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