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.
Wurstboro, NY
The pilot of the glider was receiving a biennial flight review from a flight instructor. They completed two uneventful flights prior to the accident flight. According to the flight instructor, during the third flight, with the pilot under evaluation at the controls, the glider was approximately 500 feet above the ground, 2,000 feet from the end of the turf runway, and slightly slow in the flight instructor's judgment. To correct for the airspeed deficiency, the flight instructor manipulated the flight controls forward and told the pilot to increase the airspeed due to the strong headwind. According to the pilot, the airspeed varied 15 mph during the approach and the glider was descending fast, when he relinquished control of the glider to the flight instructor. The flight instructor stated that he did not assume control of the glider, which was abnormally low but still within a good safety margin to land, in his judgment. About 200 feet above ground level, the glider encountered a downdraft for approximately four seconds. Then, when the glider was 75 feet above ground level, it banked violently to the right. The glider impacted trees, a berm, and a guard rail resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage and empennage. The flight instructor further stated that he never had any doubt that the pilot was in control of the glider, while the pilot under evaluation asserted the instructor stated he had control after the plane began a rapid descent on final approach. Both pilots reported there were no preexisting mechanical anomalies with the glider. The wind reported at an airport 10 miles to the southeast of the accident location was from 220 degrees 14 knots gusting to 21 knots.
The flying pilot's failure to maintain aircraft control and the flight instructor's inadequate supervision while landing with a gusting wind. Contributing to the accident was the lack of communication between the flight instructor and pilot under evaluation regarding who was manipulating the controls.
The pilot of the glider was receiving a biennial flight review from a flight instructor. They completed two uneventful flights prior to the accident flight. According the flight instructor, during the third flight, with the pilot under evaluation at the controls, the glider was approximately 500 feet above the ground and 2,000 feet from the end of the turf runway and slightly slow in the CFI's judgment. To correct for the airspeed deficiency, the CFI manipulated the flight controls forward and told the pilot to increase the airspeed due to the strong headwind. According to the pilot, the airspeed varied 15 mph during the approach and the glider was descending fast, when he relinquished control of the glider to the flight instructor. The flight instructor stated that he did not assume control of glider which was abnormally low but still within a good safety margin to land in his judgment. About 200 feet above ground level, the glider encountered a downdraft for approximately four seconds. Then, when the glider was 75 feet above ground level, it banked violently to the right. The glider impacted trees, a berm, and a guard rail resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage and empennage. The flight instructor further stated that he never had any doubt that the pilot was in control of the glider, while the pilot under evaluation asserted the instructor stated he had control after the plane began a rapid descent on final approach. Both pilots reported there were no preexisting mechanical anomalies with the glider. The winds reported at an airport 10 miles to the southeast of the accident location were from 220 degrees 14 knots gusting to 21 knots.