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.
Evanston, WY
The pilot of the biplane reported that he believed he had departed with 38 gallons of fuel in the main fuel tank and 17 gallons in the auxiliary fuel tank. En route, the auxiliary fuel tank ran dry, so he switched to the main fuel tank, which he believed had 35 gallons of fuel remaining. The pilot reported that, while descending to the destination airport, the engine experienced a loss of power. He added that he believed the throttle linkage had broken and that the carburetor was at idle. During the forced landing, he aligned the airplane with a highway and observed four semi-tractor trailers but thought they were ahead of his flightpath. The biplane struck one of the semi-tractor trailers, violently turned right, and then came to rest inverted on the right side of the highway. The biplane sustained substantial damage to the left wings. Postaccident examination revealed that the main fuel tank was empty, and the throttle linkage was intact. The pilot reported that his typical fueling process is to fuel the main fuel tank before fueling the auxiliary fuel tank. He added that he reviewed fuel receipts and found that, before the accident flight, he fueled the auxiliary fuel tank first and, while following his routine, believed that the main fuel tank had already been fueled. This resulted in a departure with 10 gallons of fuel less than planned. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the biplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot’s failure to fuel the biplane’s main fuel tank before the flight and his inadequate preflight inspection, during which he did not verify the fuel quantity, which resulted in fuel exhaustion
The pilot of the biplane reported that he believed he had departed with 38 gallons of fuel in the main fuel tank and 17 gallons in the auxiliary fuel tank. En route, the auxiliary fuel tank ran dry, so he switched to the main fuel tank, which he believed had a remaining 35 gallons of fuel. The pilot reported that, while descending to the destination airport, the engine experienced a loss of power. He added that he believed the throttle linkage had broken and the carburetor was at idle. During the forced landing, he aligned the airplane with a highway and observed four semi-tractor trailers, but thought they were ahead of his flight path. The airplane struck one of the semi-tractor trailers, violently turned to the right, and came to rest inverted on the right side of the highway. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wings. Postaccident examination revealed that the main fuel tank was empty, and the throttle linkage was intact. The pilot reported that his habitual fueling process is to fuel the main fuel tank before fueling the auxiliary fuel tank. He added that he reviewed fuel receipts and discovered that, before the accident flight, he fueled the auxiliary fuel tank first and, while following his routine, believed that the main fuel tank had already been fueled. This resulted in a departure with 10 gallons of fuel less than planned. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the biplane that would have precluded normal operation.