Looks like the FAA used the Biffle crash to do something they’d wanted to do for a while. Do I think operating a dispose-a-jet SP is dangerous? Absolutely. Is operating a CJ-series or equivalent SP more dangerous than crew? Unquestionably (having done both a good bit). Is it disingenuous to use a crash where the pilot didn’t hold the SPE and was operating illegally from engine start onwards towards getting rid of the SPE? FAA says no.
FAA ends SPE
- Thread starter pwttogfk
- Start date
While the triggering event may not be the most logical example, I think this is a good thing. Older Citations, while not necessarily difficult to fly, are still a lot of airplane for a single pilot. Especially the older ones with have three different generations of avionics that don't mesh well with each other as they got retrofitted to meet later mandates. Throw in some weather or an emergency and the workload can rise surprisingly quickly. My first job was right seat in a Citation Bravo after the owner didn't want his pilot to use the SPE anymore and it's what set off my career. Hopefully more up and coming pilots can get the same opportunity now. Even better I hope this can be used as ammo to further slow or completely eliminate the argument for single pilot operations on a wide scale. Add in the eye watering insurance increases for single pilot certified airplanes versus their crew counterparts and a very compelling pattern starts emerging. Glad to see things moving in the correct direction for once.
T/O w/FSII
Well-Known Member
Just to be clear, this only applies to the originally certified as two pilot citation 500 series aircraft. Not the 501 or 551. Which is the exact same airplane but I digress…
Or the 510 or 525 for that matter (mustang and CJ)
Or the 510 or 525 for that matter (mustang and CJ)
T/O w/FSII
Well-Known Member
Because a single pilot exemption letter only exists and is (was) valid for a single aircraft type. The citation 500.
T/O w/FSII
Well-Known Member
AMEL and an instrument rating is all. You don’t need a type in the domestic US (but you do need the training defined in 61.55)
DropTank
Well-Known Member
3 takeoffs and landings in type
DropTank
Well-Known Member
I wonder if this will be a problem in the future for CJ's, HA-420's, Phenom's, and PC24's.
(and also High performance turbo props)
Yeah, they are CERTIFIED as single pilot and not an exemption.
Up until now, the insurance have limited SP ops in high performance aircraft.
I know that the Phenom, Mustang, and HA-420 have a WAY higher accident/incident rate, mostly due to the owner/operator demographic.
The document in the article stated that:
"This data undermines the threshold requirement for issuance of an exemption, namely that the relief would provide an equivalent level of safety or result in no adverse impact on safety."
The CE-500 rules were a cluster of airplane standards and pilot standards and documentation that evolved and mutated over the years.
I kind of applaud the FAA for doing this.
(and also High performance turbo props)
Yeah, they are CERTIFIED as single pilot and not an exemption.
Up until now, the insurance have limited SP ops in high performance aircraft.
I know that the Phenom, Mustang, and HA-420 have a WAY higher accident/incident rate, mostly due to the owner/operator demographic.
The document in the article stated that:
"This data undermines the threshold requirement for issuance of an exemption, namely that the relief would provide an equivalent level of safety or result in no adverse impact on safety."
The CE-500 rules were a cluster of airplane standards and pilot standards and documentation that evolved and mutated over the years.
I kind of applaud the FAA for doing this.