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.
Cocoa, FL
The pilot and the flight instructor were flying the multi-engine airplane in preparation for the pilot’s multi-engine practical test the following day. Prior to departing, the pilots thought that the airplane had a total of 65 gallons of fuel onboard based solely on their observations of the airplane’s cockpit fuel quantity gauges. The pilot specifically stated that the main fuel tanks indicated 1/2-full and the auxiliary fuel tanks indicated 3/4-full. They departed and began a series of maneuvers and scenarios, and neither pilot selected the auxiliary fuel tanks for that portion of the flight. After about 1.3 hours of flight time, and while on approach back to the departure airport, the pilot reported that at about 1,500 ft agl, the airplane began to lose altitude and he perceived that the airplane’s engines had lost power. Shortly after, the flight instructor took control of the airplane and they attempted to restore engine power. The flight instructor pitched for best glide and began to search for a suitable landing location. During the landing attempt on an interstate, the airplane contacted a passenger vehicle and came to rest between the center lanes of the highway. The airplane’s fuselage was substantially damaged during the accident sequence. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed all of the fuel tanks were intact and the fuel caps remained secured. The cockpit fuel gauges indicated that both main fuel tanks were empty and that the right and left auxiliary fuel tanks contained 1/4 and 1/2 tank, respectively; a total of 23 gallons. About 1 pint of fuel was recovered from each of the main fuel tanks. Given this information, it is likely that the simultaneous loss of engine power to both of the airplane’s engines was the result of fuel starvation.
The flight crew’s failure to adequately manage the available fuel onboard the airplane, which resulted in a total loss of power due to fuel starvation.
The pilot and the flight instructor were flying the multi-engine airplane in preparation for the pilot’s multi-engine practical test the following day. Prior to departing, the pilots thought that the airplane had a total of 65 gallons of fuel onboard based solely on their observations of the airplane’s cockpit fuel quantity gauges. The pilot specifically stated that the main fuel tanks indicated 1/2-full and the auxiliary fuel tanks indicated 3/4-full. They departed and began a series of maneuvers and scenarios, and neither pilot selected the auxiliary fuel tanks for that portion of the flight. After about 1.3 hours of flight time, and while on approach back to the departure airport, the pilot reported that at about 1,500 ft agl, the airplane began to lose altitude and he perceived that the airplane’s engines had lost power. Shortly after, the flight instructor took control of the airplane and they attempted to restore engine power. The flight instructor pitched for best glide and began to search for a suitable landing location. During the landing attempt on an interstate, the airplane contacted a passenger vehicle and came to rest between the center lanes of the highway. The airplane’s fuselage was substantially damaged during the accident sequence. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed all of the fuel tanks were intact and the fuel caps remained secured. The cockpit fuel gauges indicated that both main fuel tanks were empty and that the right and left auxiliary fuel tanks contained 1/4 and 1/2 tank, respectively; a total of 23 gallons. About 1 pint of fuel was recovered from each of the main fuel tanks. Given this information, it is likely that the simultaneous loss of engine power to both of the airplane’s engines was the result of fuel starvation.