AINsight: Unlicensed Activity in Aviation

On Dec. 18, 2025, a Cessna Citation II was destroyed when it crashed at North Carolina’s Statesville Regional Airport (KSVH), killing the pilot and six passengers. Operating under Part 91 regulations, the twinjet had a planned destination of Sarasota/Bradenton International Airport (KSRQ) in Florida.

Nascar legend and former champion Greg Biffle owned the aircraft. Killed in the crash were Biffle, his family (wife and two children), an ATP-rated pilot, the pilot’s adult son, and one other passenger.

According to the NTSB, the left-seat pilot had multiple type ratings and 17,000 hours TT. His Cessna Citation 500-series type rating had the limitation “CE-500 Second in Command Required.” The pilot’s adult son, who held a private pilot certificate and an instrument rating, was seated in the right seat. NTSB reports indicate that the passenger seated in the right seat “was not qualified to perform second-in-command (SIC) duties per [FAR] 61.55.” Biffle, seated in the cabin, reportedly was a pilot with more than 3,500 hours TT.

This accident highlights an issue with pilot certification and experience in business aviation. SICs, according to FAR 61.55, must have at least a private pilot certificate with appropriate category and class rating, an instrument rating that applies to the aircraft being flown, and a type rating for the aircraft being flown, with some restrictions.

Unlicensed Activity

“Unlicensed activity” is a legal term where an individual or business engages in a profession or service without the required valid credentials, such as a state or federally issued license. Contractors, realtors, and even medical services often involve individuals working without the proper credentials. Other terms used in legal cases include willful misrepresentation or fraudulent representation. These illegal practices are hazardous and cost legitimate businesses billions of dollars.

Obviously, in aviation, this is bad. In the case of the Biffle accident, neither the pilot nor the right-seat passenger were legal to fly the aircraft. Although the pilot was type-rated in 500-series Citations, a SIC was required. The passenger in the right seat did not fulfill the FAA requirements for SIC. In addition to not being trained as a Citation II SIC, he had only 175 hours TT and did not hold a multi-engine rating.

Is this an isolated event or a common issue in business aviation? NTSB records show at least three other recent accidents with unqualified flight crews—two of them fatal.

The Biffle Accident

According to the NTSB preliminary report into the Biffle accident, the flight began with an unsuccessful start of the left (number-one) engine. After both engines started, the aircraft taxied to Runway 10. During the taxi, the pilots discussed that a thrust reverser indicator light for an unspecified engine was inoperative, but that it was working properly.

The airplane departed Runway 10 under visual conditions with the intent of activating an IFR flight plan once airborne. The pilot in the left seat was the pilot flying, while the passenger in the right seat performed various checklists and communications on the radio. Weather at the time of the accident was a broken layer of clouds at 1,200 feet with visibility of five miles.

Approximately four minutes after takeoff, the autopilot disengaged—either intentionally or independently—and the CVR captured the pilot making remarks that his attitude indicator was not working and that other left side flight instruments were not working properly. At that point, the pilot transferred control to the passenger in the right seat. Within two minutes, communications between the pilot and right-seat passenger were consistent with the left-seat pilot resuming aircraft. At this point, the aircraft began a westerly turn back toward the departure airport.

Approximately one minute later, the right-seat passenger transmitted over KSVH’s common traffic advisory frequency that “we’re having some issues here.” Subsequent conversations between the pilot and a passenger discussed issues with the aircraft’s electrical system.

The airplane began a left turn (base leg) toward Runway 28 at KSVH. Over the next 40 seconds, the passenger in the right seat would visually acquire the runway and provide directions to the pilot. As the aircraft maneuvered back to the airport and configured to land, the recorded altitude and airspeed continued to decrease. The aircraft then struck the approach light system short of the runway and caught fire. The aircraft was airborne for less than 10 minutes.

Part 135 Falcon 50 Crash

In September 2018, the flight crew of a Dassault Falcon 50 operating under Part 135 overran the runway at South Carolina’s Greenville Downtown Airport (KGMU). The aircraft was substantially damaged. Both pilots were killed; two passengers were seriously injured.

According to the NTSB final report, post-accident examination of the airplane’s braking system revealed discrepancies in the anti-skid system, including a broken solder joint on the left-side transducer and a reversal of the wiring on the right-side transducer.

Before the accident flight, another company pilot reported that the normal braking system was not operating when the aircraft traveled faster than 20 knots. These maintenance write-ups led to the company deferring the anti-skid system with an “INOP” placard placed near the brake switch. This was one of many maintenance discrepancies with the accident aircraft.

The NTSB determined the probable cause of the accident to be “the operator’s decision to allow a flight in an airplane with known, unresolved maintenance discrepancies, and the flight crew’s failure to properly configure the airplane in a way that would have allowed the emergency or parking brake systems to stop the airplane during landing.”

Investigators discovered that the pilot, despite having an ATP certificate, had only an SIC type rating on the Falcon 50. The copilot had just a private pilot certificate with no type or instrument rating, making both unqualified for their roles.

Citation III Encounter with Hail

A newly published NTSB final report details an accident where a Cessna Citation III suffered major hail damage. The ATP-rated pilot, commercial copilot, and passenger were unharmed.

On June 13, 2025, the pilot of this Citation attempted to overfly a line of convective weather at FL410 and Mach 0.75. “The aircraft encountered heavy turbulence and hail,” causing substantial damage to both wings, empennage, and windscreen, according to the report. After the encounter, the pilot descended to FL350, slowed to Mach 0.68, and continued another 495 nm to the planned destination.

Three months after the accident, “the damaged airplane was discovered after an anonymous complaint was made for an unreported airplane accident.” Investigators located the airplane in the owner’s hangar.

The NTSB determined the probable cause of this accident as “The pilot’s improper judgment to circumnavigate convective activity which resulted in extensive hail damage to the airplane.”

According to the NTSB, “The airplane make and model was not certified for single-pilot operations and required two pilots. The commercial pilot (in the right seat) did not hold a type rating for the airplane make and model nor met regulatory requirements to act as second-in-command for the flight.”

Analysis

NTSB reports show accidents involving unqualified crews engaging in “unlicensed activities,” a problem likely underreported. Among these three accidents, nine people were killed. Each incident involved older out-of-production business jets. Two of the three accident flights operated under Part 91, and one was a Part 135 charter. None had fully certified or rated flight crews, presenting a reputational risk for business aviation.