BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 May 2019, 01:21

Username Protected wrote:

But the question is really why can’t a BJ be SP other than the FAA is flexing it’s muscle?

Maybe the right way to do it is to recertify the airframe under part 23 commuter rules.

Part 23 is now, supposedly, more "demonstrate" than "analyze" kind of certification, and given the long history, there's no better testing than that. So simply submit an STC to the FAA to change the airplane into the part 23 commuter category and voila, single pilot with NO SPE!

I'm only half joking.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 May 2019, 17:43

Beechjet....

Don't get slow.
Don't get slow.
Don't get slow.

~Aubie Pearman

It's not flying at Vref that is the problem... it is flying below it unintentionally.

These SP conversations always devolve in similar fashion... but here's the long and short. Can you fly a Beechjet SP? Sure... in all weather, all situations, always... NO and no one would if you could. Can you fly a CJ4 with one pilot in all weather and situations... sure. Do they? Not in my experience.

If a CJ4 or Phenom 300 crashes tomorrow and we all decide it was because of only one pilot... no problem. That's aviation. If you convert a two pilot airplane into a single pilot airplane and it crashes. Big problem.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 May 2019, 18:00

I put the question out there about the Lear. (35) Actually read up a little about them. 150, NO slower than 140 in the pattern. High V Ref, (Don’t get slow on any of the speeds), and conplicated redundant part 25 systems. It was an obvious two pilot situation. And an obvious two Good pilot situation, when there was a problem. That said, yes Mike, there are at least two examples of the 35 going in where the SIC did something stupid. But SP? Never did get any reply, and that’s in itself is telling.

Now I don’t really know squat about the BJ. It’s not well received on the pro pilot World forum and gets a lot of jokes. As I recall it doesn’t have aierlons but spoilers. Takes a lot of runway. Without the Williams it doesn’t go anywhere. So anyway, whether it’s Mr Clifford, or the FAA, somebody, at some point, says it takes two. And I’m good with that.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 May 2019, 13:37

I can't vouch for the information but have *heard* that the two crew requirement can be triggered by things as seemingly *simple* as cockpit controls, one of more, being out of reach of the PIC in critical flight phases. That made some sense when avionics, systems were more simple but way more complex in operation (the 421, or any other big twin recip, was a good example). But for a completely remanned item like the XPR/Nextant the opportunity to redo the cockpit negates that. So why? Especially now with Fadec, FMS indexed pressurization, automated approaches, et al? Maybe ultimate altitude capability? It's a non-obvious answer and leads me, rightly or wrongly, to the conclusion that "the manufacturer prefers it that way" for their own peculiar reasons.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2019, 08:44

Username Protected wrote:

If we are being honest, a 421 requires two pilots far more than a BeechJet. If something goes wrong in a 421, that requires a lot from the sole pilot to manage. And things go wrong in a 421 way more often than they do in a BJ.

The second pilot is all about cost. Two pilots are required because the FAA deems the cost is supportable by the operators flying a BJ, not because the plane is inherently too difficult for a single pilot.

This is also why the lowest cost jet, the Citation, was the first and only to get an SPE. Indeed, Cessna's original argument was focused on cost. See attached 4050 exemption, the granddaddy of them all that started the SPE concept. It is interesting to read the reasons put forth in the SPE in the context of the time.

While cost of a second human is a big deal despite those calling it a rounding error (I wonder how many of them have actually had to pay for or schedule an SIC), it is loss of use. If you have to charter a human to fly in your airplane, you've lost the greatest feature of personal aviation by being encumbered with something you have to schedule, pay for, feed, house, and otherwise deal with. It is like attaching an expensive and unreliable piece of equipment to your airplane that you don't really need.

Mike C.

And the single pilot jets have a far better safety record than turboprops and twins.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2019, 13:31

Seems like the FAA doesn't have a huge Re-Visitation Department.

We operate under a ton of limitations imposed in the 30s, 40s, 50's, etc.

Take the TBO on my O-470: The same basic "block" has TBO's of 1500, 1600, 2000, even 2500, I think. Drastic advancements in monitoring, oil chemistry, and who knows what else have advanced the number with each new certification, although the engine fundamentally remains the same. The RVD could easily go back and change the earliest numbers.

IMO, the latest avionics can make just about ANYTHING that has well-purposed ergonomics SP capable. Remember how hard IFR navigation used to be at piston, much less jet speeds? Sheesh.... Even a KLN-89B required an FO, again, IMO.

FADEC, G3000 or 5000, FUSION, APEX etc., and the second guy is a baggage loader. Which is great if there's baggage.

I'm no better than average, but I've NEVER been overloaded in a latest and greatest SP jet sim.

It can probably be demonstrated that I'm wrong, and safer is always better, but I'll bet the real statistical safety advantage of crew in an ultra-modern setup is next to nil.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jun 2019, 16:52

Username Protected wrote:

Seems like the FAA doesn't have a huge Re-Visitation Department.

We operate under a ton of limitations imposed in the 30s, 40s, 50's, etc.

Take the TBO on my O-470: The same basic "block" has TBO's of 1500, 1600, 2000, even 2500, I think. Drastic advancements in monitoring, oil chemistry, and who knows what else have advanced the number with each new certification, although the engine fundamentally remains the same. The RVD could easily go back and change the earliest numbers.

IMO, the latest avionics can make just about ANYTHING that has well-purposed ergonomics SP capable. Remember how hard IFR navigation used to be at piston, much less jet speeds? Sheesh.... Even a KLN-89B required an FO, again, IMO.

FADEC, G3000 or 5000, FUSION, APEX etc., and the second guy is a baggage loader. Which is great if there's baggage.

I'm no better than average, but I've NEVER been overloaded in a latest and greatest SP jet sim.

It can probably be demonstrated that I'm wrong, and safer is always better, but I'll bet the real statistical safety advantage of crew in an ultra-modern setup is next to nil.

Can’t really argue that Bill. Probably one of the biggest challenges I thought reading about the 35 was the thought of 1) flying the plane AND 2) programming a dinosaur like the Universal AND 3) off AP.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 May 2020, 04:31

I wonder what ever happened to this single pilot attempt or timeline.

I also wonder if the same argument Cessna made back in 1984 could be applied today given the current economic and pandemic situation.

A single pilot Beechjet would be a game changer to that market.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 May 2020, 08:36

Username Protected wrote:

I wonder what ever happened to this single pilot attempt or timeline.

I also wonder if the same argument Cessna made back in 1984 could be applied today given the current economic and pandemic situation.

A single pilot Beechjet would be a game changer to that market.

Given the insurance Market today.? Pretty unlikely.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 May 2020, 09:25

Username Protected wrote:

I wonder what ever happened to this single pilot attempt or timeline.

I also wonder if the same argument Cessna made back in 1984 could be applied today given the current economic and pandemic situation.

A single pilot Beechjet would be a game changer to that market.

Given the insurance Market today.? Pretty unlikely.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 25 May 2020, 13:28

It’d be an interesting thing to see who the market would be for SP Nextant. I think single pilot jets are largely popular with the owner flown market. But owner flown tends to also want the ability to go diverse places, ie short runways, smaller airports, etc. So given the lack of those characteristics in the Beechjet, making it single pilot might not find much of a market.

Just thinking out loud.

Nextant single pilot?