The Takeoff of the UAV

            Like a majority of new technologies, the UAV’s origins began with military application in mind. Would you believe me if I told you that the concept of the UAV is dated all the way back to World War 1? In 1917 a man named Elmer Sperry received the first military contract for the development of his “aerial torpedo” which was an unmanned flight system used to attack the enemy (Blom 2010). The way this technology worked was through the use of gyroscopes to keep the aircraft level and a type of counter that was attached to count the number of propeller rotations. Once the counter hit its preset number, the engine would cut off sending the “aerial torpedo” towards the ground and hopefully at or near its target. Rudimentary yes, but all great technologies have their origin stories. Similar to most other technological developments, inventors improve and add on to the components designed by the predecessor as breakthroughs and advancements are discovered. The UAV is no stranger to these advancements as we look at the current state of the UAV today compared to its “aerial torpedo” origin days.

            Besides military operations the FAA categorizes UAS (unmanned aerial systems; what the FAA calls UAVs/Drones) into 3 different types of operation. The 3 types the FAA recognizes are: public operations (governmental), civil operations (non-governmental), and model aircraft operations (recreation/hobby use). Each operation has specific rules and regulations they must abide by including the airspace the can operate in, the purpose of the operation, etc. For the first type (public operations) the FAA issues a Certificate of Authorization that permits the operator to use a defined block of airspace with special safety provisions unique to that operation. A COA is generally issued and valid for two years (faa.gov/uas/public_operations). The reason for the issuance of the COA is to ensure a level of safety is implemented in UAS operations so there is no interference with manned flight and various other aviation operations that would be conducted in that area of operations. Since there’s no one in the aircraft, operations must be conducted with either someone observing the unmanned aircraft in a manned aircraft with eyes on it, or someone on the ground so separation from other aircraft can be verified. Currently common uses of UAVs in the public operations include law enforcement, border patrol, disaster relief, search and rescue, and hazardous meteorological observation (faa.gov/uas/public_operations).

            The 2^nd type the FAA recognizes which is civil operations includes the use of UAVs for non-governmental use. In order to gain FAA authorization to fly UAVs for civil operation, the FAA requires either a Section 333 Exemption or a Special Airworthiness Certificate (faa.gov/uas/civil_operations). The Section 333 Exemption grants exemption (but still needs to abide by COA and Section 333 regulations) from requiring a COA as long as the commercial operation is in a low-risk, controlled environment. The other form of authorizing your UAV commercial usage is through a SAC (special airworthiness certificate). Obtaining a SAC requires the operator to describe how their system is designed, constructed and manufactured. The software development and control of the system, its configuration management, the quality assurance procedures used, as well as how and where they intend to fly their UAVs (faa.gov/uas/civil_operations). The SAC extends on to the experimental use of UAVs for civil use through the FAA Order 8130.34 which inspectors use when a civil UAV is being used for things like research and development, crew training, and market surveys. When civil UAVs aren’t being used for experimental purposes, the range of operations can include things like land surveying, 3-D mapping, logistic delivery, sports/news/and film recording, and even becoming their own mobile WiFi hotspots.

            The third type of operation that the FAA recognizes is called model aircraft operations and is used for recreational and hobby use only. This category has proven to be the most challenging to regulate and has proven to cause the most issues with manned aircraft in terms of airspace violations. In order to reduce these kind of incidents, the FAA and other industry associations came up with the Know Before You Fly campaign designed to educate new incoming drone/UAV users to the NAS (national air space). Some safety guidelines outlined in the Know Before You Fly website are to fly no higher than 400 feet and remain below the surrounding/highest obstacle around, keep your UAV in eyesight at all times, do not interfere with manned aircraft operations, remain 25 feet away from individuals and vulnerable property, and to contact the airport and control tower before flying within 5 miles of an airport or heliport (knowbeforeyoufly.org). In order to remain in the recreational category which means no required FAA authorization, a UAV is NOT allowed to be used for compensation or sale (faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft). The FAA began a registration process for model aircraft requiring all model aircraft that weigh 0.55lbs to 55lbs to be registered in the aircraft registry database created by the FAA. I believe they initiated this requirement to aid in regulating and punishing those drones that violate the safety guidelines or who interfere with manned aircraft operations (like colliding with planes near airports or causing distractions). The response so far seems positive though because as of January 22, 2016 (30 days after the UAV registration opened) 295,306 drones had been registered in the FAA database (Huerta 2016). In an effort to aid in FAA compliance, drone developer DJI has begun beta testing for a firmware update in their drones called GEO (Geospatial Environment Online) which gives DJI drones real time updates on no-fly zones (Lavars 2016). The firmware is being honed to disable DJI developed drones if they were to enter these no-fly zones reducing the hazard UAVs pose when in the vicinity of manned aircraft.

            The UAV continues to develop and takeoff in the recreational and civil operated market. According to a market forecast conducted by Grand View Research, from 2014-2022 the UAV market plans to grow 17% (http://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/commercial-uav-market). This is after the fact that the global commercial UAV market size was valued at $500 million USD; so using that number, a 17% increase over an 8-year span of $500 million USD equates to about an increase of $10.5 million USD per year. The government (public operations) will remain to control the majority of the market through this forecast with a 40% contribution to global UAV revenue in 2013, but as illustrated in the graph created by Grand View Research; the Energy and Other revenue categories increase substantially as the year’s progress.  With the announcement of Amazon Prime Air and the increased development of VR (virtual reality), I think the UAV technology will continue to prosper and become heavily integrated in the national air space.

Works Cited

Blom, J. D. (2010). Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: A Historical Perspective (Ser. 37, pp. 45-54) (United States, US Army, Combat Studies Institute). Fort Leavenworth, KS: US Army Combined Arms Center. Retrieved April 20, 2016, from http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/OP37.pdf

Civil Operations (Non-Governmental). (2016, March 15). Retrieved April 20, 2016, from https://www.faa.gov/uas/civil_operations/

Commercial UAV Market Size & Analysis Research Report, 2022. (2015, November). Retrieved April 20, 2016, from http://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/commercial-uav-market

Huerta, M. (2016, January 22). At 30-day mark, UAS registration progress encouraging. Retrieved April 20, 2016, from https://www.transportation.gov/fastlane/uas-registration-encouraging

Lavars, N. (2016, January 3). DJI launches new software to block drones wandering into dangerous areas. Retrieved April 20, 2016, from http://www.gizmag.com/dji-drone-software-geofencing/41123/?li_source=LI

Model Aircraft Operations. (2016, March 15). Retrieved April 20, 2016, from https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/

Public Operations (Governmental). (2016, March 15). Retrieved April 20, 2016, from https://www.faa.gov/uas/public_operations/ 

NTSB Most Wanted

1) I would re-rank the NTSB's top 5 improvements for 2016 as follows:

1. Prevent loss of control in flight
2. Fatigue related incidents
3. Reducing distractions
4. Medical Fitness
5. Cockpit Image Recorders

   I chose preventing the loss of control in flight as my most important because next to the common sense factor in it, the article by Bellamy (and on the ntsb website) states that loss of control in flight has been the cause of over 40% of accidents in the GA sector from 2011-2011 (Bellamy 2016/ntsb.gov). A reason I think that this statistic is so large is because some of these pilots fly maybe once or twice a year enough to keep themselves current and to take the ol' plane out when there isn't a cloud in the sky. I think the lack of practiced recurrent training by the FAA could be to blame here considering that a private pilot is required to complete a flight review once every 24 calendar months and needs 3 takeoffs and landings in the past 90 days to carry passengers. In my opinion that doesn't seem like much especially if you're just coasting by on those bare minimums to keep yourself current. I understand this isn't the issue for all of these accidents, but when you factor in brand new student/private pilots and sports pilots who only fly a couple times a year the lack of experience can be a cause to these accidents.

  The second most important is reducing fatigue related incidents, although it has improved a whole lot since the Colgan accident and before. Fatigue will always be that sleeping demon waiting to be triggered and with the pressures that some companies put on their pilots and the workloads that are taken on, it's an issue that should maintain atop the list.

   Reducing distractions is my number 3, but it's a close decision between that and fatigue. I think distractions have become increasingly worse through these past 6 years with the technology boom. I mean nowadays part 121 carriers equip their pilots with some form of tablet to help reduce workload. It's easy to see how having a tablet or even your cellphone in the cockpit for a long trip or during a period of low work activity can lead to distractions. The use of tablets has become almost necessary for 121 operators and although the FAA has created a final rule against using smartphones or laptops while operating the aircraft, it'll be interesting how the tablet is considered.

   Fourth I chose medical fitness because we all are aware of the tests and examinations pilots must go through to maintain their medical certificates. The article by Bellamy mentioned an increase of positive tests for over-the-counter sedative medication and I think that could contribute to fatigue incidents. The increase of these sedative medications doesn't bode well for the NTSB because ever since the GermanWings suicide last year they've been on high alert for symptoms of depression. Those kind of mental issues can be tough to pinpoint though because without monitoring the person everyday and intensely, you can't tell someone is depressed. I think the FAA or pilot world could improve on their mental evaluations of employees, but I don't see it as an issue that is pressing.

   Lastly I have Cockpit image recorders at the bottom of my list. The reason being is that in the cockpit there is already a flight data recorder that reads the inputs made on the flight controls and can paint the story of what happened in the accident. With actual image recording in the cockpit not only seems invasive to the pilots, but further cements the idea/theory that accident analyzers have come up with using the FDR. I think it's an economic investment not worth the consideration due to it's risk if images/video were to get leaked and the fact that it's redundant in nature since the flight data recorder exists as well. Not only do I rank this item last on my most wanted list but I would even go as far to say that it doesn't need to be on the list at all.

   Now an item that has been left off the list which I think should be included is automation dependency. For the most part (in EMU's and WMU's  pilot programs) they start the student pilots off with aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit. Now they try and teach their students to focus on the gauges and fly the plane, but as a pilot gets more experienced in the glass cockpit, it becomes much easier to get dependent on all of the capabilities that it has to offer. It's a great technological advancement and has reduced the workload of  the pilot immensely, but there have been plenty of incidents (think Air France 447 accident) where the pilots completely shut down and forgot how to fly the plane when the automation stopped working.

  I think the FAA will respond to the reducing distractions and medical fitness the most. The reason I think this is because they've already addressed the distractions one a little bit with that final rule created for 121 operators in April of 2014. I think they'll address the medical fitness one because it affects the public image of aviation the most. Plus if they're able to reduce that amount of positive tests for over-the-counter sedative medication it could go hand in hand with reducing fatigue in flight.

Works Cited

 Bellamy, W., III. (2016, January 14). NTSB's 5 Most Wanted Aviation Safety Improvements in 2016. Retrieved April 10, 2016, from http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/commercial/NTSBs-5-Most-Wanted-Aviation-Safety-Improvements-in-2016_86948.html#.VwroN6QrLIV

 Prevent Loss of Control in Flight in General Aviation. (n.d.). Retrieved April 10, 2016, from http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/mwl7_2015.aspx

 

Aviation Organizations

   One of the groups I look to be apart of when I am engaged in my career is the ADF or Airline Dispatcher Federation. Another organization that has me very interested once I begin my career path is the EAA or Experimental Aircraft Association.
   What I like about ADF is that it is a volunteer organization and isn't a labor organization. It's also the only national organization that represents the dispatch profession. In the industry the ADF works on the professional image and development of the aircraft dispatch career. They also represent over 100 aerospace companies so it isn't strictly for dispatchers who work at the airlines and are non-unionized. The EAA is crucial to the aviation field because their members continue to exceed the boundaries of  experimental aircraft and the rise of ultralights. They also contribute back to the industry by offering a ton of scholarships and learning workshops for pilots of all skill level. They have a large presence at Oshkosh and if an organization is big at Oshkosh you know they're helping the general aviation area.
   In our profession it's huge to be apart of an organization because you never know who you're going to meet. Our industry is small so meeting people is just as important if not equally important than gathering the hours and experience in the industry. They also help get your name out there and if you participate in events they can leave a lasting impression on your aviation peers. Not only are they good for networking but they can continue to provide learning experiences well after you end your schooling. Considering knowledge is power this is a great opportunity to further your aviation intelligence while strengthening your reputation in the field.

Flying Cheap and Professionalism in the Industry

     In 2009 a fatal accident occurred in Buffalo, NY aboard a Colgan Air flight which killed everybody on board. Colgan was a regional air carrier which operated in partnership with Continental Connection and the outcome of the accident was deemed pilot error by the NTSB. With this accident (and a slew of other previous accidents in prior years) there was public pressure to make changes to the pilot qualifications the FAA required of airline pilots. The outcome ended up being a new regulation that required an airline pilot candidate to obtain an ATP (airline transport pilot) certificate and accrue 1,500 flight hours before they could be employed. This is where the idea of pilot shortage became a hot topic. The increased flight hours paired with the analysis of projected retirements in the industry have many fearing that a pilot shortage is imminent and the US won't be able to supply enough pilots to their airlines. According to a study conducted by Boeing and Oliver Wyman that I obtained through an article written by Brian Prentice, there is an estimated 95,000 pilots that will be in demand from 2015-2034 (2016). Compare this demand to the estimated 64,000 pilots from the same study who will have the 1,500 hour experience and go right from a CFI (certified flight instructor) career to airline career, and you have a gap of about 31,000 qualified pilots (2016). Grant it these are estimates, but that number appears daunting. In the same article by Prentice, it is mentioned that military pilots (which was at one point considered the largest source of airline pilots) has only attributed to about 30% of new airline pilots (2016). That percentage and supply of military pilots appears to continue to be shrinking considering that the military is rolling out programs and incentives to keep their pilots longer (Prentice 2016). With all of that being considered, I believe there is a larger issue at hand, I think the pilot shortage is there, but the true concern in the regional airline shortage is the lack of pay and incentives.

   If you look into the Colgan accident report and other accidents involving regional carriers, you will notice that the NTSB observes that some conversation picked up by the ACARS system in the plane address salary, pay cuts, or the concern of not making enough money being talked about among the pilots. These regional pilots have reason to be concerned though, because the average pay for a right seat (a first officer) in a regional airline ranges from $20,000-$30,000 a year (Tallman 2015/Smith 2016). With that thought in mind, and the increased rise in regional jet use in the airline industry (up to 53% of US departures according to Patrick Smith), a career as a regional pilot is a likely outcome for new incoming pilots in the industry (Smith 2016). Further proof that the pilot shortage is blown out of proportion and that it is more due to the low wages at regionals is evident in a recent Wall Street Journal article about Republic Airways. In the article, which I obtained an excerpt from through an ALPA publication, it is mentioned that the CEO of Republic filed for bankruptcy-court protection due to pilot shortage, but since January 19, the pilot loss in the airline has seen a significant slowdown after a new pay accord (Alpa No Excuses 2016). It';s not that pilots aren't there, it's that pilots don't want to go through the grind of schooling and training all while racking up tens of thousands of dollars of debt just to scrape by at a regional air line and still be worked harder than their pay compensates.

   ALPA continues to support and represent regional pilots to improve wages and benefits for them, but there is another organization which looks after the manufacturers and the regional airlines as a whole and that is the RAA (Regional Airline Association). According to the RAA homepage: "The RAA serves as an important support network connecting regional airlines, industry business partners, and government regulators in bolstering the industry; as well as promoting regional airline interests in a changing business and policy environment" (http://www.raa.org/). Another organization not as well known is the RACCA which is the Regional Air Cargo Carriers Association. This association caters to on-demand cargo carriers typically under the part 135 operation and are dedicated to meeting the policy, communications, and information needs of its members (http://www.raccaonline.org/).

   I would define professionalism as being accountable for the actions you perform while maintaining a high level of character in all that you do. In the Flying Cheap documentary I think the largest absence of professionalism was in the Colgan management when they completely overlooked the 3 check rides that Captain Renslow failed through his career. It was also believed that some of these failed check rides were not disclosed to Colgan so the same lack of professionalism could be attributed to Captain Renslow for withholding information due to the fact that it was detrimental to his career. I do believe that the first year pilot pay and regional airline compensation structure leads to a lack of professionalism by their entry-level pilots, but I don't think that the money justifies the reasoning. I understand we all have to make a living and that starting pay is very discouraging considering all the work and time and money put into becoming a pilot, but I think a true professional upholds the quality of their work regardless of pay or treatment. Two ways I plan on upholding my definition of professionalism once I'm employed is to 1) stay rooted. By that I mean I plan on looking at how far I've come, the work I've put in to get to where I'm at, and how much I've grown, to admire my work and take pride in it no matter the circumstances. My second way would be to uphold the disciplines I instill on myself in conjunction with my company's rules.

Works Cited

 No Excuses: Keep U.S. Airline Pilot Qualifications Strong. (2016, February 24). Air Line Pilot, 85(2). Retrieved March 19, 2016, from http://www.alpa.org/news-and-events/air-line-pilot-magazine/2016/032016/no-excuses

 

 Prentice, B., & Anderson, B. (2016, January 28). Pilot Shortage Threatens To Slow U.S. Airline Growth. Retrieved March 19, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverwyman/2016/01/28/pilot-shortage-threatens-to-slow-u-s-airline-growth/#41dec989bb6e 

 Smith, P. (2016, March 1). Fact and Fallacy of the “Pilot Shortage”. Retrieved March 19, 2016, from http://www.askthepilot.com/pilot-shortage/ 

 Tallman, J. W. (2015, May 5). Pilot shortage: Yes or no? Retrieved March 19, 2016, from http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/May/05/osu-pilot-supply-conference 

http://www.raa.org/

http://www.raccaonline.org/

Commercial Space Tourism: Is it Viable?

1) The advent of space tourism began in the late 1990's-early 2000's with a deal struck between a Russian company called MirCorp and an American company called Space Adventures Ltd. (Seedhouse 2014). Thanks to that deal (and 20 million dollars later) the first space tourist was Dennis Tito in 2001 who flew on a Russian Soyuz TM-32 rocket and was aboard the ISS (International Space Station) for seven days. There have been a few other wealthy people who have forked over the big bucks over the years in order to achieve space travel for their own personal enjoyment, but the real idea that space travel could be a future commercial venture began in 2004. Up until this point space travel and the "space tourist" was someone who paid big bucks to fly a government or country-owned space shuttle, but when Richard Branson announced his idea for Virgin Galactic and later funded SpaceShipOne (which went on to win the Ansari X prize) commercial space travel began to look like a viable future. SpaceShipOne became the first nongovernmental organization to launch a manned spacecraft into space and back. Since then, companies like Virgin Galactic, SpaceX, and XCOR have all enrolled candidates and booked customers on their first official suborbital space flights. Notice how I haven't stated that they've completed these flights yet, as you can see (and imagine) the concept and demand of taking passengers to space is easy enough, but the execution has proven to be difficult for each of these commercial space travel companies. XCOR has continued to have delays with it's first test launch of the Lynx spacecraft, Virgin Galactic had a fatal crash losing one of the two test pilots in 2014 (guardian,com), and SpaceX has had continual landing issues with it's Falcon 9 spacecraft. Amidst all of this bad or negative news is some good news, and that is that these companies have started and are testing their craft's for space flight, something I would have never foreseen 3 years ago.

2) In 2004 following the success of SpaceShuttleOne the CSLAA (Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act) was established which is a brief amendment explaining the need for safety through all practices of space flight and how permits are needed if someone would like to begin conducting space flight (faa.gov). I think the CSLAA needs to be more restrictive but isn't able to because an official flight hasn't been conducted yet. Like we always say and here, "aviation regulations are written in blood" and I don't agree that this needs to be the case for commercial space travel, but I think it is hard to create regulations that restrict more if they don't have a foundation of flight experiences to regulate.

3) I think space tourism has potential to be a viable tourism option in my future, but I do not see it as something you (or a family) can consistently do. Like I don't see sub-orbital travel as an annual vacation families go on and seeing as how most prices range from $100,000-$20,000,000 it isn't an option 70% of the world can even afford. I think as technology continues to advance and our exploration of the universe continues to expand space tourism will become a high demand of more than just the multi-millionaires of the world. I don't see it as a form of transportation however, I just don't think it will be something we use as travel due to the high cost and stress put on the spacecraft frame and on the passengers/pilots. I mean if people experience jet lag could you imagine how bad space lag would be? Not to forget the sporadic G forces a space pilot would have to endure taking off and entering orbit on multiple trips in one day.

4) According to Goehlich (2013), space pilots would require an FAA pilot certificate with an instrument rating and the FAA class I medical is still considered viable. Recommended qualifications are pilots who have operated flight at high speeds and in pressure suits (pretty much jet fighter pilots). Virgin Galactic has began hiring pilots from its sister airline but these pilots must have 3000 flight hours and experience in multiple aircraft in the fleet (2013).

Works Cited

 Seedhouse, E. (2014, October 31). Space Toursim. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from http://www.britannica.com/

Gajanan, M. (2015, July 28). Virgin Galactic crash: Co-pilot unlocked braking system too early, inquiry finds. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jul/28/virgin-galactic-spaceshiptwo-crash-cause

 

 Goehlich, R. A., Anderson, J. K., Harrold, N. N., Bemis, J. A., Nettleingham, M. T., Cobin, J. M., . . . Ilchena, N. Y. (2013). Pilots for space tourism. Space Policy, 29(2), 144-153. Retrieved March 14, 2016. 

United States., Congress. (2004, December 23). Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/PL108-492.pdf

 

Global Airline Issue

1) Two long haul foreign carriers that receive government subsidies from their respective countries are Emirates Airline which is an airline that is the subsidiary of The Emirates Group; a group that is wholly owned by the government of Dubai's Investment Corporation of Dubai (wikipedia.org/Emirates_(airline)). Another long haul foreign carrier is Qatar Airways which as of May 2014, is fully owned by the Qatari government and is the state-owned flag carrier of Qatar (wikipedia.org/Qatar_Airways). Emirates was conceived in March 1985 when Gulf Air began cutting back its services to Dubai. Since then, Emirates has continued to grow as an international airline and currently is the 3rd largest international carrier by scheduled passenger-kilometers flown and the 7th largest airline in the world in terms of revenue (wikipedia.org/Emirates_(airline)). Qatar Airways began operating in January 1994 and has been expanding its fleet and routes ever since. The Qatar Airways Group recorded its first ever profit in the fiscal year of 2004 and was also the first Middle Eastern airline to receive the Dreamliner (Boeing 787) as a part of its fleet (wikipedia.orgQatar_Airways). Both of these airlines are owned by their respective countries/governments and have been receiving subsidies from the government and according to Tim Canoll in a recent Huffington Post article, "The government in Dubai is currently spending tens of billions of dollars on airport infrastructure to benefit Emirates and shielded the airline in 2009 from $4 billion in fuel-hedging losses. The government of Qatar has granted more than $17 billion in interest-free loans, shareholder advances and other types of support to Qatar airways to underwrite the airlines' massive growth." These Persian Gulf airlines are not the only airlines to receive government subsides however, the US had their time when government subsidies were apart of the airline industry.

2) During the times before deregulation the US airline industry was government owned and therefore received funding from the government for their airmail routes. Also, the Federal Airport Act of 1946 brought about government spending to improve and increase the amount of airports and runways available in the US through the Federal Aid Airport Program. Because of this Act and the program it brought about, roughly 75 million dollars was the be allocated to airport construction annually (avstop.com). Let's not forget about the EAS (Essential Air Service) program that still is implemented today which provides government subsidies to smaller communities in order to ensure they still receive scheduled air service they otherwise would not receive due to deregulation. These may not be long-haul flights (most are 30-50 seat aircraft on regional jets), but long haul carriers like Delta do provide air service to some of these communities through their Delta Connection flights (specifically Sault Ste. Marie,MI, Escanaba,MI, Pellston,MI, and Muskegon,MI) just to name a few. According to an article by Keith Laing on The Hill, "U.S. Airlines receive about $1 billion per year in tax breaks from state and local governments" which could be seen as a government subsidy even if it isn't direct government money going into the airline. The article goes on further to say that if airlines were not to receive these tax breaks then airline ticket fees would be higher and there would be less investment in new aircraft, customer amenities, and training (which I agree with) but still, it can be argued that the US airlines receive government subsidies in the form of tax breaks.

3) Two of the three Gulf carrier airlines have received financing (close to $5 billion) from the Export-Import Bank of the United States. According to their website, the Export-Import Bank is an independent, self-sustaining Executive Branch agency that is the official export credit agency of the US; it's mission is to support American jobs by facilitating the export of U.S. goods and services (exim.gov/about). "According to the banks database, Emirates received close to $3.7 billion from Ex-Im since 2007" (Quinn 2015). Quinn also states that the loans awarded to Emirates and Etihad were used for the purchase of Boeing aircraft and seeing as Boeing is an American "good" so to say, this is why the loans were given out. You see, Ex-Im provides taxpayer-backed loans and loan guarantees to foreign countries and companies for the purchased of U.S. exports. This is how the foreign carriers are able to purchase aircraft at below market interest rates.

4) Seeing as the subsides that U.S. carriers receive are through tax breaks and not actual government funds being put into the airlines, no, I do not see the global "playing field" as fair. The reason being is that the Persian Gulf carriers can continue to purchase newer aircraft for cheaper (using their governments money) and allow their ticket prices to be much more competitive than the US carriers because essentially, they don't have to worry about a loss, or paying back their loans. To a degree they do, but with their governments funding part of the bill, the carriers are allowed to cut ticket prices and include more customer amenities (like showers in the airplane *cough cough* Emirates) to attract a larger customer base to their airlines. This causes US airlines to try and step up their competitiveness but it becomes difficult without still trying to maintain their own profit goals for each year. Also, the loans being paid back by the US carriers has much more interest on it than the foreign carriers do which I find unfair regardless if it means providing more purchases of Boeing aircraft. I am in full agreement with the Americans for Fair Skies movement and have signed the petition on behalf of my company to ensure these foreign carriers properly obey the Open Skies agreement and I suggest you do too.

Works Cited

(n.d.). Retrieved March 07, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_Airways

(n.d.). Retrieved March 07, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirates_(airline)

 

 Canoll, T., Cpt. (2015, July 6). Gulf Airline Subsidies Have No Parallel in U.S. Retrieved March 07, 2016, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/captain-tim-canoll/gulf-airline-subsidies-ha_b_7738462.html

 

Federal Airport Act of 1946. (n.d.). Retrieved March 07, 2016, from http://avstop.com/history/needregulations/act1946.htm

 

Laing, K. (2014, August 25). Study: Airlines receive $1B in tax breaks from states annually. Retrieved March 07, 2016, from http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/215921-study-airlines-receive-1b-in-tax-breaks-from-states-annually 

http://www.exim.gov/about

Quinn, M. (2015, April 13). Gulf Airlines Win Big With Subsidies, Taxpayer-Backed Loans. Retrieved March 07, 2016, from http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/13/bank-rolled-how-foreign-airlines-win-big-with-government-subsidies-and-u-s-taxpayer-backed-loans/ 

The Rise of Recreational UAVs

1) UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) technology has been regarded by some industry experts as the most dynamic growth sector of  the aerospace in this decade (Cavoukian 2012). Heck even my uncle and cousin that live across the street just got little drones for Christmas and are out using them. Over the past 5 years the UAV community has evolved from strictly a military technology to becoming a recreational hobby (think RC planes) and even being used commercially as well (Amazon's Prime Air). If you YouTube or Google UAV videos you can find a ton of civilians using their purchased drone taking it to new heights especially with either a GoPro attached or some drones even come with cameras attached. Just this past year there was a video that was a huge internet hit where a man flew his drone into a large firework display and it was magnificent (here's the link for those interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9KZ3jgbbmI). UAVs were being used for hunting at one point but there has recently been an uprising against drone-assisted hunting in multiple states leading to them being banned. In a FOX News report multiple men from hunting groups claim that "the use of drones to aid in hunting is inappropriate and would essentially undermine the concept of fair-chase hunting" (FoxNews 2014). UAVs have recently become a problem near airports as well. Apparently some recreational users have been interfering with the airspace close to Washington International airport that it led the FAA to construct an NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) about small UAVs. In this NPRM, it proposes that, "unmanned aircraft systems weighing less than 55 pounds and not for recreational or hobby use and with necessary equipment for safe and efficient operation can be used in the national air space." The small UAS (unmanned aircraft systems) that could be used in accordance with this NPRM are as follows: crop monitoring/inspection, research & development, educational/academic uses, power-line/pipeline inspection in hilly or mountainous terrain, antenna inspection, aiding certain rescue operations such as locating snow avalanche victims, bridge inspections, aerial photography, and wildlife nesting area evaluations. Non-recreational use of UAS is accommodated by the FAA through the use of special airworthiness certificates, exemptions, and certificates of waiver or certificates of authorization (Foxx 2015). So far the FAA has published a requirement stating that "all owners of small unmanned aircraft or drones weighing between 0.55 and 55lbs must have it registered before taking to the skies" (knowbeforeyoufly.org).

2) I do see UAVs integrating into the National Airspace and I think the way it will be done is through altitude limitations. Already UAVs aren't supposed to be out of sight of their operator and I think that rule will try to remain to be enforced if they integrate into the NAS. When a UAV enthusiast registers their aircraft, I think it will evolve to the point where they are required to have some sort of GPS tracking system on them if there already isn't one. Either that or they simply limit the altitude that UAVs can operate (maybe strictly Class G airspace)? I imagine that it would further clutter the air space in the US but as long as people follow the rules and keep them away from airports I don't see why it would be a problem.

3) UAVs have greatly aided in our decreased human involvement when it comes to aerial bombing. According to an article written by Andrew Callam, "by October 19th, 2009 had conducted 41 strikes under President Obama compared with the same number over 3 years under former President Bush. The agency has conducted 11 strikes in Pakistan in the first month of 2010." In the military the offensive capabilities of the UAV has 3 broad operational concepts. The first being to suppress enemy air defense. Second, UAVs are used in combat to support counterinsurgency operations. Third, UAVs are used to find and eliminate targets in the field of combat (Callam 2010). Now that last concept is where things can get a little gray. What exactly is a target, and is eliminating the target worth the additional casualties that could come with it? In the article previously mentioned by Callam he starts with an anecdote about a 2009 drone strike that took out the alleged leader of the Pakistan Taliban. Great news yes, but not when you consider that prior to this drone strike there were 16 drone strikes in the 14 months leading up to this assassination dealing somewhere between 201 & 321 additional casualties. The main issue with military UAVs is that although the images they can see are at most times clear; without complete intelligence on the ground drones can (and have) lead to civilian casualties.

4) http://uavcoach.com/uav-jobs/ this website has a plethora of UAV job openings that range from actual pilots and operators to field representatives and product marketing positions. Also, if no one is aware, Eastern offers an elective in UAV and the class is titled: CET 273 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles so if you're stuck looking for classes to fill your schedule this is one I recommend checking out!

Works Cited

 Cavourkian, A. (2012, August). Publicsafety.gc.ca (Canada, Information and Privacy Commissioner). Retrieved February, 2016, from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cnmcs-plcng/cn29822-eng.pdf

Fireworks filmed with a drone [Vid]. (2014, May 13). Drone Hub.

 Eyes in the air: States move to ban drone-assisted hunting | Fox News. (2014, March 25). Retrieved February 13, 2016, from http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/25/eyes-in-air-states-move-to-ban-drone-assisted-hunting.html

 Foxx, A. (2015). Operation and certification of small unmanned air systems (Vol. 80, Ser. 35, pp. 3-6) (United States, Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration). Washington, DC: Federal Register. Retrieved February, 2016, from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-02-23/pdf/2015-03544.pdf. 

 

Callam, A. (2010). Drone Wars: Armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. International Affairs Review, XVIII, 3rd ser. Retrieved February, 2016, from http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/144 

 

Flight and Duty Regulations in the Cargo World

1) The old saying goes, "aviation rules are written in blood" meaning that necessary changes get made in this industry whenever a significant loss of life has occurred. Colgan 3407 is no different. Now although it is blatantly clear thanks to the NTSB investigation that the pilots in this situation were severely inexperienced (or at least not the most ideal pilots to fly); some of the immediate changes made to operate in as a 121 airline pilot may be a more kneejerk reaction due to the incident. After Colgan the NTSB recommended that a few new rules get put in place in order to operate as a 121 pilot. The first being a recommendation to establish an electronic database for pilot records to improve pilot monitoring and the hiring process (Schaal 2013). The transition from paper to electronic can be a long process however so this could be a rule that isn't implemented until the database can be used nationwide by 121 air carriers. Another rule that was pushed for change after the Colgan incident was the requirement of remedial crewmen training for those who have demonstrated deficiencies or have failed a section of their training and training specifically for proper stall procedures, stall stick pusher readings as well as training to recognize flying into potential weather events like icing conditions. These rules are all directly related to the events and lack of recognition that led up to the Colgan incident. Another issue that was considered a factor was pilot fatigue and sure enough, in the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010; duty time was addressed as follows, "the Administrator of the FAA shall issue regulations based on the best available scientific information to specify limitations on the hours of flight and duty time allowed for pilots to address problems relating to pilot fatigue." In the Act, it goes further in depth on what they would look for in regards to pilot fatigue like the time of day a "duty" begins, the number of takeoffs and landings conducted in a duty period, the effects of commuting and length of commute, and rest environments among many other factors (Airline Safety & FAA Extension Act 2010). Now the biggest and most influential rule that changed due to the Colgan incident was the flight hours required in order to receive an ATP (airline transport pilot) certificate for a 121 carrier. Prior to the incident, a First Officer only needed 250 flight hours to work for a 121, but after the incident that hours requirement sky-rocketed to 1,500 flight hours just to become a First Officer in a 121 airline operation. This has had the largest effect on student pilots because on average, a pilot obtains around 200-350 hours in their pursuit of a commercial and CFI(I) certificate , so they are left with coming up with another 1,000 hours of flight give or take before they can even become a first officer for a regional air carrier.

2) According to CFR 117.11 section A subsections 1,2, & 3 states that "no certificate holder may schedule and no flightcrew may member may accept an assignment or continue an assigned flight duty period if the total time: exceeds the total time in Table A of this part if the operation is conducted with minimum required flight crew,  or will exceed 13 hours conducted with a 3-pilot flightcrew, or will exceed 17 hours with a 4-pilot flightcrew." Table A lays out a maximum flight time in reference to the time of the report which is as follows: from 0000-0459 the maximum flight time is 8 hours, from 0500-1959 the maximum flight time is 9 hours, and from 2000-2359 the maximum flight time is 8 hours. The key difference here from a cargo operator over an airline is the 9 hours that can be the max flight time rather than the concrete 8 hours of flight duty in a 121 airline operation. Also, the more pilots included in a cargo operation the longer the flight can be conducted before rest is required (refer to table C in part 117) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-117/appendix-TableC).

3) I believe that cargo operators are exempt from the new rules because due to the high demand of their operation they need pilots operating at all times. I also think it has something to do with what is carried on the aircraft. In the view of most, cargo or things that are inanimate are not seen as more important than an aircraft loaded with 200+ people or even anything over the 4-8 crewmembers that may be aboard a cargo plane should the situation get disastrous. I also believe that this is partially why a majority of cargo pilots are former military because they are used to working ridiculous hours and handling heavy workloads. I feel the cargo industry has a form of masculinity and machoness to it that isn't in place in the airline industry due to the demand and value of life on board the aircraft.

4) I think cargo carriers should be included in the new flight duty and limitation rules because if it is something that is being implemented in the airline industry I don't see why cargo carriers wouldn't be included or embrace it either. Especially with the measurement of fatigue. I think pilot fatigue affects every pilot equally regardless of the type of operation they run, so for a cargo carrier to allow an extra hour (even if it's "just an hour") during the peak times of the day (0500-1959) that their pilots can fly before requiring rest seems like pushing the envelope. I think this could be a reason why cargo carriers aren't seen as an illustrious career choice and often receive the nickname "cargo dog" because they deal with heavier workloads and worse conditions than an airline pilot goes through.

5) If cargo carriers were included in the new duty limitations then I think it would make a manager's job a bit tougher. They need for more pilots would continue to increase to a demand greater than it is already at. Also, managers of cargo carriers would have to be very careful in planning the routes and destinations that they choose their pilots to fly. Either shortening the routes or bringing more pilots on the trip would be ways that a manager could work with the new limitation rules, but that would in turn lead to paying more wages (more pilots on board) or losing revenue for the company (shortening or possibly ending further routes). I think the limitation would put a lot more stress on a manager and you could possibly see the separation of a company over a few hubs across their intended region so that way they could maintain their routes but depart from areas a few hours closer in order to make it within that concrete 8 hour flight duty limitation.

Works Cited

Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 retrieved from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ216/html/PLAW-111publ216.htm

Schaal, D. (2013, November 05). FAA Issues New Pilot Training Rule to Fix Colgan Air Deficiencies. 

14 CFR 117 Table A & C retrieved from: http://www3.alpa.org/portals/alpa/committees/ftdt/Part-117-Flight-Time-Limitations-and-Rest-Requirements.pdf

General Aviation Medical Reform

1)  Currently, the GA push for medical reform is looking to remove the requirement needed to go in and renew a 3rd class medical certificate every 24 months (2 years) if a pilot is over 40 years old and every 60 months (5 years) if the pilot is under 40 years old. In the proposed reform, a pilot who has held a 3rd class medical certificate (including special issuance) over the past 10 years would not be required to go through the FAA medical certification process again (Tennyson 2015). This rule rule comes with some stipulations which are: the aircraft to be flown must be 6,000lbs or less, the pilot can only carry up to 5 passengers, the altitude flying must remain below 18,000ft, and the speed of the aircraft cannot exceed 250kts (Tennyson 2015). The need to apply and test for a 3rd class medical would only be required to those who are initially applying like a new student pilot, or those requiring a special issuance certificate or those who haven't held a current medical certificate for over 10 years since the legislation. Also, the proposed bill would require private pilots to undertake a free online "aeromedical factors" course once every two years as well as a visit to their physician once every four years (Bergqvist 2015). Although this trip to the physician seems like a similar concept to applying for a 3rd class medical the difference is that you don't have to report the outcome to the FAA, just simply make a note of the visit in your logbook and have the form that is required to be filled out in your logbook as well (Tennyson 2015a).

2) Currently the medical reform has been included in a "Pilot's Bill of Rights 2" which was introduced by Senator Jim Inhofe last February (Tennyson 2015). I'm guessing this makes the medical reform a "bill" so to say and it has been approved by the Senate and is currently in the process of getting through the House before it can be signed by the president.

3) An aspect of the medical reform that I would like to analyze is the form needed and the 4 year checkup required by pilots. One "for" on this topic is that it ensures the pilot is still medically sound to fly and with the exam being conducted with a personal physician there should be a relaxed comfort level so they pilot won't be afraid to reveal information. In the same aspect though, the personal physician could bypass certain tests they don't see necessary from their "medical judgement" and ok the pilot since they know them personally which could lead to a potential medical condition overlooked. Also, the fact that the medical conditions aren't required to be reported to the FAA unless specifically requested seems very discerning. This makes me believe that a pilot could potentially be unfit to fly due to some medical condition, but as long as they have the form signed and made a note in their logbook of the doctor visit, they technically are still able to fly without FAA intervention.

4) Personally I don't see the medical reform as being necessary. I think the requirement the FAA had in place where a pilot over 40 had to go for renewal every 2 years and every 5 years for a pilot under 40 was fine. I think this reform was instituted more for those older pilots so they can continue to fly as they age without having to go in for a medical certificate renewal. I also think the reform was put in place to aid in the growth of General Aviation by not requiring a renewal of the 3rd class medical unless you require a special issuance or are a new plot. The "10 years prior legislation" rule imposed in the medical reform seems excessive; for example, I would still be able to fly under this rule because I applied and received my first class medical certificate in 2011 so I would still be eligible to fly after this year (the 5 year mark) if I wanted to without needing ANY medical examination whatsoever. I understand from the GA's perspective how big of a reform this is for their aging members, but I just feel it could potentially lead to some medically unqualified pilots flying when they shouldn't be flying for the safety of other pilots in the air.

Works Cited

Tennyson, E. (2015, December 15). Full senate passes medical reform. In aopa.org.

Tennyson, E. (2015, December 9a). Third class medical reform FAQs. In aopa.org. Retrieved January 30, 2016.

Bergqvist, P. (2015, December 17). Senate passes third-class medical reform. In flyingmag.com.

Pilots and Depression

1) I'll never forget March 24, 2015. I was going for my (at the time) daily run on the treadmill at my local rec center and all of a sudden the TV news channel simultaneously project a large heading, "Commercial airliner crashes in French Alps". I knew right then there would be no survivors but I as I continued my run I observed the news as little details began to unfold about the recent tragedy. Germanwings flight 9525 was scheduled to depart Barcelona, Spain and land in Dusselfdorf, Germany on March 24, 2015. Unfortunately this flight did not make it to its final destination as the A320 was reported to be downed somewhere in the French Alps 30 minutes after takeoff. Although the official report is not available, the details that have been released in the Preliminary Report by the BEA and those that are found on publicly accessed websites indicate that the co-pilot of flight 9525 intentionally programmed the aircraft into a controlled descent into the mountains. In the BEA report, at 9h 30min 08s the pilot notified the co-pilot that he would be leaving the cockpit and asked the co-pilot to take over the controls (assumed the pilot left to use the lavatory) (BEA 2015). 45 seconds after the captain left the selected altitude of the A320 on the FCU (flight control unit) was changed from 38,000ft to 100ft and the autothrust setting was changed to "THR IDLE" mode (BEA 2015). Both of these setting changes along with a change to a "selected" speed management of 308kts further indicate that the crash was deliberate. Over the course of the next/ remaining 11 minutes of the flight there were multiple contacts to the cockpit from various centers/towers/other aircraft/ and military to declare the A320's altitude with no response to any of them (BEA 2015). At about 9h 34min until 9h 39min there were periodical knocks/yelling/and "violent blows" to the cockpit door because it was locked from the inside (captain was locked out after he left for the lavatory at 9h 30min) (BEA 2015). Andreas Lubitz was refused renewal of his 1st class medical on April 9, 2009 by the Lufthansa aeromedical centre due to depression and the taking of medication along with that diagnosis (BEA 2015). Considering he voluntarily suspended his flight training on November 5, 2008  due to medical reasons and the fact that his yearly renewal of his first class was suspended for 2009 due to depression, it is clear to see that his mental illness was documented. Lubitz was able to get his 1st class medical reinstated on July 28, 2009 but there was an endorsement on it stating, "note special conditions/restrictions of the waiver" and a limitation on his pilot license that included "specific regular medical examinations - contact the licensing issue authority" which required the AME to contact the license issuing authority before the medical evaluation to extend or renew his medical certificate (BEA 2015). Upon reading the Preliminary Report from the BEA it appears that Andreas Lubitz was screened and documented for his condition and had to undergo yearly medical evaluations when renewing his 1st class medical certificate. Now how the AME's conducted their evaluations is unknown but in a TIME article it is discussed how mental evaluations are tough to judge because they are more difficult to quantify and are based off of yes and no responses to questions (Park 2015).

2) Hauntingly enough there was a similar suspected suicide 2 years prior to this GermanWings incident on a LAM Mozambique flight near Bwabwata National Park in Namibia. Almost the same setup as well, except that the roles were changed (instead of the captain leaving to use the lav it was the co-pilot). In this incident, the captain locked the cockpit door after the co-pilot leaves and changed the altitude preselector from 38,000ft to 4,288ft then to 1,888ft, and finally down to 592ft (ASN 2013). He (the captain) then reengaged the autothrottle and set the throttle level to idle as he began to manually select the airspeed to increasing numbers over the course of the recording until it remained close to the Vmo speed (ASN 2013). The mental health of the pilot was in question due to the fact that his son had died about a year prior to the accident and over the course of several months prior to this flight he was experiencing marital problems (ASN 2013).

3) Currently the mental evaluation of commercial pilots is conducted once every 6 months for those over 40 years old and once every year for those under 40 (Park 2015). According to Alpo Vuorio, the examiner "tries to see if the pilot is well, and it's not the easiest thing" due to the response from the pilot being either "yes" or "no" and the fact that it is up to the pilot to delve further (Park 2015). Most pilots are afraid to admit or claim that they are depressed or have even had thoughts of suicide because any mental health  problem will likely take them out of the sky. I think the current screening could be handled better or at least have the psychological evaluation handled by a more appropriately trained individual. In the TIME article, Park talks about how medical examiners aren't always trained in mental health, which could lead to them not being able to properly recognize the subtle signs of mental deterioration like depression or alcoholism (Park 2015). I think some reform may be needed in the questions asked (make them more open ended) and the way the situation is handled once a pilot is deemed or self-reports that they suffer from psychological conditions. Make it less of a punishment and more of an encouragement to improve and have experts who can help talk it out and through rather than instantly prescribing an anti-depressant.

4) Having a more liberal approach to the idea of mental health treatment for pilots could prove to be disadvantageous though. I can imagine the reporting system being abused in the airline world if a pilot just doesn't want to fly that day or take that leg that they go and claim mental illness. Now I know this seems extreme but if the airline would continue pay (why wouldn't they) as the pilot undergoes treatment, what pilot wouldn't take the option to "fake" depression just to have a few paid weeks off? I see it being used like fatigue was being used when it initially became a condition that could exempt you from flying that day.

Works Cited

Rep. No. BEA-D-AIPX - 24 mars 2015 at 29 (2015).

Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses pour la sécurité de l’aviation civile. Retrieved from: http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2015/d-px150324.en/pdf/d-px150324.en.pdf 

ASN Aircraft Accident Embraer ERJ 190-100 IGW (ERJ-190AR) c9-EMC Bwabata National Park. (2013, November 29). Retrieved January 22, 2016, from http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20131129-0 

Park, A., & Oaklander, M. (2015, March 26). How Pilots Are Screened for Depression and Suicide. Retrieved January 22, 2016, from http://time.com/3760132/germanwings-plane-crash-pilot-suicide-andreas-lubitz/

ATC Privatization

1) Currently the ATC system used in America and in our airspace is one that relies heavily on radar equipment placed in the aircraft as well as around the airports and control towers through the land. This radar technology emits a radio wave that "pings" back to the original emitter once it is received by an aircraft or object. That "ping" has all kinds of information on it that the controller uses to interpret the aircraft's location, size and speed in the area. With that information, a controller guides the aircraft into the airport while avoiding other traffic or obstructions that could be hazardous to the aircraft using vectors for the aircraft to follow. Now in comparison to the proposed idea of NextGen, there are many differences. The first key difference would be that the NextGen technology uses global positioning systems (GPS) to track and guide aircraft. GPS can be thought of as a more accurate and quicker upgrade from the radar system ATC uses today. It starts with the satellites orbiting the Earth that continually broadcast their signal to identify their location; then once a GPS equipped device receives that satellite's signal it transmits it's (the device's) signal back to the satellite for a constant up-to-date positioning on it's location in reference to the satellite. With that constant up-to-date position, NextGen is able to (hypothetically) direct flights equipped with the proper broadcasting and GPS devices to destinations on a more direct route rather than the vectors and jet airways that get used currently under the radar technology.

2) The largest issue general aviation (GA) has with the privatization of ATC is the implementation of user fees. Since ATC would be privatized they would no longer receive funding or be part/considered in the government budget as they are now. The funding then would have to come from users of the ATC system which is anybody and everybody who flies. This kind of user fee puts those in GA at a disadvantage to airlines because airlines have that kind of revenue to pay for continual user fees where a GA pilot or operation may not. Since GA is so broad not all operations in GA generate revenue especially not to the extent of the airlines and these type of user fees could see a reduction in numbers for those who participant in general aviation. This leads to another issue that the GA fears may happen if privatization of ATC becomes a reality and that is that priority may occur with certain air traffic in the airspace, namely the airlines. Under federal ownership the ATC system guarantees equal access for all of its users (Wood 2015).  The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) believes that ATC privatization and the implementation of per-use fees for services could, "penalize the prudent practice of using ATC services like filing for IFR in marginal conditions or receiving VFR advisories" (Wood 2015). Groups like EAA and AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) are against privatization because they believe that the "current method of collecting revenues through a tax on aviation fuel is not broken" and that "any air traffic system must preserve GA access to airports and airspace on a first-come first-serve basis like we do today." (Wood 2015). Another organization called Airlines for America (A4A) has a different belief on the privatization of ATC. A4A believes that the transition is long overdue and that the radar system we use currently is severely outdated. On a conference call with fellow members and CEOs of major airlines, A4A found that, "separating air traffic control from the FAA would lead to a much more efficient and effective airline operation because and independent ATC organization would operate with long-term funding and governance certainty. The leader of the organization would be incentivized to pursue efficiencies without constraints imposed on government agencies that hamper their ability to operate nimbly and effectively." (Parker 2015).

3) Two countries I was able to find that have nonprofit, privatized ATC are Canada and the United Kingdom. In Canada the organization that controls the air traffic is called Nav Canada and they coordinate the air traffic from 7 area control centres (ACCs) throughout the country (http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/about-us/Pages/what-we-do-atc.aspx). From those 7 control centres, the Canadian airspace is broken up into sections between them and then get broken down further to sections where controllers can monitor the flow of air traffic. As for the way they are governed, NAV Canada has four groups that come to a consensus on the board of directors nominees: commercial air carriers, Government of Canada, business/general aviation, and employees. 4 directors are elected by commercial carriers, 1 by GA/business aviation, 3 from the Government of Canada, and 2 by the employee unions  (http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/about-us/Pages/governance.aspx). In regards to funding, NAV Canada receives its funding from charging airlines and other operators for air traffic control services (user fees). They receive their financing through publicly traded debt like bonds and notes. (http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/about-us/Pages/investor-relations.aspx). The company in the UK that operates the ATC is called NATS and only have two control centres unlike the 7 that are in place in Canada. NATS provide similar services with regards to air traffic control and guidance to aircraft operating within their airspace. The one difference I see from NATS to NAV Canada is that NATS has military air traffic controllers that work alongside them in the Swanwick centre and that they cover an area of the Northern Atlantic from 45 degrees to 61 degrees North latitude (http://www.nats.aero/about-us/what-we-do/our-control-centres/). An issue that NATS has experienced since taking over the air traffic in the UK area is the increase in delay times (5.5 sec in 2014 to 1.4 sec in 2013). There was also a large unexplained system failure in December of 2014 which lead to hundreds of delays and some 300 flight cancellations (http://www.nats.aero/about-us/operational-performance/). A failure of this caliber hasn't occurred since, but it leaves NATS with a questionable reputation and showed how things just don't operate when a system with that much oversight and no outside help goes down.

4) It appears that through the articles and links I have read that the process it would take to get our ATC system privatized comes from Congress. In multiple articles there is always a representative pushing for the pass of some privatization bill whether it be John Mica (R-Fla) or Bill Shuster (R-Pa). These representatives aim to get their legislation passed through the aviation subcommittee in the House and move it up from there (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/congress-considers-privatizing-the-air-traffic-control-system/2015/03/24/b63a38f4-d23d-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html). The final decision to allow ATC privatization lies on the decision of Congress not on the FAA.

5) I personally don't feel that the privatization of ATC is needed here in the US because we handle a lot more air traffic than the countries that are privatized. Could you imagine if a system failure occurred here like it did with NATS in the UK? Having the government regulate and fund our ATC system ensures that they receive funding and also that things are kept to the standard that the FAA institutes in all areas it oversees. The real issue here isn't the privatization but more so the way our government handles things like this matter that are needing change but never receive it. The bureaucracy that occurs in our government and the personal agendas that are being fulfilled behind closed doors or without public notice are the real issue here.

Works Cited

Call to action issued over ATC privatization. (2015, July 8). Retrieved January 16, 2016, from http://generalaviationnews.com/2015/07/08/call-to-action-issued-over-atc-privatization/

ICYMI: A4A National Media Call on the Need for Modernization and Reform of Nation's Air Traffic Control. (2015, Dec 8). Retrieved January 16, 2016, from http://airlines.org/news/icymi-a4a-national-media-call-on-the-need-for-modernization-and-reform-of-nations-air-traffic-control/

http://www.navcanada.ca/en/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.nats.aero/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/congress-considers-privatizing-the-air-traffic-control-system/2015/03/24/b63a38f4-d23d-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html

Personal Introduction

1. My interest in aviation started as a little kid when my mom would always take us on vacations due to her employment at Northwest Airlines. There's actually one memory from my childhood that I recall which sparked my interest in aviation and that was when my brother and I were allowed to go into the cockpit of an airplane (pre 9/11) and talk to the pilot's and wear their hat and sit in their seat. We were both super excited at the opportunity and my mom has a picture of us in her scrapbook. Junior year of high school was when I made the decision that I wanted to pursue aviation as a profession and began looking at colleges that offered flying. This lead me to Western Michigan University where I flew the Cirrus SR20 and logged 20+ hours of flight time. Upon transferring to Eastern I wanted to continue flying, but some complications arose with my medical and I didn't have the money or the time to wait out my medical so I switched my major to Aviation Management and began my current route pursuing an Aircraft Dispatcher certificate.

2. As mentioned, my major is Aviation Management Technology with a specialty in Aircraft Dispatch and a minor in General Business. My planned graduation is Fall 2016 so I'm right around the corner.

3. My future plans are to first pass my practical exam for aircraft dispatch then find a flight follower job or internship somwhere to practice aircraft dispatch. I've considered Kalitta Air or IFL Group since they are nearby but I am willing to go where I'm needed. The end game would be to work as a flight supervisor for Delta Air Lines and retire with them. Through adulthood and when my student loan debt isn't consuming my life, I would like to come back to flying and hopefully pursue my Private Pilot's certificate; so if any of my fellow pilots in this class end up becoming flight instructors let me know!