Citation operators seek to scrutinise safety data used to justify single-pilot ban

Business aviation association concerned over US FAA’s sudden and sweeping policy change.
Business jet representatives are seeking access to safety data following the sudden US FAA decision to rescind single-pilot authorisations for certain Cessna Citation aircraft.

The Citation Jet Pilots association says it has submitted Freedom of Information Act requests for the data being used to justify the policy change, which takes effect on 29 September.

Transport-category Citation models normally require two pilots but the FAA has long permitted exemptions for training organisations enabling them to endorse single-pilot operations.

Cessna sought the exemption in 1983, pointing out that it was building the Cessna 500 and 550 – each certified under Part 25 – and “duplicate” versions, respectively the 501 and 551, certified under Part 23. The Part 23 aircraft did not need a second pilot.

But Cessna was planning to raise the 550’s take-off weight as part of an improvement programme, and this made a corresponding derivative 551 “no longer feasible”, given that it could not incorporate the improvements and remain below the weight threshold for Part 23 certification.

While using the Part 23 standard had enabled an “interim solution” for operators needing a single-pilot aircraft, Cessna wanted its Part 25 aircraft to have a single-pilot avenue.

It argued that, over the previous six years, the Part 23 models had “confirmed their capability for safe operations with a single pilot”.

Cessna highlighted the 550 and 551 design commonality, insisting they were “indistinguishable”, with both fitted as standard with the prerequisite systems for single-pilot operations.

With the take-off weights identified as the “only physical manifestation of difference” between them, the manufacturer queried whether this alone would cause a safety issue.

“Cessna maintains, and pilot opinion confirms, that Citation workload differences attributable to weight differences are inconsequential,” it stated, adding that constraining single-pilot operations in the type “dogmatically exceeds” the regulation needed to achieve acceptable safety levels.

The FAA sided with Cessna and, in June 1984, permitted the single-pilot exemptions.

“Many commenters express concern as to the safety of single-pilot operations,” it stated in the approval. “However, there are no data that specifically show a derogation of safety from two-pilot operations.”

This position has recently been reviewed by the FAA, with the benefit of operational safety data from the previous four decades, and has led the regulator to conclude that the evidence does not back up its original safety case.

The regulator also believes there is a weak link between training organisations, which endorse the single-pilot operation, and the pilots who actually perform them.

But the Citation Jet Pilots association is looking for a more detailed explanation for the FAA’s reversal.

“Our goal is to understand the facts and analysis behind the FAA’s actions so we can assess their impact on our members and respond constructively,” says chief executive Rob Balzano.

The association’s concerns are shared by the National Business Aviation Association.

Senior vice-president of operations Heidi Williams says the FAA’s sweeping decision – made without direct notice to operators – “raises serious questions”.

Williams agrees that the FAA should examine safety evidence and take appropriate action.

But she states that the regulator should “promptly share its supporting safety analysis” with industry stakeholders, and explain directly the basis for its urgent rescission.

“We are ready to work with the agency and the Citation community on a response that addresses documented risks, strengthens training and gives pilots clear, timely guidance,” she adds.

The post Citation operators seek to scrutinise safety data used to justify single-pilot ban first appeared on FlightGlobal.

Source: www.flightglobal.com — article syndicated from the publisher’s feed; all rights remain with the original publisher.