[hurryinhoosier62]

Originally Posted by Nobuddy

What does that have to do with this 550 and this pilot?

The 551 IS the same aircraft as 550; same systems…zero difference except for being limited to flying under 30,000 feet and the PIC having to stay on O2 the entire flight above 12,000 ft AGL. Citation IIs CAN be flown in a single pilot operation.

[Nobuddy]

Originally Posted by hurryinhoosier62

The 551 IS the same aircraft as 550; same systems…zero difference except for being limited to flying under 30,000 feet and the PIC having to stay on O2 the entire flight above 12,000 ft AGL. Citation IIs CAN be flown in a single pilot operation.

Well of course someone CAN, just not legally in a 550. Which is one reason why someone might choose an uncontrolled airport rather than one with full services.

[hurryinhoosier62]

Originally Posted by Nobuddy

Well of course someone CAN, just not legally in a 550. Which is one reason why someone might choose an uncontrolled airport rather than one with full services.

LEGALLY. You just have to stay below 30, 000 ft, wear oxygen 100% of the time you are above 12,000ft and can’t operate on Part 135. Not familiar with the FARs? 551s ARE 550s. They are certified for single pilot operations. Any other questions? I take it you have a LIMITED background in general aviation?

[Nobuddy]

Originally Posted by hurryinhoosier62

LEGALLY. You just have to stay below 30, 000 ft, wear oxygen 100% of the time you are above 12,000ft and can’t operate on Part 135. Not familiar with the FARs? 551s ARE 550s. They are certified for single pilot operations. Any other questions? I take it you have a LIMITED background in general aviation?

I believe the Biffel plane was being operated without a legal second which was required.

But whatever you want to believe is fine with me. Maybe you should read the NTSB preliminary report.

[KS circutguy]

Originally Posted by Nobuddy

I believe the Biffel plane was being operated without a legal second which was required.

But whatever you want to believe is fine with me. Maybe you should read the NTSB preliminary report.

Exactly correct Sir.
No, Greg Biffle's jet was not approved to operate with just one pilot. The pilot, Dennis Dutton, was required to have a qualified co-pilot, which Biffle and the other passenger did not meet the necessary qualifications to fulfill. Yahoo thesunchronicle.com
Pilot Requirements for Greg Biffle's Jet
Aircraft Specifications
Model: Cessna Citation 550
Pilot Certification: Required two trained pilots for operation
Pilot Qualifications
Primary Pilot: Dennis Dutton, an experienced pilot
Co-Pilot: Jack Dutton, not qualified to serve as co-pilot for this aircraft
Greg Biffle: Also not qualified to act as a co-pilot
Conclusion
The Cessna Citation 550 required two qualified pilots to operate safely. Neither Jack Dutton nor Greg Biffle had the necessary endorsements to serve as co-pilot, which contributed to the circumstances surrounding the crash.

[hurryinhoosier62]

Originally Posted by KS circutguy

Exactly correct Sir.
No, Greg Biffle's jet was not approved to operate with just one pilot. The pilot, Dennis Dutton, was required to have a qualified co-pilot, which Biffle and the other passenger did not meet the necessary qualifications to fulfill. Yahoo thesunchronicle.com
Pilot Requirements for Greg Biffle's Jet
Aircraft Specifications
Model: Cessna Citation 550
Pilot Certification: Required two trained pilots for operation
Pilot Qualifications
Primary Pilot: Dennis Dutton, an experienced pilot
Co-Pilot: Jack Dutton, not qualified to serve as co-pilot for this aircraft
Greg Biffle: Also not qualified to act as a co-pilot
Conclusion
The Cessna Citation 550 required two qualified pilots to operate safely. Neither Jack Dutton nor Greg Biffle had the necessary endorsements to serve as co-pilot, which contributed to the circumstances surrounding the crash.

Yahoo is your “slam dunk” source? LOL…When I worked for HCA, we routinely flew our Citation Vs and Citation V Ultras in single pilot operation to ferry the aircraft to a maintenance base in Orlando. According to YOUR source this was illegal; according to the FARs it was perfectly LEGAL. Find a copy of the FAR/AIM ( Federal Aviation Regulations/ Airman’s Information Manual). Read 14CFR 91.5, 14 CFR 61.57 and 14CFR 61.58. To operate a multi engined aircraft certified for multiple crew members in single pilot operation the PIC ( Pilot In Command) has 1,500 TT, specialized training in said aircraft in the last eighteen months, and 15 hours in type in the last 90 days. IF this was a Part 135 flight, it would have been illegal. If it were a Part 91, but not under part K, it would have been LEGAL. I spent nearly thirty years in this industry.

[hurryinhoosier62]

Originally Posted by Nobuddy

I believe the Biffel plane was being operated without a legal second which was required.

But whatever you want to believe is fine with me. Maybe you should read the NTSB preliminary report.

Already have. Have you read the FARs on WHO can be a co-pilot? Once again, it seems you have extremely limited to NO EXPERIENCE in general aviation.

[hurryinhoosier62]

Originally Posted by Nobuddy

I believe the Biffel plane was being operated without a legal second which was required.

But whatever you want to believe is fine with me. Maybe you should read the NTSB preliminary report.

The FARs are on my side. You MIGHT want to read them.

[Nobuddy]

Originally Posted by hurryinhoosier62

The FARs are on my side. You MIGHT want to read them.

You should call the NTSB and educate them. This is from their preliminary report.

[hurryinhoosier62]

Originally Posted by Nobuddy

You should call the NTSB and educate them. This is from their preliminary report.

HUGE difference between having a type certificate rating in a CE 500 and a CE 550…you DO know the difference in the aircraft, yes? Since WHEN does the NTSB enforce FAA regulations. Here’s a hint: research the subject matter BEFORE opining ignorantly. You have ZERO knowledge of the FAA, the NTSB, and general aviation. I have an extensive background in working with the FAA, the NTSB and spent nearly thirty YEARS of daily work experience in general aviation( primarily maintaining Part 91 and Part 135 aircraft)