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.
Saluda, SC
The pilot and the flight instructor planned a flight itinerary that included multiple stops with the aim of the pilot receiving 7 hours of training in the airplane. Prior to the accident, the flight instructor learned that the pilot had not performed go-arounds or touch-and-go landings in the airplane make and model. Upon flying the airplane into the accident airport, the favorable weather conditions and lack of air traffic led them to decide to conduct the training in the traffic pattern there. The first landing was made by the pilot to a full stop with taxi back. The second landing, which was a touch-and-go, was performed by the flight instructor. The third, followed by the fourth and final landing was performed by the pilot. During the fourth landing, with the wing flaps fully extended, the pilot lost directional control of the airplane and attempted to abort the landing as the airplane veered to the left (a right crosswind prevailed at that time). The pilot tried to correct back toward to the runway centerline, but the airplane went off the left side of the runway. The airplane then touched down in the grass, traveled down an embankment, nosed over, and came to rest inverted. The airframe was substantially damaged during the accident sequence. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot’s failure to maintain directional control of the airplane during an aborted landing in crosswind conditions. Contributing to the accident was the flight instructor’s inadequate remedial action.
The pilot and the flight instructor planned a flight itinerary that included multiple stops with the aim of the pilot receiving 7 hours of training in the airplane. Prior to the accident, the flight instructor learned that the pilot had not performed go-arounds or touch-and-go landings in the airplane make and model. Upon flying the airplane into the accident airport, the favorable weather conditions and lack of air traffic led them to decide to conduct the training in the traffic pattern there. The first landing was made by the pilot to a full stop with taxi back. The second landing, which was a touch-and-go, was performed by the flight instructor. The third, followed by the fourth and final landing was performed by the pilot. During the fourth landing, with the wing flaps fully extended, the pilot lost directional control of the airplane and attempted to abort the landing as the airplane veered to the left (a right crosswind prevailed at that time). The pilot tried to correct back toward to the runway centerline, but the airplane went off the left side of the runway. The airplane then touched down in the grass, traveled down an embankment, nosed over, and came to rest inverted. The airframe was substantially damaged during the accident sequence. The pilot reported that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.