They tend to be busy people (which is how they came to be wealthy enough to afford to run a nice aeroplane) and many of them whilst ‘potentially’ competent enough, are not just current enough to be flying a jet – especially single crew. The smart ones realise this and will take a safety pilot.
I think this is true in Turboprops as well. As what next pointed out though I suppose the danger is that you are in a more unfriendly flight environment in a jet.
Julian has masses of experience in various bizjets including multi pilot stuff. He is the sharpest pilot I have ever flown with.
If the FAA / EASA are prepared to certify a jet for single crew operation, then clearly it is considered safe for it to be operated by a single pilot.
Yes and no. Because although these authorities allow the jets themselves to be operated by a single pilot, many of them insist on two pilots when it comes to commercial operations. Two CPL or ATPL holders that is.
many of them insist on two pilots when it comes to commercial operations. Two CPL or ATPL holders that is.
That, however, is the national CAAs, not the certification agency.
For example, AIUI, all public transport jet ops require two pilots, Europe and the USA. Funnily enough, doing the same PT op in a turboprop (a twin TP, or a SE TP where this is legal e.g. the USA) requires just one pilot.
Of course it also depends on the cockpit procedures (especially the abnormal ones) and the cockpit layout. Imagine a case of smoke & fire in the cockpit when one has to hand-fly the aircraft and at the same time the abnormal list calls for pulling circuit breakers at a 2m distance … some aircraft simply require two pilots in front …
By the way … who does carry smoke goggles in the aircraft in the event of cockpit smoke?
In a SE, SP, non-pressurised aircraft I think that you would have other problems than smoke if there were a fire, so I am not sure how useful they would be. Venting the cabin would probably take care of the smoke, and if it does not the flames will take care of you anyway.
Maybe that deserves a new thread?
By the way … who does carry smoke goggles in the aircraft in the event of cockpit smoke?
Had a SAFA check in France yesterday. Luckily we had smoke goggles on board. I would not want to fly any pressurised aircraft without them.
I read the entire thread as I found myself to be wondering the exact same question a while ago.
I had extensive single engine turboprop time and was “naturally” looking up to jets…so I decided to try to a few to get make up my own mind.
Flying alone quite a bit and enjoying it (some of my friends don’t) I was curious so I started with a Cessna Mustang: I found it to be relatively easy to fly but could the performance improvement was so marginal that I discounted it. Jet fever is for me driven by speed and the Mustang is slow compared to others. I was not ready to loose access to small runways, pay for more fuel, loose range and NOT get more speed.
I then flew with a few friends from Europe to the US. He had an older CJ but fully refurbished, was more specious, faster, burned a lot more fuel with older avionics (which is ok for me) and…this one was faster. I thought the cabin was great and 380 KTS seemed about right to fix my jet fever. The acquisition price was also quite low and certainly not higher than the TBM I was flying on that trip. On the few legs that we flew, there was never more than a few minutes between the two planes due to the short time it takes to get the TBM fully ready for takeoff and the high speed descent down to 3 nm from the threshold. We decided to make a stop in Illulisat but that was too short for the CJ so we left it in Sondrestrom and made a quick return trip with the TBM to get our group together to enjoy this site. Comparing fuel burn was something that my friend has decided to bury deep down as he enjoys his airplane. Being a private pilot, he only uses long runways and takes a safety pilot on occasions. It is most likely his last airplane, does not fly more than 100 hours a year and has reached his dream. I am in a different spot, using short runway, traveling far and flying more but with less means so I enjoy the ride once in a while but prefer the TBM for my missions.
I also got to fly a Phenom 100: G1000, fast and great looks but clearly a plane that does not leave any room for improvisation. I thought it was within my abilities but required serious training and again trading speed for other conveniences. Another friend of mine has actually moved up from a TBM and traded again to come back because his missions were not suited for the airplane. He too enjoyed the speed and quietness but was a bit concerned by operating costs.
I asked Embraer how many 300s were SP privately flown and the answer was none. They thought it was too much airplane…Too bad as this looked very tempting on paper.
My ultimate experience was a Beech Premier. The faster but there clearly also not very forgiving and sadly quite unreliable.
My jet fever got lower as I was fortunate enough to experience these airplanes and at the end, as a private pilot more than a professional one even if my licence says otherwise, I felt that sticking with turboprops was not only more financially sound but also more in tune with my capabilities and my missions.
Once that was determined and since I did not need the cabin space of the PC12, the TBM and its evolution was quite a natural choice: I still find it amazing after having owned 3. The 900 will fly at 330 KTS at FL310 on 60 USG and land in Courchevel after close to 1500 miles and a good load. It is easy, forgiving and holds its value better than others. If I needed the room, I would definitely opt for the PC 12, miss the speed and flying qualities.
All that to say that I don’t believe there is only one answer to this question. It seems pilot and mission profile will have a significant influence and I suppose we are leaving extra cost outside of the risk category there.
Have a nice evening.
David
TP’s are hard to beat. 40% less fuel burn for not much less speed. Add to that ranges that will put any SP jet to shame, and the door to door time on a 1000nm+ trip tilts in favor of the TP many times. Whoever builds a 400kt SP jet with over 2500nm range will have my wet dream attention. Until then, the PC12’s, TBMs, Turbo Commanders and P180’s rule.
Bruce Byerly, Napes Jet Center is obviously biased being mainly a used TP salesman, but he sums it up nicely about twin TP’s vs Jets:
So there I was at FL 340 doing 290 knots true on 58 gallons an hour . . . no, I was not dreaming nor having a nightmare, as some fighter jet pilot might think when he sees 300-knot speeds. I was flying a Commander 1000. High and fast. I was witnessing the efficiency of the Commander and reveling in the fact that a mere 90 gallons a side would last more than three hours at this burn rate, and take me from Kansas City to Teterboro. With those numbers I couldn’t help but appreciate the magic that attracts pilots and owners to excellent legacy aircraft.
In fact, just a couple of days later I found myself in the pointy end of a Citation II. Ok, so the II nose is not so pointy of an end, but I was up front. At FL360 we were knocking down 355 true on 1000 pph, which would be 150 gallons per hour using my rule of thumb, or 149 gallons per hour according to the calculator. (If you don’t have the rule of thumb committed to memory yet, you take the fuel in pounds, drop a zero, then take half that number and add it to itself. For example, 1000 pounds becomes 100, divided by 2 equals 50; 100 + 50= 150 gallons.)
So, 335 knots on 150 gph was respectable performance, and it was a nice ride. But the skinflint in me said, “That’s a lot of fuel for me and my cabin needs, and down low—lookout! Hard to run this thing around doing short hops. I think I need a turboprop. Goes about anywhere, and doesn’t suck fuel through a sewer pipe.”
Almost 3x times the fuel burn to go 65kts faster. Not a great deal in my book.
