Currently there are many applications for UAV's in the civilian side of the world. For the most part, they are used for flying around and capturing photography or video. Whether it be aerial pictures of a house for sale for a real estate agency, or someone wanting to capture a unique angle for a home made movie or sporting event. There are other uses, like drone racing leagues, where courses are set up and contestants fly their drones through the course as fast as they can. As of now there are minimal regulations on drone operations. As of August 29th, 2016, the FAA's most updated rulings went into effect for drone operations within certain airspace. It is designed to slowly step the traffic requests into busier airspace. All drones that are between 0.55lbs and 55lbs must now be registered with the FAA before outdoor flight can occur. Drone operations must take place under FAA Part 107 regulations. If you cannot comply with the FAA Part 107 regulations of operation, you may apply for a waiver to conduct your drone flight anyways.
"If your proposed operation doesn’t quite comply with Part 107 regulations, you’ll need to apply for a waiver of some restrictions. You’ll have to prove the proposed flight will be conducted safely under a waiver." (FAA, 2016)
I do believe that eventually we will see UAVs will be integrated into the National Airspace System, but only certain size drones or drones with certain capabilities. I would expect them to be regulated similarly to how large scale RC aircraft and large scale rocketeering is regulated. I would hope that the very small drones that you can find at Target and that obviously pose no threat to anybody would remain relatively unregulated. I would expect the regulations to step in when drones reach certain weight, power, altitude, and payload capabilities. I would expect color and shape of drones to be indicative of their purposes. Larger drones or drones that have the capability to pick up and move objects (Amazon, anyone?) would have to be registered within the NAS and set on specific routes and altitudes. But if Tommy wants to throw his drone in his pocket and have some fun in the backyard, I don't expect that would cause any issues.
UAVs have done wonders for the military in the last decade (and more). Effective use of UAVs allow us to remove boots from the ground and gather intelligence from the air. Military drones fly above the action, usually relatively quietly, and can provide real time pictures for use in surveillance and target acquisition. Some of the weaponized drones can even lock on and eliminate a target, without ever having a pilot or squad on the ground in any danger. Military drones can also stay in the air for a very long time, then rotate out when needed. They have the power to provide a watching eye over ground troops at all times of the day.
"Drones are used in situations where manned flight is considered too risky or difficult. They provide troops with a 24-hour "eye in the sky", seven days a week. Each aircraft can stay aloft for up to 17 hours at a time, loitering over an area and sending back real-time imagery of activities on the ground." (BBC, 2012)
Military drone strikes have been incredibly efficient over the years. While some stories leak out about failed missions or incorrect targets, for the most part, military drones offer a very feared attack and surveillance strategy that keeps the fewest amount of US lives in harms way.
Like any emerging industry, there are always new and budding jobs within the UAV industry. One current job exists in the Government sector in Arizona as an Air Vehicle Operator:
"The AVO is responsible for coordinating ground and flight operations including mission planning, execution, and debriefing; safe operation of the aircraft; aircrew resource management; and customer coordination. A professional demeanor, strong work ethic, and eagerness to expand a growing platform is required. The selected individual will be comfortable working with an experimental program, able to voice recommendations for manual updates, and flexible enough to adapt to sudden changes in mission tasking."
Job listing available at: http://www.indeed.com/cmp/AUV-Flight-Services/jobs/Unmanned-Aerial-System-1444062f757e747b?sjdu=QwrRXKrqZ3CNX5W-O9jEveR_AIaKfI8iSRXcPFtWcv0TXfaZPrK74b73rBGDknKJ8OMviyl66480IdNY-toMtNWR60FZkPh_UnjxDzoXBxevFM7lv656wKe-SmARmliZiEgtd59lgZPAe4z_t6CX6Q
Resources
FAA - The FAA's New Drone Rules Are Effective Today. (2016, August 29). Retrieved December 10, 2016, from http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=86305
BBC - News, B. (2012, January 31). Drones: What are they and how do they work? Retrieved December 10, 2016, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-10713898
Wednesday, December 14, 2016
Flying Cheap
Depending on who you ask in the aviation industry, you will hear many different answers regarding a "looming pilot shortage". Some people believe this to be true, that there are not as many pilots or people who want to be pilots as there used to be. Others will argue that there is no shortage of people who want to be pilots, just a shortage of people willing to put up with low pay for pilot's work. I tend to sit on the fence on this topic, as I believe that it is actually a bit of both. For the sake of argument, I will side on the "there is a pilot shortage" team.
I will concede that it feels like we've been "just a few years away from a huge pilot shortage" for about 10 years now. That "there is a massive bubble about to burst causing pilot shortages across the nation". Even though we have been hearing things like this for 7-8 years now, some of the effects can already be felt, especially for the regional carriers. I tend to believe that we are experiencing more of a molasses spill than an actual bubble 'popping', if you will. Events like 9/11 started off by causing a massive slowdown/shutdown of the aviation industry. Many pilots were furloughed. Many left of their own accord. Many chose not to return when the aviation industry started picking back up in the wake of the attacks. This started the ball rolling towards the current pilot shortage. In the early-mid 2000's, the 'glory days' of being an airline pilot were long gone. It was a rough and gritty time, with not much money to be made, especially if you were at a regional carrier, or didn't carry much seniority. Or worse, low ranking and at a regional carrier.
Both sides of the argument have valid points. The regional carrier system, as it is now, is all kinds of hectic. With the mandated retirement age and many of the baby boomer pilots working their way out of the system, there are many seats to be filled. More so than can be filled by current regional pilots. This leaves the regional carriers in a tough spot, because even fewer pilots are trickling in from schools and other forms of recruitment. According to a study done by the University of North Dakota's Aviation department, the pilot deficit will rise to 15,000 or more by 2026 (Bloomberg, 2016). That is 15,000 empty seats in exactly ten years. The dip is expected to start showing itself in the next year to 3 years. This is where the physical lack of bodies comes into play.
Now, where the pay shortage comes into play is in a lot of the regional airlines. Almost everyone in the industry knows that a regional airline gig is pretty much just something you use as a stepping stone to the next step in your career. You know it. The airlines know it. As a result, pay is kept lower. By cutting costs, including employee (read: pilot) wages, ticket prices can also be kept lower for the customer. But how low is too low? As of 2014, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) estimated that the average pay for a regional first officer was $22,500 per year (Fortune, 2014). Now, when broken down to hourly earnings per 40 hour work week, this comes out to roughly $10.75 per hour. I don't know about you, but I was earning that kind of money working as an assistant manager at a retail store in high school. No wonder it's becoming difficult to find people who want to sign their lives away for 2-3 years for peanuts.
One of the biggest reasons I feel like we see a pilot shortage right now is the absurdly low rate of pay in the lower rungs of the industry. On one hand, the old heads will chime in with a 'pay your dues' speech, which I understand. But on the other hand, pay for a first officer in today's world should not be able to be beat by a high-schooler working at a hardware store. People are starting to see exactly what young, starting pilots make, and are either pursuing other aviation paths that promise more benefit up front, or they're getting scared away from aviation entirely. I think that in order to fix this problem, regional airlines need to suck up some of the cost and up the pay for their pilots. Luckily, it seems that most of them are slowly getting this hint, especially since the crash of Colgan Flight 3407 was so closely linked to overworked/underpaid crew.
Many of the regional airlines, especially ones that directly feed the major carriers, have bumped their starting pay as of 2015. The average starting pay for regional airlines has slowly worked its way from the $20K per year range, up to the $50K per year, plus benefits (WSJ, 2016). While this isn't true for all regional airlines, this is definitely a much more comfortable number, and a number that is much more indicative of what a competent pilot (in partial control of a tube full of lives, after all) should be making. The general trend does seem to show pay going up though, which in the end, is good for everybody.
While ALPA is a great organization for any airline pilot to be a part of, it is only one of many organizations that exist to further the aviation industry as a whole. One other such organization is the General Aviation Manufacturers Association. While ALPA exists to cover the butts of airline pilots all over, GAMA exists to help manufacturers and operators of smaller, general aviation equipment (GAMA, 2016).
Professionalism, in my own words, would be a mentality that one takes on for their career. It is a mentality that drives them to perform their job duties in the most expeditious and judicious manner possible, and to do so competently, and with an end goal of furthering themselves and those around them in the process.
Two ways in which I would say professionalism lacked heavily leading to the crash of Colgan Flight 3407 would be the First Officer's decision to take the flight sick, first and foremost. While she made the decision based on poor pay and trying to save herself some money, she should have known that she was not fit to fly and taken that day off. She also was deathly afraid to fly in icing conditions, so maybe her flying through icing for the first time while she was sick wasn't the best idea... Secondly, the trans-cockpit authority between the Captain and the First Officer seemed to be almost nonexistent. Sterile cockpit procedures were not practiced, and conversation between the two was almost all non-pertinent up until the accident started to develop. This is not to excuse Colgan management. They definitely made more than a handful of decisions as a company that led to these overworked pilots slipping through the cracks. But I believe that 3407 was mostly caused by a complete breakdown of communication and failure to rely on training in the cockpit.
2 ways I plan on expanding my professionalism in the job market after I graduate will be to (1) study the mistakes of those around me. "Know thy enemy". My enemy is a crash. By doing all I can to learn from the mistakes around me, I will hopefully maintain an air of professionalism that allows me to not make those same mistakes, or any new ones. Also, I plan on (2) maintaining a mental on/off switch of when to have fun and when to be serious and in control. In many of the accident recordings you can find on Youtube, there is often a good amount of non-pertinent conversation leading up to the crash. This takes your attention away from the stimuli around you, and can cause a lapse in judgement or attention, allowing just enough time for an irrecoverable accident to develop. Situational awareness is key in this profession, and complacency kills. No one should know that more than a pilot.
References:
Bloomberg - Schlangenstein, M., & Sasso, M. (2016, June 29). Shrinking Pool of Future Pilots Keeps Major Airlines on Edge. Retrieved November 20, 2016, from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-29/shrinking-pool-of-future-pilots-keeps-major-airlines-on-edge
Fortune - Zillman, C. (2014). Why airlines are running out of pilots. Retrieved November 20, 2016, from http://fortune.com/2014/03/03/why-airlines-are-running-out-of-pilots/
WSJ - Carey, S. (2016, November 06). Pilot Shortage Prompts Regional Airlines to Boost Starting Wages. Retrieved November 20, 2016, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/pilot-shortage-prompts-regional-airlines-to-boost-starting-wages-1478473042
GAMA - About GAMA | GAMA - General Aviation Manufacturers Association. (n.d.). Retrieved November 20, 2016, from https://www.gama.aero/about-us
I will concede that it feels like we've been "just a few years away from a huge pilot shortage" for about 10 years now. That "there is a massive bubble about to burst causing pilot shortages across the nation". Even though we have been hearing things like this for 7-8 years now, some of the effects can already be felt, especially for the regional carriers. I tend to believe that we are experiencing more of a molasses spill than an actual bubble 'popping', if you will. Events like 9/11 started off by causing a massive slowdown/shutdown of the aviation industry. Many pilots were furloughed. Many left of their own accord. Many chose not to return when the aviation industry started picking back up in the wake of the attacks. This started the ball rolling towards the current pilot shortage. In the early-mid 2000's, the 'glory days' of being an airline pilot were long gone. It was a rough and gritty time, with not much money to be made, especially if you were at a regional carrier, or didn't carry much seniority. Or worse, low ranking and at a regional carrier.
Both sides of the argument have valid points. The regional carrier system, as it is now, is all kinds of hectic. With the mandated retirement age and many of the baby boomer pilots working their way out of the system, there are many seats to be filled. More so than can be filled by current regional pilots. This leaves the regional carriers in a tough spot, because even fewer pilots are trickling in from schools and other forms of recruitment. According to a study done by the University of North Dakota's Aviation department, the pilot deficit will rise to 15,000 or more by 2026 (Bloomberg, 2016). That is 15,000 empty seats in exactly ten years. The dip is expected to start showing itself in the next year to 3 years. This is where the physical lack of bodies comes into play.
Now, where the pay shortage comes into play is in a lot of the regional airlines. Almost everyone in the industry knows that a regional airline gig is pretty much just something you use as a stepping stone to the next step in your career. You know it. The airlines know it. As a result, pay is kept lower. By cutting costs, including employee (read: pilot) wages, ticket prices can also be kept lower for the customer. But how low is too low? As of 2014, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) estimated that the average pay for a regional first officer was $22,500 per year (Fortune, 2014). Now, when broken down to hourly earnings per 40 hour work week, this comes out to roughly $10.75 per hour. I don't know about you, but I was earning that kind of money working as an assistant manager at a retail store in high school. No wonder it's becoming difficult to find people who want to sign their lives away for 2-3 years for peanuts.
One of the biggest reasons I feel like we see a pilot shortage right now is the absurdly low rate of pay in the lower rungs of the industry. On one hand, the old heads will chime in with a 'pay your dues' speech, which I understand. But on the other hand, pay for a first officer in today's world should not be able to be beat by a high-schooler working at a hardware store. People are starting to see exactly what young, starting pilots make, and are either pursuing other aviation paths that promise more benefit up front, or they're getting scared away from aviation entirely. I think that in order to fix this problem, regional airlines need to suck up some of the cost and up the pay for their pilots. Luckily, it seems that most of them are slowly getting this hint, especially since the crash of Colgan Flight 3407 was so closely linked to overworked/underpaid crew.
Many of the regional airlines, especially ones that directly feed the major carriers, have bumped their starting pay as of 2015. The average starting pay for regional airlines has slowly worked its way from the $20K per year range, up to the $50K per year, plus benefits (WSJ, 2016). While this isn't true for all regional airlines, this is definitely a much more comfortable number, and a number that is much more indicative of what a competent pilot (in partial control of a tube full of lives, after all) should be making. The general trend does seem to show pay going up though, which in the end, is good for everybody.
While ALPA is a great organization for any airline pilot to be a part of, it is only one of many organizations that exist to further the aviation industry as a whole. One other such organization is the General Aviation Manufacturers Association. While ALPA exists to cover the butts of airline pilots all over, GAMA exists to help manufacturers and operators of smaller, general aviation equipment (GAMA, 2016).
Professionalism, in my own words, would be a mentality that one takes on for their career. It is a mentality that drives them to perform their job duties in the most expeditious and judicious manner possible, and to do so competently, and with an end goal of furthering themselves and those around them in the process.
Two ways in which I would say professionalism lacked heavily leading to the crash of Colgan Flight 3407 would be the First Officer's decision to take the flight sick, first and foremost. While she made the decision based on poor pay and trying to save herself some money, she should have known that she was not fit to fly and taken that day off. She also was deathly afraid to fly in icing conditions, so maybe her flying through icing for the first time while she was sick wasn't the best idea... Secondly, the trans-cockpit authority between the Captain and the First Officer seemed to be almost nonexistent. Sterile cockpit procedures were not practiced, and conversation between the two was almost all non-pertinent up until the accident started to develop. This is not to excuse Colgan management. They definitely made more than a handful of decisions as a company that led to these overworked pilots slipping through the cracks. But I believe that 3407 was mostly caused by a complete breakdown of communication and failure to rely on training in the cockpit.
2 ways I plan on expanding my professionalism in the job market after I graduate will be to (1) study the mistakes of those around me. "Know thy enemy". My enemy is a crash. By doing all I can to learn from the mistakes around me, I will hopefully maintain an air of professionalism that allows me to not make those same mistakes, or any new ones. Also, I plan on (2) maintaining a mental on/off switch of when to have fun and when to be serious and in control. In many of the accident recordings you can find on Youtube, there is often a good amount of non-pertinent conversation leading up to the crash. This takes your attention away from the stimuli around you, and can cause a lapse in judgement or attention, allowing just enough time for an irrecoverable accident to develop. Situational awareness is key in this profession, and complacency kills. No one should know that more than a pilot.
References:
Bloomberg - Schlangenstein, M., & Sasso, M. (2016, June 29). Shrinking Pool of Future Pilots Keeps Major Airlines on Edge. Retrieved November 20, 2016, from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-29/shrinking-pool-of-future-pilots-keeps-major-airlines-on-edge
Fortune - Zillman, C. (2014). Why airlines are running out of pilots. Retrieved November 20, 2016, from http://fortune.com/2014/03/03/why-airlines-are-running-out-of-pilots/
WSJ - Carey, S. (2016, November 06). Pilot Shortage Prompts Regional Airlines to Boost Starting Wages. Retrieved November 20, 2016, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/pilot-shortage-prompts-regional-airlines-to-boost-starting-wages-1478473042
GAMA - About GAMA | GAMA - General Aviation Manufacturers Association. (n.d.). Retrieved November 20, 2016, from https://www.gama.aero/about-us
Final In-Class Blog
 |
| Comac C919 Cockpit Interior |
For my final in-class blog post,
I have decided to revisit the subject of Comac. Specifically, their aircraft
production woes and lofty dreams of a U.S. FAA certification for either of
their airframes. Initially I wrote in support of the Comac program, and was hopeful
for their progress. I also lightly touched on a very similar program starting up
in Russia, the Irkut MC-21 Regional Jet. However, after a little further
research on both of the programs, I may have to rescind my hopeful tone. While
I still do hope that both programs eventually come forth as legitimate
competitors who deliver a safe and reliable product; I have to admit that when
presented with new facts, I concede that it may not happen as fast as I had
initially thought/hoped, if it happens at all.
The 2 different Comac programs
have both been met with many setbacks. The smaller, regional jet design (ARJ-21)
has already been put into production and has actually flown several commercial
service flights within China (for an airline that is a subsidiary of Comac
itself, go figure). However, the more highly touted program, the larger C919, hasn’t
even left the ground on a test flight yet. The ARJ program went almost a decade
over schedule by the time it actually took off on a service route. The C919
looks as if it will take at least that, very likely more. Another huge issue
that Comac faces, if it truly desires to be a competitor to Boeing and Airbus,
is its volume and production capabilities. Despite having the ARJ-21 in service
already, only 6 of them have been produced since 2008, only one of them
actually delivered for service. As of right now, Comac has claimed to have
almost 350 orders in for the ARJ-21, but with a 6-planes-per-8-year timetable,
who knows how many of those orders will actually come to see light. Compare
this production time to Boeing’s average output of 6 completed 737’s (bigger
airplane) every 36 hours (Vice, 2016). Also compare order numbers of a measly
350 for a regional jet, when even Bombardier and Embraer handle order numbers
in the thousands. Obviously something will have to change drastically before
Comac can consider themselves a true competitor to Boeing or Airbus. On top of
the already unreasonably slow production issue, the current estimates indicate
that Chinese airlines alone will need more than 6,000 airplanes between 2014
and 2034 (Vice, 2016). Something at the Comac production line needs to change
in order for it to hope to meet those estimates.
Continuing to build on the ARJ-21
struggles, we have a plane that doesn’t seem to push the envelope in any
category. In fact, it is a plane that seems to be decades out of date before it
even leaves the factory. Visually, it looks very similar to an MD-80 or a late
run DC-9. So right out of the gate, Comac has started off by making their ‘brand
new’ regional jet the spitting image of a 50 year-old discontinued American jet.
That doesn’t set the tone very well. A lot of the components inside the
aircraft are also either outdated, or just borrowed from other pre-existing
airframes. The engines are General Electric CF-34 turbofans; and the
electronics and avionics are all made by American based companies that already
supply the same components to other manufacturers (Vice, 2016). The only thing
that really makes the ARJ-21 “Chinese” is the construction of the nose cone,
the empennage, and the final assembly all happening in China. Almost nothing in
the airplane is actually ‘new’, and because of that Comac can only barely claim
to having ‘designed’ a new jet. From design to production the ARJ-21 was
delayed over a decade. Eight years’ time passed between the first test flights
and the ARJ-21 actually entering service. Compare this to Boeing’s latest jewel,
the 787, which needed less than 2 years from first test flight to the first
delivery for service (Vice, 2016). It is worth noting the difference, both in
physical size and aeronautical complexity, between the 787 and the ARJ-21.
Boeing launched a much larger and much more complex aircraft in less than a
third of the time.
All this being said, the Chinese
have managed to put together a functioning and (so far) safe airplane that has
performed its duties in service without fail. Although with the first commercial
ARJ-21 flight occurring on June 28th, 2016, not much can be said for
a 6-month track record of safety in the aviation industry. There is still a very
long, and very arduous road ahead for Comac. Especially if they have dreams of
the C919 battling the 737 and the A320 for dominance in the skies.
Putting together all we know
about the ARJ-21 program, it leaves us with a pretty gloomy picture of what to
expect for the C919. The C919 is designed to compete with the Boeing and Airbus
wide-body models 737 and A320, respectively. While the idea is sound, and
competition is almost always good for business, I believe the issues that Comac
has already faced will prove to be too much. The C919 hasn’t even flown a test
flight yet. Comac initially wanted to make delivery of the C919 to customers by
2016. Now it’s looking like they will be able to conduct taxi tests within a
matter of weeks, and they might get the first aircraft in the air for test
flights by the second quarter of 2017. Comac’s new hope is to make deliveries
to customers some time in 2019 (USAT, 2016). However, given the delays that the
ARJ-21 saw after its first test flight, I feel like we may not see the C919 in
the skies for another decade, possibly longer, other than a test flight.
The one good thing that Comac has
going for it is the fact that they are government created and owned (Fortune,
2016), which means funding is essentially limitless. This helps Comac because Chinese
built aircraft is a goal that the entire Chinese government wants to see come
to fruition. Another pro for Comac, at least in the Chinese market, is that
Chengdu Airways is a subsidiary of Comac, and most of their other customers are state-owned (Fortune, 2016). Chengdu Airways is the company that
bought the 1st ARJ-21 and has orders for 30 more. This means that
Comac has at least one set customer for when and if they ever get the C919 off
the ground.
The biggest hurdle yet to face
Comac, if they truly want to compete with Boeing and Airbus, is the United
States Federal Aviation Administration certification to do so. The ARJ-21 is
not certified to fly in American skies with its current specifications, and can
actually only fly in Chinese skies or countries that recognize the authority of
the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) (Loyalty, 2015). The ARJ didn’t
even obtain CAAC certification for over 13 years after its design release. Now,
with the C919 already being 3+ years behind schedule and not even being off the
ground yet, CAAC certification is but a distant dream. Even more distant is the
FAA certification. Comac will need to figure out how to increase their testing and
production times, make a plane with new and better specifications, and urge the
Chinese government for better relations between CAAC and FAA governing bodies
(Reuters, 2016), before it can hope to obtain FAA certification for either of
its aircraft. As it is, the CAAC gave certification to the ARJ-21 without FAA
approval. While this doesn’t break any laws or codes of conduct, the two
governing bodies of aviation usually try to work together. This was seen as a
setback between U.S. and China aviation cooperation (Reuters, 2016). Slightly worrisome considering Chinese-U.S.
aviation cooperation is seen as one of the most outstanding achievements since
the U.S. and Chinese governments re-established diplomatic relations in 1979 (Reuters, 2016).
‘"It could be seen as a loss of face for the Chinese given
they deem FAA certification a key rite of passage for what will be the first
domestically built jet to enter commercial service," said Greg Waldron,
Asia managing editor at Flightglobal, an industry news and data service.’ (Rueters, 2016)
Overall, I don’t see Comac being awarded
FAA certification to fly its aircraft within U.S. borders any time soon. There
is a lot of speculation as to whether that is because of more stringent rules
from the FAA, or whether it is because of some schoolyard-like bullying because
of the CAAC and FAA situation. No real evidence can be provided either way, but
the fact remains that without the FAA certification, no Comac aircraft will be
seen above U.S. soil. However, the FAA certification is one of the last things
that Comac needs to worry about. They don’t have their “big dog” in the C919
even remotely ready to start building and making deliveries. And even the
aircraft they do have, the ARJ-21, they can’t seem to build enough of them to
worry about anything but the Chinese market for now. After further research
from my initial post on this topic, I would say that I have switched my stance.
I used to be hopeful, because I am always one who loves to see competition in
business. After seeing new data, I just can’t bring myself to believe that
Comac will be a real player in the world aircraft manufacturing business within
the next 50+ years, if ever. Boeing and Airbus haven’t even bothered to respond
other than to roll out new and updated aircraft that would have rolled out on a
similar timeline anyways. I can’t say I fault them for not even raising a brow
at companies like Comac quite yet, at least not until they prove that they are a real threat.
Resources:
Vice - Riva, A. (2016, June 28). China just flew its first passenger jet - and it's a clunker | VICE News. Retrieved December 11, 2016, from https://news.vice.com/article/china-just-flew-its-first-passenger-jetand-its-a-clunker
USAT - Mutzabaugh, B. (2016, June 30). Now flying: China's first modern passenger jet enters service. Retrieved December 11, 2016, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2016/06/30/now-flying-chinas-first-modern-passenger-jet-enters-service/86549178/
Fortune - Cendrowski, S. (2016, February 16). China’s Answer To Boeing Loses Shine. Retrieved December 12, 2016, from http://fortune.com/2016/02/16/china-comac-c919-delay-delivery/
Loyalty - Powell, S. (2015, November 09). China's COMAC C919 Aircraft Running Behind Schedule - First Commercial Flight Not Before 2019 | LoyaltyLobby. Retrieved December 13, 2016, from http://loyaltylobby.com/2015/11/09/chinas-comac-c919-aircraft-running-behind-schedule-first-commercial-flight-not-before-2019/
Reuters - Govindasamy, S., & Miller, M. (2015, October 21). Exclusive: China-made regional jet set for delivery, but no U.S. certification. Retrieved December 13, 2016, from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-aircraft-arj21-exclusive-idUSKCN0SF2XN20151021
Photo Credit - http://jetsettimes.com/2015/11/05/can-chinas-c919-be-the-next-boeing-737/
Friday, December 9, 2016
Job Plans and Course Review
Going into this class earlier this fall, my main "plans" so to speak were to just make it through the course. It is little to no secret to both my classmates and my instructors/advisers that I have had issues maintaining my progress through the program for the past few years. Thanks to outside familial and personal issues, my progress at Eastern had stagnated and I had found myself adrift with no means of propulsion. I think that this is the semester that has helped me regain my footing on my academic career, and I am very thankful and happy to have found this new motivation and drive. I started the semester just wanting to finish. But now, after a whole semester of group discussions and guest speakers, I have a much better idea of what I would like my career to actually become. I still have not made a specific decision on one career path, but I think I will be better off in the near future for keeping my doors open. Thanks to several of the guest speakers we had, I now know about many career options that I would have never thought about, didn't think were possible, or just straight up didn't know existed.
The group setting of this class definitely helped me to open up and haves some discussion with my fellow classmates that I definitely would not have had otherwise. Usually, I am very much a person to 'go to class, take notes, go home', without much of a discussion with those around me. This class forced me to open up and discuss. I think that helped me a lot, especially with the networking side of the industry.
As of right now, my 'action plan' for graduating is to simply get there. I still have quite a bit of flying ahead of me as well as at least one full semester of classroom time for some gen-eds. All in all, I do plan on finishing up the flight aspect and trying to secure a flight instruction job either at Eagle or at a few other airports around the state that are closer to some of my family members. I also have a friend who does some surveying and crop dusting operations in the Iowa and Indiana area. He has been bugging me about finishing school because he is looking for some help as well. That is definitely a pathway I'd like to explore.
But to be honest, I can't say I have a to-the-T 5 year plan on the books. My main goals right now are to right the half-sunken ship that I left myself slip into, and to finish the handful of classes I have left.
Of all the topics we talked about, I think the most useful was the ANG/civilian hire topic. Not necessarily for what it was, but because that was the topic that most opened my eyes to the variety of aviation related jobs that are out there. I had no idea that a job like that was even a possibility. For future classes, I think it would be awesome if we were to hear from more people that have taken the unlikely/path less traveled career routes in the aviation world. At the flight center, the main mantra seems to be "Airlines or Bust". And that's great, but I can't say that it's super exciting to feel like I'm being bred for Delta. I'm not really one who thinks that a career for a major sounds all that thrilling. I mean beggars can't be choosers, and I will certainly take the opportunities that present themselves to me, but I can't say that left seating for a major is my career end goal. I would personally love to go fly bush in Alaska, or do survey flights or some other kind of more remote, small business flying.
Of all the topics we talked about, I think the absolute worst one was the flight instruction lady. It is certainly wonderful to hear from someone who has thoroughly enjoyed her career and has made a living doing something other than flying regionals and trying to climb up to a major, but I also don't like that we basically sat listening to this person stroke their ego for an hour and a half. More time was spent listening to her ramble about her accomplishments and why she's so great than was actually discussed about what made her career route something that up and coming students should look into. If she could rework her presentation, I think it could be a very useful presentation for Management students and flight students like myself who are considering flight paths away from the airlines. Otherwise, it just came across as a "look at me, I'm so cool" presentation.
Overall, this class has been an absolute blast. I am very thankful to have been a part of this class and with these classmates. I look forward to seeing all of you beautiful Eagles out there in the skies in the future.
The group setting of this class definitely helped me to open up and haves some discussion with my fellow classmates that I definitely would not have had otherwise. Usually, I am very much a person to 'go to class, take notes, go home', without much of a discussion with those around me. This class forced me to open up and discuss. I think that helped me a lot, especially with the networking side of the industry.
As of right now, my 'action plan' for graduating is to simply get there. I still have quite a bit of flying ahead of me as well as at least one full semester of classroom time for some gen-eds. All in all, I do plan on finishing up the flight aspect and trying to secure a flight instruction job either at Eagle or at a few other airports around the state that are closer to some of my family members. I also have a friend who does some surveying and crop dusting operations in the Iowa and Indiana area. He has been bugging me about finishing school because he is looking for some help as well. That is definitely a pathway I'd like to explore.
But to be honest, I can't say I have a to-the-T 5 year plan on the books. My main goals right now are to right the half-sunken ship that I left myself slip into, and to finish the handful of classes I have left.
Of all the topics we talked about, I think the most useful was the ANG/civilian hire topic. Not necessarily for what it was, but because that was the topic that most opened my eyes to the variety of aviation related jobs that are out there. I had no idea that a job like that was even a possibility. For future classes, I think it would be awesome if we were to hear from more people that have taken the unlikely/path less traveled career routes in the aviation world. At the flight center, the main mantra seems to be "Airlines or Bust". And that's great, but I can't say that it's super exciting to feel like I'm being bred for Delta. I'm not really one who thinks that a career for a major sounds all that thrilling. I mean beggars can't be choosers, and I will certainly take the opportunities that present themselves to me, but I can't say that left seating for a major is my career end goal. I would personally love to go fly bush in Alaska, or do survey flights or some other kind of more remote, small business flying.
Of all the topics we talked about, I think the absolute worst one was the flight instruction lady. It is certainly wonderful to hear from someone who has thoroughly enjoyed her career and has made a living doing something other than flying regionals and trying to climb up to a major, but I also don't like that we basically sat listening to this person stroke their ego for an hour and a half. More time was spent listening to her ramble about her accomplishments and why she's so great than was actually discussed about what made her career route something that up and coming students should look into. If she could rework her presentation, I think it could be a very useful presentation for Management students and flight students like myself who are considering flight paths away from the airlines. Otherwise, it just came across as a "look at me, I'm so cool" presentation.
Overall, this class has been an absolute blast. I am very thankful to have been a part of this class and with these classmates. I look forward to seeing all of you beautiful Eagles out there in the skies in the future.
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Aviation Organizations
Many organizations exist within the aviation industry. Some of which have different purposes, but all of which have the same main end goal: the advancement of the industry and those that work within the industry. Of the many aviation oriented organizations that exist, I see a definite advantage to being a part of AOPA (Aircraft Owner's and Pilots Association), and the Air Traffic Control Association, especially from the pilot side of the coin. I am sure that other organizations will also come into play (unions, special interest groups, etc.) during my career as well, but I think that AOPA is one that does a very good job of being as all-encompassing as they can be without over-reaching their bounds. AOPA appears to have minimal bias in the way they conduct their business, and they seem to genuinely exist to serve the members. As for the Air Traffic Control Association, I think it is very important, in any industry, to know as much about the industry as possible if you wish to be truly successful. In the aviation industry, this means that pilots should have at least a basic understanding of the management and Air Traffic Control side of the operations and how ATC's think and operate. Likewise, ATC's should have a basic understanding of flight characteristics and how pilots think and operate.
Starting with the Aircraft Owner's and Pilots Association (henceforth referred to as 'AOPA'), their self written mission statement is to "Protect your freedom to fly by...
I have been a member of AOPA for close to 3 years now, and while I have reached out for their services very minimally, I have never felt like they don't hold true to their mission statement. AOPA has a very large network of pilots across the nation, and they treat the highest ranking major captain much the same they treat your average Joe who beats the pattern on weekends. AOPA offers many services to its members, from sharing up to date news and stories on what is happening in the aviation industry, information on how to become a pilot, where to get certain ratings, and even pilot protection services with access to aviation specific attorneys and medical defense plans. (AOPAPP, 2016)
The Air Traffic Control Association exists to both provide an understanding of current Air Traffic Control operations and equipment, but also to further the science of ATC. The Air Traffic Control Association is a huge proponent of the transition we are currently witnessing to NextGen. The ATCA has existed since 1956 with the goal of preservation of safe flight (ATCA, 2016). Again, this goes back to knowing both sides of the coin. If you want to be successful, you must know as much as you can about all aspects of the industry. Who wants to keep the flights safer than the pilots, the guys actually on board that flight? To have the ATCA and its members on the ground making sure planes are able to fly in and out of airports as efficiently and safely as possible is something that helps pilots have confidence in sticky situations. To also have the same organization pushing to bring the ancient WWII era ATC system up to date is also exciting, because it only stands to further improve the efficiency of enplanements, deplanements, and turn around time for aircraft on the ground. After all, aircraft on the ground aren't making any money. This usually means that the crew also isn't making any money.
Overall, I think it is and will continue to be important to be a member of at least these two organizations for any pilot who wishes to fly professionally. They are both organization that exist to help support facets of the industry that you will deal with every single work day. So why not be a part of the group and the discussion? Why not have your voice be heard when you feel something is wrong? Why not make use of the vast resources that are available to you for a fairly meager annual fee? There is much to be gained by being a member of these, and other, aviation based organizations, and much more to lose if you are stuck between a rock and a hard place without the support of these groups.
References:
ATCA - ATCA. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from http://www.atca.org/about-us
AOPA - AOPA. (n.d.). AOPA's Mission, Vision and Values. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from https://www.aopa.org/about/mission-vision-and-values
AOPAPP - AOPA. (n.d.). AOPA Pilot Protection Services. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from https://pilot-protection-services.aopa.org/
Starting with the Aircraft Owner's and Pilots Association (henceforth referred to as 'AOPA'), their self written mission statement is to "Protect your freedom to fly by...
- advocating on behalf of our members,
- educating pilots, nonpilots, and policy makers alike,
- supporting activities that ensure the long-term health of General Aviation,
- fighting to keep General Aviation accessible to all, and
- securing sufficient resources to ensure our success."
I have been a member of AOPA for close to 3 years now, and while I have reached out for their services very minimally, I have never felt like they don't hold true to their mission statement. AOPA has a very large network of pilots across the nation, and they treat the highest ranking major captain much the same they treat your average Joe who beats the pattern on weekends. AOPA offers many services to its members, from sharing up to date news and stories on what is happening in the aviation industry, information on how to become a pilot, where to get certain ratings, and even pilot protection services with access to aviation specific attorneys and medical defense plans. (AOPAPP, 2016)
The Air Traffic Control Association exists to both provide an understanding of current Air Traffic Control operations and equipment, but also to further the science of ATC. The Air Traffic Control Association is a huge proponent of the transition we are currently witnessing to NextGen. The ATCA has existed since 1956 with the goal of preservation of safe flight (ATCA, 2016). Again, this goes back to knowing both sides of the coin. If you want to be successful, you must know as much as you can about all aspects of the industry. Who wants to keep the flights safer than the pilots, the guys actually on board that flight? To have the ATCA and its members on the ground making sure planes are able to fly in and out of airports as efficiently and safely as possible is something that helps pilots have confidence in sticky situations. To also have the same organization pushing to bring the ancient WWII era ATC system up to date is also exciting, because it only stands to further improve the efficiency of enplanements, deplanements, and turn around time for aircraft on the ground. After all, aircraft on the ground aren't making any money. This usually means that the crew also isn't making any money.
Overall, I think it is and will continue to be important to be a member of at least these two organizations for any pilot who wishes to fly professionally. They are both organization that exist to help support facets of the industry that you will deal with every single work day. So why not be a part of the group and the discussion? Why not have your voice be heard when you feel something is wrong? Why not make use of the vast resources that are available to you for a fairly meager annual fee? There is much to be gained by being a member of these, and other, aviation based organizations, and much more to lose if you are stuck between a rock and a hard place without the support of these groups.
References:
ATCA - ATCA. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from http://www.atca.org/about-us
AOPA - AOPA. (n.d.). AOPA's Mission, Vision and Values. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from https://www.aopa.org/about/mission-vision-and-values
AOPAPP - AOPA. (n.d.). AOPA Pilot Protection Services. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from https://pilot-protection-services.aopa.org/
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Aviation Emissions
(Photo courtesy: http://www.climateobserver.org)
Ever since tracking and reducing carbon emissions has become a major concern for humanity, the aviation industry and aviation emissions have been called into question. And rightly so, if the human population wishes to continue living and populating this earth, we must take care of it. Currently the global aviation industry is responsible for about 2% of overall human-induced carbon emissions per year (ATAG, 2016). While it may not seem like a significant figure, 2% of all human-induced carbon emissions over the span of one year is roughly equal to 781 Million (metric) Tonnes (ATAG, 2016). Although this may seem like a massive problem, jet aircraft that are in service today are almost 80% more fuel efficient than aircraft that were in service in the 1960's. Emissions are also expected to drop by another 50% by the year 2050 as well (ATAG, 2016). As well, when broken down by liters of fuel used per passenger per 100 kilometers, newest generation aircraft like the Boeing 787 and Airbus A380 both come extremely close to 3 liters of fuel burned for each passenger over a distance of 100 kilometers. Other aircraft like the ATR-600 and Bombardier C-Series also come very close to this rather astonishingly low number. This 3 liters per passenger per 100 kilometers is actually competitive with many modern compact "fuel efficient" cars (ATAG, 2016). It should also be noted that while aviation emissions account for 2% of all human-induced carbon emissions per year, this number accounts for 12% of carbon emissions from all transport sources. This is still paled in comparison to road traffic however, which makes up 74% of carbon emissions from transport sources (ATAG, 2016). Somewhat shockingly (at least for me), aviation is vastly more fuel efficient and cleaner burning than the billions of cars that occupy the world's roads every day.
Quite recently (Thursday, October 6th, 2016 to be exact), the United Nations Aviation arm ratified an agreement to corral current international airline flight emissions to help fight global warming. The agreement was almost unanimously passed, and serves to lay a baseline by which airlines and airplane manufacturers can try to track their growth and emissions as they work to reduce greenhouse gasses. The first phase of the UN airline agreement is 100% voluntary, and will span from 2021 to 2027. In the second phase, beginning in 2028 and going through 2035, compliance with the UN airline agreement will be mandatory (US News, 2016). Currently, there are some countries still trying to determine if they will participate in the voluntary first phase. Russia has already opted out. Of course Russia already opted out. How fitting. What the UN airline agreement serves to do is cut aviation emissions by limiting the amount of CO2 that can be discharged per year by airline companies. This is done by allowing a certain amount of carbon 'credits' that are spent when CO2 is discharged into the air. Once an airline has spent all of their carbon credits, they will be forced to 'buy' carbon credits from other industries or projects that exist to limit greenhouse gasses in an attempt to maintain a positive or net-zero balance on their carbon credit account. This will force airlines to limit runs, buy more fuel efficient and lower emission planes, and buy from other industries, thus also stimulating local and global economies (US News, 2016). All this while directly or indirectly slashing the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that are released into the environment every year.
Another recent UN agreement that has gone into effect which also concerns overall global emissions. The Paris Climate Change Agreement will attempt to curb global emission discharge and will provide funding and other aid to help countries that may not have the means to trim emissions on their own (Guardian, 2016). The Paris agreement serves to try to prevent and eventually reverse the growing climate change event that has made global temperatures trend upwards. The magic (though tragic and catastrophic) number is 2 degrees Celsius. It is widely accepted that once this overall 2 degree shift has been hit, the major impacts of global warming will be irreversible (Guardian, 2016). Without bringing political affiliation into the picture, I believe that the newly elected administration will not affect the workings of the Paris Agreement in almost any aspect. During his campaign, he did what any other politician does, and what his opponent did, and said whatever he needed to garner votes from his target demographic. Already he has proven to go back on a few things that he said he would do. I expect the US' involvement in the Paris Agreement to be no different. It is something that has been worked on between many countries for many years. The Obama administration has been toiling over the workings of the Paris agreement since 2009, when a similar global warming meeting was held in Copenhagen. This one ended in disastrous chaos with nothing being accomplished. Now that science has taken a foothold and proven exactly what humanity is dealing with, I expect the advisors of the Trump administration to urge him to continue the US' involvement with the Paris Global Warming Agreement.
Overall, I would say that I am happy to see that global greenhouse gas emissions are a concern large enough to warrant at least some investigation, but I believe that the aviation industry doesn't need to be under quite as much scrutiny as it currently is. Aviation accounts for a very small fraction of travel based CO2 emissions, and there are much more effective ways to reduce greenhouse gasses than to target airplanes, which are already more than 4 times more efficient and clean than they were just 40 years ago. Compare this to the millions more cars and trucks on the road that are barely twice as efficient (on average) as they were 40 years ago. Not to mention that airplanes carry hundreds more people than a car, or even a bus, can. Planes can reach farther distances and do so in a more expeditious manner. I completely agree that greenhouse gas emissions need to be slashed, and I agree that the aviation industry can always push the boundaries to get better and reduce CO2 emissions in house. However I do not agree that the aviation industry should be scrutinized so heavily, and I believe that we, as a human species, can restrict CO2 emissions in many other areas before we start going after an industry that has already made much more progress than almost any other industry out there.
References:
ATAG - ATAG. (2016, May). Facts & Figures. Retrieved November 18, 2016, from http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html
US News - Lowy, J. (2016, October 6). UN Agreement Reached on Aircraft Climate-Change Emissions. Retrieved November 19, 2016, from http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-10-06/un-agreement-reached-on-aircraft-climate-change-emissions
Guardian - Harvey, F. (2015). Paris Climate Change Agreement: The World's Greatest Diplomatic Success. Retrieved November 19, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/13/paris-climate-deal-cop-diplomacy-developing-united-nations
Photo source: http://climateobserver.org/agreement-tackle-international-aviation-emissions/
Friday, November 4, 2016
Global Airlines - Fair For All?
Open Skies Agreements are put in place between two or more countries to allow relatively free flowing air operations between airlines and cargo carriers from each of the countries that are involved. They are designed so that an airline that is a part of the Open Skies Agreement can land on foreign soil (as long as that country is also part of the OSA) with minimal to no interference or interrogation from the airport or the government. One of the current Open Skies Agreements that is under a bit of heat is the OSA that exists between the United States and the United Arab Emirates. The airlines that are involved in this OSA are Delta, American, and United (US), and Emirates, Etihad, and Qatar (UAE). The issue that has caused all the squabbling comes down to competition that some American air carriers say can't be contested because of large government subsidies.
The Big 3 US airlines are all claiming that Emirates and Etihad in particular receive government subsidies that are large enough to allow them to charge prices so low that the American carriers simply can't compete with it. The American carriers claim that the Gulf carriers received nearly $42 Billion in subsidies from their respective governments (National, 2016). The Americans also claim that these subsidies enable the Gulf carriers to allow "better standards of service, scheduling advantages, and ticket prices." (National, 2016). One of the big issues with the American carriers throwing around "government subsidies" as their main argument for not being able to compete with the Gulf Big 3, is that they seem to forget that they themselves receive very handsome subsidy funds from the US government for things like Essential Air Service, which provides mandatory air service to smaller markets that the airlines would normally lose money on, as well as the bank bailouts and bankruptcy proceedings that took place in the Great Recession of the mid 2000's. On top of all of this, US air carriers in general received nearly $155 Billion in government subsidies between 1918 and 1998 (Skift, 2015). So what has all that money gone towards?
One other major hurdle that seem to get in the way of the American Big 3 is the Export-Import bank, which guarantees loans to foreign companies buying US products when private sector lenders can't or won't accept the risk the credit line (Bloomberg, 2016). While this is good for American jobs, as it promotes the export of American made goods, it hurts the American Big 3 air carriers, because foreign airlines (like the Gulf 3) can purchase American aircraft with a guaranteed loan through a low default, low interest lending agency that is backed by the US government. The Gulf 3 are already the largest buyers of Boeing aircraft in the world, especially in the long range market. Emirates and Etihad have already bought models of the Boeing 787 and 777X in a volume that leaves the American carriers in the dust (National, 2016).
Overall, I would personally say that the American 3 have a valid argument about some of the issues currently going on, but they also need to buck up and change with the times in other areas. The Export-Import Bank did have a 5-month shut down after its charter expired on June 30, 2015, but it was brought back to life as part of the FAST Act that was signed into law by President Obama on December 4, 2015. This new charter will reauthorize the Export-Import Bank to operate through September 30, 2019 (Democrats, 2016). While I do believe the Export-Import bank structure may give an unfair advantage to foreign purchasers, and probably should be amended for such large purchases as aircraft (the aviation industry is the single largest customer of the Export-Import bank, after all), I don't believe it will solely affect the American carriers enough to where they cannot compete. As is, the American 3 and the Gulf 3 only actually compete head to head on 2 routes, of the 1700+ routes that exist in the US (National, 2016). I would say that if American carriers really want to compete, perhaps they should dig into their year-in and year-out record profits and figure out a way to better scheduling times, lower ticket costs, and increase the level of experience that customers feel both on the aircraft and in airports.
Resources:
National - McAuley, A. (2016, July 26). Victory for Gulf Airlines as US Government Ends Open Skies Row With No Further Action. Retrieved November 03, 2016, from http://www.thenational.ae/business/aviation/victory-for-gulf-airlines-as-us-government-ends-open-skies-row-with-no-further-action#full
Skift - Schaal, D. (2015, April 09). WikiLeaks Disclosure Shows U.S. Airlines Received Billions in Subsidies. Retrieved November 04, 2016, from https://skift.com/2015/04/09/wikileaks-disclosure-shows-u-s-airlines-received-billions-in-subsidies/
Democrats - The Ex-Im Bank: Back in Business. (2016). Retrieved November 04, 2016, from http://democrats.financialservices.house.gov/issues/extending-import-export-bank-charter.htm
Bloomberg - Export-Import Bank of the United States: Private Company Information. (2016). Retrieved November 04, 2016, from http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapid=6369571
The Big 3 US airlines are all claiming that Emirates and Etihad in particular receive government subsidies that are large enough to allow them to charge prices so low that the American carriers simply can't compete with it. The American carriers claim that the Gulf carriers received nearly $42 Billion in subsidies from their respective governments (National, 2016). The Americans also claim that these subsidies enable the Gulf carriers to allow "better standards of service, scheduling advantages, and ticket prices." (National, 2016). One of the big issues with the American carriers throwing around "government subsidies" as their main argument for not being able to compete with the Gulf Big 3, is that they seem to forget that they themselves receive very handsome subsidy funds from the US government for things like Essential Air Service, which provides mandatory air service to smaller markets that the airlines would normally lose money on, as well as the bank bailouts and bankruptcy proceedings that took place in the Great Recession of the mid 2000's. On top of all of this, US air carriers in general received nearly $155 Billion in government subsidies between 1918 and 1998 (Skift, 2015). So what has all that money gone towards?
One other major hurdle that seem to get in the way of the American Big 3 is the Export-Import bank, which guarantees loans to foreign companies buying US products when private sector lenders can't or won't accept the risk the credit line (Bloomberg, 2016). While this is good for American jobs, as it promotes the export of American made goods, it hurts the American Big 3 air carriers, because foreign airlines (like the Gulf 3) can purchase American aircraft with a guaranteed loan through a low default, low interest lending agency that is backed by the US government. The Gulf 3 are already the largest buyers of Boeing aircraft in the world, especially in the long range market. Emirates and Etihad have already bought models of the Boeing 787 and 777X in a volume that leaves the American carriers in the dust (National, 2016).
Overall, I would personally say that the American 3 have a valid argument about some of the issues currently going on, but they also need to buck up and change with the times in other areas. The Export-Import Bank did have a 5-month shut down after its charter expired on June 30, 2015, but it was brought back to life as part of the FAST Act that was signed into law by President Obama on December 4, 2015. This new charter will reauthorize the Export-Import Bank to operate through September 30, 2019 (Democrats, 2016). While I do believe the Export-Import bank structure may give an unfair advantage to foreign purchasers, and probably should be amended for such large purchases as aircraft (the aviation industry is the single largest customer of the Export-Import bank, after all), I don't believe it will solely affect the American carriers enough to where they cannot compete. As is, the American 3 and the Gulf 3 only actually compete head to head on 2 routes, of the 1700+ routes that exist in the US (National, 2016). I would say that if American carriers really want to compete, perhaps they should dig into their year-in and year-out record profits and figure out a way to better scheduling times, lower ticket costs, and increase the level of experience that customers feel both on the aircraft and in airports.
Resources:
National - McAuley, A. (2016, July 26). Victory for Gulf Airlines as US Government Ends Open Skies Row With No Further Action. Retrieved November 03, 2016, from http://www.thenational.ae/business/aviation/victory-for-gulf-airlines-as-us-government-ends-open-skies-row-with-no-further-action#full
Skift - Schaal, D. (2015, April 09). WikiLeaks Disclosure Shows U.S. Airlines Received Billions in Subsidies. Retrieved November 04, 2016, from https://skift.com/2015/04/09/wikileaks-disclosure-shows-u-s-airlines-received-billions-in-subsidies/
Democrats - The Ex-Im Bank: Back in Business. (2016). Retrieved November 04, 2016, from http://democrats.financialservices.house.gov/issues/extending-import-export-bank-charter.htm
Bloomberg - Export-Import Bank of the United States: Private Company Information. (2016). Retrieved November 04, 2016, from http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapid=6369571
Saturday, October 29, 2016
Comac - Player 3 Joins the Game...?
(Comac C919 "B-001A" displayed at Pudong International Airport in Shanghai - Photo courtesy: www.airliners.net)
In 2008, Comac (Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China) announced its plans for the first in-house China built aircraft to compete in some of the same markets as Boeing and Airbus. Comac initially stated that with their new design, they would be ready for the first flight by 2014, and ready to deliver the first units to customers in 2016. Unfortunately, as with most large scale projects (especially in the aviation industry), they were soon met with delays (Fortune). Now, it appears as if Comac will be lucky to get the C919 in the air for the first time by the end of this year. Deliveries to customers aren't expected to happen until almost 2020 (Fortune).
Personally, I do believe that the C919 will receive the FAA certification it needs to operate over American soil, but I do not see it happening for several more years, and I also don't see it happening on the current variation of the C919. It is rarely the first version of any product that takes off (you can take the pun or you can leave it...), and I don't expect the case to be any different here. I don't think the C919 will get the FAA certifications until at least a second or third generation version is released, probably another decade or so away.
Assuming Comac is granted the FAA certifications for the C919, and it is approved to operate at American airports, I see a wonderful tidal wave of capitalistic competition coming. I expect that there may be some apprehension from American purchasers at first, but hopefully the FAA certification is proof enough that the C919 is a capable enough aircraft. I would expect to see Comac enter the American market with a price tag on their aircraft that is aggressively low. This should appeal to some of the smaller airlines (Spirit, Southwest, other foreign airlines that utilize airports in America), and hopefully Comac proves themselves in this market. The (hopefully) lower price tag of the 'new kid in town' still trying to prove themselves should help get their foot in the door and establish them as a viable competitor for the big aircraft manufacturers. As for public appeal, other than some potentially badly spun news articles about "Chinese aircraft invading American skies", I doubt that 95% of the general public will even know they are boarding a Chinese made aircraft.
Comac, an acronym for "Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China" is a Chinese government owned entity with the sole purpose of producing Chinese made airplanes to compete with other manufacturers, namely Airbus and Boeing (CNBC). Although Comac is touting the C919 as its main workhorse, even though it hasn't yet gotten off the ground, they do have one other aircraft in production that has already seen flight. The ARJ21-700 made its first service flight on June 28th of this year. It carried 70 passengers from Chengdu to Shanghai, roughly a 2 hour flight (USAT).
I fully believe that Comac is paving the way for new competitors. Should the C919 obtain FAA certification, I fully believe that at least a few other startups may join the game and try to take a slice out of the aircraft manufacturing pie. Already, there is a Russian company that has launched a new program to release a 737 competitor by 2020. Irkut, a subsidiary of the Russian government owned United Aircraft Corporation, announced this past June that they had a design (The MC-21) that would compete with the Boeing 737 and actually feature a slightly wider interior cabin. The MC-21 still needs to be taken on its first test flights, but Irkut expects to be able to make deliveries to customers by 2020 (CNBC).
Boeing and Airbus, thus far, haven't had to react too aggressively. Both are aware of the potential new competitors, and both have offered up some numbers on how many aircraft they expect there will be a demand for in the next 20-30 years. They expect that roughly 70% of those aircraft will be single-aisle aircraft (CNBC), where the C919, A320, and 737 will all compete. Other than releasing newer and updated versions of each of their current models (most likely would have happened without the appearance of Comac anyways), there hasn't been too much of a reaction from either company. Although both remain well aware of the potential new competitors as time pushes on. I would personally love to see a few more companies come into play. Competition lowers prices after all, and that is always good for everyone.
References:
Fortune - Cendrowski, S. (2016, February 16). China’s Answer To Boeing Loses Shine. Retrieved October 27, 2016, from http://fortune.com/2016/02/16/china-comac-c919-delay-delivery/
CNBC - Kharpal, A. (2016, July 13). Russia’s Irkut and China’s Comac are Taking on Boeing and Airbus in This $3 Trillion Area. Retrieved October 27, 2016, from http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/13/russia-irkut-and-china-comac-are-taking-on-boeing-and-airbus-in-this-3-trillion-area.html
USAT - Mutzabaugh, B. (2016, June 30). Now Flying: China's First Modern Passenger Jet Enters Service. Retrieved October 28, 2016, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2016/06/30/now-flying-chinas-first-modern-passenger-jet-enters-service/86549178/
Photo source: http://www.airliners.net/photo/COMAC-Commercial-Aircraft-Corporation-Of-China/COMAC-C919/2726413
Friday, October 21, 2016
Commercial Space Tourism
For ages, mankind has looked to the sky in awe and wonder of what lays beyond the pale blue. He has longed to escape the bonds of earth to explore the vastness of space. On the 12th of April, 1961, the first man was able to achieve this goal. Yuri Gagarin, on board the Russian Vostok 1 became the first human being to slip beyond the bonds of gravity (well, more like use them to his favor, but that's a different discussion). Since that historic day, space travel has been solely the product of government research and funding.
Or has it?
In 1984, Charles D. Walker became the first non-government employee to travel into space (Tuscon), although he did so on board the government built shuttle, Discovery. This marked the first time that a civilian was able to get a ride to space, even if he got there via governmental means. After this, the door was opened to try to figure out cost effective ways to send private citizens into space on privately funded vessels. (While we're on the topic of Charles Walker, it should be noted that he is a strong proponent that future space travel should not rely SOLELY on the private sector -- I tend to agree.)
The next great leap for private space exploration came when Dennis Tito became 'the first "fee-paying" space tourist' (NASA) to visit the International Space Station. This happened in April of 2001, and he stayed on board the ISS for 7 days. This all came about through the efforts of the "MirCorp" company, that was in charge of operating the Russian space station "Mir" (NASA). As part of their operations, they began to seek out private citizens that were willing to pay a nominal fee to gain a ride to space. The next major leap after Dennis was the first privately funded human space flight, SpaceShipOne, in June of 2004. This was spearheaded by Mojave Aerospace Adventures, which was a joint operation between Burt Rutan and Paul Allen (NASA). The SpaceShipOne shuttle was able to reach an altitude of 62 miles (regarded as the threshold of space) twice within a two-week period, then returned safely to the ground in a reusable condition both times. This feat won the SpaceShipOne program the Ansari X Prize, which was established in 1996, and offered a $10 Million prize to the first private organization to launch a reusable piloted vehicle into space on two different occasions (NASA). This feat really blew the door open for privatized space travel, but it still remained a treat that only the super rich or well-connected could indulge in.
The success of SpaceShipOne led to the Virgin Galactic company as we know them today, as well as the birth of the SpaceShipTwo program, who's goal it was to provide sub-orbital flights for paying private citizens (NASA).
Another good step in the right direction is the utilization of Elon Musk's SpaceX company and Orbital ATK to stock and resupply the International Space Station in the post-space shuttle NASA days. (NASA). While this doesn't mean much for passengers as of yet, commercial trips to space with freight can only be followed up with commercial trips to space with passengers in the near future. As of September of 2014, NASA announced the selection of Boeing and SpaceX to be the two main carriers to transport crews to and from the ISS for the foreseeable future (NASA).
As of right now, the FAA has been given the enabling statute under 51 U.S.C. 50901 - 50923 (FAA) to oversee and authorize rules and regulations as the governing body. The rules and regulations for commercial space travel can be found under 14 CFR Parts 400 - 460 (Chapter III). However, with the commercial space industry still being so freshly new, there simply isn't that many rules or regulations that are written down at this time, basically as we do not know what regulations from standard aviation will be applicable and carry over, and which rules will not in a space environment. Amateur rockets are not covered under 14 CFR Chapter III, they are regulated under 14 CFR Chapter I (FAA). This also causes a bit of a headache, because where is the line drawn between an amateur rocketeer and a professional trying to start a business? Some of the guys in the model rocket hobby are REALLY into it, and they create some large scale models that come very close to being able to attain orbit. What's to stop them from starting a business strapping supplies or other goods to their rockets, and controlling their movements with GPS as they fly?
I personally see a private sector commercial space tourism industry becoming a more popular vacation choice among civilians in America as time goes on, and especially as it becomes more affordable to do so, but I do not see it becoming a huge deal until there is a space hotel or space station on which it can dock to allow guests and travelers a place to enjoy an extended stay in space, or until we are able to ferry people back and forth from Mars.
The current regulations on becoming a pilot for a commercial space program are not too far off from the requirements needed to be a pilot for a major airline. What is currently needed to be a 'space pilot' is:
- U.S. citizenship (to satisfy export regulations).
- A current FAA commercial (or equivalent) pilot license and FAA medical clearance. - Degree-level qualification in a relevant technical field.
- Graduate of a recognized test pilot school, with at least two and a half years of postgraduate flight test experience.
- Diverse flying background with a minimum of 3,000 hours flying, to include considerable experience of large multi-engine aircraft and high-performance fast jet aircraft and low lift-to-drag experience in complex aircraft.
- Operational experience in an aerospace aviation project or business.
- Preference given to those with experience in spaceflight, commercial flight operations or flight instruction.
(NBC)
As is the case with all rules and regulations in the aviation industry, these are subject to change as the industry develops and we see what more is needed, or if there is something that maybe isn't so needed after all.
I really hope that space travel continues to grow, both government and private sector. It seems that the human race has lost sight of the beauty that lies within space, and I would love to see that vision restored. Mankind went from not being able to fly at all to putting a man on the moon in 60 years. In the ~60 years since then, we've seemed to stagnate and gone no further. At the fever pitch rate at which we were going, we could have easily had people on Mars by now, but we lost sight of the importance of space travel and exploration. I truly wish to see us return, and I think that the private sector can help us get back there.
References:
Or has it?
In 1984, Charles D. Walker became the first non-government employee to travel into space (Tuscon), although he did so on board the government built shuttle, Discovery. This marked the first time that a civilian was able to get a ride to space, even if he got there via governmental means. After this, the door was opened to try to figure out cost effective ways to send private citizens into space on privately funded vessels. (While we're on the topic of Charles Walker, it should be noted that he is a strong proponent that future space travel should not rely SOLELY on the private sector -- I tend to agree.)
The next great leap for private space exploration came when Dennis Tito became 'the first "fee-paying" space tourist' (NASA) to visit the International Space Station. This happened in April of 2001, and he stayed on board the ISS for 7 days. This all came about through the efforts of the "MirCorp" company, that was in charge of operating the Russian space station "Mir" (NASA). As part of their operations, they began to seek out private citizens that were willing to pay a nominal fee to gain a ride to space. The next major leap after Dennis was the first privately funded human space flight, SpaceShipOne, in June of 2004. This was spearheaded by Mojave Aerospace Adventures, which was a joint operation between Burt Rutan and Paul Allen (NASA). The SpaceShipOne shuttle was able to reach an altitude of 62 miles (regarded as the threshold of space) twice within a two-week period, then returned safely to the ground in a reusable condition both times. This feat won the SpaceShipOne program the Ansari X Prize, which was established in 1996, and offered a $10 Million prize to the first private organization to launch a reusable piloted vehicle into space on two different occasions (NASA). This feat really blew the door open for privatized space travel, but it still remained a treat that only the super rich or well-connected could indulge in.
The success of SpaceShipOne led to the Virgin Galactic company as we know them today, as well as the birth of the SpaceShipTwo program, who's goal it was to provide sub-orbital flights for paying private citizens (NASA).
Another good step in the right direction is the utilization of Elon Musk's SpaceX company and Orbital ATK to stock and resupply the International Space Station in the post-space shuttle NASA days. (NASA). While this doesn't mean much for passengers as of yet, commercial trips to space with freight can only be followed up with commercial trips to space with passengers in the near future. As of September of 2014, NASA announced the selection of Boeing and SpaceX to be the two main carriers to transport crews to and from the ISS for the foreseeable future (NASA).
As of right now, the FAA has been given the enabling statute under 51 U.S.C. 50901 - 50923 (FAA) to oversee and authorize rules and regulations as the governing body. The rules and regulations for commercial space travel can be found under 14 CFR Parts 400 - 460 (Chapter III). However, with the commercial space industry still being so freshly new, there simply isn't that many rules or regulations that are written down at this time, basically as we do not know what regulations from standard aviation will be applicable and carry over, and which rules will not in a space environment. Amateur rockets are not covered under 14 CFR Chapter III, they are regulated under 14 CFR Chapter I (FAA). This also causes a bit of a headache, because where is the line drawn between an amateur rocketeer and a professional trying to start a business? Some of the guys in the model rocket hobby are REALLY into it, and they create some large scale models that come very close to being able to attain orbit. What's to stop them from starting a business strapping supplies or other goods to their rockets, and controlling their movements with GPS as they fly?
I personally see a private sector commercial space tourism industry becoming a more popular vacation choice among civilians in America as time goes on, and especially as it becomes more affordable to do so, but I do not see it becoming a huge deal until there is a space hotel or space station on which it can dock to allow guests and travelers a place to enjoy an extended stay in space, or until we are able to ferry people back and forth from Mars.
The current regulations on becoming a pilot for a commercial space program are not too far off from the requirements needed to be a pilot for a major airline. What is currently needed to be a 'space pilot' is:
- U.S. citizenship (to satisfy export regulations).
- A current FAA commercial (or equivalent) pilot license and FAA medical clearance. - Degree-level qualification in a relevant technical field.
- Graduate of a recognized test pilot school, with at least two and a half years of postgraduate flight test experience.
- Diverse flying background with a minimum of 3,000 hours flying, to include considerable experience of large multi-engine aircraft and high-performance fast jet aircraft and low lift-to-drag experience in complex aircraft.
- Operational experience in an aerospace aviation project or business.
- Preference given to those with experience in spaceflight, commercial flight operations or flight instruction.
(NBC)
As is the case with all rules and regulations in the aviation industry, these are subject to change as the industry develops and we see what more is needed, or if there is something that maybe isn't so needed after all.
I really hope that space travel continues to grow, both government and private sector. It seems that the human race has lost sight of the beauty that lies within space, and I would love to see that vision restored. Mankind went from not being able to fly at all to putting a man on the moon in 60 years. In the ~60 years since then, we've seemed to stagnate and gone no further. At the fever pitch rate at which we were going, we could have easily had people on Mars by now, but we lost sight of the importance of space travel and exploration. I truly wish to see us return, and I think that the private sector can help us get back there.
References:
Tucson - Walker, C. D. (2016, January 16). Charles D. Walker: Don't relinquish all space exploration ... Retrieved October 21, 2016, from http://tucson.com/news/opinion/charles-d-walker-don-t-relinquish-all-space-exploration-to/article_6fa60912-6d6f-5e9b-991d-e8bbc3d56665.html
NASA - Granath, B. (2015, December 1). Commercial Flight Opens Unlimited Opportunities | NASA. Retrieved October 20, 2016, from http://www.nasa.gov/feature/commercial-flight-opens-unlimited-opportunities/
FAA - FAA. (2016, October 3). Office of Commercial Space Transportation - Regulations. Retrieved October 21, 2016, from http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/regulations/
NBC - NBC. (2011, April 13). Dozens Apply For Space Pilot Jobs. Retrieved October 21, 2016, from http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/04/13/6466987-dozens-apply-for-space-pilot-jobs
Saturday, October 8, 2016
Cargo Industry and the updated Flight/Duty Regulations
Following the crash of Colgan (Continental) Flight 3407 on February 12, 2009, the FAA introduced new regulations, or rather an NPRM, to dictate newer and safer limitations on pilot flight times and duty expectations. Some of these new outlines included updated rulings on varying flight and duty requirements based on what time the pilot's day begins, flight duty period, overall flight times, minimum rest period, cumulative flight duty and flight time limits, and fitness for duty.
These new guidelines have a few changes from the older rules, all with the idea of added safety in mind. To start, the new rules bring in line all flights, period. The old rules allowed for different guidelines to be followed for domestic, international, and unscheduled flights. Now the new rules are in place for all and apply to all. The new rules mandate a "10-hour minimum rest period prior to the flight duty period, a two-hour increase over the old rule" (FAA), which is in place to allow pilots an opportunity for 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep between duty cycles, instead of just an 8 hour break between fight duty cycles, per the old rules. The new rule also revises overall cumulative flight duty and flight time limits, measuring per week and per 28-day period. It also includes limitations on allowable annual flight time and "requires that pilots have at least 30 consecutive hours free from duty on a weekly basis, a 25 percent increase over the old rules." (FAA). These rules add many other facets to the system to allow pilots to remain better rested and more fit to fly before their scheduled duty days. (Full breakdown of new rules available at faa.gov, cited below)
Now, all this being said, cargo carriers are not currently subject to these new rules. According to the FAA's own press release, this new rule "overhauls commercial passenger airline pilot scheduling to ensure pilots have a longer opportunity for rest before they enter the cockpit" (FAA), but does not mention, nor include rulings for cargo carriers. To me, this just seems really silly, but for some reason, the FAA has deemed that cargo pilots do not need the same rest as airline pilots. The only reason that I can believe that cargo pilots are exempt is that the cargo carriers don't usually fly with "innocent" souls on board. Bigger cargo carriers, like FedEx and UPS sell one thing, their name. They are mail companies through and through, and they make money off of nothing else. If a package is not delivered on time, customer satisfaction goes down, and business suffers. The FAA, when they initially released the NPRM with the new rules laid out, urged cargo carriers to 'opt-in' of their own accord (AirKarp), but did not automatically include them under the new ruling. From the beginning, almost all of the cargo carriers (UPS and FedEx especially) have fought the rule and refused to 'opt-in' to this ruling.
While I do understand the logic, from a business perspective, that the pencil pushers at UPS and FedEx qualify these decisions with, I think this is absolutely asinine. I believe that all cargo carriers should be included in this new rule. I understand that more rest time means less flight time, which means either fewer packages delivered on time, or more pilots to pay to fill the gaps, but this rule is in place for safety of human life. As a pilot, I cannot believe that some of the pilots out there are still subject to the same conditions that were discovered to be the root cause of the Colgan 3407 crash. God forbid one of these days a Colgan-type crash occurs with a FedEx or UPS plane, the pencil pushers up the ladder may finally get the picture. Hard to retain a business image of on-time delivery when an entire 777's worth of packages gets vaporized in a field somewhere because the execs up top didn't deem it worth the extra money or lost time to let the pilots rest when they had the chance.
References -
FAA. (2011, December 21). Press Release – FAA Issues Final Rule on Pilot Fatigue. Retrieved October 08, 2016, from https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=13272
These new guidelines have a few changes from the older rules, all with the idea of added safety in mind. To start, the new rules bring in line all flights, period. The old rules allowed for different guidelines to be followed for domestic, international, and unscheduled flights. Now the new rules are in place for all and apply to all. The new rules mandate a "10-hour minimum rest period prior to the flight duty period, a two-hour increase over the old rule" (FAA), which is in place to allow pilots an opportunity for 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep between duty cycles, instead of just an 8 hour break between fight duty cycles, per the old rules. The new rule also revises overall cumulative flight duty and flight time limits, measuring per week and per 28-day period. It also includes limitations on allowable annual flight time and "requires that pilots have at least 30 consecutive hours free from duty on a weekly basis, a 25 percent increase over the old rules." (FAA). These rules add many other facets to the system to allow pilots to remain better rested and more fit to fly before their scheduled duty days. (Full breakdown of new rules available at faa.gov, cited below)
Now, all this being said, cargo carriers are not currently subject to these new rules. According to the FAA's own press release, this new rule "overhauls commercial passenger airline pilot scheduling to ensure pilots have a longer opportunity for rest before they enter the cockpit" (FAA), but does not mention, nor include rulings for cargo carriers. To me, this just seems really silly, but for some reason, the FAA has deemed that cargo pilots do not need the same rest as airline pilots. The only reason that I can believe that cargo pilots are exempt is that the cargo carriers don't usually fly with "innocent" souls on board. Bigger cargo carriers, like FedEx and UPS sell one thing, their name. They are mail companies through and through, and they make money off of nothing else. If a package is not delivered on time, customer satisfaction goes down, and business suffers. The FAA, when they initially released the NPRM with the new rules laid out, urged cargo carriers to 'opt-in' of their own accord (AirKarp), but did not automatically include them under the new ruling. From the beginning, almost all of the cargo carriers (UPS and FedEx especially) have fought the rule and refused to 'opt-in' to this ruling.
While I do understand the logic, from a business perspective, that the pencil pushers at UPS and FedEx qualify these decisions with, I think this is absolutely asinine. I believe that all cargo carriers should be included in this new rule. I understand that more rest time means less flight time, which means either fewer packages delivered on time, or more pilots to pay to fill the gaps, but this rule is in place for safety of human life. As a pilot, I cannot believe that some of the pilots out there are still subject to the same conditions that were discovered to be the root cause of the Colgan 3407 crash. God forbid one of these days a Colgan-type crash occurs with a FedEx or UPS plane, the pencil pushers up the ladder may finally get the picture. Hard to retain a business image of on-time delivery when an entire 777's worth of packages gets vaporized in a field somewhere because the execs up top didn't deem it worth the extra money or lost time to let the pilots rest when they had the chance.
References -
FAA. (2011, December 21). Press Release – FAA Issues Final Rule on Pilot Fatigue. Retrieved October 08, 2016, from https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=13272
Karp, A. (2011, December 21). Cargo's Fatigue Rule Exemption. Retrieved October 08, 2016, from http://atwonline.com/blog/cargos-fatigue-rule-exemption
Monday, September 19, 2016
Personal Introduction
Good day, Eagle pilots and managers!
My name is Jeff Phillion, and I have been in the EMU AVT program for 3 years now. I grew up in the almost-Thumb of Michigan, in a town called Romeo. I have always been a lover of the outdoors and anything to do with exploring. I will be honest though, and admit that flying has never really appealed to me as a career until I found the EMU program 3 years ago. I have never had anything against flying, and I actually thoroughly enjoyed the few times a year I got to fly to go see extended family, but I never considered it as something I could do full time to earn a living. Only after my first two years as a Mechanical Engineering student at Michigan Tech (and subsequent two years of a Mechanical Engineering internship), did I realize that I most definitely did NOT want to be a Mechanical Engineer. After a summer working as a trail ride wrangler in Montana, and other odd jobs here and there, I found the Eastern flight program on a Google sidebar ad, and...well here I am.
As evidenced by my blog title, I am a huge hockey fan and player. After living in Michigan for most of my life, it just became a part of me. For 4 years during high school, my fathers job took us down to North Carolina. Now, I don't know how many of you have lived in the south, but apparently they just don't know what hockey is down there. I even moved there in 2006, the year that Carolina won the Stanley Cup! Still, nothing. I couldn't stand for it. I pressed my school to start a hockey club, I tried to skate at the one local rink we had within 2 hours drive, and I tried to join the different Men's Leagues there, despite being 4 years too young for the age requirement at the time.
I am a goalie at heart. I skated for exactly one season as a child, before my coaches realized that not only does the fat kid take up the most room in the net, he's actually pretty good at the position as well!! I have been a goalie ever since.
Thanks to that one Google sidebar ad, I have found a new passion, and something that is a lot easier to make a living at than hockey. I am excited to wrap up on the 3 years I have done so far at EMU, and continue down the path of aviation. And I look forward to seeing all of my fellow Eagles in the field years down the road!
My name is Jeff Phillion, and I have been in the EMU AVT program for 3 years now. I grew up in the almost-Thumb of Michigan, in a town called Romeo. I have always been a lover of the outdoors and anything to do with exploring. I will be honest though, and admit that flying has never really appealed to me as a career until I found the EMU program 3 years ago. I have never had anything against flying, and I actually thoroughly enjoyed the few times a year I got to fly to go see extended family, but I never considered it as something I could do full time to earn a living. Only after my first two years as a Mechanical Engineering student at Michigan Tech (and subsequent two years of a Mechanical Engineering internship), did I realize that I most definitely did NOT want to be a Mechanical Engineer. After a summer working as a trail ride wrangler in Montana, and other odd jobs here and there, I found the Eastern flight program on a Google sidebar ad, and...well here I am.
As evidenced by my blog title, I am a huge hockey fan and player. After living in Michigan for most of my life, it just became a part of me. For 4 years during high school, my fathers job took us down to North Carolina. Now, I don't know how many of you have lived in the south, but apparently they just don't know what hockey is down there. I even moved there in 2006, the year that Carolina won the Stanley Cup! Still, nothing. I couldn't stand for it. I pressed my school to start a hockey club, I tried to skate at the one local rink we had within 2 hours drive, and I tried to join the different Men's Leagues there, despite being 4 years too young for the age requirement at the time.
I am a goalie at heart. I skated for exactly one season as a child, before my coaches realized that not only does the fat kid take up the most room in the net, he's actually pretty good at the position as well!! I have been a goalie ever since.
Thanks to that one Google sidebar ad, I have found a new passion, and something that is a lot easier to make a living at than hockey. I am excited to wrap up on the 3 years I have done so far at EMU, and continue down the path of aviation. And I look forward to seeing all of my fellow Eagles in the field years down the road!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)