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.
Bridgeport, TX
The student pilot flew a cross-country flight to an airport where he performed six landings. He then flew to another airport and completed two touch and go landings before attempting a third. During approach for the third touch and go landing, the student pilot noticed the airplane was too high on the downwind to base and base to final leg turns. To reduce altitude, he increased the airplane’s descent rate to 900-1,000 ft per minute with wing flaps at 30o. He planned on reestablishing the airplane on the final approach glide path but was too late doing so. He reduced the airplane’s descent rate to 600-700 ft per minute and continued the approach. He said the airplane had a high descent rate, which he felt could result in a very firm landing. He pitched the airplane up a little too much during the landing flare, and the stall warning sounded. He then initiated a go-around out of concern that the landing would result in an unsafe and hard landing. During the go-around, the stall warning sounded again and there was a lot of drag from the wing flaps. The airplane drifted away from the runway surface due to left turning tendencies and impacted the terrain. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces to the wings and fuselage. The student pilot stated that there was no mechanical malfunction/failure of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The student pilot’s delayed go-around from an unstabilized approach and failure to attain/maintain control during the go-around that resulted in an impact with terrain.
The student pilot flew a cross-country flight to an airport where he performed six landings. He then flew to another airport and completed two touch and go landings before attempting a third. During approach for the third touch and go landing, the student pilot noticed the airplane was too high on the downwind to base and base to final leg turns. To reduce altitude, he increased the airplane’s descent rate to 900-1,000 ft per minute with wing flaps at 30o. He planned on reestablishing the airplane on the final approach glide path but was too late doing so. He reduced the airplane’s decent rate to 600-700 ft per minute and continued the approach. He said the airplane had a high descent rate, which he felt could result in a very firm landing. He pitched the airplane up a little too much during the landing flare, and the stall warning sounded. He then initiated a go-around out of concern that the landing would result in an unsafe and hard landing. During the go-around, the stall warning sounded again and there was a lot of drag from the wing flaps. The airplane drifted away from the runway surface due to left turning tendences and impacted the terrain. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces to the wings and fuselage. The student pilot stated that there was no mechanical malfunction/failure of the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.