Aviation Organizations

For this post I will just assume that I will be a civilian pilot in the future. The two organizations that I think would have the biggest impact on my flying career are the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and the Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA).

Just one look at ALPA's website (Issues) reveals that not only are the passionate about the welfare of their members but that they are knowledgeable about the issues at hand. For example they have detailed analyses of the Gulf States airline funding which we previously discussed (See Hostile Takeover), the recent crash of the Germanwings flight in France, and the FAA's handling of UAV regulation. All vary recent and complicated subjects. I would be impressed if just one had been highlighted. According to their website ALPA is the largest pilot union in the world and has existed since 1931. They have the expertise and prestige to get real results out of airlines and the Washington bureaucracy. When the new crew rest regulations came out following the Colagan crash ALPA released helpful information to explain the new regs to their members. (FastRead) ALPA even campaigns for lesser known issues such as the Federl Flight Deck Officer Program that gives Air Marshal training to pilots that volunteer for it. (Recommendations) ALPA is committed to professionalism and safety.

The AOPA also maintains a powerful lobby in D.C.(Mission) Their efforts have long kept the dreaded user fees out of the U.S. while they have abounded in most other industrialized nations, strangling general aviation. While most have heard of AOPA's sway in Washington many have not heard of the other services they provide to their members. A member can get insurance and financing from AOPA. They can use AOPA aviation lawyers in the event of a certificate action by the FAA or other legal issues. The also offer pre-flight services and chances for training and fly-ins. (Membership) AOPA Pilot & Flight Training (Table) magazine are some of the best aviation magazines I have read. Each issue has useful tips and advice that make people better pilots without having to go through a formal lesson with much of the information coming directly from the FAR/AIM. AOPA understands their role and they perform exceedingly well at it. There is a reason that they are the largest GA association.

References

ALPA On the Issues. (n.d.). Retrieved April 14, 2015, from http://www.alpa.org/Issues/tabid/3456/Default.asp

ALPA, Intl. FastRead. (2011, December 23). Retrieved April 14, 2015, from http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/fastread/2011/FastReadNewsflash_20111223.htm

Recommendations to Improve the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program. (2012, February 1). Retrieved April 14, 2015, from http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/pressroom/inthecockpit/FFDOWP_2-27-2012.pdf

Mission and History of AOPA. (n.d.). Retrieved April 14, 2015, from http://www.aopa.org/About-AOPA/Governance/Mission-and-History-of-AOPA

Membership Benefits. (n.d.). Retrieved April 14, 2015, from http://www.aopa.org/Membership/Membership-Benefi

Table of Contents. (n.d.). Retrieved April 14, 2015, from http://flighttraining.aopa.org/

The Business of Aviation

Anything involving aircraft quickly becomes an expensive prospect. Even things like fuel sumps or wooden chocks cost way more than they would in a different context. There is a reason that flying is and was considered the realm of the wealthy, because they are the only ones who can really afford it. Aviation is one of the greatest luxuries in existence. Aviation has been one of the main catalysts for globalization by making the world smaller. It is the means for near instantaneous transportation across vast distances. I myself have taken my "Slow" Cessna Skyhawk from the Northern border of the Continental U.S. to the southern in 10 hours! The process of which truly bends your mind. I remember thinking "Is my nation really that small?" That trip is still the largest expense I have ever paid.

Aviation is so expensive because no one really needs to fly. If you want to learn to be a professional pilot at a university you will be paying North of six figures, it won't matter where you go. All the airlines lost a lot of money during the recession and after 9/11 because people suddenly thought "I think Ill drive instead." There is literally and figuratively a lot of overhead in aviation businesses. As an airline you are only ever one accident away from losing the public's trust and business. Profits come and go on the cost of fuel and the rates of competitors. There are many more industries that are more profitable, but many in aviation (Pilot or otherwise) are in it for the love of flying. I doubt most financial advisers would tell you to base your decisions off of your heart and not the dollars and cents.

References

Chocks.com. (n.d.). Retrieved April 1, 2015, from https://www.chocks.com/list/aircraft

Luxury Insider - The Online Luxury Magazine. (n.d.). Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://www.luxury-insider.com/channels/aviation

Climbing through the clouds. (2011, July 7). Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://www.economist.com/node/18926285

FAPA.aero | Flight Training Schools Comparison. (n.d.). Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://fapa.aero/aviationcolleges.asp

Why airlines make such meagre profits. (2014, February 23). Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/02/economist-explains-5

The 10 Most Profitable Industries According To Big Data. (n.d.). Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankbi/2014/11/18/the-10-most-profitable-industries-according-to-big-data/

Hostile Takeover

In this modern era international trade goes a long way to making and breaking economies. Many heavy industries such as the automotive industry have seen massive downfalls with the introduction of cheap forging labor. Somewhat ironically the aviation industry also has their own “Big Three” companies in Delta, United, & American airlines. The aviation industry has faced its share of economic and political challenges over the years but early on the powers that be in aeronautics looked to establish a fair playing ground & international norms for their airlines with the Warsaw convention of 1929 (Convention) and later the Montreal convention of 1999. These treaties provided legal guidelines over liability and obligations as well as promoting international cooperation by discouraging unfair business practices and promoting a spirit of friendly competition. The aviation industry will soon face new challenges that are directly related to the changing economic and political landscape. Many nations who note the wealth and prosperity that international aviation can bring in the forum of tourism (among other things) have looked to boost their own aviation industry through unfair means, in violation of the “Clear and open skies” agreements that the U.S. and other nations have signed since 1992. According to the big three American airlines the wealthy middle-eastern states of the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) & Qatar have been subsidizing their airlines in order to undercut other carriers and increase their market share. Many around the industry consider this active government support petty & distrustful especially considering that after world war two the U.S. carriers could have dominated all air travel throughout Europe & the world if they had so desired.

                Publicly the U.A.E. and Qatar have not commented on the allegations that were only made on January 28^th 2015. The airlines said to have been receiving support are Emirates Airlines and Etihad Airways from the UAE, along with Qatar Airways of Qatar respectively; all of which are owned and operated by their respective governments. It’s worth noting that a government owning and operating a national airline to encourage the development of aviation infrastructure (think of Malaysia airlines) is not unheard of. Up until 1978 and the airline deregulation act the U.S. government operated all domestic airlines. Emirates CEO Tim Clark has said that his airline operates routes that Delta and others have neglected, using the Dubai hub to link cities that would otherwise never have been connected. The Middle-eastern airlines are offering fares of 900 dollars from American cities to India while U.S. carriers offer similar flights priced at 1,100 dollars. All of these airlines, namely Emirates airlines have grown rapidly over the past decade increasing their market share. Emirates operate one of the largest advertising campaigns in the world with its sponsorships of pro soccer teams & formula one racing among others. This is not the first time these airlines have been accused of breaking the rules. In 2012 the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)( Emirates ordered) fined Emirates 10 million dollars for fuel and route price fixing; A record breaking fine from the ACCC. Privately some Gulf state leaders have claimed that their state sponsorship of the airlines is justified considering  that money was given to all three major U.S. airlines after the 9/11 terrorist attacks (Money that was loaned, not given, & paid back in full with interest). The American government may have also shot themselves in the foot by cutting prices of new Boeing jets for export. These same new jets are now being used in mass to flood U.S. markets.

                The position that these Gulf States has taken quite literally flies in the face of the rest of the international aviation community. The biggest reason you would be hard pressed to find any counter argument supporting these governments besides “no comment” is that they don’t have an argument. They know what they are doing is unethical and illegal. Their only problem is that they now have been caught. Many people in the North American and European sectors of the industry have suspected for years that such an event was occurring due to these airlines’ rapid growth. To the American airlines’ credit they hired teams of investigators to find evidence (Williams, T.) of this activity that took two years just to collect. They found that the three airlines implicated have received 42 billion dollars since 1998! With the discovery of the evidence many nations in the European Union have followed suit including France & Germany, among others (France and Germany's). The advantages are logical when analyzed: the main things given to the airlines were money and fuel, two things that are extremely plentiful in the banking & trade center of the U.A.E. Another revelation of the 55 page report (Restoring Open) was that the airlines and governments were in fact in conspiracy with each other. The coordination runs so deep that it has supported Emirates airlines for every single year of its existence besides their first. The airline Etihad purchased the sponsorship of the Manchester City soccer team above its value and was instantly reimbursed by their government, effectively using the team to launder 640 million dollars. The accounts of these airlines show that if it were not for the influx of money from groups owned by the government they would be operating in the red almost every year. The governments (being those of devout Muslim nations) are the only ones allowed to control the sale of alcohol. They have only granted these rights to the three aforementioned airlines in order to prevent even local competition from challenging their system. The airports of these nations have grown rapidly with the airlines. These airports landing fees are some of the lowest in the world (the main source of income for major airports) and have a very small percentage of passengers from their home nation. Documents from the report show that they also have been being funded from the government for years to the tune of 2.4 billion dollars.

These States are engaging in classic State Capitalism. The leaders of these nations have made it clear that they expect their aviation industries to be the catalyst of their growth in the future. These airlines have come from scratch in 1998 to now operating the largest airline by passengers flown in 2014. They have more aircraft on order than exist in the entire commercial American fleet! These three airlines now account for 25% of international aviation traffic while their two nations have a combined population of only 4 million people. Originally their plan was to create “hub” airports in their capitals and take control of the routes between Europe and India. Many of their flights will stop in these airports even though there is no need considering their range. This is solely to squeeze money out of their passengers and into their countries. Now the conspiracy has worked so well for so long they are looking to expand and take over forging markets for the sole purpose of denying competitors profits. This is clearly demonstrated by routes originating from New York and Chicago and going to places that are either cheap to operate in or illogical destinations for international travel such as Milan. Rather than trying to backtrack over these transgressions in order to at least save face the airlines (& their governments) appear to have dubbed down on their strategy by sending their most advanced & luxurious aircraft to New York and offering a 2 for 1 sale (Thomaselli, R.) for  round trip international flights basically lowering costs from 900 dollars to 600. They seem to hope that they can strangle the competition before any action is taken. This most recent attack was lunched on May 10^th!

This machine has a very real possibility to destroy European and American airlines and critically damage the economies of the affected nations. For every international route lost by the American big three there are around 1,000 jobs that go with it. The U.A.E. and Qatar are looking to monopolize the entire aviation industry. This blurred line between business and political machines harkens back to Carnage and Rockefeller railroading their opponents and it’s shocking to see it taking place in the 21^st century. The Obama administration and other EU governments may be worried about starting a trade war with these nations but they need to realize that the war has already been going on for years; we just never realized that we were under attack. The governments of the world need to crack down hard and fast on this type of behavior. EU airlines have suggested that European airports deny landing rights to the companies implicated. This would protect national interests and punish the Gulf States instantly. The U.S. could utilize Boeing & France with Airbus to slow or stop the flow of reduced price wide body aircraft to these airlines, therefore preventing them from flooding the markets efficiently. Wide body type aircraft are the most effective for long rage flights and their capacity allows the flights to remain profitable. If the Gulf State’s airlines were forced to use their current fleets they would have to use them to secure their current market share (preventing further expansion) and hopefully over time they would become outdated compared to new models that would be made available to other airlines. The U.S. is also in a unique political position with the U.A.E. That nation rose to prosperity as a regional trade hub only after allowing U.S. military installations on their soil that would become their de facto defense from other regional powers such as Iran. The U.S. could threaten to minimize or close these bases leaving the U.A.E small, wealthy, and defenseless in a dangerous part of the world. These are a few possible courses of action but the bottom line is that action must be taken. A major sector of the world economy should not be monopolized simply because some were corrupt & bold enough to try to do so.

References

Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, Signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929(Warsaw Convention). (1929, October 12). Retrieved March 15, 2015, from http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/air.carriage.warsaw.convention.1929/doc.html

Emirates ordered to pay $10 million for price fixing. (2012, October 12). Retrieved March 15, 2015, from https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/emirates-ordered-to-pay-10-million-for-price-fixinghttp://www.globalatlanta.com/article/27473/delta-takes-on-middle-eastern-airlines-over-subsidies/#largeBanner

Williams, T. (2015, March 9). Delta Takes on Middle Eastern Airlines Over Subsidies. Retrieved March 15, 2015, from http://www.globalatlanta.com/article/27473/delta-takes-on-middle-eastern-airlines-over-subsidies/#largeBanner

France and Germany's Transport Ministers Add to the Open Skies Battle With Gulf Carriers. (2015, March 13). Retrieved March 15, 2015, from http://skift.com/2015/03/13/france-and-germanys-transport-ministers-add-to-the-open-skies-battle-with-gulf-carriers/

RESTORING OPEN SKIES: THE NEED TO ADDRESS SUBSIDIZED COMPETITION FROM STATE-OWNED AIRLINES IN QATAR AND THE UAE. (2015, January 28). Retrieved March 15, 2015, from http://www.openandfairskies.com/wp-content/themes/custom/media/White.Paper.pdf

Thomaselli, R. (2015, March 10). Emirates Ups the Ante in Open Skies Dispute With Two-For-One Sale. Retrieved March 15, 2015, from http://www.travelpulse.com/news/airlines/emirates-ups-the-ante-in-open-skies-dispute-with-two-for-one-sale.html

UAV's

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV's) also known as drones have advanced so rapidly in the past few decades that they have become one of the hallmark technologies of the 21st century. Going from something of a novelty to a game changing system. There are even fears (hopes for some) that this technology will eliminate my profession. That day may or may not come and always seems far away when speculated over but we would be wise to remember that few saw the rise of UAV's in the first place.

One of the biggest proponents of the civilian use of drones is Amazon. In a formal letter to the FAA (Misener, P.) Amazon officially asked for an exemption to some FAR's in order to conduct further outdoor testing of their drones which can carry payloads of 5 lbs and go above 50 mph. Amazon hopes that with full function of their  drone delivery service they can get packages to their customers in under 30 minutes. They also hope to normalize the use of commercial drones so that seeing them will be "as normal as seeing mail trucks...". The FAA was mandated by congress a few years ago to make the national airspace system (NAS) open to commercial drone operators while maintaining safety for other aircraft. This task has proved challenging for the FAA considering that unmanned aircraft can not "see & avoid" other aircraft but rather have to "sense & avoid". There have been multiple documented cases of drones almost crashing into commercial airliners in recent years leading many pilots to question what airspace they will be allowed to fly in and just how good their sensors are. These concerns have led to the FAA missing multiple deadlines to release their new regulations. Until these regs are released commercial drone use will remain stifled.

Drones will soon be interrogated into the NAS. Its not as though machines designed for flight have anywhere else to go. But while the sky is massive it has become more and more crowded over time. Areas that were once empty swathes of airspace are now bustling hubs. Even so the NAS has never been safer through the professionalism of pilot & air traffic controller (ATC) training, & proactive approaches to safety such as systems safety (SMS) & crew resource management (CRM). The major problem is that UAV's don't use these systems or techniques. While a pilot may be monitoring a drone (along with others simultaneously) it is mainly flown by its programming. It does not interact with ATC because they generally avoid airports or high altitude. SMS is only now finally catching on with the airlines and UAV's by definition do not have crews. They are flying robots and robots don't interact with humans without direct commands to do so. That puts the onus on the algorithms of the drones software to always make the right aviation decision. Anyone who has ever piloted knows that you are never more than a few bad choices from a catastrophic failure. Its not a question of weather they can fly (we have had autopilots for years) but if they can pilot and pilot well. The biggest hurdle for drones will be the public's perception of them. As one expert put it "There are so many myths surrounding the unmanned system world — what we are, what we aren't, Are we professionals? Or are we nothing but a bunch of cowboys..." (Mariani, R.)

UAV's in combat have changed warfare. According to Von Schrader: (Von Schrader, W.) "...the United States has utilized a revolutionary new tool, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), or drones, with increasing frequency and lethality to eliminate hostile militants and Al Qaeda operatives around the world. Their use in warzones like Iraq and Afghanistan have played a large role in saving the lives of American soldiers, offering better real time information about enemy troop movements, as well as significant levels of air support." As much as I love the sheer power of the engines on modern fighter jets the focus on extreme speed and maneuverability for dogfights make them vary inefficient to offer close air support. Drones on the other hand (many of which are propeller driven) can loiter over an area for hours or even days stalking their target and being unmanned can have control switched over to new operators every few hours. Having much more time to conduct an airstrike has allowed drone pilots to reduce instances of collateral damage, further increasing government support for their use.

In my research of UAV jobs one of the top links (Job Details) was sponsored by General Atomics to fly an MQ-9 Reaper as a civilian for the Air Force out of Creech AFB, Nevada. While you obviously needed previous AF training on the platform to be qualified I found it surprising that the job of piloting one of the mainstay killing machines of the AF is open to a private citizen with a security clearance. The job also specifically states that you are a regular "9 to 5" salaried employee of General Atomics and you can not be deployed. Talk about a day job!

References

Misener, P. (2014, July 9). Amazon Petition for Exemption. Retrieved March 3, 2015, from http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/rowland/AmazonPetitionforExemption_July92014.pdf

Mariani, R. (2013, October 22). Rise of the Drones. Retrieved March 3, 2015, from http://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2013/10/the_rise_of_the_dron.html

Von Schrader, W. (2012, December 11). The Terminators: Is America's drone campaign really winning the War on Terror? | The Chicago Monitor. Retrieved March 3, 2015, from http://chicagomonitor.com/2012/12/the-terminators-is-americas-drone-campaign-really-winning-the-war-on-terror/

Job Details. (2015, January 1). Retrieved March 3, 2015, from https://sjobs.brassring.com/TGWebHost/jobdetails.aspx?jobId=1112755&partnerid=25539&siteid=5313

Corporate Aviation

Corporate/business aviation in the US is what most people would think of when musicians reference private jets in their songs. The accepted mantra is that being able to pay for one of these aircraft is the pinnacle of wealth and status in society. Not to say that this isn't true for some users of private jets but in recent years companies operating their own fleets of business jets (or turboprops) has become--for lack of a better word--more businesslike. Many companies are vary frugal about how they use their aircraft and will use them solely to generate business for their company. Corporate aviation has emerged as an alternate career path to pilots who do not for one reason or another want to fly for the airlines or the military.

There are many differences between business aviation and the airlines, which could make either one more or less attractive to perspective pilots (Career Options). To me the biggest difference is that in any airline you really are a part of a massive system with all the support & bureaucracy that that entails. In the airlines you are an interchangeable part as a pilot. You can call in sick and your pilot number is taken off the board and replaced with another number. Even the aircraft & maintenance can be swapped out. You can edit your flight schedule to get the days you want or don't want. You are a cog in a giant transportation machine that has union set salaries & customer set destinations. Depending on your personality that stability can either be a balancing force or dull monotony. In the cooperate world things are always dynamic. You are generally on call (though some trips are regularly scheduled) and are at some times conjoined at the hip to the executives. There are no dispatchers or flight attendants to do work for you. You are generally responsible for your sleek, fast aircraft in most ways except advanced maintenance. You and your aircraft could be going anywhere in the world, any day of the week, and to any airport, The pay is also higher at the front end and lower at the back end compared to the airlines so in the grand scheme of thins you pull in roughly the same but likely a bit less than airline pilots.

Corporate aviation to a major hit in recent years when General Motors executives committed a PR faux pas when they flew to Washington D.C. to ask for a government bailout. There are many who think that private jets are only used to flaunt wealth and speed travel to monocle wearing VIP's who don't want to be near commoners on the ground. This perception is generally untrue. Corporate jets are used to make money not to spend it. Its certainly bad business for a company to spend money for the sake of it. Large multinational corporations have many partners or potential partners all over the world that they need to reach with something more than a phone call. Operating an aircraft that costs a few million dollars is validated when the CEO can be in France before dinner to help close a billion dollar deal. Thus almost all fortune 500 companies operate business jets. And even if a medium-large company can not afford to operate the plane on their own there are now many companies that offer fractional ownership that splits the aircraft and its costs (Fractional Aircraft) between many parties.

One company that operates on fractional ownership is Corporate Eagle. Based in Pontiac at the Oakland County International Airport (KPTK). Their fleet consists of 3 King Air B200's, 3 Hawker 700's, 4 800XP's, and 3 Falcon 2000's. The company generally shuttles executives from local companies such as Art Van to locations all over the U.S. and even internationally. According to a job posting on Western Michigan University's website (Warner S.) the minimum requirements for a new first officer among other things includes 1200 hours of total time, 500 of cross country, and 50 hours of actual instrument time. The starting pay is roughly from 45k to 68k depending on the qualifications of the applicant. Flying these smaller jets in such a fluid environment clearly is an attractive option for some pilots.

Corporate Eagle Aircraft

References

Career options. (n.d.). Retrieved February 16, 2015, from http://www.aopa.org/letsgoflying/dream/whyfly/careers.html

Fractional Aircraft Ownership - FAQ. (n.d.). Retrieved February 16, 2015, from http://www.nbaa.org/admin/options/fractional/faq/

Warner, S. (2014, September 15). Job Post: Corporate Eagle - First Officer/Second-In-Command. Retrieved February 16, 2015, from http://aviation.wmich.edu/jobs-scholarships-and-internship-postings/bid/355164/Job-Post-Corporate-Eagle-First-Officer-Second-In-Command

NTSB Most Wanted

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is responsible for suggesting safety regulations and for investigating accidents. Every year the NTSB publishes its "Most Wanted" list for safety upgrades they would most like to see. Its worth noting that the NTSB monitors many forms of transportation such as trains, highways, marine, and aviation. They are independent of the organizations that regulate those industries in order to prevent conflicts of interest during investigations. That independence from organizations such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) also allows the NTSB to focus on safety. While the FAA has a dual mandate to promote safety and to promote aviation. These roles can sometimes put the FAA and the NTSB at odds over acceptable margins of safety or the feasibility of implementing safety upgrades. Suggestions by the NTSB are sometimes deemed impractical or prohibitively expensive to implement. Anyone familiar with the law of diminishing returns can understand the struggle of the FAA in this role. They rarely contest that NTSB suggestions can and will save lives, they do have to contest that some reforms are unrealistic for the airlines or general aviation (GA) or their respective pocket books. Pocket books that historically hardly have any money left in them after paying for the aircraft's fuel. This year the NTSB's most wanted safety improvement for GA was to "Prevent loss of control". This suggestion at face value sounds completely reasonable, who would argue that pilots failing at their basic job description of piloting by entering aerodynamic stalls & spins leading to their deaths should not be prevented? In this post I will argue for the FAA's likely position that this suggestion misses the mark and is not the true problem needing to be fixed.

In its own description of the issue (Prevent Loss) the NTSB seems extremely shocked that old pilots, who fly only on the weekends, only in good weather, with just a private pilot certificate that they received decades ago, crash much more often than professional airline pilots, who fly every few days, who train every few months, who get paid to be as good as they can. When one considers those factors it is really no surprise that loss of control resulted in 40% (Prevent Loss) of fatal GA accidents in the last decade according to the NTSB's statistics. Lets examine that number for a moment. 40% sounds extremely high but if we think about the situations that would cause deaths in aviation why would it not be that high if not higher? If your aircraft falls furiously out of the sky and hits the ground death is almost guaranteed. According to the FAA (Duquette, A.) lost of control and controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) are the number one and two causes of fatalities respectively.  According to the Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA) (Rossier, R.) the fatality rate for a forced landing (No engine power) is 10% and the dreaded ditching in open water is still only 20%. So if you maintain control of your aircraft in a crash landing situation it is highly likely that you will survive and that is the number three cause of death. Hitting the ground on accident will always be the biggest killer for machines that are supposed to be in the air no matter how few accidents we have.

Aviation is one of the most regulated industries in the US. It is because flying is inherently dangerous. Ever since the Air Commerce Act was passed in 1926 new regulations have generally made the industry safer (Harris D.). Now there is so much focus on safety that flying in an aluminum tube across the planet is safer than walking down the street. We are extremely close to the natural entropy that can never be avoided. GA is and will always be much more dangerous than commercial flight by design. There is a real danger that GA could be regulated out of existence. GA already almost died once in a hail of lawsuits against manufactures. Lawmakers literally had to make it illegal to sue a manufacture over a faulty aircraft after a time frame just to get them to go back into business (General Aviation). I remember when I was a student pilot I noticed the huge regulation gap between FAR part 121 airlines & part 91 GA regulations. I asked my instructor why it existed and he gave me an honest answer that "No one cares if you crash your plane on your own.". The FAA regulates the airlines so much because they are protecting the public at large. Its a major part of American ideals and law that private individuals are free to take their own risks so long as they do no harm to the pubic at large. Most all pilots know what they should do but sometimes they do what they shouldn't. Its an error of commission that I'm sure every pilot has seen at one point from other "crazy" pilots at some point. We can't regulate away stupidity. I have personally seen a pilot go from the Florida keys at night, in a single engine aircraft, over open ocean, & into a 0/0 fogged in airport. We slept in the plane and waited for better weather the next day. Much of this problem really comes down to aeronautical decision making (ADM). Those who consistently make bad decisions and take massive risks will kill themselves. In two of the NTSB's example crashes for this issue one pilot (with no IFR rating) went into the clouds before spinning out & another crashed on landing while trying to take a "selfie". All pilots know (or at least they should know) how a stall works & how to get out of them, but no amount of training forces you to pay attention or take every flight seriously. Even if the FAA regulated that pilots must do mandatory stall and spin training only good pilots would take it seriously. The NTSB would be far better served to suggest ADM training to be a part of flight reviews. Pilots have a responsibility to themselves and their families to set personal minimums and follow them. I am reminded of a quote by Wilbur Wright who said "In flying I have learned that carelessness and overconfidence are usually far more dangerous than deliberately accepted risks."

Myself & my CFI flying to FL. (Fuel Stop in TN.)

References

Prevent Loss of Control in Flight in General Aviation. (n.d.). Retrieved February 12, 2015, from http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/mwl7_2015.aspx

Duquette, A. (2014, July 30). Fact Sheet – General Aviation Safety. Retrieved February 12, 2015, from http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=16774

Rossier, R. (n.d.). Differentiating precautionary landings, forced landings, and ditching. Retrieved February 12, 2015, from http://flighttraining.aopa.org/students/flighttestprep/skills/emergency.html

Harris, D. (2004, January 1). Civil Aeronautics Act (1938). Retrieved February 12, 2015, from http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Civil_Aeronautics_Act.aspx

General Aviation Revitalization Act | GAMA - General Aviation Manufacturers Association. (n.d.). Retrieved February 12, 2015, from http://www.gama.aero/advocacy/issues/product-liability/general-aviation-revitalization-act

Regional Airlines

Hello all,

Last week we watched the PBS documentary "Flying Cheap". The special aired in 2010 and examined the Buffalo Colgan accident and the regional airlines as a whole. The documentary demonstrates a slight bias towards promoting its own investigation and attempting to be a whistle-blower but this journalistic vigor can be excused. PBS is merely embracing their role. "It is a newspaper's duty to print the news and raise hell." as the great journalist Wilbur Storey would say. Frontline strays into the latter more than a few times though they generally are conveying the facts.

If you do not have time to watch the documentary or are not familiar with the Buffalo accident or the regional airline system I will give you a summary now. In early 2009 a Continental Connection Bombardier turboprop aircraft operating as Colgan Air 3407 entered a stall on final approach to Buffalo and crashed mere miles away from the airport killing 50 people (one on the ground). The aircraft had no mechanical problems and the weather was normal. According to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigators the probable cause of the accident was "inappropriate inputs" by the captain and possible fatigue. The families of the victims were outraged that the aircraft was not being operated by Continental. The tickets of the flight were advertised as a Continental flight with fine print indicating that it would be operated by Colgan Air. The flying public was generally unaware of the existence of regional airlines and their lower safety standards in doing business with the majors. As you may have observed if you have ever taken an airline flight the major airlines generally operate out of massive airports located on the outskirts of most major cities. The economic motive is clear: higher populations equal higher costumer bases. This business model naturally created many major "Hub" airports. These airports high amounts of use by the airlines lend itself to efficiency and safety by allowing airlines and airports to invest resources into few physical areas. The downside of this top heavy system is that medium to small sized cities are either unable to take large airline jets in their facilities or the airlines are unwilling to offer routes to those cities due to lack of profitability. In the past some airlines have tried to reach these small market cities by purchasing their own fleet of short range aircraft that can easily operate in smaller airports but with different aircraft comes different air & ground crews that need to be trained and paid. Airline profit margins are normally small and many airlines that attempted to maintain their own small fleets found it unsustainable, forcing some into bankruptcy. The major airlines needed a solution to serve these smaller markets and that solution was the regional airlines. These small airlines (such as Colgan) have only small to medium aircraft and an intimate knowledge of their local areas. The major's offered these smaller operations contracts to fly their customer's short flight legs to small destinations. The regional in turn would cease to be independent and become a vassal to their parent company while still controlling their own operation. It was a win-win situation: The majors could now fly to the smaller cities without the overhead of owning and operating their own small fleet while the regionals would have much more stable business thus gaining competitive advantage over their competitors and increasing growth/profits without the danger of competing with the major airlines. The regionals also had the luxury of less scrutiny from the FAA being small and vary numerous. The system worked well (and continues to work well) for a long time. With the lack of new ex-military pilots to fill airline cockpits the regionals recruiting from civilian/university flight schools basically became a farm system for pilots to the airlines. Newly trained and unproven civilian pilots with large debts from paying their own training were numerous and desperate for jobs. This allowed the regionals to lower wages to increase profits. The profits of this system increased its popularity to the point where regional airlines fly more than 50% of all domestic flights in the U.S. today. The Buffalo accident showed the inherent design flaws of a system that rewards business for cutting costs as much as possible with the pilots being overworked, underpaid, and under-trained as well as the airline (Colgan) being overaggressive, under-regulated, and short-staffed all while its parent company (Continental) remained content to pass the buck on responsibility.

To be clear, pilot pay upon first entering the industry is bad but it is not a surprise to new pilots. Everyone expects to be paid less than 20 thousand even down to 15 thousand in some places but in reality money is not the currency new pilots are being paid in. They are being paid in experience that they can cash in at their next job. The Career path of a modern pilot involves jumping from regional to regional gaining experience, pay, and quality of life along the way until one has accumulated enough experience to be considered for the major airlines (Whose pay, while reduced in recent years, is still substantial). That being said many passengers would be concerned to know that one of the two pilots responsible for their safety is being paid roughly equal to employees at McDonalds. Cockpit voice recorder data from the Colgan crash clearly shows how the first officer (F/O) is suffering from an illness. She says how she would have taken a sick day upon arriving to work but she could not afford to get a hotel for the night. She commuted from Washington State to New Jersey the night before. She also lived that far away from her home base to live for free with her family. The Captain engages the first officer at length on his future career prospects. His dissatisfaction in working for Colgan clearly negatively affects his situational-awareness and that of his first officer. While it's fair to say that no one expects quality wages being at the bottom of the totem pole it is in the interest of everyone for the regional to stop taking advantage of fresh graduates and supply living wages. If they refuse to do so they will be forced to Drop routes that are profitable as more and more American pilots take high paying jobs overseas to pay for school.

This brings me to the seemingly always impending pilot shortage. Many have argued (Even in my last link) that there is in fact no shortage of qualified pilots only a lack of pilots willing to work for low wages. This may be true for older pilots who for whatever reason left the industry when they were young for different careers and now wish to return but cannot due to family/financial obligations, but as I have noted with the overall decrease in wages in recent years the pilots working these days not only will work for low wages, they need to. I also previously noted that the pilot training pipeline from the military has massively decreased with the dawn of less numerous & more advanced "fourth generation" & soon "fifth generation" fighter and bomber aircraft that reduce the military's need for pilots. That pipeline drying up helped spur the creation of civilian-to-airline flight schools such as my own school, Schools that only popped up in the mid 90's to early 00's (01 for EMU). Historically the only civilian training was for private pilot certificates out of random country airports. Now I will have gone from zero hours to flight instructor in a class delta towered airport that only retains its tower to support my flight school. These schools were created to fill the military pipeline shortage. Now there is a shortage of people willing to go to civilian schools as well; people are unwilling to burden themselves with six figure debt for a career that has remarkably mediocre lifetime wages compared to other industries unless they truly do it for the love of aviation. When I was a Freshman I realized that there were two types of people in the program: People who thought it was too expensive and people so enamored with flight that they didn't care. Guess who are the only ones who graduate or even go past private pilot? For the record there are places that offer decent starting pay for new pilots, they are called overseas & my career choice the military. Even those two are having trouble attracting pilots. The Air Force (AF) recently offered veteran pilots Signing bonuses of nearly a quarter of a million dollars and few of them even took it. Why? Due to the sequester military pilots hardly fly anymore. Again, pilots are not generally motivated by money, they are motivated by flying. That is why regionals and major airlines could cut pay in the first place without major repercussions. Pilot's stayed for the love of flying. We are still in the early days of the shortage(See graphs below) (The AF only made that offer to experienced veteran pilots) but my Navy officer recruiter has 20 pilot slots a year to give out and last year he only filled 11 of them. That why overseas is offering extremely high wages and that's why some companies are now hiring pilots with DUI's on their records. Not because they want to but because they have to. Vary soon anyone with a license and a pulse will be able to get an entry level job at regionals and cargo operations. The majors will always have the people but that is because they can pull from the farm (Much like pro & minor league sports teams) of the regionals. For that reason the regional airline system will face major challenges in the coming decade as more and more leave them and less and less show up to replace them.

The major regulation that came out of the Buffalo accident will only exacerbate the situation. The rule requires new airline transport pilots (ATP) to have at least 1500 flight hours before they can work for an airliner. This rule solves a problem that did not exist. The F/O while being unprofessional over the course of the flight and improperly reacting during the stall was not flying the aircraft, the captain was. The captain had close to 3000 hours but due to lack of training & basic airmanship crashed the aircraft. That pilot was able to be hired (after returning from working in the IT industry for the record) because Colagan was rapidly expanding and needed the pilots. That was five years ago when the shortage was a rumor. Forcing new pilots to get to 1500 hours will not make them any safer due to the fact that those hours will be two or three more years of flight training other students (making less than 15k) not flying the aircraft, not learning anything new, and not leaving the home airport. This increased limit will increase the investment, shrink the pipeline, and lead to more and more bad pilots like the Colagan captain flying for desperate regionals. This rule will only be repealed when the major's realize that it is going to destroy the regional system (or degrade safety) and that won't happen until it starts to happen in mass. I for one give it a few years until some regionals start to run out of business or more blood is spilled.

Feel free to comment.

-Neuvirth, Senior, Eastern Michigan University