Overall Trends
Total, fatal, and serious accidents in the selected range.
Search investigations, review source evidence, monitor watched reports, and trace long-term patterns from one calm, data-first workspace.
Fast key and full-text search with live filters, watches, and precise metadata.
Use quotes for exact phrase matches (for example "fuel selector valve").
Track fatal and non-fatal accident patterns across Part 91, Part 135, and Part 121 operations.
Major cases, deep-report coverage, and investigation media across decades of NTSB history.
Move quickly by aircraft, airport, operator, and time with indexes built for research, not wandering.
NTSB Reports is an independent research and search tool for public aviation accident and incident records. It brings NTSB aviation reports, structured fields, docket files, extracted figures, photos, videos, and update history into one searchable interface.
The goal is practical safety education: make it faster to find relevant investigations, compare similar events, review factual records, and understand the evidence behind probable-cause and preliminary reports.
The investigative work and source records belong to the National Transportation Safety Board and the published investigation record. This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the NTSB.
Greer, SC
The aircraft was on approach for Greenville Spartanburg Airport when the pilot advised air traffic control that he had twenty minutes of fuel left. ATC offered vectors to another airport which was three miles from his position, but the pilot declined. Shortly after, the pilot requested a diversion to the alternate airport, which ATC approved. Approximately two miles from the alternate airport, the pilot reported that he had lost engine power and would have to perform an emergency landing. ATC advised the pilot of a highway less than one mile from his position. During the emergency approach, the pilot attempted a 180 degree turn to avoid oncoming automotive traffic and the airplane impacted trees off of the highway. The pilot reported calculating twenty minutes of reserve fuel during preflight planning. He stated that during the flight, he observed that his actual time enroute was less than he had planned, and thought he would have enough fuel for the flight. He stated that he failed to take into account his use of 75% power during the flight instead of 65% he had used for preflight planning, and the additional fuel burn as a result.
THE PILOT'S INADEQUATE IN-FLIGHT PLANNING IN DETERMINING FUEL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FLIGHT.
On December 27, 1993, at 1823 eastern standard time, a Piper PA-28-181, N4320X, was substantially damaged following collision with terrain during a forced landing near Greer, South Carolina. The private pilot was not injured in the accident. A passenger in the aircraft received minor injuries. The aircraft was being operated under 14 CFR Part 91 by the pilot. Visual meteorological conditions existed at the time, and an instrument flight rules flight plan was in effect for the flight. The flight departed Baltimore, Maryland for Greenville, South Carolina at 1430 eastern standard time. On approach to Greenville-Spartanburg Airport, the pilot reported to Air Traffic Control (ATC) personnel that the aircraft was low on fuel. ATC offered vectors to a nearby airport, which the pilot initially declined. Shortly thereafter, the pilot requested a diversion to the alternate, which ATC provided. Approximately two miles from the alternate airport, the pilot reported loss of engine power and the intention to perform an emergency landing. ATC advised the pilot of a highway within one mile of his position and the pilot reported the highway in sight. The pilot set up an emergency approach, but soon realized that the airplane was headed into automobile traffic. While attempting a 180 degree turn to avoid landing in oncoming traffic, the airplane crashed into trees off of the highway. The pilot reported that he had calculated 20 minutes of reserve fuel during pre-flight planning. He stated that during the flight, he observed that his actual time enroute was less than he had planned, and he thought he would have enough fuel without a planned fuel stop. He stated that he failed to take into account the use of 75% power during the flight, and the additional fuel burn, as opposed to the 65% power used for his fuel burn calculations during his pre-flight planning.