The COMAC C919

The Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China Ltd. (COMAC) looks to compete with major aircraft manufacturers Boeing and Airbus. On November 2, 2015 COMAC rolled out its first narrow body aircraft the C919. Chinese aviation is on a huge rise. According to Alberto Riva, Boeing is estimating "Chinese airlines will need to buy more than 6,000 airplanes between 2014 and 2034, worth almost $1 trillion (2015).” Simply looking at these figures it isn't hard to understand why China is looking to produce aircraft within their own country. At the same time, they are forced to battle with manufacturing titans, Airbus and Boeing. 

I think that the C919 will be able to get FAA certification in the future. However, it certainly won't be an easy task. This is shown through COMAC's other production jet which is a regional jet called ARJ-21. COMAC has stated they built a spinoff of the original ARJ-21 to comply with FAA certification standards (Gavindasamy & Miller, 2015). However, it has been a five-year process of the FAA shadowing the certification process (Gavindasamy & Miller, 2015). With its current specifications, the ARJ-21 failed to receive FAA certification which severely limits its markets as it can't be flown in the U.S. Some believe that the FAA is taking their time in the certification process because of political and economic issues between the FAA and the Civil Aviation Administration of China (Gavindasamy & Miller, 2015). According to Siva Govindasamy and Matthew Miller, the FAA has stated in an email to Reuters News Agency, "The FAA enjoys a good working relationship with CAAC and we continue to work together to develop a path to work towards certification of the derivative model of the ARJ-21 and, possibly, the C919... (2015)." In my opinion, I think the C919 has potential to get FAA certification. Due to that fact that COMAC is a Chinese manufacturer and that it doesn't have a reputable name currently, I think the certification process is due to be lengthy. 

If the COMAC C919 becomes FAA certified, it could definitely be considered among air carriers due to its price tag. The China National Radio predicted the price of the C919 to be 30% less than the B737 and A320 (AeroTime 2015). It can be assumed that this lower cost can be associated with the lower cost of pay to employees. However, I do foresee a number of challenges with integrating the C919 in U.S. air carriers. The first problem I can think of would deal with training challenges. The contract to build a full flight simulator for the C919 was given to Rockwell Collins in Cedar Rapids, Iowa (McHale 2011). The question that comes to mind is would pilots have to initially travel to China to receive training in this simulator. Customer support on the aircraft is another issue. Providing product support infrastructure is a task that might be very hard for COMAC to integrate in the U.S. (Michaels 2014). Therefore, with reduced costs to buy the aircraft, the air carriers could face problems with product support with possibly more aircraft down time. Another issue at hand is production delays in the C919. The projected buyers are scheduled to receive their order in 2018, however those following COMAC believe it may be even later than 2018 (Gavindasamy 2016). Therefore, by the time COMAC starts delivering their product, it will already be more outdated than the current production of planes like the A320 neo and 737 Max (Gavindasamy 2016). In other words, the C919 will already be beat in performance by the newer Airbus and Boeing models. Better performance and efficiency equates to lower cost which is one reason a U.S. carrier may opt to stay with Airbus or Boeing. Perception is an issue at hand also. COMAC doesn’t have a built up reputation like Airbus or Boeing in Europe and the United States. The fact that it is “made in China’ may create a negative stigma until the company can show its safety and efficiency. At the same time, I think that passengers who fly on aircraft of this type generally have no idea what type of aircraft they are flying on unless they have some knowledge on the industry or are told. Due to this reason, I don’t think that general public perception is an issue. The air carriers will be the ones where perception may be an issue simply due to COMAC’s lack of reputation at this point in time.

The Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, otherwise known as COMAC, is a state owned limited liability company (COMAC n.d.).  Being state owned is an advantage for COMAC as they are heavily funded by the Chinese government. Many Chinese air carriers have political pressures in buying products from COMAC as COMAC is largely government funded (Matha 2015). This can be seen in the order numbers for the C919. Bernie Leighton states that COMAC has around 450 orders for the C919 and the vast majority of them are carriers in China (2015). According to COMAC’s website (n.d.), their overall mission is “to build the large aircraft program into a symbol for the reform and opening up policy in the new era and for creating an innovative nation, and to build COMAC into a world class aviation enterprise.” As stated previously, COMAC does have another aircraft out which is the ARJ-21. The ARJ-21 is a regional type aircraft that fits up to 90 passengers (Gavindasamy & Miller, 2015). Similar to the C919, the ARJ-21 has yet to receive FAA certification and is unable to fly in the U.S.

Other companies are already making attempts in making strides on the global scene to challenge Boeing and Airbus. A good example of this is the Russian MC-21 produced by the Irkut Corporation which is owned by the United Aircraft Company (Russia Today 2016).  The company has stated that they plan to be producing 20 aircraft a year by the year 2020 (Russia Today 2016). China and Russia are both in their infancy in building these narrow body aircraft compared to Airbus and Boeing. Both the Chinese C919 and Russian MC-21 haven’t made it passed initial testing stages. It will definitely take some time to be fair competitors with Boeing and Airbus. The fact that these countries have created aircrafts of this feat are in no doubt an accomplishment. It takes a great deal of resources such as man power, money and time. Companies like Boeing and Airbus have had their fair share of success and loss. It was only a matter of time other countries would join the competition. Even if the governments helps support and foster the development of a production aircraft like the COMAC C919, it was a huge feat for China.

In my opinion, Boeing and Airbus haven’t really responded to COMAC’s introduction of the C919. Both manufacturers have been on top of the game for quite some time and have credibility that COMAC has yet to receive. On top of that, both manufacturers have their own projects which include the A320neo and 737 MAX (Chang 2012). Boeing is continuing its reign with the acceptance to build a plant in China in 2015 for their contract to build 300 jets for China (Cahill 2015). Overall, Airbus and Boeing will continue to be on top. However, in the long term it may be possible to see COMAC in there.

AeroTime. (2015, November 20). Made in China: Why C919 can hardly be called Chinese. Retrieved October 27, 2016, from http://www.aerotime.aero/en/people/people-news/editorial/20413-made-in-china-why-c919-can-hardly-be-called-chinese

Cahill on Business, J. (2015, November 4). Boeing has a new big challenge: China. Retrieved October 27, 2016, from http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20151104/BLOGS10/151109968/boeing-has-a-new-big-challenge-china

Chang, G. G. (2012, November 25). Chinese aviation ABC's: Airbus, Boeing and COMAC. Retrieved October 27, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2012/11/25/chinas-aviation-abcs-airbus-boeing-and-comac/#31d0c3351048

COMAC. (n.d.). Company profile Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, Ltd. Retrieved October 27, 2016, from http://english.comac.cc/aboutus/introduction/

Govindasamy, S. (2016, February 23). China's COMAC aims for first C919 flight by early 2017: Sources. Retrieved October 27, 2016, from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-coma-china-c-idUSKCN0VW110

Govindasamy, S., & Miller, M. (2015, October 21). Exclusive: China-made regional jet set for delivery, but no U.S. certification. Retrieved October 27, 2016, from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-aircraft-arj21-exclusive-idUSKCN0SF2XN20151021#ij0P11gFChwoyzBM.97

Leighton, B. (2015, March 18). A Closer Look at the COMAC C919 - Why does it exist? Retrieved October 27, 2016, from http://www.airlinereporter.com/2015/03/closer-look-comac-c919-exist/

Matha, M. (2015, December 18). 5 Reasons why Chinese aircraft manufacturer will become a global contender. Retrieved October 27, 2016, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/5-reasons-why-chinese-aircraft-manufacturer-become-global-matha

McHale, J. (2011, January 7). COMAC C919 simulator program awarded to Rockwell Collins by XASC. Retrieved October 27, 2016, from http://www.intelligent-aerospace.com/articles/2011/01/comac-c919-simulator.html

Michaels, K. (2014, June 24). Opinion: COMAC tie-up with Bombardier a win-win. Retrieved October 27, 2016, from http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/opinion-comac-tie-bombardier-win-win

Powell, S. (2015, November 9). China’s COMAC C919 aircraft running behind schedule – First commercial flight not before 2019. Retrieved October 27, 2016, from http://loyaltylobby.com/2015/11/09/chinas-comac-c919-aircraft-running-behind-schedule-first-commercial-flight-not-before-2019/#disqus_thread

Riva, A. (2016, June 28). China just flew its first passenger jet - and it's a clunker. Retrieved October 27, 2016, from https://news.vice.com/article/china-just-flew-its-first-passenger-jetand-its-a-clunker

Russia Today. (2016, June 8). MC-21: Russian high-tech plane rolls out to challenge Airbus 320. Retrieved October 27, 2016, from https://www.rt.com/news/345823-mc-21-aircraft-presentation-irkut/

Commercial Space Industry

"Space tourism" has become a reality in today's age. The concept of civilian space travel is nothing short of new. For starters, according to Sam Blum, only seven out of five hundred fifty-one people were private citizens who have traveled to space (2015). In order to make this trip they have all spent upwards of twenty-million dollars to get there with the help of a company called Space Adventures (Melville 2014). There are many other companies that are planing on offering trips to space in years to come. One of which is called Virgin Galactic. Of course, if you want to make the trip you will have to come up with a great deal of money still. Virgin Galactic has online reservations where you can sign up for a space trip in the upcoming years when they begin the service (Melville 2014). The price for a ticket on board this companies spacecraft is $250,000 which doesn't include a 10% down payment (Melville 2014). In the mean time, Space Adventures Ltd. is helping make commercial space travel possible through Russian space missions (Melville 2014). Financially speaking, you would certainly have to be in the top 1% financially to afford this ticket. While the idea of commercial space travel seems very far fetched, space companies are making great strides in paving the way for the future. Before I go into more detail about the space industry, let me first go over a little history regarding civilian space travel.

Space exploration is widely known to be government funded. After successfully making trips to space, civilian space travel had always been an idea. The 1980s were a big year for the space industry. In 1984, Charles D. Walker became the first non-government employed astronaut with the help of the company McDonnell Douglas (Blum 2015). The government funded, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had a program called Teacher in Space which allowed a lucky person the chance to take part in a space mission without holding a career in the government. The Challenger was the rocket that would take this participant into space. In 1986, the Challenger exploded in flight killing all those on board and NASA shut down the program that allowed civilians to travel to space (Blum 2015). The concept of civilian "space tourism" really took off after the X-Prize Foundation based in St. Louis was offering a ten million dollar reward for the first private company to build a spaceship with the ability to carry three people to altitudes of sixty-two miles in 1995 (Antczak 2016). This same company would have to be able to do this twice within two weeks to prove the spaceship is reusable (Antczak 2016).  According to John Antczak, the Federation Aeronautique Internationale marks the sixty-two mile mark as the boundary between Earth and space or the difference between astronautics and aeronautics (2016). The race was on to be the first company that could do this. A number of companies were formed in the years following the creation of X-Prize. Virgin Galactic was one such company formed in 1999 by Richard Branson (Howell 2016). Richard Branson invested in Scaled Composites to create the spaceship that was used to win the X-Prize September and October of 2004 (Howell 2016).  Following this huge accomplishment, Virgin Galactic said that it would open its doors to civilian space travel by 2007 (Howell 2016). Several setbacks forced the company to keep pushing back the start up date. For example, Virgin Galactic had a deadly mishap on October 31, 2014, when their spaceship named "SpaceShipTwo" exploded in flight due to pilot error (Davies 2015). Another company called SpaceX, has had numerous problems with their rockets. In 2015 their rocket, "Falcon 9" exploded just after launch and in September of this year they had another mishap with their rocket exploding on the launchpad (Fecht 2016). 

The regulations regarding commercial space industry for the private sector were created in 1984 with the Commercial Space Launch Act. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, this legislation gave the "responsibility for licensing, regulating, and promoting the private sector space industry was given to the Office of Commercial Space Transportation (FAA 2010)." Essentially, this law requires any U.S. resident to get a license in order to launch a rocket. Another import legislation was the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004. Under this law, passengers aboard a spacecraft must be informed of all the dangers associated with space flight and the passenger must give consent and sign a form (FAA 2010). This amendment also created the requirements for general training and requirements of crew members (FAA 2010). The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 was another important law passed regarding the commercial space industry. This law gives the commercial space industry 8 years of freedom from regulatory oversight (Stockton 2015). The reason for this rule making was regulatory oversight makes it very hard to innovate in space technology. The commercial space industry is very young and accidents are bound to happen. If there was more regulatory framework, accidents would be huge drawbacks. The rule making doesn't say that there will be no regulatory oversight, but simply limited oversight (Stockton 2015). I think this bill is very important because space exploration is very difficult financially as it is. Once you add an extensive regulatory framework, it becomes very hard to innovate technology and the industry as a whole. Therefore, I think a less restrictive regulatory framework is definitely important.

I think that in due time, space tourism will become more of a reality. I don't foresee it becoming something a ton of people can do in the next decade and possibly not even in the next two decades primarily due to how expensive it is. It can't become something a ton of people can do unless prices really come down. Those fortunate to be in the top one percent financially will be fortunate to be able to make these space trips and even then safety will always be a concern. The explosion of Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo on October 31, 2014, creates a bad aurora in the eyes of the public. I think that with more time credibility with passenger flights, they will be able to gain a better public perception. However, the commercial space industry is very young. Virgin Galactic is only planning on taking passengers to the sixty-two mile mark which is considered space and they will only have four minutes of weightlessness before coming back into the Earths atmosphere (Davies 2015). This just shows the mere infancy of the entire program. That being said, I think it will definitely be a bucket list item until technology advances and prices can come down exponentially. When airplanes were first being put into passenger travel service, there was a fear from the public. It will definitely take a good amount of time to get the public to wrap their heads around space travel. While I definitely support civilian space travel, I think the commercial space industry has a ways to go in terms of safety.

Entering the space tourism industry on the pilot side may take quite a bit of work. Virgin Galactic has posted job postings looking for pilots. Nancy Atkinson has detailed the requirements that Virgin Galactic put out in their press release. She described these requirements in her article "Dream job posting: Spaceship pilots wanted." The first requirement is having graduated from a recognized test pilot school. The applicant must have experience in flying,"both high performance fast-jet type airplanes and large multi-engine types (Atkinson 2016)." Like most commercial industry segments, their press release says that the applicant must promote an enjoyable and safe flight atmosphere and previous spaceflight experience is highly desirable (Atkinson 2016).

References

 Antczak, J. (2016, February 15). Things to know about the space tourism industry. Retrieved October 20, 2016, from http://www.usnews.com/news/science/articles/2016-02-15/things-to-know-about-the-space-tourism-industry

 Atkinson, N. (2016, April 26). Dream job posting: Spaceship pilots wanted. Retrieved October 21, 2016, from http://www.universetoday.com/84765/dream-job-posting-spaceship-pilots-wanted/ 

 Blum, S. (2015, November 25). The space tourism timeline. Retrieved October 21, 2016, from https://www.inverse.com/article/8528-the-space-tourism-timeline 

 Davies, A. (2015, July 29). Blame a catastrophic blindspot for the fatal Virgin Galactic crash. Retrieved October 21, 2016, from https://www.wired.com/2015/07/blame-catastrophic-blindspot-virgin-galactic-crash/ 

 FAA. (2010, June 28). Fact Sheet - Commercial space transportation. Retrieved October 21, 2016, from http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=11559 

 Fecht, S. (2016, September 16). Could SpaceX's Falcon 9 really launch again by November? Retrieved October 21, 2016, from http://top.adlesse.com/en/i/710864461139702037/could-spacex-s-falcon-9-really-launch-again-by-november 

 Howell, E. (2016, February 17). Virgin Galactic: Richard Branson's Space Tourism Company. Retrieved October 20, 2016, from http://www.space.com/18993-virgin-galactic.html 

 Melville, G. (2014, April 30). How do I go to space? And how much will it cost me? Retrieved October 20, 2016, from https://www.outsideonline.com/1785601/how-do-i-go-space-and-how-much-will-it-cost-me 

 Stockton, N. (2015, November 18). Congress says yes to space mining, No to rocket regulations. Retrieved October 21, 2016, from https://www.wired.com/2015/11/congress-says-yes-to-space-mining-no-to-rocket-regulations/ 

The Current Status of UAVs

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) also referred to as unmanned aerial systems or drones have been around for quite a long time in the military (Wingfield 2016). Over the past few years, UAVs have been growing in use by the civilian world. A UAV is a unit that can be piloted from the ground by a radio controller. With increases in technology, autonomous flight has become a reality where a drone can fly to GPS coordinates that the user places on a map (Wingfield 2016). According to Business Insider, "Shipments of consumer drones will more than quadruple over the next five years, fueled by increasing price competition and new technologies that make flying drones easier for beginners (2016)." Advancements in the technology and increased consumer demand have made owning one in the current times a reality. According to Nick Winfield, "...2.8 million consumer drones will be sold in the United States in 2016 and revenue will reach $953 million(2016)." With increasing numbers of UAVs out there, there is a concern for the safety in the National Airspace System. The government was very slow to put out any kind of regulations enforcing the certification and use of UAVs in our current airspace system. Before I go into the recent legislation regarding UAVs, I will first talk about the uses.

There are currently many uses of unmanned aerial systems in the civilian world. Current uses include police departments using them for photographing accident sites, the department of homeland security uses them to patrol the U.S. boarder and firefighters in places like California use UAVs in monitoring forest fires (Epatko 2013). Other practical uses include aerial photography, taking pictures or video for real estate firms or for construction/inspection uses (Orcutt 2016). There are so many more applications for drones but the ideas are limited by the current regulations. On August 29, 2016, the FAA's drone rules finally went into effect. These regulations were a relief for many businesses looking to use drones commercially (Orcutt 2016). Prior to this regulation, The Department of Defense and FAA worked together to create a system where the operator could get a 'certificate of authorization' allowing the operator to operate a drone in the NAS. Getting a waiver is a long drawn out process that could take months (DeGarmo 2004 p.1-5). The new drone rules deal with the certification of drone operators and the use of drones. In order to receive your remote pilot certificate, you must take an Aeronautical Knowledge test under part 107. After successful completion of the test, you must fill out an FAA Airmen Certificate/rating on the FAA's IACRA page (FAA n.d.). There are many guidelines for permitting  commercial use of drones. Some of these include: weighing under 55 pounds, operated in daylight hours, maintain visual contact with the drone at all times, operated in a way to not interfere with other aircraft, remaining at or below 400 feet above ground level or structure and fly no faster than 100 miles per hour (Mcdougal n.d.). The use of drones on farms would be very useful as farmers could check their crops. One problem however is the rule where you must be in line of sight of the drone. This doesn't help farmers who have crops on several acres of property that would be out of line of sight (Masunaga 2016). In order to get around these rules, a person would have to apply for a waiver from the FAA which could take a good amount of time. Using drones as a means of delivery of packages is still not legal (Wingfield 2016).

I foresee UAVs integrating into the National Airspace System. I don't think it will happen in the immediate future because it took a good amount of time to get the current regulations passed. In addition, the integration of UAVs poses a number of issues. The first issue that is arguably the most important issue is collision avoidance. There is potential for catastrophic events with other aircraft. One specific way to solve this issue is to create technology where the UAV can see and avoid other aircraft (DeGarmo 2004 p. 2-3 — 2-5). Under FAR 91.113, the right of way rules are spelled out for all aircraft. They say that regardless of VFR or IFR operations, operators bust maintain vigilance to see and avoid other aircraft (DeGarmo 2004 p. 2-3). That being said, in order for drones to be effectively integrated further into the national airspace system, the UAVs need see and avoid technology. Of course another major issue I force is how UAVs will be regulated to contain see-and-avoid technology. Currently, a UAV has to stay at or below 400 feet above ground level. I don't think it will be very easy to integrate UAVs into airspace higher than 400 feet unless these see-and-avoid technologies are integrated. In order for a UAV to be integrated into positive control airspace it would need some kind of surveillance equipment such as ADS-B (DeGarmo 2004 p.2-5). This creates other issues which include payload capacity. All this equipment adds additional weight. Smaller UAVs may not be able to incorporate all this technology unless advancements are made to make smaller and lighter equipment (DeGarmo 2004 p.2-5). Other logistical problems include how air traffic control will be able to communicate with the drones to allow for positive separation (DeGarmo 2004 p.2-16. Public perceptions of UAVs may be an additional problem. Privacy is one really big public problem. Trespassing and being a nuisance on ones property may create problems (Mcdougal n.d.). There are currently no rules regarding the amount of airspace a homeowner owns over their property (Mcdougal n.d.). Therefore, what constitutes trespassing? The public may question the reliability and safety of UAVs. This perception can be brought foreword through statistics. Matthew DeGarmo references "85% of all UAV accidents are a result of equipment failure (DeGarmo 2004 p.2-11)." Overall, I think that with more time, integration is necessary because there are so many practical uses for drones and their popularity is only just increasing. The current regulations take a stab at trying to integrate UAVs in the NAS and catch up with the UAV technology. Creating rules and certification was an initial step to integration.

UAV technology was first integrated in the military and has served many vital roles. Unmanned aerial systems were created as early as the American civil war with the unsuccessful use of unmanned balloons to drop bombs (DeGarmo 2004 p.1-2). In World War I a pilotless aircraft called the "Kettering Bug" was created which could fly for a specific amount of time before the wings coming off. It was never used in combat (DeGarmo 2004 p.1-2). The Germans were the first to make huge advancements in the technology in World War II with the V-1 bomber (DeGarmo 2004 p.1-3). During the Korean and Vietnam wars the UAV became very useful in surveillance as UAVs made flights in North Vietnam and China (DeGarmo 2004 p.1-3). In todays age, drones are used extensively in surveillance as each drone can stay in the sky for up to 17 hours at a time (BBC News 2012). They have also been used to target and kill militants in tribal areas of Pakistan (BBC News 2012). There are many debates on whether or not the use of drones is ethical. On one side, it is believed that the use of drones help deliver precision attacks where a manned aircraft operation might have been too risky. On the other side, it is believed to be unethical because every strike kills hundreds of civilians along with the target (BBC News 2012). Every action comes with a price to pay. Financially, the use of drones makes a lot of sense. The firepower from a MQ-9 Reaper and A-10 thunderbolt are similar however, the Reaper costs $6.4 million while the A-10 costs $18.2 million (Francis 2013). Maintenance costs are also higher for the A-10 making drones more efficient. According to David Francis, in the year 2012, the cost of American troops in Afghanistan was upwards of $51 billion (2013). The budget for drones over the next 10 years, is expected to be around $40 billion (Francis 2013). That being said, it makes sense why the use of drones has increased the last decade. It is not only cheaper, but it also keeps American pilots out of harms way. In my opinion, the use of drones has been very critical to military operations and the integration of drones was very effective. The efficiency of drone integration in U.S. was limited by the regulations as waivers could take a long period of time to receive. However, the use of drones throughout the world by the U.S. have been very effective.

After doing some research, I was able to find several civilian UAV jobs. The majority of them are contract work. The two jobs I find have to do with drone photography. The recent regulations have opened up many opportunities for jobs and I am sure with more time more will be created.  One website that I found particularly interesting was DroneBase.com. It is a website that allows drone pilots to sign up on their website. People and businesses can hire pilots from the website to get photographs for real estate or construction sites (Constine 2015). I think this is a really good idea for those looking for contract jobs flying drones. Two specific jobs I found will be listed below.

1. http://www.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=3f659142edfb395e&qd=EjXobnmpox62Zud1hq9TwLBIXILHFewxGNmhKF7jqBjP9_1lVQ0mcVFZTJ_Flo1f4KDDqwGCdUN8G90fRGb3KqVctS9cY7R02oKnDArGT8kOIMqHHDWPh5pThy73q1gpHqeiOfrcDO4wvLXfvaxkxg&atk=1av0cqqcoaepqfem&utm_source=publisher&utm_medium=organic_listings&utm_campaign=affiliate

2. http://www.indeed.com/cmp/Dronegenuity-LLC/jobs/Drone-Pilot-5651fea064565eb8?q=Drone

References:

BBC News. (2012, January 31). Drones: What are they and how do they work? Retrieved October 13, 2016, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-10713898 

 Business Insider. (2016, June 10). The drones report: Market forecasts, regulatory barriers, top vendors, and leading commercial applications. Retrieved October 13, 2016, from http://www.businessinsider.com/uav-or-commercial-drone-market-forecast-2015-2 

Constine, J. (2015, April 29). DroneBase lets any business rent a drone and a pilot. Retrieved October 14, 2016, from https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2015/04/29/dronebase/amp/?client=safari

DeGarmo, M. T. (2004). Issues concerning integration of unmanned aerial vehicles in civil airspace. The MITRE Corporation Center for Advanced Aviation System Development.

 Epatko, L. (2013, April 18). How are drones used in the U.S.? Retrieved October 13, 2016, from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/how-are-drones-used-in-us/ 

 FAA. (n.d.). The FAA's new drone rules are effective today. Retrieved October 13, 2016, from http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=86305 

 Francis, D. (2013, February 7). Death by drones: Are they worth the cost? Retrieved October 13, 2016, from http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/02/07/Death-by-Drones-Are-They-Worth-the-Cost 

 McDougal, T. (n.d.). Drones and the law: The sky's not the limit. Retrieved October 13, 2016, from https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/video/tips-and-solutions/drones-and-law-skys-not-limit 

 Orcutt, M. (2016, August 26). Now you can finally use your drone to make money. Retrieved October 13, 2016, from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602237/now-you-can-finally-use-your-drone-to-make-money/ 

 Wingfield, N. (2016, August 29). A field guide to civilian drones. Retrieved October 13, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/technology/guide-to-civilian-drones.html?_r=0 

http://hubmesh.com/drones-being-used-in-us-find-out-how-also-the-way-to-use-drones.html

Should Cargo Carriers Be Exempt From The Newer Flight / Duty Changes?

Cargo Industry Exemption from Flight/Duty Changes

It is often said that many of the new or current rules in the aviation industry are written in blood. This is often said because a lot of the changes that come about are a result of accidents involving death. The Colgan Air crash in Buffalo, New York that killed 50 people on February 12, 2009, brought about many changes (Maxon 2011). The FAA instituted new flight/duty requirements following this crash as pilot fatigue was said to be a huge factor. I will discuss some of the major differences between the new rules and the old ones.

 For starters, flight/duty requirements will now be based on a variety of factors. These include what time the crew member starts their first flight, number of segments to fly and based on the number of time zones their travels take them across. This is all based on fatigue research (“Press Release” 2011). The previous rule had different rest requirements for domestic, flag and supplemental operations. The current rule makes it so there are no changes in rest requirements between operations (Houston 2016). There was a lack of concern for time zones and the time of day a pilot started their first flight on the previous set of rules.  Another big change was the requirement of a minimum of 10 hours of rest between duty periods. Of the 10 hours, 8 of those hours must be uninterrupted sleep. The previous minimum was 8 hours (“Press Release” 2011). Another big change to the regulations was the previous regulation had a vague interpretation of being “fit for duty (Houston 2016).” The new regulation requires the pilot to sign an agreement that they are fit for flight. According to Sarina Houston (2016), it's the carrier’s duty to remove the pilot if they report being fatigued and not “fit for flight.” In addition, a reserve pilot is required to get at least a 10-hour rest period. Previously, this was at least 24 hours off in a 7-day period. Another huge point made in the rule was limiting the maximum time a pilot can be scheduled on duty which includes the time waiting for flights and other tasks (Houston 2016). The time varies from 9 to 14 based on time zones and the time at which the pilot started their first flight (“Press Release” 2011).

The new flight and duty requirements don’t impact cargo operators. This has sparked a lot of debate. The cargo carriers continue to operate under the old regulations (Carroll 2014). The current rules that cargo carriers use regarding flight and duty limitations are old and don’t fall in line with the current fatigue science. The current rules that cargo operators are operating under allow 16 hours of duty. Cargo pilots can begin their day late at night and still fly for the 16 hours (ALPA n.d.). The rules don’t take into account what time a pilot starts their day or time zones. The cargo operators do not follow any of this research as they are still following the old rules. In addition, the cargo operators have no rules regarding the quality of rest facilities on the aircraft. Therefore, there are cargo operators who have spent a ton of money on rest facilities and there are lots of places that haven’t done much (ALPA n.d.).  According to the Air Line Association International (n.d.), cargo airlines vary in scheduling, work hours and work rules. The FAA has said it “encourages cargo operators to opt in to the new rule voluntarily, which would require them to comply with all of its provisions (Werfelmen 2012).” Therefore, the only current way a cargo pilot will fall in line with the new part 117 requirements is if the carrier voluntarily opts into the rules.

I think that the cargo carriers have been excluded from the changes mostly due to financial reasons. According to Linda Werfelman, "The FAA, however, said that that the cost of including cargo operators under the new rule would have been too great, compared with the benefits they would have likely received (2012). The FAA analyzed the cost of including cargo carriers in the rules and they said it would cost cargo carriers $306 million (CAA 2012). According to the Cargo Airline Association, the FAA ranged the benefits at $20.35 million to $32.55 million (2012). The costs of implementing the rules would really hurt the cargo industry whose operations are done 24/7. In addition to these financial numbers, the average hours per month at a cargo operation is 45.5 hours and the passenger carrier operation has an average of over 50 hours per month (CAA 2012). That being said, the debate was that the cargo industry is much different from the passenger carrying industry and fatigue requirements shouldn’t be the same since there are material differences between the two (CAA 2012). Due to the fact that cargo operations are done around the clock, the crew rest requirements would really effect the transportation of products across the U.S. as crew scheduling could become an issue. On top of this, it seems this was a knee jerk reaction by the FAA to get something done after the Colgan crash where fatigue was a factor in the accident (Maxon 2011). I think public perception was definitely a factor because the general public only has concerns on whether the passenger carrying industry is safe. By applying the rules, it would satisfy the concerns from the public and still be able to satisfy the financial needs of the cargo operators.

I think that cargo carriers should definitely be included in the rules. Cargo pilots are definitely still faced with fatigue in their operations. The new fatigue science needs to be applied to the crew rest requirements of the cargo industry. The FAA has said that the traveling through time zones and the hours at which pilots begin are all factors in fatigue based on the new rules (“Press Release” 2011). By not applying the fatigue science to the cargo industry, the level of safety isn’t there because cargo carriers are still using regulations that aren’t based on the newer fatigue science. Not only that, but cargo carriers are still operating in the same airspace as passenger operations. I think that a consensus should be made to adopt better crew rest requirements even if it means coming up with different requirements than the requirements laid out in part 117 for passenger carrier operations.

As a pilot entering the industry I think that if cargo carriers were included in the new rules it could potentially impact me in a positive way. With better requirements it could create a better atmosphere for pilots because he or she will potentially be able to get more sleep and possibly result in a more positive work environment. At the same time however, I would be wary in the changes as a prospective pilot looking for future jobs. If the FAA’s estimated costs are correct, the cargo carriers could take a huge financial loss. Anytime a business takes a significant financial loss, there is a potential for employers to make cuts. That being said, I still believe that there should be some kind of improvement made in the flight and duty requirements even if an entirely new set of rules separate from the passenger operation rules is made. The rules could be more tailored to the operation of a cargo carrier.

ALPA. (n.d.). All airline pilots are human when it comes to fatigue. Retrieved October 7, 2016,    from http://www3.alpa.org/Portals/Alpa/deptpages/govtaffairs/issues/AllAirlinePilotsHumanF    tigue_Jan2013.pdf

CAA. (2012, January 17). Flightcrew member duty and rest requirements. Retrieved October 07,   2016, from http://www.cargoair.org/2012/01/flightcrew-member-duty-rest-requirements/

Carroll, J. R. (2014, March 13). UPS pilots urge more rest for cargo crews. Retrieved October       07, 2016, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/13/ups-pilots-urge      more-rest-for-cargo-crews/6402615

Houston, S. (2016, March 1). FAA final rule on pilot duty and rest requirements. Retrieved            October 07, 2016, from https://www.thebalance.com/faa-final-rule-pilot-duty-and-rest           requirements-282927

Maxon, T. (2011, December). FAA issues rules to ensure that pilots get enough rest. Retrieved       October 07, 2016, from http://www.dallasnews.com/business/airlines/2011/12/22/faa issues-rules-to-ensure-that-pilots-get-enough-rest

Press Release – FAA Issues final rule on pilot fatigue. (2011, December 21). Retrieved October     07, 2016, from https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=13272

Werfelman, L. (2012, February). Regulating Rest. Retrieved October 7, 2016, from http://flightsafety.org/asw/feb12/asw_feb12_p16-19.pdf?dl=1