In the aftermath of the tragic crash of a Cessna Citation 550 near Statesville, North Carolina, new insight has emerged in the form of recently circulated cockpit audio that sheds light on the crew’s final moments.

While the recording does not contain a formal distress call, it offers a rare and sobering glimpse into the challenges faced by the pilots during what became a brief and fatal flight.

The audio, combined with publicly available flight data, provides important context—though not definitive answers—as investigators continue their work.

The aircraft departed Statesville on the morning of December 18, 2025, at approximately 10:15 a.m., carrying seven people, including Greg Biffle, members of his family, Dennis Dutton, Dutton’s son Jack, and another pilot.

The flight lasted less than ten minutes before the aircraft crashed while attempting to return to the departure airport.

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

While not extreme, such conditions can significantly increase workload for flight crews, particularly when compounded by technical issues.

Soon after the crash, the National Transportation Safety Board confirmed that no formal distress call—such as a “Mayday” transmission—had been recorded.

At the time, this raised questions among aviation observers, given the severity of the outcome.

However, newly surfaced audio clarifies that while no standardized emergency call was made, radio transmissions did occur on the airport’s Unicom frequency, which is used at uncontrolled airfields like Statesville.

These communications were not directed to air traffic control but rather broadcast to other nearby aircraft, primarily to alert them to the crew’s situation and intentions.

In the first audio segment, a pilot identifies the aircraft and announces that it is experiencing “issues” shortly after departure.

The phrasing is notably vague.

No specific system failure or emergency condition is mentioned, and no urgency markers typically associated with formal distress calls are present.

Instead, the transmission appears intended as a traffic advisory, warning others not to depart from Runway 10 because the aircraft plans to return for landing.

The pilot repeats the word “issues” several times but does not elaborate further.

This lack of specificity has become a focal point of analysis.

In aviation, particularly when communicating with air traffic control, pilots are trained to state the nature of an emergency clearly if time and circumstances permit.

However, on a Unicom frequency, where no controller is present, communications often become more informal and situational.

The absence of detail does not necessarily indicate confusion or error, but it does leave significant gaps in understanding exactly what the crew was facing.

The voice on the recording has also drawn attention.

Experienced listeners have suggested that the speaker sounds relatively young, which has led to speculation that the transmissions may have been made by the co-pilot rather than the captain.

Dennis Dutton, a retired airline captain with a type rating on the Citation 550, would likely have been seated in the left seat and focused on flying the aircraft.

If so, it would be consistent with standard cockpit resource management for the non-flying pilot to handle radio communications.

While investigators have not confirmed who was speaking, the tone of the transmissions suggests calm, clarity, and a focus on situational awareness rather than panic.

The second audio clip occurs later in the flight and contains a brief but telling statement: the pilot announces that the aircraft is “getting the gear down.

” By this point, flight tracking data indicates that the aircraft had turned back toward the airport and was maneuvering to land.

Instead of executing a straightforward return to the original runway, the aircraft appears to have entered a tight, looping maneuver commonly described as a teardrop turn, likely to reposition for landing on the opposite runway.

Such a maneuver, particularly at low altitude and in marginal weather, can significantly increase aerodynamic risk.

The Citation 550, often nicknamed the “Slowtation,” is known for its straight-wing design, which offers excellent maneuverability but also generates substantial drag when the aircraft is configured for landing.

Deploying landing gear and flaps increases drag further, requiring precise power management—especially critical if the aircraft is experiencing reduced thrust from one engine.

Investigators have noted that the aircraft’s turn back toward the airport was considerably tighter than the wide, gradual turn observed during its initial departure.

This suggests the crew may have been working within limited margins of altitude, airspeed, or both.

The decision to configure the aircraft early for landing indicates that the crew was committed to returning immediately rather than attempting to climb away, troubleshoot at altitude, or divert to a larger airport such as Charlotte.

The third and final audio transmission confirms that the aircraft was on final approach for Runway 28.

This is the last known communication from the crew.

Moments later, the aircraft struck approach lighting near the runway, indicating that it was flying lower than a standard glide path.

Data shows the aircraft’s speed at approximately 106 knots shortly before impact—suggesting it was slow, heavily configured, and carrying significant drag.

While the NTSB has stated that the aircraft appeared “stable” during its approach, some aviation experts have questioned that characterization.

In standard flight operations, a stable approach typically means the aircraft is properly aligned with the runway, on a normal glide slope, at the correct airspeed, and fully configured by a specified distance from the runway—often one mile.

Based on available data, the aircraft appears to have been below the expected altitude for that distance, which would normally be around 300 feet above ground level.

Striking an approach light system strongly suggests that the aircraft was well below that profile.

If the aircraft was indeed experiencing an engine malfunction or multiple system anomalies, the situation would have been extraordinarily demanding.

Single-engine performance in a Citation 550 is manageable but unforgiving, particularly at low speed and with landing gear and flaps deployed.

In such a scenario, the remaining engine must produce near-maximum thrust, while the pilot applies significant rudder input to maintain directional control.

Any miscalculation, loss of airspeed, or additional drag can quickly lead to an unrecoverable descent.

Despite the outcome, the audio paints a picture of a crew working methodically under pressure.

There is no sign of panic in the voice transmissions, only a steady effort to communicate intentions and protect other aircraft operating in the area.

Even in the midst of a developing emergency, the pilot’s concern for traffic safety reflects disciplined airmanship.

Ultimately, the audio provides context rather than conclusions.

It confirms that the crew recognized a problem early, attempted to return to the airport, and configured the aircraft for landing.

What it does not reveal is the precise nature of the “issues” that prompted those decisions.

Whether the aircraft suffered an engine failure, a mechanical malfunction, a configuration problem, or a combination of factors remains unknown.

The forthcoming preliminary report from the NTSB is expected to clarify many of these unanswered questions.

Investigators will examine engine components, flight control systems, maintenance records, and cockpit voice data to reconstruct the sequence of events.

Until then, the audio stands as a poignant reminder of how quickly routine flights can become emergencies—and how, even in their final moments, professional pilots strive to do everything possible to bring their aircraft home safely.

Seven lives were lost that morning, and no analysis can lessen that reality.

What remains is the responsibility to understand what happened, learn from it, and honor those aboard by improving safety wherever possible.