Professionalism, Final Blog Post

For this final blog post of the Fall of 2016 semester, I would like to readdress the topic of professionalism in the aviation industry. Professionalism has shown an improvement in the United States in the years following the Flying Cheap documentary. This could be due to increased pilot wages, or could even be due to improved flight and duty restrictions. We are fortunate to have all of these measures in place as it is improving quality of life, and more importantly saving lives. A recent event has brought to light that other countries are not fortunate enough to have the same or similar measures in place. A British-made Avro RJ85, chartered by the Bolivian Charter company, LaMia, crashed in the Andes Mountains just miles away from the airport in Medellín, Columbia. After researching, a number of aspects surrounding the accident reflect a complete lack in professionalism. All we have been hearing on the news, is the aircraft ran out of fuel. This may or may not have been the direct issue, but the complete disregard for safety, and lack of professionalism in an industry that demands it, extends far beyond what we see right on the surface.

The investigation is still under way regarding the RJ85, but based upon examining the wreckage, experts in aviation can make a well formulated opinion as to how the aircraft may have crashed. All signs so far point to either an electrical issue, fuel starvation, or even both. When the pilot spoke to ATC, he first requested priority to land based upon stating the aircraft had complete electrical failure. The pilot quickly followed with stating that the aircraft was out of fuel. All of these statements are based upon a recording that, “A spokesman from Colombia’s aviation agency said it could not confirm the authenticity of the recording.” (Casey, MacKenna, 2016) Due to the lack of authenticity, “Authorities have avoided naming a specific cause for the crash yet. But the lack of explosion suggested the plane ran out of fuel.” (Jansen, 2016) All of this demonstrates a lack of professionalism. There is never an excuse to run out of fuel. That is the entire reason that when flight plans are filed, they are filed with 45 minutes of reserve fuel. This leads us right into the next, and blatant example of no professionalism at all. There is no chance that there was 45 minutes of reserve fuel calculated into the fuel burn for the trip. “The Avro RJ85 jet has a range of about 1,600 nautical miles, close to the distance of the flight from Santa Cruz, Bolivia, to Medellín, Colombia.” (Casey, MacKenna, 2016) This leaves no extra fuel for holding, or any diversions due to weather. The flight did have an alternate (Bogota) filed which happened to be along the route of flight. “If the pilot had any concerns about fuel, he knew to land in Bogota about 250 miles south of Medellin.” (Li, 2016) No matter what the ultimate cause of the accident was, there is no doubt that the absence of professionalism has created a clear line of faulty decisions leading up to the accident.

The other example I have that demonstrates the nonexistence of professionalism is how the company, La Mia, reacted following the accident. It is fair to assume that all of their lines of communication, following the accident would be getting blown up by anyone and everyone.  There was no immediate response to an email to LaMia. In an article from the NY Times, the author states, “The company’s website had been taken down, and its telephone had been disconnected.” (Casey, MacKenna, 2016) This, in my opinion demonstrates that the company is not willing to cooperate with news outlets which, whether accurate or not, can lead someone to think the company may be at fault.

This current event in aviation demonstrates to us the absence of professionalism, just as many aviation accidents and incidents preceding it do. What I find the most beneficial with looking deeper into this accident, is that it is never just one person’s fault. With that said though, there hasn’t been a definitive cause of accident listed by the authorities investigating. The cause of accident very well could have been an electrical issue, but whether it was or not, it doesn’t change the fact that there were indeed examples of poor performance within the charter company. As aviation professionals, the best thing we can do, is look at and learn from this accident, just as we have with the Flying Cheap documentary.

References

Casey, N. & MacKenna, E., (2016, November 30) Doomed jet carrying brazilian team reportedly ran out of fuel. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/world/americas/plane-crash-brazil-colombia-soccer-fuel.html?_r=0

Jansen, B. (2016, December 2) Pilot told Colombia controllers plane ran out of fuel before crash. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/11/30/pilot-told-colombia-controllers-no-fuel-before-crash/94677866/

Li, David K. (2016, November 30) Plane carrying Brazilian soccer team might have run out of fuel. Retrieved from http://nypost.com/2016/11/30/plane-carrying-brazilian-soccer-team-might-have-run-out-of-fuel/   

Job Plans and Topic Review

At the beginning of this course, I have expressed interest in flight instructing, joining the Air National Guard, and I have also expressed an interest in corporate aviation. All of these avenues in aviation fulfill different aspects of the industry that I would like to become immersed in. I have interest in flight instruction because I really do believe that to be the best pilot you can be, you should know the material so well, that you could teach it. I am fascinated with the idea of flying in the Air National Guard for the opportunity to fly some of the most advanced, and impressive aircraft in the world. I stated in my introductory blog post that I have an obsession with the A-10 Thunderbolt II, and nothing has changed there. The life of the A-10 has indefinitely been extended, and that was very good news to me. My interest in corporate aviation is there due to the beauty of the aircraft flown in that sector of the industry. My job plans really haven’t changed all that much. I still find passion in the same, previously mentioned avenues in the aviation industry. The only thing that may have changed, is that I am not ass turned off to the idea of flying for an airline. It is an economically sound decision at the moment, and as long as I am flying I will be happy.

Upon graduating, I will like to start flight instructing. While doing this, I will be applying anywhere that interests me. There are a lot of interesting pilot jobs available, and even if it doesn’t fit into my future plans I have right now, I will always be down to try something new and interesting. The ultimate goal will be to build flight time to get the job that I could consider my career.

I found all of the topics that we discussed useful in their own ways. They all have valuable information to help aim me towards a successful career. The topic that I found the most useful though, is the post on the commercial space industry. I don’t express a whole lot of interest in commercial space, but as a quickly emerging market, I think it’s important that I am aware, and stay up to date with advancements made. When it becomes a viable way to travel, whether for a once and a lifetime experience, or for international travel, they will be looking for a lot of certificated pilots to fly for them. I bet the pay would be pretty impressive as well.

I would have to say that the least useful topic that we covered would be the post on aviation emissions. I do think it is something to not take lightly, but aircraft and engine manufacturers have already been making impressive changes to the efficiency of aircraft and their engines. I didn’t really find much interest in the topic, but as I just stated, it is a topic worth being aware of.   

Aviation Organizations

In the world of aviation, there are numerous organizations that were formed for the purpose of assisting and improving members in every branch of the industry. Members have the ability to feel more connected, up to date, and more safe in the industry they have chosen to follow their passion, and/or their career path. Two of these organizations are The Aircraft Owners and Pilot Association (AOPA) and the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA). It is important to belong to organizations such as these because they offer numerous advantages to the pilots, and professionals who belong to the organizations. The organization can serve as a medium of expressing the opinion of the members involved, and allows the members’ voices to be heard more clearly by the industry leaders.

AOPA is an aviation organization which is, “Hundreds of thousands strong and spanning 75 countries’ representing, ‘the largest aviation community in the world.” (APOA, n.d) The mission of AOPA 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.)

 AOPA offers a variety of services to members including insurance and financing options, as well as both legal and medical services. The AOPA is one of the most influential organizations. It serves as the voice of general aviation and allows for pilots to have the most freedom in the industry.

The NBAA is an organization that allows business aviation to thrive. The mission statement of the NBAA’s purpose is, “To foster an environment that allows business aviation to thrive in the United States and around the world.” (“About NBAA”, n.d.) The NBAA was formed, “To help make their businesses more efficient, productive and successful.” (“About NBAA”, n.d.) Both the NBAA and the AOPA are in place to foster the development of general aviation. In the past they have worked in tandem to promote certain things in aviation, or to convey a need for change.

It is, as seen above, very important to belong to organizations such as the AOPA and NBAA. These organizations provide a voice, and consultation to the members. The aviation industry is a quickly changing industry, where it is necessary for the voices of the people in it to be heard. With these organizations, the industry is more productive and cooperative.

References 

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 from https://www.nbaa.org/about/ 

Global Emissions

Aviation’s contribution to the overall emissions that are harming our globe, is relatively small in comparison to the large scope of the industries burning fossil fuels. After researching briefly what the aviation industry’s contribution is to the overall emissions in our atmosphere, I was fairly surprised by how minute the amount is. It is stated by the Air Transport Action Group that, “Aviation is responsible for 12% of CO2 emissions from all transports sources, compared to 74% from road transport.” (“Facts & Figures” n.d.) This shows that the public perception of the pollution caused by aviation is drastically overestimated. With the number of passengers carried on average by aircraft, the fuel spent is much more efficient, since the average occupancy is 80 percent larger than any other transportation. If we want to view the greenhouse gas emissions on a much larger scale than just transportation emissions, we can see that transportation only makes up 26% of the overall gasses released. (Aviation making up 12% of that 26%) The remainder of the gasses are caused by other human activities. The EPA states that, “The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities in the United States is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation.” (“Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions” n.d.) Electricity holds the highest percentage of overall emissions, at 30%.

The UN has recently come to an agreement regarding aviation emissions. The agreement focuses specifically on international airline industry. The idea is that the emissions from airlines in the year 2020 will become the upper limit of what carriers would be allowed to release. Any airline that exceeds their number in years following must offset their emissions by purchasing credits from other industries who are more reserved with their emissions. The agreement will have two portions involved with the adoption and implementation of this plan. From the year 2021 to 2027, countries will have the option to comply with the set forth guidelines, and from 2028 through 2035, every involved country will be required to be compliant. 65 countries have stated they will participate in the first option portion; this includes the United States, China, and the EU’s 44 nation aviation conference. As of right now, Russia and India have showed a lack of interest in participation. The idea of the agreement is to limit carbon emissions by capping it, while continuing to reduce the emission we produce. The goal is to keep global warming below a 2-degree rise.

The emission reductions included in the Paris Agreement do not appear to be in good standing with our recently elected president of the United States. “Mr. Trump has already vowed to “cancel” last year’s Paris climate agreement, which commits more than 190 countries to reduce their emissions of planet-warming carbon dioxide pollution, and to dismantle the Clean Power Plan, Mr. Obama’s domestic climate change regulations.” (Davenport, 2016) Whether Trump is able to, or really wants to withdraw the United States from this environment change agreement has yet to really been seen yet. I think that if there is actual concern for the future of our planet, we will stay compliant with rules set with the environment in mind.

I believe that some sort of environmental protection laws is definitely necessary. I like the idea of capping the emissions in order to ensure that is the highest peak in pollution. We can see that our human activities have had a negative impact on the planet. All we need to do is look at the research done, and the observations made by great scientists (Such as Bill Nye who has put a lot of time and effort into the subject of global warming) to see that something needs to be done. Aviation may be at the rear end of industry emissions, but every little bit counts, and it is not a bad idea to lead by example.

References

Davenport, C. (2016, November 10). Donald trump could put climate change on course for ‘danger zone’. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/politics/donald-trump-climate-change.html?_r=0

Facts & Figures. (n.d). Facts & figures. Retrieved from http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html

EPA. (n.d.) Sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Global Airlines, A fair playground?

An Open Skies Agreement between two countries, allows the respective country’s airline, either cargo or passenger operations, land at a foreign airport without excessive interference from the foreign country's government. Without the agreements, a single flight to a country can prove to be a time consuming, rigorous annoyance. With the agreement, there are no issues with, “commercial decisions of air carriers about routes, capacity, and pricing, freeing carriers to provide more affordable, convenient, and efficient air service for consumers.” (“Open Skies Agreements”, n.d.) The Open Skies Agreement between the United States, and the United Arab Emirates is currently experiencing issues. The three big US airlines, (Delta, American and United) have experiences a reduction in fares on routes they share with the Middle Eastern Gulf air carriers. This prompted an accusation by the US carriers, claiming the gulf carriers are accepting government subsidies, and that it is having anti-competitive effects. “The Americans alleged that Gulf governments had provided $42 billion in subsidies to their airlines, contrary to open skies aviation agreements.” (Kane, 2016). Emirates, Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways are the airlines in question, yet they deny the claims of government subsidization. Emirates seems to be unfazed by the accusations. They see the US claims simply as a way for them to regain the customers they have been losing to the gulf carriers. In a statement made by Emirates, they state:

“It is disturbing that Delta, United and American presume they and their partners are entitled to their existing share of traffic, as if they own their customers, when they don’t make a corresponding effort to improve their service and product proposition to win consumers’ hearts and wallets.” (Kane, 2016)

The Gulf region views the reaction of the big three US carriers as a narrow-minded view, thinking only of their company, and not of the economy as a whole.

The “Big Three” carriers have all their weight resting on the claim that the gulf carriers are violating the open skies agreement by accepting government subsidies, yet in Emirates’ rebuttal statement, they make a counter claim that, “The Legacy Carriers come to this debate with unclean hands.” (“Emirates’ Response to Claims”, n.d.) The statement of Emirates goes into detail by saying the following:

They have received billions of dollars of government support, including U.S. Government assumption of airline pension obligations, airline stabilization grants, loan guarantees, grandfathering of airport slots, bankruptcy relief from debt and other obligations, direct grants and tax exemptions to support airport development, grants of antitrust immunity to form market-dominant alliances, protection of the U.S. market from foreign competition, and the prohibition against majority foreign ownership. (“Emirates Response to Claims”, n.d.)

It is said that the US carriers have accepted over 100 billion dollars since 2002, proving that the United States is fighting against something that they, themselves are guilty of.

Another complaint, and issue faced by domestic airlines, is that foreign carriers are purchasing American aircraft, such as Boeing products, below market interest rates, causing them to be saving about 12 million more than the domestic carriers, who do not have the same interest rates available to them. This is made possible for the foreign carriers through the Export-Import Bank. The purpose of the Bank is to promote the sale, and facilitate the export of American goods, as to support American jobs, and improve the American economy. The Export-Import Bank, or EXIM describe what they do as:

EXIM fills in the gap for American businesses by equipping them with the financing tools necessary to compete for global sales. In doing so, the Bank levels the playing field for U.S. goods and services going up against foreign competition in overseas markets, so that American companies can create more good-paying American jobs. (“About Us”, n.d.)

The Export-Import Bank performs its duty by making it possible and providing incentive for foreign carriers to purchase American aircraft. The US airlines are angry that they pay more per aircraft, yet the whole system is in place, not to help an individual airline, but to put more money into the United States economy.

After reviewing the information gathered above, it is apparent that global “playing field” of the long-haul carriers is not fair. In business, almost nothing is fair, and both the US carriers, and the gulf carriers are global businesses. I do think the Open Skies Agreement should definitely make the playing field more fair, as that is the purpose of it, but it is clear that there are corners cut and misinterpretation of the agreement on the behalf of both parties. The Export-Import Bank issue, itself, does not seem unfair to me. As I stated, the purpose is to improve the US Economy, and it is doing just that. It may place foreign carriers at an advantage on a global scale, but no one is cheating the other in regards to the bank. Both the US Airlines and the Middle Eastern Airlines are very successful businesses, but to become more fair, I think they will have to find more respect for one another, yet the odds of that are slim.

References

About Us. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.exim.gov/about/

 Emirates’ response to claims raised about state-owned airlines in Qatar and the United Arab
            Emirates. (2015, June 29). Retrieved from http://content.emirates.com/downloads
            /ek/pdfs/openskies_rebuttal/EK_Response_Main.pdf

Kane, F. (2016, January 30). Open skies dispute between US and Gulf airlines escalates.
            Retrieved from http://www.thenational.ae/business/aviation/open-skies-dispute-between-
            us-and-gulf-airlines-escalates

Open Skies Agreements. (n.d.). Open skies agreements. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/e/eb/tra/ata/

A Chinese Competitor to Boeing and Airbus

It does seem likely that Comac’s C919 will eventually receive FAA Certification. There is no doubt that this will take some time. Currently, the Chinese are having difficulty with the certification of their regional jet, the ARJ21-700 as well. The ARJ entered service this past June and has not received any FAA certifications; However, “The ARJ-21 was never intended to be certificated by the FAA.” (“China’s Comac aims for first C919 flight”, 2016) They plan to offer a derivative version of the aircraft to be certified by the FAA. Comac is not doing themselves any favors regrading certifying the aircraft in the United States. Within the past few years, Comac has accumulated C919 work that has little to no FAA involvement. The issue that arises, is whether the FAA will recognize this work that has been done. As this continues, “The FAA's confidence can only decline as the volume of unrecognized work rises.” (Perrett, 2013) Even with these apparent setbacks, there is still a good chance of FAA certification. In an email, the FAA was reported to have said that, “The FAA enjoys a good working relationship with CAAC and we continue to work together to develop a path to work towards certification of the derivative model of the ARJ-21 and, possibly, the C919.” (Govindasamy and Miller, 2015) Even though there are difficulties with the manufacturing process, the FAA, “Could certify an airplane after it enters service if it can be shown to comply with all relevant airworthiness and manufacturing standards.” (Govindasamy and Miller, 2015) Many of Comac’s customers are requesting FAA certification for their aircraft, even though they will be flying domestically in China. It is in Comac’s best interest to insure the FAA blessing. With the right means, I do believe the C919 will find its way to certification.

If the C919 receives certification in the United States, I can see some issues presented through language and culture barriers. I do not believe this will present too large of an issue though. If Comac is interested in selling their product to carriers around the world, I would think that they would have all manuals, and other such items made available for their foreign buyers. Initially, the companies may have to send their pilots to China to become typed for the aircraft, although, along with everything else, I am sure that everything needed for a type rating will shortly be made available in the United States. If we look at this in terms of public perception, I do not think there will be any issues presented at all. When the general public goes to the airport, they are not checking to see where the aircraft they are boarding was manufactured. It is not that common of knowledge, to someone outside the field of aviation, that Airbus is a European company, headquartered in France. The same applies for Embraer, a Brazilian based company.

The Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, (Comac) is a state owned, and government subsidized aircraft manufacturer. The relationship with Chinese airlines appears to be good. All the orders for Comac’s aircraft are by Chinese air carriers. The relationship with the customer pool is relatively irrelevant as of now. All of, “China’s “major airlines are state-owned, which gives the ruling party a captive pool of potential customers that can be ordered to buy Chinese-made aircraft.” (Mutzabaugh, 2016) As previously stated, Comac has a regional jet, the ARJ 21-700, that they manufacturer as well. This aircraft is farther along than the C919, as it has already had its maiden flight. An article by USA Today states that the, “Regional jet is part of China’s effort to become a major player in the commercial aircraft market.” (Mutzabaugh, 2016)

If the C919 does receive FAA certification, I think that it would still be difficult for it to become a competitor to Boeing or Airbus products. Both Boeing and Airbus are long established companies, and to be a company just emerging into the manufacturing business, they will have to spend some time with government subsidized Chinese companies as their main base of customers, before they will be able to branch out and compete with the rest of the world. Whether in response to the progress of the C919 or not, both Boeing and Airbus, “Launched new versions of the A320 and 737 with engines the same as or similar to the CFM Leap 1 on Comac's aircraft.” (Perrett, 2013) This is making it increasingly difficult for Comac to become a legitimate competitor to the two kings of the industry. The best shot Comac would have for selling their aircraft to foreign companies, would be to offer it at a significantly lower price than the alternative aircraft. Everything in aviation is finding where money can be saved, and Comac has potential to offer a solution. We will have to watch and see what happens throughout the next few years.

References

China’s comac aims for first C919 Flight. (2016, February 24). China’s comac aims for first C919 flight by early 2017: sources. Retrieved from https://tiananmenstremendousachievements.wordpress.com/tag/c919/

Govindasamy, S., Miller, M. (2015, October 21). Exclusive: china-made regional jet set for delivery, but no U.S. certification. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-aircraft-arj21-exclusive-idUSKCN0SF2XN20151021

Mutzabaugh, B. (2016, June 30). Now flying: china's first modern passenger jet enters service. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2016/06/30/now-flying-chinas-first-modern-passenger-jet-enters-service/86549178/

Perrett, B. (2013, December 16). C919 may be largely limited to chinese market. Retrieved from http://aviationweek.com/awin/c919-may-be-largely-limited-chinese-market

The Commercial Space Industry

The idea of space travel is an idea that humans shared for a long time, up until it was accomplished in 1968. It was then, that this idea of space travel changed form. This dream morphed itself into a dream of “space tourism.” The idea was to take the moon landing a step farther, and take private citizens to the moon, and to do so in a more comfortable and luxurious fashion. This idea belonged to Pan Am airlines, who, “announced plans for commercial flights to the moon – and they were so confident it would happen soon, they started a waiting list. And so the “First Moon Flights” Club was born” (“Pan Am and the Waiting List”, n.d.) This club attracted more than 93,000 members over the next 20 years. Even though they were accepting members, Pan Am did not have many details figured out. It turned out that their dream was a little ahead of the time they lived in, and therefore was a little too high to reach. (ha-ha, get it?) It wasn’t until 2001, that commercial spaceflight became a reality. It is stated by Mike Wall, of space.com that, “If the era of commercial spaceflight has a birthday, it's April 28, 2001.” (Wall, 2011) It was then, that Dennis Tito, a wealthy American, partnered with Space Adventures, who brokered Tito’s flight with Russia’s Federal Space Agency. His mission lasted 8 days and took him to the International Space Station. Although possible, The mission to the International Space Station was not cost effective. Dennis Tito, “plunked down a reported $20 million for his flight.” (Wall, 2011) To expand on the development and price of commercial space travel, we can look back and see that, “the last decade has seen the first leisure travelers to space . Since 2001, seven individuals have purchased eight orbital flights (one passenger flew twice) for approximately $20 to $35 million per flight.” (Lubin, 2012) This extreme price has presented the main hurdle for the commercial space industry. The industry, however, is making extraordinary attempts to make space travel much more accessible for more of the public. Currently, the pricing for a trip to space is around $200,000 and $250,000. “The price has fallen by over 99 percent in a decade.” (Lubin, 2012) To the general public, like many of us, look at $250,000 and still think that is way too far out of reach, yet when you analyze this as a 99 percent drop, it is jaw dropping to see the advancement of the industry.
  

The current legislation that rules commercial space flight is one that limits the regulation of the industry. The idea, is to, “unite law with innovation, allowing the next generation of pioneers to experiment, learn and succeed without being constrained by premature regulatory action.” (Foust, 2015) This bill, named the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, was passed November 16, 2015. The legislation will allow the young industry to have time to reach its potential. I do feel that this hands off, minimally restrictive approach, is a well thought out and wise decision to promote the expansion of an industry that will potentially bring in a lot of money to the US economy. I do think once the industry is considered up and running, that more restrictive regulations will be required. This would be necessary to promote the safety of the public.     

I can see the commercial space industry becoming accessible to the public within the next 15 years. The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act extends the limitation of regulation through 2023, which is seven years from now. Once established, I can’t see it taking more than three years for them to start making a profit from taking private citizens into space. As of right now, or within the next 15-20 years, I don’t think that Commercial space will be anything more than a once in a lifetime opportunity for the public. My logic is based upon what the pricing is for a trip to space. If it is currently $200,000 to travel to space, I don’t think it will become accessible enough to serve as a form of transportation similar to commercial airline travel within the next 50 years. I will not say that it will never be possible to use space travel this form of transportation. It was said that it is impossible to fly, but we did that. People said that I would be impossible to break the sound barrier, and we did that. It was also said that it would be impossible to send astronauts to space, and just like every other advancement in aviation, we did that. There is no doubt in my mind, that someday commercial space travel will be considered the most efficient way to travel. As sad as it is to say, if the world becomes involved in another global war, the timeline for space travel accessibility will shorten drastically. The greatest advancements in aviation are due to the advancements of war, and space travel, in my opinion, would behave identically.

There are some fairly strict qualifications to even be considered for the opportunity to fly a suborbital spacecraft. Virgin Galactic is looking for pilots for their spacecraft, which is currently in the middle of flight tests. It is stated that, “although astronaut experience is preferred, it’s not necessary. But if you’re not an experienced test pilot, don’t bother.” (“Dozens apply for space pilot jobs”, 2011) The qualifications for these pilots are the following:

• U.S. citizenship (to satisfy export regulations).
• A current FAA commercial (or equivalent) pilot license and FAA medical clearance.
• Degree-level qualification in a relevant technical field.
• Graduate of a recognized test pilot school, with at least two and a half years of postgraduate flight test experience.
• Diverse flying background with a minimum of 3,000 hours flying, to include considerable experience of large multi-engine aircraft and high-performance fast jet aircraft and low lift-to-drag experience in complex aircraft.
• Operational experience in an aerospace aviation project or business.
• Preference given to those with experience in spaceflight, commercial flight operations or flight instruction. (“Dozens apply for space pilot jobs”, 2011)

I will be applying tomorrow…. Just kidding…..

References

Dozens apply for space pilot jobs. (2011, April 13). Retrieved from

            http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/04/13/6466987-dozens-apply-for-space-pilot-

            jobs

Foust, J. (2015, November 16). House passes commercial space bill. Retrieved fromhttp://spacenews.com/house-passes-commercial-space-bill/

Lubin, G. (2012, September 14). Commercial spaceflight is getting really cheap, really fast. Retrieved fromhttp://www.businessinsider.com/commercial-spaceflight-is-getting-really-cheap-really-fast-2012-8

 Pan Am and the waiting list for the moon…. (n.d.). Retrieved from
            http://backstoryradio.org/2013/08/19/pan-am-and-the-waiting-list-for-the-moon/

Wall, M. (2011, April 27). First space tourist: how a u.s. millionaire bought a ticket to orbit. Retrieved from http://www.space.com/11492-space-tourism-pioneer-dennis-tito.html