Are single pilot risks real?
Getting a good handle on risks in personal flying is difficult because we have no reliable information on exposure. The NTSB does an accurate job of tallying serious, especially fatal accidents, so we know that number. However, how many flying hours, or better yet trips, occur between those accidents? The exposure to risk, in other words. We just don’t have that data.
However, even without knowing the number of flying hour exposure, there is one activity where risk does stand out; that is pilots flying alone in light jets. Nobody believes that the majority of hours flown in the Cessna CJ fleet, Embraer Phenom fleet, Beech Premier fleet, or the other single-pilot eligible jets is flown with only a single pilot, but most accidents are single pilot occurrences. I can’t place numbers to this, but the higher number of single pilot accidents in the light jets is significant.
Now that the insurance market has firmed up, underwriters are taking note, too. In the past year or so it has become very, very expensive to insure a light jet flown by a single pilot, particularly an owner pilot. In some cases, the single pilot may not be able to buy cover at any price. This is significant because the light jets provide our only glimpse into the risks of flying solo. In the piston fleet and most of the light turboprops, single pilot flying is the norm. When that single pilot crashes we don’t have a history of crew flying experience with which to compare. We can guess that a crew would do better than a single pilot in a piston airplane, but we are only guessing. In the light jets we can see the difference in the accident count.
Cessna CJ fleet
Single pilot operators of light jets such as the CJ are finding it much harder to get insurance. Why does a single pilot have higher risks in the light jets? Certainly not because they are more difficult to fly than a propeller airplane. The light jet fleet has recent design and certification basis so flying qualities and systems’ design and automation are well done. Take-off and approach speeds in the light jets are low, right in line with the twin turboprops or cabin class piston twins, so that is not much of an issue. Even the most elderly avionics’ suites in the light jets are capable and most have very sophisticated integrated systems that relieve a tremendous amount of pilot workload, so avionics capability isn’t an issue. I believe there are two primary reasons crew flying is safer in any airplane, not just light jets.
The most important reason is what I call the ‘backseat driver factor.’ If you have ever been through formalised simulator training, you know what I mean. When you are in the right seat, everything is crystal clear. You instantly see the course and altitude deviations. You always notice a wrong switch flip. You identify the simulated emergency in seconds whilst the poor guy in the left seat sweats through memory items, or fumbles around in a checklist.
That is why when discussing cockpit tasks, the term pilot and co-pilot, or captain and first officer, have given way to pilot flying and pilot monitoring. It is that the monitoring role that allows us to spot trends of deviation from target airspeeds, altitudes and course guidance. When monitoring we have more time for a broad scan and more time to identify what the pilot flying may be doing something wrong.
Even the most routine tasks, such as dialling the new assigned altitude into the altimeter is backed up by having two sets of ears and eyes. It’s not infrequent that one pilot is sure he heard the controller say climb or descend to one altitude, whilst the other pilot heard something else. That raises a question which probably would not have existed with a sole pilot. The other reason I believe single pilot flying is riskier in the light jets and any airplane, for that matter is because it reflects the single pilot’s most basic attitude toward safety.
Your jet has redundancy in every system and engine. Every take-off is planned for an engine to quit at the worst time whilst the jet climbs out at the necessary angle to clear all obstacles on the remaining engine. Even if all systems are lost, the battery has shown that it can power essential systems for at least 30 minutes of night IFR to get to a runway. No checklist ends in a forced landing.
However, when we look at all of that capability and redundancy and decide to fly by ourselves, we have introduced a risk factor that just isn’t there with a crew. We know a crew is safer, so why do we choose to fly solo? For convenience, that is why. Dragging along a second pilot is a hassle, particularly on personal trips. There is the cost of the other pilot, of course, but that is just a component of inconvenience. Bottom line is that it is just plain easier to fly by one’s self.
To me the worst part of that flying solo decision is that it sets the stage to cut other corners. We have already decided to give up some safety of the second pilot so on what else do we compromise? Maybe a too short runway? Maybe a contaminated runway? Maybe the aircraft is over weight for the conditions? Maybe flying tired, or stretching fuel, or any of the hundreds of small, but significant safety decisions we make on every flight. We can make any of those risky decisions based on convenience. The same reason we choose to fly by ourselves.
Believe me, I don’t want single pilot flying for personal reasons restricted. The insurance companies may not agree with me, but I think the FAA has the rules for solo pilot personal flying just right. However, what I do want is for all of us who fly by ourselves to understand that we have assumed an additional risk. Is the trade of convenience for some safety worth it? That is for each of us to decide. However, now at least in light jets, the underwriters are having a say.
Mac McClellan When people ask Mac McClellan what he does for a living, he replies, “I fly airplanes and write about them. I am one of the most fortunate people in the world to have been able to make a career of doing what I love.” Mac has been a pilot for more than 45 years, an aviation writer for more than 40 and has been lucky enough to fly just about every type of personal and business airplane in production from the 1970s onward. He was on the Flying Magazine staff for 35 years and editorin-chief for 20 of those years. He has private pilot privileges in single-engine airplanes, commercial pilot in helicopters and ATP in multi-engine airplanes. He holds several business jet type ratings and has logged more than 10,000 hours. His first airplane was a Cessna 140 and for the past 27 years he has owned a Baron 58 flying it for more than 5,000 hours to cover the aviation industry and now he is a part-time corporate pilot flying a King Air 350.