I'd like to revisit the commercialization of the space industry for my final blog. I spent most of the first time around talking about how the idea for commercialization circled around the X Prize competition from 1996. While this was the biggest deal of the recent past to attempt to send civilians into space, it was not the first. The first major idea came from Pan American World Airways in their "First Moon Flight" vouchers that began in 1968 and ran until 1971 issuing over 93,000 vouchers to customers who were promised trips to the moon once it became possible. "Between 1968 and 1971, Pan Am issued over 93,000 "First Moon Flights" club cards to space enthusiasts eager to make a reservation for the first commercial flight to the moon."(Haupt, 2015) The vouchers were issued at no price and were issued using priority numbers. Initially, Pan Am had thought that the first flight was going to depart in 2000, unfortunately, the company went out of business in 1991. The club was thought to have originated in 1964 as a waitlist of people who were interested in commercial space flights.
Even though to just over 93,000 very excited people flying to the moon seemed out of the question and it was not big news for most of the world, commercializing space flight was not completely forgotten. X Prize was born and like mentioned in my earlier blog, was won by a team from Mojave Aerospace Ventures when their "Space Ship One" reached space twice in a one week period. This really opened the door for commercial space flight as it proved that it is possible. Virgin Atlantic created the successor to Space Ship One and called it Space Ship Two, a 6 seat aircraft that was capable of space flight just like the predecessor and seats go for $250,000 a ticket. According to space.com "Other companies are getting into the mix, too. For instance, XCOR Aerospace is developing a one-passenger suborbital rocket plane called Lynx that may get up and running around the same time that Space Ship Two does."(Wall, 2014) As of now, the Lynx is still not finished and has been halted for the time being.
Space travel is not new, nor is the concept of commercial space travel. Companies are always getting closer to making it a practical option to travel to space. Some people have made the trip already at extremely large prices. The goal is to reduce the prices of travel so it can be more practical to the public, however, it seems like these companies are having more roadblock problems than successes. Space X has been successful in taking over the space industry in a commercial role not as a passenger outfit, but as essentially a cargo operation supplying and performing maintenance on the space stations.
As stated in my previous blog, I do think that commercial space travel will be more feasible one day but it is not going to be anytime soon. However, when that day comes, I would love to be able to see it for myself because I think it is a great concept and could open a lot of doors for future exploration.
References:
Haupt, T. (2015, July 31). Were You a Member of the. Retrieved December 11, 2016, from https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/were-you-member-“first-moon-flights”-club
Pan Am and the waiting list for the moon…. (n.d.). Retrieved December 11, 2016, from http://backstoryradio.org/2013/08/19/pan-am-and-the-waiting-list-for-the-moon/
Wall, M. (2014, October 3). Private Spaceflight Era Launched with SpaceShipOne 10 Years Ago. Retrieved December 11, 2016, from http://www.space.com/27339-spaceshipone-xprize-launched-commercial-spaceflight.html
XCOR Lynx. (n.d.). Retrieved December 11, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XCOR_Lynx
Sunday, December 11, 2016
Friday, December 9, 2016
Job Plans and Topic Review
Before the class started my plans were to land a job as a professional pilot, either in the cargo or passenger industry, I had no preference really as to which. My goals have not changed due to the fact that this is why I wanted to become a pilot, to get paid to fly someone's airplane for them.
My action plan for when I graduate is to fly for USA Jet since I just got hired by them last month. I will continue to fly for them for the foreseeable future until I can either upgrade or move on to the airlines.
I think the most useful topic that we covered this semester was the duty time regulations. I feel this way mainly because this is something that will be impacting me immediately and it will be a part of my everyday life as a professional pilot.
The least important topic for me was kind of a toss up between the commercial space industry or the Chinese competitor to Boeing and Airbus. The commercial space industry is still a novelty, in my opinion, therefore it does not really hold much weight as a conversation piece. Comac's aircraft was also a weak conversation topic for me as well since even if it does become a relevant aircraft in the United States it will most likely not affect me personally.
My action plan for when I graduate is to fly for USA Jet since I just got hired by them last month. I will continue to fly for them for the foreseeable future until I can either upgrade or move on to the airlines.
I think the most useful topic that we covered this semester was the duty time regulations. I feel this way mainly because this is something that will be impacting me immediately and it will be a part of my everyday life as a professional pilot.
The least important topic for me was kind of a toss up between the commercial space industry or the Chinese competitor to Boeing and Airbus. The commercial space industry is still a novelty, in my opinion, therefore it does not really hold much weight as a conversation piece. Comac's aircraft was also a weak conversation topic for me as well since even if it does become a relevant aircraft in the United States it will most likely not affect me personally.
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Aviation Organizations
Belonging to aviation organizations is important because not only will belonging to an organization keep you up to date on what is happening in the aviation world but it offers many benefits to members that you would not have otherwise. A couple important organizations to belong to as a professional pilot are Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and Airline Pilots Association (ALPA).
It appears that AOPA has more than one mission, if you look at the about us page it states that AOPA's mission is "To ensure that the sky remains within reach of everyone who dreams of becoming a pilot." AOPA also claims that their mission to be: "We protect your freedom to fly by...
It is important to me to belong to these two organizations for all of the benefits that they provide, if nothing else the advocacy that these organizations offer will be an important aspect in the career of an airline pilot, staying current in the industry with the latest information that they provide as well as the legal information as well as insurance if I ever decide to purchase my own airplane.
References:
https://www.aopa.org/about/mission-vision-and-values
http://www.alpa.org/en/about-alpa/what-we-do
It appears that AOPA has more than one mission, if you look at the about us page it states that AOPA's mission is "To ensure that the sky remains within reach of everyone who dreams of becoming a pilot." AOPA also claims that their mission to be: "We protect your freedom to fly by...
- advocating on behalf of our members,
- educating pilots, non-pilots, and policy makers alike,
- supporting activities that ensure the long-term health of General Aviation,
- fighting to keep General Aviation accesible to all, and
AOPA offers all sorts of benefits to its members such as discounts, insurance, legal support, and they even do a giveaway drawing every year where someone wins a Cessna 172. ALPA's mission is "To promote and champion all aspects of aviation safety throughout all segments of the aviation community;" it goes on for a while so instead of typing the whole mission out, I will attach the link at the bottom. ALPA is better known as the largest airline unions in the world. Advocating for airline pilots to ensure fair treatment as well as contract negotiations.
- securing sufficient resources to ensure our success.
It is important to me to belong to these two organizations for all of the benefits that they provide, if nothing else the advocacy that these organizations offer will be an important aspect in the career of an airline pilot, staying current in the industry with the latest information that they provide as well as the legal information as well as insurance if I ever decide to purchase my own airplane.
References:
https://www.aopa.org/about/mission-vision-and-values
http://www.alpa.org/en/about-alpa/what-we-do
Friday, November 18, 2016
Aviation Emissions
Global warming has been a growing concern over the years as emissions continue to grow as well. What does the world do? Blame the aviation industry, why not right? The aviation industry is a pretty easy target to put the blame on, large jets fly the skies every day burning massive amounts of jet fuel into the atmosphere. However, the aviation industry's carbon footprint is not nearly as high as some other industries. According to the Air Transportation Action Group, "The global aviation industry produces around 2% of all human-induced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions" (Air Transportation Action Group, 2016). Doesn't seem too bad right? They also stated that "Aviation is responsible for 12% of CO2 emissions from all transport sources, compared to 74% from road transport" (Air Transportation Action Group, 2016). So while the aviation industry is not the worst when it comes to CO2 emissions, there are still some actions that can be taken to lower the footprint that we have on the global warming problem.
The basis of the Paris Agreement for aviation is a good idea. The idea is that the airlines' carbon emissions in the year 2020 will be set as the upper limit of what carriers are going to be allowed to discharge. If an airline exceeds this limit in future years (which they are expected to do) "they will be required to offset their emissions growth by buying credits from other industries and projects that limit greenhouse gas emissions" (Lowy, 2016). The first phase of this agreement, which will take place from 2021 until 2027 will be voluntary and becomes mandatory from 2028 until 2035. This deal will apply only to international flights, which is responsible for 60 percent of all aviation activity.
President-Elect Donald Trump has stated in the past that he intends to cancel the Paris Agreement because he feels that it would be bad for business. Whether or not his administration goes through with the cancellation of the agreement, I do not know, but I do know that Trump somehow thinks that global warming was created by the Chinese for the Chinese as a business tactic in a tweet that he posted in 2012.
I feel that to some extent the new regulations are a necessity. The level at which this plan needs to be carried out, I am not sure. It seems a little overkill that they are so focused on the aviation industry when in fact the road transportation industry is far worse with the CO2 emissions. I suppose the deal that they have come up with is better than what I have come up with so I guess I can't look down on their idea too much.
References
Facts & FIGURES - Air Transport Action Group (ATAG). (2016, May). Retrieved November 18, 2016, from http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html
Low, J. (2016, October 06). UN agreement reached on aircraft climate-change emissions ... Retrieved November 18, 2016, from http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-10-06/un-agreement-reached-on-aircraft-climate-change-emissions
News, B. (2016, May 27). Donald Trump would 'cancel' Paris climate deal. Retrieved November 18, 2016, from http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36401174
The basis of the Paris Agreement for aviation is a good idea. The idea is that the airlines' carbon emissions in the year 2020 will be set as the upper limit of what carriers are going to be allowed to discharge. If an airline exceeds this limit in future years (which they are expected to do) "they will be required to offset their emissions growth by buying credits from other industries and projects that limit greenhouse gas emissions" (Lowy, 2016). The first phase of this agreement, which will take place from 2021 until 2027 will be voluntary and becomes mandatory from 2028 until 2035. This deal will apply only to international flights, which is responsible for 60 percent of all aviation activity.
President-Elect Donald Trump has stated in the past that he intends to cancel the Paris Agreement because he feels that it would be bad for business. Whether or not his administration goes through with the cancellation of the agreement, I do not know, but I do know that Trump somehow thinks that global warming was created by the Chinese for the Chinese as a business tactic in a tweet that he posted in 2012.
I feel that to some extent the new regulations are a necessity. The level at which this plan needs to be carried out, I am not sure. It seems a little overkill that they are so focused on the aviation industry when in fact the road transportation industry is far worse with the CO2 emissions. I suppose the deal that they have come up with is better than what I have come up with so I guess I can't look down on their idea too much.
References
Facts & FIGURES - Air Transport Action Group (ATAG). (2016, May). Retrieved November 18, 2016, from http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html
Low, J. (2016, October 06). UN agreement reached on aircraft climate-change emissions ... Retrieved November 18, 2016, from http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-10-06/un-agreement-reached-on-aircraft-climate-change-emissions
News, B. (2016, May 27). Donald Trump would 'cancel' Paris climate deal. Retrieved November 18, 2016, from http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36401174
Friday, November 4, 2016
Global Airlines, Is It A Fair Playing Ground?
"Open skies agreements are bilateral agreements that the U.S. Government negotiates with other countries to provide rights for airlines to offer international passengers and cargo services." (state.gov, 2016) Basically, Open Skies agreements are designed to expand passenger and cargo operations internationally by eliminating government interference in commercial airline operations, with respect to routes, capacity, and pricing. The U.S. has brokered Open Skies agreements with 120 foreign partners since 1992. The U.S. is now fighting for a reorganization of the U.S.-U.A.E. Open Skies agreement stating that due to the fact that they are receiving government subsidies, there is an unfair advantage over domestic air carriers. Two of these companies that are receiving government subsidies is Emirates and Qatar Airways. The chief complaint that is being made by Delta, American and United is that the Gulf carriers are at an unfair advantage due to the fact that they are supported by the government. The U.A.E. companies disagree with this argument stating that there is no unfair advantage due to the fact that American companies receive government subsidies as well, while not in the form of direct compensation, the overseas companies see the bankruptcy laws and government bailouts as a form of support that levels the playing field. In a New york Times article states, "Supporters of Open Skies point out that Unites States carriers have received government support in the past. Delta, American and United, for example, have been granted far-reaching antitrust immunity to set up joint ventures with rival carriers on some specific routes to Europe and Asia." (Mouawad, 2015)
With the Export-Import bank, Delta is claiming that it's overseas long-haul rivals have received large price cuts that they are not entitled to as well. While the rival companies are not actually getting a discount on these airplanes, they are receiving a lower interest rate through the Export-Import Bank. Delta claims that the foreign companies are taking these savings that they are receiving and using it to lower ticket costs for the customers. Even if that is the case, the judge that presided over the case stated in his 72-page ruling that the savings was only 12 million dollars over 12 years and that is not enough to make a noticeable difference. Honestly, I do feel that the playing field is fair. Fair enough at least. I think that the domestic carriers are just complaining because the competition is getting too tight. These companies were all about the Open Skies agreements when there really wasn't any competition, now that there is, they want to start complaining and lobbying the government to help them out. They are trying to shut down the Ex-Im bank to make them pay more for airplanes as well as cut down their access to our country. I understand that Delta, United, and American are corporations and they only want what's good for the growth of their company, and not to sound un-American but now who's not being fair, not only are they trying to cripple the competition but they are going to damage another American company in the process, Boeing will be on the losing end of the stick if the Ex-Im Bank is disbanded.
References:
With the Export-Import bank, Delta is claiming that it's overseas long-haul rivals have received large price cuts that they are not entitled to as well. While the rival companies are not actually getting a discount on these airplanes, they are receiving a lower interest rate through the Export-Import Bank. Delta claims that the foreign companies are taking these savings that they are receiving and using it to lower ticket costs for the customers. Even if that is the case, the judge that presided over the case stated in his 72-page ruling that the savings was only 12 million dollars over 12 years and that is not enough to make a noticeable difference. Honestly, I do feel that the playing field is fair. Fair enough at least. I think that the domestic carriers are just complaining because the competition is getting too tight. These companies were all about the Open Skies agreements when there really wasn't any competition, now that there is, they want to start complaining and lobbying the government to help them out. They are trying to shut down the Ex-Im bank to make them pay more for airplanes as well as cut down their access to our country. I understand that Delta, United, and American are corporations and they only want what's good for the growth of their company, and not to sound un-American but now who's not being fair, not only are they trying to cripple the competition but they are going to damage another American company in the process, Boeing will be on the losing end of the stick if the Ex-Im Bank is disbanded.
References:
Mouawad, J. (n.d.). Open-Skies Agreements Challenged - The New
York Times. Retrieved November 4, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/business/us-airlines-challenge-open-skies-agreements.html
Open Skies Agreements. (n.d.). Retrieved November 04, 2016, from
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/tra/ata/
Weisman, J., & Lipton, E. (n.d.). Boeing and Delta Spend
Millions in Fight Over Export ... Retrieved November 4, 2016, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/business/boeing-delta-air-lines-export-import-bank.html
Saturday, October 29, 2016
A Chinese Competitor to Boeing and Airbus question mark?
Due to the way everything has been going with the certification of the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China's (COMAC) other aircraft with the FAA I do not forsee the new C919 being FAA certified in the near future (if at all). The idea that China had originally was potentially a good idea at the time, to them, but in reality, the C919 is going to be a cheaper made, heavier version of the Airbus A320 or the Boeing 737. China is known for both military and corporate espionage stealing products like the F-35 and now what looks to be pretty much an exact replica of the A320. The problem being, China does not know how to make a solid, reliable product. This cheap designing flaw that China has lived by for so long is going to be a problem for them when it comes to the strict FAA certification standards. The company's other project, the ARJ21 is being held up in FAA testing currently and is the problem that I forsee them having with the C919. In an article by Bradley Perrett for aviation week, he states,
As far as COMAC goes, and the relationship that it has with the Chinese government is that the Chinese government owns COMAC, which is how they have enough money to even entertain the idea about making transport category aircraft. This relationship puts the airlines in a tight spot because the airlines are also owned by the government, this pressures the airlines to purchase the new aircraft regardless of the safety and quality of the aircraft. COMAC also has the ARJ21 aircraft, which is supposed to rival the Boeing 717 jet. This aircraft is also struggling to get FAA certification at this time. Due to the fact that they can not get an aircraft certified (ARJ21) or one built (C919) they continue to show up at the Singapore Aviaiton Expo trying to avoid people because they cant produce a finished product, "COMAC is staying away from the cameras and crowds in Singapore, and competitors are talking less about it." (Cendrowski, 2016)
Whether or not CORMAC becomes a viable option for transport category airliners, I do not think thi is going to affect whether or not any other companies try to compete and build airliners. The cost is way too high and it is not realy obtainable to think about trying to compete with the other major companies. The only reason that COMAC can hang with Airbus and Boeing is because they are state owned and can afford to waste the money.
No where that I can find has Boeing or Airbus commented in any way about the new aircraft that COMAC is making. Honestly if I were them I wouldn't either. This airplane is not going to be any sort of competition due to the fact that by the time the aircraft is released the A320 and the 737 are going to be so far ahead of it that there will be no cause for concern.
References:
Cendrowski, S. (2016). China’s Answer To Boeing Loses Shine. Retrieved October 29, 2016, from http://fortune.com/2016/02/16/china-comac-c919-delay-delivery/
Perrett, B. (n.d.). C919 May Be Largely Limited To Chinese Market. Retrieved October 29, 2016, from http://aviationweek.com/awin/c919-may-be-largely-limited-chinese-market
"The problem emerged in 2011 and is still unresolved. Delays in Comac's earlier program, the ARJ21 regional jet, are holding up FAA recognition of the certification competence of the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC). That casts doubt on the FAA's eventual acceptance of the CAAC's current work on C919 and therefore the Chinese type certificate. Without Western airworthiness endorsement, the C919 cannot be sold in main commercial aircraft markets outside of China" (Perrett, 2013)As far as domestic companies are concerned, I do not think that there will be cause for concern by Boeing or Airbus due to the fact that they are a known entity and they have stood the test of time. Major airlines or even regional airlines are not going to gamble and buy a cheaper made product out of China just to save a few dollars. The only way I see our companies beginning to purchase these products will be after enough of them have been sold and flying in China and Singapore for a while and they see no issues, but I doubt it. As far as the public's perception, I don't think the common person would be able to tell the difference between, just like I'm sure they can't tell the difference between aircraft now, except the size of the aircraft.
As far as COMAC goes, and the relationship that it has with the Chinese government is that the Chinese government owns COMAC, which is how they have enough money to even entertain the idea about making transport category aircraft. This relationship puts the airlines in a tight spot because the airlines are also owned by the government, this pressures the airlines to purchase the new aircraft regardless of the safety and quality of the aircraft. COMAC also has the ARJ21 aircraft, which is supposed to rival the Boeing 717 jet. This aircraft is also struggling to get FAA certification at this time. Due to the fact that they can not get an aircraft certified (ARJ21) or one built (C919) they continue to show up at the Singapore Aviaiton Expo trying to avoid people because they cant produce a finished product, "COMAC is staying away from the cameras and crowds in Singapore, and competitors are talking less about it." (Cendrowski, 2016)
Whether or not CORMAC becomes a viable option for transport category airliners, I do not think thi is going to affect whether or not any other companies try to compete and build airliners. The cost is way too high and it is not realy obtainable to think about trying to compete with the other major companies. The only reason that COMAC can hang with Airbus and Boeing is because they are state owned and can afford to waste the money.
No where that I can find has Boeing or Airbus commented in any way about the new aircraft that COMAC is making. Honestly if I were them I wouldn't either. This airplane is not going to be any sort of competition due to the fact that by the time the aircraft is released the A320 and the 737 are going to be so far ahead of it that there will be no cause for concern.
References:
Cendrowski, S. (2016). China’s Answer To Boeing Loses Shine. Retrieved October 29, 2016, from http://fortune.com/2016/02/16/china-comac-c919-delay-delivery/
Perrett, B. (n.d.). C919 May Be Largely Limited To Chinese Market. Retrieved October 29, 2016, from http://aviationweek.com/awin/c919-may-be-largely-limited-chinese-market
Saturday, October 22, 2016
The Commercial Space Industry
In 1961 the first manned space travel was accomplished by Yuri Gagarin in 1961 as a result of government program research. For decades after this, few government superpowers have frequented space on pioneering missions. Flight to space were few and far between due to the high cost, and intense planning that was involved. Additionally, only a handful of people had been to space, mainly high trained government astronauts from a select few countries. This trend began to change in 1996 when a group of philanthropists created the Ansari XPRIZE. This competition attracted teams from all over the world. The goal was to create a manned spacecraft that was able to carry at least 3 people into space twice within 2 weeks. 1 team emerged from Mojave Aerospace Ventures, the team was funded by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen and was led by Burt Rutan and his company Scaled Composites. "On October 4, 2004, SpaceShipOne completed all of the prize requirements and officially won the $10M Ansari XPRIZE. In doing so, it became the first-ever private vehicle to carry a human being into space, making international headlines and stunning a world that had largely written off commercial human spaceflight as pure science fiction." (VirginGalactic)
The government does not regulate commercial space travel due to the fact that regulations would slow down the growth of commercial space travel and most likely ultimately bring it to an end. The only actual "regulation" was laid out in a space.com article, it states "The regulations require launch vehicle operators to provide certain safety-related information and identify what an operator must do to conduct a licensed launch with a human on board." (David, 2006)
I do not think that commercial spaceflight will be an accessible option for the general public in my lifetime. I think it will remain as it currently is, which is basically a one-time bucket list item for the extremely wealthy. Commercial space operations such as Virgin Galactic and SpaceX have made it possible for the wealthy, but I don't think it will be available to the rest of the general public for a very long time.
In order to land a job at a commercial space company, there are a lot of qualifications that must be met. For starters, you have to have a commercial multi-engine pilot certificate. Additionally, you must have an advanced degree in a relevant technical field. If that wasn't enough, the applicant must also be a graduate of an approved test pilot school with 2 years of test pilot experience under his belt in high-performance jets as well as large multi-engine transport category aircraft. It is not required to be an astronaut but it is a preferred attribute.
References:
A Brief History of Human Spaceflight - Virgin Galactic. (n.d.). Retrieved October 22, 2016, from http://www.virgingalactic.com/human-spaceflight/history-of-human-spaceflight/
David, L. (n.d.). FAA Sets Guidelines for Space Travel. Retrieved October 22, 2016, from http://www.space.com/3290-faa-sets-guidelines-space-travel.html
The government does not regulate commercial space travel due to the fact that regulations would slow down the growth of commercial space travel and most likely ultimately bring it to an end. The only actual "regulation" was laid out in a space.com article, it states "The regulations require launch vehicle operators to provide certain safety-related information and identify what an operator must do to conduct a licensed launch with a human on board." (David, 2006)
I do not think that commercial spaceflight will be an accessible option for the general public in my lifetime. I think it will remain as it currently is, which is basically a one-time bucket list item for the extremely wealthy. Commercial space operations such as Virgin Galactic and SpaceX have made it possible for the wealthy, but I don't think it will be available to the rest of the general public for a very long time.
In order to land a job at a commercial space company, there are a lot of qualifications that must be met. For starters, you have to have a commercial multi-engine pilot certificate. Additionally, you must have an advanced degree in a relevant technical field. If that wasn't enough, the applicant must also be a graduate of an approved test pilot school with 2 years of test pilot experience under his belt in high-performance jets as well as large multi-engine transport category aircraft. It is not required to be an astronaut but it is a preferred attribute.
References:
A Brief History of Human Spaceflight - Virgin Galactic. (n.d.). Retrieved October 22, 2016, from http://www.virgingalactic.com/human-spaceflight/history-of-human-spaceflight/
David, L. (n.d.). FAA Sets Guidelines for Space Travel. Retrieved October 22, 2016, from http://www.space.com/3290-faa-sets-guidelines-space-travel.html
Saturday, October 15, 2016
The Current Status of UAVs
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have been around for some time now, mainly used for military purposes. In the more recent past, they have become smaller and smaller as they have been introduced into the civilian world as sUAVs or small unmanned aerial vehicles. Since the sUAV has become more and more popular and the technology has grown to include automatic stabilization and high definition cameras, as well as some now having autopilot; there have been more civilian uses starting to develop. From aerial photography to land surveying, real estate application and much more.
An article written by Joseph Dussault for Boston.com lists some of the new ways that drones are being used for commercial civilian purposes. Included in the list: Delivery, by food companies such as dominos to beer delivery. Internet services, Facebook creator Mark Zuckerburg is attempting to acquire Titan Aerospace, a company that creates solar-powered drones that can remain airborne for approximately 5 years to provide wireless internet to remote locations across the world. Another interesting use is the news, replacing more expensive helicopters to cover such things as traffic and high-speed police chases. Photography made the list as well as agriculture purposes. Farmers can use drone technology to monitor crop growth. These are only some of the uses that the commercial world is coming up with for drones. One of the most important uses could be for public service such as police use. "Drone-aided search and rescue missions have been adopted by law enforcement across the country. Without pilots, aircraft like drones can survey and act in dangerous situations." (Dussault, 2014)
I think as more training becomes available to drone operators, there will be more activity in the NAS. Currently, commercial sUAS operators need to apply for a section 333 exemption, which allows sUAS to operate in the National Airspace System until the final ruling is issued on the new FAA regulation regarding sUAS.
The cheaper they make these drones and the more capable they make them I see more and more operations by non-licensed and untrained pilots in the NAS. For someone who simply goes to the store and buys one, they will not know the regulations, nor will they know about airspace or where the airspace lies. This will cause problems that I think are going to be difficult for the FAA to manage. There needs to be some sort of restriction to who can buy one and the training must be accomplished prior to the purchase of one.
Military applications of drones have been around since well before I joined the military and they are becoming more and more used on the battlefield. Not only are they using smaller drones such as the Wasp for smaller squad sized elements to survey the immediate area to detect threats, but there are larger drones such as the MQ-1 Predator Drone that carry heat seeking missiles that are used for Offensive Air Support (OAS). The use of these drones has done nothing but make the battlefield safer for troops and reduces the risk. If something goes wrong and there is a crash the only compromise is the loss of a drone and possibly some intelligence, this is a big deal however, no lives are lost. Reconnaissance drones are very beneficial for troops on the ground to scout where the enemy is as well as other threats that may be in the area. I do not see an ethical issue with drones in the military since they do all the same missions as troop carrying aircraft only the person controlling the aircraft is not on board. The only ethical issue that I would see and I do not condone would be drone attacks on American soil.
There are plenty of jobs being created by the drone push. There are all sorts of jobs from software engineers to operators. Here is a job posting for an operator to photograph areas for a real estate firm http://www.internships.com/real-estate/cinematographer-needed-to-shoot-video-of-community-including-ariel-shots-timelapse-people-etc. Also a management type job as a software engineer, http://www.kespry.com/careers?gh_jid=50151#.V06IXfl97IU.
References:
By The Numbers Air Traffic Plans and Publications Environmental Reviews Flight Information. (n.d.). Section 333. Retrieved October 15, 2016, from https://www.faa.gov/uas/beyond_the_basics/section_333/
Dussault, J. (2014). 7 commercial uses for drones - Boston.com. Retrieved October 15, 2016, from http://archive.boston.com/business/2014/03/14/commercial-uses-for-drones/dscS47PsQdPneIB2UQeY0M/singlepage.html
An article written by Joseph Dussault for Boston.com lists some of the new ways that drones are being used for commercial civilian purposes. Included in the list: Delivery, by food companies such as dominos to beer delivery. Internet services, Facebook creator Mark Zuckerburg is attempting to acquire Titan Aerospace, a company that creates solar-powered drones that can remain airborne for approximately 5 years to provide wireless internet to remote locations across the world. Another interesting use is the news, replacing more expensive helicopters to cover such things as traffic and high-speed police chases. Photography made the list as well as agriculture purposes. Farmers can use drone technology to monitor crop growth. These are only some of the uses that the commercial world is coming up with for drones. One of the most important uses could be for public service such as police use. "Drone-aided search and rescue missions have been adopted by law enforcement across the country. Without pilots, aircraft like drones can survey and act in dangerous situations." (Dussault, 2014)
I think as more training becomes available to drone operators, there will be more activity in the NAS. Currently, commercial sUAS operators need to apply for a section 333 exemption, which allows sUAS to operate in the National Airspace System until the final ruling is issued on the new FAA regulation regarding sUAS.
"By law, any aircraft operation in the national airspace requires a certificated and registered aircraft, a licensed pilot, and operational approval. Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA) grants the Secretary of Transportation the authority to determine whether an airworthiness certificate is required for a UAS to operate safely in the National Airspace System (NAS). This authority is being levereged to grant case-by-case authorization for certian unmanned aircraft to perform commercial operations prior to the finalization to the small UAS rule, which will be the primary method for authorizing small UAS operations once it is complete. (FAA, 2016)Not only are commercial operators required to file for this exception but they must also comply with Part 107 of the FAR/AIM which states that they must operate no higher than 400 feet above ground level, no more than 100 mph, between 30 minutes prior to sunrise to 30 minutes past sunset and the operator must be within unaided line of sight with the UAS at all times.
The cheaper they make these drones and the more capable they make them I see more and more operations by non-licensed and untrained pilots in the NAS. For someone who simply goes to the store and buys one, they will not know the regulations, nor will they know about airspace or where the airspace lies. This will cause problems that I think are going to be difficult for the FAA to manage. There needs to be some sort of restriction to who can buy one and the training must be accomplished prior to the purchase of one.
Military applications of drones have been around since well before I joined the military and they are becoming more and more used on the battlefield. Not only are they using smaller drones such as the Wasp for smaller squad sized elements to survey the immediate area to detect threats, but there are larger drones such as the MQ-1 Predator Drone that carry heat seeking missiles that are used for Offensive Air Support (OAS). The use of these drones has done nothing but make the battlefield safer for troops and reduces the risk. If something goes wrong and there is a crash the only compromise is the loss of a drone and possibly some intelligence, this is a big deal however, no lives are lost. Reconnaissance drones are very beneficial for troops on the ground to scout where the enemy is as well as other threats that may be in the area. I do not see an ethical issue with drones in the military since they do all the same missions as troop carrying aircraft only the person controlling the aircraft is not on board. The only ethical issue that I would see and I do not condone would be drone attacks on American soil.
There are plenty of jobs being created by the drone push. There are all sorts of jobs from software engineers to operators. Here is a job posting for an operator to photograph areas for a real estate firm http://www.internships.com/real-estate/cinematographer-needed-to-shoot-video-of-community-including-ariel-shots-timelapse-people-etc. Also a management type job as a software engineer, http://www.kespry.com/careers?gh_jid=50151#.V06IXfl97IU.
References:
By The Numbers Air Traffic Plans and Publications Environmental Reviews Flight Information. (n.d.). Section 333. Retrieved October 15, 2016, from https://www.faa.gov/uas/beyond_the_basics/section_333/
Dussault, J. (2014). 7 commercial uses for drones - Boston.com. Retrieved October 15, 2016, from http://archive.boston.com/business/2014/03/14/commercial-uses-for-drones/dscS47PsQdPneIB2UQeY0M/singlepage.html
Saturday, October 8, 2016
Cargo Industry is Exempt From Flight/Duty Changes
The crash of Colgan Air 3407 led to the FAA revamping the entire professional pilot world with new regulations pertaining to the Airline Transport Piot (ATP) certificate as well as the duty/rest time requirements. Before the accident, all that was required to work for the airlines was a commercial certificate which took about 250 hours. Additionally, an ATP certificate was not required by both pilots, only the pilot in command was required to hold an ATP certificate. In addition to the hour requirement change to obtain an ATP, there have been changes to the crew rest/duty times.
According to an article in USA Today written by Nancy Trejos, she states "The new regulations, which don't apply to cargo pilots, require that pilots get at least 10 hours of rest between shifts. Eight of those hours must involve uninterrupted sleep. In the past, pilots could spend those eight hours getting to and from the hotel, showering and eating. Pilots will be limited to flying eight or nine hours, depending on their departure times. They must also have 30 consecutive hours of rest each week, a 25% increase over the previous requirements." (Trejos, 2014)
The changes that were applied to the airlines were not meant for the cargo industry. For part 121 cargo operators, the current duty day hold a maximum of 16 hours, 8 of which is the maximum for flying. If there are more than 2 pilots the maximum is upped to 12 hours of flying. While the regulations are different for cargo operators, the rules are still established in the best interest for the pilots, total flying time is not what people perceive even though there may be longer duty times. The cargo industry is a 24 hour a day operation to meet operational demands and if flights are cancelled due to short duty days an entire operation may cease operations until the parts needed can arrive. The total duty day of 16 hours may seem like a lot to an airline pilot, it is normal for a cargo pilot. This is misinterpreted by some, such as Senator Barbara Boxer, that the pilots are flying all of that time and it is not safe. The pilots, in reality, have less time flying (8 hours) than those in the airlines (9 hours). According to a report done by the Cargo Airline Association, "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 crewmembers or more, cargo pilots may fly up to 12 hours. While, cargo pilots may be on duty for 16 hours, under no circumstances do they ever fly 16 hours without rest. There is a very big difference between being on duty and actual flight time flying the aircraft. These are baseline rules - the labor management contract allows for even more rest, but it's specific to each all-cargo carrier." (CAA, 2016)
I personally do not think that these rules need to change. As the CAA report also states, there have only been cargo operator accidents in the past 20 years dealing with fatigue. This is not a need for a crisis management plan to reduce duty time. Additionally, what people do not think about is that cargo pilots can claim that they are fatigued and not fly a certain trip with no repercussions. Also, changing the way the duty times work would put a kink in the hose that is on demand cargo, causing problems with the operations of the end customer.
If the cargo operators were forced to adhere to the same regulations as passenger carrying operators it could create a wave that would ripple down and possibly affect my career in a negative way. Let's say this happened and the cargo companies were forced to hire more crews to handle the operations. A lot of the smaller companies would most likely not be able to afford the extra payroll and would have to go out of business, this would create less pilot jobs and put more pilots on the street looking for jobs which would make it harder to find a job. Another negative impact could be that the companies that would have to hire more pilots could lower the pay scale to be able to afford the increase in staffing.
Trejos, N. (2014). New pilot fatigue rules go into effect this weekend. Retrieved October 08, 2016, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2014/01/03/pilot-fatigue-mandatory-rest-new-faa-rules/4304417/
News. (2016, April 13). Retrieved on October 08, 2016, from http://cargoair.org/2016/04/setting-the-record-straight-on-all-cargo-duty-and-rest-amendment/
According to an article in USA Today written by Nancy Trejos, she states "The new regulations, which don't apply to cargo pilots, require that pilots get at least 10 hours of rest between shifts. Eight of those hours must involve uninterrupted sleep. In the past, pilots could spend those eight hours getting to and from the hotel, showering and eating. Pilots will be limited to flying eight or nine hours, depending on their departure times. They must also have 30 consecutive hours of rest each week, a 25% increase over the previous requirements." (Trejos, 2014)
The changes that were applied to the airlines were not meant for the cargo industry. For part 121 cargo operators, the current duty day hold a maximum of 16 hours, 8 of which is the maximum for flying. If there are more than 2 pilots the maximum is upped to 12 hours of flying. While the regulations are different for cargo operators, the rules are still established in the best interest for the pilots, total flying time is not what people perceive even though there may be longer duty times. The cargo industry is a 24 hour a day operation to meet operational demands and if flights are cancelled due to short duty days an entire operation may cease operations until the parts needed can arrive. The total duty day of 16 hours may seem like a lot to an airline pilot, it is normal for a cargo pilot. This is misinterpreted by some, such as Senator Barbara Boxer, that the pilots are flying all of that time and it is not safe. The pilots, in reality, have less time flying (8 hours) than those in the airlines (9 hours). According to a report done by the Cargo Airline Association, "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 crewmembers or more, cargo pilots may fly up to 12 hours. While, cargo pilots may be on duty for 16 hours, under no circumstances do they ever fly 16 hours without rest. There is a very big difference between being on duty and actual flight time flying the aircraft. These are baseline rules - the labor management contract allows for even more rest, but it's specific to each all-cargo carrier." (CAA, 2016)
I personally do not think that these rules need to change. As the CAA report also states, there have only been cargo operator accidents in the past 20 years dealing with fatigue. This is not a need for a crisis management plan to reduce duty time. Additionally, what people do not think about is that cargo pilots can claim that they are fatigued and not fly a certain trip with no repercussions. Also, changing the way the duty times work would put a kink in the hose that is on demand cargo, causing problems with the operations of the end customer.
If the cargo operators were forced to adhere to the same regulations as passenger carrying operators it could create a wave that would ripple down and possibly affect my career in a negative way. Let's say this happened and the cargo companies were forced to hire more crews to handle the operations. A lot of the smaller companies would most likely not be able to afford the extra payroll and would have to go out of business, this would create less pilot jobs and put more pilots on the street looking for jobs which would make it harder to find a job. Another negative impact could be that the companies that would have to hire more pilots could lower the pay scale to be able to afford the increase in staffing.
Trejos, N. (2014). New pilot fatigue rules go into effect this weekend. Retrieved October 08, 2016, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2014/01/03/pilot-fatigue-mandatory-rest-new-faa-rules/4304417/
News. (2016, April 13). Retrieved on October 08, 2016, from http://cargoair.org/2016/04/setting-the-record-straight-on-all-cargo-duty-and-rest-amendment/
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Professionalism in the Aviation Industry
The aviation industry is at a critical time due to the fact that there is a lack of commercial pilots these days. Some talk about the fact that there are plenty of pilots but due to the low pay at the regional airlines and even domestic majors. Others say the problem lies with the fact that there are not enough incoming pilots to replace the older retiring pilots. Honestly, I don't think there is a difference in these arguments. In my opinion, it doesn't matter what the reason is. There is a shortage of pilots and this problem needs to be fixed. Both of the problems posed are real and there needs to be a fix to both of them. Overseas companies such as ones in China are offering much more money than domestic companies. This needs to be rectified and with the ever expanding nature of the industry, I believe companies can increase the salaries that they offer. The other issue is the fact that with the low wages that are offered to new pilots, as well as the mass of hours (1500) that a new pilot must build, the aviation industry does not look as appealing to the younger generations as it used to. The initial cost of getting the needed pilot certificates will cost around $64,500 with the cost of tuition for the university as well as the room and board costing in the neighborhood of another $105,000 at the University of North Dakota, the largest public aviation program in the U.S. (Schlangenstein/Sasso 2016).
The way the current system was set up was supposed to make pilots gain more experience before being able to work as a first officer for the airlines. This I think was meant with good intentions but that the same it is hurting the industry. Not everyone wants to be an instructor after they become a commercial pilot, and a lot of people are not meant to be instructors. This leaves little options for someone to build enough hours to make it to the airlines. In addition to the 1500 hour requirement reducing the selection pool, it is also making it easy for the people who do have the hours to get hired. This means that more opportunities will be afforded to those who have the hours but would not be hired otherwise. In essence, if you have the hours required and you can fog a mirror the airlines will hire you. This is going to lead to lower quality airline pilots over time. Additionally what will affect the regional airlines is the "pool" of pilots that they have with over 1,000 hours of turbine time that the major airlines are pulling from (Croft, 2015). This is going to keep the regional airlines at a lack of proper experience.
There is a great number of professional organizations that represent aviation professionals. Much like ALPA represents airline pilots, Air Traffic Control Association (ATCA) represents air traffic controllers, American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) is the largest organization representing airport executives/managers. The list is large and covers everything from mechanics to executives, women and other minorities in the aviation industry.
Switching gears now to the topic of professionalism and what ultimately led to the crash of Colgan flight 3407. Professionalism to me is as simple as being able to conduct yourself properly in a professional atmosphere. What I believe to be the ultimate reason to bring down Colgan flight 3407 was a lack of professionalism. Professionalism, or lack there of in this case, includes the ignorance of management. During the video, flying cheap, there was an interview with an airline executive who was under the impression that pilots who make under $20,000 dollars can live no problem with having to pay for a mortgage as well as pay for a crash pad and the rest of the expenses that come with adult life. This ignorance is where the problem began with the awful quality of life for young line pilots of the time. This led to pilots not being able to afford to live near their domiciles and having to endure long commutes. This problem is what led to the crash of Colgan Air flight 3407, in combination with the pilots' lack of professionalism by confessing that they were tired and the female pilot was sick. Had they come clean with the fact that they were unfit to fly the accident might not have happened. I have learned a lot over the years about professionalism from my time in the Marine Corps, as well as my time at the university here. I intend to continue to display the level of professionalism that I have grown to know over the years. I will continue to try to set the example for others to emulate as well as following the lead of senior pilots that I work with as well as other senior people at whatever company I work for.
Shrinking Pool of Future Pilots Keeps Major Airlines on Edge. (n.d.). Retrieved September 29, 2016, from http://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-29/shrinking-pool-of-future-pilots-keeps-major-airlines-on-edge
Croft, J. (n.d.). U.S. Carriers Face Shrinking Pool Of Pilots. Retrieved September 29, 2016, from http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/us-carriers-face-shrinking-pool-pilots
The way the current system was set up was supposed to make pilots gain more experience before being able to work as a first officer for the airlines. This I think was meant with good intentions but that the same it is hurting the industry. Not everyone wants to be an instructor after they become a commercial pilot, and a lot of people are not meant to be instructors. This leaves little options for someone to build enough hours to make it to the airlines. In addition to the 1500 hour requirement reducing the selection pool, it is also making it easy for the people who do have the hours to get hired. This means that more opportunities will be afforded to those who have the hours but would not be hired otherwise. In essence, if you have the hours required and you can fog a mirror the airlines will hire you. This is going to lead to lower quality airline pilots over time. Additionally what will affect the regional airlines is the "pool" of pilots that they have with over 1,000 hours of turbine time that the major airlines are pulling from (Croft, 2015). This is going to keep the regional airlines at a lack of proper experience.
There is a great number of professional organizations that represent aviation professionals. Much like ALPA represents airline pilots, Air Traffic Control Association (ATCA) represents air traffic controllers, American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) is the largest organization representing airport executives/managers. The list is large and covers everything from mechanics to executives, women and other minorities in the aviation industry.
Switching gears now to the topic of professionalism and what ultimately led to the crash of Colgan flight 3407. Professionalism to me is as simple as being able to conduct yourself properly in a professional atmosphere. What I believe to be the ultimate reason to bring down Colgan flight 3407 was a lack of professionalism. Professionalism, or lack there of in this case, includes the ignorance of management. During the video, flying cheap, there was an interview with an airline executive who was under the impression that pilots who make under $20,000 dollars can live no problem with having to pay for a mortgage as well as pay for a crash pad and the rest of the expenses that come with adult life. This ignorance is where the problem began with the awful quality of life for young line pilots of the time. This led to pilots not being able to afford to live near their domiciles and having to endure long commutes. This problem is what led to the crash of Colgan Air flight 3407, in combination with the pilots' lack of professionalism by confessing that they were tired and the female pilot was sick. Had they come clean with the fact that they were unfit to fly the accident might not have happened. I have learned a lot over the years about professionalism from my time in the Marine Corps, as well as my time at the university here. I intend to continue to display the level of professionalism that I have grown to know over the years. I will continue to try to set the example for others to emulate as well as following the lead of senior pilots that I work with as well as other senior people at whatever company I work for.
Shrinking Pool of Future Pilots Keeps Major Airlines on Edge. (n.d.). Retrieved September 29, 2016, from http://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-29/shrinking-pool-of-future-pilots-keeps-major-airlines-on-edge
Croft, J. (n.d.). U.S. Carriers Face Shrinking Pool Of Pilots. Retrieved September 29, 2016, from http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/us-carriers-face-shrinking-pool-pilots
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
National Airspace System Privatization
The National Airspace System (NAS) was created to control all of the traffic in the sky. It is made up of all of the airspace above us, as well as the facilities and components that allow us to navigate that airspace, both ground based as well as the Global Positioning System (GPS) and satellites in the sky. In 1958 the Federal Aviation Act created the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and gave the responsibility of the NAS to the government, creating Air Traffic Control (ATC) positions. The positions cover everything from ground control to tower, clearance delivery, approach/departure, as well as terminal radar approach control (TRACON). Between all of these positions every aspect of the NAS is covered and makes up a large portion of the FAA employment base. Under the current system there are many different facilities that must be maintained by the federal government like the very high omnidirectional range (VOR), non-directional beacons (NDB), automatic direction finder (ADF) as well as satellites and other ground-based facilities that work with satellites. The FAA is weeding these ground-based navigation facilities out as they come due for maintenance. The goal is to completely convert to the Next Generation Air Traffic Control System (NextGen) to save money and increase efficiency, unlike the current system which costs a great deal to maintain as well as they do not provide the most direct routes for airplanes and leads to more fuel being needed which costs the end user more money.
This NextGen system relies on an array of digital technology linking satellite-based GPS systems directly to the cockpits of jets anywhere in the U.S. (Green, 2015). This new system will greatly reduce costs to both the federal government as well as to the end user by not requiring as much maintenance to facilities and providing more direct routes for airplanes thus saving fuel. The FAA advertises a savings of 39.7 billion dollars to the airlines in reduced fuel, crews, and the increase in flights available due to time saved. Additionally, the FAA claims that there will be a savings of 6.5 billion dollars to the government with the increased safety and reduced maintenance required.
While there are plenty of positive angles for the privatization of ATC, there are plenty of people and organizations that are against the idea of privatization. The Experimental Aircraft Association) EAA has come out with an article stating the "facts" that they foresee with this proposal (H.R. 4441).
“Let’s lay out the facts on this: moving to a privatized ATC system would not increase efficiency or safety, nor would it save any significant money,” said Jack J. Pelton, EAA CEO/chairman. “What it would do is create an additional aviation bureaucracy, since FAA would still remain, and also create a government-approved monopoly on air traffic services that is dominated by airlines and commercial aviation interests. This will hurt the safest and most complex aviation system in the world, which is why EAA is unequivocally opposed” (EAA, 2016).
Among these views, the EAA also states in the article that some of the other problems with H.R. 4441 are: Few promised savings or efficiency improvements, likely increase in costs, airline dominance of ATC governance, GA will lose services over time, and loss of government oversight. What does this all mean? Basically what the EAA is saying here is that since the airline industry is so large, they will take priority in airspace as well as the cost savings is directed mainly at them and this will lead to more costs for the GA community. The National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) feels similarly to the EAA. In an article published by the NBAA in 2016, they make it clear that the main problem for them is the "user fees" that are going to be associated with privatizing ATC.
"In a submission published Jan. 7, NBAA COO Steve Brown (a former FAA deputy administrator) told readers “a seminal moment in the UK system’s history came when the supposedly ‘stable and predictable funding stream’ that would be generated by its user fees proved to be so volatile that it needed a massive bailout from the government and taxpayers.” Brown went on to cite a UK Airport Commission report pointing to “more delays, higher fares, and reduced connectivity” at airports in London and across the UK" (NBAA, 2016).
Almost 50 countries have moved to privatizing ATC while only two other major countries have privatized ATC, Canada, and Great Britain. Neither one of these situations can be compared to ours due to the fact that air traffic is much greater in the United States than in these other two countries. Additionally there is no evidence that privatizing these countries has saved money, and in fact, the Great Britain government had to bail out the ATC industry after the 2001 terror attacks when air travel declined greatly (nytimes, 2016). The majority of funding for the private ATC comes from airline ticket tax and user fees, this is the main reason why the GA community is against the proposal, as well as Delta Airlines' lack of support.
If the privatization of ATC ever takes effect what will happen is the FAA funding will go away and the control of ATC will be released to private, not for profit, organizations while the FAA will maintain a heavy oversight of the system. The idea was proposed in the latest FAA reauthorization bill but was left out of the final draft that was approved in July so it will not take effect yet (Carey, 2016). The reauthorization is only extended until September of 2017 so talks can, and probably will resume shortly to be introduced on the next bill. Once it is passed through congress it will have to be signed into law (or vetoed) by the president.
I do not feel that the ATC system would be more efficient if it were privatized. Mainly because I think there would be conflicts in control since the FAA will still have a heavy oversight of the system. Additionally, I think that it will create rifts in the aviation community, mainly affecting the GA community as well as corporate aviation with the user fees potentially being too great for the common aviator to afford.
References:
America's Air Traffic Control System Is Finally Going Digital. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2016, from http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2015/09/28/america-s-air-traffic-control-system-is-finally-going-digital.html
ATC Privatization Brings Few Savings, Threatens General Aviation Services | EAA. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2016, from https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/02-18-2016-atc-privatization-brings-few-savings-threatens-general-aviation-services
By The Numbers Air Traffic Plans and Publications Environmental Reviews Flight Information. (n.d.). Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Retrieved September 20, 2016, from https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/
Don’t Privatize Air Traffic Control. (2016). Retrieved September 20, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/15/opinion/dont-privatize-air-traffic-control.html?_r=0
FAA Reauthorization and Modernization. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2016, from https://www.nbaa.org/advocacy/issues/modernization/20160108-nbaa-counters-pro-air-traffic-control-privatization-op-ed-with-facts.php
National Airspace System Overview. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2016, from https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/nas_redesign/regional_guidance/eastern_reg/nynjphl_redesign/documentation/feis/appendix/media/Appendix_A-National_Airspace_System_Overview.pdf
Monday, September 12, 2016
Introduction
Hi, my name is Evan, I am a CFI at Eagle Flight Centre. I became fascinated in aviation when I was a kid and have been working in the aviation industry since 2006 when I joined the Marine Corps. While serving in the Marine Corps I was a crew chief/mechanic on UH-1 Hueys and AH-1 Cobras. I accumulated over 1,000 hours on the Huey during my time and wanted to convert my knowledge to the civilian world as a pilot. I have been in the flight program at Eastern Michigan since march of 2015 and will be graduating in December. I finished my CFI certificate in July and have been working at the flight school as an instructor since then. My plan is to finish acquiring the hours necessary for my ATP certificate and work at the airlines until I have the experience required to be competitive for a job at FedEx.
The only topic that I can think of that I would like to hear about is how the pilots have chosen their company that they work for. The regional decision is a big decision and every company is different. Any advice on company selection will be of great help.
The only topic that I can think of that I would like to hear about is how the pilots have chosen their company that they work for. The regional decision is a big decision and every company is different. Any advice on company selection will be of great help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)