Single-pilot Citations crash about twice as often, and the FAA is ending the waivers

Thirteen of the 14 holders of Part 61 single-pilot exemptions that the FAA reviewed had their extensions denied or their exemptions rescinded, and on September 28 the agency finished the job for older Cessna Citations by pulling the rest. The notice took effect September 29. Pilots who held a logbook endorsement to fly these jets alone must now have a second qualified pilot in the right seat, and the stated reasons are an accident-rate gap and records that did not hold up under inspection.

The aircraft in question are the transport-category CE-500 family: the Models 500, 550, S550, 552 and 560 and their variants, which cover the original Model 500 along with the Citation II, S/II, V, Ultra, Bravo, Encore and Encore+. All were type certificated for two pilots. For decades, exemptions let training providers train, check and endorse a pilot to operate them solo.

The accident-rate comparison in the FAA notice

The figure behind the “twice as often” claim is narrower than it sounds. In its Federal Register notice of policy change and rescission, the FAA says Part 25 CE-500 aircraft flown by a single pilot were involved in approximately twice the rate of accidents as Part 23 CE-500, 510 and 525 aircraft that are certificated for one pilot and flown by one pilot. The review covered 18 years of data. The comparison is between single-pilot Citations that were designed for two crew and single-pilot Citations that were designed for one, not between solo and two-pilot flying in the same airframe.

Trade coverage adds one more qualifier: AvWeb’s reading of the notice is that the rate was calculated per aircraft rather than per flight hour. That distinction matters to operators who fly their jets few hours a year, and it is part of why the industry wants the underlying data released.

Two fatal crashes and falsified records

The notice leans on two NTSB investigations. The first is the May 22, 2025 crash of a single-pilot CE-500, case WPR25FA161, which killed six people aboard and injured eight on the ground; the FAA notes the pilot had received an improper check roughly six months earlier. The second is the December 18, 2025 crash at Statesville, North Carolina, case WPR26MA063, in which the pilot was operating without the required second-in-command. Both investigations were still open when the notice was published.

The second justification is compliance. The FAA describes widespread non-compliance with the exemptions, including incomplete records, misuse of training devices and falsified examiner documentation, and it points to a structural weakness: the training providers who held the relief had no ongoing involvement with the pilots who relied on it. In the agency’s words, the exemptions “do not provide an equivalent level of safety to the regulations and are no longer in the public interest.” The notice is signed by Hugh J. Thomas, executive director of the Flight Standards Service.

Endorsement holders and the two-pilot rule

Pilots with endorsements must stop single-pilot operations immediately. The notice preserves one thing: proficiency checks completed under the exemption conditions remain valid for satisfying pilot-in-command requirements on two-pilot CE-500 flights. For flights already flown solo before the rescission, the FAA says it will apply its compliance principles. Law-firm analysis from Greenberg Traurig advises operators to check exemption status and revisit crew scheduling at once, since the aircraft must now be flown with two qualified pilots as the type certificate requires.

The cost falls on a particular kind of owner. These jets have operated with single-pilot relief since 1984, and many are flown by owner-operators who would now need to hire or recruit a second pilot.

Industry pushback and the 90-day request

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association objects to the blanket approach. AOPA Vice President David Boulter said, “It makes no sense to punish compliant and safe operators with this order,” and the group’s statement of September 29 asks the agency to rescind relief only for operators who failed to meet standards. AOPA’s Air Safety Institute also questioned whether the FAA investigated adequately before acting, noting that many operators have accident-free records.

The National Business Aviation Association and Citation Jet Pilots went further the same day, asking for a stay of at least 90 days and an FAA-industry working group, according to AvWeb. They argue the agency has not released the accident data needed for independent review and cannot separate compliant operators from violators. NBAA’s Heidi Williams said the decision to rescind the exemptions in full, effective on publication, “raises serious questions.” The FAA has not, in the notice, offered a phase-in period, so the 90-day request is the open item. Neither the FAA nor the two groups have published a date for a decision on it, and the aviation press has reported no stay as of October 5. Until the agency answers, every affected endorsement holder is flying under the September 29 terms, and the working-group proposal is the only route either side has put on the table.

This article was produced with the assistance of AI and reviewed by Morning Overview editors prior to publication.

More from Morning Overview