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,

"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

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 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.

"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

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/