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.
Hubbardston, MA
CESSNA 210, N212FS, WAS CRUISING NE ON AN IFR CLNC AT 7000', SQUAWKING A DISCRETE TRANSPONDER CODE, WHILE CESSNA 172, N19649, WAS CONVERGING HEAD-ON, SQUAWKING 1200 (VFR CODE). THE 210'S GND SPD WAS 174 KTS; THE 172'S GND SPD WAS 138 KTS.THE ATC CTLR ADZD THE 210 PLT THAT THERE WAS 'TRAFFIC 12 O'CLOCK, 5 MILES, OPPOSITE DIRECTION, ALTITUDE UNKNOWN.' THE 210 PLT ACKNOWLEDGED, BUT NEITHER HE NOR HIS PAX SAW THE CONFLICTING TRAFFIC UNTIL MOMENTS BEFORE IMPACT (NEAR A VOR STN). HE INITIATED EVASIVE ACTION, BUT HE DID NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THE ACFT TO RESPOND TO CTL INPUTS. DRG IMPACT, THE LEFT WINGS OF BOTH ACFT WERE DMGD. THE 210 CONTD FLYING & WAS SUCCESSFULLY LANDED, BUT THE 172 WENT OUT OF CTL & CRASHED. THE 210 PLT ESTIMATED THE VISIBILITY WAS AT LEAST 50 MILES. VISIBILITY AT THE NEAREST WX STN WAS RPRTD TO BE 40 MILES. THERE WAS NO RADIO CTC WITH THE 172. THE 210 PLT DID NOT USE HIS LNDG LIGHT & THERE WAS NO INDCN THAT THE 172 PLT HAD USED HIS LNDG LIGHT, NOR WAS THE USE OF A LNDG LIGHT REQUIRED.
FAILURE OF BOTH PILOTS TO SEE-AND-AVOID (ATTAIN VISUAL LOOKOUT FOR) CONFLICTING TRAFFIC.
CESSNA 210, N212FS, WAS CRUISING NE ON AN IFR CLNC AT 7000', SQUAWKING A DISCRETE TRANSPONDER CODE, WHILE CESSNA 172, N19649, WAS CONVERGING HEAD-ON, SQUAWKING 1200 (VFR CODE). THE 210'S GND SPD WAS 174 KTS; THE 172'S GND SPD WAS 138 KTS.THE ATC CTLR ADZD THE 210 PLT THAT THERE WAS 'TRAFFIC 12 O'CLOCK, 5 MILES, OPPOSITE DIRECTION, ALTITUDE UNKNOWN.' THE 210 PLT ACKNOWLEDGED, BUT NEITHER HE NOR HIS PAX SAW THE CONFLICTING TRAFFIC UNTIL MOMENTS BEFORE IMPACT (NEAR A VOR STN). HE INITIATED EVASIVE ACTION, BUT HE DID NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THE ACFT TO RESPOND TO CTL INPUTS. DRG IMPACT, THE LEFT WINGS OF BOTH ACFT WERE DMGD. THE 210 CONTD FLYING & WAS SUCCESSFULLY LANDED, BUT THE 172 WENT OUT OF CTL & CRASHED. THE 210 PLT ESTIMATED THE VISIBILITY WAS AT LEAST 50 MILES. VISIBILITY AT THE NEAREST WX STN WAS RPRTD TO BE 40 MILES. THERE WAS NO RADIO CTC WITH THE 172. THE 210 PLT DID NOT USE HIS LNDG LIGHT & THERE WAS NO INDCN THAT THE 172 PLT HAD USED HIS LNDG LIGHT, NOR WAS THE USE OF A LNDG LIGHT REQUIRED.