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.
Santa Maria, CA
The owner/builder of the experimental amateur-built, tailwheel-equipped biplane was seated in the front left seat, with another pilot seated in the right seat, and a passenger in the rear seat. The intent of the flight was to prepare both pilots for a flight review, with both trading off flight duties as necessary. They planned to initially perform touch-and-go landings at their home base airport, with the pilot in the right seat acting as pilot-in-command. The first takeoff and landing was uneventful, but the airport was busy, so they diverted to the accident airport to practice further. The landing approach was normal, with the airplane touching down slightly to the right of centerline and then bouncing. The pilot made corrective control inputs, but the airplane did not fully respond, bouncing again on the runway. He applied forward elevator pressure and the airplane landed a third time, this time remaining on the ground. The airplane began to drift to the right, but would not respond to the pilot's rudder inputs. The owner/builder then applied left rudder, but the airplane continued to drift towards a runway sign. As they passed to the right of the sign the airplane pitched down violently, and nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage during the accident sequence to the left upper wing and the vertical stabilizer. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no mechanical malfunctions or failures which would have precluded normal operation. The owner stated that this was the first flight since he had completed the airplane's conditional inspection, and no flight control malfunctions were discovered at that time. He subsequently stated that he did not find any mechanical malfunctions or failures during a post-accident examination. He further surmised that the design of the braking system was such that simultaneous application of the left and right side brake pedals by both pilots may have resulted in excessive brake pressure, and this may have been the reason the airplane nosed over so unexpectedly.
Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Directional control-Not attained/maintained - C
The owner/builder of the experimental amateur-built, tailwheel-equipped biplane was seated in the front left seat, with another pilot seated in the right seat, and a passenger in the rear seat. The intent of the flight was to prepare both pilots for a flight review, with both trading off flight duties as necessary. They planned to initially perform touch-and-go landings at their home base airport, with the pilot in the right seat acting as pilot-in-command. The first takeoff and landing was uneventful, but the airport was busy, so they diverted to the accident airport to practice further. The landing approach was normal, with the airplane touching down slightly to the right of centerline and then bouncing. The pilot made corrective control inputs, but the airplane did not fully respond, bouncing again on the runway. He applied forward elevator pressure and the airplane landed a third time, this time remaining on the ground. The airplane began to drift to the right, but would not respond to the pilot's rudder inputs. The owner/builder then applied left rudder, but the airplane continued to drift towards a runway sign. As they passed to the right of the sign the airplane pitched down violently, and nosed over.The airplane sustained substantial damage during the accident sequence to the left upper wing and the vertical stabilizer. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no mechanical malfunctions or failures which would have precluded normal operation. The owner stated that this was the first flight since he had completed the airplane's conditional inspection, and no flight control malfunctions were discovered at that time. He subsequently stated that he did not find any mechanical malfunctions or failures during a post-accident examination. He further surmised that the design of the braking system was such that simultaneous application of the left and right side brake pedals by both pilots may have resulted in excessive brake pressure, and this may have been the reason the airplane nosed over so unexpectedly.