SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under § 91.9(a) of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), no person may operate an aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified for that aircraft. If the operating limitations in an aircraft's type certificate data sheet (TCDS) require that the aircraft be flown by a crew of two pilots, then a pilot in command (PIC) and second in command (SIC) are required per § 91.9.^[1] Further, under 14 CFR 91.531(a)(2), if an airplane is a “large aircraft” (as defined by FAA regulations at 14 CFR 1.1 as an aircraft weighing over 12,500 pounds), then the aircraft cannot by regulation be operated without a person designated as SIC.^[2]

The Cessna Citation CE-500 series of airplanes are unique because some variants of the CE-500 (CE-501 and CE-551) are certificated under 14 CFR part 23, while other variants (CE-500, CE-550 and CE-560) are certificated under 14 CFR part 25. The Part 25 Cessna Citation CE-500 series of airplanes are type certificated for operation by two pilots. Additionally, because these variants meet the definition of large airplane, an SIC is required under § 91.531(a)(2). The Part 23 CE-500 variants are required by the type certificate to be flown with an SIC unless the aircraft has additional equipment specified in the limitation section of the FAA-approved Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM).

The FAA has been issuing exemptions to allow the single-pilot operation of transport category CE-500 variants, which must be flown by two pilots pursuant to regulation, for over forty years, subject to certain conditions and limitations (C&Ls). The FAA issued the first CE-500 single-pilot exemption to Cessna Aircraft Company in 1984.^[3] In granting the original exemption, the FAA explained in response to commenters' concerns about safety that there was no data that specifically showed a degradation of safety between single-pilot operations in Part 23 CE-500 aircraft and two-pilot operations in Part 25 CE-500 aircraft. The FAA also stated that a grant of exemption would serve the public interest by providing operators with increased operating flexibility and reduced economic burdens and would provide the FAA with data that could be used to help assess the need for general rulemaking.

Eventually, the FAA began granting exemptions to training providers conducting training under 14 CFR parts 61, 141, and 142. These exemptions permitted these training providers to provide training and checking and issue a logbook endorsement to pilots that allows the pilot to conduct single-pilot operations in CE-500 aircraft that would otherwise require a second pilot. The FAA notes that these exemptions are complicated by the fact that the regulatory relief provided from §§ 91.9 and 91.531 is required by the pilot ( printed page 61136) operating the aircraft, not the training provider who holds the exemption.

The following table shows all variants of the CE-500 airplane currently covered by the single-pilot exemptions.

In 2024, the FAA began an in-depth review of compliance based on information discovered that non-exemption holders were offering training under another entity's exemption. The FAA found numerous instances of non-compliance with the C&Ls by holders of these exemptions. These acts of non-compliance include incomplete records, conducting required flight training in an advanced aviation training device contrary to the C&Ls, and improper checks by designated pilot examiners (DPEs) that included falsified records.^[4] As a result, 13 of the 14 Part 61 exemption holders were denied an extension or had their exemption rescinded either for failing to respond to information requests or for non-compliance with the C&Ls.

In addition to the widespread non-compliance described above, a review of CE-500 accidents over the last 18 years indicates that, even with conservative assumptions about crew configuration, Part 25 CE-500 aircraft operated with a single pilot are involved in approximately twice the rate ^[5] of accidents as Part 23 CE-500, 510 and 525 aircraft flown with a single pilot. This data undermines the threshold requirement for issuance of an exemption, namely that the relief would provide an equivalent level of safety or result in no adverse impact on safety.^[6] The FAA also notes a fatal accident occurred on May 22, 2025 (NTSB WPR25FA161), that involved a CE-500 single-pilot operation that killed six on board the aircraft and injured eight others on the ground. The FAA determined that the pilot of the aircraft had received an improper check six months before the accident by a DPE employed by a Part 61 exemption holder. The accident is still under investigation, and a probable cause has yet to be determined.

Additionally, another accident took place in Statesville, NC on December 18, 2025 (NTSB WPR26MA063), in which the pilot of that aircraft, a CE-500 variant that required two pilots under the regulations, was operating without a qualified SIC on board. The accident is still under investigation, and a probable cause has yet to be determined.

In addition to these concerns, the FAA has determined that the exemptions to training providers present safety oversight issues for the agency. Unlike other exemptions that grant relief to the operator of a flight on behalf of a pilot involved in the operation, the CE-500 exemption holders have no ongoing involvement with the pilots exercising the relief to operate as a single pilot. The FAA distinguishes the CE-500 exemption from exemptions granted to air carriers on behalf of the air carrier and its pilots ^[7] and exemptions where the exemption holder is responsible for the operations for which the pilot requires relief. In those circumstances, the exemption holder maintains responsibility for the pilot, and a loss of exemption to the operator prevents the pilot from continuing to exercise the relief independently.

Conversely, under the CE-500 exemptions, the relief granted to the training provider is required only by the pilot operating the aircraft. The training provider has no ongoing involvement with the operation for which the relief is required; thus, the pilot exercising the relief is likely unaware when the exemption expires or is terminated and may continue to conduct operations for which no relief exists, resulting in regulatory noncompliance.

Disposition

Due to the recent safety concerns, the widespread non-compliance that has been identified, and the overarching problems associated with granting relief to training providers on behalf of pilots for whom they have no ongoing operational relationship, the FAA has determined that cessation of the CE-500 single-pilot exemptions is warranted.

The FAA announces in this notice that it will cease issuing this exemption to training providers who petition for relief on behalf of pilots seeking to operate the CE-500 contrary to the aircraft's operating limitations. The FAA finds that these exemptions do not provide an equivalent level of safety to the regulations and are no longer in the public interest. For those training providers who currently hold a valid exemption, the FAA is issuing rescissions following publication of this notice, effectively ending their current exemptions. The FAA is also advising all pilots who hold logbook endorsements authorizing them to operate a CE-500 aircraft as a single pilot that with the termination of the exemption relief, their logbook endorsement is no longer valid, and they must comply with the requirements of §§ 91.9 and 91.531. Accordingly, these pilots must operate the aircraft in a two-pilot configuration consistent with the operating limitations in the TCDS. The FAA notes that, if a pilot received a § 61.58 proficiency check during the course complying with the C&Ls of the exemption, that pilot can still use that completed proficiency check to satisfy the pilot-in-command requirements for a two-pilot operation in a CE-500 model aircraft.

The FAA will apply the principles of the Compliance Program to determine how to address flights performed by single pilots who received a logbook endorsement from an exemption holder who was rescinded or denied an extension prior to the issuance of this Notice.

91 FR 61135