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.
Hutchinson, KS
The pilot reported that the twin-engine experimental airplane departed on a cross-country flight with a full fuel load (28 gallons). After takeoff, he observed that the airplane had a 52 mph tailwind which resulted in a 150 mph ground speed at his cruise altitude of 11,500 ft. The pilot planned to make a fuel stop, but he recalculated the fuel required based on the airplane’s ground speed and concluded that the airplane could reach his intended destination for the day. The pilot reported that the airplane’s expected fuel consumption rate, for both engines combined, was 6 to 10 gallons per hour. The pilot reported that he expected the airplane would have 2 to 3 gallons of fuel remaining when he reached the intended destination. About 2.5 hours after departure, and about 15 minutes from the destination airport, the left and right fuel tank gauges displayed about ¼ tank remaining (3.5 gallons each). However, about 5 to 10 minutes later, the pilot noticed that the fuel level remaining in the tanks decreased rapidly. The pilot reported that both engines lost all power due to fuel exhaustion before the airplane reached the intended airport, and that he conducted a forced landing to a muddy field. Upon landing, the left wheel flange separated, and the fuselage and left wing were substantially damaged. The pilot admitted that the airplane did not have sufficient fuel to complete the flight, and there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot’s inadequate fuel planning, which resulted in a total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion.
The pilot reported that the twin-engine experimental airplane departed on a cross-country flight with a full fuel load (28 gallons). After takeoff, he observed that the airplane had a 52 mph tailwind which resulted in a 150 mph ground speed at his cruise altitude of 11,500 ft. The pilot planned to make a fuel stop, but he recalculated the fuel required based on the airplane’s ground speed and concluded that the airplane could reach his intended destination for the day. The pilot reported that the airplane’s expected fuel consumption rate, for both engines combined, was 6 to 10 gallons per hour. The pilot reported that he expected the airplane would have 2 to 3 gallons of fuel remaining when he reached the intended destination. About 2.5 hours after departure, and about 15 minutes from the destination airport, the left and right fuel tank gauges displayed about ¼ tank remaining (3.5 gallons each). However, about 5 to 10 minutes later, the pilot noticed that the fuel level remaining in the tanks decreased rapidly. The pilot reported that both engines lost all power due to fuel exhaustion before the airplane reached the intended airport, and that he conducted a forced landing to a muddy field. Upon landing, the left wheel flange separated, and the fuselage and left wing were substantially damaged. The pilot admitted that the airplane did not have sufficient fuel to complete the flight, and there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.