SPIFR vs Crew in 703

[garfield]

hi,

I'm wondering what are the pros and cons about flying single pilot vs in crew in a 703 operation?

I know that there's very few operators that fly single pilot in eastern Canada but why's that?
Maybe the insurances costs are so expensive with a single pilot operation that is cheaper to pay a co-pilot... and you can fly only 8 hours vs 14!

[ahramin]

Cost of keeping autopilots in working order are one reason. Customer pressure is another. When it comes to insurance rates I've never had a quote come in different for single crew vs 2 crew.

[timel]

Yes, few eastern 703 don't have working autopilots and it works fine, it is good for the handling, it just gets long on a 4 hour leg.


It is safer and easier to work in a crew environment, especially when you are all alone in the world, working long days.

[oldtimer]

Many times the second pilot is a company request.
The biggest concern is the way many 9 passenger airplanes are configured. In airplanes like the 'HO and twin Cessna's, everything is oriented to having the left seat pilot do all the flying which sometimes can leave the second pilot just along for the ride in case the left seat pilot has a heart attck or such. The second pilot may have basic flight instruments on the right side but have very few if any nav instruments. Even airplanes like some Metro's have only a basic attitude indicator, a directional gyro and that is all. How many airplanes have you seen where only the left seat pilot can conduct a GPS approach because of the location of the indicators.

[ahramin]

It is safer and easier to work in a crew environment, especially when you are all alone in the world, working long days.

It can be safer and easier. 2 crew operations aren't magic. They take a great deal of effort made on documenting procedures and training CRM before any actual safety benefit is seen.

[timel]

It is safer and easier to work in a crew environment, especially when you are all alone in the world, working long days.

It can be safer and easier. 2 crew operations aren't magic. They take a great deal of effort made on documenting procedures and training CRM before any actual safety benefit is seen.

Agreed.


Unfortunately some operators and pilots don't care about SOP, CRM and so on...
And some guys on the left value the guy on the right as much as a sand bag.

[timel]

Many times the second pilot is a company request.
The biggest concern is the way many 9 passenger airplanes are configured. In airplanes like the 'HO and twin Cessna's, everything is oriented to having the left seat pilot do all the flying which sometimes can leave the second pilot just along for the ride in case the left seat pilot has a heart attck or such. The second pilot may have basic flight instruments on the right side but have very few if any nav instruments. Even airplanes like some Metro's have only a basic attitude indicator, a directional gyro and that is all. How many airplanes have you seen where only the left seat pilot can conduct a GPS approach because of the location of the indicators.

Very true, I know some places where it is still accurate as we speak (inluding king airs).

I think 703 should catch up a bit, they 'introduced' TAWS few years ago, same instruments on both side and TCAS would be a good add-on as well.

[Liquid Charlie]

I think they should ban 2 pilots in 703 - it's the only way to work a reasonable schedule

[HiFlyChick]

With the change in the regs for medical, you still have to have the 6 month medical when you're over 40 if you do single pilot. The 8 hr flight limit in 24 (if any of that time is IFR) can be a pain, but on the broight side, you don't have to share the flying

[awitzke]

edit

[Gear Jerker]

Currently doing both SPIFR and 2 crew; have previously been an FO at another company where we alternated PF/PNF.

My 2 cents:

As others have said, depends on the company culture and training WRT CRM and 2 crew SOP's. And, it also depends on the individuals. If you're flying with a new CPL it is often a distraction, which you do your best to manage in a way that benefits that individual and keeps them chugging along the experience train, while still flying safely, efficiently and comfortably. On the other hand, flying with someone with experience who you trust and always has their head in the game, definitely beats SP in some situations. Having said that, you get really good at prioritizing/multi-tasking working single pilot.

Basically, if I'm flying to minimums on a hard IFR day with icing, etc., I'd prefer to have a sharp FO. However, in the same scenario I'd rather have a good autopilot than a typical new CPL. No offense intended, we've all been there; and there are exceptions.

[jschnurr]

(Edited by request of the member who learned something new.)

To fly a GPS Approach, you need a trackbar and annunciator panel in the PF's immediate field of view.

Here's the reference:

The aircraft certification requirements for GPS installed at the pilot position requires: CDI in primary field of view; annunciators in primary field of view; control unit to be adequately accessible and that the Aircraft Flight Manual Supplement include the appropriate limitations and procedures. If the GPS/FMS control unit is not adequately accessible from each pilot position, or if GPS course deviation and distance displays are not within the primary field of view at both pilot stations, it will be necessary to designate (in the company's SOPs and in the Operations Specification authorizing GPS approaches) the position that the pilot flying (PF) and PNF must occupy during GPS approach for that type of installation. An Operations Specification authorizing GPS approaches shall not be issued unless the PNF has an acceptable means of monitoring the PF during an approach.

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... r-1744.htm

[Liquid Charlie]

As a commercial pilot, you should know that this is illegal. To fly a GPS Approach, you need a trackbar and annunciator panel in the PF's immediate field of view.

from reading his post I don't think what they are doing is illegal - he referred to captain's HSI for decent angle reference (constant decent approaches can be done without a vertical reference indicator)-- it appears he has track information on his side and both crew have access to the gps unit and can see warnings -- not good for LPV but OK anything else -- I doubt if many 703 operators have LPV authority anyway.

[awitzke]

Informative thread, learn something new every day.

[jschnurr]

A pilot in the right seat needs both a trackbar and annunciator panel in his primary field of view in order to conduct a GPS approach. These displays "must be visible to the pilot and located in the primary field of view (±15 degrees from the pilot’s normal line of sight) when looking forward along the flight path." (source).

FYI, 15° from a panel that is 24 inches away from you is 6.4 inches from center. Your primary field of view is therefore 12.8 inches wide centered on the attitude indicator. (for reference, this is comparable to a laptop screen at normal viewing distance.)

If your chieftan has a trackbar slaved to the GPS and you have an annunciator panel both directly in front of you, or if the GPS box is installed on the right side within your primary field of view (which would not afford the necessity for both pilots to have easy access), then I apologize for assuming that you were unable to complete a GPS approach. Otherwise your aircraft is simply not set up for a copilot to fly a GPS approach.

[awitzke]

Not sure if even most 430's/530's are technically within that distance even from the left seat. I'll have to measure it out of curiosity.

[goingnowherefast]

If you don't have a CDI, HSI, ADF or any course information directly in front of you, it's illegal to fly the approach. jschnurr is correct, and it's not just for GPS approaches. It includes your ILS, VOR/DME, NDB, everything.

Navigation data, including a “to/from” indication, and a failure indication, must be displayed on a lateral deviation display (Course Deviation Indicator (CDI), Electronic Horizontal Situation Indicator (EHSI) and/or a navigation map display. These must be used as primary flight instruments for the navigation of the aircraft, for manoeuvre anticipation and for failure/status/integrity indication:

a. the displays must be visible to the pilot and located in the primary field of view (±15 degrees from the pilot’s normal line of sight) when looking forward along the flight path;
....

Says nothing about being a GPS approach.
Just because it's illegal, doesn't mean most companies don't do it anyway.

[HiFlyChick]

I was thinking of CBAAC 0123R - it deals pretty thoroughly with GPS approaches and how the PF must have his >ahem< her primary nav instrument slaved to the GPS. When my company upgraded one of our aircraft to include a second GPS, the changes to the SOPs were quite extensive, with TC very much being particular about how both needed to be verified and tuned to the same approach, etc etc.

TC very thoroughly made the point that if there's only one nav aid slaved to the GPS (and it's presumably on the left), then the PF must be on the left if a GPS approach is performed - including putting that statement in the SOPs (or was it the COM - I forget), and also a variation of it is written right on the Op Spec in our AOC

[photofly]

If you don't have a CDI, HSI, ADF or any course information directly in front of you, it's illegal to fly the approach. jschnurr is correct, and it's not just for GPS approaches. It includes your ILS, VOR/DME, NDB, everything.
.

How do you train someone for an ILS in vmc if the only instrument rated pilot - hence the PIC - is in the right seat and the student and instruments are on the left?

[awitzke]

If you don't have a CDI, HSI, ADF or any course information directly in front of you, it's illegal to fly the approach. jschnurr is correct, and it's not just for GPS approaches. It includes your ILS, VOR/DME, NDB, everything.

Here's a question for you. If what you say is true, then how can an instructor be PIC in the right seat and fly an approach legally (say the student f's up, and needs to take over an RNAV or ILS approach or the instructor is showing how for the first time) from the right seat in a Seneca/Baron/Seminole etc. with only an altimeter?

[awitzke]

@photofly looks like you and I had exactly the same thought at the same time! Ha.

[jschnurr]

There is a difference between the training world and the 'commercial' world, with the former often more lax. (For example, no duty day for instructors, single engine at night is ok, ect.). I'm sure that an instructor looking across to the instruments is ok, but don't have a moment to verify my hunch.

[goingnowherefast]

Lets read the actual Advisory Circular in question. For those who missed it earlier, here it is again https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... html#sec12
In the Applicability Section it says:

This AC applies to Canadian air operators holding an Air Operator Certificate issued under Part VII of the CARs or to private operators holding a Private Operator Certificate issued under Subpart 604 of the CARs

That means that it doesn't apply to any flight that's not operating under 70x, or 604. So that's all private flights, and all training flights (including the training for your PCC, as they're not commercial flights).

[goingnowherefast]

Not sure if even most 430's/530's are technically within that distance even from the left seat. I'll have to measure it out of curiosity.

I bet if you sit in the left seat and look, you'll see an HSI that's coupled to the GPS. Plus there's probably a mini annunciation panel hidden somewhere that shows important GPS messages on it. Things like VLOC, GPS, MSG, APR, etc.

A lot of it depends on the conditions of the OPS Spec too. If you have another crew member, some information can be placed farther away. I really don't feel like digging into it tonight, but it wouldn't surprise me if your not allowed to fly a GPS approach single pilot, but 2-crew it's legal to fly from the left/both seats. It will be in the standards (72x.xx), or buried deep within the specifications of the ops spec it's self.

In reality, is TC going to get mad at you for flying an RNAV single pilot if the annunciation panel is 1" too far away when your other option was a circling NDB at night? I know what I'd be doing personally.

Sh!t like this is why Chief Pilots and Ops Managers make the big bucks! A job I could never do.

Back to the original topic though. If the requirements to make the old King Air single pilot certified under today's complicated rules, is to spend 360 grand on G1000, you can pay an FO's salary for a long time with that dough. Plus, now you've got "captains in training" ready to go, that have been well groomed to company culture.

[photofly]

In reality, is TC going to get mad at you for flying an RNAV single pilot if the annunciation panel is 1" too far away when your other option was a circling NDB at night? I know what I'd be doing personally.

The situation shouldn't arise. A GPS approved for approaches has to be installed to meet the standards. If it's 1" too far away the installation wouldn't get the paperwork, and TC would come down on you like a ton of bricks for flying GPS approaches with the right approvals. The 1" issue wouldn't even enter the correspondence.

The answer is probably in here somewhere:
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... 08-954.htm

or aircraft certified for single pilot operations, there is no certification requirement to provide any indicators or annunciators on the co-pilot's side. However, an operator may choose to provide GPS/GNSS navigation information on the co-pilot's side, either as back-up information, or to allow the pilot in the co-pilot's seat to perform all flying and navigating duties. If GPS guidance is provided to a CDI/HSI on the co-pilot's side, it is strongly recommended that the required annunciators noted above be installed for the co-pilot, if the constraints of subsection 5.4 cannot be met. Otherwise, a flight manual limitation may be added, requiring that GPS approaches be flown by the pilot in the pilot's seat.

I've never seen any such requirements for the positioning of an ADF, VOR or glideslope indicator.