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