Single Pilot IFR - why?

[Waldo Pepper's Circus]

Here's something that doesn't make sense. I can go and fly a clapped out light piston twin with a 1971 era autopilot and go single pilot to minimums, yet a brand new KingAir with full EFIS, autofeather and digital autopilot requires 2 crew under 703 Ops. The workload in the piston would be way higher, not to mention the poor reliability and outdated technology. So would it not make sense to base single pilot authority more on pilot workload and technical aids than the criteria that is currently used?

Another little rant is the whole single pilot IFR thing. The only reason this rule exists for commercial operators is for special interest from operators who want to earn more money. There is no other logical explanation for it. Our company always fly 2 crew in our Chieftains and the passengers prefer it. We lose some flights to 9 passenger groups but the increased safety of running 2 crew more than makes up for this occasional loss. Its easier for the crew when loading freight and it gives a company a way to bring in new talent for the right seat and observe them before promoting them up to Captain. Hopefully these new regs will level out the playing field for those operators who place profit ahead of safety while telling everyone they place safety first.

[hz2p]

Done a W&B on a Seneca or C340 lately? If you go two-crew, you won't be carrying many pax, unless you take off with the tanks dry

[Doc]

Safety first? Over load? Sounds good, but I havent seen any figures to support your claim that flying a two pilot crew is safer than single pilot. There ARE some good arguments for two pilots, but I dont think safety alone, is a valid one. Me? I've always wondered what it is exactly the right seat guy on a Navajo, or a Caravan actually does? Paperwork? If you've got a charter into ORD, then by all means put a talker into the right seat...but a Navajo going from YXL to ZSJ?? Take the extra 182 pounds in gas!!!

[Waldo Pepper's Circus]

The non flying pilot will monitor the takeoff and approach as well as call any deviations from the SOPs. Doc, you sound like you've been in the bush a little too long.... I agree, clear day and all is just fine with one pilot. But night or IFR and a Navajo is good to go single pilot but a new KingAir having a far lower workload, more built-in safety features and a more advanced autopilot requires 2 pilots? It makes no sense...

[hz2p]

With new, good equipment (say TBM-700 or PC-12) and a reasonably experienced and competent pilot in the left seat (eg 2,000TT) the guy in the right seat is maybe nice sometimes to bring along, but let's face it, most of the time he's a low-timer who's mostly just learning the ropes, which is not the primary purpose of the flight - it's a revenue, not training flight after all.

Keep in mind that in the USA, the B1900 was certificated single-pilot.

[Cat Driver]

Hey Waldo...

You and I have the same thoughts on this.

I never could figure out how an airplane can have two engines, two or more sets of radios and everything else yet only one pilot?

Cat

[ahramin]

One pilot can fly a navajo safely and efficiently. Not just on blue days but also at night in bad weather.

Are two crew operations safer? Certainly, as long as both crew members are as qualified and competent as our lone navajo pilot. One might even say that the only way two crew operations are safe is if neither pilot needs two crew. If the PIC is perfectly capable of flying the airplane on his own, how much is safety increased by having a second person - with minimal training and experience and no PPC - sitting in the right seat?

Sure the TC criteria for whether or not two pilots are needed is poorly thought out. Nothing new there. Just because one arbitrary rule is stupid does not mean it should be replaced with another arbitrary rule.

Two pilots are not always safer than one, and are certainly not required for safe operations.

[Disco Stu]

Here's something that doesn't make sense. I can go and fly a clapped out light piston twin with a 1971 era autopilot and go single pilot to minimums, yet a brand new KingAir with full EFIS, autofeather and digital autopilot requires 2 crew under 703 Ops.

The King Air under 703 can be flown single pilot, many are.

[3Green]

Ok, I'll play devils advocate for this one. Surely most planes are sufficiently equipped for Single Pilot operations. A very large percentage of Avcanada's members could safely fly a King Air/Pilatus/Metro etc. to minimums and a safe landing, while single pilot. Enough said.

I can't help but wonder though, how successful that same percentage of Avcanada members would be when that plane is heavily loaded, in winter with ice, at night, down to minimums, at an unfamiliar field, with smoke in the cockpit/cabin, an engine out, a cracked windscreen, or runaway trim...

I guess the rules are just there to cover the very worst situations imaginable. 99% of the time it doesn't seem logical to have the co-hort with you (some folks opinion...myself, I enjoy the help/company), but that ONE time when the shit hits the fan, the rule will have served it's purpose to you.

[Doc]

Last time I checked you could fly a King Air solo. I've also flown Twin Otters, Metros and a host of others single pilot. No dents yet (sound of Doc hitting wood...that's HITTING, not GETTING....although I doubt that would make much noise...other than a sharp intake of breath...but that's another thread)and if we were to take 3 green's point of view, we would put seven or eight pilots on each flight...cuz if two are better than one, well, now I'm just getting silly...must be the martinis!!
And I know Waldo's op uses two drivers...and his main competition goes single pilot...is this hitting his bottom line?

[Waldo Pepper's Circus]

Its hard to say just what the financial impact as most customers we fly prefer 2 crew, but I think that's more because of what the norm is at the airlines so they assume this is the safer way to go. Having two lousy trained, inexperienced pilots is far worse than one well trained pilot and a good autopilot. If you only hold 8 and miss a trip for 9, then its money lost. Then with a 9 seater, you miss a trip to a KingAir that can hold 10....and so on. The bottom line is that each operator has to run their company the safest way they can and my only regret would be having an accident that could have been prevented through better training, maintenance or whatever. We run two pilots because I feel its safer but I can't prove it. We also use SOPs, simulator training and set the boost to 49" because all these factors can increase safety if done correctly.

[29chev]

Ok lets take this one further what about an airbus? 320...340...the auto flight on both makes it very easy for one pilot to operate the aircraft...so I guess we should drop the bus down to 1 pilot........or maybe like all things in aviation, redundancy has a direct effect on the level of safty.... obviously this can only go so far and 5 or 6 flight crew are over kill but as I found out on a 14 hour trip 2 weeks ago we needed 4 pilots to do the job safely. I think the thing to consider is the type of operation, you can't make one rule and have it work for all situations, my first instructor once told my the most correct answer in aviation is "it depends"
IMHO
29chev

[zzjayca]

I would think you pilot types would be all for a requirement for two pilots to fly IFR.

There are plenty of threads dealing with the problem of too many pilots and too few jobs.

By requiring two pilots for an IFR flight, how many extra jobs would that create?

[oldtimer]

I remember a comment in a Canadian aviation magazine when the RCMP first got their PC12's and commercial singles were allowed to fly IFR and night. One of the higher ups in the Force made a comment that made a lot of sense. "There are no statistics to support the fact that aviation safety is affected one way or the other by the number of engines installed" or something to that effect. This person went on to say one should be more concerned about the number of pilots on board as opposed to the number of engines.
I look back at that fuel starvation accident in Winnipeg and if there was a meek and mild mannered female (less aggressive than a man, maybe) low time pilot sitting in the right seat who did the calculations and suggested, demurlly. that they do not have enough gas, would the pilot stop short of destination and put in more fuel.
I strongly think that peer pressure would have convinced him of the value of the plan. thereby preventing an accident. Maybe. I am not being sexist, it is simply that some people are less aggressive than others and I do not think it would have taken much pressure to change the pilot's mind.
I have a few hours single-pilot, single-engine and many more hours multi-engine and multi-crew and the jury is still out as to single-engine but single-pilot is without a doubt much safer.
True, some small twins are load limited and the regulators may, behind their backs, wish they would all just go away but on the whole, two pilots are better than one.
I have to agree with many that a turbine twin is an easier airplane to fly than a small twin. I fly the KA 200, 350 Metro and Navajo and the King Air is an awsome machine. For the most part, weather and icing is something other people have to worry about cause the airplane will simply power it's way through almost anything. But now the turbo dildo (Metro's) is another story. That is a two pilot airplane but cargo operators in the USA fly them single-pilot all the time and they only kill off a few a year. Someone in TC Aviation Safety made a comment that safety is not priority one. Profitability is priority one. In some instances, he/she was correct. It is a lot like being an alcoholic, once you recognise and ADMIT you have a problem, you have taken the first step to recovery and that was this chap or chapett's comment. Admit that this is a fact and deal with it. It kinda make sense. What I cannot figure out is why can you fly a Kingair single pilot with an autopilot and carry 9 passengers without a cockpit voice recorder but if you put two pilot in, you can only carry 5 passengers. I can understand restricting the max altitude to FL250 but this just blows me away. Why not just say that a CVR is required and be done with it. BECAUSE CVR's COST MONEY. Back to the safety first thing. It is never an issue with larger airplanes because they come with CVR's and you cannot even taxi to the toilet without one installed and operating. Period, end of discussion.

[sideslip]

We operate two crew Navajo's and it's the only way to go, the operation runs alot smoother and efficient. Pilot's make mistakes and it is good to have someone else there to point them out.

[Cloud 9]

Chalk me up for two-crew. If economics were not an issue, I think you'd be hard-pressed finding an operator in the country who wouldn't run their machines (6+ seats) two-crew. I currently fly a 'Ho single pilot IFR out of neccessity rather than choice. Granted, I've flown with some pretty dopey co-pilots for previous operators. Having said that, some of those dopey co-pilots have caught radio calls and errors that had they gone unchecked, 'could' have been one of the links in the proverbial accident chain.

Redundancy is key, and humans are fallible.

My 2 cents

[Maverick and Goose]

I may not be the most experienced pilot, but I thought I'd voice my opinion and defend my single pilot IFR flying.

When there are 8 to 10 703 charter companies competing for the same charter work, you have to be competitive! Money is a huge issue for 703 operators....BUT, that doesn't mean that by trying to save money they are in turn compromising safety. You also can't fault a company because they take the necessary steps to ensure they use their aircraft to their full potential (ie 9 passenger seats) to provide the cost effective service that charter customers want. It's the only way for small companies to survive in this industry.

TC has a fairly reasonable standard when it comes to allowing a company to operate single pilot IFR. Althought some may think the minimums and restrictions aren't strict enough here are some examples that have stood out to me:

To fly GPS approaches single pilot, the candidate must have done 10 approaches in training prior to the ride, whereas to fly GPS approaches two crew, the candidates must have done only 2.

To fly single pilot IFR in a multi engine aircraft under 703, the pilot must have 1000 TT, 100 multi, 50 hours on type, 50 hours IMC and a PPC.

To fly as captain in a multi engine aircraft, for a 703 company which does not have the minimum crew ops spec, he/she is only required to have met the commercial license requirements and to have completed a PPC. The f/o only requires the commercial license and a company conducted PCC.

Would your customer's still feel safe knowing that you have 2, 200 hour wonders at the helm? How many operators out there fly their own version of "two crew" just to side step the autopilot requirement and get away with sticking the dispatcher or ramp attendant in the right seat? If anything, I think TC needs to define experience requirements for the captain and f/o of a two crew 703 operation as they have done for single pilot IFR.

The 703 operator must spend the necessary $$(and it's not cheap) to keep functioning autopilots in their aircraft in order to fly single pilot IFR. If the autopilot fails, then they are stuck without a properly qualified f/o.

Single pilot IFR is one way that small companies can survive. If you take away the option of single pilot IFR, I think you will start seeing the demise of small charter companies, and with that goes those much sought after "foot in the door" jobs.

With the price of fuel, maintenance (let's face it, none of those navajo's are getting any younger), and insurance there is not much left over to pay your pilot flying that certified single pilot airplane. Add a second pilot and the money is going to be spread even thinner, maybe in places it shouldn't be.

Just my twenty cents....

[Doctor MCDU]

Here’s the reality. Most airplanes manufactured today are SINGLE PILOT airplanes. I’ll give three examples: (Keep in mind that I am doing nothing more that making a point)

First. The Airbus that I’m currently flying can be flown simply and easily by one pilot.

Second (To make a stronger point): The FIRST time I flew the 737 NG (Simulator) it was me and a SIM technician. Fortunately, he knew how to get the damb thing started. But, from there, without any training, I flew it to CAT II limits, single pilot, and safely landed without any difficulty (No, this did not mean I was “Qualified”).

Third. Can I fly a Caravan or King Air in IFR flight (Without an OPS Specification)? Yes. But, not if it’s in Commercial service!

So, why do these airplanes require two pilots, and why does TC and other regulatory authorities require two pilots on these and other airplanes?

The short of it is NOT the technology onboard the aircraft. It’s the level of redundancy required under various operating rules. Simply, the government certifies that an airline - or more appropriately an aircraft offered to the public - meets a reasonable level of safety. To meet this level, certain aircraft systems must be redundant. This level of redundancy INCLUDES the crew. (In North America an Autopilot can be substituted for the redundant human provide the appropriate OPS Spec exists).

Certainly, an added bonus is the additional level of perceived safety that comes from the extra skill-set on the flight deck. However, (And keep this in mind) this is only a benefit if the aircraft commander knows how to utilize the information that comes from that additional skill-set. I believe the buzz word would be CRM, but more appropriately it’s the Captain’s ability to manage the flight deck, and the other crew members’ ability to offer TIMELY information and take appropriate initiative when necessary.

Regarding the above statement, if you think I’m nuts, look at the number of CFIT accidents that involved two, and three, member flight crews, then tell me that I’m wrong about this.

Open to debate…

[Cat Driver]

No you are not wrong.

There is more to flying two crew than the number two.

Its all about crew coordination.

[captpistola]

Amen CD. I've flown with just about every crew combo there is. The majority being 2 crew M/E turbine and some 1 thousand or so single pilot M/E & S/E turbine.

Single pilot can be just as safe as duel pilot if the A/C is set up for it and the pilot is competent. Duel pilot is safe as long as both know the job and have the ability to speak up when something isn't right, otherwise it is certainly no safer.

Duel pilot has the added benefit of on the job training. I think we have all become better pilots after flying with expirenced people. And not just as F/O's either, I've learned some tricks from right seaters!

I prefer single pilot these days but thats just me.

[Doc]

Oldtimer....history is full...yes FULL of accidents where the co-pilot just sat there and allowed the captain to continue into unsafe flight conditions. There was a fairly recent example in north-west ontario where a co-pilot sat and watched in dumb silence as a highly skilled check captain landed long and hot and ended up in a pile of twisted metal.
It took TWO crew members to stuff that Air Florida jet UNDER the bridge in the Potomic River.
Contenental uses a training film....from the CVR of a 727 crew, while the captain did everything wrong..and the second officer and the captain teamed up on the FO....with comments like; "What's the difference between a duck and a co-pilot?...A duck can fly!"
If you guys actually think that a 800 hour captain is safer with a 250 hour lowtimer in the right seat of a Navajo, than a 2500-3500 hour guy solo, you're in a fantasy land....baby-sitting can be more distracting than you could ever know...Been there.
I'd be willing to bet that I can fly IFR from here to where-ever solo, just as safely as any two of you can together....I'm not AGAINST two crew ops, on the contrary, I fly them all the time.....I'm just saying there's nothing wrong with single pilot IFR....BUT as Clint Eastwood would say.."A man has to know his limitations."

[moe]

on the cost side of things, many companies these days operate two crew on single pilot machines because the yearly insurance savings actually pay for the f/o. as well, keeping aging autopilots operating can be financially infeasible for many northern operators.
as far as safety is concerned, i think it is dependent on individual pilot experience.