After going through Senior Seminar, AVT422, my career aspirations have not changed. We have had a variety of guest speakers that showed how diverse the opportunities are for pilots however, my heart is still set on the airlines. After having the guest speaker from Delta talk about how the airlines work, I am almost more excited to become an airline pilot. I have always been for a routine life and do not mind having a set schedule months in advanced. Having a speaker talk about how the merge worked was interesting as well. The only thing that might change in my career is I might fly cargo, maybe kalitta, to get some heavy time. It was nice having the cargo pilots talk about their life style and how “the board” works. It was rally nice hearing about some of the things they fly, like the xbox360s.
For the next five years my goals are to finish school. For this goal I need to finish up my commercial, CFI, and multi-engine. After that I plan to become a flight instructor. Right now I do not have a specific place I would do this at. If I had to choose now, I would chose somewhere in Florida, since I have family there and the weather is much nicer. After getting my 1000 hours I would then become a regional pilot. It is really hard to determine the best one to work for, with the industry changing, however express jet seams to be hiring, last I checked. If by some miracle I finish all of that with in five years, I would than go work for Delta.
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Small Airlines
With the world starting to deregulate aviation small companies are adopting new models to compete with the larger airlines. Frantz Yvelin, CEO of La Compagnie, made a business model that turns the whole aircraft into business class. The cost for a seat is around $2,000 instead of the $5,000 to $11,000 the competitors have. With this model businesses are more likely to fly with La Compagnie because the business class is much cheaper. Another model is the Ultra low cost carriers (ULCC) model. This model uses cut rates for seats however, the passenger must pay for anything extra. This model drawls in customers because of the low prices and even by paying the extra fees, the overall trip is cheaper. But what do the businesses look like?
La Compagnie, who uses the business class model, uses a fleet of Boeing 757-200‘s and the maintenance is outsourced and done by Icelandair Technica. La Compagnie uses full business class planes and has 19 rows of 74 seats. La Compagnie is based at Paris Charles De Gaulle Terminal and operates between Paris and Los Angeles. The ULCC model is used by Spirit. Spirit flies to over 50 destinations with main bases in Detroit and Fort Lauderdale. Spirit’s fleet contains A319‘s, A320‘s, and A321‘s. Spirit has one of the youngest fleets and operates in the U.S, Latin America, and Caribbean. But which model is better?
Both models offer their own benefits. With Yvelin’s, their company is able to attract business men who are flying on their companies money. With ULCC, the average citizen is able to fly and even choose the perks they want to pay for. I believe the most successful model will be the ULCC. The ULCC model is open to a larger majority of the public. The low cost of ticket will lure in more people and with the option to pick the perks to fly with, people are able to save more money. While the ULCC does not offer the best business class seats, or any, the cost makes them able to compete better.
I believe that with all these new models there with be a separation between the airlines, one for the wealthy and one for the average person. I believe that the expensive airlines will be more associated with safety and the cheaper ones with cutting corners. If the expensive airlines start losing profit margins then they might start cutting down on the quality of pilots, by cutting pay or even outsourcing. The expensive airlines might be able to get away with it since public perception is the ticket costs more so it must be more safe? I believe that the low cost airlines will do what ever it takes to cut costs and might remove one pilot from the cockpit and/or even charge to use the bathroom.
https://www.lacompagnie.com
http://www.spirit.com
La Compagnie, who uses the business class model, uses a fleet of Boeing 757-200‘s and the maintenance is outsourced and done by Icelandair Technica. La Compagnie uses full business class planes and has 19 rows of 74 seats. La Compagnie is based at Paris Charles De Gaulle Terminal and operates between Paris and Los Angeles. The ULCC model is used by Spirit. Spirit flies to over 50 destinations with main bases in Detroit and Fort Lauderdale. Spirit’s fleet contains A319‘s, A320‘s, and A321‘s. Spirit has one of the youngest fleets and operates in the U.S, Latin America, and Caribbean. But which model is better?
Both models offer their own benefits. With Yvelin’s, their company is able to attract business men who are flying on their companies money. With ULCC, the average citizen is able to fly and even choose the perks they want to pay for. I believe the most successful model will be the ULCC. The ULCC model is open to a larger majority of the public. The low cost of ticket will lure in more people and with the option to pick the perks to fly with, people are able to save more money. While the ULCC does not offer the best business class seats, or any, the cost makes them able to compete better.
I believe that with all these new models there with be a separation between the airlines, one for the wealthy and one for the average person. I believe that the expensive airlines will be more associated with safety and the cheaper ones with cutting corners. If the expensive airlines start losing profit margins then they might start cutting down on the quality of pilots, by cutting pay or even outsourcing. The expensive airlines might be able to get away with it since public perception is the ticket costs more so it must be more safe? I believe that the low cost airlines will do what ever it takes to cut costs and might remove one pilot from the cockpit and/or even charge to use the bathroom.
https://www.lacompagnie.com
http://www.spirit.com
Monday, November 10, 2014
Private Space Travel
On October 31, 2014. Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo was conducting a test flight. At around 50,000 feet Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo broke apart leaving only one survivor. The investigation is still being ran however, it is believed that the aircraft's feathering mechanism lock/unlock switch was pulled at the wrong time, causing the wings to rip off the aircraft. It is speculated that one of the pilots prematurely pulled the switch, which is meant to be pulled upon decent, causing the accident.
“The 2004 Ansari X Prize called for private sector innovations in the field of manned space exploration. Specifically, participants had to design and manufacture a privately funded
vehicle that could deliver the weight of three people (including one actual person) to suborbital space. The vehicle had to be 80 percent reusable and fly twice within a two-week period.” The Ansari X Prize began the privatization of space flight as companies and people became interested in the possibilities of private space travel. Mojave Aerospace Ventures, Paul G. Allen company, and Burt Rutan’s Scaled Composites funded SpaceShipOne and won the X Prize. Virgin Group then licensed Mojave Aerospace Ventures and began development of the second generation of space ships. Virgin Galactic was born and now over 700 people have bought tickets with the hopes of going into space.
With the development of private space flight rules must be made. The FAA has made a number of regulations to govern private space travel but they are very minimal. In a nut shell, the company must provide safety information and inform passengers of any dangers with space travel. The FAA has also established crew notification, environmental protection, and life support regulations. But, will space travel ever become available to the public?
I believe that space travel will become possible and even available to the general public. When aviation first started it was only for the wealthy until with deregulation and the development of better technology, airline companies were able to offer ticket prices at a price the general public could afford. I believe that for the first 30 to 50 years space travel will only be for the wealthy however, after that period technology might evolve to the point where ticket prices will be available to the general public.
The requirements to be an Astronaut are: “a Bachelor's degree from an accredited institution in engineering, biological science, physical science, or mathematics, an advanced degree is desirable, quality of academic preparation is important, at least 1,000 hours pilot-in-command time in jet aircraft, flight test experience is highly desirable, ability to pass a NASA space physical which is similar to a military or civilian flight physical and includes the following specific standards: distant visual acuity: 20/100 or better uncorrected, correctable to 20/20 each eye, blood pressure: 140/90 measured in a sitting position, height between 62 and 75 inches.” (NASA).
References:
http://www.virgingalactic.com/statement-from-virgin-galactic/
http://www.virgingalactic.com/uploads/141501863048197/original.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/features/F_Astronaut_Requirements.html
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2006-12-15/pdf/E6-21193.pdf
“The 2004 Ansari X Prize called for private sector innovations in the field of manned space exploration. Specifically, participants had to design and manufacture a privately funded
vehicle that could deliver the weight of three people (including one actual person) to suborbital space. The vehicle had to be 80 percent reusable and fly twice within a two-week period.” The Ansari X Prize began the privatization of space flight as companies and people became interested in the possibilities of private space travel. Mojave Aerospace Ventures, Paul G. Allen company, and Burt Rutan’s Scaled Composites funded SpaceShipOne and won the X Prize. Virgin Group then licensed Mojave Aerospace Ventures and began development of the second generation of space ships. Virgin Galactic was born and now over 700 people have bought tickets with the hopes of going into space.
With the development of private space flight rules must be made. The FAA has made a number of regulations to govern private space travel but they are very minimal. In a nut shell, the company must provide safety information and inform passengers of any dangers with space travel. The FAA has also established crew notification, environmental protection, and life support regulations. But, will space travel ever become available to the public?
I believe that space travel will become possible and even available to the general public. When aviation first started it was only for the wealthy until with deregulation and the development of better technology, airline companies were able to offer ticket prices at a price the general public could afford. I believe that for the first 30 to 50 years space travel will only be for the wealthy however, after that period technology might evolve to the point where ticket prices will be available to the general public.
The requirements to be an Astronaut are: “a Bachelor's degree from an accredited institution in engineering, biological science, physical science, or mathematics, an advanced degree is desirable, quality of academic preparation is important, at least 1,000 hours pilot-in-command time in jet aircraft, flight test experience is highly desirable, ability to pass a NASA space physical which is similar to a military or civilian flight physical and includes the following specific standards: distant visual acuity: 20/100 or better uncorrected, correctable to 20/20 each eye, blood pressure: 140/90 measured in a sitting position, height between 62 and 75 inches.” (NASA).
References:
http://www.virgingalactic.com/statement-from-virgin-galactic/
http://www.virgingalactic.com/uploads/141501863048197/original.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/features/F_Astronaut_Requirements.html
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2006-12-15/pdf/E6-21193.pdf
Sunday, November 2, 2014
Cargo
Even since the Colgan Air accident, fatigue became a major concern for the FAA. Fatigue is the feeling of tiredness or lack of energy, commonly because of lack of sleep. After the accident, the FAA started imposing new duty/rest regulations. Currently, the rest requirements are: nine hours of rest if less than eight hours duty time, 10 hours of rest for less than nine hours but more than eight hours duty time, and 11 hours of rest for more than nine hours of duty time. The old duty times were eight hours of rest once the flight was complete. This did not allow enough time for pilots to go to the hotel and aquire eight hours of sleep the average person needs. However, cargo is under different rules.
In the cargo world, the rules for duty/rest times are much different. The rules for duty/rest requirements vary depending on the number of pilots however, one rule allows no rest period. 121.503 part (f) allows it to where if there are 2 pilots, a flight engineer, a working pressurization system, and an approved independent communication system, than the pilots may be scheduled for more than eight hours, no more than 10, with out a rest period. I believe this exception came to be because, cargo does not carry passengers. I also believe the cargo companies are afraid that with out 121.503 part (f) they would have a harder time scheduling pilots. But should cargo be excused from the new fatigue laws?
I believe cargo should not have been excluded from the new laws because, they are still flying a plane and while it is not endangering passengers, it does endanger the people on the ground. Cargo also does most of its flying at night. Flying at night is more dangerous because, the average person’s biological clock. The average person has two peak low points a day. The first low point is in the mid afternoon and the other at night, when the average person goes to bed. With pilots flying at a time when they would be sleeping, stricter duty/rest periods should have been applied to the cargo industry, to ensure safety.
If cargo were to adapt the new airlines duty/rest rules, I believe that there would be no significant changes or complications to my career. With the high volume of traffic during the day, I do not expect cargo to switch when they do most of their flying. I do not believe scheduling to be a problem either. While the cargo industry would need to hire more pilots to meet with the hour requirements I do not believe the pilot shortage has hit a point to greatly affect the cargo industry. In fact I believe cargo could open up to lower time pilots offering them a potential alternative to the low paying regional airlines.
References:
Far/FC 2015
http://healthysleep.med.harvard.edu/healthy/getting/bio-clock
In the cargo world, the rules for duty/rest times are much different. The rules for duty/rest requirements vary depending on the number of pilots however, one rule allows no rest period. 121.503 part (f) allows it to where if there are 2 pilots, a flight engineer, a working pressurization system, and an approved independent communication system, than the pilots may be scheduled for more than eight hours, no more than 10, with out a rest period. I believe this exception came to be because, cargo does not carry passengers. I also believe the cargo companies are afraid that with out 121.503 part (f) they would have a harder time scheduling pilots. But should cargo be excused from the new fatigue laws?
I believe cargo should not have been excluded from the new laws because, they are still flying a plane and while it is not endangering passengers, it does endanger the people on the ground. Cargo also does most of its flying at night. Flying at night is more dangerous because, the average person’s biological clock. The average person has two peak low points a day. The first low point is in the mid afternoon and the other at night, when the average person goes to bed. With pilots flying at a time when they would be sleeping, stricter duty/rest periods should have been applied to the cargo industry, to ensure safety.
If cargo were to adapt the new airlines duty/rest rules, I believe that there would be no significant changes or complications to my career. With the high volume of traffic during the day, I do not expect cargo to switch when they do most of their flying. I do not believe scheduling to be a problem either. While the cargo industry would need to hire more pilots to meet with the hour requirements I do not believe the pilot shortage has hit a point to greatly affect the cargo industry. In fact I believe cargo could open up to lower time pilots offering them a potential alternative to the low paying regional airlines.
References:
Far/FC 2015
http://healthysleep.med.harvard.edu/healthy/getting/bio-clock
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Norwegian Air International
Norwegian Air International is the third largest low budget carrier in Europe. “The Norwegian Group consists of the parent company Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA and its directly or indirectly fully-owned subsidiaries in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Ireland and Singapore.” Norwegian has a fleet composed of many 737-800‘s, 737-300‘s and 787‘s. Norwegian pilots operate under Singapore and Norwegian flies between US and Scandinavia. Currently, Norwegian is attempting to operate a foreign airline domestically in America however, their request was denied.
In September, the Department of Transportation (DOT) denied Norwegian’s permit to operate in America under an Ireland permit. The DOT denied the permit because “It would need more time to consider an application from the airline for long-term permission to fly into the US”. I agree that the permit should be denied however, There should be no need to consider anything on the DOT’s side. Clearly Norwegian is unsafe and would deal a heavy blow to U.S. carriers, who could not compete, due to operating under stricter laws. But what makes them so unsafe and do are air carriers support this?
The U.S. air carriers are opposed to Norwegian because, they operate under Ireland therefore, do not have to comply with American standards. This would allow Norwegian to be able to undercut all U.S. carriers and endanger safety at every turn. Norwegian is also owned by six different counties. This creates a problem of who is really liable for the planes? If an accident were to happen (heaven forbid on America soil) then Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Ireland and Singapore would all be pointing fingers at each other. Operating under so many countries also create the question of what laws would apply to the carrier? If any foreign company were allowed to operate domestically, then the U.S. risks losing American air line companies and create a loophole on our regulations.
References:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2014/09/02/dot-norwegian-air-alpa-foxx/14810499/
http://www.norwegian.com/us/about-norwegian/our-company/
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/transport-and-tourism/us-ruling-hits-norwegian-air-shuttle-s-long-haul-plans-1.1916935
In September, the Department of Transportation (DOT) denied Norwegian’s permit to operate in America under an Ireland permit. The DOT denied the permit because “It would need more time to consider an application from the airline for long-term permission to fly into the US”. I agree that the permit should be denied however, There should be no need to consider anything on the DOT’s side. Clearly Norwegian is unsafe and would deal a heavy blow to U.S. carriers, who could not compete, due to operating under stricter laws. But what makes them so unsafe and do are air carriers support this?
The U.S. air carriers are opposed to Norwegian because, they operate under Ireland therefore, do not have to comply with American standards. This would allow Norwegian to be able to undercut all U.S. carriers and endanger safety at every turn. Norwegian is also owned by six different counties. This creates a problem of who is really liable for the planes? If an accident were to happen (heaven forbid on America soil) then Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Ireland and Singapore would all be pointing fingers at each other. Operating under so many countries also create the question of what laws would apply to the carrier? If any foreign company were allowed to operate domestically, then the U.S. risks losing American air line companies and create a loophole on our regulations.
References:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2014/09/02/dot-norwegian-air-alpa-foxx/14810499/
http://www.norwegian.com/us/about-norwegian/our-company/
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/transport-and-tourism/us-ruling-hits-norwegian-air-shuttle-s-long-haul-plans-1.1916935
Sunday, October 12, 2014
UAS's
As technology evolved, UAS’s (unmanned areal system) came to be. Now as UAS’s continue to grow, they find their way into the civilian market. UAS’s can be used for anything from areal photography or just for recreational play. With their current growth I see UAS’s replacing helicopters in filming movies, carrying packages to door steps, and even replacing freight pilots. But are UAS’s being regulated? In order for anyone to use an UAS they must first get an exception from the FAA.
“Obtaining a Special Airworthiness Certificate in the experimental category for a particular UAS is currently the only way civil operators of unmanned aircraft are accessing the NAS. Experimental certificate regulations preclude carrying people or property for compensation or hire, but do allow operations for research and development, flight and sales demonstrations and crew training.”
- FAA.gov.
There have been multiple accounts of people not acquiring the proper paperwork and flying UAS’s, just to get found out by the FAA and punished.
With UAS’s growing more popular I believe that it is only a matter of time before they are integrated into the NAS. With companies like Amazon trying to use drones, the interest is there but, is the safety? Every so often there is a drone strike. Some pilot did not see the drone and collided with it. With some drones being small and flying high, it is easy to see why the FAA is hesitant on releasing regulations. Also, with no person flying the UAS, what will happen if control is lost? I believe that with Nextgen, UAS’s will be forced to have positioning reporting equipment, if they want to fly in an airspace. Currently the military uses UAS’s that have a preprogrammed route. If a failure is detected or control is lost the programmed route takes over.
In the military UAS’s take on a much different role. according to uavs.org UAS’s have 6 main functions: security, search and rescue, monitoring, impact and disaster management, communications, and munitions. With UAS’s the military can send up an unmanned drone, controlled from the other side of the world. This saves pilots from flying into higher risk areas and save the cost of sending in a fighter jet, where something smaller can get the job done just as well. The integration of UAS’s have been good, so good there is even talk that one day there will be no more manned planes. As for me, I think there will always be a need for manned planes in the military because, there will always be a need for the human to “press the button”.
References:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/
https://www.uavs.org/military
“Obtaining a Special Airworthiness Certificate in the experimental category for a particular UAS is currently the only way civil operators of unmanned aircraft are accessing the NAS. Experimental certificate regulations preclude carrying people or property for compensation or hire, but do allow operations for research and development, flight and sales demonstrations and crew training.”
- FAA.gov.
There have been multiple accounts of people not acquiring the proper paperwork and flying UAS’s, just to get found out by the FAA and punished.
With UAS’s growing more popular I believe that it is only a matter of time before they are integrated into the NAS. With companies like Amazon trying to use drones, the interest is there but, is the safety? Every so often there is a drone strike. Some pilot did not see the drone and collided with it. With some drones being small and flying high, it is easy to see why the FAA is hesitant on releasing regulations. Also, with no person flying the UAS, what will happen if control is lost? I believe that with Nextgen, UAS’s will be forced to have positioning reporting equipment, if they want to fly in an airspace. Currently the military uses UAS’s that have a preprogrammed route. If a failure is detected or control is lost the programmed route takes over.
In the military UAS’s take on a much different role. according to uavs.org UAS’s have 6 main functions: security, search and rescue, monitoring, impact and disaster management, communications, and munitions. With UAS’s the military can send up an unmanned drone, controlled from the other side of the world. This saves pilots from flying into higher risk areas and save the cost of sending in a fighter jet, where something smaller can get the job done just as well. The integration of UAS’s have been good, so good there is even talk that one day there will be no more manned planes. As for me, I think there will always be a need for manned planes in the military because, there will always be a need for the human to “press the button”.
References:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/
https://www.uavs.org/military
Monday, September 29, 2014
Corporate Aviation
In the would of aviation there are two big end goals for pilots, the airlines and corporate, but what do they offer? Pilots who go into the airlines get a routine life, with good pay, and can either be active or on reserves. Active pilots get their schedule and fly it, reserves however, are different. While on reserve, pilots get a schedule of times they are on call. Once called, they get a time period to report to their flight. Corporate is a little different on job offers. While flying corporate pilots can be chief pilots. A chief pilot, In Part 119, “Air Operator – Certification general aviation certificate holders are required to employ a ‘senior person’ who is responsible for ‘air operations and the supporting ground operations’”. The chief pilot essentially oversees the aviation department and is in charge of all the pilots.
There has been a long standing debate on if corporate aviation is profitable to companies. Ever since the big three fielded bankruptcy and were found to have spend billions on their aviation programs, only negative things have been said about corporate aviation. While aviation programs cost a lot of money they do contribute to companies. Because companies have their own jets they do not need to go through the airlines anymore. This allows company heads to do more meetings, around the world, in a more timely manor. This also allows companies to land at smaller airports, that may be closer to where they need to be. Lastly, companies can rent out their planes generating more revenue.
One example of a corporate program is Dow Chemical. Dow is one of the most wanted pilots jobs in Michigan. Their fleet consists of CRJ’s, G405‘s, a G550, and in 2015 the G650. In order to work for Dow one must have the requirements for the ATP and know someone in the company. Dow Chemical is based in Saginaw on the north west ramp, next to the FBO, with two heated hangers.
Reference:
http://www.air.flyingway.com/books/far/ChiefPilot.pdf
There has been a long standing debate on if corporate aviation is profitable to companies. Ever since the big three fielded bankruptcy and were found to have spend billions on their aviation programs, only negative things have been said about corporate aviation. While aviation programs cost a lot of money they do contribute to companies. Because companies have their own jets they do not need to go through the airlines anymore. This allows company heads to do more meetings, around the world, in a more timely manor. This also allows companies to land at smaller airports, that may be closer to where they need to be. Lastly, companies can rent out their planes generating more revenue.
One example of a corporate program is Dow Chemical. Dow is one of the most wanted pilots jobs in Michigan. Their fleet consists of CRJ’s, G405‘s, a G550, and in 2015 the G650. In order to work for Dow one must have the requirements for the ATP and know someone in the company. Dow Chemical is based in Saginaw on the north west ramp, next to the FBO, with two heated hangers.
Reference:
http://www.air.flyingway.com/books/far/ChiefPilot.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)