted in substantial damage to the airframe. The engine and airframe were not examined after the accident; thus, the reason for the loss of engine power could not be determined.