Citation 550 down at SVH

bonefishpete said:
Why they crash? I don’t understand. The aircraft was flying fine? Too sharp a turn to final? Too slow? Throw back to the Thurmon Munson crash. Behind the power curve?
Click to expand...


This is the real question. If they were VFR on final and both throttles were found in the full forward position, why did they come up short of the runway?
 
Ever tried a go around in a 150 with 40 degree flaps, two people on a 95 degree , %90 rh day.
 
The plane was flying just fine despite the self-inflicted errors by the numbskulls up front.

Turning the plane over to the kid while scud running was insane along with Biffle "flying" from the backseat.

Who here would tell Biffle or a similar employer "No" in a situation like this when the CAP is flashing like Las Vegas during startup? The weather is deteriorating fast? Gotta get to that Christmas party in the Bahamas! If you're not cheating the rules, you're not winning! Remember, the report will say "pilots fault", not "employer forced pilot to fly in bad weather and mechanical problems noted before flight".

I'm actually beginning to think that very high-time pilots are the most dangerous because of complacency. "I have 30k hours at Delta, kick the tires and light the fires! Let's go!"

Biffle is at fault. No justification in claiming ignorance of the rules in the legality of this flight. He knew they were flying dirty, along with the Duttons. But gotta save some money for another pilot and give the kid some street cred on a jet.

The wife and kids were Innocent on this flight. The rest of them have blood on their hands.
 
47PILOT said:
This is the real question. If they were VFR on final and both throttles were found in the full forward position, why did they come up short of the runway?
Click to expand...

It may have been said already. He may have fire-walled the throttles at the last moment, but too late, after discovering the plane sinking with the power he had in at that point.
 
FlightmechH3 said:
I'm actually beginning to think that very high-time pilots are the most dangerous because of complacency.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's like a demon tagging along before I even get in the plane. I must constantly remind myself to stop being so damn complacent. From weather briefings, running late then rushing pre-flights, run-ups, becoming over-focused on electronic gadgets, and needing to remind myself just to look out the window.

IMO, complacency is the root cause of many accidents with higher time pilots flying in unstructured GA environments. I'm still less than 7000 flight hours (all GA), but been fighting complacency for years.
 
Complacency is real, but I consider it contributory, not causal in this instance. Ineptitude for the environment at hand is what caused the loss of life. He crashed a perfectly working airplane, and all of the urgencies, especially the electrics flight display boo boos, appear at first read of that prelim to be self-created.

Don't hire vegetarians to cook your steak -- oh schlitz there I go allegorizing again; better check my word count lest the monosyllabics get confusion-angry again and accuse me of pseudo-intellectualism... if they could spell it. :biggrin:
 
At this point I would say no. Early in my career I didn’t set the brake a couple times. Learned from that real fast. Have had the opportunity to use the no word many times over the years after that point. It’s not easy but it’s the most important decision we all make as aviators. Sometimes the hardest no is to ourselves.

This captain should have been there a long time ago. I don’t have any sympathy for him.
FlightmechH3 said:
The plane was flying just fine despite the self-inflicted errors by the numbskulls up front.

Turning the plane over to the kid while scud running was insane along with Biffle "flying" from the backseat.

Who here would tell Biffle or a similar employer "No" in a situation like this when the CAP is flashing like Las Vegas during startup? The weather is deteriorating fast? Gotta get to that Christmas party in the Bahamas! If you're not cheating the rules, you're not winning! Remember, the report will say "pilots fault", not "employer forced pilot to fly in bad weather and mechanical problems noted before flight".

I'm actually beginning to think that very high-time pilots are the most dangerous because of complacency. "I have 30k hours at Delta, kick the tires and light the fires! Let's go!"

Biffle is at fault. No justification in claiming ignorance of the rules in the legality of this flight. He knew they were flying dirty, along with the Duttons. But gotta save some money for another pilot and give the kid some street cred on a jet.

The wife and kids were Innocent on this flight. The rest of them have blood on their hands.
Click to expand...
 
hindsight2020 said:
Complacency is real, but I consider it contributory, not causal in this instance. Ineptitude for the environment at hand is what caused the loss of life. He crashed a perfectly working airplane, and all of the urgencies, especially the electrics flight display boo boos, appear at first read of that prelim to be self-created.

Don't hire vegetarians to cook your steak -- oh schlitz there I go allegorizing again; better check my word count lest the monosyllabics get confusion-angry again and accuse me of pseudo-intellectualism... if they could spell it. :biggrin:
Click to expand...
IMG_8789.gif
 
In addition to the kids, believe there was the families assistant and driver. From everything I've read a genuinely good guy, and I'd bet he wasn't aware of the risks.

Reading all the above, it kinda reads like a lot of errors along the way, but maybe at the very end, those last tens of seconds, seems like the pilot either couldn't see/didn't know where he was, couldn't hand fly the plane, or just froze up or otherwise delayed the decision to go around or add power until it was too late. Or in other words, this wasn't just a judgement thing, this was a skill thing.

I hate when these things take out entire families.
 
Is it true that the SP exemption waiver is only valid in the United States? If you fly to, let's say the Bahamas, with no SIC, you get your plane confiscated?

So the kid passenger was there to give an appearance of two qualified pilots.

Biffle was running this flight dirty. So, don't be like Biff.
 
One thing I’ve been thinking about is the captain saying to the kid “your airplane” while scudrunning with instruments failing. We know the kid was at the wheel when he hung a left back to the airport (after Biffle made the only good suggestion of the entire flight, to climb straight ahead into the muck). We’ll never know, obviously, but I’ll bet the kid was all of the sudden and unexpectedly flying a Citation full of people towards an oncoming bank of clouds, dad’s got no instruments , and the Biff is telling him to go IMC, and the kid thought to himself, aw hayell no, we’re going back to where we came from. Now dad’s instruments come back and he’s gotta figure out where they are and what the hell’s going on. Point is, the critical decision to turn back was made by a passenger at the controls. And probably one who was crapping himself at the time.
 
You can’t have it both ways.
mryan75 said:
It’s also one I never made.
Click to expand...
mryan75 said:
I absolutely 100% assume that,
Click to expand...

I’m not claiming qualification guarantees superior performance. I’m saying qualification establishes a minimum, validated standard and reduces risk—especially in emergencies. That’s not magic; that’s how safety systems work.
Click to expand...
Where in 61.55 does it establish a standard, much less one that reduces risk, or even require training for an SIC do anything other than what the guy in the right seat did here?
 
MauleSkinner said:
You can’t have it both ways.




Where in 61.55 does it establish a standard, much less one that reduces risk, or even require training for an SIC do anything other than what the guy in the right seat did here?
Click to expand...
I didn’t mention magic. That was your strawman.

And where in 61.55 does it establish a standard? In 61.55. I mean hello.

(B)(1) Become familiar with the following information for the specific type aircraft for which second-in-command privileges are requested—

(i) Operational procedures applicable to the powerplant, equipment, and systems.

(ii) Performance specifications and limitations.

(iii) Normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures.

(iv) Flight manual.

(v) Placards and markings.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, performed and logged pilot time in the type of aircraftor in a flight simulator that represents the type of aircraft for which second-in-command privileges are requested, which includes—

(i) Three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop as the sole manipulator of the flight controls;

(ii) Engine-out procedures and maneuvering with an engine out while executing the duties of pilot in command; and

(iii) Crew resource management training.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Dank-memes-16-3.jpg
Click to expand...
Screenshot 2026-02-02 at 2.43.46 PM.png

MauleSkinner said:
You also seem to be assuming that a qualified SIC is somehow magically more competent.
Click to expand...
It's not magic. It's training. Someone who is trained is almost certainly gonna be more competent than a random kid.
 
mryan75 said:
I didn’t mention magic. That was your strawman.
Click to expand...
You didn’t, but…
And where in 61.55 does it establish a standard? In 61.55. I mean hello.
[/QUOTE]
If you actually looked at 61.55 you’d notice that there is no standard dot competence, so magic would be the only way 61.55 would ensure any level of competence.
 
mryan75 said:
I didn’t mention magic. That was your strawman.

And where in 61.55 does it establish a standard? In 61.55. I mean hello.

(B)(1) Become familiar with the following information for the specific type aircraft for which second-in-command privileges are requested—

(i) Operational procedures applicable to the powerplant, equipment, and systems.

(ii) Performance specifications and limitations.

(iii) Normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures.

(iv) Flight manual.

(v) Placards and markings.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, performed and logged pilot time in the type of aircraftor in a flight simulator that represents the type of aircraft for which second-in-command privileges are requested, which includes—

(i) Three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop as the sole manipulator of the flight controls;

(ii) Engine-out procedures and maneuvering with an engine out while executing the duties of pilot in command; and

(iii) Crew resource management training.
Click to expand...
Literally ALL of which would have been helpful here. And you’re saying a PPL with no training at all can be presumed just as good. Nonsense.
 
MauleSkinner said:
You didn’t, but…
And where in 61.55 does it establish a standard? In 61.55. I mean hello.
Click to expand...
If you actually looked at 61.55 you’d notice that there is no standard dot competence, so magic would be the only way 61.55 would ensure any level of competence.
[/QUOTE]
Oh boy. Might want to actually read it.

B(1)
Become familiar with the following information for the specific type aircraft for which second-in-command privileges are requested—

(i) Operational procedures applicable to the powerplant, equipment, and systems.

(ii) Performance specifications and limitations.

(iii) Normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures.

(iv) Flight manual.

(v) Placards and markings.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, performed and logged pilot time in the type of aircraftor in a flight simulator that represents the type of aircraft for which second-in-command privileges are requested, which includes—

(i) Three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop as the sole manipulator of the flight controls;

(ii) Engine-out procedures and maneuvering with an engine out while executing the duties of pilot in command; and

(iii) Crew resource management training.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
It's not magic. It's training. Someone who is trained is almost certainly gonna be more competent than a random kid.
Click to expand...

mryan75 said:
Literally ALL of which would have been helpful here. And you’re saying a PPL with no training at all can be presumed just as good. Nonsense.
Click to expand...

A turn or two with an engine at idle would have changed the outcome how?
How would three takeoffs and landings have changed the outcome when the PIC was the one landing the airplane?
How would “here’s the book, read it” have changed the outcome?
The only actual training required could be, “when I tell you to read a checklist, do it.” Which is what the guy did, so how would that change the outcome?
 
mryan75 said:
If you actually looked at 61.55 you’d notice that there is no standard dot competence, so magic would be the only way 61.55 would ensure any level of competence.
Click to expand...
Oh boy. Might want to actually read it.

B(1)
Become familiar with the following information for the specific type aircraft for which second-in-command privileges are requested—

(i) Operational procedures applicable to the powerplant, equipment, and systems.

(ii) Performance specifications and limitations.

(iii) Normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures.

(iv) Flight manual.

(v) Placards and markings.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, performed and logged pilot time in the type of aircraftor in a flight simulator that represents the type of aircraft for which second-in-command privileges are requested, which includes—

(i) Three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop as the sole manipulator of the flight controls;

(ii) Engine-out procedures and maneuvering with an engine out while executing the duties of pilot in command; and

(iii) Crew resource management training.
Click to expand...

The operative words Become familiar with the following information.

So what standard is "become familiar" and how is it measured as per the regulation?
 
I can legally 61.55 someone before lunch if I was so inclined. Theres no standard for any of it just a expectation that the person signing off the radio monkey will care enough to do a thorough job. In fact I'd argue any 61.55 sign off(outside of an actual FSI or CAE course or some outlying scenarios) is rubber stamped cause if someone actually cared they'd just take the type ride. If you cant pass a type ride then I'd say your unqualified.
 
falconkidding said:
I can legally 61.55 someone before lunch if I was so inclined. Theres no standard for any of it just a expectation that the person signing off the radio monkey will care enough to do a thorough job. In fact I'd argue any 61.55 sign off(outside of an actual FSI or CAE course or some outlying scenarios) is rubber stamped cause if someone actually cared they'd just take the type ride. If you cant pass a type ride then I'd say your unqualified.
Click to expand...
And I’ve flown with plenty of typed pilots who wouldn’t have been any more competent than the guy in the right seat here.

(@falconkidding , I just want to note that you aren’t one of them. ;) )
 
Ed Haywood said:
Have we seriously reached the point where we are going to argue whether a qualified pilot is better than an unqualified one?

Bizarre.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it’s interesting how people think that a legal qualification that doesn’t require flight training somehow makes a pilot better.
 
There's a fair amount of argument both ways on the value, or reasoning for pilot regulations as applied to this flight. I'll plead ignorance again because all I have is a PPL with some endorsements and ratings. I'm also no fan or promoter of regulation. I like things as relaxed as possible. Having said my limits it seems to me there's logic in the entire regulatory structure as it applies to aviation. Whether it's a sign off, or an endorsement, or a rating, or a type, when we move from 103 to sport pilot, to PPL, to Comm, to ATP - the advancing nature of the operation requires that we have an advancing level of competence compliance.

So, when I heard there was a guy 'just like me' sitting right seat in this plane I had an 'oh spit, this is not going to go well' moment. I also though at the same time that gee, wouldn't it be cool to sit right seat in that jet and get to hand fly! Ratings, endorsements, or not - I would jump at the chance to break this reg and requirement, and woe be it to the ATP in the left seat, and any meat sacks in the back. Shame on me, shame on the ATP, and shame on the owner(with enough experience to know this was way wrong) pilot for letting this low time unqual pilot operate the controls, and allow this to happen.

Aeroflot Flight 593​

 
Let’s not forget that we still do not know the status of a possible SPE.
 
Barrett50 said:
I also though at the same time that gee, wouldn't it be cool to sit right seat in that jet and get to hand fly! Ratings, endorsements, or not - I would jump at the chance
Click to expand...
And here is the dilemma. When you are looking forward and savory opportunities are presented (first twin, first jet, etc.) many times reason and good judgement go out the window. It is at this time you have to look yourself in the mirror and ask if you what you are about to do is wise. In a structured environment with an experienced-in-type pilot making good decisions at each step of the way (including crewing properly), and a well-maintained airplane, this could have been a wonderful experience for father and son. An experience of observing for the son.
 
I see it's common here to editorialize others when quoting, and - leaving out context from the original. Hmmm, not a fan. Oh well.

I need more guidance in the regs here. This was a charter flight. The right seat kid was a PPL with an Inst rating, but NO commercial. Basically, same as me. No twin rating or experience, no comm, just IMC rating. Can I<sic he> even do any lawful flight tasks? SIC? Safety monitor? Radio monkey? Ballast?
 
Last edited:
Barrett50 said:
I see it's common here to editorialize others when quoting, and - leaving out context from the original. Hmmm, not a fan. Oh well.

I need more guidance in the regs here. This was a charter flight. The right seat kid was a PPL with an Inst rating, but NO commercial. Basically, same as me. No twin rating or experience, no comm, just IMC rating. Can I<sic he> even do any lawful flight tasks? SIC? Safety monitor? Radio monkey? Ballast?
Click to expand...
It was not a charter. It was a privately owned aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top