FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford indicated this week that the agency is open to considering alternatives that could restore single-pilot operations in certain legacy Cessna Citation jets. Speaking at the NBAA-BACE, Bedford responded to proposals involving additional pilot training and aircraft modifications.
The discussion follows the FAA’s Sept. 29 decision to rescind exemptions that allowed certain Citation 500-series aircraft, including the Citation I, II, V, Ultra, Bravo and Encore, to operate with one pilot despite their two-pilot certification. The agency cited widespread noncompliance among training providers and safety concerns identified during its review of the program.
FAA Defends Decision
According to the FAA’s recent policy notice, a review of 18 years of accident data found affected Citations that were operated by a single pilot experienced approximately twice the accident rate of comparable Part 23 Citation models approved for single-pilot operations.
The FAA’s comparison was based on aircraft counts rather than flight hours. NBAA and the Citation Jet Pilots Association have both questioned the underlying data and have requested a temporary suspension of the rescissions while alternative safety measures are evaluated.
“In order to achieve any exemption, the FAA asks one question: Can we find an alternative that will give us an equivalent level of safety?” Bedford said. “If we can’t get to at least an equivalent level of safety, we shouldn’t be entertaining it.”
Potential Path Forward
“We all stress that collaboration is key to safety, and that open dialogue is important,” NBAA Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Kristie Greco Johnson said. “We believe that there’s some compelling data that might provide a path to allowing single-pilot operations with some training, with an STC.”
Bedford described the supplemental type certification approach as deserving further examination, although the FAA has not announced any changes to its existing policy or a timeline for restoring single-pilot privileges.
Double the accident rate along with multiple accidents due to single pilot incapacitation should be enough evidence to say NO to single pilot operations of a high performance and altitude aircraft. Once again Bedford endorses a reduction of safety margins to grant relief to a rather small segment.
Double the accident rate is based on what metric? number of aircraft? Should be flights and flight hours. And friendly reminders for refresher training (enforcement). That seems to be the crux of the situation. Airline friend without the rating flies the plane with son (who is not rated) for the learning experience. What did we learn? The guy in charge wasn’t rated to be PIC of a single pilot citation.
A closer reading will reveal FAA data supports the double accident rate. Single pilot incapacitation has a very high probability of accident as evidenced by NTSB data. Thus, high performance and altitude capable aircraft where time of useful consciousness is seconds is no place for single pilot operations
Money always trumps safety. Safety is always negotiated. There always seems to be trade-offs in this industry. When I was young in my aviation career, 58 years ago, I had a certain set of beliefs of how things should be. Like evolution all things change. How I think today looks nothing like yesterday. Until recently I thought the days of two-pilot FAR 121 un-stabilized approaches were in the rear view mirror for ever. What a surprise. When our industry failed to regulate itself regarding the older Citations, the FAA stepped in. Go figure. I give the FAA high marks for making this necessary change. There are approximately 850,000 registered pilots in the USA. I would suggest there are approximately the same number of opinions on just about every subject about aviation including single pilot high performance aircraft. Opinions are a good thing. Opinions spawn debate. If our common goal is to reduce accidents such as the Kobe Bryant accident, the Statesville Citation accident, The Prime Air MIA 767 accident etc, we need to debate what the real elephant in the room is. Is the elephant in the room an accident or is is negligent homicide? Is willful misconduct that leads to death a homicide or an accident? I believe it is time we as an industry change the name of these fatalities to homicides from accidents. Let’s start prosecuting the crimes vs. looking the other way. If we treat willful misconduct murders for what they really are, safety will improve.
That’s RE-consideration of prior action.
The issue is that the FAA ‘data’ is flat wrong. They’re including accidents where the pilot wasn’t even properly trained/rated, then using that to say the rating isn’t good enough. Makes no sense. Also, thousands of single pilot jets and turbo props fly safely every day - certified to do so since day one.
Well the accident rate was based on fleet size, not operations nor hours flown. Since the number of reconfigured Part 25 aircraft is substantially smaller than the Part 23 single pilot citations, the “accident rate” based on fleet size could skew higher when absolute accidents are lower. This is not incapacitation issue. It is accidents involving non-current or poorly trained pilots.
“The issue is that the FAA ‘data’ is flat wrong.”
That is akin to saying “Liars figure and Figures are lies”. NTSB is the ultimate repository of these ‘figures’ which are indisputable.
Why does the FAA allow single pilot operations for all these airplanes then? Is there a double standard or is it just due to the initial classification of some these CE-500 type airplanes under Part 25? Seems like a double standard. Sounds like you are saying the FAA should revoke all single pilot operations in all light jet aircraft…that would certainly frustrate a lot of people and not likely justified…
“Sounds like you are saying the FAA should revoke all single pilot operations in all light jet aircraft…that would certainly frustrate a lot of people and not likely justified”
Frustrating a lot of people, as you suggest, is not the concern of safety risk management as a result of root cause analysis.
Good point - frustrating people is beside the point when it comes to safety and people’s lives. I am mostly curious why it’s okay by the FAA for single-pilot operations in all these airplanes, but not a few other ones like the one I have a Citation S550…what’s the difference?
In my humble opinion, formed by an Air Carrier Operations & Safety Inspector’s role, former corporate pilot and legacy airline stick is there are some who are advocating for a future single pilot 14 CFR Part 121 operational environment.
The old joke about a pilot and a dog - pilot falls asleep and the dog bites or barks to wake pilot up.
Citing single pilot Part 91/135 as an example for justification. However, there have been, and likely will be future, single pilot incapacitations in high performance aircraft with obvious outcomes. NTSB accident data reveals some truly heartbreaking examples of escort aircraft intercepting and witnessing a sad ending.
Sure, autoland technologies in general aviation aircraft is a mitigating factor but only if someone aboard know’s how and when to activate. Autoland in commercial airliners requires several procedural steps to activate but doesn’t seek out a suitable landing airport.