Tehnically Speaking: Single Pilot Certification?

[Veyron254]

Questions about the Hawker 900XP.

Is there anyone on this forum who is Single Pilot Certified on this airframe?
Is this airframe operationally certified (FAA) for Single Pilot Operations?
Did you have to get Hawker Beechcraft to do anything special during manufacturing?

The critical elements under the FARs that enable SPO seem to be that the aircraft have a fairly high level of ease of use and that it provides the pilot with overall good SA without the need for complex instrument referencing/scans. The FARs do not say that explicitly, but that is the general tone of the FARs as it relates to which aircraft can and cannot be operated by a singular pilot in command. The other requirement under the FARs is that the aircraft's operational specification indicate that it can be operated by a singular pilot.

I will assume (automatically) that she is already operationally certified for RVSM, which by itself is a completely different topic deserving of its own thread.

I like the overall performance of the 900XP and the 850XP, both having fairly good range for small mid-size exec/biz jets (2,300 and 2,800 respectively) and both having fairly good climb and cruise speeds. I'll need a twin turbine light or medium business/exec jet with West Coast (USA) to Hawaii NBAA IFR type range and the 900XP seems to fit that bill. So too, does the Emivest SJ30-2 and I already know that it is already Single Pilot & RVSM Certified, with a 2,500 nm range and a potential cruise of 500 kts.

Regards,
Veyron

[Veyron254]

Oh, the other reason I like the Hawker, is that she's built like a tank. Literally. The final setbacks in the Comet airframe were lessons well learned by Hawker and that history ended up producing a very well constructed (rock solid) structure (airframe) for the sibling Hawkers of today. It is one of the most reliable and well built LJ/MJ ever built, even if she is a little old in the tooth from a pure design standpoint.

Also not sure if the Gulfstream G150 is SPC as well. That would be another great alternative to the Hawker 900XP, as its IFR cruise range is upwards of 2,900 nm. Info on that airframe would also be appreciated.

Veyron

[galaxy flyer]

On the FAA type certificates, only some of the Cessna Citation CJs are single pilot certificates. And there the insurance bill will quickly induce to one to getting second pilot. No Hawker, on any civil register, has been single-pilot certificated.

GF

[500 above]

Hi

No, the G150 is not single pilot certified. In my view, the G150 (or the G100 for that matter) is a far superior aircraft to the Hawker. Much faster, more range, exceptional baggage capability. G150 also pro line 21.

The G100 and the G150 have no wet footprint for a west coast to Hawaii when Universal worked it out for us. MMO for the G100 is M0.875 and the G150 is M0.850, pretty quick aircraft. The Hawker has better short field perf (I believe) but is nowhere near as quick.

Good luck with the decision. At least you're working for someone who is still looking at spending an aviation budget!

[Veyron254]

Thanks, all!

This is actually my research and will be a purchase decision that I make. So, getting in right is important. I like the idea of West Coast to Hawaii, as that takes care of several problems that I have with respect to buying a jet in the first place - range. Range is very important but so to is the ability to operate in Single Pilot mode.

I don't know how they compare, but the SJ30-2 uses the Honeywell Primus Epic CDS: http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/SinoSwearingenSJ30-2Avionics.pdf

And, the SJ30-2 is single pilot certified as well as RVSM certified. Long range cruise of M 0.76 and a high speed cruise of M .83, so a tad bit slower than the G100 and the G150, but the SJ30-2 carries sea level cabin pressure all the way up to FL410, simply not doable in the G100, G150 or the Hawker 850/900 XP.

But again, everything seems to have a trade-off. The SJ30-2's cabin is smaller than the three of the four other aircraft. Significantly smaller than both Hawkers and fractionally smaller than both Gulfstream aircraft. And, the SJ30-2 carries a max ISA IFR/IMC range of 2,500 nm, which makes the trip to Hawaii possible from the West Coast of California (Bay Area).

So, I really would like the additional cabin space and speed performance that something like the 850 or 900 XP can offer, or the C150, but I need them to be both Single Pilot and RVSM capable. They need to be - frankly, I don't see why from a purely technical standpoint that either of those aircraft are that much more "advanced" than the SJ30. In fact, in some ways, the SJ30 even out performs them.

I wish there could be a way to do this. I won't feel "stuck" with an SJ30, but I would like the extra range that some of the others provide. A bit of insurance when making the trip over the Pacific.

Any ideas? Or, am "stuck" with the type of mission that only one aircraft can fulfill in the Single Pilot/RVSM mode? Having a dedicated flight crew is not an option and I don't want to be dependent on someone else's schedule.

[MarkerInbound]

Yeah, you're pretty much stuck with one aircraft since you rule out the G-100 and Hawkers by requiring single pilot operation. And I wouldn't put too much stock in that 2500 nm range. The salesman want to sell an airplane. I've spent a few days sitting in Oakland waiting for the winds to go down in a plane that will go 2500 nm IFR.

[vova_k]

It was exactly my requirements – range from YVR to OGG and single pilot. I gave up single pilot quite quickly – first of all, there is no single pilot airplane with this range westbound exists. Also, I decided I would prefer to have another pilot with me, if I use the airplane for a lot of intercontinental flights (Europe – North America) and carry my family. Of course, I can imagine cost of insurance for single pilot operations, but it was not one of main concerns.
Basically, the choice was between G150 and Hawker 900, I decided to go with G150.

[galaxy flyer]

Oh, btw, 2500nm range won't get you to PHNL with a dry footprint. If you don't the difference between "dry" and "wet" footprints, I modestly suggest you learn BEFORE striking out westbound.

GF

[Veyron254]

...I've spent a few days sitting in Oakland waiting for the winds to go down in a plane that will go 2500 nm IFR.

Yes - agreed. I'm trying to do the homework necessary to see past the fog of marketing - especially in this economic climate. Which aircraft were you operating with a 2,500 nm IFR range, btw? Curious minds want and need to know! Also, did you have a CO or FO with you? Were you with a fractional or operating privately out of KOAK?

I used to work there back in college - North Field, Hanger 5 at Aero Services. Occasionally, we used to launch an older Hawker with retrofitted fuel systems for legs to Honolulu. I forget exactly which model, but I remember the pilot talking about the retrofitted fuel system, as I was the one who often times refueled the aircraft on the ramp.

Oh, btw, 2500nm range won't get you to PHNL with a dry footprint. If you don't the difference between "dry" and "wet" footprints, I modestly suggest you learn BEFORE striking out westbound.

The ETP calculation should be handled by either of the FMC on-board the aircraft being discussed here. So, knowing where that point is located for single engine return to departure or single engine continuance to destination or single engine divergence to alternate (not available on this particular leg) would be a simple matter of flight planning, I would think.

But, along these lines, though the twin turbine ETOPS rules under FAA operations do not apply to private GA flights (not excluded under JAA for ETOPS 120), I think it wise to adopt as much of the ETOPS protocol as possible when operating in a non 121/135 environment. Thus, the only operational rule out of the FAA regulations that I can think of off the top of my head that would apply here, would be the 45-minute reserve requirement, which would be a flight planning issue.

I'm also thinking that being able to operate in the RVSM levels, afford better fuel efficiency and thus helps to increase the functional range a bit. What are you thoughts on better fuel efficiencies at these certified flight levels for a twin jet, in light of the headwind components that you allude to?

This seems to place PHTO within range (again, just off the top of my head) from either KSFO or KOAK, if I am not mistaken (check my math) - or even departures out of Livermore, Hayward, Concord and/or San Jose (depending on where hanger space is available - yet another problem, too!) At first glance, PHTO from KOAK (for example) would be either a straight-in or right-45 approach to RW 26. Granted, not a huge fuel reserve would remain, but certain enough to make Honolulu or Maui, if Hilo becomes unavailable for any reason.

What's been your experience with this particular leg at the higher RVSM levels?

It was exactly my requirements – range from YVR to OGG and single pilot. I gave up single pilot quite quickly – first of all, there is no single pilot airplane with this range westbound exists.

Did you consider the RVSM capabilities of the SJ30-2? Does that help with range, endurance and fuel efficiency? [factors: turbines operating at higher altitudes requiring less fuel for any given EPR/power setting]

Also, I decided I would prefer to have another pilot with me, if I use the airplane for a lot of intercontinental flights (Europe – North America) and carry my family.

Absolute, understandable. No doubt and makes a lot of sense.
Basically, the choice was between G150 and Hawker 900, I decided to go with G150.

A very nice choice and I do feel some internal (mental/gutt) pull in that direction IF Single Pilot was not a factor.

How do you like the cabin environment of the G150 when you are not in the cockpit? The biggest thing for me is what my Wife thinks about the cabin. Frankly, I'd feel comfortable flying an F-15 to Hawaii, but that is not something my Wife would go for. She's of the opinion that the 900 XP cabin interior would be better than the G150's. Frankly, I don't know yet as we have not reached the stage in our research where we need a physical inspection. Right now, I'm trying to match the mission requirements to the actual performance numbers and then worry about "comfort" later, of course.

Since you dropped your Single Pilot requirement, what made you select the G150 over the 850 or 900 XP, besides insurance costs?

Thanks to all for your help!

[galaxy flyer]

Veyron254

The 2500 nm range quoted is based on optimum conditions, still air, ISA temps, 30 minute hold at 1,500 MSL overhead the 100nm distant alternate, that's NBAA range. You seem to put a lot of stock in RVSM, if you cruise above 410, RVSM gets you nothing and you will NOT beat the manufacturers range projections. Further, the range is predicated on no ATC delays in the climb, not being kept at intermediate altitudes, etc. Much more likely, you cannot operationally match them. RVSM capability will do nothing to increase that 2500nm quoted

Your "dry" footprint needs to be calculated based on loss of pressurization OR loss of engine, whichever is more restrictive. The loss of pressurization will, in nearly all cases, be the more restrictive. Your FMS can only calculate ETP on current or entered winds, so cannot do the calculation for a divert at FL100 or whatever is the engine-out ceiling.

While your analysis of regulations is quite correct, your lack of understanding of good operational practices and basic navigation is lacking. The regs in this instance, give you the rope to hang yourself. I have listened to the pleas of someone who has erred in those practices and calculations, not good. Please do some research and training on long-range navigation, airplane capability and international procedures before striking out "feet wet", unless luck is your chosen methods.

[MarkerInbound]

I did it pre RVSM with a F/O and a F/E. RVSM will give you a little more flexibility but even back then there were one way routes so 2000 foot increments. As Galaxy Flyer just pointed out, all bets are off in the real world. Someone gets the flight level you want first, someone ahead is slower than you, etc. We went out with destination fuel plus 10 percent plus alternate plus 30 minutes at 1500 feet.

[Veyron254]

While your analysis of regulations is quite correct, your lack of understanding of good operational practices and basic navigation is lacking.

I did it pre RVSM with a F/O and a F/E.

I'm sure it is, as I have not flown this level of aircraft before and am only now doing long range pre-purchase homework. So, these are precisely the kinds of things one in my position needs to know without the expectation that one already should know it. That's why I call it homework and not review.

Don't worry, the fact that I am asking these types of questions now, should be an indicator of the kind of high-performance safety protocols I'll fly with in the future. I want to maximize performance to the nth degree, but never sacrifice in the process. Thanks for the help guys - I appreciate it. :)

[skylimey]

Hi,

I've been lurking on these boards for a while and I feel I can contribute. I have been in your position, asking exactly the same questions, doing the same math. I actually owned a CE500 and CE550. Then I got some real world experience flying GIIs and GIIIs from LAX and SFO to Hawaii.

Please trust what you are reading in reply to your question. The company I used to fly for sent all sorts of Lears and Gulfstreams on that trip and even the GIIs had to turn north to Alaska sometimes.

As mentioned, it isn't about the engine quitting as much as the pressurization loss forcing you down to an altitude where you just can't make land no matter which way you go. Unless you carry 3+ hours of supplemental O2 for everyone on board, every trip is a gamble that your family might not want to take, even if you do.

I really do get the "It needs to be Single Pilot", but for the Hawaii trip, just swallow your pride and use Netjets or equivalent. Then buy a nice Citation and you can fly around the rest of the world comfortably, Single Pilot.

Safe landings, Martin.

[Veyron254]

Skylimey,

You are so correct. I have received some good advice in this thread - especially on the Wet Footprint issue. I did run some more extensive numbers on the SJ30-2 and found out what these guys are talking about here.

Standard ISA days will rarely (if ever) coincide with the Wife's urge to be in Hawaii for the "long weekend" and headwinds do typically run west to east against the California coast (a well known meteorological phenomenon). Aside from that, as I was warned here in this thread, the real safety protocol driven concern is simply 'getting wet' in the event that anything forces a significant enough altitude reduction after the ETP - as well as the other real-time operational failures/problems.

So, I think you guys are correct. Unless Emivest Aerospace decides to actually design the extended range version of the SJ30 (which they indicated would be forthcoming), then the current SJ30-2, though marketed with Honolulu range from the West Coast, is simply not enough Pony for me to precisely rely upon - as you say - especially with Wife on-board.

Funny - after lunch today, we ended up saying the exact same thing you said just now: Call Netjets when long range over water is the mission. I think that just might be our default mode for trans-oceanic flights.

Maybe someday, advancements and continued integration of avionics, navigation and flight controls, will yield operational an operational environment that can be certified as single pilot with aircraft that do have realistic trans-oceanic range. Like I said before, I see no "technology" reason to restrict the Hawker 900 XP or the G150 to dual pilot operations only. Neither aircraft is anymore complex than the SJ30-2 (in most respects that matter) and pilots have been trained to fly far more complex aircraft over much greater distances in single pilot mode.

It is a hope, a dream, a wish - that someday really does need to come true. But, for now, at least over the water, I guess it will be 1-800-Net-Jets.

Again, thanks for all the help guys!

[skylimey]

One thing you could look at is the Sierra Citation S/II mods (with the -44 engines) which say something like 2650 as a range, but 1) You still have the wet footprint, and 2) although I've flown a few Sierra Mods, and they have 53+ conversions, I'm not convinced I'd go that route myself. Your mileage may vary.

[skylimey]

If you do end up with a Citation and need a type-rated-SIC let me know :O. I live in the Bay Area too.

[Veyron254]

Thanks for the help - I'll also keep the check ride in mind should the Citation come up as a possible alternative to the SJ. :)