I would not own a plane that mandated two pilots unless I was a non-pilot owner. It is just another inconvenience finding another pilot and that takes away from convenience of GA.

I go back and forth on the two pilot argument. Assuming I can find and corridinate another pilot, it's pretty nice to have one in a jet. Wanna take five, or pee or get some joe, or look something up, or call the FBO or whatever it's nice to have help

In the whole scheme of a jet, another pilot isn't that much more money.

But on the other hand, I corridinate with no one when I fly the KA. If I'm early or late or want to change plans, it's not an issue. I don't need help flying the KA. Last time I took another pilot along, it was just more work for me, $2000 I didn't need to spend and a few legs I didn't need to share. I'm friends with the guy I brought, but he hasn't flown the KA for a long time and it was more work keeping an eye on him than doing the work myself. After the flight, my passenger in back asked me if I'd just fly all the legs. He knows enough to recognize missed radio calls and other slips. I'm now in a spot where I probably have to tell him I can't hire him anymore and it sucks. I do enough managing people in other aspects of my life and enjoy flying because I get a little break from all that.

This single pilot vs. two argument is just silly. If you put two "single pilots" up front, it will be more difficult and confusing. If you put a coordinated crew up front, it will be easier and safer. That is a fact. You have to train to develope CRM. It doesn't just happen because you have two rated pilots up front.

Spent my morning looking at all the possibilities. Nothing jumps out as a clear winner.

Here's a rough overview of what I've looked at (numbers are off the top of my head)

Lear 35 - small cockpit, 2 pilot, 7 paxseats, 2000nm+ range, fast, 800K, 1/2 of them are on MSP, very old avionics

Astra - 2 pilot, great range and speed, 7 paxseats, expensive/questionable to maintain, 2000nm+ range, high fuel burn, 800K, 1/2 of them are on MSP, old avionics

Citation V - SP waiver, 1.7M, 420KTS, 1500NM range, 7 pax seats. 1.7M, not many on programs, old avionics

CJ - 370 kts, SP certified (no yearly waiver, no SP insurance premium) 800nm range, 5 paxseats, 1.7M, most on Tap Elite, G1000

P180 - questionable to maintain, $2M, 7 seats, same speed as CJ, 1500NM range, no type rating, collins proline, lowest fuel burn, best cabin

I probably need to do some more research on the P180. I know what everybody (except Adam) says about them and I'm inclined to agree but they are too compelling to completely dismiss. I don't think we have any P180 owners or pilots on BT to defend them. They are not just single pilot but also turbo-prop-easy to fly. I really enjoy that aspect of the KA. A P180 will fly 10K higher than a KA and 100kts faster - that pretty much eliminates the jet/TP advantage. I'm sure I don't care about the clown plane (prop) difference. What if I found out that Piaggio fixed the support challenges? What if I found out that the hard-to-service issues didn't really come up all that often? What if Weststar (not too far from me) was really good at maintaining these and kept parts on hand? A P180 isn't much more expensive than my KA and I'd bet I could be insured to fly it SP in a few weeks rather than close to a year ( I have no PIC jet time).

So assuming that doesn't pan out, what would be next? Hmmm - cheap lear 35? It would sure be a kick if I can still fit! Or a CV - I could lease some hours to a buddy and be in it pretty cheaply. Don't think a CJ is going to work, with this new client we just got, it doesn't have the range.

While looking throw in the 400LS just for fun.

P180 is very interesting. The per mile cost beats the KA hands down in my research.

I for one would definitely like to find out more about it. Always discounted it, not sure why.

Sounds awesome. Where do I sign up.

Good CRM includes a SOP that each pilot knows well. For an air carrier, this allows pilots that have never flown together to climb into an airplane and fly as if they've trained and flown together for years. The carrier I flew with had 1000 pilots and you would fly with someone different every week. A well trained crew is a sight to behold on an ILS to 1800 rvr, also when something breaks. Something as simple as a failed gear retraction and return to land can be a handful for two pilots; running the abnormal checklist, programming FMS setting up avionics for return, advising the pax, etc. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. I've done it twice in the last year (and yes, we got calls from the FAA for each return).

I do not have any P180 time. I have, however, trained plenty of folks that have flown them. Across the board, I've been told that the P180 is a high workload airplane. Apparently much higher workload than a King Air, Citation, etc. Probably worth digging deeper on your own regarding this issue.

I do not have any P180 time. I have, however, trained plenty of folks that have flown them. Across the board, I've been told that the P180 is a high workload airplane. Apparently much higher workload than a King Air, Citation, etc. Probably worth digging deeper on your own regarding this issue.

Sounds awesome. Where do I sign up.

I believe you. I just would rather buy a SP jet.

If you're a non pilot owner, you're still trying to maintain your own schedule while also arranging and managing two other individuals' for your needs.

Why would that be better than one person maintaining one other person's schedule?

2 would be more difficult than one, no?

I believe you. I just would rather buy a SP jet.

At least their medicals would have to be renewed every year.