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.
Edgartown, MA
THE PILOT WAS CLEARED FOR AN INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM APPROACH BY THE CONTROL TOWER. THE REPORTED WEATHER CONDITIONS INCLUDED A INDEFINITE CEILING OF 100 FEET AND ONE HALF MILE VISIBILITY WITH FOG. DURING THE APPROACH, THE AIRSPEED, GLIDEPATH, RATE OF DESCENT, AND POSITION RELATIVE TO THE GLIDESLOPE AND LOCALIZER WERE NOT STABILIZED. THE AIRPLANE IMPACTED TERRAIN ABOUT ONE HALF MILE FROM THE END OF THE RUNWAY. THE PUBLISHED DECISION HEIGHT FOR THE APPROACH IS 200 FEET ABOVE THE GROUND. ACCORDING TO AN INSPECTOR WITH THE MASSACHUSETTS AERONAUTICS COMMISSION, THE PRIVATE PILOT WAS PAID TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS TO FLY THE TWO PASSENGERS, AND HE HAD BEEN PAID TO FLY THE SAME ROUTE AT LEAST TEN TIMES BEFORE THE ACCIDENT FLIGHT.
THE PILOTS'S LACK OF REGARD FOR THE PUBLISHED DECISION HEIGHT OF THE APPROACH AND HIS DECISION NOT TO EXECUTE A MISSED APPROACH. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE ACCIDENT INCLUDE THE PILOT'S FAILURE TO ATTAIN THE PROPER GLIDEPATH AND DESCENT RATE DURING THE APPROACH, THE PILOT'S POOR IN FLIGHT DECISION TO CONTINUE THE APPROACH, WEATHER CONDITIONS WHICH WERE BELOW APPROACH MINIMUMS, DARK NIGHT LIGHTING CONDITIONS, AND SELF INDUCED PRESSURE BY THE PILOT TO COMPLETE THE FLIGHT.
THE PILOT WAS CLEARED FOR AN INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM APPROACH BY THE CONTROL TOWER. THE REPORTED WEATHER CONDITIONS INCLUDED A INDEFINITE CEILING OF 100 FEET AND ONE HALF MILE VISIBILITY WITH FOG. DURING THE APPROACH, THE AIRSPEED, GLIDEPATH, RATE OF DESCENT, AND POSITION RELATIVE TO THE GLIDESLOPE AND LOCALIZER WERE NOT STABILIZED. THE AIRPLANE IMPACTED TERRAIN ABOUT ONE HALF MILE FROM THE END OF THE RUNWAY. THE PUBLISHED DECISION HEIGHT FOR THE APPROACH IS 200 FEET ABOVE THE GROUND. ACCORDING TO AN INSPECTOR WITH THE MASSACHUSETTS AERONAUTICS COMMISSION, THE PRIVATE PILOT WAS PAID TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS TO FLY THE TWO PASSENGERS, AND HE HAD BEEN PAID TO FLY THE SAME ROUTE AT LEAST TEN TIMES BEFORE THE ACCIDENT FLIGHT.