Single/double pilot planes

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 1,101

What are the biggest planes that are deliberately flown by one pilot?

All airliners can, in emergency, be landed by one pilot and it is acceptable for one pilot to leave the cockpit sometimes in cruise, like for lavatory visits. But they are not supposed to be deliberately flown with one pilot. And neither are big business jets.

Cessna, however, has a fair number of jets which can be flown by single pilot. Those are planes with two pilot seats in cockpit. Some of those Cessnas can be deliberately flown with one pilot seats empty. Other Cessnas, often versions of the same models, are not to be deliberately flown solo.

What is the difference in cockpit between Cessnas which can deliberately be flown solo and those which may not deliberately flown solo?

Also, I hear that a plenty of manufacturers are coming out of woodwork to manufacture Very Light Jets, with two pilot seats but supposed to be flown alone. Many of those manufacturers are previously unheard of. Some are not. For example, Embraer Phenom 100 is supposed to be flown solo. Embraer also manufactures other planes - including airlines.

What exactly makes those pressurized, high-speed, high altitude twin turbofans so easy to fly that it can be done alone?

Original post

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 237

I fly just such a twin-engined bizjet.

Whether or not an aircraft can be flown Single-Crew is a function of three factors. Generalising slightly, these are:

1) Whether or not the manufacturer built it that way. Simple things, such as access to circuit-breakers, flap controls, fuel-feeds and similar can preclude single-crew ops.

2) Certification. For an aircraft to be operated single-crew, it must be certificated by the relevant authority. Not all national authorities agree on the criteria to be applied. Generally speaking, the FAA are more likely to approve an aircraft for single-crew ops than the JAA (now EASA).

3) Type of Flight. Certain types of flight are required by law to be operated by two crew, regardless of the certification held by the aircraft.

These three factors combine to ensure that the answer to your question is not a simple one.

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 1,101

I fly just such a twin-engined bizjet.

Whether or not an aircraft can be flown Single-Crew is a function of three factors. Generalising slightly, these are:

1) Whether or not the manufacturer built it that way. Simple things, such as access to circuit-breakers, flap controls, fuel-feeds and similar can preclude single-crew ops.


Wouldn´t those things in cockpit be especially hazardous in emergency with one pilot incapacitated?

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 237

Aircraft will not be certificated if their cockpit ergonomics are such that the incapacitation of a single crew member will render the flight inoperable. The general certification requirements for light-end aircraft, as applied by the FAA can be found online under FAR 23.1523, if it is a subject that interests you.

The difference between those aircraft which cannot obtain single-crew certification is more a question of what a single pilot can comfortably achieve, rather than with the absolute inability to reach a particular switch or control.

In reality, the question of fundamental control ergonomics is diminishing as cockpits make greater use of EICAS, and EFIS technology to make systems accessible from any crew position. This is gradually making much more complex aircraft accessible to single-crew operations. It is now increasingly a regulatory and safety matter rather than a piloting question whether such a single-crew operation is appropriate.

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 1,101

Aircraft will not be certificated if their cockpit ergonomics are such that the incapacitation of a single crew member will render the flight inoperable. The general certification requirements for light-end aircraft, as applied by the FAA can be found online under FAR 23.1523, if it is a subject that interests you.

Indeed. Though the FAR-s, and JAR-s, tend to be expressed in general terms in a large number of their provisions.

The difference between those aircraft which cannot obtain single-crew certification is more a question of what a single pilot can comfortably achieve, rather than with the absolute inability to reach a particular switch or control.

In reality, the question of fundamental control ergonomics is diminishing as cockpits make greater use of EICAS, and EFIS technology to make systems accessible from any crew position. This is gradually making much more complex aircraft accessible to single-crew operations. It is now increasingly a regulatory and safety matter rather than a piloting question whether such a single-crew operation is appropriate.


Ah, I see.
So, is a light twin bizjet with less than 9 seats et cetera actually significantly less complex and more safe to fly than a heavy twin? Or is it purely a regulatory difference?
The FARs seem to require maximum of 9 passenger seat on any single engine plane, and also maximum of 9 for single pilot. As you said, EASA may refuse single pilot certification to planes that have FAA certification. On the other hand, there are other CAA-s... I have heard that some big Cessna single engine planes are restricted in USA to 9 seats as per FAR-s, but in fact are big enough to have 13-14 seats installed, and fly that way outside USA, like Latin America. Well, there is a plane manufacturer in Latin America who is planning to build single pilot bizjets and already is building bigger bizjets and airliners... wonder if the use of EICAS and EFIS encourages building versions of larger business jets to be flyable solo where certification can be acquired...

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 237

I am not sure that the FARs are particularly vague in this regard. The relevant detail is in Appendix D (for Part 25 Transport Category Aircraft)

The business of the number of seats installed has more to do with (in the cases you cite) part 135 requirements. In other words, they design with the intended type of commercial use in mind. Since the majority of manufacturers of smaller types have their eyes on the US Part 135 market (Air Taxis and on-demand operations), they tend to build seating configurations with a view to meeting certification for that category.

VLJ ops are likely to target part 91 self-fly owner-pilots, which is a less exacting standard to have to meet. This is where the majority of single-crew jets are to be found.

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 1,101

I am not sure that the FARs are particularly vague in this regard. The relevant detail is in Appendix D (for Part 25 Transport Category Aircraft)

Well, I looked it up...
The following are considered by the Agency in determining the minimum flight crew under Sec. 25.1523:
a. Basic workload functions. The following basic workload functions are considered:
(1) Flight path control.
(2) Collision avoidance.
(3) Navigation.
(4) Communications.
(5) Operation and monitoring of aircraft engines and systems.
(6) Command decisions.
b. Workload factors. The following workload factors are considered significant when analyzing and demonstrating workload for minimum flight crew determination:
(1) The accessibility, ease, and simplicity of operation of all necessary flight, power, and equipment controls, including emergency fuel shutoff valves, electrical controls, electronic controls, pressurization system controls, and engine controls.
(2) The accessibility and conspicuity of all necessary instruments and failure warning devices such as fire warning, electrical system malfunction, and other failure or caution indicators. The extent to which such instruments or devices direct the proper corrective action is also considered.
(3) The number, urgency, and complexity of operating procedures with particular consideration given to the specific fuel management schedule imposed by center of gravity, structural or other considerations of an airworthiness nature, and to the ability of each engine to operate at all times from a single tank or source which is automatically replenished if fuel is also stored in other tanks.
(4) The degree and duration of concentrated mental and physical effort involved in normal operation and in diagnosing and coping with malfunctions and emergencies.
(5) The extent of required monitoring of the fuel, hydraulic, pressurization, electrical, electronic, deicing, and other systems while en route.
(6) The actions requiring a crewmember to be unavailable at his assigned duty station, including: observation of systems, emergency operation of any control, and emergencies in any compartment.
(7) The degree of automation provided in the aircraft systems to afford (after failures or malfunctions) automatic crossover or isolation of difficulties to minimize the need for flight crew action to guard against loss of hydraulic or electric power to flight controls or to other essential systems.
(8) The communications and navigation workload.
(9) The possibility of increased workload associated with any emergency that may lead to other emergencies.
(10) Incapacitation of a flight crewmember whenever the applicable operating rule requires a minimum flight crew of at least two pilots.

So. Does it mean that the light twinjets which can be flown solo (some Cessna versions) impose a considerably lower total flightcrew workload than the light twinjets which cannot be flown solo (other Cessna versions)?

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 237

Well, of the Citations that fall into that category. I've flown the 550 and the 550SP, and the modifications do make the SP (Single Pilot) considerably easier to operate. The nature of these changes is very basic; essentially buttons, selectors and switches that have been placed in a better position.

From a handling point of view, the aircraft is like most other straight-winged aircraft and isn't particularly difficult to fly. There is no difference in that respect between the 550 and the 550SP.

It is noteworthy that none of the sweptwing Citations are approved for single-crew ops.

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 1,101

Well, of the Citations that fall into that category. I've flown the 550 and the 550SP, and the modifications do make the SP (Single Pilot) considerably easier to operate. The nature of these changes is very basic; essentially buttons, selectors and switches that have been placed in a better position.

Is the 550SP also easier to operate by two pilots than the 550 requiring two pilots?

It is noteworthy that none of the sweptwing Citations are approved for single-crew ops.


And Embraer Phenom 100 has roughly straight wing. Phenom 300 has swept wing, though - and is supposed to be suitable for single pilot flying.

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 237

Is the 550SP also easier to operate by two pilots than the 550 requiring two pilots?

You are straying into the area of personal judgement. I happen to think that both are relatively easy to fly single-crew or dual crew. However, having a second trained crewmember available when things go wrong is always an advantage.

Is there a particular point to your questions or are you just satisfying curiosity?

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 1,101

You are straying into the area of personal judgement. I happen to think that both are relatively easy to fly single-crew or dual crew. However, having a second trained crewmember available when things go wrong is always an advantage.

Then I do not understand what is the point of having non-SP 550 in the first place? 550SP has the flexibility to fly two-pilot, just as easy to fly dual-crew as the non-SP 550, same airframe... the better positions for buttons and switches...

Where´s the catch?


Is there a particular point to your questions or are you just satisfying curiosity?

Satisfying curiosity. With the talk of GA and VLJ boom, it makes one wonder how they are feasible.

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 237

Then I do not understand what is the point of having non-SP 550 in the first place?

The Citation is, in my opinion, a relatively easy aircraft to fly. However, in the opinion of the FAA the C550 is sufficiently complex to require 2 crew under most commercial operations. In order to expand their market, Cessna set about addressing the individual difficulties that the regulator had pointed out, and in producing the 550SP managed to achieve Single Pilot certification.

Neither aircraft is particularly difficult to fly, but the regulators are necessarily tough when it comes to passenger safety and apply a high hurdle.

The VLJs, from what we see of them so far, look like straight-wing simple-enough jets. This means that by-and-large they will achieve single-crew certification. However, all will be subject to type-rating courses, and the insurers are expected to place significant obstacles in the way of inexperienced owner-pilots getting into the left-hand seat.

This thought is one of the few rays of sunshine illuminating the lives of people like Socata with their TBM700 Turboprop. These old turborprop birds are starting to look very expensive compared to the projected prices of the VLJs, and without hurdles preventing their clients migrating to VLJs, people like Socata would be in real trouble.

All IMHO of course.

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 1,101

The Citation is, in my opinion, a relatively easy aircraft to fly. However, in the opinion of the FAA the C550 is sufficiently complex to require 2 crew under most commercial operations. In order to expand their market, Cessna set about addressing the individual difficulties that the regulator had pointed out, and in producing the 550SP managed to achieve Single Pilot certification.

Neither aircraft is particularly difficult to fly, but the regulators are necessarily tough when it comes to passenger safety and apply a high hurdle.


Yes. But once C550SP had been designed and certified for a Single Pilot, was there any point for a potential customer, even a customer who normally would use two pilots, to buy two-pilot-only 550 rather than the 550SP?

The VLJs, from what we see of them so far, look like straight-wing simple-enough jets. This means that by-and-large they will achieve single-crew certification.

Well, Phenom 300 is swept-wing, but it has EIS of 2009.

However, all will be subject to type-rating courses, and the insurers are expected to place significant obstacles in the way of inexperienced owner-pilots getting into the left-hand seat.

This thought is one of the few rays of sunshine illuminating the lives of people like Socata with their TBM700 Turboprop. These old turborprop birds are starting to look very expensive compared to the projected prices of the VLJs, and without hurdles preventing their clients migrating to VLJs, people like Socata would be in real trouble.

All IMHO of course.


What do you feel is the safest plane to fly in as a solo inexperienced pilot: a single turboprop like Socata (one engine out, and you glide), a twin turboprop (two engines to manage in normal flight - but when one quits you have asymmetric thrust rather than unpowered flight... could be sustained for a long time), a twin very light turbofan (same considerations) or a single turbofan... cannot remember very many of them in service... fighters and Global Flyer. Both have a solo pilot and Global Flyer was flown solo for 80 hours or so.

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 237

What you are failing to understand is that in commercial service (where the majority of C550s find themselves), two crew operations is normally mandatory, regardless of the certification of the aircraft. As a result, there is no particular advantage in paying the additional premium normally commanded by an SP version. The SP version appeals more to owner-pilots who are fewer in number. Different aircraft for different markets.

Global Flyer is not a certificated aircraft, so its crewing status is irrelevant.

The Phenom 300 is currently a drawing. From what it is possible to tell, the wing sweep is not more aggressive than the CJ. There is little point at this stage in speculating about the crew it may or may not ultimately require.

I'm not sure that I can usefully share any thoughts on solo inexperienced pilots in turbine aircraft with you.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 3,538

Trinny, are you a skipper for Netjets? If so I think we know each other!

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 237

PM coming your way Wysiwyg!

Member for

21 years 1 month

Posts: 1,029

The BN Trislanders flown from Eastleigh are all single crew and they carry a max of 19 pax.

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 237

The fact that Trislanders are approved for single pilot ops under VFR highlights one of the more questionable aspects of the single/multi-crew debate. There is an inbuilt assumption in both the FARs and JAR-OPS1 that piston engined aircraft are easier to operate than turbines.

I would far rather have to get myself out of trouble in a King Air 200 or a Citation than in a Trislander. More levers = more opportunity to screw up ;)

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 3,538

I used to fly for the company that operates the Trislanders in/out of Southampton. The CAA gave an exemption to allow single crew for public transport flights (IFR) for that company on that type as long as it carried a serviceable autopilot.

Though I wasn't on the Trislander I did fly it a couple of times on maintenance flights and it was a delight to handle but a pig to synchronise the 3 engines!

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 237

The requirement to carry a serviceable autopilot for Single-Crew IFR is a feature of US Part 135 ops too. I don't know whether it matches your experience Wysiwig, but the CAA normally mandates specific recurrency and proficiency checks for pilots engaged in such operations as part of the Ops Manual for the organisation.

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 1,101

There is an inbuilt assumption in both the FARs and JAR-OPS1 that piston engined aircraft are easier to operate than turbines.

Sounds so. Does the assumption actually hold water?
On the other hand, there seems to be inbuilt assumption that turbojets and turbofans are intrinsically safer than piston engines. Piston props can fly further than 90 minutes from a diversion if they have 4 or more engines. 3 piston engine props like 2 piston engine props must stay within 90 minutes of diversion. Whereas trijets, like quadjets, can fly as far from diversion as the fuel load allows. Only twinjets are restricted to within 90 minutes of diversion.

And then there are the ETOPS privileged twinjets. Are any ETOPS privileges also given to twin piston props and turboprops? And what about three-engined piston props? And turboprops - do three-engined turboprops need ETOPS?


I would far rather have to get myself out of trouble in a King Air 200 or a Citation than in a Trislander. More levers = more opportunity to screw up ;)

Not just yourself. 17 or 18 or 19 passenger seats, plus possibly the applicable number of lap babies.

After all, it sounds that 19 passenger seats is a huge break in terms of the crew costs. From 1 crew (solo pilot) to 3 crew (2 pilots and a flight attendant). No wonder they are so popular. And IFR commercial... sounds that their basic task is to get people in and out of homes - do it reliably even if the pilot does not like the visibility and winds, do it cheap lest people are stranded where they live, and try not to crash half the population in the process...