In the days following the tragic crash of a Cessna Citation 550 that claimed the lives of former NASCAR driver Greg Biffle, his immediate family, and close relatives, a newly surfaced audio recording has added an important but somber layer to the ongoing investigation.

The audio, recorded from inside the aircraft and transmitted over an airport Unicom frequency, does not contain a formal distress call.

However, it offers a rare and haunting glimpse into the final minutes of the flight and helps clarify what the crew was experiencing as they attempted to return safely to Statesville Regional Airport in North Carolina.

The flight departed Statesville on the morning of December 18, 2025, at approximately 10:15 a.m., carrying seven people in total.

On board were Greg Biffle, his wife, their children, family members Dennis Dutton and his son Jack, and another pilot.

The aircraft remained airborne for less than ten minutes before crashing during an attempted return to the same airport from which it had just taken off.

Weather conditions at the time were described as marginal visual flight rules, with broken cloud cover around 1,200 feet and visibility reported at roughly five miles.

Soon after the crash, the National Transportation Safety Board stated that no distress call had been received.

Technically, that statement remains accurate.

There was no traditional “Mayday” or “Pan-Pan” declaration.

However, the recently circulated audio confirms that radio transmissions were made by the crew, providing warnings to other pilots in the area that the aircraft was experiencing problems and intended to return to land.

Because Statesville Regional Airport is an uncontrolled airfield, pilots communicate their intentions over a shared Unicom frequency rather than with air traffic control.

The recordings reveal that the crew used this frequency to broadcast their situation.

In the first transmission, the pilot begins by addressing “Statesville traffic,” immediately confirming the use of Unicom.

The aircraft’s call sign follows, and then the pilot states that they have “an issue,” a phrase repeated multiple times across the recordings.

Notably absent from the audio is any specific description of the problem.

The pilot does not mention engine failure, fire, loss of control, or any other identifiable emergency condition.

Instead, the language remains vague, referring only to “some issues” and advising other traffic not to use the departure runway.

This suggests that the crew’s primary concern at that moment was clearing the airspace and runway to allow their own return.

A careful listening of the audio also raises questions about who was making the transmissions.

The voice heard on the recordings sounds relatively young and calm, leading some aviation professionals to speculate that it may not have been Dennis Dutton, a 67-year-old retired Delta Air Lines captain and the only person on board confirmed to hold a Citation 550 type rating.

It is possible that the radio calls were made by the co-pilot, potentially Dutton’s son, Jack, who was known to be a student pilot.

While this has not been officially confirmed by investigators, it would be consistent with standard cockpit task-sharing, where one pilot focuses on flying the aircraft while the other handles communications.

As the audio continues, the second transmission indicates that the aircraft was being configured for landing.

The pilot states, “We’re getting our gear down,” signaling that the crew had committed to an immediate return and was preparing the aircraft for approach.

This aligns with flight tracking data showing the jet turning back toward the airport shortly after departure.

The aircraft initially appeared to line up for Runway 10, the departure runway, but then altered course, executing a tight teardrop maneuver to reposition for Runway 28.

This maneuver has drawn scrutiny from aviation analysts.

Compared to the wide, gradual turn made during takeoff, the return turn was significantly tighter, suggesting the crew was under pressure to get the aircraft on the ground quickly.

Such a maneuver, while not inherently unsafe, can become risky if the aircraft is experiencing performance issues, especially in marginal weather and at low altitude.

The Citation 550, often nicknamed the “Slowtation,” is known for its straight-wing design.

While this configuration provides excellent low-speed handling and maneuverability, it also produces more drag compared to swept-wing jets, particularly when flaps and landing gear are extended.

If the aircraft was indeed suffering from engine trouble, as some suspect, the added drag from landing configuration would have placed significant demands on the remaining engine.

The NTSB later stated that the aircraft appeared to be “stable” during its approach.

However, the final moments captured by flight data and the crash site evidence raise questions about that characterization.

The jet struck runway approach lights before reaching the runway, indicating it was flying lower than a standard glide path.

Aviation norms suggest that an aircraft on a normal approach should be approximately 300 feet above ground level one mile from the runway threshold.

Hitting approach lighting strongly implies that the aircraft was well below that profile.

The final radio transmission confirms that the crew had aligned with Runway 28 and was on final approach.

Shortly thereafter, all communication ceased.

At that point, the aircraft was reported to be traveling at approximately 106 knots, a speed consistent with approach but potentially dangerous if combined with excessive drag, low altitude, and reduced engine performance.

In such a scenario, pilots have little margin for error.

If power is insufficient, gravity quickly overwhelms the aircraft’s ability to maintain altitude.

The absence of a detailed distress call may reflect how rapidly the situation unfolded.

In emergency situations, especially those involving multiple simultaneous problems, pilots often prioritize flying the aircraft over radio communication.

The repeated use of the word “issues,” notably in the plural, suggests that more than one system or factor may have been affecting the flight.

Possible scenarios include an engine malfunction combined with a configuration problem, or even a mechanical failure such as an unsecured cargo compartment, though no conclusions have yet been confirmed.

What stands out most in the audio is the tone of the transmissions.

The voice remains composed, focused, and considerate of other aircraft in the area.

Even as the situation deteriorated, the pilot continued to communicate intentions clearly, warning others to stay clear of the runway.

This reflects a high level of professionalism and situational awareness, even under extreme stress.

The broader context adds further complexity.

The weather, while technically flyable, was far from ideal.

Broken cloud layers at low altitude can force pilots in and out of visual conditions, increasing workload and reducing situational awareness.

If the aircraft experienced vibration from a malfunctioning turbine engine, as some experts have suggested, the cockpit environment would have been chaotic, loud, and physically demanding.

Managing such conditions while attempting a tight return approach leaves little room for recovery.

Questions have also been raised about why the crew did not attempt to climb out, engage the autopilot, and divert to a larger airport such as Charlotte, which offers longer runways and full air traffic control support.

While such a decision might seem logical in hindsight, investigators caution against second-guessing without full data.

The crew may have been unable to climb safely due to performance limitations, weather constraints, or the nature of the malfunction itself.

As of now, the audio recordings represent only one piece of a much larger puzzle.

The preliminary NTSB report is expected to provide crucial information about engine performance, aircraft configuration, weather data, and cockpit workload.

Until then, any conclusions remain speculative.

What is clear, however, is that the crew made a determined effort to bring the aircraft back safely.

The recordings capture pilots who recognized a problem, communicated their intentions, and took decisive action.

Tragically, those efforts were not enough to overcome the circumstances they faced.

The loss of seven lives, including that of Greg Biffle and his family, has left a profound impact on both the motorsports and aviation communities.

The newly released audio does not change the outcome, but it humanizes the final moments of the flight, revealing individuals who remained focused and selfless, even as they fought to save the aircraft.

As the investigation continues, these recordings serve as a sobering reminder of how quickly routine flights can turn critical, and how even experienced aviators can be overwhelmed by a convergence of factors.

The hope now is that the lessons learned from this tragedy will contribute to improved safety and prevent similar losses in the future.