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

Professionalism, and the Regional Airline Industry

            The regional airline industry is currently in a state of chaos. This is very evident by all the changes we have been able to very clearly observe and identify. The hot topic surrounding this chaos, currently, is the subject of the current pilot shortage. The signs of this shortage are seen through the incredible signing bonuses, and the first year wages, for regional pilots, raising significantly. These signs are being interpreted differently, and the answer may be different based upon who you may ask. There are two main opinions shared. The opinions stated are the following:

1.      There is a pilot shortage, and this shortage is due to the projected retirements of pilots, and the underwhelming number of pilots entering the industry.

2.      There is no pilot shortage. There are plenty of certified pilots, but due to low wages, pilots are unwilling to fly in the United States.

It is difficult to say whether one or the other opinion is wrong. Both beliefs are based upon fact, and have proper evidence to back it up. The belief that there is indeed a pilot shortage, is one that is shared by many, especially those entering the industry currently, or in the next few years. In an article written by Mary Schlangenstein and Michael Sasso, it is stated that the, “looming pilot deficit will soar to 15,000 by 2026, according to a study by the University of North Dakota’s Aviation Department.” (Sasso, Schlangenstein, 2016). This is what is leading to the incredible signing bonuses, and increases in wages that I mentioned earlier. There wouldn’t be as much of an issue with the mass retirement of pilots turning 65, if there was a consistent flow of young pilots entering the industry. In the same article, they believe that the, “top three reasons would-be pilots are changing their career plans are the cost of flight training and certification, low pay at regional carriers and a 2013 regulatory change that mandated a sixfold increase in flight hours required to become a first officer.” (Sasso, Schlangenstein, 2016) The airlines are doing their best to sweeten the pot, hence the raised wages.

            The other opinion shared, is the stance stating there is no pilot shortage at all. This belief does have evidence supporting it, but as wages at the regional airlines increase, it is becoming less and less relevant. The president of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), Tim Canoll, was recorded saying that, “any changes that may occur to smaller community air service are the result of airline business decisions, not pilot availability.” (ALPA, 2015). This statement supports the ALPA belief that the pilot shortage is an attempt for airlines to reduce the qualification and pilot training minimums. The airlines want to make money, and if the qualification minimums were changed, this would be easier for them to accomplish.

            Based upon the evidence stated above, I tend to favor the idea that there is, indeed, a pilot shortage. It is truly difficult for a young student attempting to emerge in the industry, to do so without exceptionally large amounts of financial assistance. The result of how expensive training is, is that the dream of becoming a professional pilot is not as feasible of an option anymore. With less and less people entering the industry, and a large amount leaving, naturally you will have a shortage of pilots.

            The regional airlines have good reason to be concerned with the hiring pool in the coming years. This is from what was previously stated about the new regulations on the minimum hour requirements for pilot training, and to be qualified to fly for a part 121 carrier. This is what is leading to the solution that all the regionals are coming to. The solution is raising wage. By doing this, they are providing more incentive for their prospective pilots. It is a little more difficult for the aspiring pilot to find a solution to the new regulations. The clearest possible solution is to be trained at an established part 141 flight training center, and receive the 500 hour exemption from the minim hour requirement. They should do their research to assure the school isn’t advertising as 141 approved much earlier than they actually are.

            Just as ALPA represents many of the regional airline pilots, there are organizations who represent other portions of the aviation industry. A couple of these organizations are The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), and the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE). GAMA’s role is to represent aviation manufacturers. They state that their purpose is, “to foster and advance the general welfare, safety, interests and activities of general aviation.” (“About GAMA”, no date.) The American Association of Airport Executives is the largest organization in the world representing Airport management officials. “AAAE's members represent some 850 airports and hundreds of companies and organizations that support airports.” (About AAAE, no date)

            Professionalism is, and should be very important in the aviation industry. By watching the documentary “Flying Cheap” we could see a lack of professionalism, and the result was a huge hit on the aviation industry. First, when discussing the topic of professionalism, there must be a definition of what professionalism is. I would define professionalism as the ability to act and present yourself in a way that proves absolute competency of your skills.

In the case of the Colgan accident, which was highlighted in “Flying Cheap,” there was a clear lack of professionalism presented. One example is the first officer taking her flight, knowing that she was sick. Using my definition of professionalism, it is hard to prove the competency of her skill when she is clearly sick, which leads to fatigue, which she was facing anyway, due to her long commute to her departing flight. This lack of professionalism fits in with the lack of professionalism shown by the airline. The low wages that the airline was paying the first officer, was her motivation to get on the very flight that crashed. If the airline was demonstrating professionalism, they would be paying their pilots a wage they can live on.

As I just stated above, the pilot pay is a direct reasoning for the poor professionalism shown in the documentary. These pilots did not have the option to miss a flight, no matter how they felt. If a pilot commutes across the country, just to miss their flight, they are pretty screwed, hence the determination to fly, no matter how you feel.

In order to maintain the level of professionalism required of a professional pilot, I think I would always look for the shortcomings of others around me. By taking notice of where other pilots around me are falling short, it will be easier to avoid the same mistakes. Additionally, by reminding myself that the people I am flying are relying on me to get them from point A to point B, it will be easy to behave professionally.  It is important to not make mistakes when lives are quite literally at stake.

References:

AAAE. (no date). About aaae. Retrieved from http://www.aaae.org/aaae/AAAEMBR/About_AAAE/AAAEMemberResponsive/About_AAAE/About_AAAE.aspx?hkey=17fa23bc-bfe6-4589-9c8b-c362c1e7c303

ALPA. (2015). No excuses: keep u.s. airline pilot qualifications strong. Retrieved from  http://www.alpa.org/advocacy/pilot-pay-shortage

GAMA. (no date). About gama. Retrieved from https://www.gama.aero/about-us

Schlangenstein, M., Sasso, M. (2016, June 30) Even as pilot pay increases, u.s. airlines fear pilot shortage. Retrieved from https://skift.com/2016/06/30/even-as-pilot-pay-increases-u-s-airlines-fear-pilot-shortage/

ATC, The Big Jump

            The Fundamentals of our current Air Traffic Control system are centered around a 40-year-old computer system, known as Host. This system has many aspects that make it work; most importantly, it is based upon ground based radar. This radar is what makes it possible for the air traffic controllers to see the aircraft on their screens. The Host system also connects the entire airspace system and it is functional, however this old system is limited and inefficient. Sara Breselor, the author of the article, “Why 40-Year-Old Tech is Still Running America’s Air Traffic Control”, helps us understand the limitations by stating that, “It can handle a limited amount of traffic, and controllers cannot see anything outside of their own airspace—when they hand off a plane to a contiguous airspace, it vanishes from their radar.” (Breselor, 2014) This is a pretty significant shortcoming to the system, which is leading to the proposed NextGen system. This is a system that will very efficiently connect the air traffic control system, and simplify the lives of both pilots, and controllers. It is also projected by the FAA, that “NextGen will produce an additional $11.4 billion in benefits”. (FAA, 2016) This system works through a satellite based system, known as Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast, or ADS-B. This surveillance system is going to replace the radar that is used currently. This GPS technology will make it possible to have coverage where it does not exist in today’s airspace.

            General Aviation has had a pretty strong opposition to the privatization of Air Traffic Control. Privatization would create a monopoly on the traffic control service in the United States, and would be dominated by the airlines and other commercial aviation operators. The EAA believes that privatization of Air Traffic Control is a “power grab by the nation’s airlines.” (EAA, 2016) In a statement provided by the EAA CEO/chairman Jack Pelton, he is recorded stating, “ATC privatization will put the big squeeze on general aviation in a way that threatens the individual freedom of flight and hands control of America’s airspace to commercial and airline interests.” (EAA, 2016) This opinion is not unheard throughout the industry. The National Business Aviation Association has the same opinion, that, “because airlines and their employees (like pilots unions) will hold a majority of seats on the board of the new non-profit, they will have priority to make "decisions over access to airports and airspace" in their own interest, rather than the interest of the entire public.” (Golson, 2016) It is not unreasonable to believe that the larger carriers will take advantage of the new system and mold it to their liking. On the other side of the coin, Paul Rinaldi, the President of the air traffic controllers’ union, NATCA, believes that the proposed legislation for privatization,

addresses the union's "primary issues of concern." It ensures that air traffic controllers keep their union-negotiated contracts, that safety and efficiency remain priorities, that ATC has a "stable, predictable funding stream," and that air traffic control service "all segments of the aviation community," from commercial carriers to general aviation, and at airports large and small. (Golson, 2016)

Privatization is being viewed by supporters, as a way to modernize ATC, and help increase the efficiency of the system.

            Air traffic control has been privatized in other countries, such as Canada and the United Kingdom. The private operator in Canada is called Nav Canada. It is a non-profit organization, and as stated by the Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards, “Nav Canada runs one of the safest systems in the world.” (Meyer, 2016) This non-profit organization was actually the model used for the Shuster Bill, proposing privatization in the United States. Nav Canada has won three IATA Eagle Awards for being the world’s best ATC provider. This is a clear depiction of how efficient the Canadian system is. This system is funded through the aviation customers, rather than government subsidies. Nav Canada states that they, “strive to keep customer charges stable, while improving safety and flight efficiency.”  (Nav Canada, 2003) This funding fits into how this organization works. The funding is used to invest in their infrastructure, and upgrade their systems. Nav Canada even developed their own air traffic management technology.

            On February 3^rd, 2016 the Aviation Innovation, Reform and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act was proposed to congress by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman, Bill Shuster and the Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Frank LoBiondo. This is the original bill that calls for privatization. Shortly after the Act was proposed, “House Leadership shelved the Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act amid diverse opposition to its air traffic control (ATC) reform provisions.” (Drake, 2016) This left the Senate to concentrate on coming up with their own FAA reauthorization. In July, the Senate passed the reauthorization bill that extends and authorizes the FAA programs at current funding levels through September of 2017. This latest FAA reauthorization extended the FAA’s purview of air traffic control, and this is where the ATC privatization debacle stands right now.

            I really do believe that air traffic control does have a good chance at being more efficient once it is a non-profit, private entity. The ATC system does need to be updated, that is for certain, but in order for that to occur, there still needs to be money flowing to them. It doesn’t matter whether ATC is run by the FAA or a private company if there aren’t huge updates and an effective way to manage them. Clearly, Canada has a good system, and it is comforting to know that the model formed for the bill that went through congress was based upon it. If we, the United States, can keep our system as close to the Canadian system as possible, I think we might be alright, but if we pull the U S of A self-mutilation to our system, as we have seen before in this country, I think we might have a lot of unhappy controllers and a lot of unhappy pilots.

References

Breselor, S. (2015, February 24). Why 40-year-old tech is still running america’s air traffic                              control. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2015/02/air-traffic-control/

Drake, T., Doersch, P. (2016 February 29). House shelves airr act, senate to pursue own faa reauthorization legislation. Retrieved from http://www.natlawreview.com/article/house-shelves-airr-act-senate-to-pursue-own-faa-reauthorization-legislation

EAA. (2016, February 12). Eaa opposition to atc privatization bill moves to full house. Retrieved from https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/02-12-2016-eaa-opposition-to-atc-privatization-bill-moves-to-full-house

FAA. (2016, February 23). Nextgen works. Retrieved from

             http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/works/#content

Goleson, J. (2016, February 12) Congress wants to privatize us air traffic control, but what doesit mean for flyers?. Retrieved from http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/12/10979334/air-traffic-control-privatization-airr-act-congress

Meyer, J. (2016, February 16). Free the skies, privatizing air traffic control. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jaredmeyer/2016/02/16/free-the-skies-privatizing-air-traffic-control/#48c88d0c46ac

Nav Canada. (2003) Meet nav Canada. Retrieved from http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/about-us/Pages/who-we-are.aspx

Personal Introduction

My interest in aviation began a lot later than most people who have let aviation consume their lives. It is pretty easy to agree that once you fall in love with aviation, there is no going back. This didn't happen for me until my junior year of high school when I was performing in a jazz concert, and there was a gentleman present who was affiliated with Eagle Flight Center in some way. He essentially made it clear that flying was an option for me. That is when I became very interested and began to really fall in love with aviation. Something that I never really paid very much attention to beforehand, was all that I became interested in. So, that is how my interest began, and now I am a senior in the Aviation Flight Technology program, who has plans of graduating at the end of this year's winter semester.

My future plans are not set in stone, but with that said, I do have a rough outline of what I would like to do. I would definitely like to flight instruct. I believe that in order to be the outstanding pilot that I would hope to be, that I should be able to know the material well enough to teach it. I am also somewhat interested in flying for the Air National Guard. I have quite the obsession with the A-10 Thunderbolt II, and having the opportunity to fly it would not only fulfill this obsession, but it could also really help out with my career beyond the military. I have made connections with people associated with the A-10 program and have the proper means to hopefully make this a reality. Beyond the hopes of flying my favorite airplane, I am intrigued by corporate aviation. The aircraft flown in this sector of aviation are easily some of the most impressive aircraft in the world. At the same time though, I am not completely sold on the lifestyle of pilots in some parts of corporate aviation. I am also intrigued by the stability and reliability of the airline industry at the moment. At the moment, the industry looks really promising, and that is a solid selling point for me.

I am very excited for the guest speakers we are going to have this semester. It is definitely a good way to get a look into the industry that we are becoming a valuable part of. Even though I have very little interest in flying UAV's, I am becoming very interested by where this is going to take aviation in the next few years. I believe it would be very valuable to have a speaker who has some insight on where the unmanned aircraft industry is headed. I would also be very interested in having a speaker on the topic of military aviation. I feel that having someone explain the options there are in military aviation, and how available these options are would be very helpful to myself and other students considering military aviation as a career path. This could lead into the current topic that is being
discussed in the world of military aviation. That topic is the discussion of whether the Air Force should retire the A-10. Personally I believe this is a completely idiotic decision to make, but it would be something fairly interesting to put up for debate. I would also like to see a discussion on the newly released movie, 'Sully." I have yet to see it, but have heard great things about it!