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  

Current Status of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

The civilian application of drones is a quickly emerging addition to the aviation industry. The possibility of having an unmanned, relatively cheap to use, aerial vehicle poses a lot of opportunities for a very wide number of civilian companies.  It is currently difficult to find companies that are commercially using drones. That can be attributed to the current regulations set forth by the FAA, with the one main restriction requiring line of sight operations. The Federal Aviation Regulations (2016) state:

With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight. (p.299)

The majority of businesses who have high hopes of integrating UAV’s into their operations are waiting patiently for the FAA to update the regulations on UAV flight to allow a more practical use, and eliminating the line of sight requirement. This process has begun, and is currently in motion. The FAA has already issued exemptions to a few companies. These companies are Trimble Navigation Limited, VDOS Global, Clayco Inc. and Woolpert Inc. These companies are using drones to, “conduct aerial surveys, monitor construction sites and inspect oil flare stacks.” (Jansen, 2014) The research gathered, regarding the four companies is a couple years old, so there very well may be more companies commercially utilizing UAV’s, but it is still very limited. The current regulations on small unmanned aircraft systems are presented in Part 107 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. These regulations require the following:

·         The remote pilot must have been issued a remote pilot certificate

·         The max take-off weight of the Small UAS may not exceed 55 pounds

·         Visual line of sight operation is required

·         Flight during the periods of civil twilight is prohibited, unless the UAV has lighted anti-collision lights visible for 3 statute miles

·         The operator must comply with alcohol and drug provisions of part 91.17 and 91.19

·         A person with a known physical or mental medical condition that can interfere with safety of flight, may not operate

·         Operation from a moving vehicle is not allowed, unless the aircraft is flown over a sparsely populated area

·         The altitude of the UAV cannot exceed 400ft AGL, unless in close proximity to a building or structure, where it is then allowed to be 400 feet above the structure.

I most definitely see UAV’s entering the National Airspace System. It is already being done in many other countries around the world, and the process is in motion in the United States. Based on the regulations already established, it looks like they idea is to integrate the UAV’s into the airspace, but to keep them at lower altitudes. Keeping the unmanned aircraft at lower altitudes provides separation between them, and the much larger aircraft operating in the airspace above. I think the problems that will arise, will stem from the overwhelming ambition of the many civilian companies who intend on integrating these UAV’s into their business. What the FAA is currently doing, is slowly entering the small UAS’s into the airspace, but once it is ok for any business with the means to incorporate drones to do so, they will be everywhere. Behind every one of these aircraft, will be a brand new remote pilot. This increases the opportunity for exception amounts of human error.

UAV’s have had numerous military applications which have transformed military strategy. This transformation is nothing too new, as the first applications began in World War 2, with the German V-1 flying bomb, which was reverse engineered by the United States, to create an almost identical counterpart. The significance of this transformation is that the military was able to take their pilots out of the danger, and deliver very destructive bombs to their destination. To fast forward to Desert Storm, UAV’s played an important role by emerging, “as a critical tool for gathering intelligence at the tactical level. These systems were employed for battlefield damage assessment, targeting, and surveillance missions, particularly in high-threat airspace.” (Miller, 2013) So all these advancements have allowed the military to have UAV’s complete tasks and missions that were previously carried out by manned aircraft. This inserts a higher level of safety, while not hindering the military strategy at all.

There are jobs currently being offered for UAV pilots. These positions are available for people with wide ranges of experience, with the most stringent one requiring the Part 107 certificate, a PPL, a Bachelors degree, and at least 3 years of multi-rotor experience. The laxest of the positions is asking for a high school diploma, the part 107 certificate, and for the pilot to own his, or her own UAV. The links to these positions are listed below:

http://www.indeed.com/cmp/industrial-skyworks/jobs/Uav-Operator-Pilot-488ccaffacc7ed4d?q=Uav

http://www.indeed.com/cmp/industrial-skyworks/jobs/Uav-Operator-Pilot-488ccaffacc7ed4d?q=Uav

References:

Aviation Supplies and Academics. (2016). Far aim. Newcastle, WA.

Jansen, B. (2014).  FAA lets 4 companies fly commercial drones. Retrieved fromhttp://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/12/10/faa-drones-trimble-vdos-clayco-woolpert-amazon/20187761/   

Miller, J. (2013). Strategic significance of drone operations for warfare. Retrieved from http://www.e-ir.info/2013/08/19/strategic-significance-of-drone-operations-for-warfare/

Flight/Duty Changes, and the Air Cargo Industry

As a result of the Colgan Air accident, the FAA implemented new regulations on flight and duty time requirements. These changes are designed to increase the safety of pilots, and in turn, increases the safety of the flying public. The new flight limitation rules state that, “If the pilot’s first flight of the day begins between 5 a.m. and 7:59 p.m., the maximum flight time limitation is nine hours if there is only one pilot on the flight.” (Joyner, n.d.) If the pilot’s first flight is anywhere outside of that time frame, they are limited to 8 hours of flying. Additionally, if there is a third pilot on the plane, or if there is an extra crew, the limitation can be extended to 13 or 17 hours. The changes also apply to duty time. Duty time is defined as, “the moment a pilot reports for duty with the expectation of conducting a flight and does not end until he has parked the plane used on his last flight.” (Joyner, n.d.) Flight duty includes, but is not limited to, standing by at the airport, training, and repositioning by traveling as a passenger. With single crew operations, the new regulations state that flight duty limitations are between 9 and 14 hours. With multiple crew operations, duty limitations are between 13 and 19 hours. The new regulations, also stressed important changes in rest periods for pilots. They state, that pilots are now required a minimum of 10 hours of rest with absolutely no exceptions. Within the 10 hours, the pilot must have the opportunity for 8 hours of sleep.

These regulations are pretty significant changes from the rules previously in place. The former rules do not, “explicitly address the amount of time a pilot can be on duty”. (FAA, 2010) They focused on flight and rest limitations. The pilot was limited to 8 hours of flight in a 24-hour time period, but that could be extended if they got additional rest. The rules on rest requirements stated:

the pilot needs to be able to look back in any preceding 24-hour period and find that he/she has had an opportunity for at least eight hours of rest. If a pilot’s actual rest is less than nine hours in the 24-hour period, the next rest period must be lengthened to provide for the appropriate compensatory rest. (FAA, 2010)

The new rules give pilots a whole extra hour of rest, and differ even more because, previously, unforeseen circumstances allowed companies to reduce rest breaks to 8 hours.

Currently, air cargo operations have the option to voluntarily follow the new regulations described above, but are under no legal obligation to do so. Their current regulations place no limitation on flying at night, and since the new regulations mandatory for passenger operations do, it is inconvenient for cargo carriers, since they do most of their flying during the night. The reason stated most frequently for exempting cargo from the regulations, is the associated cost with the change.  In an article from USA Today, the author states, “it would cost the industry $550 million to comply, outweighing safety benefits. Originally, it said the rules would cost an additional $214 million.” (Carroll, 2014) Whether it is ethical to have a monetary value outweigh the value of lives or not, is a whole other discussion.

I do believe that cargo carriers should be included in the new regulations on Flight and Duty requirements. To work pilots with minimum rest, pretty much guarantees fatigue, whether the pilots claim they are fatigued, or not. The whole purpose of the new regulations is to not only promote the safety of the pilots, but to keep the public safe as well. Even if the pilots are flying cargo, if a plane crashes into the ground, there is a high possibility of people being injured on the ground.

If cargo carriers were included in the new regulations, it would only affect me, as a pilot, in a positive way. It would make regulation requirements equal to the requirements of airlines, which would ultimately give me a higher quality of life. The only thing that could possibly pose an issue, is if pilots were required to have a higher rest requirement, companies may have to hire more pilots, which could cause salaries to decrease. The change in regulations is going to cost them such an outrageous amount, they will try to save money in every way they can. 

References:

Carroll, J.R. (2014, March 14). UPS pilots urge more rest for cargo crews. Retrieved from
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/13/ups-pilots-urge-more-rest-for-cargo-crews/6402615/

FAA. (2010, January 27). Fact sheet – pilot flight time, rest, and fatigue. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6762

Joyner, J. (n.d.).  Duty limitations of an faa pilot. Retrieved from http://work.chron.com/duty-limitations-faa-pilot-17646.html