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.
Melbourne, FL
The certified flight instructor (CFI) stated the pilot was on a familiarization training flight, due to an anticipated purchase of the airplane. They reviewed stalls, flight configuration changes, and emergency procedures before practicing landings. The CFI demonstrated the first landing and elected to have the pilot perform the second landing. The CFI called for a go around due to the unstable approach and high flare. During the second attempt to land by the pilot, the flare was too high, about 10 feet above the ground. The pilot did not respond to the instructions for corrective action and go around. At that point, the CFI called for the controls and initiated full engine power for the go around as the airplane was being blown and pulled to the left side of the runway in a nose high, slow airspeed, and unstable condition; the crosswind was from the right pushing the airplane toward the left. The airplane was about 1/3 down the runway when it departed the runway. The CFI's attempts to gain control of the airplane were unsuccessful due to the pilot not relinquishing the flight controls. The airplane came to a stop after impacting a small tree and brushes in the area adjacent to the runway. The CFI stated there were no mechanical failures or malfunctions to the airplane or any of its systems prior to the accident. Witnesses stated that they observed the accident airplane attempting an approach to the runway flying in an erratic manner. The airplane discontinued the approach and flew the pattern for another approach to the runway. The approach was again erratic. The airplane stalled and fell to the runway on its left wing. The airplane appeared pushed off the runway by the winds. The airplane came to rest in a grassy area off the left side of the runway.
The pilot's (Dual Student) failure to relinquish control of the airplane when instructed by the certified flight instructor resulting in airspeed not being maintained and an inadvertent stall.
On November 21, 2006, about 1140 eastern standard time, an experimental Liberty, XL-2, N508XL, registered to and operated by Liberty Aerospace, Inc., impacted the runway during landing at the Melbourne International Airport, Melbourne, Florida. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time and no flight plan was filed for the Title 14 CFR Part 91 instructional flight. The commercial-rated pilot/certified flight instructor (CFI) and the private pilot-rated dual student reported no injuries, and the airplane incurred substantial damage. The flight originated from the same airport, earlier that day, about 1050. The CFI stated the pilot was on a familiarization training flight, due to an anticipated purchase of the airplane. They reviewed stalls, flight configuration changes, and emergency procedures before practicing landings. The CFI demonstrated the first landing and elected to have the pilot perform the second landing. The CFI called for a go around due to the unstable approach and high flare. During the second attempt to land by the pilot, the flared was too high, about 10 feet above the ground. The pilot did not respond to the instructions for corrective action and go around. At that point, the CFI called for the controls and initiated full engine power for the go around as the airplane was being blown and pulled to the left side of the runway in a nose high, slow airspeed, and unstable condition; the crosswind was from the right pushing the airplane toward the left. The airplane was about 1/3 down the runway when it departed the runway. The CFI's attempts to gain control of the airplane were unsuccessful due to the pilot was still physically locked on the controls. The airplane came to a stop after impacting a small tree and brushes in the area adjacent to the runway. The CFI stated there were no mechanical failures or malfunctions to the airplane or any of its systems prior to the accident. Witnesses state that they observed the accident airplane attempting an approach to the runway flying in an erratic matter. The airplane discontinued the approach and flew the pattern for another approach to the runway. The approach was again erratic. The airplane stalled and fell to the runway on its left wing. The airplane appeared pushed off the runway by the winds. The airplane came to rest in a grassy area off the left side of the runway.