Big stir in the Citation world

What's bizarre is the reference to the Biffel crash as a reason for the change. Biffel's plane didn't have a single pilot exemption, the PIC's type rating was restricted, and there was no legal SIC, so this would have changed nothing.
 
Those planes are all getting pretty old, no? I wonder how many are flying around on exemptions these days...
 
flyingron said:
What's bizarre is the reference to the Biffel crash as a reason for the change.
Click to expand...
I think it was more related to the stated point below why Biffel's accident was mentioned given the high profile nature of that event. A some what similar regulatory move happened after the Kobe Bryant accident but not as drastic.

[...] and a review that revealed widespread non-compliance with the exemptions
Click to expand...
 
I had a friend that ended up selling his Citation when the DPE declined to administer a SPE due to "liability" about a year ago. I don't know the line well but he bought a Citation that doesn't require an SPE.
 
schmookeeg said:
My first thought too. Holy hell the longer I am in aviation, the more cynical I get about the FAA.
Click to expand...
Not really. What most don't see is the politics behind it. You'd be surprised how when a high-profile accident happens and everybody and their brother calls their local representative to wonder how come such and such accident happened and what they were doing to fix it. Look at the DC mid-air and what it has brought around even though its been discussed for years?

And even if you go back in history, when the original predecessor to the FAA, the Civil Aeronautics Board was formed was mainly due to a single aircraft accident... the one that killed Knute Rockne. The CAB, the CAA, and now the FAA merely are pushed to make the changes others want even though it makes little sense in the big picture. Unfortunately, the list is rather long.
 
Bell206 said:
Not really. What most don't see is the politics behind it. You'd be surprised how when a high-profile accident happens and everybody and their brother calls their local representative to wonder how come such and such accident happened and what they were doing to fix it. Look at the DC mid-air and what it has brought around even though its been discussed for years?

And even if you go back in history, when the original predecessor to the FAA, the Civil Aeronautics Board was formed was mainly due to a single aircraft accident... the one that killed Knute Rockne. The CAB, the CAA, and now the FAA merely are pushed to make the changes others want even though it makes little sense in the big picture. Unfortunately, the list is rather long.
Click to expand...
That's just a different leg of the same Cui Bono?

I still smell Textron's C. Montgomery Burns energy here somewhere.
 
Bell206 said:
Not really. What most don't see is the politics behind it. You'd be surprised how when a high-profile accident happens and everybody and their brother calls their local representative to wonder how come such and such accident happened and what they were doing to fix it. Look at the DC mid-air and what it has brought around even though its been discussed for years?

And even if you go back in history, when the original predecessor to the FAA, the Civil Aeronautics Board was formed was mainly due to a single aircraft accident... the one that killed Knute Rockne. The CAB, the CAA, and now the FAA merely are pushed to make the changes others want even though it makes little sense in the big picture. Unfortunately, the list is rather long.
Click to expand...
You are sure right about that. In fact I believe this is the reason we have mandatory ELT's in planes. Some important Congressman in Alaska went missing back in the early 70's on a GA flight in some remote area of that state and the plane was never found (to this day). Congress then decided ELT's would fix that. ELT's may occasionally save live's, but most of the time they just lead to dead bodies (when not setting off false alarms).
 
There has always been issues with the CE500 SPE. I remember when SIMCOM lost the ability to give them out for one reason or another.

All that being said the 500 series flew like a turbine powered 182, and the King Air 200 I flew was way more workload intensive of an airplane to fly, yet that was certified as a single pilot aircraft.
 
Groundpounder said:
I remember when SIMCOM lost the ability to give them out for one reason or another.

...the 500 series flew like a turbine powered 182...
Click to expand...
And THAT might be the reason they can't give them out. I flew a CE-550 for 18 years, including sim-based recurrent once or twice per year. Any halfway decent sim instructor can shake that feeling out of you in no time.
 
dtuuri said:
And THAT might be the reason they can't give them out. I flew a CE-550 for 18 years, including sim-based recurrent once or twice per year. Any halfway decent sim instructor can shake that feeling out of you in no time.
Click to expand...

What feeling? The Citation II I flew was probably the easiest airplane I've ever flown, and I went to SIMCOM for my initial training when I had 400 hours.
 
Groundpounder said:
What feeling? The Citation II I flew was probably the easiest airplane I've ever flown, and I went to SIMCOM for my initial training when I had 400 hours.
Click to expand...
I never went to SIMCOM, so can only speculate. I have been to: Flight Safety International for initial (two weeks) and numerous recurrent 3-day sessions, American Airlines and subsequent visits to Quick Turn when American sold it, and Simuflite several times. Had some amazing instructors at every place. Avoided SIMCOM because it seemed rather unsophisticated without full motion sims at the time, IIRC.

BTW, the easiest visit was initial. I often thought it was so they could hook me. Once under contract, they got devious.
 
SIMCOM was definitely a little archaic, but you could still get your type in the sim.

Regardless, flying the airplane in the real world was pretty easy. Just don't turn the inverters off after takeoff when you're reaching for the ignition switches. I always thought that would be something you should wait till at least 5k to do.
 
Groundpounder said:
SIMCOM was definitely a little archaic, but you could still get your type in the sim.

Regardless, flying the airplane in the real world was pretty easy. Just don't turn the inverters off after takeoff when you're reaching for the ignition switches. I always thought that would be something you should wait till at least 5k to do.
Click to expand...
I must correct the record slightly. Of the 18 years I mentioned, the first 2 1/2 were single pilot in a 690B Turbo Commander. When my boss told me he bought a Citation II and wondered if I could fly it without a copilot I had to think fast. I had a Learjet type rating with extensive experience in it and had several corporate trips under my belt in the early Citations as SIC before single pilot exemptions were available. I told him the insurance would go up, and all jets are going the same speed below 10,000' by rule, so I could do it, but I wanted another set of eyes riding in the right seat to help me look for airplanes. That did it for him, "No, we'll hire a copilot. I don't want any of our people helping fly that airplane." :)
 
So, if I read this correctly, the versions that were originally "SP" (501/551) are still SP? They just did away with the exemption possibility for the 500/550?

If so, the value of an original SP Citation just went up by a lot.
 
StraightnLevel said:
So, if I read this correctly, the versions that were originally "SP" (501/551) are still SP? They just did away with the exemption possibility for the 500/550?

If so, the value of an original SP Citation just went up by a lot.
Click to expand...

Correct. As a 501 SP owner, I’m really glad I am not impacted but this is still bureaucratic BS and ****es me off. A lot of people just had their $1-2+M airplanes massively reduced in utility and value overnight by this change.
 
RudyP said:
Correct. As a 501 SP owner, I’m really glad I am not impacted but this is still bureaucratic BS and ****es me off.
Click to expand...
Help me understand why SP owners, like you, are twice as safe as SP exemption pilots flying similar airplanes. The 550 I flew started life as an SP 551 and had a "sex change" making it a Part 25 aircraft which we flew with two pilots. IIRC, the only difference in equipment was the addition of a transponder ident button on the pilot control wheel. I'm surprised you aren't included in this change, in other words. Maybe give it some time?
 
I can’t find a thread about it.

Just wondering why only Citations?
And not any of the many other small jets?

Just wondering why only certain Citations?
Why not the 525, etc - or can we expect the list to be expanded later?

Just wondering about all the other high risk operations, including the 135 SP ops?

Is this a poorly thought-out, knee-jerk reaction?

Maybe it’s a to respond to a specific crash?

What does anyone think this will do to used citation prices?
 
Look for the thread "Big Stir in the Citation World" under flight following.

Ron Wanttaja
 
M

Thread 'Big stir in the Citation world'

Apparently single pilot exemptions are going the way of the buffalo.


The Citation 500 was my first type rating and don’t think it’s any harder to fly than a 525. I’m guessing that it’s some overreaction and some that many 500’s were not certified to fly SP. The mod on the 500 was an Ident button on the yoke to be certified SP (because that was such a safety concern ). Since it was only that mod, think it’s an easy “justification” that it should be two pilot plane.
 
I have to wonder if the stats bear out the theory that 2 pilots have less problems than one pilot in such aircraft.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The price point of early Citations seems to attract a number of owners who can’t afford airworthiness, much less SICs. That’s why I swore off Citations 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
I wonder if that has as much effect on the safety rate as the lack of an SIC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top