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/

The UAV Situation

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have been a popular topic among the aviation industry within the last few years. What started out as a desire for an internet-based retail company to expedite their shipping process has now transformed into a nation-wide desire for commercial UAV implementation in multiple major commercial industries. Drones serve several commercial purposes including search and rescue, wildlife management surveying, 3-D mapping, and even real-estate marketing. Most, if not all, of these sectors have already begun to see a boost in productivity and efficiency through the use of drones.

The above commercial uses of drones are now required to operate under the newly formed unmanned aircraft rule or, 14 CFR PART 107. According to the FAA (2016) UAVs have specific operating limitations to follow such as: “Unmanned aircraft must weigh less than 55lbs. Maximum ground speed of 100 mph (87knots). Maximum altitude of 400 feet above ground level (AGL)” (p. 1).

While I do believe that there is a place for UAVs inside the NAS, I firmly believe that as of now, those places are (and should be) restricted in comparison to that of other aircraft operating inside the controlled airspace environment. As per PART 107, UAV operators must receive ATC permission to operate inside controlled airspace and still adhere to the other operating limitations of PART 107 such as maintaining a visual line of sight with the UAV and operating below 400 feet AGL. US Air Force Pilots Major Stephen Maddox and Captain David Stuckenberg (2015) both concur that “these operational restrictions exist because of the hazards drones pose to manned aircraft and the public” (para. 4).     

The problems that I foresee with UAVs operating in the NAS is the communication among the manned aircraft, ATC, and the drone operators. Maddox and Stuckenberg highlighted a safety report compiled by the FAA where the topic of safety was measured in communication, collision avoidance and risk management were discussed. Maddox and Stuckenberg (2015) reflected the need for more safety measures in place with regards to UAV operation after “an American Airlines Group regional jet in Florida nearly collided with a drone at 2,300 feet” (para. 8). Incidents likes these are just some of the possible future problems the NAS faces with the implementation of UAVs and sheds light on the fact that there is a clear need for continued safety improvements.

With regards to military applications, UAVs pose several positives and negatives from financial and ethical standpoints. On the one hand, drones are much cheaper to operate than manned aircraft. Furthermore, UAVs are not manned aircraft meaning that we are minimizing the risk of death or injury to US military personnel through the use of drones. There have been some ethical concerns with the use of drones especially on the side of the drone operators themselves. Most US military drone pilots are stationed stateside operating their UAV thousands of miles away from the actual battlefield. Because of that separation of space between the operator and immediate danger there is a sense of detachment from the battlefield and the enemy. The popular concern with this detachment is that without the feel of an immediate threat we are more likely to start new conflicts. The antidote for such behavior would be to remember that military UAV operations is not a video game. Real lives are being taken and real people are being saved.

For those qualified personnel looking into making a career out of the commercial UAV operations, there are already several companies looking to hire drone pilots. Many of the positions listed on the website below involve aerial photography, aerial inspections, and even some drone technician positions as well. The following link is where I located most of the positions:  http://www.indeed.com/q-Uav-Pilot-jobs.html.

References

Federal Aviation Administration. (2016). Summary of Small Unmanned Aircraft Rule (PART   

              107). Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf

Maddox, S., & Stuckenberg, D. (2015, Feb. 24). Drones in the U.S. National Airspace System: A

Safety and Security Assessment. Harvard Law School National Security Journal.

Retrieved from http://harvardnsj.org/2015/02/drones-in-the-u-s-national-airspace-system-

a-safety-and-security-assessment/

Crew Rest Requirements & Cargo Airlines

After the devastating crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407 in 2009 the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) made immediate changes to the amount of rest pilots are required to have before their flight duty period in an attempt to combat the effects of pilot fatigue. Sarina Houston (2016) reported on the new rule stating that the new regulations call for a “rest period of 10 hours, with the opportunity for at least 8 uninterrupted sleep hours” (para. 11). Houston (2016) further reported that this was the most noticeable improvement from the old rule which only required a “rest period of at least nine hours, which can be reduced to eight hours” (para. 11).

Other new mandates require that pilots report whether or not they are fit for duty, offer new flight duty periods in the ranges of nine to 14 hours depending on when a pilot’s day starts and how many flight segments he or she is expected to fly, and adds new flight time limits of eight to nine hours depending on the start time of the pilot’s flight duty period.

With the idea of safe air transportation in mind, the FAA has required all commercial airline pilots to adhere to these new regulations under Parts 117, 119, and 121. However, the cargo airline operators are exempt from following the new flight and duty time limits set for commercial airline pilots. According to the Cargo Airline Association (CAA) (2016):  

           

Cargo pilots are allowed to fly up to 8 hours (as opposed to 9 hours for passenger carriers under their rules) then legally must have a rest period.  In a situation where there are three crew members or more, cargo pilots may fly up to 12 hours.  While, cargo pilots may be on duty for 16 hours, under no circumstance do they ever fly 16 hours without rest. (para. 2)

Depending on who you ask, you may get a variety of reasons for why the FAA excluded the cargo industry from the new crew rest requirements. Some may say that because there are less souls on board the aircraft, there is no need to further restrict flight crew rest. Others may claim that an increased limit on flight crew rest times may not be financially beneficial to the cargo air carriers. I personally like to quote the FAA’s reasoning behind the decision to exclude cargo airlines from the new crew rest requirement rules. The FAA (2011) reported in a press release several years ago that “the estimated cost of this rule to the aviation industry is $297 million but the benefits are estimated between $247- $470 million” (para. 14). The FAA (2011) went on to claim that “covering cargo operators under the new rule would be too costly compared to the benefits generated in this portion of the industry” (para. 14).

I do not fully agree with the possibility of compromising safety by not mitigating the effects of pilot fatigue as a means to save cost for cargo companies. I do believe that cargo pilots should be considered under the new crew rest requirements regardless of the financial repercussions to the cargo industry. Nancy Trejos (2014) collected several statements from an Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) representative who happened to touch on several issues, of which I fully agree with, within the new regulations:

“It is clear from the science that all airline pilots experience fatigue in the same ways, regardless of whether they are transporting passengers or cargo," the union said. "Cargo airline pilots fly the same aircraft types over the same routes, into and out of the same airports, as passenger airline pilots.” (para. 16)

            I do not believe that the number of people on board a transport category aircraft, or the financials that fund the aircraft being flown, should determine whether or not an airline crew should be required to follow crew rest requirement rules that would better help pilots overcome pilot fatigue. It is hard to say if I think that a change to cargo carriers’ crew rest requirements would impact my carrier in the future. As of now I had planned, and will continue to plan, on a career in the commercial passenger airline industry.

References

            Trejos, N. (2014, Jan. 3). New Pilot Fatigue Rules Go Into Effect This Weekend. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2014/01/03/pilot-fatigue-mandatory-rest-new-faa-rules/4304417/

            Federal Aviation Administration. (2011, Dec. 21). Press Release – FAA Issues Final Rule on Pilot Fatigue. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=13272

            Cargo Airline Association. (2016, Apr. 13). Setting the Record Straight on Cargo Pilot Duty and Rest Rules. Retrieved from http://www.cargoair.org/2016/04/setting-the-record-straight-on-all-cargo-duty-and-rest-amendment/

            Houston, S. (2016, Mar. 01). FAA Final Rule: Pilot Duty and Rest Requirements. Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/faa-final-rule-pilot-duty-and-rest-requirements-282927

           

                                                                                                                                    

Flying Cheap

            The regional airline is without a doubt a very crucial part of the overall airline industry. Air carriers are able feed more passengers through their routes through the use of regional carriers and create a place for new, low-time, pilots to begin their careers. The current "buzz" in the industry is the pilot shortage that US regional carriers are faced with. However, the regional air carriers are not the only ones facing a pilot shortage. According to a report compiled by aviation consultant Kit Darby, "More than 30,000 pilots - or half the current total of 60,222 at 10 large U.S. airlines, United Parcel Service Inc. and FedEx Corp. - will reach age 65 by 2026" (Schlangenstein & Sasso, 2016, para. 13).

            With the high number of retiring pilots at the major airlines, those large carriers are looking to the regional air carriers for qualified pilots to fill their positions. As we see a movement of pilots from the regional airlines to the majors, we then come to the problem of hiring regional airline pilots to fill the gaps that were made by the previous regional airline pilots that left to fly for the majors.

            While I do believe that the required retirement age is the one of the more prominent reasons for the pilot shortage in the industry, I also believe that there are a few more important contributing factors that have led to our pilot shortage. Robert Silk reported that the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) "blames the airlines for low entry-level pay" (2016, para. 19). For pilots to earn wages of less than $26,000 per year, it certainly makes sense as to why we might see potential new pilots turn away from making a career out of the airlines.

            On top of the low pay, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires pilots to acquire 1,500 flight hours before they may hold an Airline Transport Pilot certificate and fly passengers for the airlines. Therefore, pilot are expected to earn these hours in a given amount of time, either on their own or through a university-ran program, and then go on to making what most consider a very low wage for a very high performance job. ALPA representatives stress that "the economics of it don't work. Aspiring pilots often spend $150,000 to $200,000 on training and flight hours..." all for a wage that can easily be made with much less education (2016, para. 18).

            ALPA aren't the only ones speaking up on the pilot shortage issue. Organizations such as the Regional Airlines Association (RAA), the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) - an airport management organization - and even companies such as Great Lake Airlines have stated that the low pay and the 1,500-hour rule has "created an industry wide shortage of qualified pilots, negatively affecting our level of operating and financial performance" (Silk, 2016, para. 9). After researching the factors of the pilot shortage, I still fully believe that it is not just one rulemaking or mandate that brought about a pilot shortage, but rather several events that have brought us to today's shortage in qualified pilots.

            As a part of the pilot shortage, we watched a documentary that highlights some of the hardships regional airline pilots faced such as low pay, difficult hours, and a "lack in qualifications".

            One of the featured topics of the film was professionalism in the workplace. I define professionalism as performing your duties or other activities that are asked of you in a respectful and ethical manner. In the documentary we saw a lack in professionalism from both the pilots and managers on the regional airline level. Pay based on completion of a flight was one concern for the pilots as it could lead to a lack of professionalism in the decisions made by the pilots who would not receive pay for cancelling a flight due to hazardous weather, illness, etc. It is probable that pilots would lose sight of their responsible decisions that must be made when their pay is threatened due to canceled flights. This structure of compensation is a clear contributing factor of the lack of professionalism that was demonstrated in the documentary.

            The documentary also brought up a lack in professionalism on the management side of a regional airline operation. 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.

            As a line pilot for any regional airline, I think it's important to put safety of the crew and the passengers above all else, no matter the consequences. Furthermore, I plan on finding 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

Silk, Robert. (2016, Jan. 19) . Training rule blamed for pilot shortage. Travel Weekly. Retrieved    from http://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-News/Training-rule-blamed-     for-pilot-deficit

Schlangenstein, M., & Sasso, M. (2016) . Even as pilot pay increases, U.S. airlines fear pilot          shortage. Skift. Retrieved from https://skift.com/2016/06/30/even-as-pilot-pay-increases-    u-s-airlines-fear-pilot-shortage/

NextGen & ATC Privatization

            Our current air traffic control (ATC) system is essentially a ground-based radar system with aided navigational coverage through the use of other technologies such as the VHF Omni Directional Radio Range (VOR). While the current ATC system has proven to be effective, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is looking to improve our National Airspace System (NAS) by implementing a vast new satellite (GPS)-based system that will improve the overall safety of flight, improve aircraft routing procedures, reduce flight times, and potentially present savings for both airline companies and their passengers. The current issue that the FAA's Next Generation Air Traffic Management System (NextGen) faces is the cost of the program. Despite the projected savings to be expected through the NextGen program, Jontz (2016) reported that the FAA has spent "$1 billion a year on the endeavor to modernization air traffic in the United States" (para. 3). Additionally, costs are presented to both the airline and general aviation (GA) sectors of the industry, primarily in the form of mandatory equipment to be installed on aircraft. Elizabeth Tennyson (2014) of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association reported that the necessary equipment could cost owners and operators "approximately $5,000 per aircraft while installation typically adds another $3,000 to $4,000 to the cost" (para. 3). The costs associated with NextGen will be hard to swallow for most operators in the NAS, however, if the new GPS-based system is to work efficiently then compliance on all levels of the industry is imperative.   

            User fees, and additional costs associated with flight operations, has always been a popular topic among the GA sectors of the industry. One of the more increasingly popular subjects related to user fees and additional aviation costs was the move to replace the current, federally funded, ATC system. GA advocates, as well as Delta Airlines, have spoken out against the move from an FAA funded ATC system to a non-profit organization that will replace the FAA's role of managing the United State's air traffic environment. Those against the move suggest that the user fees associated with the change in the ATC system, along with the leadership of this new non-profit organization, provide some serious concerns for the private aircraft owners and small jet operators of the world. Conor Shine (2016) states that Delta Air Lines has disputed "that needed improvements can be made within the existing structure and that a full scale overhaul of the air traffic control system would disrupt progress that’s already being made" (para. 6).

            It's no surprise to those operating in the NAS that the newer technologies put forth by the FAA are historically few and far between, and no one recognizes this more than the US air carriers. Airline companies, with the except of Delta Air Lines, believe that a privatized ATC system is a step in the right direction. Especially when we're talking about the implementation of newer technologies. US airline companies explain that the goal is to "disentangle air traffic control from the bureaucratic red tape and political wrangling that have hamstrung the FAA, allowing for longer-term budget planning and a more predictable deployment of new technologies" (Shine, 2016, para. 18). Airline companies are especially interested in the technologies associated with NextGen, which would include more direct routes, better ATC coverage and increased overall efficiency of air travel that might lead to an increase in cost savings for the airlines. Southwest's Vice President, Jason Van Eaton, is on board with an ATC system reform as he stated that "At some point, you’re going to put a strain on the system to the point where you need to take advantage of new technologies that are out there" (Shine, 2016, para. 19).

            Other countries have already implemented the privatized ATC system into their own NAS. Canada for example, has a non-profit corporation called Nav Canada operating its ATC system with oversight from Transport Canada, the Canadian equivalent of the FAA.  Nav Canada is funded by users fees from operators using ATC services within Canada. It's services are very similar to those offered in the US, however, Canada has etched ahead of the US on implementing newer technology such as ADS-B into their NAS. Some operators may argue that the implementation of ADS-B into Canadian airspace is an indication of how a privatized ATC system would benefit the US airspace system and help introduce newer technology into our NAS.

            The answer to whether or not ATC privatization will work well in our current NAS varies depending on who you ask. Some operators in the industry feel that the US ATC system would do well under a non-profit organization.  However there are others, such as Capt. Steve Dickson of Delta Air Lines, who disagree about the privatization of ATC services in the US. After reporting on a trip to Nav Canada in which Capt. Dickson stated that " 'We learned that Nav Canada’s privatization model may work well for Canadian airspace, which is about one-tenth the scale and complexity of U.S. airspace' " (Owram, 2016, para. 19). He later reported that he witnessed  “ 'zero quantifiable data showing operational efficiency' or cost advantages as a result of privatization' " (Owram, 2016,  para. 21).

            If the US were to move from a government ran ATC system to a privatized non-profit organization, it would need to be formally approved by Congress and then signed by the President into law. While there was discussion about including ATC reform in the 2016 FAA Reauthorization Bill, the Wall Street Journal reports that the Act signed by President Obama in mid July of this year does not include any references to ATC reform (Carey, 2016, para. 2).          

            Because the current ATC system is maintained by the FAA, a government agency, and the role of the FAA is to regulate, oversee and maintain the safety and development of civil aviation in the US, it would take congressional approval to privatize the current ATC system. As of today, there is no formal congressional discussion on the current, federally budgeted, ATC system being moved to a privatized organization.

            As for my own opinion, I have to agree with Capt. Steve Dickson of Delta Air Lines. I feel that the implementation of a privatized ATC system in America's vast and complicated NAS would not show very much improvement from the current FAA ATC system. I think it is a good idea for the FAA to prioritize the available resources it has now, and work to improve our current ATC system and its technologies instead of completely overhauling the US ATC system.

References

Jontz, S., (2016) . FAA Moves Its 'Analog' Systen to High-Tech with NextGen Program. Signal. Retrieved from http://www.afcea.org/content/?q=Article-faa-moves-its-analog-system-       high-tech-nextgen-program

Tennyson, E. A. (2014) . NextGen Mandate Too Expensive, AOPA member Tells House Committee. AOPA. Retrieved from https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-  news/2014/june/11/nextgen-mandate-too-expensive-aopa-member-tells-house-committee

Sine, C. (2016, June 20) . Air Traffic Control Reform Plan Tied To Looming Deadline On FAA   Funding Reauthorization. The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved from            http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2016/06/air-traffic-control-reform-plan-tied-to-    looming-deadline-on-faa-funding-reauthorization.html/

Owram, K. (2013, Feb. 1) . U.S. Looks To Canadian Model As It Debates Air-Traffic-Control     Privatization. Financial Post. Retrieved from          http://business.financialpost.com/news/transportation/u-s-looks-to-canadian-model-as-it-     debates-air-traffic-control-privatization

Carey, S. (2013, July 13) . Senate Passes FAA Reauthorization Bill. The Wall Street Journal.        Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-passes-faa-reauthorization-bill-  1468437144