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.
Delray, FL
The pilot reported that during the preflight inspection he was unable to measure the fuel quantity with a dipstick, due to the tailwheel airplane’s tail-low attitude as it sat on the ramp. He stated that he “rocked the wing back and forth…to see the fuel sloshing around” and estimated that the left tank contained 9-10 gallons, and the right tank had “less fuel visible.” The purpose of the flight was to refuel the airplane at the destination airport, where fuel was less expensive. He estimated a fuel burn of 4-5 gallons for the planned 30-minute flight. While enroute, the pilot diverted his course to avoid rain showers that were developing before he ultimately decided to return to the departure airport. During the return, the engine began to “sputter,” at which time he turned on the electric fuel pump and switched the fuel selector from the left tank to the right tank. Sometime after, the engine sputtered again, and he decided to perform an off-airport landing. During landing the airplane struck a fence rail, which resulted in substantial damage to the wings. A post-accident examination of the airplane revealed that the damaged fuel tanks were devoid of fuel, with no indications of fuel having leaked from them, and no odor of fuel was noted at the scene.
The pilot’s inadequate preflight inspection and improper fuel planning which resulted in fuel exhaustion and subsequent loss of engine power.
The pilot reported that during the preflight inspection he was unable to measure the fuel quantity with a dipstick, due to the tailwheel airplane’s tail-low attitude as it sat on the ramp. He stated that he “rocked the wing back and forth…to see the fuel sloshing around” and estimated that the left tank contained 9-10 gallons, and the right tank had “less fuel visible.” The purpose of the flight was to refuel the airplane at the destination airport, where fuel was less expensive. He estimated a fuel burn of 4-5 gallons for the planned 30-minute flight. While enroute, the pilot diverted his course to avoid rain showers that were developing before he ultimately decided to return to the departure airport. During the return, the engine began to “sputter,” at which time he turned on the electric fuel pump and switched the fuel selector from the left tank to the right tank. Sometime after, the engine sputtered again, and he decided to perform an off-airport landing. During landing the airplane struck a fence rail, which resulted in substantial damage to the wings. A post-accident examination of the airplane revealed that the damaged fuel tanks were devoid of fuel, with no indications of fuel having leaked from them, and no odor of fuel was noted at the scene.