Cessna 550 Crash in San Diego: Pilot Fatigue and Inoperative ASOS Cited as Factors

On May 22, 2025, a Cessna Citation S550, registered as N666DS, crashed near San Diego, California, while flying the RNAV (GPS) instrument approach to Runway 28R at Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport (MYF). The pilot and five passengers were fatally injured, and eight people on the ground received minor injuries after the airplane impacted a residential area. Federal investigators are examining the approach sequence, available recorded data, and airport and weather conditions associated with the flight.

Accident Summary

What Happened

According to the NTSB preliminary report, the airplane departed Teterboro Airport (TEB) on May 21, 2025, and flew to Colonel James Jabara Airport (AAO) in Wichita, Kansas, where it was refueled with 548 gallons of Jet-A before departing for Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport (MYF) in San Diego. As the flight neared MYF, the pilot checked in with Southern California TRACON while at 17,000 ft msl and was advised that the MYF ASOS was out of service; the pilot acknowledged he was aware. The pilot requested the RNAV (GPS) approach to Runway 28R and was cleared direct to the NESTY approach fix and instructed to descend to 9,000 ft msl.

The pilot asked for assistance determining weather conditions at MYF, and the controller provided weather for Marine Corps Air Station Miramar (NKS), about 4 miles north of MYF, reported as wind calm, 1/2-mile visibility, and an indefinite 200-foot ceiling. The pilot discussed alternate-airport weather with the controller in the event of a missed approach and stated he would notify TRACON of his alternate selection, but the preliminary report states he did not do so during the remainder of the flight. When the airplane was about 10 miles northeast of NESTY, the controller asked whether the pilot was going to “make your descent” and offered vectors to the south; the pilot replied, “I think we’ll be alright.”

The controller subsequently instructed the flight to cross NESTY at or above 3,800 ft msl and cleared the RNAV approach to Runway 28R. ADS-B data showed the airplane turned abeam NESTY at about 3,750 ft msl and slowed as it descended; it crossed PENYY (the final approach fix) at 0344:50 at about 2,450 ft msl with a ground speed of about 175 knots (167 KCAS). The pilot then made a position call on the MYF common traffic advisory frequency stating he was three miles on the approach, followed by the microphone button being keyed seven times, which the report states was consistent with an attempt to activate pilot-controlled runway lighting.

The airplane crossed PALOS, located 2.9 nm from the Runway 28R displaced threshold, at 0346:12 at about 1,190 ft msl and a ground speed of about 120 knots (117 KCAS). The preliminary report states PALOS has a published minimum crossing altitude of at or above 1,380 ft msl. ADS-B data ended at 0346:47 at about 464 ft msl (about 60 ft agl), and the first identified point of contact was damaged power transmission lines about 90–95 ft above the ground, about 1.8 nm from the displaced threshold.

Portions of the left horizontal stabilizer, left elevator, and vertical stabilizer were found about 200 feet downrange of the power lines. The debris field extended about 1,200 feet across brush-covered terrain and a residential neighborhood, and the main wreckage was located on a residential street about 1.6 nm from the displaced threshold. The report states the airplane impacted one residential structure and 20 vehicles, which were damaged or destroyed by impact or post-impact fire, and the wreckage was moved to a secure location for further examination.

Aircraft and Operational Context

The NTSB preliminary report identifies the aircraft as a Cessna Citation S550, N666DS, operated under 14 CFR Part 91. The report characterizes the flight as “general aviation – business” and also states it was operated as a Part 91 personal flight. MYF is described as tower-controlled between 0700 and 1800 and operating as an uncontrolled airport during the remaining hours.

The filed flight plan was IFR, and the report lists night conditions and instrument meteorological conditions at the accident site. The observation facility identified in the report (KNKX) recorded 1/2-mile visibility and an indefinite ceiling (vertical visibility) of 200 ft AGL around the time of the accident. The report also describes that the pilot was based at MYF and had completed a flight evaluation and received an exemption to fly the Cessna S550 single-pilot on December 15, 2024.

Accident Investigation

As described in KLS’s overview of the NTSB investigation process, preliminary reports summarize early factual information, while subsequent investigative work typically includes recorded-data analysis, wreckage examination, and additional factual documentation before any conclusions are reached. In this accident, the NTSB reported that a cockpit voice recorder was recovered and sent to the NTSB Vehicle Recorders Laboratory for examination and audio extraction. The left and right engine FADEC units were also recovered and retained for data download, and the airplane was not equipped with a flight data recorder.

The preliminary report documents the descent profile and approach path using ADS-B data, including reported altitudes and speeds at key fixes and the point where ADS-B data ended. Investigators typically correlate this information with instrument approach requirements, available communications, and the physical evidence at the accident scene, including identified initial impacts, debris distribution, and fire damage. Additional findings may be developed as components are examined and recorded data are reviewed in detail.

Operational and Regulatory Issues

The NTSB preliminary report notes that the RNAV (GPS) Runway 28R approach allowed instrument approaches for Category A and B aircraft only and cites a Flight Standardization Board report stating the CE-500 series aircraft are considered Category B for instrument approach procedure purposes. Investigators commonly evaluate how the approach was flown relative to published constraints, including the reported crossing altitude at PALOS compared to the published minimum crossing altitude. The report also documents an attempted activation of pilot-controlled runway lighting during the approach, reflected by seven microphone keying events on the CTAF.

The report states a NOTAM was in effect indicating the Runway Alignment Indicator (RAI) lights were out of service and had been out since March 28, 2022, with repairs delayed pending completion of an environmental study; it further states all other runway lighting was operable at the time of the accident. In accidents occurring in low visibility at night with an out-of-service ASOS, investigators typically assess what weather information was available to the pilot, how it was obtained, and how it informed approach planning and alternate considerations, including the in-flight discussion of alternate weather referenced in the preliminary report.

Aviation Accident Litigation

Separate from the safety investigation, aviation accident cases can involve evidence preservation and detailed technical evaluation of aircraft operation, airport condition information, and the communications and data sources that become available over time, as discussed in KLS’s overview of aviation accident litigation. In a case involving ground injuries and property damage, civil claims may also involve additional parties and damage categories beyond the occupants of the aircraft. Any evaluation should be anchored to verified facts developed through the investigative record and, where applicable, discovery.

Depending on the facts established, case development may include analysis of operational planning, training and qualification records, maintenance and component histories, and the way airport information was disseminated and used, consistent with issues that arise in matters described in KLS’s representative aviation matters. Early-stage reporting can be incomplete, and preliminary investigative information is subject to change. Liability analysis should track the evolving factual record rather than assume a causal explanation.

For context on how complex aviation matters have resolved in other cases, KLS summarizes results in its collection of selected aviation verdicts and settlements. Outcomes are highly fact-dependent and often turn on technical proof, causation analysis, and damages evidence. In this accident, the NTSB preliminary report identifies specific approach-profile data points, initial impact with transmission lines, and extensive ground impacts that may shape future factual development.

Over time, industry-wide observations about civil outcomes can be discussed at a higher level, including how accident context and injury severity can affect case posture, as outlined in KLS’s discussion of aviation crash verdict trends. For this accident, the NTSB preliminary report provides a defined timeline and initial evidence set, while additional public documentation may clarify recorded data findings, systems information, and any operational determinations that follow. Any further discussion should remain tied to the developing investigative record.