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.
Reading, PA
The flight was being operated as a corporate flight with a two-person crew. The captain was the pilot flying (PF) and stated that while on final approach, the airplane was “eating up a lot of runway” before it settled on the runway. He applied full brakes and activated the thrust reversers, but it was not enough to stop the airplane and it subsequently entered the Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS), which resulted in substantial damage to the pressure vessel. He admitted that he became fixated on landing, failed to take proper remedial actions, and thought he could salvage the approach despite the pilot monitoring’s (PM) repeated go-around commands. The PM stated that about 2 nautical miles from the runway threshold, the airplane’s descent rate increased, which activated the ground proximity warning “Terrain, Pull Up.” The PM commanded a “go-around” which was not acknowledged by the PF who continued the approach. When the airplane was on a 1-mile final, the PM called for a “go-around” a second time, followed by third as they crossed the runway threshold about 30 to 40 knots too fast. The captain reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The captain’s improper decision to continue an unstabilized approach despite several go-around calls by the pilot monitoring, which resulted in a runway excursion and substantial damage to the pressure vessel.
The flight was being operated as a corporate flight with a two-person crew. The captain was the pilot flying (PF) and stated that while on final approach, the airplane was “eating up a lot of runway” before it settled on the runway. He applied full brakes and activated the thrust reversers, but it was not enough to stop the airplane and it subsequently entered the Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS), which resulted in substantial damage to the pressure vessel. He admitted that he became fixated on landing, failed to take proper remedial actions, and thought he could salvage the approach despite the pilot monitoring’s (PM) repeated go-around commands. The PM stated that about 2 nautical miles from the runway threshold, the airplane’s descent rate increased, which activated the ground proximity warning “Terrain, Pull Up.” The PM commanded a “go-around” which was not acknowledged by the PF who continued the approach. When the airplane was on a 1-mile final, the PM called for a “go-around” a second time, followed by third as they crossed the runway threshold about 30 to 40 knots too fast. The captain reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.