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.
New Ulm, MN
The airplane was damaged when it overran the runway while landing. The airplane was piloted by a certified flight instructor (CFI) and a student. The dual student held a private pilot certificate. In a written report, the CFI said that he and his student were performing a simulated engine failure to runway 22 at ULM. He said that, "...upon reaching final we were high. In my [judgment] however we had room to stop safely. Upon touchdown I applied [brakes], and realized that we were slipping on the grass, and would not be able to stop. So I added full power with one notch of flaps for a short field takeoff. As the end of the runway approached I knew that we would not have enough airspeed to takeoff. Therefore I closed the throttle and applied full [brakes] as we went into the plowed field off the end of [runway] 22." During an interview, the CFI told the inspector that he took control of the airplane at the touchdown. In his written report, the CFI indicated no mechanical malfunction of the airplane and no anomalies were found during a postaccident examination of the airplane.
The student and flight instructor not using all of the available runway, the inadequate supervision by the flight instructor and the unsuccessful remedial action by the flight instructor. The student not attaining the proper touchdown point and the plowed field were factors.
On November 6, 2001, at 1445 central standard time, a Piper PA-28-161, N523PU, piloted by a certified flight instructor (CFI) and dual student, was substantially damaged when on landing it overran runway 22 (2,825 feet by 160 feet, turf), at the New Ulm Municipal Airport (ULM), New Ulm, Minnesota. The dual student held a private pilot certificate. The instructional flight was operating in visual meteorological conditions and was not on a flight plan. The flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91. The CFI and student were not injured. The intended local flight originated from the Mankato Regional Airport (MKT), Mankato, Minnesota, at 1400. In a written report, the CFI said that he and his student were performing a simulated engine failure to runway 22 at ULM. He said that, "...upon reaching final we were high. In my [judgment] however we had room to stop safely. Upon touchdown I applied [brakes], and realized that we were slipping on the grass, and would not be able to stop. So I added full power with one notch of flaps for a short field takeoff. As the end of the runway approached I knew that we would not have enough airspeed to takeoff. Therefore I closed the throttle and applied full [brakes] as we went into the plowed field off the end of [runway] 22." During an interview with a Federal Aviation Administration inspector, the CFI told the inspector that he took control of the airplane at the touchdown. In his written report, the CFI indicated no mechanical malfunction of the airplane and no anomalies were found during a postaccident examination of the airplane.