Citation 550 down at SVH

Albany Tom said:
Asking because I know that unlike a PA-28, you can't just level off at 300', fly happily along level for a mile, then decide to land...but I don't know what the capabilities and parameters are in a Citation if you found yourself way low for where you should be on a visual approach.
Click to expand...
One could do that in a Citation if one chose to do so.
 
Do we know why they elected to land 28?
 
MauleSkinner said:
One could do that in a Citation if one chose to do so.
Click to expand...
*I* couldn't, but it's comforting to know it's possible, should I ever find myself in the back of one. After reading this and some others, I'd have some questions for the pilot first, though. "So do all the things that are supposed to work on this before we fly actually really work?"
 
CRM was nonexistent. The right seat passenger was deferential to his dad and was out of his league. The lack of professionalism all around got everyone killed.

Was a checklist even run?
 
FlightmechH3 said:
CRM was nonexistent. The right seat passenger was deferential to his dad and was out of his league. The lack of professionalism all around got everyone killed.

Was a checklist even run?
Click to expand...
Not blaming the sub 200 hour ifr pilot. Was a **** situation he was put in by his father and a controlling airplane owner. Was biff helping or was he a distraction? Would things have been different if the kid hopped out when it hit the fan and let Biffle troubleshoot from a pilot position? Would things have been different if biffle was with his wife and kids?
 
Racerx said:
Do we know why they elected to land 28?
Click to expand...
It appears there was temporarily no CVR recording as they approached from the west and then started the left downwind for 28. The CVR then began to work again. I seem to recall that the radio transmission from them came through about that time stating they were having problems. This somehow may relate to another airplane trying to take off on 10. Also, it could be related to the right seat non-rated pilot flying at that time and he was in no position to set up for landing on 10. Hard to know since the CVR work wasn’t working at that moment.
 
JimLAFB said:
Do they do that anymore? Circa 50s thru 70s you had to know how to build the airplane. Circa 80s thru 90s you had to know how to read the procedure and why the steps were taken. Since then I think you only needed to know how to read.
Click to expand...
The initial I just went through was almost all systems for the ground portion. It was not the old "build the airplane" type thing at least, it was more about what's powered by what, what the failure modes are and how to deal with them, etc as you describe for "80s and 90s".

I think 90s/early 2000s still had some "build the airplane" type stuff in the bizjet world, I remember John Deakin retiring from JAL and getting a Gulfstream type for his retirement job and just eviscerating the training org for teaching a bunch of useless crap.
 
Albany Tom said:
To the folks that fly these things.... I've read the report and I don't understand what happened in the last minute or two. From the report, he was about 275' AGL when they reported seeing the runway, and from what I can read of the 3 data points they were in a descent, maybe 250-500 or so fpm. That's kinda suggesting to me that visibility was either way worse than the 5 miles/1200 broken reported, or that they were just low and didn't know where they were. But either way, does it look like they were trying to land and just were coming in way too low visually, or they were trying to go around and didn't get things configured correctly fast enough, or something else?
Click to expand...
To me this is really the thing I don't understand, maybe from ignorance. If you turned final where they did and noticed that you're only 275' AGL, you'd think you add a decent amount of power and at least attempt to level the plane. I don't get it. Was there also an actual engine issue? The prelim seems to suggest not. Were they just fixated on getting it back to the runway and forgot to FTFA?
 
Doc Holliday said:
Are we going to start playing "what if's" now?
Click to expand...
I'll take that as you don't know.

FYI, relying on my 25-year-old memory of the system, you should check for a blown current limiter after shutting down after flight (in addition to another check before flight after engine start) by looking for a checkerboard pattern on the annunciator panel in which one GEN OFF light is not lit. But somebody more current than me can correct me if that' isn't right. Except you because you don't know.
 
mark.staggs said:
To me this is really the thing I don't understand, maybe from ignorance. If you turned final where they did and noticed that you're only 275' AGL, you'd think you add a decent amount of power and at least attempt to level the plane. I don't get it. Was there also an actual engine issue? The prelim seems to suggest not. Were they just fixated on getting it back to the runway and forgot to FTFA?
Click to expand...

The PIC was overwhelmed. Here he is in a new airframe and I would venture to say he didn't have a good understanding of the systems or procedures. Couple in having his inexperienced son in the right seat and a owner sitting behind them. Now add in some weather and no communication with ATC.

This results in tunnel vision taking over. The stress levels are way up there and now there is a rush to get back on the ground.

The PIC has spent a career in a highly controlled environment of operations and training. Now he's in one in which everything falls onto him, he no longer has a guy in the other seat to help him and his training on the jet probably wasn't anything near what he was use to in the 121 world.

Mistakes start happening. I was told decades ago "You are only as good as your last approach". Still holds true today.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I think 90s/early 2000s still had some "build the airplane" type stuff in the bizjet world, I remember John Deakin retiring from JAL and getting a Gulfstream type for his retirement job and just eviscerating the training org for teaching a bunch of useless crap.
Click to expand...

Training at the Part 142's out there for a 61 type rating is a "cooperate-graduate" type program. Sometimes you get lucky and get some really dedicated instructors who really enjoy teaching and other times you get some guy that has bombed out of every other job and is there for the paycheck. But they are a customer driven industry and want returning business. Start increasing the standards and making it more difficult and customers go elsewhere (if the competitor has a sim for the same type).
 
Affordability: unwilling to pay for a pro crew

Crew is the operative word


I saw this in another forum:

To summarize
Captain required a SIC but no SIC present
No checklist use, no pre-departure brief
Took off VFR under a sub 4000ft cloud deck hoping to get IFR clearance in the air AFTER attempting to get one on the ground thrice
Abnormal engine start and TR indications suggesting something is off…
7 people in the plane, 4 of them pilot rated.
Not one of them said - hold on a minute.
Wow.
 
I'm surprised at the amount of people calling out picking up clearance in the air. while not ideal, it's also not uncommon and certainly didn't cause this incident. link in the chain? def could be. but a major contributing factor? methinks not. but wtf do I know (spoiler alert not much).
 
MKERSW said:
Affordability: unwilling to pay for a pro crew

Crew is the operative word
Click to expand...

OK, so how do you know this? Did you speak with him about it? If so, please tell us.

MKERSW said:
I saw this in another forum:

To summarize
Captain required a SIC but no SIC present
Click to expand...
As someone else mentioned there still is no verification on whether or not the PIC had an exemption.

MKERSW said:
No checklist use, no pre-departure brief
Click to expand...
From the prelim: "The pilot performed the takeoff and departure while the right seat passenger performed various checklists". While there was no mention of a pre-departure brief, that could have happened before engine start.
MKERSW said:
Took off VFR under a sub 4000ft cloud deck hoping to get IFR clearance in the air AFTER attempting to get one on the ground thrice
Click to expand...
It's not an uncommon procedure to get a clearance in the air.

MKERSW said:
Abnormal engine start and TR indications suggesting something is off…
Click to expand...
Agreed on that.
MKERSW said:
7 people in the plane, 4 of them pilot rated.
Not one of them said - hold on a minute.
Wow.
Click to expand...

Tunnel vision again. The guy in the left seat was a 17,000 hour retired 121 guy. The typical assumption is he has to know what he's doing, although that's not always the case.

But back to your accusation the owner couldn't afford the airplane. Care to elaborate?
 
MKERSW said:
Abnormal engine start and TR indications suggesting something is off…
Click to expand...
That's the nexus I was referring to above. With a blown 225a current limiter on the left side, you won't have ITT during start, IIRC. That could make you abort the try. It could also cause the TR lights on that side to not test IF the generator switch is turned off too. Note that the voltage switch is right above the left generator switch and dropping the hand down can click it off easily. Plus, the generator OFF light wouldn't illuminate either, since the bus would be unpowered. See my previous caveat re: my memory. Looking for a current type-rated instructor to critique.
 
Last edited:
eman1200 said:
I'm surprised at the amount of people calling out picking up clearance in the air. while not ideal, it's also not uncommon and certainly didn't cause this incident. link in the chain? def could be. but a major contributing factor? methinks not. but wtf do I know (spoiler alert not much).
Click to expand...
I agree with you. With a jet, a 3900' ceiling is low enough that a normal climb is going to be there is less than 4 minutes. I think I'd want to have my flight plan active rather than have to level off. But, given that the airplane never climbed above 1300-1400' it's hard to say it was even a minor contributing factor.
 
dtuuri said:
FYI, relying on my 25-year-old memory of the system, you should check for a blown current limiter after shutting down after flight (in addition to another check before flight after engine start) by looking for a checkerboard pattern on the annunciator panel in which one GEN OFF light is not lit. But somebody more current than me can correct me if that' isn't right. Except you because you don't know.
Click to expand...
You are correct.
eman1200 said:
I'm surprised at the amount of people calling out picking up clearance in the air. while not ideal, it's also not uncommon and certainly didn't cause this incident. link in the chain? def could be. but a major contributing factor? methinks not. but wtf do I know (spoiler alert not much).
Click to expand...
Eh, in a piston, yes, but in the Citation, you’d not want to try and pick it up in the air with a ceiling that low. You’re at 4,000ft within about a minute and a half. Lots going on with call outs, after take off / climb checks on top of trying to pickup, write down and read back a clearance. That’s not to say you couldn’t level off prior to and pick up the clearance, but just food for thought.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I agree with you. With a jet, a 3900' ceiling is low enough that a normal climb is going to be there is less than 4 minutes. I think I'd want to have my flight plan active rather than have to level off. But, given that the airplane never climbed above 1300-1400' it's hard to say it was even a minor contributing factor.
Click to expand...
update: after watching hoover's video he stated there was a weather report that came out shortly after the one they got that reported significantly lower cloud levels, low enough to me to indicate they absolutely should have gotten clearance on the ground. however, I still don't think it was a major contributing factor, but still a link.
 
RyanB said:
Eh, in a piston, yes, but in the Citation, you’d not want to try and pick it up in the air with a ceiling that low. You’re at 4,000ft within about a minute and a half. Lots going on with call outs, after take off / climb checks on top of trying to pickup, write down and read back a clearance. That’s not to say you couldn’t level off prior to and pick up the clearance, but just food for thought.
Click to expand...
yeah I get it. especially with a low time kid helping you out.
 
dtuuri said:
That's the nexus I was referring to above. With a blown 225a current limiter on the left side, you won't have ITT during start, IIRC. That could make you abort the try. It could also cause the TR lights on that side to not test IF the generator switch is turned off too. Note that the voltage switch is right above the left generator switch and dropping the hand down can click it off easily. Plus, the generator OFF light wouldn't illuminate either, since the bus would be unpowered. See my previous caveat re: my memory. Looking for a current type-rated instructor to critique.
Click to expand...
My book shows that the LH Start is on that bus also.
 
midlifeflyer said:
But, given that the airplane never climbed above 1300-1400' it's hard to say it was even a minor contributing factor.
Click to expand...
They got up to 4500' though. Unless I'm misreading the report, they ended up going IMC w/o being able to open their flight plan while trying to troubleshoot their electric problems.
 
Doc Holliday said:
The PIC was overwhelmed. Here he is in a new airframe and I would venture to say he didn't have a good understanding of the systems or procedures. Couple in having his inexperienced son in the right seat and a owner sitting behind them. Now add in some weather and no communication with ATC.

This results in tunnel vision taking over. The stress levels are way up there and now there is a rush to get back on the ground.

The PIC has spent a career in a highly controlled environment of operations and training. Now he's in one in which everything falls onto him, he no longer has a guy in the other seat to help him and his training on the jet probably wasn't anything near what he was use to in the 121 world.

Mistakes start happening. I was told decades ago "You are only as good as your last approach". Still holds true today.
Click to expand...
Was he in a new airframe?
 
RyanB said:
Eh, in a piston, yes, but in the Citation, you’d not want to try and pick it up in the air with a ceiling that low. You’re at 4,000ft within about a minute and a half. Lots going on with call outs, after take off / climb checks on top of trying to pickup, write down and read back a clearance. That’s not to say you couldn’t level off prior to and pick up the clearance, but just food for thought.
Click to expand...
Cool thing about airplanes is you can level off, pull the thrust back, and get stuff done that needs to be done. Even in Citations.
 
mark.staggs said:
To me this is really the thing I don't understand, maybe from ignorance. If you turned final where they did and noticed that you're only 275' AGL, you'd think you add a decent amount of power and at least attempt to level the plane. I don't get it. Was there also an actual engine issue? The prelim seems to suggest not. Were they just fixated on getting it back to the runway and forgot to FTFA?
Click to expand...
Good question; bear in mind that the terrain also gently rises on approach, which may have had some effect.
 
eman1200 said:
update: after watching hoover's video he stated there was a weather report that came out shortly after the one they got that reported significantly lower cloud levels, low enough to me to indicate they absolutely should have gotten clearance on the ground. however, I still don't think it was a major contributing factor, but still a link.
Click to expand...
Without knowing the root cause for sure it's hard to say if it was a major contributing factor. Was there an annunciator light that was illuminated or a warning message that was missed because the PIC was focused on flying while the "SIC" was distracted trying to contact ATC? I'd guess with the load they were carrying and the distance they were going they probably didn't have a lot of extra fuel to burn while sitting on the ground waiting for a release. As usual a chain of minor miss steps led to a tragedy. Without knowing the plane systems, it certainly sounds to me like it was a breaker or generator problem. Had a very similar situation happen to me once when I departed in the dark headed to OSH. I hit the wrong switch when I reached for the cockpit lighting and tripped the breaker for the main alternator. After 20 minutes or so I started to notice dim lighting and weak radio transmissions and detected the tripped breaker.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Which requirements does that ignore?
Click to expand...
So, no qualified SIC as required, airplane with a multitude of issues (various cockpit indicator lights inop), taking off into IMC without an IFR clearance, pilot’s instruments go t*ts up and now you’ve got a PPL with 175 hours TT flying the plane in IMC.

I will say once again, perhaps a qualified SIC per the requirements for this flight may have been a halfway decent idea.

Heck I’m trying to think of a bad decision they didn’t make.
 
Last edited:
He had been flying Citations for a bit. One of my friends had FO'd with him a few times (not in Biffle's plane).
 
mryan75 said:
So, no qualified SIC as required, airplane with a multitude of issues (various cockpit indicator lights inop), taking off into IMC without an IFR clearance, pilot’s instruments go t*ts up and now you’ve got a PPL with 175 hours TT flying the plane in IMC.

I will say once again, perhaps a qualified SIC per the requirements for this flight may have been a halfway decent idea.
Click to expand...
We still don’t know for sure that an SIC was required.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top