It is regulated by a guberment agency. Nuff said.

It is regulated by a guberment agency. Nuff said.

speculating and reaching out on limb a bit here, but I think that because the airplane was certified under Part 25 (transport category), there isn't a work around for single pilot. Had the airplane been certified under Part 23 (like the citation 501sp and all the CJ's) then single pilot would have been likely accomplished.

Any certification wizards out there?

Part 25 doesn't necessarily require 2 pilots:

"§ 25.1523 Minimum flight crew.
The minimum flight crew must be established so that it is sufficient for safe operation, considering—
(a) The workload on individual crewmembers;
(b) The accessibility and ease of operation of necessary controls by the appropriate crewmember; and
(c) The kind of operation authorized under § 25.1525."

Part 25 doesn't necessarily require 2 pilots:

"§ 25.1523 Minimum flight crew.
The minimum flight crew must be established so that it is sufficient for safe operation, considering—
(a) The workload on individual crewmembers;
(b) The accessibility and ease of operation of necessary controls by the appropriate crewmember; and
(c) The kind of operation authorized under § 25.1525."

point taken. Mits must have had some motivation to not obtain the single pilot option even when Cessna was already in the market with competing products that were single pilot approved?

Mitsubishi has always had issues working with the FAA. I don't think there is an airplane out there that has gone through re-certification more times than the MU-2. That airplane has been wrung out more than grandma's old dish rag.