Time to end SPIFR?

[Oxi]

The days of bank bags are slowly coming to an end

[flyinthebug]

I got my 1st SPIFR job on a PA31-350 with around 1000 hours TT. Auto worked sometimes...depending on the day and aircraft. It usually would keep wings level, but wouldn't hold altitude or visa versa. Fly an approach with it? lol, forget it. I found it to be a heavy workload on IMC days...so much so that after I quit, I swore I would not fly SPIFR again.

I concede in this day and age and with the technology in the cockpits these days, it has become a much lesser workload for the pilot. Glass cockpits, autopilots that actually work and fly an approach for you. Some of us older guys didn't have those luxuries. That is likely why the younger generation wonders what all the fuss is about?

Yet even with all your technology and auto pilots that actually work, one day you may find yourself behind your plane and it is only then that you will wish you had a second set of eyes and hands to help you out. I advocated all my career for 2 crew in PA31s, King Airs, etc etc...and still do. Even with the huge leaps forward we have made in aviation safety/technology since the 80s and 90s, I believe two heads and 4 eyes offer the best safety available to any IFR flight.

FYI, all our PC12s were flown 2 crew at the 2 Ops I worked at that had them in their fleets.

2 crew or SPIFR, fly safe all.

[SuperchargedRS]

SuperchargedRS, I don't know you, or your operation, but most PC12 flights I've seen are 2 crew. Of course you CAN single pilot the thing, just most don't.
As for the capt making 40K and the FO making 20K goes, you don't have to take the job.
Cheers
Illya

OK, we all how charter operators make SOOO much profit, and how having a IFR charter operation has such low overhead right

Now let's take that profit margin and double the amount of pilots, anyone who knows anything about business knows that's a HUGE increase in expenses and will add much more red ink to your P&L unless you slash wages.

But you're right, let's force charter operators to pay pilots even less, what a great thing to do in the industry, and I'm sure that low hour Seneca grad warming the right seat will really bring a whole lot to the plate.

The good pilots are going to follow the QOL.

Instead of being able to be picky and hire one good aviator to fly your KA, 208 or PC12 around, now you're going to just get whoever you can for your peanut pay, you're just hiring drivers at this point, got a pulse and a ticket ya got a job.

What a AWSOME safety culture right there!

As far as A/Ps go, our 12 will shoot a ILS to mins to the missed no prob and all of our aircraft are single pilot (some VFR some IFR). We are AP in lieu of a SIC.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I was thinking how nice it was having more than one pilot flying in places like London, Paris, Amsterdam etc in busy Eurcontrol airspace....

.....most of Canada is no where near as busy as that.....forgot all about this being Canada.

[Panama Jack]

A few years ago, I was involved in a conversatin with a Pilatus PC-12 pilot with a group of other pilots. The concern about the safety of single-engine IFR came up, and the PC-12 guy expressed his opinion that single-pilot IFR is more of a safety hazard than single-engine IFR. Makes perfect sense to me. Human factors issues are more likely the causal factor of accidents than mechanical failure.

I flew single-pilot IFR, in all sorts of aircraft up to corporate jets, and my opinion is that single-pilot IFR is for the birds. However, throwing on an additional pilot does not enhance safety unless you also have SOP's and compliance, along with good CRM. Otherwise, you now have two cooks in the kitchen.

[Rockie]

We are AP in lieu of a SIC.

A word of advice - do not ever think of an autopilot as an actual pilot or count on it in any way. It will quit on you or worse, it may try and kill you when you least expect it. It won't apologize afterward either or buy you a beer to make up for it.

[jspitfire]

Of course a 2-crew cockpit with good SOPs and CRM will always be safer than single pilot. The RCMP runs their PC12s single pilot, and it works well because they're able to hire pilots with fairly high experience. As long as you pick the right people for the job I see no issue with SPIFR.

[SuperchargedRS]

Of course a 2-crew cockpit with good SOPs and CRM will always be safer than single pilot. The RCMP runs their PC12s single pilot, and it works well because they're able to hire pilots with fairly high experience. As long as you pick the right people for the job I see no issue with SPIFR.

Yup

And most SPIFR are going to be higher paid, higher time pilots.

We are AP in lieu of a SIC.

A word of advice - do not ever think of an autopilot as an actual pilot or count on it in any way. It will quit on you or worse, it may try and kill you when you least expect it. It won't apologize afterward either or buy you a beer to make up for it.

[Therewewere]

I know how to make flying completely safe.......

Ground all aircraft, it's unnatural and shud be banned!!!

That's what TC really wants!

Ridiculous idea? Just as ridiculous as banning SPIFR.

[Illya Kuryakin]

Hey Therewewere,
Is that like "upside down in cloud, with nothing on the dials but the maker's name, and still climbing"?
One of my all time fav aviation quotes.
I don't think insisting on two pilots for IFR is ridiculous at all. You might not agree with it, but it's a long way from ridiculous.
Many companies already have customers that insist on two engines, and two pilots.
Think of the employment alone it would create.
Illya

[SuperchargedRS]

Many companies already have customers that insist on two engines, and two pilots.

Are we talking safety or marketing?

Most non-pilot pax can't get beyond shiny paint and a pimped out interior.

Others would choose a T tail piston twin over a PC12, because it looks more like a little airliner, paint it in Air Canada colors and times that by 10.

Some pax would rather fly with a fresh Seneca grad with gold bars, pressed white shirt, shiny shoes and clean shaved (ie can't grow a beard), over a old ATP with jeans, flannel shirt, leatherman and some loggers on.

So are we talking about making aviation safe, or making aviation LOOK safe to the uneducated public?

Think of the employment alone it would create.

Again with the socialist views, government forcing companies to make jobs doesn't help anyone in the long run, read my other post.

Have you ever run a business? Gone through P&L statements?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I flew single-pilot IFR, in all sorts of aircraft up to corporate jets, and my opinion is that single-pilot IFR is for the birds. However, throwing on an additional pilot does not enhance safety unless you also have SOP's and compliance, along with good CRM. Otherwise, you now have two cooks in the kitchen.

Exactly, there will always be company's that will hire the pilots who are SPIFR comfortable and believe they are better than two pilots.

[x15]

The problem is instead of giving these poor Navajo pilots and IFR companies are just going to start pushing MVFR.

The mantra up north was...

If the weather is good go VFR. If the weather is bad go IFR. If the weather is really bad, go VFR.

I did 1000 hours single pilot in the HO. Worst days were VFR. Ops spec of 300' and 1 mile. 2 guys would not make a difference there.

I think instead of making 2 pilots mandatory. Change the training program. Make the training meaningful. Not 5 hours of day VMC doing holds and approaches. Do a ride and then get cut loose. The first 50-100 hours should be with a training capt.

Then cut you loose IFR. IFR single pilot was a breeze once I knew what I was doing. It prepared me well for the job I have now.

[garfield]

I've flown a Ho' SPIFR up north over 1000 hours and never met someone who was doing SPIFR up there, except RCMP and guys ferrying Cirrus to Europe... Talked to a lot of other PC12 guys and they were always 2 crew, am I missing something? Only one turbine to manage (2 engine control stick instead of 6) and always flying over the bad weather at FL250...

On bigger birds you can add that if you experiment an engine failure and do the proper procedure, it's guarantee that you're gonna CLIMB! Reassuring!

In my opinion, SPIFR should be common on single engine airplanes and small jets with recent avionics and working AP.

[Rockie]

SPIFR can obviously be safe, but with proper SOP's two can combine their resources sharing the workload and providing backup for each other. If anyone can explain how those circumstance can not be safer I'd be very interested in hearing it. Not just IFR either, but any kind of operation. I am very close to someone who flies a tandem rotor helicopter in a logging operation. Both guys are essential according to him and it's strictly VFR.

The crusty old war time pilot who viewed the other pilot as anything but a valuable resource should have disappeared long ago. I'm surprised they still exist especially in relatively young pilots.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The crusty old war time pilot who viewed the other pilot as anything but a valuable resource should have disappeared long ago. I'm surprised they still exist especially in relatively young pilots.

The above statement is for me the most puzzling part of this discussion.

How is it possible that aviation can be retro thinking, is it because there is something wrong with the way the young are being educated?

[Rockie]

Well, if they move beyond where they are now they'll have that retro-attitude beaten out of them or they'll have to find some other line of work.

[dangerousdan]

.

[SuperchargedRS]

Ban SPIFR= Watch Single Pilot VFR accident rates go up ever so slightly.
Keep SPIFR, But force companies to better equip aircraft= Watch SPIFR accident rates drop ever so slightly, Maybe even see SPVFR accidents drop a little as companies (and pilots) choose to go IFR more with better equipment rather than .. running because of garbage avionics.

Was there a specific slew of SPIFR related accidents that brought up this thinking? Honestly Is SPIFR a big enough part of the industry to be ban-hammering? I don't mean to sound "if it ain't broke don't break it", but doesn't our industry have bigger fish to fry right now than SPIFR? Not even too many companies still running that way.

Anyways; I've had far more co-pilots try to kill me than autopilots. So adding another guy into a poorly equipped plane often doesn't help the problem. (Depending upon the operation and situation:) I would sometimes prefer a better equipped plane over another crew member. As an example: A G1000 suite equipped king air with a working autopilot... there aren't many places in canada were a competent pilot should get overwhelmed with that equipment. And if you do get overwhelmed with your G1000 coupled autopilot in your king air going into just about anywhere maybe we should reevaluate if THAT specific person should be captain (single pilot or not).

Not saying G1000 should be minimum equipment or anything but imagine this: Bad bad bad weather day, but legal to go; you tell me I can have a beautifully equipped G1000 king air with couple autopilot OR a clapped out king air with no EFIS, bendix king (not certified for half the stuff you want to do, and nope, no LPV or LNAVs, no pseudo glideslope) no autopilot (yet alone coupled) with a 200 hour guy fresh from school in the other seat? I know what I would answer, and I would hope everyone else would go the same way. Extreme example though, I know.

I have flown two crew in planes that have poor avionics; when a 200 hour guy looks at steam gauges while in the whitefluffy; how much reliability do you really get out of him? When things start whizzing how much help is he? Honestly its far more exhausting watching a 200 hour guy on bad shoddy old-school instruments than an autopilot, and statistically speaking he is a lot more likely to put you in a dangerous situation than the properly programmed autopilot. And yes, Autopilots can fail at any moment, And they do, And I've had it happen. But I've had a fully functioning autopilot fail on me like twice, and caught it within seconds. As opposed to low time co-pilots doing something dumb dozens and dozens of times (and sometimes really insidiously; autopilots wont flip your radios when your checking the fuel gauges and then stare at you blankly when you ask why the ILS' aren't up anymore).

Obviously there is the physical advantage to two crew ops; four eyes, four hands, two hearts, two brains (hopefully). But precluding a sudden trauma to the pilot (which is the same risk in single pilot vfr operations) I do not think properly equipped SPIFR with an appropriately trained and experienced pilot carries an over-the-top risk. That is to say; all aviation is levels of relative risk, at the 702,703 level I do not see that allow SPIFR is an unacceptable amount of risk. We dont allow a 705 op machine carrying 200 people to go single pilot ever, for many of the reasons people will list in this thread. But when you are talking about 5 or 6 people or 2000lbs of pop and chips the risk/consequence matrix is a bit different.

Also since aviation is generally getting safer year after year, I think there is a certain point where we should start looking at global risk levels and stop just comparing within our own ecosystem; what I mean is how much more dangerous is SPIFR than driving your car? I would guess less dangerous than driving your car, because driving your car is by and far the most dangerous thing most people will do in there lives, death-per-year, death-per-capita, and death-per-million-hours-of-activity speaking, but I don't have the SPIFR numbers in front of me so I'm not sure. (Does anyone have SPIFR numbers? I'd be very interested to see say the data.)

To say that all commercial SPIFR ops be banned is a bit over the top.
If you want to have a positive influence at the 702/703 IFR level though; push for minimum avionics requirements; not even anything outlandish, make a Garmin 430W or better the minimum legal equipment, throw in a coupled autopilot and your a long way towards making 702/703 safer, and funnily enough it would have the added benefit of saving the operators money over hiring more people.

One last aspect is that SPIFR guys, unless they are up north or running cargo, are going to tend to be more experienced than a two crew environment so its not as straight as apples to apples. Its high time orange to two smaller and less developed apples.

Exactly.

[TG]

Two pilots working well together with a good set of SOP's provide what the military calls "mutual support". Of course it's safer, and if the other guy is just there to hang up your coat you not only don't know how to properly utilize a crew environment, you don't even get the concept.

And those who don't get the concept can sometimes be difficult to move into the two crew concept and are best left to fly alone.

Exactly.

[goingnowherefast]

I have seen it where 2 crew with a 200hr wonder turns into 3/4 crew. Captain is spending too much time supervising, and would have been better off alone. There are some bad FOs that should never have been allowed in the cockpit. Thankfully that's rare. Most FOs are a wonderful asset when implemented in a good SOP and CRM environment.

[skymarc]

This is old thinking.
Newer planes with latest avionics and a good working a/p is perfectly acceptable for SPIFR.
I dont know what a copilot would do in a PC12/TBM.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I dont know what a copilot would do in a PC12/TBM.

Here is some old time thinking.

They do the same things as they do in a Turbo Commander or a Airbus or a Boeing.

[ahramin]

This is old thinking.
Newer planes with latest avionics and a good working a/p is perfectly acceptable for SPIFR.

I must admit the idea of getting rid of single pilot IFR seemed silly to me until I considered that some operators are out there doing it with a minimum of equipment and training. Maybe it's just the requirements for SPIFR that need to be updated.

[flyinthebug]

This is old thinking.
Newer planes with latest avionics and a good working a/p is perfectly acceptable for SPIFR.

I must admit the idea of getting rid of single pilot IFR seemed silly to me until I considered that some operators are out there doing it with a minimum of equipment and training. Maybe it's just the requirements for SPIFR that need to be updated.

This is my issue with SPIFR. We didn't have GPS slaved to the AP, as we didn't have GPS. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, our autopilots worked sometimes or when they felt like it. Hand flying, SPIFR can be a very high stress environment when you are on steam gauges, and only a non precision approach at destination. I did more "white knuckle" flying in those conditions than I care to remember. We flew NDB to NDB and full procedure NDB approaches as most of the northern communities only had this ancient equipment as recent as 1997/1998. That is when I saw my 1st GPS in the aircraft I flew (and it was placarded as for VFR navigation ONLY).

With all the technology these days, I do understand that SPIFR is much safer than it was when I did it 20 years ago...but at the same time...I still believe in the 2 crew concept with solid SOPs, CRM, and a Left seat that is willing to be patient and teach the right seat how things are done. Once you get a nice flow in the cockpit in a 2 crew environment, I still say SPIFR is more dangerous than a well trained 2 crew cockpit/flight deck. Wait til your fancy G1000 fails, at night, in IMC, and then all you have is NDBs to take you where you need to go. Its only then, when you get behind you airplane, that you will wish you had a well trained guy/gal in the right seat to lighten the workload.

Fly safe all.
FTB