Chinese Competitor to Boeing and Airbus?

      I do see that the Comac C919 could eventually receive FAA certification. However, it will take time. China has had struggles in the past receiving certification in the past. "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. 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)

The main issue, as of right now, is the way the CAAC and the FAA certify their aircraft. It almost seems the the FAA has seen airworthiness issue of Chinese aircraft in the past."In China, certifying products has been a learning curve, not only for the CAAC as it adds staff but also for the manufacturers attempting to win their first validations." (Lynch, 2013) China has sent many applications for aircraft in the past. Every one of these has not been able to become certified in the United States. Until the CAAC is up to par on certification standards with the FAA, Chinese aircraft will most likely continue to have their certificates delayed in the US.

     I believe once Chinese aircraft finally become certified by the FAA, the C919 will be a favorite for low budget regional airlines. Comac will have to do something in order to set their product apart from Boeing and Airbus. What I believe being the difference would be prices. Chinese products have been known for being cheaper than their American counterparts. With that in mind, many regional airlines may invest in the C919 to help cut down costs even more. The public may have a different take on a Chinese aircraft flying in the United States. The general public gets stressed enough already when they hear about aviation accidents. I think that this problem will only get worse with airlines flying new aircraft that were just recently certified. At the same time, most passengers on aircraft probably don't even know what type of aircraft they are flying on. It's hard to assume what the public will think about the C919 until it actually receives FAA certification.

     The Commercial Aircraft Corporation on China (Comac), is state owned. Comac is also government subsidized. This means that the company receives funding from the Chinese government. The C919 is not the only aircraft in the works right now. The ARJ21 in another aircraft being manufactured, and this is much farther along than the C919. " the second ARJ21 aircraft (Registration No.: B-3322) delivered to Chengdu Airlines flew from Chengdu Shuangliu International Airport and Shanghai Hongqiao Airport with 63 passengers to conduct the first commercial flight at 9:45 am on October 13th, 2016. The aircraft landed at Shanghai Hongqiao Airport successfully at 11:59 am." (Comac, 2016) I think that this flight ultimately helps pleads China's case that it can make an economical and safe aircraft.

     Once Comac's aircraft do become certified, I think it would be very hard for it to set itself apart from competitors. Airbus and Boeing have both been in the business for a very long time. Jumping into an industry with two very established and well known companies may be tough on Comac. The aircraft is already heavier then their counterparts and the engines work at about the same caliber. "The C919’s total weight wasn’t planned to be lighter than comparable Boeing's or Airbuses', and Aviation Week says the first assembled plane is heavier than forecast. The efficiency of the engines, produced by a GE  joint venture with France’s Safran called CFM, was not forecast to be better than the competition either. (Cendrowski, 2016) With all of this into consideration, I don't feel that airlines will be rushing to buy the C919. The best chance Comac has at making a profit, would be to sell their aircraft elsewhere. They should try and boost their reputation before trying to enter the US market. That way, the company would have a greater track record, and can be shown to compete with Boeing and Airbus.

SOURCES:

Cendrowski, S. (2016, February 16). China’s Answer To Boeing Loses Shine. Retrieved October 28, 2016, from http://fortune.com/2016/02/16/china-comac-c919-delay-delivery/

Lynch, K. (2015, March 14). Certification Crunch in China. Retrieved October 28, 2016, from http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2015-03-14/certification-crunch-china

Perrett, B. (2013, December 16). C919 May Be Largely Limited To Chinese Market | AWIN ... Retrieved October 28, 2016, from http://aviationweek.com/awin/c919-may-be-largely-limited-chinese-market

The second China-made ARJ21 aircraft completes the first ... (n.d.). Retrieved October 28, 2016, from http://english.comac.cc/news/latest/201610/18/t20161018_4392030.shtml

The Commercial Space Industry

     The idea of space tourism came about around the time of the Cold War. As the United States and Russia were racing to put a man on the moon, both countries were practicing by launching satellites into space. With a new frontier being uncovered, the general public wanted to visit space themselves. Although space tourism is not available to the general public right now, some wealthy individuals helped show space tourism is a reality. The whole idea began on April 28th, 2001. "On that date, American businessman Dennis Tito became history's first space tourist, paying his own way to the International Space Station aboard a Russian Soyuz spacecraft." (Wall, 2011) Though this is a major accomplishment, there are still many obstacles ahead for the industry. It is very expensive. Tito, "plunked down a reported $20 million for his flight." (Wall 2011). With the price being that high, it is near impossible for anyone in the general public to enjoy this luxury. It also requires a lot of money to research the technology required to conduct such practices. Space tourism also requires a lot of natural resources in order to acquire materials for the rockets. With that being said, the space program is not good for the environment, and is very expensive.

     As of right now, public travel to space is not permitted. The FAA is in charge of all commercial space operations, There are a limited number of rules a regulations set on the space industry. One major law was the Commercial Space Act of 1997. This act states, "to amend the earlier Commercial Space Launch Act to license commercial space transportation vehicles to reenter Earth's atmosphere and return space payloads to Earth." (Collins, 1998) Other regulations help maintain the amount of space debris the re-enters Earth's Atmosphere. 

     Currently, I believe that we are only scratching the surface with commercial space travel. Like all other new technologies, I would like to see the space industry become reality within 25 years.  In that time frame, I think that commercial industry will be a luxury only. It could be a faster way to travel around the globe. It may take more time and trials to see if commercial space travel would be a safe and viable means of travel. The industry needs more time to mature before people can try and achieve this goal.

      There are certain qualification's a person must meet in order to consider working in the space industry. The FAA states that the pilot must have a certificate with an instrument rating. Along with this, there pilot's must also have a current first class medical in their possession. 

     Given the high-altitude of suborbital flight, pilots and passengers will doubtless wear pressure            suits, so previous experience and training in operating aircraft while wearing a pressure suit (as is        the case for fighter pilots) will be a desirable pilot attribute. Another desirable qualification will be      extensive training in emergency procedures and crew coordination, something shared by both              commercial airline and fighter pilots. However, since suborbital flight involves high speeds, it            could make sense to select pilots with experience in jet fighters, which also travel at high speed          and require quick decision making. (Goelich, 2011) 

This almost seems as if the requirements, from a pilot's perspective, are very basic. This may be due to the face the the industry is still fairly new. Once it begins to mature and become a viable source of transportation, I feel the qualifications will become more strict.

Sources:

Collins, P. (1998, October 28). Space Future - Legal and Regulatory Issues for Passenger ... Retrieved October 21, 2016, from http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/legal_and_regulatory_issues_for_passenger_space_travel.shtml

Goehlich, R. (2014, April). Pilots For Space Tourism. Retrieved October 21, 2016, from http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=ww-graduate-studies

The pros and cons of space tourism - Travel Guide by Dr ... (n.d.). Retrieved October 21, 2016, from http://drprem.com/travel/pros-cons-space-tourism/

Wall, M. (2011, April 27). First Space Tourist: How a U.S. Millionaire Bought a ... Retrieved October 21, 2016, from http://www.space.com/11492-space-tourism-pioneer-dennis-tito.html

     

Current Status of UAV's

     The use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV's) has been on the steady rise in recent years. They are used by the military for multiple purposes, and even recreational activity by civilians. As of right now, there is not a practical use for UAV's in the United States. They are used for mainly recreation. You can buy UAV's at electronic or hobby shops. They come in a variety of sizes and have special features that may meet specific needs for the consumer. UAV's are currently under regulation as well. "People can fly model airplanes without restriction, but it is illegal to operate a drone as a civilian above 400 feet and beyond line of sight for any commercial reason unless they have received permission from the Federal Aviation Administration." (Epatko, 2013) The reason that UAV's are required to stay at or below 400 feet is due to collision avoidance with manned aircraft that are in the area. Recreational UAV's tend to be fairly small in size. With that in mind, pilot's may have trouble finding a drone while flying. There also isn't a way for drone pilots to communicate with aircraft pilots. Civilian drones do not come with a headset which would allow you to talk to ATC or aircraft traffic in a given area. Since there is no communication, there is no guarantee of visual separation of aircraft and drones except for the 400 foot ceiling. "Operators must fly under daytime Visual Flight Rules, keep the UAS within visual line of sight of the pilot and stay certain distances away from airports or heliports." (FAA, 2016) This extension to the regulation helps with traffic separation as well. Aircraft operate at very low altitudes near airports, Since drone pilots are not authorized to operate near airports, this also helps mitigate the chances of an aerial collision between an aircraft and a drone. 

     I don't see UAV's being integrated into the NAS fairly soon, but they could be opted in within the near future. Drone pilots in the military are able to talk with controllers and other aircraft they are flying with. On the other side of the spectrum, recreational drones do not have this capability. They are just like any other remote control vehicle with the acception of a camera. There has to be a way for drone pilots and aircraft pilots to be able to call out positions, as well as being able to track drones on radar before they should be able to fly in the national air space.

     Drones have been found to be fairly effective on the battlefield. They can serve simple purposes such as reconnaissance. Pilots can operate drones at the safety of their base, or even be small enough for infantry to carry for scouting unknown areas. "So if you go back to World War II, it took weeks if not, generally, months to go out and conduct the reconnaissance, then do the analysis of the reconnaissance to then determine what it is you wanted to hit. So between the time you acquired a target and hit it - months. In Vietnam, it was weeks. In Desert Storm, it was days. Now you take what's nominally known as the targeting cycle and compress that cycle from months to weeks to days to now single-digit minutes." (Deptula, 2014) UAV's can also serve as support aircraft. The can be outfitted with anti personnel missles to provide support for infantry. I do believe they are used efficiently. They are able to provide support and attack roles without putting lives at stake.

     There are countless number of jobs that a UAV pilots can find themselves in everyday life. Most of these are for aerial photography. Drones enable a quick way to take pictures for planning certain building projects, farmland, etc. Being able to take a small aircraft up for 30 minutes to take a few pictures is quick and easy money. It is also very practical. Although the industry is small, it is also new. There will be a much higher demand for UAV's for everyday business practices in the near future.

Sources:

By The Numbers Air Traffic Plans and Publications Environmental Reviews Flight Information. (2016, March 29). FAA Doubles "Blanket" Altitude for Many UAS Flights. Retrieved October 14, 2016, from https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=85264

Epatko, L. (n.d.). How Are Drones Used in the U.S.? Retrieved October 14, 2016, from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/how-are-drones-used-in-us/

How Drones Changed Modern Warfare. (2014, September 21). Retrieved October 14, 2016, from http://www.npr.org/2014/09/21/350316088/how-drones-changed-modern-warfare

Flight and Rule Duty Changes

     After the Colgan accident, new studies were conducted on how fatigue effects the pilots ability to efficiently do work. The FAA came out with new regulations to limit work shifts for pilots to combat fatigue. A list is given on the FAA website, laying out what new rules have been implemented in order to combat fatigue. Some of these new rules are," flight time limits of eight or nine hours, 10-hour minimum rest period,new cumulative flight duty and flight time limits, and fitness for duty" (FAA, 2011) Essentially, these changes were created to make air travel safer. Many pilots before these would go to work on barely any sleep. General fatigue makes a pilots workload less manageable than if he were well rested. The FAA finally saw that there was an issue with fatigue that needed to be resolved. The FAA gives a table on their website, showing the differences between the old and new flight and duty regulations. For example the old regulations stance on rest periods states that a rest period, " can be 9 hours reducible to 8 hours of rest. Does not factor in sleep opportunity." (Duquette, 2011) With the change in place, the rule says that, " A rest period requires 10 hour rest period of which 8 hours is an uninterrupted sleep opportunity." (Duquette, 2011) This, along with all the other changes, made a dramatic impact on aviation safety.

     Although these changes were set in place for the airlines, the cargo industry was not effected.  The rules were set in place to be mandatory for the airlines, and voluntary for cargo carriers. The reason I believe this is the case is because cargo carries are much less likely to suffer from fatigue than the airlines. The Cargo Airline Associtation states, "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." (CAA, 2016)  The cargo carriers already operate on lower daily flight times. There really isn't a need for them to change this if their method is already effective in limiting fatigue. Cargo carriers have seen much less accidents than the airlines. For example, " NTSB statistics disclose that, over the last 20 years, there have been only two cargo accidents where fatigue was listed as the cause or a contributing factor.  Neither of these accidents would have been prevented by the new Part 117 passenger rules." (CAA, 2016) This statement alone shows that the cargo airlines are able to prevent fatigue from becoming an issue in their industry. 

     I also do believe that money plays a part as well. The cargo industry works 24 hours a day, everyday. With that being said, creating new rules to limit pilots duty time would be detrimental to the industry. Rather than bringing in millions of dollars annually, the industry would be in debt. "The estimated cost of this rule to the aviation industry is $297 million but the benefits are estimated between $247- $470 million.  Covering cargo operators under the new rule would be too costly compared to the benefits generated in this portion of the industry." (FAA, 2011) Even though money plays an important part in driving the industry, safety is also thought about. The industry is able to generate money, and keep risks lower than the airlines.

    Overall, I do not think it is necessary for the cargo carriers to opt in to these new rules and regulations.This industry is able to effectively keep pilots well rested, keep risk factors low, and bring in revenue. There is no sense in changing something if there is no issue to be addressed.

    I do not really know if my career would be impacted if cargo carries opted into these rules. When I graduate, my plan is to go to the regionals. From there, I would like to move my way up into the major, and fly international. I don't really see myself ever working for cargo. Plans do change and life happens however. I could see the cargo industry taking a hit from these rules. Shipments across the world would be delayed because pilots would be there to fly them overseas. It could even cause job cuts and a loss of businesses involved in cargo. I personally could end up becoming a huge loss for cargo.

SOURCES:

By The Numbers Air Traffic Plans and Publications Environmental Reviews Flight Information. (2011, December 21). Press Release – FAA Issues Final Rule on Pilot Fatigue. Retrieved October 07, 2016, from https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=13272

Duquette, A. (2011, December 21). Fact Sheet – Pilot Fatigue Rule Comparison. Retrieved October 07, 2016, from http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=13273

News. (2016, April). Retrieved October 07, 2016, from http://www.cargoair.org/2016/04/setting-the-record-straight-on-all-cargo-duty-and-rest-amendment/