NTSB releases preliminary report in Greg Biffle plane crash
Posted by GameSyns@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 175 comments
Posted by GameSyns@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 175 comments
NotASwinger69@reddit
Least surprising news I have read all day.
Two illegal pilots up front in an airplane with their buddy with next to nothing in terms of maintenance or standards.
bustervich@reddit
What makes you say the plane wasn’t maintained?
NotASwinger69@reddit
The comment on taxi out about a reverse light not working, the failed start so the battery could have needed a charge, the comment about the bag engine gauge that didn’t seem surprising.
Oh, how about the fact it’s one of the cheapest 45 year old jets you can buy, with a pilot and owner who doesn’t seem to give a shit about anything else.
Been there a time or two
HuskerDont241@reddit
Sadly, many have me their demise because they just had to have a jet.
Elegant_Ad9852@reddit
The question I have is what was the issue they needed to fly so quickly. I feel sorry for all aboard. The ordeal could have been preventable.
gingerbeardman419@reddit
Isn’t that kinda of a NASCAR type bravado? If something “small” isn’t working fix it later, but get in the race!
AltrntivInDoomWorld@reddit
That was Biffle even not even in racing. Watch his youtube channels vids, guy was proper redneck lol
Classic_Crow5035@reddit
Exactly. I went down a rabbit hole of his Youtube videos after his death. He was reckless with his own safety and his family's. That seemed to be his M.O. Cristina seemed very aware of this and was ALWAYS concerned for their safety.
njsullyalex@reddit
Sorta. Captain is certified to fly the Citation 550 and was legal, BUT required a C550 certified second in command in the right seat and wasn’t certified to fly it solo. The second in command in the right seat was a legal pilot but not certified on the C550.
NotASwinger69@reddit
So, the captain was illegal.
Classic_Crow5035@reddit
Exactly. Captain was not legal to fly the plane without a certified SIC.
pilotben97@reddit
The ‘SIC’ also had a grand total of like 175 hours and was given control (at least briefly) of a high performance/complex jet in low vmc or illegally in IMC, I don’t know if it would have made a difference, but having a certified SIC or even Greg in the right seat seems like it would have made more sense with the weather. Sad stuff, feel even worse for Greg’s ex wife now. Allowing your kid to go on a trip with her dad thinking he’ll keep her safe and they fly illegally in at least 1 if not 2 ways (they climbed to over 4K feet after discussing climbing through the clouds VFR, then they descended and reported the ground in site - implying they didn’t see it previously)
barkingcat@reddit
that means it's illegal, no?
if I'm legal to drive, but have to wear glasses, and I don't wear glasses, it means I am not legal to drive despite the fact I'm licensed to drive.... with glasses.
redditredditredditOP@reddit
I’m new to this, do the reports usually include a “maintenance record” paragraph? I didn’t see any mention of/review of maintenance records.
NotASwinger69@reddit
Yo gotta read between the lines and have experience doing this exact job for these exact people.
redditredditredditOP@reddit
I’m not questioning your assessment, I find it strange the report does not reference maintenance. However embarrassing, I’ve historically watched video rundowns on accidents and not read the reports/preliminary report. So I don’t know if the omission is normal or not.
You’re right it doesn’t take a genius to read the cabin dialogue and the voice recorder being compromised really stood out because that’s built to survive a crash and it was fading before the crash - so major indicator of mechanical issues. So then the next question would be, what are the maintenance records like.
And the report says nothing.
So is that abnormal or normal?
stan_cartman@reddit
it's the preliminary report. The NTSB sets the standard for accident investigations. Because they are so thorough, final reports can take up to a year. Before the report is released, they typically have a hearing and make the docket for the investigation public. The following is the link to a similar high profile accident. You will find it to be very thorough.
Kobe Bryant Helicopter Crash
timhasselbeckerstein@reddit
All of that was because the generator wasn't on. Battery was struggling to provide enough juice for the engines and electronics. Once Biffle brought up the "alternator," the pilot turned the generator on and all the electrical bugs in the recording stopped and they didn't say another word about the pilot's instruments not working right.
"At 1014:05 the rear passenger made a query to the pilot regarding power to the “alternator” (NOTE: the CE-550 airplane is not equipped with an alternator). About 4 seconds later audio quality returned to previous levels on all recorded CVR audio channels. After the audio quality returned, the pilot made a comment indicating that was the “problem”, however, did not specify what the “problem” was or what actions were taken to correct it. There were no additional discussions regarding the pilot’s flight instrumentation for the remainder of the CVR recording."
railker@reddit
Not explicitly in itself, not usually; the ICAO annex that guides the content lists a 'Aircraft information' section noting, "Brief statement on airworthiness and maintenance of the aircraft (indication of deficiencies known prior to and during the flight to be included, if having any bearing on the accident)". The NTSB reports don't seem to follow the same template and formatting as other international ones you see from the BEA or other agencies, for whatever reason.
This is only a preliminary report, if there's relevant maintenance information that's likely still under review.
redditredditredditOP@reddit
That makes sense. I think I historically have watched international incidents and probably have set an expectation that doesn’t match.
Thanks.
LymePilot@reddit
Two dads failed their kids. This accident really has me upset.
smoke_inyoureyes@reddit
Yeah pilots son was in college just starting his pilot career…..and Greg’s daughter he had from a previous marriage so she now has to live without her forever bc of this. It’s infuriating as someone who isn’t even a parent myself yet
sadChemE@reddit
Exactly my thoughts. If someone wants to break protocol for themselves, fine, but never acceptable to risk other innocent lives. Really tragic, avoidable incident.
Consider_the_auk@reddit
Even that's not acceptable actually, because it's never a "just you" risk proposition in aviation. They could've also harmed others in the air or on the ground.
sadChemE@reddit
You are 100% correct
Academic-Pair411@reddit
Sybaun
SnooCheesecakes2723@reddit
I am surprised that Chr is stone who wasn’t a happy flier, would take her son on a plane that wasn’t staffed adequately. I know because Greg was a nascar driver he was probably in charge of the decisions about their vehicles including this one and probably told her, “nothing to worry about. Greg flew for delta for decades. We’re in safe hands” and failed to mention that he was not rated to fly this as a single pilot. He probably didn’t realize how much different it is to fly a jet like this with no qualified SIC and the team of people that goes all the work so the pilot can just show up and go up. I suspect not for the first time Biffle cut corners on safety because rules and protocols are for dummies let’s just fly by the seat of our pants. The maintenance is another issue. Obviously they saw at least one gauge not working before take off. Bottom line the pilot is responsible but the owner is responsible for putting an unqualified pilot in that left seat and his kid in the right seat.
Classic_Crow5035@reddit
This is the worst part of this whole story.
Coaster_crush@reddit
Having a unqualified pilot in the right seat with only 175 hours on SEL was a terrible idea. There’s a reason that jet requires 2 qualified pilots. Things happen quickly in a jet and who knows if the right-seater was giving the proper support to the P.I.C during the final stages of flight. Sad.
BeenThereDoneThat65@reddit
And yet that jet is certified as a single pilot jet…
YouTube_AdBlock@reddit
It isn’t certified as single pilot. You need an exemption waiver to fly it single pilot.
BeenThereDoneThat65@reddit
THe airplane was designed to be flown single pilot by the owner. Look where the gear handle is. Hell the Excel was designed as a single pilot plane and the first 5 planes have the landing gear handle on the left side of the pedestal.
Insurance and the FAA said it needed to have a crew unless the pilot had a SP Waiver
tyronesTrump@reddit
sorry only the 501 or 551 is certified single pilot under part 25
500 550 is part 25 = 2 pilot unless the gumby gets a waiver
YouTube_AdBlock@reddit
Pretty sure the 501 and 551 is certified under part 23
tyronesTrump@reddit
Yup you are correct...typo error
PBP2024@reddit
What's the criteria for getting a waiver for single pilot?
YouTube_AdBlock@reddit
You just have to take a single pilot check ride and demonstrate all the maneuvers without a sic to help you.
ClarksonianPause@reddit
So major misunderstanding here - the single pilot exemption is ONLY valid in US airspace, and many owners/pilots have had their planes impounded on foreign soil for not fulfilling the legal requirements to operate the aircraft. Because the destination of the flight was to the Bahamas, even if the pilot had the exemption, the second leg of the trip would not be legal.
eric-neg@reddit
I’m sorry… the aircraft was impounded? Wouldn’t they just fly out another pilot for the flight if they got rejected from leaving for some reason?
NotASwinger69@reddit
Which the captain wasn’t legal for either
Btwells1@reddit
It’s certified for two, but you can get a waiver to fly it single pilot. The waiver is only good for 12 months and must get renewed to remain legal
Coaster_crush@reddit
Yes. My statement was unclear. The left seat pilot required another qualified pilot to operate the jet.
Call me overly cautious but the thought of single-pilot jet operations makes me nervous.
TexasBrett@reddit
So the pilot flew the plane into the ground is what I read. Damn.
redfiretrucks@reddit
Yes, but everything before event that is the story.
Chain of events that went bad from not having generators on during take-off which created low voltage which led to instrument failure which created pilot overload with an uncertified set of pilots in front which created too many distractions until they flew the plane into the ground.
It's always a chain of events that begin with one broken link in the chain and then the next one also fails.
SWMovr60Repub@reddit
You’re just speculating on the generators right. Not busting yours chops but I didn’t read that.
redfiretrucks@reddit
The NTSB mandate from Congress is that all conclusions and recommendations must come after the final hearing and be voted on by the Board. The staff that prepares the preliminary reports can only provide statements of facts, not conclusions. The "salt" the report with "hints" or pathways for the reader to reach conclusions, without actually stating them.
In this case, the clues are fairly obvious. The generators were not engaged and the aircraft was operating on battery power. After a lengthy start process, the batteries were run down and various instruments and avionics, including the cockpit voice reporter, started malfunctioning. The plane owner realized what was happening and mentioned the "alternator", which was really a generator. Once they turned on the generators, the electrical systems came back online.
Basically they flew a perfectly good aircraft into the ground because their attention was directed to the electrical power issue. Here are the relevant sections from the report:
"Page 3 of 8 WPR26MA063 At 1014:05 the rear passenger made a query to the pilot regarding power to the “alternator”(NOTE: the CE-550 airplane is not equipped with an alternator). About 4 seconds later audio quality returned to previous levels on all recorded CVR audio channels. After the audio quality returned, the pilot made a comment indicating that was the “problem”, however, did not specify what the “problem” was or what actions were taken to correct it. There were no additional discussions regarding the pilot’s flight instrumentation for the remainder of the CVR recording. "
"During taxi, the pilot and the two pilot-rated passengers discussed that a thrust reverser indicator light(s) for an unspecified engine was inoperative."
"During takeoff roll, the rear passenger commented that the left engine was producing more power than the right and indicated there may have been a faulty gauge."
"he rear passenger noted a difference between the left and right engine interstage turbine temperature (ITT) indications. There were no further discussions regarding the engine instruments throughout the remainder of the CVR recording. The autopilot was either disengaged intentionally, or it disengaged independently at 1010:02.
Beginning at 1010:14 no intelligible CVR audio was captured from the left seat hot microphone and audio panel for the next 3 minutes and 55 seconds.
Starting at 1010:18, the cockpit area microphone captured the pilot making remarks indicating his altitude indicator was not working properly and that additional left side flight instruments may not have been working properly. The Garmin GTN-750 stopped recording airspeed data at1009:37 and heading data at 1010:58."
Hope that gives you a better understanding of the report process. Be safe.
SWMovr60Repub@reddit
Ok that clarifies it.
I’m a Fortune 500 pilot and it never ceases to amaze me how sloppy other pilots are especially an airline pilot.
We’re a tight group and we would never allow anything to get this far gone. Our co-pilots are captains and they would have shut this down before they got out of the blocks.
leonce1@reddit
“Our co-pilots are captains and they would have shut this down before they got out of the blocks.”
Just curious. Are you saying the flight would have been stopped at the beginning? If so, what would be the reason?
SWMovr60Repub@reddit
Not using a checklist for one thing. If they made it airborne without the generators on that is pathetic cockpit procedure. During a time when we were switching over to reading checklists with call and response as opposed to memory checklists I was grounded for 2 months for medical reasons. When I came back the chief pilot wanted to fly with me. While he was reading me the run-up checklist he skipped an item and I noticed and corrected him. He would have noticed if I skipped it. We fly to Flight Safety International standards while this flight had questionable procedures if the generator was never turned on. If there were 2 qualified full-time pilots flying this never would have happened.
leonce1@reddit
Thank you for sharing your experience and replying with a thoughtful answer.
eric-neg@reddit
That commenter went through all of his reasoning but I wanted to make it clear for anyone too lazy to read it: they are just speculating but with an amount of data pointing to it.
redfiretrucks@reddit
I'm a GA pilot but investigate firefighter fatalities. There is one word to describe most of these accidents in both fields:
Complacency.
Folks do it so often and never have a serious issue, and then one time it didn't go the way they expected and bad stuff happens. The UPS MD-11 is a real outlier where the crew had no chance of survival. Most accidents follow this path. As you said, doing it by the book pays off in a great safety record.
NotASwinger69@reddit
I think what he’s trying to say it was a perfectly good airplane that crashed due to pilot error.
Btwells1@reddit
Sadly the weak link was step one. He was required to have a rated SIC, not his student pilot son. That plane should never have left the ramp
tyronesTrump@reddit
CFIT at it's best!
dasoxarechamps2005@reddit
I can’t really tell from the report or maybe I’m just slow. Did the engine fail and they fell short of the runway? Or they couldn’t see and just smashed into the ground?
JMC509@reddit
It appears to be neither. They saw the runway and were flying to it, but likely weren't watching their airspeed and ended up too slow to stay in the air.
BeginningSomewhere87@reddit
The report did not find any mechanical problems with the plane at all.
BlessShaiHulud@reddit
It's just a prelim report so they didn't release a "cause" for the crash. But I don't see anything in the report that indicates an engine failure. And the report does definitively say both pilots flying reported to have the runway in sight. One type rated pilot flying with an unqualified second in command illegally at the controls. Flying VFR in a jet with 1200' ceilings and a plan to get IFR clearance after takeoff. Generator wasn't switched on leading to electrical issues and task saturation. All of this ultimately seems to have led to a horribly botched landing for one reason or another. Seems like they just weren't watching their airspeed, but that's speculation on my part.
Bad decisions, tragic consequences.
Ronix137@reddit
What’s the TLDR?
TheDornado13@reddit
they got distracted/rushed by the weather, didn't realize they had not turned on one of the generators so they were having electrical issues on left pilot side. Right pilot side was un-qualified. They got the plane working properly but because of the rushing, distraction and deteriorating weather they hit lights/antennas and trees before the runway causing them to crash short. or super TLDR is CFIT
ItselfSurprised05@reddit
And therefor the left-side pilot was illegal, because his type-rating required a qualified right-side pilot.
TheDornado13@reddit
yes but illegal and not qualified are very different. We don't know if left seat pilot used to have the single pilot waiver, never had it or had failed it. But he was a highly skilled pilot and qualified to fly the plane.
tyronesTrump@reddit
After that report you last sentence is not holding much water
TheDornado13@reddit
17000 hours who flew for the airlines = highly skilled. Had a type rating for this specific plane = qualified to fly the plane. Even the best pilots can make a mistake and if it is made at the wrong time under the wrong circumstances, people die. That is the unforgiving nature of aviation. His real error was made on the ground by not having a qualified SIC probably because he was trying to get his son some experience.
tyronesTrump@reddit
ex airline guys usually do not do all that well in the unstructured corporate world
BlessShaiHulud@reddit
Maybe I'm splitting hairs but I don't think we can definitively call it CFIT yet. Seems to me there's some chance they lost track of their airspeed and stalled just short of the runway.
Not that the distinction here matters a ton. Poor piloting, poor decision making for sure.
tterb0331@reddit
I wish the NTSB did videos after the final hearing and conclusion, similar to what USCSB used to do (RIP).
i_hate_shitposting@reddit
Damn, when did that happen? I saw some stuff about them possibly shutting down mid-last year, but they uploaded a video last month so I thought they were still going.
tterb0331@reddit
Yeah I saw that video and thought to myself “whelp, this is likely the last one.” From the last thing I saw, there was an allotment of $0 for the CSB in the ‘26 fiscal budget. I believe some lawmakers were fighting to secure funding, but I haven’t heard if anything about them being successful.
i_hate_shitposting@reddit
Well, speak of the devil. I don't know if it's their last last one or if they secured funding, but a new USCSB video just dropped.
https://youtu.be/9h3bar6eIss
tterb0331@reddit
Hell yeah 🙌🏻
stan_cartman@reddit
Have you seen the DCA animation videos on YouTube?
tterb0331@reddit
I have. Was very informational, especially with the transposed communications.
CChest@reddit
I see a lot of the comments here still talking about electrical issues and I just wanted to make it clear that- there were no electrical problems with the plane. There were only human problems. Humans that because of a celebrity passenger, or ego, or pressure from the passengers, decided to fly against everything they should have held sacred considering the many many years of experience behind the stick. If the pilots would have followed the checklist- everyone would have lived. Or, if the pilots would have been legally permitted to fly the aircraft, everyone would have lived. Both issues rest in the hands of humans and unfortunately, we are fallible. This “accident” never should have happened and I hope there are consequences beyond the loss of two families.
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
VFR departure with a jet with a 1200ft ceiling... not a great decision.
iceguy349@reddit
A VFR departure in weather in a jet with inoperable instruments and possible electrical issues.
WHAT COULD GO WRONG!
BeenThereDoneThat65@reddit
The Electrical issues were that he didn't turn on the generators Which really makes you qustion the pilots abilities
RexFiller@reddit
Its almost like they require a type rated second in command for a reason
SnooCheesecakes2723@reddit
WTH was the kid supposed to be doing? Steering when they reached altitude like a kid on daddy’s lap? The SIC has a job and this student was unqualified to do it. How could Dutton and Biffle put all these people at such risk- Jack isn’t going to turn down the chance to fly a jet, if his dad tells him he can ride up front. There was no SIC. Just a college kid with a goofy smile on his face. A properly trained first officer would have done the checklist, and ideally had some credibility to be listened to if he said this craft is not safe
mkosmo@reddit
Who does? FAA SIC types only exist to satisfy foreign countries.
Redditations2u@reddit
What likely generated your downvotes was saying "FAA SIC types only exist to satisfy foreign countries".
The implication is incorrect as a blanket statement, since SIC type ratings can be required if operating domestically under part 121.
mkosmo@reddit
We’re not talking 121 ops, though, and 121 SICs require full types, not 61.55 SIC types.
Redditations2u@reddit
Yes agreed. In your initial comment, you had said "lol at downvotes" and my reply was just narrowly commenting on why you might've been downvoted.
In the way it was phrased, the general tone and broad nature of your statement--to my ears-- implied the requirement for SIC type rating was exclusively for the benefit of foreign countries and their requirements. (And I was mentioning part 121 as an example of where it didn't apply to a foreign country.)
I'm not taking issue with anything factual, and I very much appreciate the corrections about FAA rules you have been bringing to this thread! 👍🏻
ItselfSurprised05@reddit
The jet requires two type-rated pilots, unless the pilot has extra rating for single-pilot ops.
The left-seat pilot was not rated for single-pilot ops. The right-seat occupant was not rated on the aircraft, so doesn't even count as a "pilot" and is described in the report as a "passenger".
This entire thing has to do with getting US regulations in sync with foreign regulations. It is a pilot license requirement for people flying in and over foreign countries.
The weirdness of the rule is that it requires a pilot who is type-rated on the aircraft to get an additional SIC rating just to sit right seat. Getting this SIC rating appears to be mostly a formality, and that FAA guidance is basically saying, "This is silly. Only bother getting this rating if you might land in a foreign country so you don't get grounded."
None of this appears to have any bearing on this flight.
mkosmo@reddit
The right seat does not require an SIC type. Just somebody qualified per 61.55. A type is not required to serve as SIC.
This doesn’t change whether or not the PIC has a single pilot type. A SIC type is never required for domestic ops, whether or not a SIC is required.
150_Driver@reddit
The C550 requires an SIC by Cessna/the FAA unless you get a single pilot waiver which the left seat pilot of this flight did not have.
BeenThereDoneThat65@reddit
You mean if he only read a checklist
It’s right there in the afters
iceguy349@reddit
Jesus.
ItselfSurprised05@reddit
A VFR departure in weather
in a jet with inoperable instruments and possible electrical issues
by a pilot whose type rating required a second-in-command, and whose unqualified son was sitting right seat
Radiant-Clue-4218@reddit
Yeah what could possibly go wrong !
iceguy349@reddit
I’m seeing a few red flags here.
aviatortrevor@reddit
The CVR shows they listened to the AWOS and it said something significantly higher, like 4000ft ceiling? I forget... but it must have been a lower cloud layer rolling in right at the time of their departure. Even if they had gotten an IFR clearance on the ground, they still would be dealing with all of the same electrical issues and distractions.
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
They would, but they could climb and get more assistance from ATC, instead of trying to fly a jet low level, avoiding clouds and troubleshooting the electrics.
All while single pilot, as just a cherry on the cake.
aviatortrevor@reddit
Given all 3 of their attitude indicators work on electric, and they were having massive electric/generator problems, I can see why they were jumping for joy on the CVR to say they had "ground contact" and then proceeded to fly a 500ft AGL pattern. I might want to stay visual at 500ft too if I thought I was going to have an imminent electrical black out. They weren't wanting to stay in the soup and shoot an ILS with electrical gremlins and unreliable instruments, and I could understand that.
There are many failures here. The unqualified right-seat pilot along with a left-seat pilot who is required to have a qualified SIC. It seems to me they forgot to even turn on the generators to begin with because they remarked something about "is it the alternator?", followed by the CVR audio getting better and the pilot saying "that was it!", which seems to indicate he looked down at the generator switches an turned them on. Which, forgetting the generators switches would mean they had either not conducted the checklists properly or had done a sloppy job. Maybe the teenage son was the only one reading *and* verifying the checklist and he just says "generators - ON" without truly knowing how to verify that.
Once they were flying a pattern at 500ft AGL, I feel like given the lack of terrain and obstacles there, they could have done a much much better job of flying that pattern. They should have widened way the fuck out, setup for a nice gentle 30-degree intercept or so... they should have taken their time. The visibility was good enough that they weren't going to die buzzing around low at 500ft. It even seems to me they were relatively stable for a time on final. They just needed to push the power up appropriately. Their Vref speed would have been higher than normal landing so heavy with all the fuel and pax onboard. There could have been a bias there looking for the wrong approach speed. Pilot just got distracted on final, thinking about the lack of 3-green indication on the gear (which may have been resolved once he turned on the generators), and he might also be looking around the plane trying to troubleshoot the issue instead of focusing on flying the damn airplane.
AltrntivInDoomWorld@reddit
Ignoring issues and failed gauges twice... Yea shit ain't looking good.
BeenThereDoneThat65@reddit
Passenger was a pilot
melie-moo@reddit
Pilot yes, rated for this aircraft no (and had only 175h flight time)
BeenThereDoneThat65@reddit
the owner is a pilot and had a 61.55
melie-moo@reddit
Your previous comment said the copilot was a pilot which is correct - however they were not rated to either pilot or copilot the particular aircraft involved.
BeenThereDoneThat65@reddit
the Owner Greg Biffle has a 61.55 in the jet.
melie-moo@reddit
His Airman Registry entry says he didn't hold the instrument rating which would be required for him to have a 61.55 unless it was very recent to the flight (although I am happy to be corrected on that) https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1437x1767/img_2759_ed0abdbf3a7da8b2a6177296554ebcb40252ea62.jpeg
ranged_@reddit
You can't fulfil second in command requirements from a passenger seat.
TheDornado13@reddit
it is an uncontrolled airport, you can ONLY do a VFR departure and then pick up IFR once in the air.
bustervich@reddit
Easy day in a helicopter. Hard pass in a jet.
KillerKowalski1@reddit
bustervich@reddit
Heh, I chuckled a little but honestly unless terrain is a factor, 1200’ ceilings might as well be 120,000’ ceilings in helicopter world.
m00f@reddit
Narrator: Terrain was indeed a factor.
ghostlybravo@reddit
Biff must’ve really been in a rush to get his cleetus camera time!
Key-Moose-1735@reddit
as Captain Steeeve says...... 'Get There-itis" instead of evaluating the situation in front of you and making the correct decision even if it means not to leave and miss something or arrive hours/day late....
excavatorTV@reddit
A lot of the initial theories days after the accident focused a lot on the flap setting upon landing. It seems to be very briefly mentioned hear. Does anyone know based on some of the other data if the flaps should have been fully extended as it says they were in the NTSB preliminary report?
aviatortrevor@reddit
Even though their 500ft pattern (to presumably stay under the clouds) was unstable and tight in on their base leg, it seems to me they were reasonably stable on final for a little while. Long enough to simply add power in (with their engines both working, btw), and they would have been fine. So why didn't they? Distraction. They have no 3-green indications on their gear. They just went into IMC with what sounds like a dual-generator failure (probably because the pilot didn't select the generators on, as is evident by his final approach discussion regarding the "alternator", and then saying "that was it" while CVR data and whatnot all suddenly got better. His approach speed that heavy was probably higher than he's used to seeing, so he didn't think about how slow he was getting before it was too late.
Last-Talk7813@reddit
They were at 1,200 feet moron.
dupo24@reddit
If they were fully extended, two working engines should make that overweight and underpowered theory invalid.
gingerbeardman419@reddit
The one that baffles me is flying vfr with a 1200’ ceiling. Why not file an ifr plan?
RedWingFan5@reddit
They did, but for some reason decided to pick it up in the air. Very stupid in a jet.
hiwheymiles@reddit
Weather had been reported at 3900 scattered 5000 - ish broken just before takeoff
sound-of-impact@reddit
Probably so they wouldn't have to hold for release.
pilotben97@reddit
Or pick up a phone
aviatortrevor@reddit
The NTSB report says that they listened to the AWOS and the ceiling was way way higher than that. Like 4000ft if I recall correctly? The METAR like 10 minutes later showed the 1200' ceiling. So, there must have been a lower layer of clouds rolling in on the airport as they departed.
Twisted_Einstein@reddit
Sounds like they might have based on NTSB saying they and were planning on “activating” it in the air. But with ceilings that low, even in a 172, is beyond unreasonable. No way they thought they’d be VFR when they could pick it up.
hiwheymiles@reddit
In spite of all the miscues, the failures, the distractions, they were lined up on about 2 mile final with the electrical problem solved and the runway in sight, with two functioning engines and about 300 feet of altitude.
I'm not understanding why the pilot couldn't keep it in the air until they got to the runway.
Surely that airplane will climb (or at least hold altitude) with gear and flaps down if both engines are running?
The report noted that the thrust levers were at the full forward stops in the wreckage.
There was no mention of whether the plane was loaded beyond max gross weight, but it was full of fuel and had seven souls and baggage on board.
RandomObserver13@reddit
This is what I’ve been thinking about too. 3 sets of eyes looking out that windshield should have noticed sooner that they were too low. One thing I noticed is that it looks like the runway threshold is elevated above the surrounding terrain, and there is a rising slope upward to the runway. Possible that led to some visual illusion? But the distractions caused by their earlier issues and the breakdown of CRM (such as it was) probably played a bigger role. I‘m sure the NTSB will get into that in the final report, and we’ll get a better sense of what was going on in the cockpit from the CVR transcript (assuming they include it).
hiwheymiles@reddit
I just watched Hoover's take and he suggests that at the point they turned final, the pilot was kind of overwhelmed and maybe not thinking about airspeed, and that a certified copilot could have been helpful. I agree that a copilot with the habit of monitoring and calling out deviations of airspeed for the PF on final may have prevented airspeed decay due to PF distraction.
Also, it may be that the PF, with thousands of hours in jet airliners with auto throttles, and relatively little time since retirement with manual thrust, was not instinctively linking his airspeed (survival) to his manual thrust lever response.
Flying an airliner with auto thrust down final does not require any manual power lever movements and under the stress of this moment he may have been slow to remember that he had to keep up with the power levers.
No-Level5745@reddit
Based on the finding of full throttles but decaying airspeed I’m guessing they realized too late they were too slow, cobbed the throttles and pulled too hard on the yoke and stalled the aircraft.
Western_Name2388@reddit
Hate to be this person, but Biff set himself up for this. A terrible tragedy for all involved, nut actions have consequences. This was not a random accident
No-Level5745@reddit
True for most accidents…
gunmoney@reddit
Honest question - how so if he wasn’t flying? Plane maintenance, pilot selection
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
And not paying for 2 pilots in an aircraft, certified to be flown by 2 pilots.
Positive_Wonder_8333@reddit
100% pilot selection.
BigFatModeraterFupa@reddit
All that money still couldn't buy him sense.
It's a real tragedy
Gus_Polinski_Polkas@reddit
It’s common knowledge the guy was retarded - Tony soprano
aviation-ModTeam@reddit
Your post has been removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.
It is expected that all members follow reddiquette, as is current here: https://www.reddit.com/r/%20reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette
If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you for participating in the r/aviation community.
FlyNSubaruWRX@reddit
Swiss cheese model
NotASwinger69@reddit
Yup. 100%
4eyedbuzzard@reddit
Beyond what seems like high cockpit workload, VFR into IMC and deteriorating weather, no competent/qualified SIC, and possible electrical issues and/or generators not turned on, NTSB indicated the plane was FULLY fueled, 7 people aboard, likely with luggage as this was a family trip for more than a day visit (to visit "Cleetus McFarland"), with plan to continue on to Bahamas after dropping Biffle and family in Florida, there are anecdotal reports of medium size dog(s) aboard as well (even more weight, potentially 100lbs or more with dog supplies). NTSB did not comment on this aspect. A possible contributing factor is that the aircraft may have been overweight from either/or a takeoff or landing standpoint as well, playing further into being "on the edge/margins". NTSB report stated landing gear was down (but with malfunctioning indicator lamps), and that pilot requested that the flaps be extended before the gear was lowered, but NTSB did not report the degree of flap extension. Too low and too slow is definitely apparent, flap configuration unknown but possibly wrong due to weight/configuration, and then the realization that they wouldn't make the runway threshold was made too late, is consistent with the thrust levers full forward as well. Very sad outcome, and I think the last line of the final report will unfortunately be simply, CFIT Pilot in command
devJW@reddit
Actual NTSB link as opposed to some third-party website.
MadMike32@reddit
TBF, Jayski is the real deal for NASCAR shit.
RandomObserver13@reddit
Definitely deserves a shout out, I can’t believe he’s still going 30 years later.
airfryerfuntime@reddit
Sharing a PDF link is like having sex without a condom...
fresh_like_Oprah@reddit
the best?
airfryerfuntime@reddit
With a redditor?
Macnsal09@reddit
And a shitty summary by that party as well.
Su-37_Terminator@reddit
you were expecting sex drugs and rock n roll in an NTSB report?
Macnsal09@reddit
Yea, because that makes sense. But no, the opposite of shitty is good. So I would have expected a good summary. Difficult to piece that together huh
AltrntivInDoomWorld@reddit
GOAT, thank you
GameSyns@reddit (OP)
Wanted to share that link originally. It immediately downloaded a file on my computer, and I was worried that it would flag automod. Found this to be the least editorialized news article while also containing the actual report.
SmallBallsTakeAll@reddit
Don’t worry about it everyone. It’s not perfect.
botchman@reddit
The Swiss Cheese Model on this one is fucking tragic. They should have never left the ground.
really_random_user@reddit
At this point it's the american bagel model
DotDash13@reddit
All holes, no cheese
AIMIF@reddit
On top of mechanical issues experienced, Questionable maintenance, unqualified pilots, VFR into IMC conditions. Many avoidable links in the chain of disaster
Rest in peace to all aboard.
BeginningSomewhere87@reddit
The report did not find any mechanical issues at all.
AIMIF@reddit
Trouble starting the engine, Thrust reverser lights out, loss of instrument indication on the PIC side, landing gear lights out, discrepancies with ITT pointed out, the reference to an alternator by the third pilot suggesting an electrical issue. CVR recording problems, airspeed and altitude readouts intermittent from the gps unit
Did you actually read the report?
BlessShaiHulud@reddit
Only one of those things you listed indicates any mechanical issues. Trouble starting the engine. All those other electrical issues could have propagated from simply forgetting to turn on a generator and draining the batteries. Seems to me they realized they hadn't turned on the generator and finally switched it on right here.
He said 'alternator' that's likely an interchangeable term for the generator since they perform very similar functions, even if it's technically incorrect. With no further discussion of instrumentation issues, turning on the generator seemed to have fixed all those problems.
BeenThereDoneThat65@reddit
Completely agree. if the PIC had actually used a Checklist there is a VERY good chance that everyone would still be alive
BeenThereDoneThat65@reddit
The left seater didn't turn on the generators which is part of the afters and on the checklist.
TR Light out? happens all the time on those planes
Loss of Instruments on the left side? Battery shedding load Because the Gens are not on.
ITT mismatch? Let’s of reason for that and it could be voltage because say it with me the Gens are not on.
Biff saying to turn on the Alternators? He’s thinking cars not starter gens
CVR and Intermittent on instruments say it again… Gens need to be on.
this points to a PIC that doesn't use a checklist. Alot of this could have been avoided with a checklist
Paranoma@reddit
Can we stop doing this to ourselves?
tigershrike@reddit
From the report: "The pilot had type ratings for the A-320, A-330, A-350, B-737, B-757, B-767, CE-500, and DC-10"
Non-pilot here...is it common to have that many type ratings?
NotASwinger69@reddit
Ex delta retired airline pilot. Yes.
I personally have 10, but only one is an airliner.
Disastrous-Taste-974@reddit
Current dal pilot with 8 (all of them commercial jets)….we collect types like they’re trading cards lol
sourcefourmini@reddit
How does it work with keeping them current? Is it the sort of thing where once you have a type rating, you always have it, but after a certain length of time you need to take a review?
Zinger21@reddit
Yep you got it. At the airlines there are checks at regular intervals to keep current in the aircraft you are flying. After so long you'll have to go back to school for a refresher/recertification depending on what kind of operation you work in.
I fly corporate jets and I'm looking into flying a type I haven't touched in 3 years. Rather than doing a full 3-4 week initial course I would only need a 5-6 day requalification class.
97ATX@reddit
Are you paying for the course? Or your employer?
Zinger21@reddit
Employer.
prex10@reddit
Yes
BeenThereDoneThat65@reddit
Yes
-burnr-@reddit
Yep
AlternativeEdge2725@reddit
Where was Biffle seated, do we know which one he was?
brianOnReddit99@reddit
Biffle was the only occupant who matches the pilot qualifications listed for the pilot-rated passenger in the back described in the preliminary report.
Dragon6172@reddit
It says he was seated in the back near the cockpit. Close enough for the CVR to pick up his voice
AlternativeEdge2725@reddit
It doesn’t say that that was Biffle unless I missed it, so I was inferring. Thanks.
Newman0072@reddit
We know Biffle was a licensed pilot and since the ATP pilot and his son had their locations called out we know that was Biffle.
SumOfKyle@reddit
Woof
Choice-Strawberry-74@reddit
Oh here come all the “experts”. 🤣😂