roccoangelella/AeroGraph huggingface dataset:
The commercial pilot and two student pilot passengers were conducting an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight. The accident airplane was part of a group of several airplanes from the same flying club. About 2 hours 50 minutes after takeoff, the air traffic controller advised the accident pilot of areas of precipitation along the airplane's route of flight; the flight subsequently diverted west for about 6 minutes before re-establishing its northwesterly course.Review of weather information indicated that the airplane subsequently passed through an area of light-to-heavy rain with severe turbulence, updrafts and downdrafts, and small hail; temperatures at the airplane's cruise altitude were above freezing. The airplane entered a right turn at its cruise altitude; shortly thereafter, the turn rate increased, and the airplane began to rapidly descend. Radar contact was lost, and the airplane was subsequently located in a heavily wooded area. Examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction of the airframe, flight controls, or engine. The significant fragmentation of the wreckage was consistent with a high-energy impact following a loss of control.Although components of the vacuum-operated attitude indicator and directional gyro exhibited rotational scoring, examination of the engine-driven vacuum pump could not determine whether it was operating at impact. The initial right turn, which was about standard rate, was likely the pilot's attempt to fly out of the adverse weather. The subsequent right turn, at greater than standard rate, was likely due to spatial disorientation in adverse instrument conditions and not the result of a vacuum system malfunction.The weather encountered during the flight was forecast, but the extent to which the pilot had familiarized himself with the weather conditions before the flight could not be determined, because there was no record of the pilot receiving a weather briefing from an official, access-controlled source. Although the pilot had recently completed an instrument proficiency check (IPC), recovery from unusual attitudes was not a requirement of the IPC. None of his instrument flight experience was conducted in actual instrument conditions, and his most recent night flight experience was about 10 Page 2 of 14 ERA17FA017months before the accident.While the pilot was expecting weather avoidance assistance from the pilot of another airplane based on their verbal agreement before departure, the two pilots did not communicate during the accident flight. Given that the accident airplane was not equipped with onboard weather information, it could not be determined why the pilot chose to deviate in the direction that he did, rather than asking the controller for more information regarding the weather or for assistance in deviating around it. If the pilot had requested assistance, the controller likely would have been able to provide him with vectors to avoid the adverse conditions.
The private pilot and passenger in the experimental, amateur-built airplane were seen flying at low altitude by several witnesses in various locations before the accident. The witnesses reported the engine was operating before the airplane descended into trees. Postaccident examination of the airplane, wreckage path, and a nearby zipline revealed damage consistent with the outboard section of the right wing having contacted the 1/2-inch galvanized zipline cable. There were no mechanical malfunctions or anomalies with the airplane or engine.The cable ran between wooden platforms on the east and west sides of a river about 170 ft above ground level. The location of the platforms in wooded areas and the fact that the cable was unmarked likely made the zipline difficult to see. Witness statements and the accident scenario indicate the pilot operated the airplane at extremely low altitudes throughout the flight.Toxicological testing of the pilot was positive for ethanol and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, the primary psychoactive substance in marijuana). The blood level of ethanol was below the regulatory limit; however, pilots may be impaired below this threshold. The finding of THC indicated that the pilot had used marijuana sometime before the accident; however, since there is no accepted relationship between blood levels and degree of impairment, whether the impairing effects of THC contributed to the accident could not be determined.
The pilot reported that the airplane landed hard and he was unable to maintain directional control. The airplane exited the runway to the left, and upon contacting the grass nosed over.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, empennage, and right wing lift strut.The pilot reported that there were no pre impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The private pilot completed an engine run-up before the personal flight with no anomalies noted. The pilot rotated the airplane about halfway down the runway. He stated that the airplane was not climbing normally during the takeoff, and a ground witness heard the engine making "popping" noises. The pilot attempted to clear trees off the end of the runway in order to make a controlled landing in the field on the other side, but the airplane impacted the field; the pilot was unable to recall any events that happened after passing over a tree. Examination of the wreckage revealed that the airplane displayed impact damage that included aftward crushing of the airplane's nose and the leading edges of both wings, which was consistent with an aerodynamic stall and impact with the ground in a nose-low attitude. Examination of the engine revealed the No. 4 cylinder's exhaust valve was stuck in the fully open position and coated in a carbon-like material. The stuck valve likely reduced engine power and airplane performance during the takeoff, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall.
The pilot, who was the owner of the airplane, had purchased the airplane 3 days before the accident and was conducting a familiarization flight/flight review with a flight instructor. The flight departed and landed at two airports before proceeding to the destination. The flight instructor stated that, during the visual approach to the destination airport, the fuel selector was moved from the right fuel tank to the left fuel tank; at that time, the fuel gauges indicated that the left fuel tank was less than 1/2 full, the right fuel tank was above 1/4 full, and the auxiliary fuel tank was full. After a touch-and-go landing, the airplane experienced a total loss of engine power while climbing through 100 ft above ground level and subsequently impacted terrain during the forced landing.Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the left and right main fuel tanks contained no usable fuel; the auxiliary tank was about full. The main fuel supply line revealed that only several drops of liquid consistent in odor with aviation fuel was present in the line. The gascolator screen did not contain debris, and the gascolator bowl contained a few drops of liquid consistent with the odor of aviation fuel. The position of the fuel selector could not be determined due to impact damage. Compression and continuity of the engine valve and drive trains was confirmed when the engine was rotated by hand. Given the lack of mechanical anomalies, the lack of usable fuel in either of the main fuel tanks, and the absence of fuel in the main supply line and gascolator, it is likely that the loss of engine power was the result of fuel starvation.
The private pilot departed on a local flight. Upon climbing to 1,000 ft, the engine experienced a partial loss of power and started to "miss." The pilot switched fuel tanks and "pumped" the throttle, but the engine did not respond. Unable to maintain altitude, he selected an area for the forced landing. The airplane came to rest wing down and nose low among several trees. Fuel was found at the accident site. The airplane was later recovered and examined at a salvage facility. The examination noted several maintenance discrepancies; the wood under the battery box located in the aft section of the airplane appeared rotted, the engine muffler exhibited significant corrosion; 2 of the 4 cylinders' exhaust and intake valve/rocker arms were improperly assembled; and both wing fuel tank gas caps were an aftermarket, non-vented type. A review of the airplane's maintenance records revealed that 1.49 hours had accumulated since the last annual inspection, and 46.36 hours had accumulated since an engine top overhaul. None of these discrepancies were noted in the inspection or overhaul logbook entries; however, none would have accounted for the loss of engine power. A review of the temperature and dew point at the departure airport indicated that the airplane was operating in an environment conducive to the risk of carburetor ice formation at glide and cruise power settings; however, the airplane was climbing when the engine lost power, so the formation of carburetor ice was unlikely. Despite the maintenance discrepancies, the investigation could not identify a specific abnormality that accounted for the loss of engine power.
The pilot reported that he landed with extra power to compensate for gusting wind. He added that, after the main landing gear touched down, the airplane encountered a wind gust and ballooned up about 50 to 100 ft. The pilot initiated a go-around but was unsuccessful. The airplane impacted the runway in a flat attitude, and the nose landing gear was pushed/driven through the top of the cowling. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The airplane was at 1,250 ft above ground level carrying a load of skydivers. According to a skydiving instructor onboard the airplane, the jumpmaster leaned forward to assist a skydiver in exiting the airplane when the jumpmaster's reserve parachute inadvertently deployed and entered the airplane's slipstream. The jumpmaster attempted to pull the parachute back into the airplane but was pulled into the door frame and dragged out of the airplane. The jumpmaster, who appeared to be unconscious, descended to the ground beneath his streaming (unopened) reserve parachute without deploying his main parachute. The pilot maintained control of the airplane and landed safely. Examination of the jumpmaster's reserve parachute revealed that it was damaged by impact with the door frame, thus it did not deploy properly. It is likely that the jumpmaster failed to guard his reserve parachute ripcord, which was exposed on the front of his parachute, and the ripcord snagged on something as he attempted to assist the exiting skydiver, which caused the reserve parachute to deploy prematurely.
The pilot reported that, while on right downwind and after being cleared for a touch-and-go landing, the tower controller instructed him to make a short approach. The pilot further reported that, during approach, the airplane was to the left of the runway, so he attempted to correct to the right, and "believe[s] that…[he] had applied full right rudder." Subsequently, the right wing impacted the ground and the airplane cart-wheeled. The right wing separated from the fuselage. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.The pilot reported as a safety recommendation that the accident could have been prevented if he had executed a go-around.
The flight instructor reported that during a soft field takeoff on a private 1,800-foot turf airstrip, with 10 degrees of flaps, the airplane wheels lifted off the ground so he relaxed back pressure on the yoke, and the airplane settled back onto the ground. He further reported that after the airplane lifted off and settled back onto the ground a second time, he decided to abort the takeoff by reducing the power to idle, but the airplane lifted off the ground momentarily and settled onto the ground for a third time. The pilot firmly applied the brakes, but the airplane overran the runway.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall.The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.The flight instructor further reported that he admits that he was late in deciding to abort the takeoff.The Federal Aviation Administration has published the Airplane Flying Handbook FAA-H-8083-3B (2016). This handbook discusses pilot actions after liftoff during soft field takeoffs and states in part:After the airplane becomes airborne, the pilot should gently lower the nose with the wheels clear of the surface to allow the airplane to accelerate to VY, or VX if obstacles must be cleared. Immediately after the airplane becomes airborne and while it accelerates, the pilot should be aware that, while transitioning out of the ground effect area, the airplane will have a tendency to settle back onto the surface. An attempt to climb prematurely or too steeply may cause the airplane to settle back to the surface as a result of the loss of ground effect. During the transition out of the ground effect area, the pilot should not attempt to climb out of ground effect before reaching the sufficient climb airspeed, as this may result in the airplane being unable to climb further, even with full power applied. Therefore, it is essential that the airplane remain in ground effect until at least VX is reached. This requires a good understanding of the Page 2 of 6 GAA17CA051control pressures, aircraft responses, visual clues, and acceleration characteristics of that particular airplane.
The pilot of the tailwheel equipped airplane reported that while braking during the landing roll on a gravel airstrip the right main tire encountered a ground depression. Subsequently, the airplane nosed over and sustained substantial damage to the right wing lift strut and vertical stabilizer.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
After an uneventful instrument flight rules flight, the flight crew of the turbofan-powered airplane conducted an instrument approach to the 5,000-ft-long runway. The commercial pilot, who was the pilot flying, reported that the airplane's airspeed during the approach was "a little too fast" at 130 to 135 knots. A witness watched as the airplane flew beyond the runway touchdown zone and touched down on the runway with about 2,000 ft remaining. The flying pilot stated that he then "slammed on the brakes," and the airplane's antiskid system engaged. The airplane subsequently departed the end of the runway, struck several localizer antennae, and came to rest in trees and bushes beyond the departure end of the runway.Although the flying pilot reported that the brakes felt "a little spongy" during the landing, the nonflying pilot stated that, during the landing, both pilots were applying the brakes and that it appeared that the brakes and the antiskid system were working. Postaccident examination of the brakes and brake lines showed no evidence of any preimpact anomalies, and intermittent tire skid marks near the end of the runway appeared consistent with braking and operation of the airplane's antiskid system. Postaccident calculations showed that the airplane's approach speed should have been about 114 knots; the airplane's actual approach speed was more than 130 knots. Additionally, the airplane's calculated landing distance was 2,650 ft; however, there was only about 2,000 ft of runway available when the airplane touched down. Given this information, it is likely that the flight crew approached the runway at an excessive speed and touched down with insufficient runway remaining to stop the airplane and prevent a runway overrun.
The pilot reported that during landing at his private grass runway, the airplane "skipped" during the initial landing touchdown. Subsequently, as the airplane settled back to the runway, the nose gear collapsed, and the airplane nosed over. The pilot further reported that the grass was "soft."  The vertical stabilizer sustained substantial damage.The pilot reported that the nose gear failed during the landing. According to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) who spoke with the pilot postaccident, the pilot reported to him that the airplane bounced during the landing touchdown and when the airplane settled back to the runway, the nose gear had been damaged and further sunk into the grass runway. A photo provided by the FAA ASI showed an initial impact mark about 100 feet prior to the location where the airplane nosed over. It is likely that the nose gear was damaged during the initial touchdown.
According to air traffic control transcripts, about 17 minutes after the private pilot departed for a personal, cross-country flight and immediately after being cleared to climb to 10,500 ft mean sea level (msl), the pilot advised an air traffic controller that the engine oil temperature was “running a little hot” and that he needed to level off at 7,500 ft msl to “cool off.” About 7 minutes later, the pilot repeated that the engine temperature was running high and requested a return to the departure airport but stated that he did not want to declare an emergency. The controller provided the pilot with information for an airport closer to the airplane’s position for a diversionary landing. Although a controller at that airport issued the pilot a straight-in approach, the pilot responded that the engine had lost power and that he was going to have to land because the airplane could not reach the airport. Subsequently, the pilot attempted to conduct a forced landing on a nearby road, but the airplane impacted terrain in a train yard and came to rest between trees and a wooden structure substantially damaging the airframe and wings. During a postaccident examination of the engine, a hole was found in the engine case at the No. 4 cylinder, and metal debris was found throughout the engine, indicative of a catastrophic engine failure. The No. 4 connecting rod bearing had extruded and exhibited signatures consistent with a lack of lubrication, which likely led to the catastrophic engine failure.The Nos 2 and 4 piston cooling nozzles were absent from their respective threaded bore in the crankcase; they were identified in the oil sump and had sustained destructive damage as a result of passage through the engines internal rotating components. The threaded nozzle bores for the Nos 2 and 4 piston cooling nozzles were not damaged. The No. 1 cooling nozzle remained tight and in place, and the No. 3 cooling nozzle remained in place, but was loose and rotated a quarter of a turn before it became tight. It is likely that the absence of the Nos 2 and 4 piston cooling nozzles would have an effect on the engine lubricating oil effectiveness to the internal rotating components of the engine during operation.Page 2 of 7 WPR17LA004
According to the pilot in the tailwheel-equipped airplane, after a 1-hour-long local flight, he returned to the departure airport and noticed that he would be landing with a gusting, direct left crosswind. He reported that he made one low pass about 20 ft above the ground and that he "felt the airplane was steady." He accomplished a go-around and initiated an approach. He recalled that he made a three-point landing and touched down about 50 mph on the runway centerline. When the wheels touched down, a wind gust lifted the left wing, and he tried to compensate with aileron and throttle, but he "was too slow to regain control of the airplane." He reported that the left wing struck the ground and that the airplane exited the left side of the runway and nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings and the firewall.The METAR at the airport reported that, at the time of the accident, the wind was from 180° at 11 knots, gusting to 16 knots. The airplane landed on runway 27.According to the FAA-H-8083-3B Airplane Flying Handbook, "Crosswind After-Landing Roll," pages 8-15 and 8-16:Retaining control on the ground is a critical part of the after-landing roll, because of the weathervaning effect of the wind on the airplane. While the airplane is decelerating during the after-landing roll, more and more aileron is applied to keep the upwind wing from rising. Since the airplane is slowing down, there is less airflow around the ailerons and they become less effective. At the same time, the relative wind is becoming more of a crosswind and exerting a greater lifting force on the upwind wing.When the airplane is coming to a stop, the aileron control must be held fully toward the wind.The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.Page 2 of 6 GAA17CA021
On October 11, 2016, about 1530 eastern daylight time, a Piper PA-34-200 twin-engine airplane, N15294, was destroyed when it impacted terrain near Hartford-Brainard Airport (HFD), Hartford, Connecticut. The flight instructor was seriously injured, and the private pilot was fatally injured. The airplane was registered to International Aviation, LLC, and operated by American Flight Academy as a 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 instructional flight. Visual meteorological conditions existed at the airport at the time of the accident, and no flight plan was filed for the local flight that departed HFD about an hour earlier.The investigation of this event is being conducted under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The NTSB provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The NTSB does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.
The pilot/owner was landing at his home airport with a 60°, 10-knot crosswind that was gusting to 14 knots. The pilot stated the wind was "a little gusty" at the time and that the airplane was "right at stall speed" at touchdown. The airplane touched down on the right main landing gear (MLG) and then the left MLG before the pilot lowered the nose landing gear (NLG). He said that, when the NLG touched down, the airplane bounced into a very nose-high attitude, so he "pushed the nose over," and the propeller struck the ground, the airplane nosed over, and it then came to rest inverted. The pilot was seriously injured, and the airframe sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and vertical stabilizer. According to the pilot/owner, the performance and handling of the airplane on the day of the accident was "fine; you couldn't ask for a better airplane."
Shortly after departing and while flying along a river, the airplane struck two of five unmarked utility wires that spanned the river. The airplane subsequently impacted water, which resulted in substantial damage to the airframe and minor injuries to the pilot and passenger. When asked how the accident could have been prevented, the pilot stated, "Increase altitude minimums by at least double to ensure adequate reaction time to avoid obstacles."
The pilot reported that he did not fill the fuel tanks before departing and while en-route the left fuel tank was exhausted and he switched to the right fuel tank. Upon reaching 3,000 feet during the descent to the destination airport, the right fuel tank was exhausted and the engine lost power. The pilot reported that when the engine lost power, the "fuel totalizer showed 30 minutes of fuel remaining, but both fuel level sender units read zero". The pilot reported that he realized the airplane would not glide to the intended airport and opted to land on a driveway at a local farm. During the forced landing the airplane struck wood and metal fence posts before the right main wheel dug into the grass and spun the airplane approximately 90 degrees to the right.The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing spar.The pilot reported that there were no pre impact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.