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

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:

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 

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

Karp, A. (2011, December 21). Cargo's Fatigue Rule Exemption. Retrieved October 08, 2016, from http://atwonline.com/blog/cargos-fatigue-rule-exemption