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.
Quakertown, PA
The flight instructor reported that the purpose of the local flight was to perform an onboarding evaluation/training flight with a pilot that he had not previously flown the accident aircraft make and model. The flight departed and the pilot performed various uneventful flight maneuvers before returning to the departure airport. Both pilots reported that throughout the flight there had been a positive exchange of flight controls any time the controls were passed from one pilot to the other. Upon returning, the flight instructor demonstrated a stabilized approach and landing for the pilot receiving instruction. The pilot receiving instruction took the controls for a “normal” takeoff. The flight instructor reported that when the takeoff roll began, the airplane began to travel left of the runway centerline. The pilot receiving instruction then overcorrected resulting in the airplane being right of the runway centerline. He told the pilot receiving instruction to correct his heading, which resulted in another overcorrection. The airplane traveled left of centerline and continued toward the left side of the runway. The flight instructor attempted to add right rudder control input and reported that the airplane momentarily aligned with the “runway sideline” before the pilot receiving instruction added more left rudder and he was overpowered. The pilot receiving instruction reported that when the airplane began to veer off the runway centerline he corrected but “needed more pressure than expected” before the airplane veered left. The airplane departed the runway surface, and the flight instructor attempted to “hop” over the precision approach path indicator system, during which the right main landing gear impacted the system and was separated. The airplane touched down and veered right across the runway and an adjacent grassy area before coming to rest on a taxiway which resulted in substantial damage to the right horizontal stabilizer. The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot receiving instruction’s failure to maintain aircraft directional control during the takeoff roll. Contributing was the flight crew’s failure to ensure a positive exchange of flight controls during the takeoff roll.
The flight instructor reported that the purpose of the local flight was to perform an onboarding evaluation/training flight with a pilot that he had not previously flown the accident aircraft make and model. The flight departed and the pilot performed various uneventful flight maneuvers before returning to the departure airport. Both pilots reported that throughout the flight there had been a positive exchange of flight controls any time the controls were passed from one pilot to the other. Upon returning, the flight instructor demonstrated a stabilized approach and landing for the pilot receiving instruction. The pilot receiving instruction took the controls for a “normal” takeoff. The flight instructor reported that when the takeoff roll began, the airplane began to travel left of the runway centerline. The pilot receiving instruction then overcorrected resulting in the airplane being right of the runway centerline. He told the pilot receiving instruction to correct his heading, which resulted in another overcorrection. The airplane traveled left of centerline and continued toward the left side of the runway. The flight instructor attempted to add right rudder control input and reported that the airplane momentarily aligned with the “runway sideline” before the pilot receiving instruction added more left rudder and he was overpowered. The pilot receiving instruction reported that when the airplane began to veer off the runway centerline he corrected but “needed more pressure than expected” before the airplane veered left. The airplane departed the runway surface, and the flight instructor attempted to “hop” over the precision approach path indicator system, during which the right main landing gear impacted the system and was separated. The airplane touched down and veered right across the runway and an adjacent grassy area before coming to rest on a taxiway which resulted in substantial damage to the right horizontal stabilizer. The flight instructor reported that there were no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.