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.
DropTank
Well-Known Member
For cargo, yeah
CFI A&P
Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
That’s a great point. Sets up the precedent that single pilot exemption for jets certified with two pilots is considered unsafe.
DropTank
Well-Known Member
61.55
(a) A person may serve as a second-in-command of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second-in-command pilot flight crewmember only if that person meets the following requirements:
(1) Holds at least a private pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class rating;
(2) Holds an instrument rating or privilege that applies to the aircraft being flown if the flight is under IFR;
(3) Holds at least a pilot type rating for the aircraft being flown unless the flight will be conducted as domestic flight operations within the United States airspace;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(2) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, performed and logged pilot time in the type of aircraft or in a flight simulator that represents the type of aircraft for which second-in-command privileges are requested, which includes—
(i) Three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop as the sole manipulator of the flight controls;
(ii) Engine-out procedures and maneuvering with an engine out while executing the duties of pilot in command; and
(iii) Crew resource management training.
61.55(a)(3) SIC doesn't need a type rating if domestic
(this is going to screw a poor rookie who gets suckered into a flight to Canada, Mexico, or the Bahamas)
61.55(b)(2) OEI ops. Many dirtbag ops forget the engine out portion of this.
(a) A person may serve as a second-in-command of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second-in-command pilot flight crewmember only if that person meets the following requirements:
(1) Holds at least a private pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class rating;
(2) Holds an instrument rating or privilege that applies to the aircraft being flown if the flight is under IFR;
(3) Holds at least a pilot type rating for the aircraft being flown unless the flight will be conducted as domestic flight operations within the United States airspace;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(2) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, performed and logged pilot time in the type of aircraft or in a flight simulator that represents the type of aircraft for which second-in-command privileges are requested, which includes—
(i) Three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop as the sole manipulator of the flight controls;
(ii) Engine-out procedures and maneuvering with an engine out while executing the duties of pilot in command; and
(iii) Crew resource management training.
61.55(a)(3) SIC doesn't need a type rating if domestic
(this is going to screw a poor rookie who gets suckered into a flight to Canada, Mexico, or the Bahamas)
61.55(b)(2) OEI ops. Many dirtbag ops forget the engine out portion of this.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Good
Beep
Well-Known Member
And short distance air taxi operators using drones.
Inverted
mmmmmm wine
Yeah, but there are arguably more complex aircraft without SPE that are flown single-pilot. I guess you can't change type requirements after the fact, but a CE-500 isn't exactly the most complex airplane flown single-pilot.
mightynimbus
Well-Known Member
No idea how many operate regularly using the SPE,
but the demand for a warm body in the other seat likely just changed.
Probably going to be some interesting efforts at solving that
but the demand for a warm body in the other seat likely just changed.
Probably going to be some interesting efforts at solving that