Single Pilot Passenger Jet Operations

TTailedTiger · Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:25 am

Why is this permitted? I cannot understand why the FAA would allow a multi-passenger jet like the CJ4. Furthermore, I can't believe any of those passengers would be ok climbing on a jet with just one pilot. We have seen too many examples of an airline pilot being incapacitated or falling over dead while inflight.

I'm just a private but I also prefer to have another pilot along with me for a trip. It considerably reduces the workload and at least there is someone else who can operate the aircraft if something happens to me. A passenger jet is much more advanced than a single engine piston and can cause a lot more damage when it crashes. The risk just doesn't seem worth it and I can't believe any insurance company would allow it. It's a roll of the dice and not a chance I would be willing to take. And besides, it's always better to have another set of eyes and judgement.

Yikes! · Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:37 am

Great question TTT but take it a step further and having no pilot on board. That's where our industry is heading. We're already seeing it with driverless vehicle testing. Next it will be cargo flights over the North Atlantic Tracks. Finally (long after I'm retired, thankfully) it will be passenger flights trans-oceanic (Atlantic & Pacific) and domestic.

Get used to it. It's coming.

We've had the 15 safest years of aviation. That's about to change with programs such as Multiple Crew Pilot Licensing, where someone, just out of multi-IFR training is placed into the right seat of a Dreamliner, a 777 or an A380.

GalaxyFlyer · Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:56 am

Single pilot Citaions have been around for 3 decades, so nothing new. The accident rate is considerably higher, however, as it is for all non-professionally flown jets.

GF

TTailedTiger · Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:06 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Single pilot Citaions have been around for 3 decades, so nothing new. The accident rate is considerably higher, however, as it is for all non-professionally flown jets.

GF

Well the higher accident rate certainly makes sense. Such a shame that people don't know their limitations. A business jet isn't like a fighter jet where you can punch out and give it back to the taxpayers.

tb727 · Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:20 am

This is a recent example of someone doing something they shouldn't have been doing alone. A second pilot may have helped this situation in helping with some decision making or righting the ship before they flew into the lake. https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.avia ... 1745&key=1

I have maybe 200 hours single pilot time. Most of my experience is in 2&3 crew member aircraft, so even with 8000+ hours of experience in all kinds of conditions, you would never catch me taking a Citation out single pilot.

pikachu · Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:10 am

I fly the Citation I on my flight sim. It's a nice 1960's straight wing jet. Not too demanding.

citationjet · Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:19 am

A little history on the single pilot operations of Cessna Citation aircraft.

In 1977, Cessna elected to pursue Part 23 normal category certification for a slightly modified version of the original Citation 500, called the Model 501. Under the requirements of Part 23, aircraft with MTOWs less than 12,500 pounds could be approved for single-pilot operations if an FAA evaluation deemed the workload acceptable. The Citation 501, or Citation I/SP, easily passed the FAA’s single-pilot workload test. The pilot-in-command still needed a type rating, but a properly qualified PIC no longer needed an Second In Command. Some Cessna Citations have been FAA approved for SP operations for 42 years.

The Citation Mustang, CJ1, CJ2, CJ3, CJ4, and M2 can all be flown single pilot if flown Part 91 (non-commercial). The Mustang, CJ1, CJ2 and M2 are certified Part 23 normal category. The CJ3 and CJ4 are Part 23 commuter category (>12,500 lb MTOW).

The Citation 560XL, 650, Sovereign (680), and Citation X (750) all require two pilots. They are FAA certified under Part 25 Transport Category.

In addition, there is an FAA exemption 4050 that allows some Part 25 Citations to fly single pilot if they meet additional requirements. These models include the Citation Model 550 (Citation II and Bravo) and Model 560 (Citation V, Ultra, Encore and Encore+). These Citations are all slightly larger than the CJ4.

The FAA exemption 4050 has the following requirements:
Pilot Requirements:
1. 1st or 2nd class Medical
2. Have ATP or Commercial certificate
3. CE-500 Type Rating
4. At least 1000 hours total time
5. 50 hours of night flight
6. 75 hours instrument (40 actual)
7. 500 hours as PIC or SIC in turbine powered airplanes

Aircraft requirements:
1.Autopilot with approach coupling
2.Flight director system
3.Boom microphone
4.Transponder “ident” button on pilots control wheel.
5.The airplane converted by this STC may increase the number of passengers to the maximum limit without installing a cockpit recorder.

http://floridaflightcenter.com/training-courses/citation-500-series-single-pilot-exemption/

.Although not a jet aircraft, the Beech King Air 300/350 holds more passengers than a CJ4, and can be flown single pilot under FAA Part 91 (non-commercial) operating rules.

Regarding insurance companies allowing single pilot operations, most of the insurance costs are so high for single pilot that it is cheaper to have a second pilot.

747Whale · Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:35 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
Why is this permitted? I cannot understand why the FAA would allow a multi-passenger jet like the CJ4. Furthermore, I can't believe any of those passengers would be ok climbing on a jet with just one pilot. We have seen too many examples of an airline pilot being incapacitated or falling over dead while inflight.

I'm just a private but I also prefer to have another pilot along with me for a trip. It considerably reduces the workload and at least there is someone else who can operate the aircraft if something happens to me. A passenger jet is much more advanced than a single engine piston and can cause a lot more damage when it crashes. The risk just doesn't seem worth it and I can't believe any insurance company would allow it. It's a roll of the dice and not a chance I would be willing to take. And besides, it's always better to have another set of eyes and judgement.

You may prefer to have another pilot along, but in light, private aircraft it's often not practical or possible, and in many cases, the light turbojets are flown by their owners. When operated single pilot, it's not like the paying public is subject to the trips against their will. People fly in single-pilot aircraft all the time, whether piston, turboprop, or turbojet.

I always operated King Air's single pilot when doing medical work. The Piaggio was single pilot, though often flown with 2, depending on the situation, and I flew it both ways; the P.180 is faster than a number of those citations and goes to 41,000'. It's easy to fly single pilot

In most crew cockpit situations, the other pilot isn't necessarily there just to take over in case something happens to the pilot flying. It's a crew environment for division of workload with both pilots active and participating. In some aircraft like the widebody cockpit I'm in now, I couldn't physically reach some things across the cockpit to do it myself. in a light, smaller aircraft, not so.

The Citation series are extremely pilot-friendly. Issues with the mishap rate in single pilot turbojets aren't really due to lack of the second pilot so much as they are the qualifications and experience of those who are involved in the mishap, especially given that those aren't professional flights and are usually not piloted by professional pilots.

Yikes! · Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:57 am

Canada's RCMP uses single pilot, night IFR pilots of Pilatus single engine turboprops IN THE ARCTIC 24/7.

Just wait....

FlyHossD · Wed Jan 30, 2019 4:15 am

For the OP - are single pilot operations in twin engine turboprops OK?

Max Q · Wed Jan 30, 2019 6:27 am

tb727 wrote:
This is a recent example of someone doing something they shouldn't have been doing alone. A second pilot may have helped this situation in helping with some decision making or righting the ship before they flew into the lake. https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.avia ... 1745&key=1

I have maybe 200 hours single pilot time. Most of my experience is in 2&3 crew member aircraft, so even with 8000+ hours of experience in all kinds of conditions, you would never catch me taking a Citation out single pilot.

Well said and I couldn’t agree more

There have been numerous accidents with owner pilots that have a lot more money than experience, capability and just as importantly, currency with these single pilot certified jets

The training program emphasizes almost total reliance on use of the autopilot, engaging as soon as possible after take off and disengaging as late as possible before landing, they are dependent on the autopilot and if it doesnt work as expected they’re in deep trouble

Many of these amateur pilots don’t know how or are unwilling to set personal limitations on how they use these sophisticated aircraft and things happen fast

Type A individuals that don’t know how to say no to others or themselves when a goal is set

If that means working a full day then taking off into marginal conditions to get where they want to go then they’ll do it, when things don’t go exactly as expected, are immediately overloaded and without a second pilot to back them up the result is often fatal

I agree, I don’t think any biz jets should be certified for single pilot ops

Max Q · Wed Jan 30, 2019 6:39 am

Yikes! wrote:
Canada's RCMP uses single pilot, night IFR pilots of Pilatus single engine turboprops IN THE ARCTIC 24/7.

Just wait....

I spent two years flying single pilot night
freight in all kinds of weather with no radar in single and twin piston aircraft

Difference was I was flying almost every day professionally, it wasn’t a part time interest/ hobby that I could afford to buy my way into and purchase the most expensive, sophisticated, high performance jet certified for single pilot use and then do so only on rare occasions

A professional pilot with good judgment will acknowledge that is often a recipe for disaster

The RCMP operation you describe is nothing like that

CosmicCruiser · Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:59 pm

Max Q wrote:
Yikes! wrote:
Canada's RCMP uses single pilot, night IFR pilots of Pilatus single engine turboprops IN THE ARCTIC 24/7.

Just wait....

I spent two years flying single pilot night
freight in all kinds of weather with no radar in single and twin piston aircraft

Difference was I was flying almost every day professionally, it wasn’t a part time interest/ hobby that I could afford to buy my way into and purchase the most expensive, sophisticated, high performance jet certified for single pilot use and then do so only on rare occasions

A professional pilot with good judgment will acknowledge that is often a recipe for disaster

MAXQ I can agree with you. I, too, flew Be-18s in the early 70s at night flying mail/cargo single pilot. 5 nights a week. I think at that time the FAA was a little more lax regarding these somewhat "ragtag" operations. I was lucky to have not have had any real problems, short of a couple of engine failures, in the 31/2 yrs I did it. After I retired from FDX I was going to fly a Citation SP part time for a co. here. and quickly realized how accustomed I was to having a F/O and team work. A Citation is not particularly demanding and it's speeds barely qualify as a jet (LOL) but when going into high traffic airports like MDW, DEN, etc it's silly not to have a little help since you are still being treated like a jet. I didn't take it in the end.
I had a good friend that I taught to fly in the 70s who eventually bought a Citation SP but always carried another pilot because he knew it was the safest decision. I admire him for his smart thinking. The high accident rate of the small biz jets is usually a result of , like you say, an unprofessional pilot making a bad decision. I saw this with another pilot that was flying the SP I was considering. Just little things like 4 red on the PAPI on final so he could make the first turn off or a "kick the tires, light the fires" mentality that may have grave consequences in the future when some little gremlin raises its ugly head.

citationjet · Wed Jan 30, 2019 6:06 pm

FlyHossD wrote:
For the OP - are single pilot operations in twin engine turboprops OK?

That is a good question for the OP, since he is concerned about "multi-passenger jets". Is he also concerned about twin turboprops that can carry more passengers?
The Cessna Citation CJ4 he mentioned is certified for maximum of 9 passengers per the FAA TCDS A1WI. The King Air 300/350 turboprop can also be flown single pilot, and it can carry a maximum of 15 passengers per its FAA TCDS A24CE.

TTailedTiger · Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:49 am

citationjet wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:
For the OP - are single pilot operations in twin engine turboprops OK?

That is a good question for the OP, since he is concerned about "multi-passenger jets". Is he also concerned about twin turboprops that can carry more passengers?
The Cessna Citation CJ4 he mentioned is certified for maximum of 9 passengers per the FAA TCDS A1WI. The King Air 300/350 turboprop can also be flown single pilot, and it can carry a maximum of 15 passengers per its FAA TCDS A24CE.

No, I don't approve of that either.

Max Q · Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:15 am

CosmicCruiser wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Yikes! wrote:
Canada's RCMP uses single pilot, night IFR pilots of Pilatus single engine turboprops IN THE ARCTIC 24/7.

Just wait....

I spent two years flying single pilot night
freight in all kinds of weather with no radar in single and twin piston aircraft

Difference was I was flying almost every day professionally, it wasn’t a part time interest/ hobby that I could afford to buy my way into and purchase the most expensive, sophisticated, high performance jet certified for single pilot use and then do so only on rare occasions

A professional pilot with good judgment will acknowledge that is often a recipe for disaster

MAXQ I can agree with you. I, too, flew Be-18s in the early 70s at night flying mail/cargo single pilot. 5 nights a week. I think at that time the FAA was a little more lax regarding these somewhat "ragtag" operations. I was lucky to have not have had any real problems, short of a couple of engine failures, in the 31/2 yrs I did it. After I retired from FDX I was going to fly a Citation SP part time for a co. here. and quickly realized how accustomed I was to having a F/O and team work. A Citation is not particularly demanding and it's speeds barely qualify as a jet (LOL) but when going into high traffic airports like MDW, DEN, etc it's silly not to have a little help since you are still being treated like a jet. I didn't take it in the end.
I had a good friend that I taught to fly in the 70s who eventually bought a Citation SP but always carried another pilot because he knew it was the safest decision. I admire him for his smart thinking. The high accident rate of the small biz jets is usually a result of , like you say, an unprofessional pilot making a bad decision. I saw this with another pilot that was flying the SP I was considering. Just little things like 4 red on the PAPI on final so he could make the first turn off or a "kick the tires, light the fires" mentality that may have grave consequences in the future when some little gremlin raises its ugly head.

Not an easy gig that, flying the B18 single pilot at night, you have my respect and mutual understanding of that experience

Furthermore, like TB 727 your conservative
and professional attitude with respect
to the concept of single pilot / owner flown bizjets is the best of what I’ve seen in this industry

747Whale · Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:00 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
citationjet wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:
For the OP - are single pilot operations in twin engine turboprops OK?

That is a good question for the OP, since he is concerned about "multi-passenger jets". Is he also concerned about twin turboprops that can carry more passengers?
The Cessna Citation CJ4 he mentioned is certified for maximum of 9 passengers per the FAA TCDS A1WI. The King Air 300/350 turboprop can also be flown single pilot, and it can carry a maximum of 15 passengers per its FAA TCDS A24CE.

No, I don't approve of that either.

You don't approve of single pilot operations, period?

Is this because passengers are on board? What about the same aircraft flown single pilot with cargo? Or special missions operations? Where's the cutoff point?

A pilot doesn't care what's on board, whether self-loading freight (passengers) or anything else. Nearly all of us who fly professionally have done considerable single-pilot operations.

I can tell you I've done a great deal of single pilot flying in single engine and multi engine aircraft, much of it with passengers.

What about a single engine piston powered airplane like a Cessna 207 with 7 passengers? I used to fly passengers in and out of dirt airstrips in the Grand Canyon single pilot. Adding a second pilot would have been ridiculous in that airplane; the other seat with access to the controls was always filled with a passenger.

Is there a difference between throwing six passengers in a Piper Navajo, piston engine twin, or a King Air 90 or 200 turboprop twin, or a Citation with several passengers?

You have a problem with it, but the passengers don't. The pilots don't. The FAA which certifies the aircraft for single pilot operations, and the pilots for flying the aircraft single pilot (having demonstrated the capability to do so) don't have a problem with it. It's legal and safe.

Why do you care? Nobody forces the passengers to fly on a single-pilot aircraft.

TTailedTiger · Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:08 am

747Whale wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
citationjet wrote:

That is a good question for the OP, since he is concerned about "multi-passenger jets". Is he also concerned about twin turboprops that can carry more passengers?
The Cessna Citation CJ4 he mentioned is certified for maximum of 9 passengers per the FAA TCDS A1WI. The King Air 300/350 turboprop can also be flown single pilot, and it can carry a maximum of 15 passengers per its FAA TCDS A24CE.

No, I don't approve of that either.

You don't approve of single pilot operations, period?

Is this because passengers are on board? What about the same aircraft flown single pilot with cargo? Or special missions operations? Where's the cutoff point?

A pilot doesn't care what's on board, whether self-loading freight (passengers) or anything else. Nearly all of us who fly professionally have done considerable single-pilot operations.

I can tell you I've done a great deal of single pilot flying in single engine and multi engine aircraft, much of it with passengers.

What about a single engine piston powered airplane like a Cessna 207 with 7 passengers? I used to fly passengers in and out of dirt airstrips in the Grand Canyon single pilot. Adding a second pilot would have been ridiculous in that airplane; the other seat with access to the controls was always filled with a passenger.

Is there a difference between throwing six passengers in a Piper Navajo, piston engine twin, or a King Air 90 or 200 turboprop twin, or a Citation with several passengers?

You have a problem with it, but the passengers don't. The pilots don't. The FAA which certifies the aircraft for single pilot operations, and the pilots for flying the aircraft single pilot (having demonstrated the capability to do so) don't have a problem with it. It's legal and safe.

Why do you care? Nobody forces the passengers to fly on a single-pilot aircraft.

Obviously I don't make nor do I have any influence on the rules. I'm really not comfortable with single pilot operations for anything bigger than a 172. I am pleased that it has worked out well for you. But even if I'm not on the plane I'd rather one not come down on my house if the pilot has a stroke.

747Whale · Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:17 am

Carrying that logic forward, then, you want to dictate who and what is qualified to fly above you. Are you satisfied with pilot training standards?

In many cases, the second pilot in a light jet can have virtually no experience, and in a private operation, can be so unqualified as to be a liability on board, rather than a help, and still be legal. Bubba Jim buys a Citation, decides he's got the money and is going to fly it, but being of a two-pilot mind, gets Andy Jay to sit in the right seat. Andy makes his three takeoffs and landings, and they're off to the races. Now they're flying approaches to minimums in low weather. Neither Bubba nor Andy have ever actually flown to minimums in bad weather at night. What could go wrong?

Conversely, Martin V has been operating aircraft for 45 years. He has 26,000 hours, nine type ratings, and 12,000 hours of single pilot operations under IFR. He attends Simuflite regularly, holds a Flight Safety Pro card, and has an impeccable record. He flies the same five passengers from Biltmore Corporation three times a week, and has done so for nine years. He has five different FAA certificates, a life time of flying and has the implicit trust of the company, the passengers, and the community that knows him. Problem?

If you disapprove of what's flying over you, what do you know about the maintenance, redundancy, or actual pilot training or qualification of those over your head? What do you know about the qualifications of the mechanics who maintain the aircraft, recency of experience, background, or ability? What about the training required of the pilots? Medical certification?

Is it okay for single pilot operations in single engine airplanes with the same number of passengers, or do you expect the single engine airplanes to have two pilots, as well? Do the use of piston engines change anything?

TTailedTiger · Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:23 am

747Whale wrote:
Carrying that logic forward, then, you want to dictate who and what is qualified to fly above you. Are you satisfied with pilot training standards?

In many cases, the second pilot in a light jet can have virtually no experience, and in a private operation, can be so unqualified as to be a liability on board, rather than a help, and still be legal. Bubba Jim buys a Citation, decides he's got the money and is going to fly it, but being of a two-pilot mind, gets Andy Jay to sit in the right seat. Andy makes his three takeoffs and landings, and they're off to the races. Now they're flying approaches to minimums in low weather. Neither Bubba nor Andy have ever actually flown to minimums in bad weather at night. What could go wrong?

Conversely, Martin V has been operating aircraft for 45 years. He has 26,000 hours, nine type ratings, and 12,000 hours of single pilot operations under IFR. He attends Simuflite regularly, holds a Flight Safety Pro card, and has an impeccable record. He flies the same five passengers from Biltmore Corporation three times a week, and has done so for nine years. He has five different FAA certificates, a life time of flying and has the implicit trust of the company, the passengers, and the community that knows him. Problem?

If you disapprove of what's flying over you, what do you know about the maintenance, redundancy, or actual pilot training or qualification of those over your head? What do you know about the qualifications of the mechanics who maintain the aircraft, recency of experience, background, or ability? What about the training required of the pilots? Medical certification?

Is it okay for single pilot operations in single engine airplanes with the same number of passengers, or do you expect the single engine airplanes to have two pilots, as well? Do the use of piston engines change anything?

You seem to be taking this personally. That wasn't my intent for this thread. I am talking about two professionally trained pilots on a professionally maintained aircraft. I was under the impression that both pilots needed to have all appropriate licenses and type rating. A professional crew and professional maintenance should result in very few planes falling on houses.

GalaxyFlyer · Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:48 am

Ok, where would you draw the line? At a 172, so a 206 requires two pilots? A complex piston twin is probably more workload than that Citation, engine management, worse engine-out performance, more time and exposure to weather at lower altitudes (lot more icing with less climb options.

For private operations it’s less clear cut than you believe.

GF

747Whale · Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:45 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:

You seem to be taking this personally. That wasn't my intent for this thread. I am talking about two professionally trained pilots on a professionally maintained aircraft. I was under the impression that both pilots needed to have all appropriate licenses and type rating. A professional crew and professional maintenance should result in very few planes falling on houses.

I don't take it personally at all. I've nothing to prove, no agenda. I have a lot of years behind me as a professional pilot, and what you approve of or disapprove of won't change my paycheck a bit, or alter my quality of life.

You're talking about things you obviously don't understand, but I don't take that personally. Again, it won't affect my bottom line one bit.

What you're "under the impression" about doesn't affect reality, either. Again, you don't know what you're talking about, but you're sure it offends you all the same.

Your assertion seems to be that every aircraft must be flown by professionals, with a minimum of two per aircraft, and that the aircraft must be maintained by professionals. Your concern is "airplanes falling on houses (does this happen to you much?), and you assert that this can be avoided by restricting aircraft operations to professionals only, with a minimum crew of two.

That eliminates private flying.

That eliminates agricultural aircraft, many gliders, sport aerobatic aircraft, and single seat fighter aircraft. The FAA will need to amend flight training to eliminate solo flight, in the interest of protecting roofs. In fact, flight training can't take place, by definition, because students aren't professionals. Neither are private pilots. Consequently, the base of pilots will continue to age and dwindle, as we can't train any more.

Many pilots who fly single-pilot have no experience or training in flying in a crew environment.

How small must an aircraft be before it can be operated by someone other than a professional?

You're aware that many aircraft aren't designed or certified for more than one pilot? You're aware that this includes some turbojet aircraft? You're aware that there are a lot of pilots out there who are not professionals? Should they all be grounded?

When you make wild, blanket assertions such as restricting flights to having only professional pilots, or to only flying when at least two professional pilots are present, you cut out a big share of aviation which crosses corporate, military experimental, private flying, agricultural, and numerous other lines, and you'll quickly ground and close many flight departments that operate with a single pilot and a single aircraft, or that aren't in a position to double their overhead by doubling the number of pilots they hire.

The fact is that a pilot should be able to operate an aircraft solo, safely. Even in crew cockpits, we expect that if one pilot becomes incapacitated for any reason, the other will be fully capable of handling the aircraft and getting it safely to the ground. We expect the same of anyone flying as the sole pilot in a cockpit. When you express shock and dismay that an aircraft might possibly fly without two pilots, you express a gross misunderstanding of what it means to pilot an aircraft. None of us who do it for a living will be impacted by whether you like it or not, nor is it personal. You're welcome to fly or not fly with whom you choose, but it won't make a dent one way or the other in aviation.

Many of the most notable figures in aviation, incidentally, weren't professional pilots or mechanics, yet managed to make a pretty big dent in history. Were we to have it your way, the Wright Brothers would have remained bicycle salesmen, Charles Taylor a type setter and handyman, Glenn Curtiss some guy with big ideas, and Charles Lindbergh a hobbyist with a pet rock. The Montgolfier Brothers might have been content to make paper. Burt Rutan a guy just stuck with surfboards. Otto Lilienthal a nobody. And on, and on, Instead, they went on to form the basis of modern flight, from the design and development of the aircraft engine, to flight controls, to manned flight, to putting man in space, single pilot, and flown not by professionals, but by amateurs who were part of a massive compilation of those who contributed from the beginning until today, when people build their own airplanes from scratch, from plans, and kits, and maintain them. But only if your wishes were made fact.

Fortunately for aviation and many of the flying public, this isn't so. We continue to have single pilot operations, even in turbojets, which really aren't that much different from turboprops, which aren't a whole lot different from piston aircraft, and they continue to carry passengers behind a lone, solitary pilot, sometimes profesional, often not.

GalaxyFlyer · Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:01 pm

Not to mention probably 800 single pilot fighters flying around North America

citationjet · Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:19 pm

Although not carrying passengers, the SR-71 was flown single pilot.

TTailedTiger · Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:22 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Not to mention probably 800 single pilot fighters flying around North America

Notice that's why I specified passenger aircraft...

We have had two highly experienced airline pilots weigh in and both said they would not take a Citation jet or similar up on their own. Yours isn't the only opinion and I have made no judgments about yours and 747whale's decisions. Do what you like. I certainly can't stop you. I was just asking why the FAA would think it's a good idea to approve these aircraft for single pilot operations. I appreciate the input and especially those who have been both informative and civil.

747Whale · Thu Jan 31, 2019 2:43 pm

You just quoted GalaxyFlyer, who aside from having a full career as a corporate and other pilot, was also the pilot of single seat, single-pilot military A-10 turbine aircraft.

Why does the FAA think it's a good idea? The FAA has determined it can be done safely, and it can. It's done all the time.

Imagine that.

GalaxyFlyer · Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:10 pm

I have 2,000 hours in various Citations, long ago and all two-pilot, I cant imagine an easier “complex” plane to fly. Speeds are terribly higher than a light twin, engine management is simple, performance far better and well thought-out systems. It was designed for single pilot flights. They have been under several single pilot authorizations for 35 years and, I haven’t done the research, but I’d bet their accident rate in equal to or better than piston twins, possibly, likely, better than single and twin turboprops. There is just no safety case that wouldn’t be equally applicable to all those class of planes.

And, I’m actually somewhat opposed to them as personal matter. Not because of the risk as much as the bad press they give business and personal aviation when poor decision making results in headline accidents. Accidents that occur just as often in light airplanes for the same reason with the same tragic results.

Regarding fighters, a lieutenant in a Category E fighter alone in the winter flying a TACAN non-precision approach is a truly Darwinian aviation experience.

GF

SuseJ772 · Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:40 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Single pilot Citaions have been around for 3 decades, so nothing new. The accident rate is considerably higher, however, as it is for all non-professionally flown jets.

GF

Well the higher accident rate certainly makes sense. Such a shame that people don't know their limitations. A business jet isn't like a fighter jet where you can punch out and give it back to the taxpayers.

You can with the Cirrus Vision Jet. Not that anybody flying one would prefer that (nor would a fighter pilot), but it’s there.

As a private pilot, all my piloting is single pilot. Admittedly not a jet but a Cirrus SR22. I have only flown twice with another pilot that wasn’t an instructor. I will admit it is a lot nicer having someone else there, but in most situations it’s not practical. It’s already hard enough getting the family of four to fit in there, let alone having another pilot take up the seat.

Also, it’s only getting harder to be a professional pilot since the 1500 rule*. I don’t think we need to make it harder by requiring 2 pilot operation at all times while trying to build hours

* To be clear, my flying is all for fun. While it would be amazing to be a professional pilot, that is not what I am shooting for and my opinion of the 1500 rule has no personal effect of my life.

GalaxyFlyer · Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:55 pm

This analysis by AIN backs up the FAA’s judgement.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2015-06-05/accident-analysis-single-pilot-versus-two-pilot-there-safety-advantage

However, this one is bit broader in scope and more downbeat conclusions,

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2008/october/01/turbine-edition-single-pilot-safety

GF

Max Q · Fri Feb 01, 2019 1:00 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I have 2,000 hours in various Citations, long ago and all two-pilot, I cant imagine an easier “complex” plane to fly. Speeds are terribly higher than a light twin, engine management is simple, performance far better and well thought-out systems. It was designed for single pilot flights. They have been under several single pilot authorizations for 35 years and, I haven’t done the research, but I’d bet their accident rate in equal to or better than piston twins, possibly, likely, better than single and twin turboprops. There is just no safety case that wouldn’t be equally applicable to all those class of planes.

And, I’m actually somewhat opposed to them as personal matter. Not because of the risk as much as the bad press they give business and personal aviation when poor decision making results in headline accidents. Accidents that occur just as often in light airplanes for the same reason with the same tragic results.

Regarding fighters, a lieutenant in a Category E fighter alone in the winter flying a TACAN non-precision approach is a truly Darwinian aviation experience.

GF

An important detail you’re overlooking however is I’m pretty sure you were flying these single pilot Citation ops professionally, on a regular basis and with the benefit of extensive experience prior to that

That is epically different than a wealthy
owner that can afford to buy the most sophisticated single pilot approved biz jet and then rarely fly it, most of their attention devoted to other things in life (like how they got the money to afford it in the first place )

Their survival is closely related to how quickly they can engage the autopilot after take off and how late they can disengage before landing

Your reference to flying fighters single pilot goes back to my same point, military pilots go through extremely rigorous and thorough training, it is their profession, they are in a different class altogether

Having said all that, as user friendly and well designed as these single pilot jets may be you’re still safer with two pilots

GalaxyFlyer · Fri Feb 01, 2019 1:21 am

Agreed and I never flew it single pilot, even then the insurance coverage was more expensive than a second pilot. Having said that, it does bring up ego as a driving force for non-professional owner flown jets.

GF

Max Q · Fri Feb 01, 2019 1:25 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Agreed and I never flew it single pilot, even then the insurance coverage was more expensive than a second pilot. Having said that, it does bring up ego as a driving force for non-professional owner flown jets.

GF

I couldn’t agree more, ego and the bizarre cheapness of wealthy individuals who will spend millions on a private jet but ‘save’ a few dollars by not hiring a professional pilot to fly with them

GalaxyFlyer · Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:09 am

Add in a sense of bulletproofness, if those idiot pilots do this, so can I, and headlines ensue rapidly. Trained and operated correctly, not a thing wrong with SP jets, but not always the case.

GF

Max Q · Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:19 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Add in a sense of bulletproofness, if those idiot pilots do this, so can I, and headlines ensue rapidly. Trained and operated correctly, not a thing wrong with SP jets, but not always the case.

GF

Agree

remingtonbox · Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:28 pm

Max Q wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Agreed and I never flew it single pilot, even then the insurance coverage was more expensive than a second pilot. Having said that, it does bring up ego as a driving force for non-professional owner flown jets.

GF

I couldn’t agree more, ego and the bizarre cheapness of wealthy individuals who will spend millions on a private jet but ‘save’ a few dollars by not hiring a professional pilot to fly with them

By definition, any pilot hired to fly is a professional pilot. What is your definition?
There definitely aren't 250-300 hr captains flying intercontinental business jets if that is what you think.

TTailedTiger wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Single pilot Citaions have been around for 3 decades, so nothing new. The accident rate is considerably higher, however, as it is for all non-professionally flown jets.

GF

Well the higher accident rate certainly makes sense. Such a shame that people don't know their limitations. A business jet isn't like a fighter jet where you can punch out and give it back to the taxpayers.

I like your question, but this is a baseless statement. Corporate aviation is a completely different industry to 121 flying.

A lot of times, in a single pilot operation, the owner has full say, after all, he signs the paycheck. I can guarantee you that the vast majority of 91 pilots are far better managers and sometimes better pilots than their 121 counterparts. They do everything, get the weather, file the flight plan, get the hotel, rental car, catering... and so on. That being said, by and large, when the boss says go, we go.

Woodreau · Fri Feb 01, 2019 1:20 pm

Corporate aviation is much better than the Part 91 recreational pilots, for example this pilot, who spends more time messing with his cameras and making sure he gets the money shot than flying his airplane

Although I don’t wish him ill, I really hope he doesn’t kill anyone on the ground when he’s out flying.

I guess the part that bothers me is his audience who aren’t pilots or are student pilots but love what he does and look up to what he does as a model of how they should fly.

https://www.youtube.com/user/HOLLYWGE

Oliver2020 · Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:10 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Single pilot Citaions have been around for 3 decades, so nothing new. The accident rate is considerably higher, however, as it is for all non-professionally flown jets.

GF

Well the higher accident rate certainly makes sense. Such a shame that people don't know their limitations. A business jet isn't like a fighter jet where you can punch out and give it back to the taxpayers.

To also add IF it is approved single piloting In commercial planes:
Wasn’t one pilot in the cockpit the cause of the
German wings incident? Along with multiple other incidents where the pilot committed suicide taking innocent passengers along with them and although we will never know for sure most likely mh370.

stratclub · Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:41 pm

I seriously doubt that having a 2nd crew member in the cockpit would have much of an effect on someone that is hell bent on ending it all, but at least there would be someone there to try to save the day.

747Whale · Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:19 pm

Oliver2020 wrote:
Wasn’t one pilot in the cockpit the cause of the
German wings incident?

No, it was not.

A pilot with suicidal intent was the cause.

Placing a single pilot in a cockpit does not make a pilot suicidal.

Lubitz was previously treated for suicide issues and had been declared unfit to fly, yet he was placed in the cockpit.

Oliver2020 · Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:53 pm

No but him alone in the cockpit with suicidal tendencies was the cause.
Actually controlled flight into terrain was the cause but him alone in the cockpit caused the controlled flight into terrain.
If the pilot returning from the restroom had been able to enter the cockpit most likely the accident wouldn't have happened at all.
how do we know in the future IF single pilot ops ever come into affect someone wouldn't slip through the cracks again.

747Whale · Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:50 pm

Lubitz didn't slip through the cracks. He was invited in the front door. Germanwings was aware of his history and his diagnosis.

How are you going to handle a suicidal pilot?

You're probably not. You're probably going to die.

Oliver2020 · Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:51 pm

747Whale wrote:
Lubitz didn't slip through the cracks. He was invited in the front door. Germanwings was aware of his history and his diagnosis.

How are you going to handle a suicidal pilot?

You're probably not. You're probably going to die.

By having the additional pilot in the cockpit, and when one pilot needs to use the restroom having at this point (correct me if I'm wrong) a flight attendant has been instructed to stay in the cockpit. ( my opinion it should be a pilot but no airline is goons pay for an additional pilot just for a restroom break).

But this was not the only situation where a pilot was alone in the cockpit deliberately crashed, two others involve Egyptair flight 990 where the pilot got everyone out of the cockpit turned both engines off and began the descent into the ocean.

Silkair flight 185 almost the same circumstances as germanwings.

Very debatable issue is MH 370 which ( in my lifetime) I doubt we will ever know what happened or if both were on the flight deck at the time of the actual turn south.

I know you are or were a professional pilot so I'll ask another question in regards to only one person on the flight deck.

If a problem rises would it not be more efficient to have 2 pilots one flying the plane and the other flying the plane?

Oliver2020 · Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:08 pm

A pilot doesn't care what's on board, whether self-loading freight (passengers) or anything else.

Captain Al Haynes and Danny Fitch seemed to be very upset about the passengers they lost in UA 232.

But you are correct no one forces us to fly, and it's highly likely to be killed in a car going to the airport than to be involved in an aircraft accident.

GalaxyFlyer · Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:39 pm

Having flown as a flight engineer and with flight engineers as a pilot (civil and military) there’s a lot to be said for three-person crews. But, cost isn’t one of them.

GF

Oliver2020 · Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:43 pm

If you are or were a professional pilot so I'll ask another question in regards to only one person on the flight deck.

If a problem rises would it not be more efficient to have 2 pilots one flying the plane and the other flying the plane?

To correct what I meant by this sentence: if a problem arises would it not be better to have 2 pilots on the flight deck one flying the plane and one working through the problems.

GalaxyFlyer · Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:13 pm

Yes, it would be and, that’s how it’s done in two pilot crews. One flies and works ATC while the other pilot does the QRH drills. In the three-crew, one pilot flies, the second pilot and engineer work the drills unless they’re so simple the engineer follows the checklist and reports it complete. In a sense, that’s how a single-seat fighter is done—the aircraft with the emergency is put in the lead, flies and the QRH drills are read over the radio as time permits. Or the emergency is led to the runway on the wing in formation as quickly as possible when it’s dire.

A single pilot civil jet the pilot must use the autopilot, when conditions stabilize, as his assistant and work the emergency drills while monitoring the flight path. If the plane cannot be put into a condition permitting the autopilot to work, the QRH drills are out the window, it’s all about maintaining control by hand flying.

The idea of a single pilot airliner includes a “pilot” on the ground who can access functions and could fly as a UAV is controlled. Long way off.

GF

747Whale · Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:49 am

Oliver2020 wrote:

Captain Al Haynes and Danny Fitch seemed to be very upset about the passengers they lost in UA 232.

But you are correct no one forces us to fly, and it's highly likely to be killed in a car going to the airport than to be involved in an aircraft accident.

I spent some time discussing it with Captain Haynes in person, and yes, he was. It affected him deeply for some time, and what helped him get over it was talking about it, and in particular, sharing with the survivors, who saw him as having saved them.

That said, there's a big difference between a routine flight and dealing with the aftermath.

When flying passengers, there is no sense of weight on one's shoulders or a deep responsibility. It's an airplane, whether boxes or people, and the mission is to fly it safely. That doesn't change when zero, one or 200 people are on board. The aircraft is flown the same. The sense of responsibility is the same: that of doing one's job. Passengers may like to to imagine that the crew is weighed down by the sense of overwhelming responsibility, knowing all those lives are resting upon them, but the truth is that from the cockpit, it's irrelevant.

If you think about it, on the flight deck, we're the first ones to the scene of the crash. Accordingly, we have as bit a motivation as anyone to ensure the safety of the flight, and we do. It's our job, regardless of what, or whom may be behind the cockpit door.

TTailedTiger · Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:10 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Yes, it would be and, that’s how it’s done in two pilot crews. One flies and works ATC while the other pilot does the QRH drills. In the three-crew, one pilot flies, the second pilot and engineer work the drills unless they’re so simple the engineer follows the checklist and reports it complete. In a sense, that’s how a single-seat fighter is done—the aircraft with the emergency is put in the lead, flies and the QRH drills are read over the radio as time permits. Or the emergency is led to the runway on the wing in formation as quickly as possible when it’s dire.

A single pilot civil jet the pilot must use the autopilot, when conditions stabilize, as his assistant and work the emergency drills while monitoring the flight path. If the plane cannot be put into a condition permitting the autopilot to work, the QRH drills are out the window, it’s all about maintaining control by hand flying.

The idea of a single pilot airliner includes a “pilot” on the ground who can access functions and could fly as a UAV is controlled. Long way off.

GF

Yeah handling an emergency by yourself in a civilian jet is not ideal in any way. Single pilot military jets have the option for the pilot to punch out and call it a day if things go sour.

GalaxyFlyer · Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:15 am

You obviously haven’t been flying with an ejection seat. I have, you don’t use until you are more frightened of the plane than you are of the seat. 1 in 8 pilots are, I’m a little out of date on the stats, killed when they resorted to it. Nearly all out of the envelope. Mine was close about 300 milliseconds from being out of the envelope. Nobody, I mean NOBODY, looks at an ejection seat as a free way out; injuries are likely.

GF

Oliver2020 · Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:03 am

747Whale wrote:
Oliver2020 wrote:

Captain Al Haynes and Danny Fitch seemed to be very upset about the passengers they lost in UA 232.

But you are correct no one forces us to fly, and it's highly likely to be killed in a car going to the airport than to be involved in an aircraft accident.

I spent some time discussing it with Captain Haynes in person, and yes, he was. It affected him deeply for some time, and what helped him get over it was talking about it, and in particular, sharing with the survivors, who saw him as having saved them.

That said, there's a big difference between a routine flight and dealing with the aftermath.

When flying passengers, there is no sense of weight on one's shoulders or a deep responsibility. It's an airplane, whether boxes or people, and the mission is to fly it safely. That doesn't change when zero, one or 200 people are on board. The aircraft is flown the same. The sense of responsibility is the same: that of doing one's job. Passengers may like to to imagine that the crew is weighed down by the sense of overwhelming responsibility, knowing all those lives are resting upon them, but the truth is that from the cockpit, it's irrelevant.

If you think about it, on the flight deck, we're the first ones to the scene of the crash. Accordingly, we have as bit a motivation as anyone to ensure the safety of the flight, and we do. It's our job, regardless of what, or whom may be behind the cockpit door.

I watched a recent video on ua232 with Denny Fitch(RIP) it was really sad watching him with tears in his eyes speaking of the passengers that perished on that flight.

And as a passenger I would always want the pilots complete concentration on the operation of the aircraft from beginning to the end of the flight.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net