Citation 550 down at SVH

See your post #92 what type rating is needed for SIC outside the US!
 
bonefishpete said:
See your post #92 what type rating is needed for SIC outside the US!
Click to expand...

Ok, so we don’t know what the aircraft owner had in mind. It could be a pilot with an SIC CE500 type would fly the trip from Sarasota to the Bahamas and back. It could be another pilot with a CE500 type would take the trip? We don’t know. We don’t know who was getting off in Sarasota and who was continuing, or even who was scheduled to pilot the aircraft to the Bahamas.

Again, not so sure why you are hung up on this? The flight plan of the accident trip was to Sarasota. Obviously that didn’t occur. And regardless of whoever in the right seat was, and regardless of whether he held an SIC type or just an SIC endorsement doesn’t change the outcome.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Ok, so we don’t know what the aircraft owner had in mind. It could be a pilot with an SIC CE500 type would fly the trip from Sarasota to the Bahamas and back. It could be another pilot with a CE500 type would take the trip? We don’t know. We don’t know who was getting off in Sarasota and who was continuing, or even who was scheduled to pilot the aircraft to the Bahamas.

Again, not so sure why you are hung up on this? The flight plan of the accident trip was to Sarasota. Obviously that didn’t occur. And regardless of whoever in the right seat was, and regardless of whether he held an SIC type or just an SIC endorsement doesn’t change the outcome.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm trying to figure out who was upfront and were they legal to fly? That's all.
 
david.h said:
Facts:
1. Weather was marginal at best.
2. Four people on board were certified pilots.
3. Greg's wife was able to text that they were in trouble.
4. All succumb to the incident.

We will find out what happened. Enough data exists to put the pieces together. But damn, this one sucks.
Click to expand...

At the NTSB brief today, he said there were 3 pilots onboard.

We know that Both Duttons and Biffle had certificates.

That means 2 possibilities:

NTSB misspoke and Wadsworth was a 4th pilot onboard, or:

The Craig Wadsworth in the FAA airman database is not the same person as the one onboard the accident airplane.
 
Tools said:
Hmmm… the ONLY person typed had a SIC requirement, but no SIC or other PIC typed folks onboard?
Click to expand...
No need for that on a domestic flight. Airplane multiengine land is all the right seater would need.

bonefishpete said:
Cathy Grossu told People that the crew was headed to the Bahamas for a birthday trip. The plane was set to fly to Sarasota, Florida, before heading to the island nation. "To think that they would be killed on a birthday trip, that was just such a fun time for the family," Grossu added.

1 day ago · Biffle and his family were headed to Sarasota and later to the Bahamas, according to flight logsCredit: Instagram/cristinagbiffle. In a video ...
Click to expand...
You can't swing a dead cat in Florida without hitting a handful of Citation pilots - We don't know who was going to fly the leg to the Bahamas, so there's nothing necessarily wrong here. Could be the PIC's kid was only there for the first leg to get the experience, and then would swap out with someone.

It's also possible the kid had just gotten the SIC type rating and it's not reflected in the database yet. SIC type ratings are "train to standard", there is no checkride. So, it's quite possible dad was giving him the training, or had already given it to him and the paperwork just hasn't made it all the way through the process yet. Look again in a couple months.
 
bonefishpete said:
I disagree. Young pilots have to learn somewhere.
Can't have 15K hour flight crews in every aircraft.
I've heard before Colgan it wasn't unusual to have Regional 400 TT FO's.
Click to expand...
Yep. I trained countless low time pilots in the CRJ 200 before the Colgan crash. For a new hire to only have 400 was unusual but occurred occasionally if they had an otherwise spectacular resume w/primo internal references. They also required extended IOE and were put on a EOP watch list. During the hiring frenzy 600 was not uncommon at all. 1200 with the ATP written and a 4 year degree was the sweet spot.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
At the NTSB brief today, he said there were 3 pilots onboard.

We know that Both Duttons and Biffle had certificates.

That means 2 possibilities:

NTSB misspoke and Wadsworth was a 4th pilot onboard, or:

The Craig Wadsworth in the FAA airman database is not the same person as the one onboard the accident airplane.
Click to expand...
Craig was a long time personal motor coach driver and race weekend setup guy for a driver who wasn't Biffle, according to a NASCAR crew member I know. He went to work for Greg a couple of years ago in the same capacity, but more for locating the coach and sand toys for vacation trips to Glamis dunes for the family and dozens of other roles that made him an important part of their lives.

He was universally loved in NASCAR, and by all accounts a wonderful person. My friend didn't know if Craig had a pilot's certificate, but he thought not.

Like the effect all passing before their time engender, there's no doubt his loss has left many devastated.
 
Lindberg said:
What does pitot covers being left on have to do with altitude reporting? Do the pitot covers also cover the static ports?
Click to expand...
Good point. On Cessnas (recip and jet) static ports are usually* on the fuselage, with at least on on either side. Citations may have redundant pitot-static systems, which also means that you'd have to leave on multiple pitot covers to lose airspeed and somehow also plug the static sources to lose altitude.

*Usually meaning all I can think of but there may be an outlier in there somewhere.

Nauga
pressed for success
 
MFE said:
My best guess is Dennis was pilot flying, as he was type certified, and Craig was acting as SIC.
Click to expand...
Which would make it illegal, as per the airman database Dennis needed a type-rated SIC.

I’ve thought this for a long time, but it’s like airplanes know the perfect time to get you. Murphy was an optimist.
 
mryan75 said:
Which would make it illegal, as per the airman database Dennis needed a type-rated SIC.

I’ve thought this for a long time, but it’s like airplanes know the perfect time to get you. Murphy was an optimist.
Click to expand...

The single pilot waiver that was mentioned in Juan’s video, does that apply to a pilot or the operation?
 
MFE said:
Apparently Mrs. Biffle texted her mother "we're in trouble" shortly before the crash.

Greg was certified multi-engine but not type certified for this plane. Dennis was type rated for this craft. His son Jack was also on board, also a private pilot, but not rated for this type of craft. Craig Wadsworth, also onboard, was multi-engine rated, and type rated on B-17 and DC-3, but not this Cessna.

My best guess is Dennis was pilot flying, as he was type certified, and Craig was acting as SIC.

They clipped two fences and made groundfall just short of the runway, so they *almost* made it.
Click to expand...
The Craig in the FAA registry is not the same one who was on the plane.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
SIC type ratings are "train to standard", there is no checkride.
Click to expand...
And since there’s no standard to train to, it’s simply “train.” And a close look at 61.55 reveals that no training on the airplane is required…one simply needs to “Become familiar with the following information for the specific type aircraft for which second-in-command privileges are requested…” and “performed and logged pilot time….”
The only training actually required is “Crew resource management training.”
 
Last edited:
Tarheelpilot said:
Depends.

How low are the clouds? Do I still have good attitude data?

Lots of possible answers. Very dependent on the situation.
Click to expand...

Right... very dependent on the situation. A very fast judgement has to be made as which choice (staying visual or climbing into IMC conditions) is the safer course of action. Obstacles and terrain elevations surrounding the airport are a part of that choice, including the view was outside the windows.

Departing home base has increased familiarity and knowledge of surrounding terrain and obstacles. Which in this crash was also likely to have influenced the decision to stay low and visual.

Whatever happened hopefully turns out to be a real enough threat to safety to rush the return back to the runway.
 
I think I sorta started it… and mentioned not causal (probably).

It may be a link in the chain, it may not.

It seems they had control, but were short. Short seems to indicate power.

They turned back for some reason…

I’m still in the camp of turned back for some engine problem, then got themselves into a regime where one engine couldn’t stop a descent. Which wouldn’t be all that hard to do…

Getting into a situation where one engine won’t stop a descent screams not familiar with simple seat of the pants maneuvering.

A retired major airline guy not likely up to speed in that regime, someone logbook endorsed only in that jet also not likely up to speed in that regime in that sort of equipment. Honestly not many folks would be other than very current business jet guys who do lots of visual approaches to all sorts of places.

This is a mishap which implies not likely and lots of chain links. I have in my mind the first and last links and I may or may not be right, but can’t even speculate on all the middle ones…
 
Tools said:
I think I sorta started it… and mentioned not causal (probably).

It may be a link in the chain, it may not.

It seems they had control, but were short. Short seems to indicate power.

They turned back for some reason…

I’m still in the camp of turned back for some engine problem, then got themselves into a regime where one engine couldn’t stop a descent. Which wouldn’t be all that hard to do…

Getting into a situation where one engine won’t stop a descent screams not familiar with simple seat of the pants maneuvering.

A retired major airline guy not likely up to speed in that regime, someone logbook endorsed only in that jet also not likely up to speed in that regime in that sort of equipment. Honestly not many folks would be other than very current business jet guys who do lots of visual approaches to all sorts of places.

This is a mishap which implies not likely and lots of chain links. I have in my mind the first and last links and I may or may not be right, but can’t even speculate on all the middle ones…
Click to expand...
The 550 was my first type rating. Been a long time but I still remember some of the sim scenarios where we had to delay final configuration on a SE approach because it was dang near max continuous thrust to maintain level flight and not that much below it to stay on the GS.

It’s an easy airplane to fly and a great transition into jets but it’s not overpowered…
 
David Loftus said:
Doubtful. A Citation would almost always fly above 18,000 MSL, almost inconceivable they would have taken off VFR.
Click to expand...
That and the ceilings were way below the altitudes they attained. ZTL is reachable on the ground at SVH (125.15). Pretty easy to get clearances.
 
flyingron said:
That and the ceilings were way below the altitudes they attained. ZTL is reachable on the ground at SVH (125.15). Pretty easy to get clearances.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t stop people from picking up that clearance airborne in the clouds. Seen it and stopped a couple guys from doing it when I was in the right seat of corporate jets.

Never underestimate…
 
MauleSkinner said:
One more vote against minimally-qualified SICs?
Click to expand...

You could say that, yeah. There’s nothing magical that changes flying the airplane based on whether the pax are paying or not. Same goes for the SIC’s type rating.

Someone upstream referred to the days when a Comm AMEL was all it took to get you right seat in a CRJ. It’d blow their minds to learn that you could ‘buy’ the privilege of a right seat slot with Gulfstream/Silver I think it was in the 1900 for the low, low price of $30K.

Today, you can just buy a 1200hr block from ATP for another $100K after you paid them $100K for your first 250hrs.
 
Last edited:
I’m in the c-525, not the 550 but I understand they are similar;

bonefishpete said:
left the pitot covers on
Click to expand...

They do get left on. I’ve seen at least 2 instances of melted pitot covers found on the airport surface- but I think this usually happens when pilot starts the preflight inside the cockpit w/o first removing the covers. I always wondered If they melted off by design as a safety feature!

nauga said:
somehow also plug the static sources
Click to expand...
The last one I flew had ‘suction-cup’ covers that attached on the fuse, about knee-high, near the pilot and copilots feet. Too many mud daubers.



www.aircraftspruce.com

Univ Static Port Cover Spc-101 | Aircraft Spruce ®

Univ Static Port Cover Spc-101 An inexpensive, yet very effective alternative to other covers and plugs.
www.aircraftspruce.com www.aircraftspruce.com
IMG_2462.jpeg
 
flyingron said:
That and the ceilings were way below the altitudes they attained. ZTL is reachable on the ground at SVH (125.15). Pretty easy to get clearances.
Click to expand...
Yeah, ZTL's worked me dang near into the pattern at SVH before due to some conflicting traffic, and I would assume they got their clearance on the ground.

Sitting here at about 8 nm from SVH, the weather at the time of crash was realistically a little worse than what the NTSB/AWOS is reporting that it was.
 
mark.staggs said:
Yeah, ZTL's worked me dang near into the pattern at SVH before due to some conflicting traffic, and I would assume they got their clearance on the ground.

Sitting here at about 8 nm from SVH, the weather at the time of crash was realistically a little worse than what the NTSB/AWOS is reporting that it was.
Click to expand...
Hey, Mark. Ron Natalie here across the runway.
 
Doc Holliday said:
That's not true. The requirement is for a SIC, not necessarily a "typed" SIC.
Click to expand...
Correct. 61.55 is very clear that a PPL/Multi/Instrument is sufficient

61.55 Second-in-command qualifications.​


(a) A person may serve as a second-in-command of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second-in-command pilot flight crewmember only if that person meets the following requirements:

(1) Holds at least a private pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class rating;
(2) Holds an instrument rating or privilege that applies to the aircraft being flown if the flight is under IFR;
(3) Holds at least a pilot type rating for the aircraft being flown unless the flight will be conducted as domestic flight operations within the United States airspace [...]
Click to expand...
...no person may serve as a second-in-command of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second-in-command unless that person has within the previous 12 calendar months:


(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 aircraft or 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...

If this was Biffle's personal plane, it seems likely that he could have fulfilled those requirements without difficulty.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Correct. 61.55 is very clear that a PPL/Multi/Instrument is sufficient




If this was Biffle's personal plane, it seems likely that he could have fulfilled those requirements without difficulty.
Click to expand...

The only difference on a 61.55 authorization (log book entry) and a 61.55 SIC type is filing out an 8710-1 and submitting it and having the SIC type on the certificate. Otherwise identical.
 
ja_user said:
Why does everyone think an SIC type rating is required in the US, for 91 flights? Just because an SIC is required doesn’t mean they need any more than a commercial multi.
Click to expand...
Well given that nobody on board had that…
 
Lindberg said:
Planes don't crash because of failure to meet legal requirements. This discussion of what ratings are required seems irrelevant.
Click to expand...
I really hate this argument. I’m guessing the requirement exists for a reason. This flight requires a second qualified flight crew member and didn’t have one. Did it plummet from the sky because the plane realized that? Of course not. Could the presence of said qualified second pilot have made the difference? Yep.
 
I saw elsewhere that someone who knew the PIC said that he had recently been to FSI and was supposed to get his single pilot authorization. The poster did not know if that actually happened.
 
ja_user said:
Why does everyone think an SIC type rating is required in the US, for 91 flights? Just because an SIC is required doesn’t mean they need any more than a commercial multi.
Click to expand...
They don’t need a commercial, the do need to meet a rather long list of other requirements.

14 CFR § 61.55 (b)​

It’s not a short list of what they need beyond a PPL-IR-Multi.
 
mryan75 said:
They don’t need a commercial, the do need to meet a rather long list of other requirements.

14 CFR § 61.55 (b)​

It’s not a short list of what they need beyond a PPL-IR-Multi.
Click to expand...
Depends on your definition of short, I guess.
 
Sort of a rabbit hole here about SIC and type. The crash wasn't due the wrong person sitting in the right seat. It was a crippled airplane or pilot, basic aerodynamics and power. At some point, all planes fly the same. Keep the wind over the wings and high enough to glide to the runway. If the plane was unable to do that, having someone sitting next to the PIC doesn't matter one bit.
 
Great now, we argue over what short, vs long, means...

Has nothing to do with what happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top