why 2 pilots for a single pilot certified A/C
 

Small single engine turbofan aircrafts such as Cirrus SF50, maverick solo jet, Diamond D Jet, Stratos aircraft, etc are now entering the market. Some of these aircraft such as Stratos aircraft have been certified for single pilot operation. Moreover, cessna citation and beechcraft aircraft can be flown by single pilots. However, all of these aircrafts which is certified for single pilot operation has the provision of accomodating two pilots at the front…Is this compulsory due to regulations…why dont they remove one pilot and just make the aircraft to accomodate only one pilot so that the front area decreases and the aerodynamic advantages can be gained to some extent besides they are anyway being certified for single pilot operation…

2 pilots
 

imho:
single pilot ops is ok for private operations....
as far as i know authorites as for 2 pilots at commercial ops with these aircrafts... (like for C525..)

rgds
welle

As long as accident reports still show that a majority of incidents are due to pilot error and incapacitation you will see two man cockpits... It is a statistical game really with a bit of emotion thrown in too...

If you really want to ask the right question it would be why a pilot at all.... Give us a decade or so and this will be the discussion with the advance of the UAV's...

I could well see a European requirement for all jets to be required to be flown by a crew in the not very distant future!
With RVSM airspace and increased congestion travelling at the speeds of a jet can put a high workload on a single pilot !
Accident rates increase with Single pilot ops so it's on the cards for crew jet operations!
On top of that many owners are not comfortable with one heart flying the aircraft.

Pace

The manufacturer is only one part of the equation.. FAA requires 2 pilots when carrying more than 9 pax on commercial ops.

2 Engines, 2 Comms, 2 FMS's duplicated other systems all increasing safety for the passengers.

1 heart beat up front during single pilot ops, thats why, all insurance company generated.

Removing the co-pilot from cockpit
 

Thank you for all of your replies....I am doing my MSc thesis which is a conceptual design of a business jet aircraft and I am specifically focusing into very light jets with a passenger capability of 4-5 passengers, range of not more than 1500 nm, weight not more than 10000 pounds. Similar to Diamond D-Jet, Cirrus SF50 type of aircraft (Far 23, CS-23 requirement). I am currently doing the market analysis and preparing the specifications. My supervisor wants specifically just a single pilot...I just wanted to know if there were any regulations...seems like removing the co-pilot from the cockpit is possible from all of your answers but a big gamble in terms of selling the aircraft...Here is my conclusions for single pilot operations

advantages
Low cost of not hiring the co-pilot
Small amount of drag decrease in the front section by removing the seat

Disadvantages
operational inflexibility (specially landing at bigger airports, IFR flying)
High insurance cost
High probability of accidents
Cannot train the pilot in the same aircraft

I guess this is why even though the aircraft is certified for a single pilot operation they don't remove the co-pilot seat to allow for flexibility for the operator and since the market for this type of aircraft is still being experimented manufacturers don't want to take a gamble. The disadvantages seems to outweigh the advantages. What are your thoughts did I miss any other possible advantages...

Even simulator based TRs require that the pilot then undertakes a few circuits with an examiner on board. I can't see many examiner being happy to sit in the back of a single-pilot machine where they have absolutely no chance of intervening.

One small advantage you miss is less weight.

There is also the very real probability that sooner than later single pilot operation in the airline flight levels or routes will be proscribed.

Having said that while you are at it designing the aircraft and systems from scratch to be autonomous and capable of landing itself or being landed might be a gamechanger.

It is already technically possible and has been demonstrated.

As the man who designed the first automatic thingy said "it's computerised", nothing can go wrong....go wrong...go wrong...:uhoh: insert blue screen of death here.:eek:

The aircraft might be approved for SP operation, but regulations often require 2 pilots for public transport ie paying pax. There can be exceptions to the rule though eg autopilot instead of co-pilot but that depends on meeting specific criteria for the air carrier.

Although it would never happen, you have to admire the simplicity of this question. It does seem to have some logic behind it on the face of it. If only one pilot, then you need only one seat. Seems to make sense. It worked on the Dragon Rapide.

SP ops, especially with rather fast turbine engined aircraft, carrying pax, flying in busy european airspace is probably a decreasing business anyway, certainly on CAT. Whether it has 1 or 2 engines is largely irrelevant from that point of view.

bring back the BD10! point to point charter for the businessman in a hurry

Its lucky that changing legislation in aviation is glacial. I can certainly see single pilot ops returning to civilian aviation in a demonstrably and statistically safe way. All you need is an aircraft which is essentially a UAV which also carries a pilot. That way you have the redundancy of a two pilot operation but you have statistical redundancy should the UAV fail. And how hard would it really be to convince the public? I'd imagine it would take cheaper fares and about a week. So the original question is very sensible - current legislation makes it an unworkable suggestion but in the future? who knows..

Attempts to eliminate the second pilot are almost as old as aviation itself. Have you had a look at the cockpit of the Mitsubishi Diamond? It was initially conceived as a single pilot aircraft - but you just to take a look at the cockpit to realize that this would never have worked.So much for the engineers' ambitions...

I don't understand why you would try that in the first place. Hiring and maintaining a second pilot will be cheaper than installing the hardware required for any technical solution, be it remote controls or sophisticated autopilots. That's why I don't see the second pilot go anytime soon.

As well as all the previous responses, it is also a matter of economics for the manufacturer. It is the owner's/operator's perogative how may pilots he puts in the front of his SP aircraft. Take that choice away and the manufacturer won't sell as many airframes.

MT

and I completely agree. Two pilots, great idea, lets stick with it.

But I suspect my lifetime will see a safety case for removing a pilot. The majority of accidents are down to pilot error, CRM, loss of situational awareness etc. Technology is moving forward at an extraordinary rate in the UAV world - how long is it going to take the tech to overtake a squidgy old grey haired git like me?

not long..

I wouldn't be so pessimistic. Think back to the early 90ies when Airbus management claimed that flying an A320 was so easy that even their executives' secretaries could do it easily. They were (and still are!) proven wrong. "Pilot error" and loss of situational awareness are in no small part induced by new technology. Trying to design the human element out of the cockpit will not get you less "human error" and related accidents, but more.

UAVs suffered a tremendous accident rate in the beginning, btw. One source (http://www.resilientcognitivesolutio...wordpress/?p=9) speaks of an accident rate that is eight times higher than for conventional aircraft.

yeah hope so. Which will come first - the driverless car or the single pilot airliner? I'm definitely not a fan of the idea because its nice sitting up the front drinking a coffee and looking out of the window and chatting to yer mate about clouds but its not difficult to see the situation where automation is demonstrably safer than two pilots.

ah well, I'll be growing courgettes by then

Look at it from the owner's perspective. It's his/her pink derriere in the back and he/she would probably feel more secure in preserving said component with two aircrew versus one.

There is enough going on in the aviation world that two craniums far gezump one ego.

Bingo

OP - As a single pilot 'enthusiest' with the waiver in 6 different Citations....I have pondered a number for design 'upgrades'....folding wings...more aerodynamic cockpit...etc..

The reality is that manufacturers are motivated to make money...and do this by selling planes to willing buyers...and willing buyers currently are not hiring and PAYING ex military and high time civilian pilots but generally chief pilot culled kids, marshmellows, over the hill hacks, ect...thus....they need docile, slow, stupidly overbuilt, way to many avionics to hand hold and keep the idiot pilots(that means two) out of trouble.

The point being...YES....I have considered a design with one pilot in front and maybe a rear seater.....maybe someone like the SR71 that would haul ass, with a pay load of say 8 people in the hold, two pilots up front in tandem, getting the drag cross section way down.

But it won't happen as long as the people who buy plane currently hire from the bottom of the resume pile rather then the top..

Hence why the planes are so slow, have so much drag, and have so much gear to tell the pilots where they are. It's sad..

Anyway...build that plane, I will fly it.