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.
Laceyville, PA
The two pilots and the three passengers were enroute to a business meeting in the amphibious airplane when they encountered clouds and turbulence. The pilot, copilot, and passengers described that the pilot descended to a lower altitude and flew along a riverbed, at times at an altitude that was below the surrounding trees and terrain. The pilot stated that he next planned on doing a touch-and-go landing on the river to entertain the passengers. One of the passengers said that while flying along the river, the pilots were concerned about hitting powerlines and had to maneuver to prevent hitting them and a bridge. Shortly after, as the pilots were following a sharp bend in the river while looking for a place to conduct a touch-and-go landing, the airplane’s right wing stuck a power line. The airplane’s right wing and aileron were substantially damaged, though the damage did not prohibit the airplane from being able to fly, and the pilot characterized that the airplane felt out of trim and “a little heavier on one side.” The flight continued towards their destination and a subsequent conversation ensued between the pilot and the passengers, asking if the meeting could be missed, and if they should return to their departure airport, about 45 minutes away. The decision was made to return to the departure airport where the airplane landed without further incident. The pilot elected not to perform a precautionary landing at a nearby airport nor declare an emergency because the airplane appeared to be performing well. The operator stated there were no mechanical deficiencies with the airplane that contributed to the accident. Further, the operator did not have any guidance or policies relating to low-altitude maneuvering with passengers onboard.
The pilot’s improper decision to conduct a low altitude flight and his failure to see and avoid powerlines. Contributing was the operator’s lack of safety guidance or a safety policy for low-altitude operations.
The two pilots and the three passengers were enroute to a business meeting in the amphibious airplane when they encountered clouds and turbulence. The pilot, copilot, and passengers described that the pilot descended to a lower altitude and flew along a riverbed, at times at an altitude that was below the surrounding trees and terrain. The pilot stated that he next planned on doing a touch-and-go landing on the river to entertain the passengers. One of the passengers said that while flying along the river, the pilots were concerned about hitting powerlines and had to maneuver to prevent hitting them and a bridge. Shortly after, as the pilots were following a sharp bend in the river while looking for a place to conduct a touch-and-go landing, the airplane’s right wing stuck a power line. The airplane’s right wing and aileron were substantially damaged, though the damage did not prohibit the airplane from being able to fly, and the pilot characterized that the airplane felt out of trim and “a little heavier on one side.” The flight continued towards their destination and a subsequent conversation ensued between the pilot and the passengers, asking if the meeting could be missed, and if they should return to their departure airport, about 45 minutes away. The decision was made to return to the departure airport where the airplane landed without further incident. The pilot elected not to perform a precautionary landing at a nearby airport nor declare an emergency because the airplane appeared to be performing well. The operator stated there were no mechanical deficiencies with the airplane that contributed to the accident. Further, the operator did not have any guidance or policies relating to low-altitude maneuvering with passengers onboard.