Premium research interface

The modern interface for aviation safety intelligence.

Search investigations, review source evidence, monitor watched reports, and trace long-term patterns from one calm, data-first workspace.

63k+
Reports indexed
1940-2026
Coverage
Recent
Last data refresh
Featured Report

Loading…

Loading featured report…

Loading…
Open Report

Safety trends by operating rule

Track fatal and non-fatal accident patterns across Part 91, Part 135, and Part 121 operations.

Loading trend charts…

Browse the aviation graph

Move quickly by aircraft, airport, operator, and time with indexes built for research, not wandering.

Last Data Update

By Decade

By Month

Aircraft Manufacturer

More manufacturers

Airports

More airports

Operators

More operators

About

Aviation safety reports, made easier to study

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.

FAQs

NTSB Report

August 13, 2025 · Cessna 150 M · N9400U

Fordsville, KY

Overview

Report Status
Probable Cause
Event Type
Accident
Date
August 13, 2025
Injury Outcomes
No injuries (1 uninjured)
Location
Fordsville, KY
Aircraft
Cessna 150 M
Tail Number
N9400U
Injuries
None
Aircraft Damage
Substantial
NTSB Number
ERA25LA299

The pilot was on a cross-country flight and about 1 hour and 20 minutes into the flight, while in cruise flight at an altitude of about 2,400 ft msl, the airplane’s engine began to vary in rpm for several seconds before it reduced to idle power. The pilot attempted to troubleshoot the problem by applying carburetor heat and attempting to restart the engine, but was unsuccessful, and he subsequently performed a forced landing to a field. The airplane’s left wing was substantially damaged during the forced landing. A post-accident examination of the airplane revealed that both of the airplane’s fuel tanks were intact with no evidence of a breach. Less than one gallon of fuel was recovered from both tanks. The right fuel quantity indicating gauge in the cockpit showed an empty indication when electrical power was applied, while the left fuel quantity indicating gauge indicated between ¼ and ½ tank. While a trace amount of fuel was present in the airplane’s unobstructed fuel lines, the gascolator was absent of fuel. Examination of the engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunction or failure, and the engine was successfully test run when it was plumbed to an external fuel source. Following the accident, the pilot stated he believed that the airplane contained 18 or 19 gallons of fuel before he departed on the accident flight. He also stated that during his preflight inspection, the center sump drain stuck open for between 4 and 5 seconds and required repeated cycling in order to get it to close. The airplane was equipped with two fuel tanks that could be filled with a combined total of 22.5 usable gallons of fuel. The pilot stated, and fueling records confirmed that the airplane was serviced with 18 gallons of fuel two days before the accident. The pilot described that the fuel was filled in each tank to the “tabs.” A review of ADS-B data provided by the Federal Aviation Administration revealed that the airplane was subsequently flown for about 2 hours after the fueling. Based on this information, it is unlikely that the airplane contained the 18 gallons of fuel the pilot estimated were onboard when he departed on the accident flight. Given the uncertain nature of the airplane’s actual fuel state when the pilot departed on the accident flight, combined with the lack of fuel found onboard the airplane at the accident site, as well as the successful postaccident test run of the engine, it is most likely that the loss of engine power the pilot experienced during the accident flight was a result of fuel exhaustion.

NTSB Probable Cause

The pilot’s improper fuel planning, which resulted in fuel exhaustion and a subsequent forced landing.

Full Narrative

The pilot was on a cross-country flight and about 1 hour and 20 minutes into the flight, while in cruise flight at an altitude of about 2,400 ft msl, the airplane’s engine began to vary in rpm for several seconds before it reduced to idle power. The pilot attempted to troubleshoot the problem by applying carburetor heat and attempting to restart the engine, but was unsuccessful, and he subsequently performed a forced landing to a field. The airplane’s left wing was substantially damaged during the forced landing. A post-accident examination of the airplane revealed that both of the airplane’s fuel tanks were intact with no evidence of a breach. Less than one gallon of fuel was recovered from both tanks. The right fuel quantity indicating gauge in the cockpit showed an empty indication when electrical power was applied, while the left fuel quantity indicating gauge indicated between ¼ and ½ tank. While a trace amount of fuel was present in the airplane’s unobstructed fuel lines, the gascolator was absent of fuel. Examination of the engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunction or failure, and the engine was successfully test run when it was plumbed to an external fuel source. Following the accident, the pilot stated he believed that the airplane contained 18 or 19 gallons of fuel before he departed on the accident flight. He also stated that during his preflight inspection, the center sump drain stuck open for between 4 and 5 seconds and required repeated cycling in order to get it to close. The airplane was equipped with two fuel tanks that could be filled with a combined total of 22.5 usable gallons of fuel. The pilot stated, and fueling records confirmed that the airplane was serviced with 18 gallons of fuel two days before the accident. The pilot described that the fuel was filled in each tank to the “tabs.” A review of ADS-B data provided by the Federal Aviation Administration revealed that the airplane was subsequently flown for about 2 hours after the fueling. Based on this information, it is unlikely that the airplane contained the 18 gallons of fuel the pilot estimated were onboard when he departed on the accident flight. Given the uncertain nature of the airplane’s actual fuel state when the pilot departed on the accident flight, combined with the lack of fuel found onboard the airplane at the accident site, as well as the successful postaccident test run of the engine, it is most likely that the loss of engine power the pilot experienced during the accident flight was a result of fuel exhaustion.

Flight

Event TypeAccident
Event Time19:05 CDT
Nearest Airport0nm
Flight Plan FiledNone
Flight Plan ActivatedNo
Aircraft FireNo
Aircraft ExplosionNo

Aircraft

AircraftCessna 150 M
Tail NumberN9400U
Aircraft CategoryAir
DamageSubstantial
Operating RulePart 91
Engines1
Engine TypeReciprocating
Engine DetailsContinental · O-200 · Reciprocating · 100
Seats2

People & Injuries

Injury SummaryNo injuries (1 uninjured)
Fatal0
Serious0
Minor0
Uninjured1
Total1
Crew 1Age 41 · Third Class · None

Conditions

ConditionsVMC
LightDaylight
Wind170° @ 7 kt
Visibility10 sm
CeilingNone
Altimeter29.92 inHg
Observation Time18:56
Weather SourceWFAC

Appendix: Source Data