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.
Bealeton, VA
The vintage biplanes were operating at a private airport that provided airshows and airplane rides to the public. The pilot of the departing airplane taxied for takeoff and was number two behind another airplane that was taxiing ahead of him. At the same time, the pilot of the landing airplane was in the traffic pattern, preparing for landing. Local procedures required landing airplanes to make a low approach to signal airplanes taking off that a landing was imminent; the procedure was implemented because some airplanes at the airport were not equipped with radios. Landing aircraft had the right-of-way over aircraft taking off. The pilot of the landing airplane reported that he performed the required low approach, completed the traffic pattern, and proceeded onto final approach for landing. At the same time, the pilot of the departing airplane taxied onto the runway for takeoff and did not see the low approach by the landing airplane or his subsequent pattern. The pilot of the landing airplane did not see the departing airplane on the runway and landed on top of the departing airplane before the departing airplane became airborne. Both airplanes sustained substantial damage, the two pilots had minor injuries, and two passengers were not injured. Although both airplanes were equipped with radios, neither pilot was making radio calls; instead, they relied on the established visual traffic separation procedures only. A review of the airport’s standard operating procedures revealed that they did not address the use of radios or encourage pilots to use them if equipped. Following the accident, the airport made several modifications to their local procedures including recommending that all pilots of aircraft equipped with radios use them while in the traffic pattern; and moving the holding area short of the runway to another location that afforded better visibility of the traffic pattern.
The pilot of the departing airplane’s failure to see and avoid the landing airplane before takeoff, resulting in a collision with the landing airplane. Contributing was the airport’s failure to encourage pilots to use radios for traffic deconfliction when equipped.
The vintage biplanes were operating at a private airport that provided airshows and airplane rides to the public. The pilot of the departing airplane taxied for takeoff and was number two behind another airplane that was taxiing ahead of him. At the same time, the pilot of the landing airplane was in the traffic pattern, preparing for landing. Local procedures required landing airplanes to make a low approach to signal airplanes taking off that a landing was imminent; the procedure was implemented because some airplanes at the airport were not equipped with radios. Landing aircraft had the right-of-way over aircraft taking off. The pilot of the landing airplane reported that he performed the required low approach, completed the traffic pattern, and proceeded onto final approach for landing. At the same time, the pilot of the departing airplane taxied onto the runway for takeoff and did not see the low approach by the landing airplane or his subsequent pattern. The pilot of the landing airplane did not see the departing airplane on the runway and landed on top of the departing airplane before the departing airplane became airborne. Both airplanes sustained substantial damage, the two pilots had minor injuries, and two passengers were not injured. Although both airplanes were equipped with radios, neither pilot was making radio calls; instead, they relied on the established visual traffic separation procedures only. A review of the airport’s standard operating procedures revealed that they did not address the use of radios or encourage pilots to use them if equipped. Following the accident, the airport made several modifications to their local procedures including recommending that all pilots of aircraft equipped with radios use them while in the traffic pattern; and moving the holding area short of the runway to another location that afforded better visibility of the traffic pattern.