NTSB Report: Greg Biffle plane crash | Drudge Retort

Saturday, January 31, 2026

NTSB Report: Greg Biffle plane crash

Just after takeoff at 10:06 a.m., the report says a rear passenger commented that the left engine was producing more power than the right and indicated there may have been a faulty gauge. The pilot continued, however. About 10:11, airplane control was transferred to the right-seat passenger, at an altitude of about 4,500 feet msl. At 10:14, the rear passenger made a query to the pilot regarding power to the "alternator." 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. Audio indicated the right-seat passenger visually acquired the runway and provided directions to the pilot as to where the runway was. About 10:15, the pilot made comments which indicated he had acquired the runway. After the plane aligned with the runway, the airplane continued to descend to 942 feet msl until the CVR audio and GPS data ended at 10:15:23.

Posted by REDIAL at 12:43 AM | 15 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Review of the right-seat passenger's logbook indicated that he had 175.3 total flight hours in single engine land airplanes as of Nov. 29, 2025. The right-seat passenger's most recent first-class medical certificate was issued on Aug, 12, 2024. the reports says he was not qualified to perform second-in-command duties.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"The right-seat passenger attempted to contact air traffic control in Atlanta three times between 10:08 and 10:10 but was unsuccessful due to the controller's workload and associated radio communications."

"unsuccessful due to the controller's workload"

DOGE cuts.

I doubt reaching the tower would have changed the outcome here, but still:

DOGE cuts.

#1 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-01-31 01:26 PM | Reply

I doubt reaching the tower would have changed the outcome here

Probably not. A lot of questions around "crew" qualifications and certifications.

#2 | Posted by REDIAL at 2026-01-31 05:40 PM | Reply

"unsuccessful due to the controller's workload"

Happens often, not sure if filed IFR or not. But in VFR asking for a VFR request (flight following) its at the discretion of the controllers work load. If asking for IFR then the workload would also be a problem because there is no ATC at Statesville, so the IFR clearance is long and involved. So that workload would even be more difficult to accommodate. They might have been able to file over the internet, and opened but still need readback.

I doubt reaching the tower would have changed the outcome here, but still:

Probably not trying to talk to tower, but to a specific Atlanta approach sector.

A lot of questions around "crew" qualifications and certifications.
#2 | POSTED BY REDIAL

Do tell. Seems immature to make such a comment without being specific or without a link.

Not many questions though, only one, why try to complete full circuit pattern why not fly right back in doing the "impossible turn"? Maybe they had enough power to make it. So not sure, in my abort planning if on crosswind and there's an issue we head back to runway opposite of take off.

#3 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-01-31 08:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Do tell.

For one thing, the pilot's certification required a qualified "second in command" in the right seat, but there wasn't one.

The passenger in the right seat was flying the plane for part of the circuit, but was not rated for multi-engine jets.

Stuff like that.

#4 | Posted by REDIAL at 2026-01-31 08:53 PM | Reply

For one thing, the pilot's certification required a qualified "second in command" in the right seat, but there wasn't one.

I wonder if Biffle knew that. The pilot certainly did.

#5 | Posted by horstngraben at 2026-01-31 08:58 PM | Reply

There was no evidence of uncontained engine failure with either engine. Examination of the cockpit throttle quadrant found both thrust levers to be in the full forward position and both reverse throttle levers in the down position, consistent with being stowed.

96 knots? Full forward throttle?

I guess no one was watching the airspeed, till the last minute, but it was too late.

#6 | Posted by horstngraben at 2026-01-31 09:08 PM | Reply

Err...93

#7 | Posted by horstngraben at 2026-01-31 09:09 PM | Reply

I guess no one was watching the airspeed

That's another one of the questions... why none of the 3 "pilots" on board never noticed how low and slow they were.

#8 | Posted by REDIAL at 2026-01-31 09:20 PM | Reply

They had an airspeed data failure.

The Two Pilot Requirement is very misleading. It's commonly flown as a single pilot aircraft. The only difference between a 550 Citation II and 551 Citation II/SP is the FAA Certification category. Same airframe, wings, engines, and flight controls. Part 25 (transport category) requires 2 pilots. They lowered the Max Takeoff Weight on paper, called the 551, and certified it under Part 23 (normal category).

#9 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2026-02-02 10:02 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

What happened to them is most likely what happened to other 550 Citations. There's an alternator issue failure caused by faulty components or loose ground terminals. You get limited battery power after that. The crew gets lost in trying to diagnose the electrical problem and reset the system. Navigation fails, crew communication breaks down, lighting goes out, and your life is now entirely based on how well this pilot can glide and where you end up. If it's not perfect you're all about to die in a fire.

#10 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2026-02-02 10:07 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

They almost made it. Too little engine power, too much fuel, dying electricity, failing hydraulics, but still made the lip of the runway.

#11 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2026-02-02 10:10 AM | Reply

It's commonly flown as a single pilot aircraft.

By a pilot rated for that, unlike this guy.

#12 | Posted by REDIAL at 2026-02-02 11:46 AM | Reply

It's the least relevant bit. He could fly an identical Cessna 551 as a single pilot.

#13 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2026-02-02 01:22 PM | Reply

It's the least relevant bit.

The simple truth is, no one on that plane was certified to fly it.

#14 | Posted by REDIAL at 2026-02-02 10:15 PM | Reply

Nice to see a fucking lying sack of shit fall on his face.

#15 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2026-02-02 10:50 PM | Reply

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy