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.
Westplains, CO
The airline transport pilot, who was also a flight instructor, stated that the accident flight, with a commercial pilot in the right seat receiving flight instruction, was a personal flight with one passenger aboard. While en route to the destination airport, the pilot attempted to fly over a line of convective weather. While at flight level (FL) 410 and at 0.75 Mach, the airplane encountered “heavy” turbulence and hail. The pilot descended to FL 350 and slowed the airplane to 0.68 Mach, then flew about 495 nautical miles and landed at the planned destination airport, rather than performing an immediate landing at the nearest suitable airport. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings, empennage, and windshield. The pilot stated that the accident could have been prevented by having diverted about 80 to 100 miles north of the weather. The pilot stated there was no mechanical malfunction/failure of the airplane that that would have precluded normal airplane operation. About three months after the accident, the damaged airplane was discovered after an anonymous complaint was made of an unreported airplane accident. The airplane was located at the airplane owner’s hangar at the destination airport where it was undergoing repairs. The airplane make and model was not certified for single pilot operations and required two pilots. The commercial pilot did not hold a type rating for the airplane make and model nor met regulatory requirements to act as second-in-command for the flight.
The pilot’s improper judgment to circumnavigate convective activity which resulted in extensive hail damage to the airplane.
The airline transport pilot, who was also a flight instructor, stated that the accident flight, with a commercial pilot in the right seat receiving flight instruction, was a personal flight with one passenger aboard. While en route to the destination airport, the pilot attempted to fly over a line of convective weather. While at flight level (FL) 410 and at 0.75 Mach, the airplane encountered “heavy” turbulence and hail. The pilot descended to FL 350 and slowed the airplane to 0.68 Mach, then flew about 495 nautical miles and landed at the planned destination airport, rather than performing an immediate landing at the nearest suitable airport. The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings, empennage, and windshield. The pilot stated that the accident could have been prevented by having diverted about 80 to 100 miles north of the weather. The pilot stated there was no mechanical malfunction/failure of the airplane that that would have precluded normal airplane operation. About three months after the accident, the damaged airplane was discovered after an anonymous complaint was made of an unreported airplane accident. The airplane was located at the airplane owner’s hangar at the destination airport where it was undergoing repairs. The airplane make and model was not certified for single pilot operations and required two pilots. The commercial pilot did not hold a type rating for the airplane make and model nor met regulatory requirements to act as second-in-command for the flight.