Part 135 Question. Twin-Engine, IFR, Single Pilot

labbadabba

labbadabba

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
2,391
Location
Lawrence, KS
Display Name
Display name:
labbadabba
So, I was under the impression that to operate under Part 135 in a twin in IFR conditions, a second pilot was required.

However, information on the Tecnam P2012 appears to state otherwise. Was reading about what Cape Air was planning on doing with their new Tecnams, and it appears they're seeking to operate single pilot.

https://p2012.tecnam.org/general-description/single-pilot-vs-dual-pilot/

Did I miss something?
 
Unless it's changed I flew single pilot twins under 135 years ago.
 
labbadabba said:
So, I was under the impression that to operate under Part 135 in a twin in IFR conditions, a second pilot was required.

However, information on the Tecnam P2012 appears to state otherwise. Was reading about what Cape Air was planning on doing with their new Tecnams, and it appears they're seeking to operate single pilot.

https://p2012.tecnam.org/general-description/single-pilot-vs-dual-pilot/

Did I miss something?
Click to expand...
Dunno if you missed something but two pilots are not required for part 135 operations while IFR if the aircraft is certified for single pilot and I assume the ops specs have to allow it.
 
I think you can if you have an autopilot that meets FAA specs (might need to have a backup, or two). Someone will be along to clarify.
 
Just off the top of my head, for carrying passengers two pilots are needed unless the plane has a working approved auto pilot and training for it as per operations specifications.
 
coloradobluesky said:
I think you can if you have an autopilot that meets FAA specs (might need to have a backup, or two). Someone will be along to clarify.
Click to expand...

Ah, this may be it. I had an old CFI who used to fly Navajos in Alaska and said they needed 2 crew for IFR under part 135. It was in my mind that it was because it was a twin.
 
Just off the top of my head, you need an operable autopilot that controls the aircraft along three axis, (but our M4C A/P qualified) and a 135 single pilot FAA checkride.
 
Zeldman said:
Just off the top of my head, for carrying passengers two pilots are needed unless the plane has a working approved auto pilot and training for it as per operations specifications.
Click to expand...
Yup. That's was my understanding as well.
 
labbadabba said:
So, I was under the impression that to operate under Part 135 in a twin in IFR conditions, a second pilot was required.

However, information on the Tecnam P2012 appears to state otherwise. Was reading about what Cape Air was planning on doing with their new Tecnams, and it appears they're seeking to operate single pilot.

https://p2012.tecnam.org/general-description/single-pilot-vs-dual-pilot/

Did I miss something?
Click to expand...


It is done all the time.

1. Aircraft must be certified for single pilot ops
2. Pilot must have the rating in single pilot ops (CE525S works, CE525 does not)
3. OpSpecs will specify autopilot in lieu of second pilot / single pilot requirements
4. MEL will specify when something is MELd that would require a second pilot
5. 299 ride done single pilot in type

Many pax still like to have two pilots.
 
kgruber said:
Just off the top of my head, you need an operable autopilot that controls the aircraft along three axis, (but our M4C A/P qualified) and a 135 single pilot FAA checkride.
Click to expand...
Does not need yaw dampner, two axis is fine. Must be an approved AP.
 
ronnieh said:
Does not need yaw dampner, two axis is fine. Must be an approved AP.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough, 135.105 says "(1) The autopilot is capable of operating the aircraft controls to maintain flight and maneuver it about the three axes;"
I have yet to run across an autopilot that does that. ;)
 
Maule, you are correct. It has been many, many years since I flew 135 and things may have changed. In those days 135.105 was deemed to be an AP that would fly a coupled ILS approach. It would control altitude, pitch and horizontal deviation. In reality and technically a 3 axis AP is one that will operate all 3 controls, elevator, ailerons, and rudder. Maule, many AP's have rudder control in the form of a yaw dampner. I am not aware of a requirement for single pilot multi engine IFR requiring yaw dampner. At least the Alanta FSDO use to define it this way for 135.
 
ronnieh said:
Maule, you are correct. It has been many, many years since I flew 135 and things may have changed. In those days 135.105 was deemed to be an AP that would fly a coupled ILS approach. It would control altitude, pitch and horizontal deviation. In reality and technically a 3 axis AP is one that will operate all 3 controls, elevator, ailerons, and rudder. Maule, many AP's have rudder control in the form of a yaw dampner. I am not aware of a requirement for single pilot multi engine IFR requiring yaw dampner. At least the Alanta FSDO use to define it this way for 135.
Click to expand...
Most pilots/inspectors I've worked with don't consider yaw damper to actually be part of the autopilot.

On MMELs it's normally listed separately, rather than as a sub-component of autopilot.
 
Mind you, this is all for pax 135 operations. Cargo, is well, run what you brung.
 
Let me try this again. As stated by Maule 135.105 does indeed specify an AP that manuvers the aircraft around 3 axis. My point is that the FAA does not actually mean a 3 axis AP. A 3 axis AP by definition must control 3 axis, roll, pitch, yaw. I assumed Maule (ya, I know) was using the traditional definition of 3 axis AP. Other than the FAA in 135.105 an AP technician or an AP manufacturer will, when talking 3 axis AP, be talking about an actual 3 axis AP, controlling all three axis. As I said a 3 axis must control roll, pitch, yaw. The FAA just wants an AP capable, in simplified terms, of making a coupled ILS type approach (could be VNav now). And yes on some models the Y/D is in fact a stand alone device and can be inop and the AP will function in the other two axis. Most AP with Y/D do utilize the Y/D function when making turns.
So, my point was not to just be disagreeable with Maule but, rather that the FAA in times past did not require an actual 3 axis AP, rather an AP capable of manuvering the aircraft around 3 axis. A fine point for sure but, there are several AP's without 3 axis control that can be used for single pilot, multi engine IFR. Just another example of where I should have minded my own business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top