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 18, 2025 · Jmb Aircraft S R O VL-3LSA-912 · N593TT

Erie, CO

Overview

Report Status
Probable Cause
Event Type
Accident
Date
August 18, 2025
Injury Outcomes
No injuries (2 uninjured)
Location
Erie, CO
Aircraft
Jmb Aircraft S R O VL-3LSA-912 (2023)
Tail Number
N593TT
Operator
N593Tt Rental
Injuries
None
Aircraft Damage
Substantial
NTSB Number
CEN25LA329

The pilot receiving instruction reported that the flight was a cross-country instructional flight in preparation for a commercial pilot certificate. The flight progressed uneventfully to several airports and returned to the original departure airport. The pilot and flight instructor discussed the approach to the airport and decided on a straight-in approach. When they descended to about 1,000 ft above ground level (agl), the turbulence intensified. The pilot flew the approach manually, at 60 to 65 kts., and maintained a stable glidepath using the precision approach path indicator (PAPI) to aid guidance. At 400 ft agl a rapid sink rate started and the pilot added power to regain the glideslope. When the airplane crossed the runway threshold, the pilot reduced engine power to idle and initiated a flare. A gust of wind caused momentary instability, and she called “go-around” and added power to initiate a go-around. Just as she did this, the flight instructor pulled aft on the control stick, but no positive transfer of control occurred. The airplane’s nose pitched up abruptly which resulted in a tail strike, aerodynamic stall, and right-wing drop. In an earlier telephone interview with the pilot, she said that during the landing approach, the autopilot was disengaged about 1,000 ft agl. Just as they were about to touch down, a gust of wind caused the approach to become unstable, and she applied power to go-around when the CFI took control of the airplane. She noted that she did not hear a “my airplane” command or similar. The CFI pulled back on the controls and she thinks the airplane stalled and it also struck the ground tail first. When asked if there were any mechanical problems with the airplane, she said there were not any. During a telephone interview with the flight instructor, he stated that the approach to the runway was a little “rocky” due to winds, and just as they were about to touch down, a gust of wind caused the airplane to balloon up. He said the pilot did not recover and he did not react quickly enough, and the airplane struck the runway. When asked if there were mechanical issues with the airplane, he said there were none. The flight instructor did not submit a written report of the accident. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.

NTSB Probable Cause

The flight instructors inadequate supervision of the flight and delayed remedial action and the pilot’s improper landing flare during which resulted in a hard landing.

Full Narrative

The pilot receiving instruction reported that the flight was a cross-country instructional flight in preparation for a commercial pilot certificate. The flight progressed uneventfully to several airports and returned to the original departure airport. The pilot and flight instructor discussed the approach to the airport and decided on a straight-in approach. When they descended to about 1,000 ft above ground level (agl), the turbulence intensified. The pilot flew the approach manually, at 60 to 65 kts., and maintained a stable glidepath using the precision approach path indicator (PAPI) to aid guidance. At 400 ft agl a rapid sink rate started and the pilot added power to regain the glideslope. When the airplane crossed the runway threshold, the pilot reduced engine power to idle and initiated a flare. A gust of wind caused momentary instability, and she called “go-around” and added power to initiate a go-around. Just as she did this, the flight instructor pulled aft on the control stick, but no positive transfer of control occurred. The airplane’s nose pitched up abruptly which resulted in a tail strike, aerodynamic stall, and right-wing drop. In an earlier telephone interview with the pilot, she said that during the landing approach, the autopilot was disengaged about 1,000 ft agl. Just as they were about to touch down, a gust of wind caused the approach to become unstable, and she applied power to go-around when the CFI took control of the airplane. She noted that she did not hear a “my airplane” command or similar. The CFI pulled back on the controls and she thinks the airplane stalled and it also struck the ground tail first. When asked if there were any mechanical problems with the airplane, she said there were not any. During a telephone interview with the flight instructor, he stated that the approach to the runway was a little “rocky” due to winds, and just as they were about to touch down, a gust of wind caused the airplane to balloon up. He said the pilot did not recover and he did not react quickly enough, and the airplane struck the runway. When asked if there were mechanical issues with the airplane, he said there were none. The flight instructor did not submit a written report of the accident. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.

Flight

Event TypeAccident
Event Time15:20 MDT
Nearest AirportERIEMUNI (0nm SSW)
Runway16/3
Runway Length4700 ft
Runway Width60 ft
Aircraft FireNo
Aircraft ExplosionNo

Aircraft

AircraftJmb Aircraft S R O VL-3LSA-912
Tail NumberN593TT
Aircraft CategoryAir
DamageSubstantial
OperatorN593Tt Rental
Operating RulePart 91
Engines1
Engine TypeReciprocating
Engine DetailsRotax · 912ULS · Reciprocating · 100
Seats2

People & Injuries

Injury SummaryNo injuries (2 uninjured)
Fatal0
Serious0
Minor0
Uninjured2
Total2
Crew 1Age 47 · Second Class · None
Crew 2Age 24 · First Class · None

Conditions

ConditionsVMC
LightDaylight
Wind280° @ 7 kt
Visibility7 sm
CeilingNone
Temperature / Dew Point52 F
Altimeter30.12 inHg
Observation Time15:15
Weather SourceWFAC

Appendix: Source Data