Single pilot certification?

Holocene

Well-Known Member
Citation and Lear 25 are of similar weights/sizes, but why no single-pilot operation of Lear?

Speed? Just more to manage?

Just wondering.
 
Citation and Lear 25 are of similar weights/sizes, but why no single-pilot operation of Lear?

Speed? Just more to manage?

Just wondering.

Never did figure out, but none of the Lear's are.....not even the 23/24. Don't know if it's a performance thing, a cockpit layout thing?
 
Single Pilot Jets
The training, insurance and safety aspects of flying solo in a business jet.
By J. Mac McClellan
Photographed by Paul Bowen
December 2006
111520061034128459.jpg
From the beginning the FAA has treated jets differently. In almost every area of certification the standards for jets have been more stringent than for propeller-driven airplanes, and one of those jet standards had been a requirement for two pilots. That rule remained in force until 1977 when Cessna won approval for single-pilot operation of its new Citation I-SP, and now many models of business jets are approved for single-pilot operation.
Most business jets are certified in the transport category because they have maximum certified takeoff weights greater than 12,500 pounds, the demarcation between large and small aircraft. One of the many certification rule changes between small and large aircraft is a requirement for at least two pilots in the large transport category airplane.
It’s easy to understand why two pilots would be required in a transport airplane, given the greater complexity and generally higher performance. By their very nature transport airplanes are designed to carry larger numbers of people, or a greater amount of cargo, so there is a greater risk to a larger group, and certification theory has always demanded a higher standard as risk increases. Society, through the FAA, grants us wide latitude to take chances with our own lives, or with those of a few friends or family members, but that all changes when passenger capacity increases. Nobody wants to operate really large airplanes — including larger business jets — with a single pilot, but light business jets are a different issue. For many people a single pilot in a light business jet is enough.
It is understandable why some owners would want to fly their business jets without a copilot. The convenience of taking off when you want, staying as long as you want, and all other aspects of operating your own airplane are at least a little more complicated when you need two pilots. Single-pilot operation is all about flexibility and convenience. There is some cost to be saved by not hiring a copilot, but that’s not a big issue. Besides, you almost certainly will pay more in insurance premiums than a qualified copilot would cost to hire.
Many business jet owners will argue that single-pilot flying is safe, but no sane person would say it is 100 percent as safe as with a well-trained crew of two professional pilots. But in all forms of general aviation flying we trade a small amount of safety potential—a second pilot, or maybe second engine—for convenience and availability. If we didn’t make some small compromises on potential safety, we would all be on the airlines because they adhere to the most rigid, and potentially safest, standards.
111520061034126384.jpg


The first company that I know of that attempted to win single-pilot certification for a business jet was Lear Jet with its original Model 23. Bill Lear imagined his speedy little jet as very much a personal airplane, unlike the Gulfstream, JetStar, Hawker 125 and Sabreliner, all true corporate airplanes that the giant airplane companies were delivering in the early 1960s. Maximum certified takeoff weight in the Lear Jet 23 was set at 12,500 pounds so it could qualify under the small aircraft rules. The company did win certification in the small airplane category for the 23, but after FAA flight testing the agency ruled that a second pilot would be required. Following models of the Learjet were certified in the transport category and single-pilot approval has never been awarded, or even requested, as far as I know.
When Cessna developed the original Citation 500 in the early 1970s the airplane was approved at a maximum takeoff weight of 11,850 pounds, which qualified for small airplane certification, but it was certified in the transport category and required a crew of two. The improved version Citation I-SP that came along in 1977 was certified in the small airplane category, along with the larger Citation II-SP, and was thus eligible for single-pilot operation, which the FAA approved.

111520061034128727.jpg

The maximum takeoff weight being below 12,500 helped to determine the rules of certification, but what Cessna really did with the I-SP was convince the FAA that the airplane had a low enough workload that a trained single pilot could handle it safely. To fly the I-SP with a single pilot you had to have a boom microphone for hands-free communications—somewhat uncommon 30 years ago—and a fully functioning autopilot. There was also the quaint requirement for a transponder ident button to be mounted on the control wheel. In those days we would ident on almost every controller handoff.
In the case of the Citation I-SP and II-SP it was the airplane that was approved for single-pilot flying, not the pilot. There was only one type rating—the CE500—that allowed a pilot to fly any of the Citation models at the time, including flying solo or as part of a crew. The entire focus was on the airplane, not the pilot.


The FAA’s thinking changed in the 1980s with the creation of the new commuter category of certification. A number of turboprops used in commuter flying at the time were bumping up against the 12,500-pound certification limit for small airplanes. It was impractical to modify these airplanes to the more stringent transport category rules so that they could operate at higher takeoff weights, so the commuter category was created. To certify in commuter category an airplane has to meet many, but not nearly all, of the transport rules, but, in general, two pilots are required.
An early airplane approved in the commuter category was the Beech King Air 300, which very closely resembles the Super King Air 200, except the 300 has more powerful engines and a maximum takeoff weight above 12,500 pounds. Pilots flying the 300 need a type rating because it is in the commuter category, and they must observe balanced field takeoff requirements. But the cockpit and pilot workload of the 300 is virtually identical to the 200 that requires neither a type rating or second pilot.

In an admirable flash of absolute logic the FAA recognized that it is the pilot, not the airplane, that makes the difference when deciding on how many pilots are needed. Clearly the King Air 200 had a long and successful record being flown by single pilots before the 300 was created, so the airplane and its workload was not the issue. It was obvious that the 300 could be flown safely by a single pilot, but the FAA didn’t want to give up the safety standards it sets for large airplanes. The answer was the single-pilot type rating.
111520061034130221.jpg

The way it works is that the airplanes — the King Air 300, 350, CJs, Beech Premier, Mustang and many more — are approved for single-pilot operation, but the pilot must have a type rating that qualifies him to fly solo. To earn that rating the pilot must be trained and checked under an approved program. These airplanes are eligible to be flown by a single pilot, but not just any single pilot.
The FAA still begins with the assumption that a jet or airplane weighing more than 12,500 pounds will require a crew of two and it’s up to the manufacturer to demonstrate otherwise. Approval for single-pilot operation is one of the final steps in certification of a new business jet, or an airplane in the commuter category.
Many of the requirements for single-pilot operation are obvious. For example, the landing gear handle needs to be easily reachable from the left seat, which is not always the case in jets. The design of the basic controls is also crucial. For example, it would be almost impossible to get single-pilot approval for a jet with tiller steering for the nosewheel because at crucial times during takeoff or landing the left seat pilot needs one hand for the tiller and the other for the throttles, with nothing left for the flight controls. All other controls, switches and essential items must also be located so a single pilot can easily see and reach them. And the autopilot must be fully and seamlessly integrated into the airplane and its navigation systems, and the complete autopilot system must be functional for every flight with only one pilot.
After the FAA determines that a pilot can physically manage the cockpit from the left seat, actual flight testing determines if the airplane will be approved for single-pilot flight. What typically happens is that FAA certification pilots fly the new type from the left seat through various maneuvers, but most importantly, the pilots fly typical flights to determine the workload. The FAA pilots fly the airplane into busy airspace on standard IFR clearances with no special ATC handling and with no help from a copilot. And the FAA pilots do not have a great deal of time in the airplane because it is, of course, new, so they are taking a fresh look at the tasks a pilot must perform.
111520061034130554.jpg


Airspeeds are, of course, important because a jet that can fly slower in the terminal area gives the single pilot more time to manage the cockpit. But even more critical is the level of automation in the systems and avionics. The autopilot will be used for virtually all phases of flight except takeoff and landing, so it must be uncomplicated to operate and perform crucial functions such as automatic altitude capture. The flight management system (FMS) that handles the navigation chores must have comprehensive capability, but not demand too much head-down time to operate. These are all subjective decisions by the FAA pilots, but in nearly 30 years of single-pilot jet operation the base of experience is broad.......

http://www.flyingmag.com/pilotreports/731/single-pilot-jets.html?print_page=y
<!-- BEGIN ARTICLE NAVIGATION - same funcitionality as PopPboto -->
 
Safety-wise, single pilot jet flying for selected jets is perfectly fine, IMO. So long as the panel is optimized for the single pilot, the performance issues should be no big deal. Have flown in a Lear 23, and single pilot ops in that thing would be no problem, with the proper training. Still, having flown approach category E fighters single-pilot for many years, and having had to consistently think at 5 miles/min on an jet penetration into a terminal area, and faster in cruise; I don't see where single pilot jet ops is an issue for some of the smaller jets.
 
It is hard to get the FAA to change their old ways mostly due their impeccable ability to cover their own butt and the unwillingness for any reversal of safety decisions that may have been valid in the past. This also gives cause for the insurance companies to jack their premium.

In my opinion the military operates Aircraft and treat their pilots the way it is suppose to be.
 
I have flown with a guy that was part of a research team contracted by Learjet to fly the 20 series single pilot under a waiver. They were to fly for 6 months and then report back to the FAA whether they thought the airplane was capable of being safely operated single pilot.

The overwhelming consensus was HELL NO.

So...Bill told them to do it for another 6 months.

Same result.
 
Safety-wise, single pilot jet flying for selected jets is perfectly fine, IMO. So long as the panel is optimized for the single pilot, the performance issues should be no big deal. Have flown in a Lear 23, and single pilot ops in that thing would be no problem, with the proper training. Still, having flown approach category E fighters single-pilot for many years, and having had to consistently think at 5 miles/min on an jet penetration into a terminal area, and faster in cruise; I don't see where single pilot jet ops is an issue for some of the smaller jets.
You're dangerous and unprofessional.

Oh, sorry...wrong board.

Back to reality. I agree. The Cj and even the Citation are really set up for single pilot operations. With even adequate training on a person that is capable of doing it, single pilot in either of those aircraft types isn't a big deal. Someone once told me about the King Air 350, and I'd agree for the Citation and Cj's...they're a one-and-a-half pilot plane. One can be not enough but two is overkill. One + autopilot is perfect.

I've got ref speeds as low as the high 90s in the Cj2. I was flying 150 knots down final in a baron and 170 down final single pilot in a caravan not long ago and those didn't necessarily have a flight director that would actually take you where you wanted to go.

Given the proper flight training (not even necessarily sim based), it's just as safe in a Cj as it is in a Baron or Navajo or King Air or 421 or even a 182...in some cases, it's safer. You just have to make sure the pilot can handle the automation when 1) it fails 2) he's programmed it wrong and it's trying to kill him (did that once in the sim...whoops...makes you think twice about what order to hit the buttons) and 3) it's just plain malfunctioning and it's trying to kill him.

-mini
 
Citation and Lear 25 are of similar weights/sizes, but why no single-pilot operation of Lear?

Short answer, because the Lear was first.

The Lear predated the CE-500 by 15 plus years. It was certified at a time when jets were brand new and had a high failure rate. Jets NEEDED two HIGHLY experianced pilots. By the time the Citation was around, engines were much more reliable, there was more automation, and the citation was considerably slower in the airport vicinity.
 
Jack Roush flies his Premier single pilot and jet blasts our fleet at the same time :)

RD
 
JJink, I don't think that the "butt covering" you refer to is exclusive to the FAA. It is inherent in government at all levels. There is a verrrrrry strong correlation between inflexible bureaucracies and lawyers. USMCmech nailed it: Lear was first so they were saddled with the restrictions.
 
JJink, I don't think that the "butt covering" you refer to is exclusive to the FAA. It is inherent in government at all levels. There is a verrrrrry strong correlation between inflexible bureaucracies and lawyers. USMCmech nailed it: Lear was first so they were saddled with the restrictions.
Then why no waiver training/program now that we know more about single pilot jet operations? I'd think there has to be more to it than "they were first".

-mini
 
so obviously there is more to it.

The "there's more to it" is that there is no money in it.

If a Lear 23 were designed today with a glass cockpit, FADEC engines, and the other requirements for SP ops, they probably could get the certification.

However, all the small lears have been sold. In fact most have been sent to the boneyard. There is not a big enough market for Lear to spend the large amounts of money required to make the FAA happy.
 
In fact most have been sent to the boneyard. There is not a big enough market for Lear to spend the large amounts of money required to make the FAA happy.

That may be true now, but how about back in the late 70s/early 80s when the Citation 500 hit the market? Wouldn't there have been some effort at that time to make the changeover? I really don't know, I wasn't around back then.
 
That may be true now, but how about back in the late 70s/early 80s when the Citation 500 hit the market? Wouldn't there have been some effort at that time to make the changeover? I really don't know, I wasn't around back then.

I would guess that back engineering SP ops into the small lears would have been rediculsly expensive for a small fleet that was already being replaced by bigger and more modern aircraft. Was Lear even still building 23/25s when the CE-500 was launched?

Vs starting with the goal of SP certification from the initial design phase of the Citation. Much cheaper, and with the prospect of sales for the indefinate future.
 
If a Lear 23 were designed today with a glass cockpit, FADEC engines, and the other requirements for SP ops, they probably could get the certification.
Glass and FADEC aren't required for SP ops.

That may be true now, but how about back in the late 70s/early 80s when the Citation 500 hit the market? Wouldn't there have been some effort at that time to make the changeover? I really don't know, I wasn't around back then.
I'd think so too.

-mini
 
Was Lear even still building 23/25s when the CE-500 was launched?

Yes. Controller.com has listings for Lear 24 and 25 models manufactured from the late 60s to early 80s.

I've heard from some place or another that aside from the performance issues, one of the only things keeping the Lears from making the SP cut is the position of the landing gear selector and the pressurization system controls; out of reach of the pilot in the left seat. PTT and ident switches on the yoke are an easy mod regardless of the aircraft.
 
Safety-wise, single pilot jet flying for selected jets is perfectly fine, IMO. So long as the panel is optimized for the single pilot, the performance issues should be no big deal. Have flown in a Lear 23, and single pilot ops in that thing would be no problem, with the proper training. .

Huge caveat. We did all the training in the airplane. There were no sims and V1 cuts were often quite interesting. Even training in the early Citations was at times a challenge. People came to the airplane without good training, without the discipline to fly the Citation, much less the Lear 23 which was a very strong performer. Remember too, first flight for the -23 was in 1963. Last 23 built in 66 when they began making the -24.

Pegged VSI on takeoff and cruising at FL410? That was a handful for many. And the -23 was like the 727 in that the VSI could be pegged in descent witn power in idle and nothing unusual. No clues you were falling at 6000+fpm.

I saw one of the early Lears when they thought they may get single pilot and some switches were moved over toward the left seat. But again, this was a paradigm shift for a lot of people.

LearJet23-Maiden-Flight.jpg


Engineering origin for the Lear 23.. the Swiss P-16
1155507.jpg
 
They tried to make the Citation 560XL a single pilot airplane... but they were never able to certify it. Too much to handle when stuff goes wrong.


The 500 series citations are fairly easy to handle when stuff is hitting the fan. I don't know about the Lear series but I imagine it has some tougher stuff that they wouldn't allow single pilot if it went south.

Anyone?
 
The -23/-24/-25 were all good flying machines and the feel went from quite light to heavier by the time the -25 came out. Systems were not automated and of course, there was no LNAV or VNAV. The autopilot, IF it worked, was basic.

The Citation (originally FanJet 500) however was genius. A straight fat wing and simple handling. You had to screw up and PERSIST at it to get yourself in real trouble and even then some managed that. That is why Cessna has built a bazillion of them and are still cranking them out.

Like MikeD said, with GOOD training and good flying skills, a good stick could fly the 20 series without too much problem. But they were not airplanes you could get lazy with. And that is what made them a lot of fun to fly.
 
Back
Top