Aviation Organizations

     There are numerous aviation organizations around the globe. All of these, help further involve pilots in the aviation field. Whether it be establishing connections or keeping up to date on new topics, joining an organization is always a good idea. There are only a few organizations I could see being beneficial throughout the course of my career. Two of the organizations that would be on the top of my list would be the Aircraft and Owners Pilot's Association (AOPA), and the Air Line Pilot's Association (ALPA).

   

  According to the AOPA website, their mission statement is:

We protect your freedom to fly by…

• advocating on behalf of our members,
• educating pilots, nonpilots, and policy makers alike,
• supporting activities that ensure the long-term health of General Aviation,
• fighting to keep General Aviation accessible to all, and
• securing sufficient resources to ensure our success. (AOPA, n.d.)

     To my understanding, it almost seems that the AOPA is a representative of the general aviation community. It allows recreational pilots to be able to feel that they have a say  with change being made in the industry. The AOPA also provides many services that range from insurance, to legal and medical services.

     "ALPA's mission is to promote and champion all aspects of aviation safety throughout all segments of the aviation community; to represent the collective interests of all pilots in commercial aviation; to assist in collective bargaining activities on behalf of all pilots represented by the Association; to promote the health and welfare before all governmental agencies; to be a strong, forceful advocate of the airline piloting profession; and to be the ultimate guardian and defender of the rights and privileges of the professional pilots." (ALPA, 2015) The ALPA is regarded as the largest air line pilot organization in the world. Some services ALPA offers are: aviation safety, security, pilot assistance, representation, and advocacy. The ALPA works under the same principles as the AOPA. The purpose of this organization is to give air line pilots a voice to offices that make changes in the aviation industry. It also allows air line pilots to be able to become more involved in the industry by keeping them up to date.

     Both the AOPA and the ALPA are organizations, I believe, are important to be a part of during my career. With a rapidly changing industry like aviation comes many new rules being implemented. To make sure these rules are practical to the everyday pilot is extremely important to me. If changes are going to be made, giving the people who deal with these rules a say is critical to the growth and prosperity of this industry.

SOURCES:

Aircraft Owners and Pilot Association. (n.d.) About aopa. Retrieved from https://www.aopa.org/about

National Business Aviation Association (n.d.) About nbaa. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nbaa.org/about/ 

Aviation Emissions

Aviation Emissions

     Keeping carbon emissions to a minimum, has become a major concern within recent years. there have been many new regulations implemented to make sure aviation to a minimum. Although aviation is focused on more than other forms of transportation. It seems that the aviation industry shouldn't be the primary focus. According to the Air Transport Action Group, "The global aviation industry produces around 2% of all human induced carbon-dioxide emissions." (Air Transport Action Group, 2016) When breaking this statistic down to an industry level, the number are still much lower. "Aviation is responsible for 12% of CO2 emissions from all transport sources, compared to 24% from road transport sources." ( Air Transport Action Group 2016) With these statistics given, it really does seem that the aviation industry is rather efficient in keeping carbon emissions down.  The spotlight should be put on industries that involve road transportation, which has much more contribution to carbon emissions than aviation.

     The United Nations recently came up with an agreement that would help reduce carbon emissions in the aviation sector. This became known as the Paris Agreement. The goal of this was to keep the rate of global warming under 2 degrees Celsius per year. This agreement " sets airlines' carbon emissions in 2020 as the upper limit of what carriers are allowed to discharge. Airlines that exceed that limit in future years, as most are expected to do, will have to offset their emissions growth by buying credits from other industries and projects that limit greenhouse gas emissions." (The Associated Press, 2016) It shows that the aviation industry is making a conscious effort to help reduce carbon emissions on their end.

     With President-Elect Trump in the transition process, he has given a good amount of his time talking about the Paris Agreement. Under his new plan he wants the US to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Before this speech, he had said,"He would renegotiate the global agreement involving nearly all countries, but this time he went further and said the US would pull out .The climate change deal is bad for US business and said the pact allows foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use." Since Trump is not in office yet, he hasn't been able to take any action regarding the Paris Agreement. Once he steps into office, we will be able to gain a grasp on what President-Elect Trump's intentions are.

      I personally feel that there needs to be a healthy balance between making sure that aviation carbon emissions are reduced, and that we make sure that the economy is jeopardized. As stated previously, I don't believe that the aviation industry should be the central focus on trying to cut down carbon emissions. It seems that road transportation is a much larger problem and we should work on finding away to reduce this form of emissions. I feel that is necessary to regulate emissions to an extent, but you have to make sure that the US economy does not hurt from it in return.


SOURCES:

Facts & FIGURES - Air Transport Action Group (ATAG). (n.d.). Retrieved November 18, 2016, from http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html

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

 (2016). U.N. agreement reached on aircraft emissions curbs. Retrieved November 18, 2016, from http://triblive.com/business/headlines/11267400-74/agreement-emissions-aviation

Global Airlines- Is it a fair playing ground?

     The open skies agreement is exactly as the same makes it seem. "Open Skies agreements do this by eliminating government interference in the commercial decisions of air carriers about routes, capacity, and pricing, freeing carriers to provide more affordable, convenient, and efficient air service for consumers." ( US Department of State, N.d.)  There are hundreds of companies across the world that are a part of this agreement. One of the downsides to this act is that some foreign carriers receive government subsidies. Two major carriers that receive these bonuses are Emirates and Qatar airways.

      It seems to be a split controversy, but U.S. carriers were, and still are being subsidized. "The very first large aircraft order by American Airlines was subsidized by the Reconstruction Financial Corporation. It was hardly a coincidence that future Democratic administration Secretary of Commerce C.R. Smith, then chairman of American Airlines, was best man in FDR’s son’s wedding.Delta Airlines and United both have their substantial Tokyo operations as a result of the spoils of World War II.In recent times airlines received big fuel tax breaks, and Delta has an oil refinery in Pennsylvania that received nine-figure tax breaks." (Leff, 2015) Although some airlines in the Middle East region are receiving money from their governments, US air carriers are getting many benefits that help save them money. These benefits help keep US carriers in competition with the higher end airlines from around the world.

     Another major issue rising from the Open Skies Agreement. This complaint is that foreign carriers are buying aircraft below the market interest rates. This is essentially an incentive for foreign carriers to buy american. "Those are low interest rate loans that entice foreign businesses only to buy Made in U.S.A. manufacturing. The U.S. government sees those loan programs as a way to subsidies foreign buyers of high paying U.S. jobs." (Rapoza, 2015) There shouldn't be an incentive for US air carriers to buy from their own country. In order to keep money flowing around our economy, we should invest in companies that are in the United States. This subsidy is only to get foreign carriers to buy american products. This enables job security for american aircraft manufacturers.

     Overall, I do feel that the global "playing field" of long haul carriers is fair. While some governments give money to companies for their services, the US government offers the airlines large amounts of benefits in order to stay competitive. I do not see an issue with the government also "discounting" fleets for foreign carriers. This is an easy way to make other countries want to buy our products. It also allow for job security for working men and women in the United States.

Sources:

Leff, G. (2015). US Airlines Have Received More Subsidies than Middle East Ones - View from the Wing. Retrieved November 04, 2016, from http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2015/04/08/us-airlines-have-received-more-subsidies-than-middle-east-ones/

Open Skies Agreements. (n.d.). Retrieved November 04, 2016, from http://www.state.gov/e/eb/tra/ata/

Rapoza, K. (2015, May 16). Etihad Airways Sticks it to American Airlines. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/05/16/etihad-airways-sticks-it-to-american-airlines/2/#34bd54104ffa

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/