was a deal in between EASA and the FAA….

EASA had accepted the Part 23 certs for the CJs….and vice versa Pilatus had the PC-24 slip into the EASA part 23 rules…

was as simple as that…

not sure yet however, whether SP will work in Europe on the PC-24…but guess it will..

personally though SP in jets not really my type of thing…you have everything dual, engines , avionics and such,…and then you have the best and at the same time physically weakest part of the plane, the pilot , only in single…

does not compute with me, especially with ( non flying) pax on board….

Even when flying solo?

Mike C.

well, I guess this whole SP jetflying thing is a matter of personal perference and/or risk perceptions..

could imagine though that maybe in regards to the PC-24, who knows, could have been a design requirement by the Royal Australian Doctor service..do not know whether they have decided to fly their PC-24s SP..?

And Pilatus expects a certain market niche in the owner flown world..

The PC-24 will be an outstanding jet in regards to overall performance and the built in "swiss knife effect"..whether SP or not...SP capability by itself does not make it more attractive for me, than the bird already is..

SP jets..the physical handling of such an airplane is peanuts, easy for one pilot, I'd guess you would agree that your Mits is way more workload than an SP jet..and compared to the small jets a 777 probably would be the easiest SP airplane around..much shorther checklists..a breeze to fly SP..

when the going gets rough in IFR with a turbine, well 2 man crews are worth their weight in gold..

a single pilot in a jet has a much higher probabilty of becoming "task saturated" during any abnormals…shared workload for two reduces those risks

on the physical side, let's say a rapid decomp up in the levels..if two folks are sitting up front, chances that at least one gets his mask on in time and initiates an emergency descent are better than with only one on board..


it's as simple as that for me..

but everybody should do what he feels comfortable with..

LOL. So how'd that work out for Germanwings?

Have you flown the PC24? How are you comparing it to an MU2? Lot's of automation has come down the pipe since they quit building MU2's. Lot's of SP jets on the market nowadays too.

If it's "so hard to do" or "can't be done" or "so dangerous", then how are they doing it? Are CJ's and Phenoms falling from the sky or something?

Did you hear about the 2 pilot Gulfstream 4 that drove itself off the end of the runway in Hanscom, CT. and killed everyone on board? .... pilot error. viewtopic.php?f=41&t=92888&hilit=hanscom

a tragic "outlier" human factors accident, that obvioulsy could only happen to this degree , or better said was facilitated,because another security feature ( closed cockpit doors) which is deemed necessary in the industry since 9/11 ( for better or for worse..I would not dare to speculate whether successful or not) also made it possible..

the extreme accidents are not the ones that teach us a lot..or from which we should draw too far reaching conclusions..

it is the subtle stuff, that goes unnoticed in my opinion..that we have to watch..in that scenario a slow decomp, coupled with a Cabin Warning failure, unnoticed, is far more dangerous than a rapid decomp IMHO..on a regular level..

Nothing GA should be compared to Delta Airlines. Airline pilots fly a ton and they have full time MX crews. It's a completely different animal than GA. If you're buying an MU2 or KA "because it has 2 engines just like a 737" then you're completely out of touch.

There are many other 2 pilot error crashes than the Hansom G4. Here's a Hawker 700 not long ago: viewtopic.php?f=41&t=114938&hilit=hawker

where did I ever say that I would buy a KA or MU2, because it has two engines?

On the contrary, I find the PC-12s single engine record admirable….and better than practically all twins..

and guess what, I know both worlds, airline and corporate..and both can be as safe as the other..look at US Fortune 500 corporate flight ops..as safe as US airlines..and you have a better safety record than anywhere else in the world..it will take time here in Europe until we will have achieved the level of safety you have in the US…we are not there yet…

and I do know that 2 person crews can be dangerous to the extreme..

once was nearly killed in a jet, as a flight test engineer, was a post- heavy maintenance and post heavy modifications functional test flight, when two four stripers, who individually each with a copilot, were the best pilots you could find…but both together in the cockpit, due to some personal chemistry problem were an accident waiting to happen..

but again, those were "outliers"…they are not the norm..

and GA is not that different..

if you do not do a flight controls check before take-off in a Cub, you can die as quickly, as in a G4..where is the difference..?

Is 2 pilots flying a PC24 safer than 1 pilot flying a PC24? Probably.

Is 1 pilot flying a PC24 "unsafe"? Not at all.

fully agreed..

that is a good way to word it….

1 pilot would have not skipped the pre-takeoff checks that 2 pilots did?

BTW, Hanscom is in MA.

I don't think flying the 24 single pilot will be that difficult if you have time in the PC12NG. The avionics are essentially the same and the layout is identical. For the most parts you're flying a faster PC12.

What scares the industry is that it really wasn't that much of an outlier.

Witness the Hawker in Akron.

Seems you can't count on a crew of two to follow well established procedures.

Two humans are not independent due to command and social factors. The subordinate crew member doesn't have full authority over the flight so doesn't count a full second pilot.

In reality, all accidents can be called "outliers", so that isn't helpful in the long run.

Mike C.

In a weird way, that might be true.

If there are two, then each may think the other did something that did not get done, or they may disagree on what to do and cause delay or confusion.

If you are alone, you know someone else did not do it and you need to, and you are the only actor involved.

There are times, perhaps not many, where a single pilot avoids a problem that a crew gets into.

All things in aviation have positives and negatives, even crew versus SP.

Mike C.

that is a great point and Pilatus carries their cockpit philosophy throught their new product lines..

BTW, Shawn, if you fly a PC12NG and maybe a PC24, once you may be upgrade in the future to a Dassault EASy Falcon, you will have the EASy cockpit already down cold before the type rating..

Think in that regard Dassault Falcon were trailblazers in the industry, if one sees that also the newest transport types, B787 and A350 owe a lot of their flight deck philosophy to the Dassault EASy cockpit..considering that Dassault had started development work on the EASy in the second half of the 90's they sure were ahead..

BTW, @ Jason, you who has extensive Pilatus Honeywell APEX experience in the PC12NG, you indicated sometimes in some threads that in a future aircraft you would maybe prefer a Garmin 3000 layout..is your potential perference based on seeing both cockpits, or what is it that you personally do not like so much with the APEX on the PC12NG..?

just as a matter of interest...