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.
Boston, MA
At the conclusion of the air taxi flight, the flight crew were taxiing the small twin-engine airplane to their assigned gate at night. The crew were holding short of the gate area and awaiting clearance to enter. After holding for about 10 minutes with the airplane’s parking brake set, the flight crew heard a loud noise and the airplane lunged forward when it was struck from behind by a tug that was towing an unoccupied airliner. The small airplane sustained substantial damage to its elevator and horizontal stabilizer. The tug’s windshield was damaged during the collision, and the airliner was not damaged. Surveillance video showed that the tug’s headlights were operating as it drove straight along the taxiway toward the small airplane. The small airplane’s wing and tail navigational light were also visible and operating. As the tug approached the rear of the airplane, its headlights brightened, and its speed abruptly slowed just prior to the impact with the airplane’s elevator. According to the company who operated the tug, following the accident, the driver and safety observer in the tug initially reported that its brakes had “failed” but later described that the brakes were not operating as expected. The tug crew also reported that an “oversteer alarm” had been sounding continuously during their operation of the tug, and that they had reported this to a supervisor prior to initiating the tow of the airliner. They were instructed to complete the tow, after which maintenance personnel would evaluate the reason for the alarm. Following the accident, maintenance personnel performed an operational check of the tug’s brakes and noted no anomalies. Further examination revealed that the oversteer alarm was due to a malfunction in the tug’s monitoring system. Given this information it is likely that the tug crew saw the small airplane, but their visual lookout was not sufficient to identify it with sufficient time/distance to stop. While the tug was being operated with an active alarm, this should not have impacted the tug crew’s ability to stop the tug while driving straight on a taxiway.
The tug crew’s inadequate visual lookout while towing an airplane at night and their failure to identify a stationary airplane within sufficient time/distance to stop.
At the conclusion of the air taxi flight, the flight crew were taxiing the small twin-engine airplane to their assigned gate at night. The crew were holding short of the gate area and awaiting clearance to enter. After holding for about 10 minutes with the airplane’s parking brake set, the flight crew heard a loud noise and the airplane lunged forward when it was stuck from behind by a tug that was towing an unoccupied airliner. The small airplane sustained substantial damage to its elevator and horizontal stabilizer. The tug’s windshield was damaged during the collision, and the airliner was not damaged. Surveillance video showed that the tug’s headlights were operating as it drove straight along the taxiway toward the small airplane. The small airplane’s wing and tail navigational light were also visible and operating. As the tug approached the rear of the airplane, its headlights brightened, and its speed abruptly slowed just prior to the impact with the airplane’s elevator. According to the company who operated the tug, following the accident, the driver and safety observer in the tug initially reported that its brakes had “failed” but later described that the brakes were not operating as expected. The tug crew also reported that an “oversteer alarm” had been sounding continuously during their operation of the tug, and that they had reported this to a supervisor prior to initiating the tow of the airliner. They were instructed to complete the tow, after which maintenance personnel would evaluate the reason for the alarm. Following the accident, maintenance personnel performed an operational check of the tug’s brakes and noted no anomalies. Further examination revealed that the oversteer alarm was due to a malfunction in the tug’s monitoring system. Given this information it is likely that the tug crew saw the small airplane, but their visual lookout was not sufficient to identify it with sufficient time/distance to stop. While the tug was being operated with an active alarm, this should not have impacted the tug crew’s ability to stop the tug while driving straight on a taxiway.