What did I learn?

After hearing about the different aspects of the aviation industry from the professionals this semester so of my career goals have indeed been shaken. My original goal was to continue training and achieve my CFI. Then after a few years of teaching, start my own 135 charter operation. I never really wanted to fly for the airlines and that remains intact but the time from CFI to 135 has now drawn some scrutiny.

During the talks, the unusual flight careers really caught my attention. I am a fan of doing those odd jobs and getting the experience from it that very few have. The thought of earning my hours surveying pipelines or barnstorming brings back some of the flair of aviation. It seems like every job is pick up these people or cargo and fly them from here to there at this exact time… repeat until exhausted. I wanted to fly simply for the love of flying. The freedom of flying where I wanted when I wanted is what made my own charter operation so attractive in the first place. I will probably still teach for a good portion of my career but instead of going out to the practice area 8 times a day, I would probably take time for me just to go get a burger. Flying without freedom is no fun at all.

Over the next five years my goals are relatively simple career wise. The two years will be to finish my flight training and find a flight instructor job to start building hours. During this time I also plan to become a member of EAA and fly into Oshkosh. The next three years will be entirely dependent on my military service. If I have some stability, I will set up my own 135 operation within two years and have my own twin engine turbo prop.  If I am constantly moving, I will look into the odd jobs like surveying and flight instruction at the military bases. My end goal have stayed the same, but how I get there is up for grabs.

The Air Carrier Cold War

The Air Carrier Cold War

After reading the “Little Airlines, Big Idea’s” article, I was amazed that these business models have not taken off sooner. For years, infant airlines have been trying to grow in a land dominated by bullies. But they all had one flaw; they tried growing right under the legacy carriers noses. Airlines like La Compagnie and WOW have been able to grow and expand in the relive unregulated safety of the rest of the world.

Taking a closer look at some of the business models, these tow companies have tried different approaches to ultra low cost air fares. La Compagnie looked at the difference in price seating. Business class transatlantic at 5000 to 9000 a ticket vs 1000 for coach. Looking at what Southwest did for point to point travel, they did the same thing. Now all seats are the same class with the same service. With the new model, La Compagnie has been able to increase its passenger count and increase business overall.

WOW looked at another American Carrier that has been making headway, Spirit Airlines. They have a base airfare, very cheap and will get you were you need to go. How they make money is with the add-ons. Everything from legroom to baggage and meals is extra but it allows people to customize their trips. They pay only for what they want, and the airline doesn’t lose money paying for extras.

Both these airlines have made these business models a reality. But in order to make them work they have had to make some modifications. La Compagnie is utilizing the exceptional service (French wine and food for every passenger) and passenger comfort to entice passengers. WOW utilizes the tourism industry, and little sought after routes to score big business. Both airlines are utilizing smaller more efficient aircraft. This allows for less downtime and lower operation costs. La Compagnie takes seats out of its 757s while WOW utilizes narrower A320s. Both strategies mean that there is less capacity risk. That, combined with the lower fares means that there will always be full seats. Nothing is more depressing for an air carrier than looking at empty seats on a plane. “An empty seat, by any other name… is still a loss”

If I was to guess as to which one would be more successful… I couldn’t say. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. When it comes to competition, Legacy carriers have bled themselves to try and save a tenth of the market share and put others out of business. So I guess the overall edge would have to go to WOW. Snatching up all the unwanted routes still means you have business; you’re not fighting for other carrier’s passengers. Besides, plenty of passengers are willing to go a little out of the way for a cheaper fare.

The question has been asked, will these models affect the global industry. I looked at this a different way. I think the smaller models have affected these global carriers. Looking at the US, The legacy carriers have dominated the skies and forces smaller airlines out. They can’t be taken on in a direct pricing battle but carrier such as Southwest and Spirit have found ways around that and have started to thrive. The global market took a look at this and decided to do the same thing. The larger airlines dominated the main routes, they charge higher fees and will bully out competition. Now, these smaller airlines are finding loopholes and strategies to beat the larger carriers without going head to head with pricing wars. Will the larger carriers, be defeated? Probably not, but I do seem them losing a pretty large share to the ultra low cost carriers (ULCCs) and eventually the two will cohabitate based purely on routes. The only question that remains, is which side of this “Cold War” will they be on?

References

http://www.forbes.com/sites/garywalther/2014/09/25/la-compagnie-the-upstart-business-class-only-airline-with-the-best-ny-paris-business-class-fare/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/29/this-airline-is-making-flights-to-europe-as-cheap-as-99/

Space the Next Frontier?

By now you have read or at least heard of the Virgin Galactic accident. On 31 October 2014, Space Ship Two crashed to Earth after experiencing an in-flight anomaly. Space Ship Two's tail system was supposed to have been released for deployment as the craft was traveling about 1.4 times Mach; instead, the tail section began pivoting when the vehicle was flying at Mach 1. The crash caused one fatality and one serious injury. Space Ship Two was manufactured by The Spaceship Company (TSC)

The Spaceship Company is an aerospace production company founded by Virgin Group TSC’s launch customer was Virgin Galactic. By July 2014, TSC was only halfway through the completion of a second Space Ship Two, and had commenced construction of a second White Knight Two. Virgin Galactic is a British commercial spaceflight company within the Virgin Group which hopes to provide suborbital spaceflights to space tourists, suborbital launches for space science missions, and orbital launches of small satellites. Further in the future, Virgin Galactic plans to provide orbital human spaceflights as well. 

When researching rules I came across quite a few rules and regulations. Just to show how regulated space flight is and will be here is a small sampling of already published rules;

14 CFR Parts 401, 415, 431, 435, 440 and 460, Human Space Flight Requirements for Crew and Space Flight Participants

14 CFR Parts 405 and 406 Civil Penalty Actions in Commercial Space Transportation

14 CFR Parts 401, 411, 413, 415, and 417 Commercial Space Transportation Licensing Regulations

14 CFR Parts 405 and 406, Civil Penalty Actions in Commercial Space Transportation

14 CFR Parts 401, 411, 413, 415, and 417, Commercial Space Transportation Licensing Regulations

14 CFR Parts 401, 417, and 430, Licensing and Safety Requirements for Operation of a Launch Site

14 CFR Parts 400, 401, 404, 405, 406, 413, 415, 431, 433, and 435, Commercial Space Transportation Reusable Launch Vehicle and Reentry Licensing Regulations

Space tourism seems to be a very niche market. For Virgin Galactic to make any serious money they may have to depend on its plans for suborbital launches for space science missions, and orbital launches of small satellites. Until there is a place for the tourist to go (Moon or Space Station maybe) the market will always be niche for tourism and in that case not even the general public, but more so for the affluent.

Qualifications were the hardest thing to find. According to the FAA, pilots must poses and carry an FAA pilot certificate with instrument rating. In addition, a class one medical is required.  There will be additional requirements like the ability to wear a pressure suit and operate the aircraft (fighter pilots have the edge there) and be confident in emergency procedures and quick thinking.  While these are there barest of requirements, companies will have their own standards and qualifications they will be looking for.

References:

http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=ww-graduate-studies

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/regulations/

Colgan and Cargo

Colgan and Cargo

As with any media covered loss of life, the governmental agencies will always feel pressure from the public to implement some new law or regulation to prevent such loss in the future. In the case of Continental Connections Flight 3407 operated by Colgan Air, this proved true yet again.

One of the biggest changes was in hours required in order to get your Airline Transport Pilot certification. Now pilots are required to have 1500 hours of flight experience (Imposed by Congress, not the NTSB recommendations) before they can be certified. Rules and regulations governing how many hours pilot can work and required rest cycles have also been implemented. Pilots must have 10 hours of rest per day and 8 hours of uninterrupted rest. Until the crash, regional carriers were putting crews in the air with as little as 250 hours of flight experience for first officers and 8 hours of rest were required and this included travel to and from the hotel.

While the Regional Airlines were hit with these new regulations, the Major Airlines were not as effected since many or their pilots were pulled from the regional’s with well over 1500 hours of flight experience. Cargo pilot duty time generally still follows the old regulations of 8 hours daily rest and 24 hours per week and flight experience remains the same.

People have speculated on why the Cargo carriers have been excluded from these recent rule changes. Personally, I feel that this is appropriate considering that the rule changes were implemented under pressure from a misunderstanding public. Since cargo carriers do not carry passengers, the perception is that the regulations are for the safety of passengers only. It’s really more of a form of appeasement for the public perception. Airline pilots have to acquire experience through flight hours. Imposing higher requirements almost eliminates entry level positions and stretched the current workforce thin. It boils down to quantity over quality.

If these new rules were implemented in the Cargo Carriers as well, companies like Kalitta could not be a starting point in my aviation career. Pilots have used the cargo carriers and regional’s to build hours for their Airline Transport Pilot Certificates. Instead, I would be forced to continue as a CFI flying back and forth to the practice areas instead of learning new airports and planes. When asking anyone in the aviation field if the new requirements will be effective, the answer will almost always be “No”. Even the most experienced pilots can still make mistakes (Both Colgan Pilots had over 2000 hours). The real change can be made by competency checks and flight reviews. Only then can we truly assess the quality of the current pilot force.

References:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/11/colgan-air-crash-prompts-safety-regulations/5372353/

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/aar1001.pdf

Norwelandpore Airlines

So this week’s Topic is Norwegian Air International (NAI). From the name alone, you’d think that this company is Norwegian, or even based in Norway.  Guess again, the company is actually certified through Ireland and is staffed from Singapore, Thailand, and the Philippines. They are an international carrier but have yet to be allowed to operate runs to and in the US.

The reasoning behind the ban is twofold. On one side, US carriers are worried about giving up access to the highly lucrative trans Atlantic routes, of which they have a ¾ majority. Allowing other air carriers access to theses would cost business since international airlines cost less for the passengers. Why this may sound greedy, it is not without some moral lining. The other side is safety and regulation. Many reasons why the International airlines are cheaper is the lack of compliance with regulation. US air traffic is the most highly regulated and constantly observed of all others. Even when company like NAI, or Emirates publicly state they stand behind their business, there is no way to enforce regulations and safety if something does go wrong.   Who would we go to oversee their operations, Norway, Ireland, China?

While these are both valid points, and will probably keep NAI out of the running for US runs in the future, their counter points also bring us some good arguments. Keeping the Trans Atlantic runs primarily US dominates, there is very little outside competition allowing higher than normal pricing. Competition from the foreign carriers would force US carriers to either be more cost effective or lower their rates. I agree that Foreign carriers should be allowed to make Trans Atlantic runs, especially if their pay scale and business model can male pilot pay competitive. However, intercontinental flights should remain a US carrier only.



References:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/department-of-transportation-denies-norwegian-air-international-permit-110536.html

UAV’s, What will they come up with next?

UAV’s, What will they come up with next?

When asked, what possible use could a civilian have for a UAV or drone aircraft; not many people could come up with more than “blow up the annoying neighbor’s house because he didn’t return my lawnmower yet”. Apart from the Call of Duty aspects of UAVs, drones were intended to fill two very specific roles. Fly into areas that are unsafe for human pilots and perform long repetitive flights over long periods of time (the jobs we don’t want to do out of sheer boredom).

So how do these pertain to the civilian side? When asked to observe the damage from a hazmat spill with toxic fumes, many pilots will politely decline and walk away laughing. If it’s not practical to bring a large aircraft in where cliff walls or other obstacles may damage even a small aircraft, something else is need to aid is search and rescue or scientific observation. UAVs are both safe to fly in these hazardous conditions and even if they are destroyed; there is no loss of human life. So how about that second condition, long repetitive flights. Since there are so many possibilities with this one, let’s just talk about an obvious one. Google street view is one of the newer features on Google maps and allows a person to not only see the building at the address, but look at landmarks around it so they know they are getting close. Normally these pictures are taken from a very expensive camera system mounted on a car that drives every single road. See where I am going with this? Now imagine a drone with a much smaller camera zipping 50-60ft overhead, skipping stoplights, traffic jams, and not getting pulled over by the police after your multimillion dollar car camera knocks out an overhead sign.

Do I foresee UAVs integrating into the NAS? Eventually, yes I do see them entering the NAS. Because of how they are regulated now, I see an additional airspace and/or modification of class G airspace letting the drones and UAVs stay under that 400ft AGL umbrella. Though some problems may arise, I don’t believe they would be the expected ones, like aircraft collision Obviously, airports and other flight center’s would be designated no fly zones for the very small drones and only ones requiring the use of the airstrip would be permitted under strict observation, but what about population centers? I would expect the real problem would be from building crashes and noise complaints. Since a majority of drones are so small, they wouldn’t even clutter up ATC radar screens.

As for the military application of UAVs, how have they transformed military strategy? Speaking as a member of the US armed forces and as a UAV pilot both in the National Training Center in Ft Irwin, CA, and Afghanistan; UAVs have made a huge impact. Drones are prevalent at every level of the military, so much so that they are taking over many of the patrol aspects and reconnaissance roles that were usually reserved for special scout platoons, and even replacing air support for troops in combat. There have been ethical arguments, asking is the person in the control room getting enough information to pull the trigger? But in reality these are mute since even fighter pilots have to get clearance to fire their weapons and the overall decision to fire does not lay with the pilot. Military operations have become safer and more expedient by adding drones to their toolbox.

So how about a career with UAV’s? I sat and thought for 30 seconds, literally 30 seconds and came up with a list of almost twenty jobs!

         1)      Traffic Flow Observer (News)

         2)      Traffic Observer (Police)

         3)      Search and Rescue (Advanced Scout)

         4)      Google Maps (Street View)

         5)      Postal Service (Parcel delivery)

         6)      Land Surveyor

         7)      Pipeline Surveyor

         8)      Animal Studies (Observing animal movements)

         9)      Farming (Crop Observation)

        10)  Pest Control (Bug Mist)

        11)  Security (Roving camera)

        12)  Messenger Service

        13)  Event Coverage (News)

        14)  Disaster Relief (Supply drop)

        15)  Air Defense Zone

        16)  Drone test pilot

        17)  Air refueling

        18)  Drug Hunter (DEA)

Because of their adaptability, accessibility, and ease of use; UAVs will always have a place in the immediate future and will be constantly be a growing industry.

References:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/06/google_skybox_titan_aerospace_acquisitions_why_it_needs_satellites_and_drones.html

http://www.uxvuniversity.com/unmanned-systems-jobs/

Corporate Aviation

Corporate aviation, also known as business aviation is the use of any “general aviation” aircraft for business purpose. So what does this mean for us as pilots? It notes a major difference from air carriers like the airlines and non-business general aviation. Career paths in business aviation are orientated with the goals and needs of a specific smaller company and not focused on the general public needs.

Working in corporate aviation provides opportunities to become “on call” pilots, only flying when needed. It also means flying to nontraditional locations normally not serviced by the airline. The easiest way to think of what career options are available is to think of what the company business focus is. Survey flights, medical transport, disaster relief are some of the aspects of corporate aviation all not available to the airlines.

With all these specialties, the question has been asked; does corporate aviation actually save money? Is it worth the time? This question has been around as long as corporate aviation and unfortunately, it has some merit to it. People tend to think of corporate aviation as business men in suits and ties, flying to meetings to sign paperwork or taking the company jet down to Hawaii instead of using traditional air carriers. One of the largest culprits of this was the Big Three CEO’s all flying to Washington in separate luxury jets to ask for bail out money from congress back in 2008. It was estimated that each flight cost around 20,000 dollars and enraged the public.

So why does corporate aviation still exist if all it does is burn up money?  The truth is; corporate aviation does save company time and money. First, let’s take the aforementioned example of the Big Three and learn from their mistakes.  CEO from Company A needs to meet and finalize a deal with Company B. Company B is located in Nowhereville Texas, the closest major airport is over 100 miles away. Using the airlines, he books round trip tickets for himself and staff ($2500), rents two cars for him and his staff ($500) and has to spend 2 nights in a hotel with gas and food ($1000). This trip cost the company $3000 and took three days to finalize. Now let’s look at Corporate aviation. The CEO and his staff fly the company plane down to the local airstrip, 5 mins away from Company B and fly back the same day, cost of the trip, $500 in fuel for the plane and 1 day. Corporate aviation is a business tool and must be used properly.

The ability to put people or things where you need them quickly has been the driving force behind corporate aviation. Doctors can’t put a heart transplant on a airliner (Have you seen what baggage handlers do?), miles and miles of pipeline make it impossible to do a driving survey while potential leaks spill out into the environment, and emergency repair crews and technicians can keep any airplane running and on time if they can be flown to the plane instead of having it be trucked back to a repair facility. In the business world, time is money.

I looked at Pentastar Aviation, to see what their business model and practices looked like. Since they cater to part 91 and part 135, I looked into their medical transport division. The Survival flight division is based at the Livingston County Public Safety Complex. The 77,000 square foot facility houses the Survival flight crews and their aircraft. Pentastar partners with the University of Michigan Health Systems, Michigan Hospitals of Trintiy Health, and Sparrow Health System for all their medical transport needs. They utilize three EuroCopter 155’s  and a Cessna Citation Encore, all specially fitted and medical transport vehicles. After talking with some of the pilots and flight nurses, I found that that Pentastar give preference to military aviators especially those with combat missions. The high stress of being a survival flight pilot requires a lot of experience. All the flight crews have to be certified nurses or specialists in a medical field. While the exact hiring policies were not discussed, pilot turnover rate was considered high and rotary wing experience is highly sought after.

Corporate aviation is all about finding the right tool for the job. If it is abused, it costs you money and makes the overall aspect look unnecessary. If it is utilized correctly, business aviation can only be seen as “the unfair advantage” -Forbes

References:

Business Aviation

http://www.forbes.com/sites/businessaviation/2012/08/06/business-aviation-the-unfair-advantage/

Big Three Auto CEO’s

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/19/autos.ceo.jets/