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.
Belmont, NH
During a supervised solo cross country, the flight was diverted from the planned flight route. The pilot stated that fuel consumption was greater than what she had planned for. The pilot said she realized the airplane did not have enough fuel to make her next destination, so she started to divert to an alternate landing site. Shortly thereafter, at approximately 2,000 feet mean sea level, the engine quit. The pilot made a forced landing in a field. The on scene investigation revealed there was no fuel in the fuel tanks. The pilot reported there were no airplane mechanical malfunctions. The pilot stated in the recommendation section of the accident report, '(1) Things didn't go as planned: plan fuel stops for worst possible scenario, and (2) monitored more closely the time spent in the air instead of what the fuel gauges read.' The pilot's flight instructor stated that he assumed she would refuel after the first leg of the flight. The flight instructor stated, in hindsight, he should have been more specific about when and where the pilot should refuel.
INADEQUATE IN-FLIGHT PLANNING/DECISION BY THE PILOT.
DURING A SUPERVISED SOLO CROSS COUNTRY, THE FLIGHT WAS DIVERTED FROM THE PLANNED FLIGHT ROUTE. THE PILOT STATED THAT FUEL CONSUMPTION WAS GREATER THAN WHAT SHE HAD PLANNED FOR. THE PILOT SAID SHE REALIZED THE AIRPLANE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH FUEL TO MAKE HER NEXT DESTINATION, SO SHE STARTED TO DIVERT TO AN ALTERNATE LANDING SITE. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, AT APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET MEAN SEA LEVEL, THE ENGINE QUIT. THE PILOT MADE A FORCED LANDING IN A FIELD. THE ON SCENE INVESTIGATION REVEALED THERE WAS NO FUEL IN THE FUEL TANKS. THE PILOT REPORTED THERE WERE NO AIRPLANE MECHANICAL MALFUNCTIONS. THE PILOT STATED IN THE RECOMMENDATION SECTION OF THE ACCIDENT REPORT, ' (1) THINGS DIDN'T GO AS PLANNED: PLAN FUEL STOPS FOR WORST POSSIBLE SCENARIO, AND (2) MONITORED MORE CLOSELY THE TIME SPENT IN THE AIR INSTEAD OF WHAT THE FUEL GAUGES READ.' THE PILOT'S FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR STATED THAT HE ASSUMED SHE WOULD REFUEL AFTER THE FIRST LEG OF THE FLIGHT. THE FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR STATED, IN HINDSIGHT, HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHEN AND WHERE THE PILOT SHOULD REFUEL.