Simviation Forum - Single/double pilot planes

Mar 29^th, 2006 at 3:32am

chornedsnorkack Offline
Colonel
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 363

What are the biggest planes that are deliberately flown by one pilot?

All airliners can, in emergency, be landed by one pilot and it is acceptable for one pilot to leave the cockpit sometimes in cruise, like for lavatory visits. But they are not supposed to be deliberately flown with one pilot. And neither are big business jets.

Cessna, however, has a fair number of jets which can be flown by single pilot. Those are planes with two pilot seats in cockpit. Some of those Cessnas can be deliberately flown with one pilot seats empty. Other Cessnas, often versions of the same models, are not to be deliberately flown solo.

What is the difference in cockpit between Cessnas which can deliberately be flown solo and those which may not deliberately flown solo?

Also, I hear that a plenty of manufacturers are coming out of woodwork to manufacture Very Light Jets, with two pilot seats but supposed to be flown alone. Many of those manufacturers are previously unheard of. Some are not. For example, Embraer Phenom 100 is supposed to be flown solo. Embraer also manufactures other planes - including airlines.

What exactly makes those pressurized, high-speed, high altitude twin turbofans so easy to fly that it can be done alone?

Also, the flight simulators want to fly their flight simulators alone from one computer screen. How do they modify the cockpit layout for this? Do they do it in a manner similar to how light solo pilot plane versions are designed?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Mar 29^th, 2006 at 4:48am

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Just about any aircraft could be flown alone. The idea of having two crew though distributes the work load of flying, managing the systems, communications and in the worst case, dealing with emergencies...

The largest I think I've heard of being flown "solo" would be the BAC 1-11, although that may have been with another (non pilot) in the cockpit...

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Mar 29^th, 2006 at 6:58am

chornedsnorkack Offline
Colonel
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 363

Quote:

Just about any aircraft could be flown alone.

I think the FAR-s require than the aircraft having more than one flightcrew members should remain flyable with any one member incapacitated.

It does not seem to require that aircrafts with more than two flightcrew members should remain flyable with two members incapacitated, though.
Quote:

The idea of having two crew though distributes the work load of flying, managing the systems, communications and in the worst case, dealing with emergencies...

Would having three crew help with distributing the workload? What is the difference in the workload on planes that have just two pilots and workload on planes (often versions of same planes, like old Airbus 300, Boeing 767 or 747) that require a flight engineer?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Mar 29^th, 2006 at 7:07am

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Quote:

Would having three crew help with distributing the workload? What is the difference in the workload on planes that have just two pilots and workload on planes (often versions of same planes, like old Airbus 300, Boeing 767 or 747) that require a flight engineer?

Basically yes, however on newer aircraft with more computer based "system management" systems, which in itself can present data on demend to the crew, identify area of concern etc, so the need for a third member of the crew has subsided, and with it the need to pay a third salary to a member of the flight deck crew...

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Mar 29^th, 2006 at 7:35am

Brett_Henderson Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender:
Posts: 3593

Work load is relative.. For example, we'll compare two IFR certified Cessna 172s:

Plane A: One Nav radio/single VOR/ILS head. One Communications radio and a transponder.

Plane B: Two, flip-flop, Nav-Comms. Two VOR heads. ADF, GPS and an auto-pilot.

I wouldn't fly plane A, IFR, into crowded airspace on a GOOD day let alone IMC without a co-pilot to switch frequencies (nav and com).. track a VOR or two and deal with ATC.

Plane B would be rather easy. With 2 VORs tuned in (and two in stand-by), two comms tuned (and two in stand-by).. an NDB (or even a major city radio station) for reference AND a GPS A N D an auto-pilot to lighten the instrument scan load... Flying into Ohare, totally blind, wouldn't be all that hard, for a solo pilot.

You can crank the work load up a hair and make that a plane with a constant-speed prop and retracable landing gear.. or crank it way up and make it a twin-engine plane with a bunch of passengers.

Anyway.. I don't think it's the size of the plane as much as the situation and available equipment. I wouldn't hesitate to take a KingAir up by myself (if I was rated *smirk* (I've got Seneca and 310 time) ) from an uncontrolled airport an on nice day. A twin engine jet with modern automation wouldn't scare me too much either, to fly solo, except that everything happens that much faster.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Mar 29^th, 2006 at 7:49am

chornedsnorkack Offline
Colonel
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 363

Quote:

Work load is relative.. For example, we'll compare two IFR certified Cessna 172s:

Plane A: One Nav radio/single VOR/ILS head. One Communications radio and a transponder.

Plane B: Two, flip-flop, Nav-Comms. Two VOR heads. ADF, GPS and an auto-pilot.

I wouldn't fly plane A, IFR, into crowded airspace on a GOOD day let alone IMC without a co-pilot to switch frequencies (nav and com).. track a VOR or two and deal with ATC.

Plane B would be rather easy. With 2 VORs tuned in (and two in stand-by), two comms tuned (and two in stand-by).. an NDB (or even a major city radio station) for reference AND a GPS A N D an auto-pilot to lighten the instrument scan load... Flying into Ohare, totally blind, wouldn't be all that hard, for a solo pilot.

You can crank the work load up a hair and make that a plane with a constant-speed prop and retracable landing gear.. or crank it way up and make it a twin-engine plane with a bunch of passengers.

Anyway.. I don't think it's the size of the plane as much as the situation and available equipment. I wouldn't hesitate to take a KingAir up by myself (if I was rated *smirk* (I've got Seneca and 310 time) ) from an uncontrolled airport an on nice day. A twin engine jet with modern automation wouldn't scare me too much either, to fly solo, except that everything happens that much faster.

So, it was the automated equipment and "system management" systems installed on three-crew planes that made it easy to get rid of the flight engineer, to the extent that no planes with flight engineer are in production.

For the smaller planes, it seems that the modrn automation and "system management" systems should likewise make it easier to fly solo in planes that used to need two pilots?

Assuming the modern (2006 state-of-the-art, rather what you think would be for 2016 or 2066) avionics and automation, is there a big difference in terms of pilot workload in flying a twin turbojet Cessna Citation CJ3 with 5 passengers or flying a twin turbojet Boeing 777-300 with 500 passengers? Regulations make a difference, of course...

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #6 - Mar 29^th, 2006 at 8:14am

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Quote:

What are the biggest planes that are deliberately flown by one pilot?

Back to your initial question, the RAF's Canberra is operated by a single pilot, and has been for 50 years, and before that most of the heavy bombers in the RAF during WWII were single pilot, with a flight engineer...

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Mar 29^th, 2006 at 8:30am

Brett_Henderson Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender:
Posts: 3593

Regulations aside.. and just for the sake of this discussion.. I'd say both pilots have similar work loads.

A real jet jockey would have to confirm this of course.

But, like anything else, as you add variables, the complexity grows geometrically. Just the fact that there's more that CAN go wrong on a bigger plane is reason to have a co-pilot.

I think the biggest appeal for smaller jets is that they can fly in/out of major cities using smaller airports. The fact that they'll all be above 18,000msl during the flight makes them all IFR... But you can fly into, say, Columbus, Ohio where you're only real contact with ATC is to get turned over to KOSU's (Ohio State University Airport) tower and be cleared to land. Flying into Port Columbus means getting in line with a dozen other jets following standard terminal arrivals and quite possibly having to fly a hold or two (no fun in bad weather without a co-pilot). Since you cannot land a 777 at KOSU.. well.. you get the idea..

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #8 - Mar 29^th, 2006 at 3:25pm

TSC. Offline
Colonel
The older I get, the better
I was...
Torquay, Devon, England.

Gender:
Posts: 5132

The Beechcraft Premier IA is the only swept-wing business jet approved for single-pilot operations (source: Today's Pilot):

Cheers,

TSC.

'Only two things are infinite.......The Universe and Human stupidity........and I'm not too sure about the Universe' - Einstein

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #9 - Mar 31^st, 2006 at 9:25pm

Citationpilot Offline
Colonel

Posts: 114

The largest civilian aircraft you can fly single pilot in the US (by number of seats) would be either the 1900 or the Metroliner (the 1900 is the heaviest). The fastest is currently the Permier, but will soon be the new Sweinger jet.

I've got a little CJ2 time. Although I've never flown a 777 I have ridden jumpseat (pre 9-11) and can guarentee you the 777 pilots have a much, much higher workload, especially once you start the decent.

And for the record I'd have no problem taking "Plane A" into an airport IFR, but I'm old school! Especially in a 172 when you're only doing 100 knots over the ground.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #10 - Apr 1^st, 2006 at 8:28am

wealthysoup Offline
Colonel
Newtownards, Northern Ireland

Gender:
Posts: 825

one of the reasons they have 2 pilots is so that if one of them eats something and gets food poisoning etc then the other pilot can still fly and land safely, thus the reason that both pilots arent allowed to eat the same food on board the plane incase theres something wrong with the chicken casserole the pilot had the copilot would still be ok after having lasagne or whatever, so would be able to land it Wink

My PC specs:&&AMD Athlon 64 3200 (@ 2.2ghz)&&Asus K8v se deluxe motherboard&&1.5gb pc3200 RAM&&128mb palit geforce 6600gt&&200gb+80gb hard drives&&21 inch CRT&&5.1 creative surround sound speakers

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #11 - Apr 1^st, 2006 at 1:06pm

TSC. Offline
Colonel
The older I get, the better
I was...
Torquay, Devon, England.

Gender:
Posts: 5132

Rumack: What was it we had for dinner tonight?
Elaine Dickinson: Well, we had a choice of steak or fish.
Rumack: Yes, yes, I remember, I had lasagna.

Grin

TSC.

'Only two things are infinite.......The Universe and Human stupidity........and I'm not too sure about the Universe' - Einstein

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #12 - Apr 10^th, 2006 at 9:23am

Chris_F Offline
Colonel
Insert message here

Posts: 1364

Quote:

Rumack: What was it we had for dinner tonight?
Elaine Dickinson: Well, we had a choice of steak or fish.
Rumack: Yes, yes, I remember, I had lasagna.

Grin

TSC.

Surely you can't be serious!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #13 - Apr 11^th, 2006 at 3:49am