A plane owned by former NASCAR driver Greg Biffle crashed Thursday morning after taking off from an airport in Statesville, N.C., just north of Charlotte.
As of early afternoon, officials haven’t released the names of the plane’s occupants.
The plane, listed as a Cessna C550 business jet, reportedly tried returning to the airport shortly after takeoff.
He was a good guy, it's a tragedy that all the occupants were killed in the crash. Y'all may remember he was the NASCAR driver that flew his personal helicopter, at his expense, during the aftermath of the NC Hurricane disaster with relief supplies.
Biffle is also a licensed helicopter pilot, and in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene last year, he returned to the spotlight by using his helicopter to make numerous deliveries of supplies to those in need throughout the western Carolina region.
Posts: 27666 | Location: Gunshine State | Registered: November 07, 2008
Just damn. Probably like a lot of people I'd "gotten to know him" through Youtube the last couple years. He came off as a good guy, a "regular guy" in so many ways, despite clearly not being a regular guy in so many other ways.
With all the new "flying youtubers" of late I kind of figured it was bound to happen eventually, but I don't think he would have been my pick.
I didn’t look at all the details. They had some type of problem just after takeoff, then attempted to return. First off the weather was marginal, not below instrument landing minimums, but not suited for a visual return.
The return loop was kinda low, tight, with speed down near the end. The reason for the return may be noted by now.
The regular Charlotte airport wasn’t too far away, much better facilities.
Just some general comments, very tragic.
Posts: 7405 | Location: WI | Registered: February 29, 2012
We'll see what comes out. His energy seemed erratic based on the ground speed and altitude variations over the short flight (trade offs to stay airborne as it went in and out?), so I'm kind of assuming engine/fuel issues. But that's a pretty loose guess based on very limited info.
^^^^^^. Yep, it's out there (or, at least the end of it). Watched it this morning.
Lots of folks are blaming the weather, but it didn't look too bad to me.
________________________________________________________ It is long past time for a Convention of States. The Founding Fathers gave us this tool to fix an out of control government and we need to use it.
Posts: 22711 | Location: Montana | Registered: November 01, 2010
For those interested the preliminary report is out, looks like a handful of issues. Some problems included mechanical, weather(for what they were trying), then crew issues, what ‘crew’ they had. Just not real pretty.
I’m not great at reading those reports but I can’t decipher any actual problems that led to the crash. Sounds like the biggest issue was trying to stay VFR. Altitudes varied wildly I assume in the attempt to stay out of the clouds. I know they mentioned a difference in ITT but no mention of loss of power.
This one sounds like an avoidable one.
Posts: 8479 | Location: Florida | Registered: June 18, 2005
Seems to say the ceiling went from 3,900'AGL to 1,200'AGL from start to finish. With the guy in the right seat and the guy behind helping the pilot to find the runway, it doesn't seem visibility was great. The pilot's attention seems to have been occupied trying to fix/fixing an electrical problem with his instruments.
He literally stopped flying the plane and let the unqualified guy in the right seat fly the plane. Did he figuratively stop flying the plane as well? The weather's getting worse, there's a problem with the instruments, they are flying the pattern back to the runway, and the right seat person isn't qualified to fly the plane. I have no idea, but it seems like the pilot has a lot going on in a short period of time.This message has been edited. Last edited by: trapper189,
Posts: 14380 | Location: SWFL | Registered: October 10, 2007
The series of issues is concerning. Thrust reverser indication inop. How did the confirm the reverser was fully stowed? A noticeable difference in ITT in an aircraft they were familiar with, suggesting it was a new discrepancy. Airspeed indication and possibly other flight instrument failures. CVR fading and garbled.
I am not familiar at all with the systems in this aircraft, but the conversation suggests a significant electrical problem. A main battery running down perhaps, and then apparently resolved after the comment about the alternator.
It suggests they failed to turn on one or possibly both generators, or one dropped offline and was reset. Perhaps pitot static icing due to no electric heat which persisted after electrical power was restored.
The ITT discrepancy is seemingly unrelated to a gen offline. Why the highly experienced captain couldn't fly vfr to landing without instruments is curious. There may be details in the CVR which explain more.
Posts: 11174 | Location: On the mountain off the grid | Registered: February 25, 2002
He brings up that the NTSB report says the pilot wasn't rated to fly the plane without second in command. The NTSB are calling the other two pilots "passengers" presumably they were not qualified to be second in command?
Posts: 14380 | Location: SWFL | Registered: October 10, 2007
Some of the report summary I've read says there was an issue getting one of the engines to fire before takeoff, and that they were having issues once up with electronics failure, gauges non functional, perhaps power related, and that it appears the pilot was too low on approach.
Bad weather, low visibility, power issues, no instruments, combine to a situation where you need someone who is really experienced at the controls.
Posts: 27666 | Location: Gunshine State | Registered: November 07, 2008
The "peanut gyro", which is a backup attitude indicator (usually with altitude and airspeed indications and ILS needles) is a fine instrument, though it is usually not practiced much. Being essentially single pilot, and maybe getting too much verbal input from the peanut gallery, the captain may have been overloaded. Having unqualified pilots might have been more of a hinderance than a help.
He may not have thought to use it, or he may have found it difficult to fly using it. It was something we trained for periodically, so I expect this captain had done it numerous times before in the sim.
The standby attitude indicator runs off of its own internal backup battery in case of main electrical buss failure. So it should have been accurate at least for attitude. If there were a pitot-static icing problem, it would depend on which system was feeding data to the standby instrument whether he had good airspeed and altitude information.
This captain had excellent credentials with his many ratings. Was this an aircraft problem, a human factors problem, or both that led to the accident?
Posts: 11174 | Location: On the mountain off the grid | Registered: February 25, 2002
