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.
Chesapeake, VA
During a preflight inspection of the airplane, a certificated flight instructor discovered substantial damage to the underside of the fuselage and reported it to the flight school. Upon further examination, substantial damage to the firewall was also found. Two days before the damage was discovered, the accident airplane underwent a routine phase inspection. The maintenance personnel who examined the airplane for the phase inspection did not report any damage at that time. According to flight school records, there were three flights between the maintenance inspection and the damage report. The first two flights, which occurred later on the same day as the phase inspection, were dual-instructional flights. The third flight, which occurred the next day, and the day before the damage was discovered, was a student pilot solo cross country flight. Interviews conducted by Federal Aviation Administration inspectors with the pilots of those flights failed to reveal who was responsible for the damage, when or where it occurred, or how it was caused. Also unknown, is why the student pilot did not observe the damage prior to his solo flight.
Personnel issues-Action/decision-Action-Incorrect action performance-Not specified - C
During a preflight inspection of the airplane, a certificated flight instructor discovered substantial damage to the underside of the fuselage and reported it to the flight school. Upon further examination, substantial damage to the firewall was also found. Two days before the damage was discovered, the accident airplane underwent a routine phase inspection. The maintenance personnel who examined the airplane for the phase inspection did not report any damage at that time. According to flight school records, there were three flights between the maintenance inspection and the damage report. The first two flights, which occurred later on the same day as the phase inspection, were dual-instructional flights. The third flight, which occurred the next day, and the day before the damage was discovered, was a student pilot solo cross country flight. Interviews conducted by Federal Aviation Administration inspectors with the pilots of those flights failed to reveal who was responsible for the damage, when or where it occurred, or how it was caused. Also unknown, is why the student pilot did not observe the damage prior to his solo flight.