CE-525S type rating

[surplus1]

Someone help me to understand what is the logic of building and operating an airplane that has two of everything but only one pilot.

Regardless of how "easy" it may be to fly the airplane the whole idea just strikes me as extremely penny wise and pound foolish.

 

[English]

Cessna 152s and 172s have only one pilot. So do the 310s and 421s. Turbine? Cessna 425, one pilot.

 

[350DRIVER]

Someone help me to understand what is the logic of building and operating an airplane that has two of everything but only one pilot.

Regardless of how "easy" it may be to fly the airplane the whole idea just strikes me as extremely penny wise and pound foolish.

It is cheaper to pay one pilot versus having to pay two.
It is cheaper to type and train one pilot versus two.
It is cheaper to send one pilot to recurrent every year versus sending two.
It allows many flight departments more flexibility in more ways than one.

3 5 0

* As a side note, these airplanes have been designed and engineered in a manner where single pilot flight can be accomplished safely with little risk.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Someone help me to understand what is the logic of building and operating an airplane that has two of everything but only one pilot.

Regardless of how "easy" it may be to fly the airplane the whole idea just strikes me as extremely penny wise and pound foolish.

I think Cessna originally intended the Citation series to be what it appears the Eclipse and others are becoming. Back in the 70's though, Jets were still looked at as only two pilot aircraft unless it's designator began with the letter "F" followed by a number, in which case you needed a Military commision to operate single pilot.

The Excel was originally intended to operate under the SP waiver also, but in the end it was nixed due to the pilot not being able to easily see the right wing tip during taxi. Even the early sim for the XL was rigged with the gear handle on the left side for sp ops.

I like the Citation 550 series, it sure beats working at Walmart while on furlough from the airline, however, nobody that has flown a Boeing or other military or airline hardware can call the 500,525,550,560 series citations a "Real jet" It does Ok but it is still a high altitude speed bump to most of the metal operating in the flight levels above 310. Cessna does have nice speedy hardware, the 650 series and of course the Ten fall under the "Jet" heading. The baby Citations do serve a very valuble service though, you get near jet speeds while still being able to operate out of short rural airports, and that can be very valuable to the businessman who has meetings 50 miles away from the nearest 8000 ft runway. That is why we operate a straight wing Citation instead of something else, It is the fastest we can go and still get into the short strips that we need to for business.

As the DE on my initial SP checkride said "Every professional pilot should be issued a personal Citation to commute to and from work."

I personally do not see the need for two up front in a straight wing citation, as long as the guy (Sorry English....or Gal ) up front is competent. But I do run into many Corporate pilots that give you a Deer in the headlight look when you ask about Balanced field length, or some other item that should be an everyday term for a (Dare I say it...) jet pilot. And some of those guys are flying around in a mach .80+ airplane.

The 550's are a very docile and forgiving airplane. Not a normal private pilots ride by any means, but anybody that has a good bit of time and experience shouldn't have any problems at all. I'll take a departure engine failure in heavy IFR in a Citation anyday of the week, over an engine failure in a light twin on a VFR day. Yet people fly light underpowered twins around every day and nobody questions the SP ops on those. Jets are easy, you pop a motor, stand on the rudder and climb out at 1500 feet per minute instead of 4500 FPM. You want a tough single pilot op? Blow a Motor on a piston twin at 50 feet on T/O......stand on the rudder, mixtures props throttles, verify, feather, 5 degrees into the good engine, yada yada yada....and if you do it perfect you are rewarded with a measly 300 FPM climb if you are lucky!!!!!!!

If you ask me, they need to require an F/O for a Baron and a Seminole!!!!!

 

[FracCapt]

Speaking of single pilot....

It seems that Swearingen is still planning to certify the SJ30-2 as a single pilot aircraft. I'm still wondering how the FAA is going to look at that. It's a small jet, but seats six pax, has a fairly high angle swept wing, and will be certified to FL490(supposedly) with a 12psi cabin diff(that's WITHOUT software upgrades ).

I'm sure insurance will be outrageous.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

It seems that Swearingen is still planning to certify the SJ30-2 as a single pilot aircraft. I'm still wondering how the FAA is going to look at that. It's a small jet, but seats six pax, has a fairly high angle swept wing, and will be certified to FL490(supposedly) with a 12psi cabin diff(that's WITHOUT software upgrades ).

I'm sure insurance will be outrageous.

The FAA will probably use past SP data as a gauge when certifying it. So far the SP record is pretty good for the Citation series. However that is not due to the FAA's limits in my opinion. The FAA's minimums for SP ops for the waiverable aircraft in my opinion is pretty low. Mostly the insurance companies can be credited with keeping the experience higher in the sp planes.

I have never seen an owner operator that was insured SP. All the ones I have come across that held an sp type or waiver still were required to have a babysitter along. So at least insurance wise, really the only people that will be flying sp (from what I have seen) will be professional pilots. I am sure there are some owner flown sp ops out there, but I would hate to see their insurance bills! Even with the old 501's that just require a regular type and no waiver for SP ops, I still see the owners required to have an f/o.

You are correct about the swept wing throwing a monkey wrench in things, Even on the pro pilot side, I see alot of Citation drivers that have never flown a swept wing. Some of the things I see people do in the 500 series will put a serious hurting on you if you tried it in a swept wing bird. there are more than a few that fly the thing like a like a 182 or a light twin. Idle power steep final approaches can be done in a Citation. Try it on a swept wing bird and they are going to have problems. Also the 500's don't really have a coffin corner so to speak. They are at max altitude well before aerodynamic performance issues become a big factor. So your average guy can run a 500 series in the high 30's and low 40's without having to really understand what is happening up there. There is a lot of "sluff" room on them.

I can only assume that any swept wing airplanes course will include high altitude and high speed aerodynamics, but given the amount of RJ pilots I have talked to concerning the Pinnacle crash, and the apparant lack of training in these areas even on the 121 side, I have my doubts about it.

 

[English]

I know two owner-operators (CE525) who fly single pilot. They rigged a deal for insurance with a local charter operator. They are both 135-qualified (easy when the DO just signs you off) but don't fly charters. Another owner-operator I know is insured on his own for not much more than he'd pay with an SIC (about a 10k a year difference).

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Maybe the SP type is a little easier to get insured. They do not seem as flexible when dealing with the aircraft that require the waiver.

It will be intresting how they deal with the swept wing SP planes.

 

[English]

Could be...

Although it is also tough for owner-operator CJ pilots to be insured single pilot as well. These guys were exceptions due to their 1) ability to work the system, and 2) the fact that they trained as professionals, i.e., FSI every six months.