Final Blog Fall 2016

In this Final Blog post I am looking at examples of unprofessionalism displayed by the pilots, airline operators, and the FAA.

I first would like to visit two accidents where the pilots and the airline itself were examined in determining the probably cause and contributing factors for today’s accidents involving a lack of professionalism.

Next, I’ll take a look at a more recent accident where the FAA was cited as one of the contributing factors that lead to a fatal crash.

Finally, I will provide some examples of how I plan on maintaining and expanding my own professionalism as I progress in my aviation career.

The first aircraft accident I want to examine is a popular one among the aviation industry. Colgan Air flight 3407 was on an approach into Buffalo, New York when the aircraft’s captain made incorrect flight control responses to the aircraft’s flight situation that consequently led to an unrecoverable aerodynamic stall (National Transportation Safety Board, 2010). The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) cited that the crew’s failure to maintain a sterile cockpit, the captain’s failure to safety manage the flight, and Colgan Air’s poor procedures for airspeed management during icy approaches were all contributing factors in the accident (NTSB, 2010).

The issues with this accident lie not only with the pilots but also with the airline’s procedures. Colgan Air had little policies on pilot’s duty time and commuting procedures that would restrict pilots from long commutes before flights. The first officer was not only commuting halfway around the country to make it to the gate that morning, but she was also feeling ill before the accident flight. Both the airline’s policies and the pilot’s decision to accept the flight are examples of a lack of professionalism and certainly contributed to the outcome of Colgan Air flight 3407.

From a management stand point, Colgan Air was experiencing extreme growth in its operations and did a poor job in managing its growth with the little recourses it had. Additionally, the airline did not enforce any specific commuting or duty-time restrictions for its pilots and continued to accept low time, inexperienced, pilots into their already small and overwhelmed operations. The relations made between Colgan's CEO and the FAA also had some feelings of unprofessionalism as the CEO was quoted as being "a friend of the office" by the FAA's office manager. This growth, along with the personal relationships between airline officials and government employees, is another example of the lack of professionalism from both the airline and on behalf of the federal government.

Another aviation accident involving the crash of Pinnacle Airlines flight 3701 provides us with more issues of professionalism in the cockpit. In 2004, Pinnacle Airlines flight 3701 was dispatched as a repositioning flight from Arkansas to Minnesota when both engines flamed out following a pilot-induced stall and the pilots were not able to restart the engines (NTSB, 2007). During the flight the pilots decided to deviate from several standard operating procedures and “have a little fun” as stated by the NTSB (“Professionalism in Aviation,” 2011, p. 26). As a result, the NTSB determined that “the pilots’ unprofessional behavior, deviation from standard operating procedures, and poor airmanship, which resulted in an in-flight emergency from which they were unable to recover” (“Professionalism in Aviation,” 2011, p. 27).

In the case of flight 3701 the NTSB recognized the mistakes and unprofessionalism of the pilot’s decisions and therefore cited such information as a probable cause. In this final accident, we’ll take a look at an crash where the NTSB specifically calls out the FAA’s inactions as being one of the probable cause.

ExecuFlight flight 1526, a Part 135 on-demand charter operation, stalled during an approach into Akron Ohio on a non-precision approach which was flown, in an unstabilized manner, below the MDA without any visual of the runway (Aarons, 2016). The approach led to a completely fatal accident. The NTSB stated that the probable cause of the accident was “the flight crew’s mismanagement of the approach and multiple deviations from company SOPs” (Aarons, 2016, para.3). However, what I would like to focus on with this situation was one particular contributing factor pointed out by the NTSB.

The NTSB cited the FAA as one of the probable causes because of its “insufficient oversight of the company’s training program and flight operations” (Aarons, 2016, para. 3). However, the NTSB doesn’t stop there, they further state in the accident report that “the FAA failed to provide adequate oversight of ExecuFlight’s pilot training, maintenance, and operations” Aarons, 2016, para. 24). Furthermore, the NTSB believes that

“this accident again shows that FAA guidance for principal operations inspectors regarding conducting Part 135 pilot-in-command line checks on flights other than in regular revenue service is not effective in identifying pilots who are not complying with standard operating procedures… The FAA’s Surveillance Priority Index was ineffective in identifying 14 CFR Part 135 operators in need of increased surveillance” (Aaron, 2016, para. 24).

            From the report, we can see that the pilots, the company, and the FAA were all listed as probable causes and contributing factors in the crash of ExecuFlight flight 1526. It is not very common for a government agency (NTSB) to cite, what some would call, unprofessional actions against another government agency (FAA). However, the lack of oversight from the FAA into this particular Part 135 operator and its procedures is a clear sign of a lack of professionalism within the FAA.

            As I move forward in my career as a professional aviator I will strive to remain professional within all operations of the job. To ensure that I do so, I think it's important to put safety of the crew and the passengers above all else, no matter the consequences. Furthermore, I plan to find a mentor of sorts once I have begun to establish myself in the airline industry. Having someone who has excellent experience in the industry, who can provide invaluable information and share his/her experiences with me would certainly help in maintaining professionalism within the industry.

References

Aarons, R. N. (2016). Approach Stall in Akron. Business & Commercial Aviation.

National Transportation Safety Board. (2007, Jan. 9). Board Meeting: Crash of Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701, Bombardier CL-600-2B19, N8396A, Jefferson City, Missouri, October 14, 2004. Retrieved from http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Pages/Crash_of_Pinnacle_Airlines_Flight_3701_Bombardier_CL-600-2B19_N8396A_Jefferson_City_Missouri_October_14_2004.aspx

National Transportation Safety Board. (2010, Feb. 2). Loss of Control on Approach, Colgan Air, Inc., Operating as Continental Connection Flight 3407, Bombardier DHC 8 400, N200WQ. Retrieved from http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/AAR1001.aspx

Sumwalt. R. L. (2011, Mar. 30). Professionalism in Aviation. Retrieved from http://www.ntsb.gov/news/speeches/rsumwalt/Documents/Sumwalt_033011.pdf

Job Plan

At the beginning of the course my job plans upon graduation were to build flight time to the minimum requirements to qualify for a first officer position with a regional airline company. With so many regional carriers not only increasing the number of pilots being hired but also the first year pay for their new pilots, the airline route seemed like a good option for someone like myself.

As of today I have not really changed my mind. While both the topics discussed in class, and the presentations given by the guest speakers, has opened my eyes to alternative career avenues in the aviation industry, I still find the airline industry to be the more appealing option that suits the quality of life I am looking for as a professional aviator.

After hearing several gust speakers talk on the lifestyle of corporate pilots and how ridiculously flexible corporate operators must be at times, I've decided that the consistent airline schedule, along with the type of operations being conducted as an airline pilot, is much more appealing to me.

The two topics that peeked my interest the most this semester were the blog posts and discussions that we had on professionalism in the aviation industry and the flight and duty times with regards to the cargo and airline industry.

I found it especially interesting to dive into the rules and policies associated with the  rest and flight/duty times that airline operators must follow. That blog topic was practical for someone like myself who will be operating under those rules.

The blog post and discussion on professionalism in the aviation industry was also particularly interesting to me. The short film we watched in class was eyeopening to the reality of how dangerous, in terms of safety, the regional airline industry was and how far it has come since the early 2000s.

My least favorite topic that we discussed this semester was that of the commercial space industry. While I do believe that there is a benefit to looking into opening up space travel to the public through commercial space operations, I do not think the topic serves much benefit to someone in my position looking to make a career in the airline industry.

Aviation Organizations for Pilots

Professional aviation organizations not only offer unique services to their members, but they also provide a voice on behalf of their members that holds a lot of weight with regards to influence and power. Each organization represents its own individual sector of the aviation industry. The organizations that I’ve chosen to highlight are the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), and the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA).

AOPA is an organization that caters to pilots and those who own their own aircraft. AOPA offers multiple services to their members including aircraft insurance opportunities, financing options for purchasing aircraft, along with legal and medical services for its pilots. AOPA also offers an assortment of safety and training services for its members. “AOPA and the Air Safety Institute offer a wide variety of resources specifically tailored to your flying life” (“Training & Safety,” 2016). AOPA also offers its members a variation of aviation magazines that not only focus on stories relating to pilots, but also dive into industry news and must-read stories from other sectors of aviation. The services offered through AOPA to aircraft owners and pilots is second to none and fairly competitive when considering the yearly membership dues of around $60 a year.

ALPA is an organization that “represents and advocates from more than 54,000 pilots at 31 U.S. and Canadian airlines” (“What We Do,” 2016). ALPA is a well-known union in the airline industry and prides itself on the services it provides its pilots. According to their web-site ALPA “provides three critical services to its members: airline safety, security, and pilot assistance; representation; and advocacy” (“What We Do,” 2016). ALPA is a voice for airline pilots when it comes to the decision-making process involving congressional and federal agencies. ALPA also serves as a crucial representative for pilots as a key negotiator of pilot contracts with airlines. Additionally, ALPA offers several other resources for pilots beyond union representation. Recourses such as safety seminars, professional training opportunities, aeromedical services, and regulatory interpretation seminars are just a few of the services available to ALPA members. ALPA works hard to keep pilots in the loop with regards to the most current rules and regulations that may affect airline pilots.

As I stated above, professional aviation organizations such as AOPA and ALPA provide a voice and representation in the realm of advocacy. As we operate in one of the most highly regulated industries in the world, it is crucial to have the backing of a well-known and respected organization that will have your best interests in mind.

References

Air Line Pilots Association. (2016). What We Do. Retrieved from  http://www.alpa.org/about-alpa/what-we-do#

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. (2016). Training and Safety. Retrieved from https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety

Aviation Emissions

When looking at aviation’s contribution to our overall emissions, it is helpful to look at two different types of emissions, the first being local air quality pollutants (near the ground) and the other being greenhouse gases (emissions at altitude). It’s important to note that as aviation grows as an industry, there will also be an increase in the amount of emissions produced by aviation transportation vehicles. According to the FAA (2005), “currently aviation contributes 0.4 percent” of the national NOx (harmful pollutant) inventory (p. 4). The FAA (2005) also stated that when compared to aviation, emissions from road transportation modes out number aviation emissions (p. 8). The FAA (2005) further stated that because an aircraft is operated at altitude, most of the emissions would not have a ridiculous affect on local air quality on the ground (p. 8).

            In the same source above, published by the FAA (2005), the transportation industry was cited for making up about 27 percent of the national emissions of greenhouse gases where aviation is about 2.7 percent of the national inventory (p. 10). We can see that the aviation industry does in fact contribute to air pollution, however as of this 2005 report, it is a fairly small number. With that said, the FAA (2005) does project that “aircraft greenhouse gas emissions in the US will increase 60 percent by 2025” (p. 10).

            With this projection, and others like it, comes a need to combat the harmful emissions produced by aircraft. In October of this year the UN ratified an agreement in Paris, one of which the US was a part of, to govern emissions from international airline flights. Joan Lowy (2016) reported that the agreement sets airlines' carbon emissions in the year 2020 as the upper limit of what carriers are allowed to discharge” (para. 2). “Airlines that exceed that limit in future years, as most are expected to do, will have to offset their emissions growth by buying credits from other industries and projects that limit greenhouse gas emissions” (Lowy, 2016, para. 2).

            This is arguably the first major step the UN has provided towards limiting the amount of pollutants produced by international airlines. The first phase of the plan, covering 2021 to 2027, is voluntary for UN members and becomes mandatory from 2028 through 2035. The 15-year plan is expected to reduce carbon emissions by 2.5 billion tons (Lowy, 2016, para. 7). According to Lowy (2016), “the deal applies only to international flights, which account for about 60 percent of aviation” (para. 10). The Paris agreement also calls for new emission reduction regulations to be put into place. The is an agreement that our new president-elect is not on board with. Donald Trump has stated that “the climate change deal is bad for US business and said that the pact allows foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use” (BBC, 2016, para. 12). He further commented that "any regulation that's outdated, unnecessary, bad for workers or contrary to the national interest will be scrapped and scrapped completely,” and that “we’re going to do all this while taking proper regard for rational environmental concerns” (BBC, 2016, para. 5 & 6).

            While I fully believe in responsibly taking measures to ensure that our environment is looked after, especially in with regards to aircraft emissions in a growing aviation industry, I think that the responsibility should first fall on the airline operators and aircraft engine manufacturers before we move onto a UN agreement. I say give the engineers more of a chance in reducing the carbon footprint left by their engines. Lowy (2016) stated in her article that US airlines “carried 24 percent more passengers and cargo in 2015 than they did in 2000, while improving their fuel efficiency by 31 percent and emitting 6 percent less CO2” (Lowy, 2016, para. 18). I think our efforts should be focused more on engineering a way to reduce emissions rather than taking the time and effort to set up a system of trading carbon credits.

References

BBC News. (2016). Donald Trump Would ‘Cancel’ Paris Climate Deal. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36401174

Federal Aviation Administration. (2005). Aviation & Emissions A Primer. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/aeprimer.pdf

Lowy, J. (2016, Oct. 6). UN Agreement Reached on Aircraft Climate-Change Emissions. U.S. News. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-10-06/un-agreement-reached-on-aircraft-climate-change-emissions

            

Global Airlines

The Open Skies Agreement is an air transportation agreement between US and European airline companies that allows for any member of the agreement to fly between US and European airports without worrying about the conflicting rules and regulations of each country involved. With regards to a global airline, the US Department of State (“Open Skies Agreements”, 2016) claims that with over 100 partners, including several US airlines, that

“America’s Open Skies policy has gone hand-in-hand with airline globalization. By allowing air carriers unlimited market access to our partners' markets and the right to fly to all intermediate and beyond points, Open Skies agreements provide maximum operational flexibility for airline alliances.”

As of today, there are several members of the Open Skies Agreement that have received government subsidies. Jill Zuckman who spoke on behalf of the Partnership for Open and Fair Skies claimed that Gulf air carriers such as Emirates, Qatar, and Etihad airlines “combined have received more than $42 billion in government subsidies since 2004” (Sumers, 2016, para. 7). Receiving government subsidies a violates the Open Skies Agreements made by these Gulf carriers. Zuckman further stated that the amendment is in place to keep airlines from charging “prices that are artificially low due to direct or indirect government subsidiary or support” (Sumers, 2016, para. 7). All of the Gulf carriers listed above are either fully owned, or owned through a subsidiary of their respective governments.

On the flip side of the argument, foreign carriers such as Emirates claim that “it had not depended on government subsidies, bail-outs, and bankruptcy laws, as some US carriers did” Sumers, 2016, para. 15). This led to another argument on who considers what a federal subsidy. While the claims made by Emirates aren’t all necessarily monetary ones, several US airlines have received help in the past from the US government. Bill McGee (2015) highlights that

“Bankruptcy reorganization laws afford US carriers advantages many foreign airlines don’t enjoy, particularly when Chapter 11 is used to dismiss debts and freeze wages. American, Delta and United – and most of the carriers they merged with recently – have all filed for bankruptcy” (para. 15).

Along with the topic of subsidies comes the argument of the Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank and wide-bodied aircraft purchases. The Ex-Im Bank is a government agency in place to help US businesses sell goods into oversea markets and “assumes credit and country risks that the private sector is unable or unwilling to accept” (“About Us,” 2016). In other words, the Bank may help foreign customers by offering a lower credit risk and better rates. The complaint brought up by US carriers, more specifically by Delta Air Lines, is that “rivals like Air India and Emirates have used Ex-Im guarantees to lower their borrowing costs, then used the savings to cut ticket prices on international routes that compete with Delta or buy still more new jets” (Weisman & Lipton, 2016, Para. 9).

It's clear that the credit break given to foreign carriers purchasing aircraft does pose an unfair advantage to US carriers purchasing similar aircraft at a higher rate. However, there is another side to the coin that should be considered. The purchases of American manufactured aircraft, from domestic or foreign carriers is good news to those of us who work for US aircraft manufactures such as Boeing. Aircraft sales mean the aircraft must be built, which yields good, American jobs for those of us qualified to work in that sector of the industry.

From the prospective of US carriers, I understand how the reduced loan credit, which leads to cheaper foreign air carrier fares, can be viewed as unfair. It makes life hard on US airlines trying to compete against foreign carriers. On top of that, US airlines must compete with government owned and funded foreign airlines who can tap into their government’s resources if need be. When viewing both arguments, I would have to say that US airlines are on an uneven playing field with foreign carriers.

References

Export-Import Bank of the United States. (2016). About US. Retrieved from http://www.exim.gov/about/?gclid=CjwKEAjwwOvABRC08aedoZ_lnTMSJACs_cbutYUNROY-hPlNk9375PZ0Pp4n2_CILXykOwJl4ClhTRoCsd_w_wcB

U.S. Department of State. (2016). Open Skies Agreements. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/e/eb/tra/ata/

Weisman, J., & Lipton E. (2015, April 6). Boeing and Delta Spend Millions in Fight Over Export-Import Bank’s Existence. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/business/boeing-delta-air-lines-export-import-bank.html?_r=0

Sumers, B. (2016, June 28). U.S. Airlines set to Lose Major Battle Against Gulf Carriers in Open Skies Debate. Retrieved from https://skift.com/2016/06/28/u-s-airlines-set-to-lose-major-battle-against-gulf-carriers-in-open-skies-debate/

McGee, B. (2015, Sept. 2). How Much do Taxpayers Support Airlines? Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/mcgee/2015/09/02/how-much-do-taxpayers-support-airlines/71568226/

Chinese Competitor

As of today, we have yet to see an FAA type certification given to the Chinese manufactured Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China’s (COMAC) C919 aircraft. The C919, which would compete directly with Boeing’s 737 models and Airbus’ A320 series has earned its type certificate in Asia however, the FAA has not yet granted the C919 or the ARJ-21 regional jet (another Chinese manufactured airliner) an FAA type certificate. According to Siva Govindasamy and Matthew Miller (2010) the FAA began a “certification process to assess the CAAC's (Civil Aviation Administration of China) ability to conduct a technical assessment of aircraft. But tensions arose between the two regulators last year over various technical and bureaucratic issues, before the process ended in early 2015” (para. 6). While both the FAA and CAAC still consider their working relationship a top priority, the FAA stated that it will “continue to work together to develop a path to work towards certification of the derivative model of the ARJ-21 and, possibly, the C919” (Govindasamy & Miller, 2015, para. 10). The FAA went on to state that “it could certify an airplane after it enters service if it can be shown to comply with all relevant airworthiness and manufacturing standards” (Govindasamy & Miller, 2015 para. 11). I do believe that we will see an FAA certification of the C919. If the aircraft does perform well, especially compared to its competition, and the price is right, then I don’t see why U.S. – based airlines wouldn’t want to move onto a Chinese manufactured aircraft from a financial point of view. I do however think that if we take into consideration the speed of the FAA, then it will be quite some time before we see an official FAA type certification for the C919.

            If the plane were to receive an FAA type certificate, and the price were fairly competitive, then I don’t see why several U.S. airline companies wouldn’t look toward implementing the C919 into their fleet. Airline companies are almost always looking to save operating cost wherever they can without seriously compromising the level of safety required to make a profit. Therefore, if the C919 can be operated at a significantly lower cost than its Boeing and Airbus competitors, I do see it being operated in the NAS.

 There is a possibility for concerns with public perception that I do foresee with this type of aircraft being flown in the U.S. I would separate the public into two sections, the informed and the uninformed. I consider the “informed public,” to be the people who understand the airline aviation industry at a very small level. The informed public travelers realize that when they buy a ticket on Southwest Airlines that they will be flying an American designed and manufactured aircraft. The uninformed public traveler is someone who understands that when they purchase a ticket on Southwest Airlines that they will be flying a plane. I found it interesting that when I personally asked a close friend of mine about the C919, one who I consider to be a member of the informed public with little to no bias towards Chinese manufactured products, he stated that he would not want to fly on the C919 if he had his choice. I then went on to ask a good friend of mine who I would consider to be a member of the uninformed public and she stated that it wouldn’t matter to her either way, so long as she got to her destination.

            COMAC is responsible for the design and manufacturing of the ARJ21 and C919 aircraft. Ben Mutzabaugh (2016) reported in June that “China’s first modern commercial jetliner entered passenger service this week, debuting with 70 passengers on a two-hour domestic Chengdu Airlines flight from Chengdu to Shanghai on Tuesday” (para. 1). Both the ARJ21 and the C919 have not received an FAA type certificate, meaning that both aircraft cannot be flown in our NAS. COMAC is a government owned and funded company and is responsible for most of China’s transport category aircraft manufacturing. COMAC’s motives are clear in their decision to push for FAA type certificates for their aircraft. An FAA type certificate would speak volumes to the standard of COMAC’s aircraft and would also mean that the company’s aircraft could be bought and operated by U.S.-based air carriers.

            It is hard to determine whether or not other aircraft manufacturing companies would enter the industry as Boeing and Airbus competitors. The problem with putting new aircraft into the airline industry is the manufacturers promise of safety. Because the new aircraft hasn’t been tried and tested in the actual airline environment, it is tough to determine how reliable that new aircraft will be 10 years down the road. If the C919 can prove itself to be a safe and reliable aircraft in Asia, then I can see the aircraft being implemented into our NAS later down the line. From what I could gather, neither Airbus or Boeing has responded to COMAC’s new aircraft announcement.

Reference

Govindasamy, S., & Miller, Matthew. (2015, Oct. 21). Exclusive: China-Made Regional Jet set for Delivery, but No U.S. Certification. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-aircraft-arj21-exclusive-idUSKCN0SF2XN20151021

Mutzabaugh, B. (2016, June 30). Now Flying: China’s First Modern Passenger Jet Enters Service. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2016/06/30/now-flying-chinas-first-modern-passenger-jet-enters-service/86549178/

Commercial (Private) Space Industry

Over the last few years space travel has begun to develop in the United States in a quick fashion. Companies like Virgin Galactic, SpaceX, and Orbital Sciences who began development of private, commercial, space aircraft in the early 2000s have now completed several successful launches into space. The most notable launches were accomplished by SpaceX and Orbital Sciences where the two companies were contracted by NASA to build unmanned cargo ships to supply the International Space Station (ISS) (Fox, 2010, para. 2). On the other hand, Virgin Galactic (2016)  made its name as being the first private space company to send a person into space (para. 4). Despite the success that these private companies have achieved, they have also experienced setbacks in commercial space flight development.

The majority of setbacks experienced by the private space companies has come in the form of crashes. While most crashes are a part of flight testing and rarely result in human injuries, Virgin Galactic experienced a crash where one of the pilots had been killed and the other seriously injured during routine flight testing (Snyder & Kell, 2014). Events such as these are tough on the company’s image and prompts the question of how safe are these private-commercial space ships. For the time being, private space corporations are still in development and continue to look for the most efficient manned and unmanned commercial space ships available through today’s technology.

The Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) was created in 1984 under the Department of Transportation and was later moved under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in 1995 (Federal Aviation Administration, 2014). As stated by the FAA (2014), the AST was created to “encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial launches and reentries by the private sector” (para. 2). As organizations began development of private space vehicles in the early 2000s, the FAA recognized the importance of ensuring public safety and enacted commercial space regulations that can be found in 14 CFR under Parts 400 to 460 (FAA, 2016). Upon briefly reviewing the current regulations established under the above Parts of 14 CFR, I do believe that for the time being the regulations in place are enough for the types of developments being made in the commercial space industry. I do believe that as the technology improves, and as more milestones in the private-commercial space industry are met, the more safety regulations will be required.

If the private-commercial space continues in the direction of improvements it has made thus far, then I do see a possible future for space tourism. Considering the fact that we did not see the first successful space flight until five to seven years after most private space companies like Virgin Galactic started spacecraft development, I don’t foresee the space tourism sector of the industry to make any real progress until at least the next five to seven years. And when we do see private space tourism coming to fruition, I think that in my lifetime it will not reach a serious and safe enough level for mass public transportation. There wasn’t much I discovered in the way of jobs for pilots looking to fly the space vehicles for space tourism operations. It seems that a pilot or individual who meets NASA’s astronaut qualifications would be a suitable candidate for most space ship piloting positions.

References

Federal Aviation Administration. (2014). About the Office. Retrieved from http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/about/

Federal Aviation Administration. (2016). Office of Commercial Space Transportation Regulations. Retrieved from http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/regulations/

Fox, S. (2010, June 4). 6 Private Companies That Could Launch Humans Into Space. Space.com. Retrieved from http://www.space.com/8541-6-private-companies-launch-humans-space.html

Snyder, B., & Kell, John. (2014, Oct. 31). After two Crashes, Private Space Industry Faces Inevitable Questions. Fortune. Retrieved from: http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/after-two-crashes-private-space-industry-faces-inevitable-questions/

Virgin Galactic. (2016). A Brief History of Human Spaceflight. Retrieved from http://www.virgingalactic.com/human-spaceflight/history-of-human-spaceflight/