Pilot shortage, Fact or Fiction?

In the last few years there has been a lot of media buzz about a “pilot shortage”. This is completely misleading and definitely not exactly true. It may seem like a pilot shortage at first glance but if you dig a little deeper you’ll see that this is simply not the case and fictional.

Yes it’s true that lots or airline pilots are reaching the mandatory retirement age of 65 in the recent years past and upcoming years (McCartney, 2009). However there are plenty of pilots to replace them in our pilot population but due to the recent knee jerk reaction regulations after the 2009 Colgan accident many of these pilots are not qualified to get hired by the airlines yet. Instead of 250 hours new prospective airline pilots need 1500 hours to get hired by the regional airlines (Shlangenstien and Sasso 2016). The only case in which they can get hired with fewer hours is if they are trained in a Part 141 aviation flight training program. These programs are growing in number and becoming more common but are also very expensive and time consuming to complete. The reason for this is because they are almost always associated with a university and a bachelor’s degree as well as your flight training and ratings. This is basically like going to two schools at once which as you can imagine is very demanding and expensive. I personally am currently attending one of these part 141 programs and I absolutely love the opportunity it will give me when I graduate. But when I’m done I’ll have over a hundred thousand dollars and four years of my life invested.

The bottom line is that it’s harder to get the qualifications and training to be hired as an airline pilot then it has ever been in the past. This is for many reasons but the main one is the extended amount of time that it takes to log a thousand to 1500 hours and the increased monetary expense of that averaging anywhere from$70,000 on the low end up to over $100,000 (Croft, 2016). Another factor that adds to the false perception of a pilot shortage is the decreased number of military trained pilots due to the reduction in manned aircraft flying done by our military in the recent years. The American military trains less pilots then it did it did fifty years ago and because of this more and more percentages of the pilot population are coming from civilian flight training and flying.  Civilian flight training is payed for out of pocket by the student instead of by the government which makes it much less obtainable and appetizing to most people. On top of increased flight training costs and tuition fees up until very recent years first year first officers at regional airline could make as low as $20,000 a year. How would you like to spend over 4 years of your life and a hundred thousand dollars to then make twenty thousand a year? Up until recently this was the case and this is the reason regional airlines are finally paying more to their pilots. They need to entice the pilot population that already exists to get the training and qualifications needed be an applicant for the airlines.  Also most major airlines require a bachelor’s degree which just makes the road that much longer and more expensive to becoming a professional pilot at the highest level then it has been in the past.

So what does this all mean? To put it simply it means that we have a shortage of qualified pilots in the pilot pool that the airlines hire from, but definitely not a raw pilot shortage. The main thing that caused this shortage of qualified pilots is the new 1500 hour rule imposed on aspiring ATP certificate holders.  I’m not arguing whether or not this is a good regulation or not that’s an entirely different conversation. I’m just trying to show that we don’t necessarily have a pilot shortage as we always hear about in the news. Instead we have a situation where it is essentially harder to become qualified to be legally eligible to be an airline pilot due to the increased amount of time and money needed to obtain an ATP certificate.

References

John Croft, US Carriers face shrinking pool of pilots, retrieved from http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/us-carriers-face-shrinking-pool-pilots, on 9-30-16

 Mary Shlangenstien and Michael Sasso, Shrinking pool of Future Pilots Keeps Major Airlines on Edge, retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-29/shrinking-pool-of-future-pilots-keeps-major-airlines-on-edge, on 9-30-16

McCartney, S. (2009, June 19). Pilot Pay: Want To Know How Much Your Captain Earns? Retrieved  from http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2009/06/16/pilot-pay-want-to-know-how-  your-captain-earns/

My job plans at the beginning of the course are pretty much the same as they are now. I have learned a lot about the job field out there in aviation as a pilot but nothing that has changed my future plans. My plans are still to get to 1000 hours as soon as possible so that I can apply to Endeavor. I really want to be an airline pilot as soon as I can with a Detroit base. The regional airlines are paying more then ever to incoming pilots and I really want to be on that train.

My action plan upon graduation is to build my hours as fast as possible so I can reach 1000 to get my restricted ATP. My plan is to get these hours by flight instructing at EMU as well as possibly flying for Air America towing banners or Sky Dive Tecumseh dropping skydivers. I have connections to both places but am not sure if I will want to to both or even one yet if I am still working toward my CFII and MEI. I'll have to wait and see what the future holds but right now I'm leaning towards getting those two additional certificates to boost my resume even if it means i may not build hours quite as fast.

The most useful topic that we discussed in class was the current job market and I know that it's not really a specific topic but this was the best information for me personally and here's why. I really enjoyed listening to all of the guest speakers this was very influential for me. Coming into class I hadn't had the opportunity to talk to people already in the industry and now I feel  have a good handle on the current job market. I really appreciate you going above and beyond your normal role as a professor to stay in touch with guest speakers and set up times for them to come speak to your classes. This was by far my favorite and most beneficial part of this class.

It's hard to name a topic that was least useful because I honestly thought that they were all very valid and up to date topics for the aviation industry. However I think the Chinese are a long way from competing with Boeing and Airbus so this was possibly he least useful topic for me personally as a perspective airline pilot.

When I achieve my goal of becoming an airline pilot I will definitely become a member of ALPA which is the Air Line Pilots Association. I'm already a member of the AOPA and EAA and I plan on staying with them as time goes on however I believe that the AOPA is a little more valuable. I have this opinion because as we discussed in class for $70 a year if you ever have an aircraft accident or incident they will provide a lawyer for you. The EAA or Experimental Aircraft Association is also very beneficial in that it provides many ways to give back to the aviation world through donation volunteer flights but for the purposes of this blog I'll be talking about the AOPA and ALPA.

The main purpose of the AOPA as stated in their website is to promote general  aviation and " to make it possible for everyone that wants to take to the skies a reality". The AOPA fights to protect pilots rights and general aviation privileges.  They offer many services ranging from updates on AOPA funded safety seminars to lawyer services. ALPA functions as the biggest airline pilot union in the world and claims they represent and advocate for over 54000 pilots at 31 different airlines on their website. Their main goal is to ensure and promote airline safety. ALPA basically fights for the protection of airline pilots much like the AOPA fights for the protection of general aviation pilots. The AOPA really fights to protect all pilots but specializes and focuses more on general aviation and leaves the airline pilot coverage to ALPA. When I say "fight" I mean that these organizations lobby to shoot down regulations that hinder or take away pilot rights. For example the AOPA has been trying to get the 3rd class medical done away with so that more private pilots will have access to the skies even if their health may be of concern.

 It's important for me to stay involved in these organizations because they indirectly represent me and fight for my safety and rights as a pilot. They provide services that would be very hard to find elsewhere especially for such a low price.                                                                                                
References
http://www.alpa.org/en/about-alpa/what-we-do
https://www.aopa.org/about                                  

When you compare aviation emissions to other means of human transportation its footprint is significantly less then other means of transportation such as road transportation (ATAG, 2016). One word explains why this is the case and that word is efficiency. Aviation is much more efficient compared to road transportation especially with the newest wide bodied jets such as the Boeing 787 and Airbus A380. Contrary to public perception large jets are not the biggest polluter into our atmosphere. The public is confused because when you compare a jet to a semi it's obvious the jet has a bigger footprint. However this is only one of the many parts of the equation. To fully understand you need to also look at how many trucks it would take to haul whatever the jet can the same distance. We also have to consider how many jets there are and how many semis there are in operation to fully understand the big picture. According to the Air Transportation Action Group global aviation only accounts for 2% of the worlds C02 emissions and 12% of transportation emissions.

As we discussed in class the United Nations recently came up with a plan to try and reduce carbon emissions from Airliners. The basic plan they have proposed is the idea of limiting companies' pollution by giving everyone in the international airline industry a cap or a maximum amount of carbon they are legally allowed to emit. If a company goes over the legal limit they will have to purchase carbon credits from other companies that have emitted less and have some left over to sell. I think this is a good idea on paper but I honestly do not think it will ever work in reality for many reasons. For starters how will we accurately track how much a certain company emits? Also I have a very hard time believing airlines will pony up the cash to actually buy carbon credits. Just the idea of marketing pollution monetarily doesn't seem like a feasible plan however the intentions are all very good.

President elect Donald Trump has publicly stated that he would try cancel the United States involvement in the Paris agreement if he was elected president (Fox News, 2016). He has stated he thinks that the Paris Agreement is "bad for business". Whether he's right or wrong isn't really what we need to debate. The question is whether or not he'll actually follow through now that he has been elected. There are lots of things President elect Donald Trump has said he will do and chances are he wont follow through with all of them. We'll just have to wait and see what his priorities are but getting us out of the Paris Agreement will be a lot easier said then done and I don't think he will actually do it.

I believe that the new laws and regulations are for a good cause but will not ever actually work the way they're proposed to. We should also be making laws and regulations in the other parts of the transportation industry that are less efficient such as trucking. Maybe we already are but I honestly haven't done the research. The bottom line is that the airlines will always want to burn less fuel so do we really need to implement the carbon credit system?

References
Fox News, Bill O'reilly, November 2016
Facts and Figures, Air Transportation Action Group (ATAG). (May 2016) Retrieved from http://www.atag.org/facts and figures.html
  

Open skies agreements are simply agreements between two countries allowing each others air carriers to conduct international flights into the country without the significant government hassle and time consuming procedures they would have to go through normally without the agreement (State 2016). These carriers can be airlines or cargo companies. In class we talked about two middle eastern countries specifically that have long haul government subsidized airlines conducting international flights into the U.S. These countries are the  United Arab Emirates and Qatar; both of which have open skies agreements with the U.S.

The bottom line is that American carriers argue the UAE airlines are unfairly advantaged because they are government subsidized. They argue that our airlines receive no government funding and any foreign airline that does is not on an even and level playing field therefore making the open skies agreement unfair to companies such as Delta and American Airlines. The counter argument coming from the UAE and Qatar is that U.S. carriers such as Delta are in fact government subsidized because they have received bailout money from the government as early as 2002. What the argument is boiling down to is the definition of "government subsidizing" as it relates to airlines in specific countries. Its very simple: the big three in the U.S. say UAE and Qatar are unfairly advantaged due to their respective government funding and UAE and Qatar say the big three arent one to talk because they have received government funding also even if it has been through an indirect government bailout plan.

Another complaint of the big three U.S. airlines is that foreign carriers have yet another unfair advantage in that they can purchase American manufactured jets such as Boeing aircraft for reduced overall prices due to reduced interest rates. Foreign companies have the ability to do this because of the Export Import Bank.  Some domestic airlines with international flights such as Delta argue that if they can purchase planes for less they can lower ticket prices and be more "unfairly" competitive. Basically the  Export-Import Bank tries to make it easier for foreign companies to buy U.S. manufactured products in order to keep American company manufacturing jobs on our soil and help sustain our economy. In the example we're discussing the Export-Import Bank makes it easier for UAE airlines to buy Boeing Aircraft made on U.S. soil by giving loans with lower interest rates than airlines such as Delta could ever get.

I personally feel that the global playing field of long haul air carriers is very unfair. I also feel that absolutely everything else in life is unfair. The reality is that there will always be unfair advantages and disadvantages for all parties involved. We can do our best to make it more "fair" but it will never be perfectly fair. I think the most unfair part of this topic is the Export-Import bank issue, but Boeing will tell you that this helps them sell a lot of jets which creates American job opportunities and helps sustain our economy (Crawford 2016). There are opportunity costs for every decision. However if I was Delta I'd be very upset that an American company like Boeing right next door sells their jets cheaper to foreign countries then they will to me. It's not that simple but with the Export-Import bank as the middle man that's basically what happens.  The whole situation is obviously unfair for competition among long haul air carriers foreign and domestic but I wouldn't say it's such a bad thing. I would just say it's more of the normal way that business in general works throughout the world.

References

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-ceo-losing-export-import-bank-means-loss-of-jobs/, Jan Crawford, 11-26-15, retrieved on 11-2-16

http://www.state.gov/e/eb/tra/ata/, U.S. Departemtn of State, Open Skies Agreemt, retrieved on 11-3-16

I do believe that the C919 will eventually receive FAA certification. I think it's only a matter of time before the COMAC learns how to be approved through the FAA,just like Boeing and Airbus have. It wont happen over night...or even in the next 10 years but it will eventually happen. The Chinese have a lot to learn when it comes to FAA approval in lots of categories such as preventative maintenance and production. However anything can be learned with enough determination and man power; both of which the Chinese government has lots of.

U.S. commercial 121 carriers will have some serious and significant choices to make if the C919 becomes approved by the FAA. Chances are this aircraft will be cheaper then the comparative Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 (Aboulafia, 2010). Carriers will have to decide whether or not to invest in this new cheaper aircraft as opposed to staying with their current providers such as Boeing and Airbus. Public perception is also something to consider. Personally I feel it's better to invest in the most American company when it comes to purchasing aircraft even if they're a little more expensive. Many people simply don't care or completely disagree and believe as a business the more affordable aircraft is more beneficial. When I look at pictures of the C919 it's very similar looking to the comparative competition. This means the average person wont even notice the difference even if they were flying on one. We're all more receptive to these subtle changes because we're going to school to get an aviation related job and most of us are pilots. We can name types of planes and notice the little things. The American public will not because less then 1% are like us. They won't care what kind of plane they're flying in if it's got a familiar logo on the tail and cheaper price on the ticket. As soon as one major airline starts to buy these planes and lower airfare prices others will be sure to follow. I don't think this will happen for at least 20 or so years but I do believe it is inevitable and unfortunately Boeing and Airbus may have a tough road ahead.

 COMAC's relationship with the Chinese government is the same as all the major airlines in China. They are both COMPLETELY owned and controlled by the government.Basically the whole aviation industry in China is under government control and funding.There is also a smaller "business" class jet  being manufactured by COMAC that has already taken flight (Reuters 2015).

If the C919 receives FAA  certification it will have little effect on other companies trying to become competitors to Boeing and Airbus. You need to have unlimited funding and resources to start a company big enough to become competition to the duopoly of Boeing and Airbus in producing commercial airliners that are FAA certified. I think the only entity with unlimited money and resources is the Chinese government and even they are having a very tough time getting FAA certified. I don't see anyone else trying to compete with Boeing and Airbus in the near future.

I haven't seen any public direct responses from Boeing or Airbus about the roll out of the Comac C919. Honestly they have no reason to respond. They are in charge and control the industry and know the FAA like the back of their hand. Boeing and Airbus have a Phd. in airliner production and Comac just started kinder garden. It will be many years before they need to worry about Comac even possibly competing and it may never happen.




References
 "China's Comac rolls out C919 jet, ground tests to start soon" Reuters. 1 November 2015. Retrieved 2 November 2015.

"Airbus Group-media" airbusgroup. Retrieved 7 April 2015.

 Aboulafia, R. Comac C919 Program Briefing. World Military & Civil Aircraft Briefing. 2010.

The idea of space tourism has been an idea ever since we first started venturing into space. Only recently in the last ten years or so has it come into fruition. In the U.S. there are two major companies that are trying to make space tourism happen. Virgin Galactic was formed in 2004 and has always had the goal of putting civilians into space (Virgin Galactic 2016). Space X is based in southern California and has made huge progress in the engineering of unmanned reusable rockets that can land themselves on barges in the ocean (Space X 2016). Civilian space flight seems like a great idea but it comes with unlimited hurdles and logistical problems. The biggest issues to overcome are cost and safety. To this day only a handful of "civilians" have actually been able to pay to go to space and it cost them each over 20 million dollars. With a cost like this less then half a percent of our population can afford to go. Lives have been lost in experimental civilian spacecraft crashes and there will be more to come. As we try to find ways to get into space "cheaper" and more affordable it's inevitable that  safety will decrease in priority at some point.

Currently the FAA is not allowed to regulate standards for commercial spacecraft as they do for commercial aircraft such as airliners. I think that this is not only a good thing but is absolutely essential for commercial space travel to get off its feet. Civilian space travel would literally never get off the ground if the space travel industry was regulated as heavily as the airline world. On another note I really don't think that the FAA has enough knowledge or the correct personal to regulate an industry that isn't even transporting customers regularly yet. How can you regulate an industry that has never even been around before? It would be like having an FAA around when the Wright Brothers were developing their first aircraft. It's simply hard to regulate something that has never been before.

I honestly don't foresee space tourism headed anywhere fast. It's still too expensive for enough civilians to show a big enough interest in order to make it a financially stable business. There will always be lots of money to be made launching satellites for companies. In fact this is how Space X funds their research (Space X 2016). But money in human space flight for pleasure will be harder to come by. Technology and money are the limiting factors. There are a lot of people interested, however because space tourism is more of a bucket list adventure instead of a return customer business I don't think it will survive. I compare it to the skydiving industry where about eighty percent of an average drop zone's revenue is "one and done" tandem customers (Blue Skies 2014) The only way I think commercial space tourism will thrive is with return customers but they need to offer different kinds of adventures for that to happen. Maybe trips to the moon or even other planets could eventually be other trips offered. I would love to see this a reality but unfortunately I don't realistically see this happening in any of our life times. We simply don't have the technology to make these kinds of ventures economically feasible for civilians.

If I were to work at a company that is trying to get civilian space flight a reality like Virgin Galactic or Space X I would want to be a pilot. In order to be a civilian space flight test pilot you need to know someone already well affiliated with and inside such a company. Chances are you're not going to get hired off the street as the average healthy commercial pilot. Military jet experience helps as well as any bachelors degree in a technical field such as engineering or mathematics. Obviously if you're an ex shuttle pilot that has been laid off from NASA your application may be moved to the top of the list. The more education you have the better but the quality of your flight hours is just as important. Test pilot experience as well as thousands of hours of PIC jet time are highly desirable.



References
http://www.virgingalactic.com/
Blue Skies Magazine
http://www.spacex.com/about

UAV's have almost unlimited use in our country when it comes to civilian use. They range from business to pleasure and everything in between. The main way I see them being used is for applications in photography and filmography. They are amazing tools for surveying of any kind. They are used everyday in movie productions across the country because of there versatility, durability, and low cost. Reality companies love them because they can quickly get a birds eye view of property and good quality pictures for a relatively low cost. Instead of hiring a pilot to fly overhead in a 172 and take pictures they can fly a drone with a camera on it. Drones are basically putting any kind of helicopter or airplane filming company out of business because UAV's can operate at a fraction of the cost and are safer. Amazon has even started a program to possibly input drones into their delivery system.  They are currently regulated by the FAA through part 107 that was recently issued (Musunaga 2016). There are rules about UAV's that the FAA has issued such as "unmanned aircraft mus weigh less than 55lbs"(FAA 2016). The new rules cover many topics from airspace usage to line of sight rules and applications.

I definitely foresee UAV's integrating into the NAS. They have to because they are growing in popularity and demand from consumers.In order for them to be integrated into the NAS a special set of rules and regulations will have to be drawn up and implemented by the FAA and there already are some. The FAA enforces these new rules with inspectors supposedly although we've had such a short time to observe we really don't know how this will work out. One of the problems that will arise is tracking and registering all of the UAV's. It's a lot of paperwork and fees that no one really wants to complete or pay for. Enforcement will also be a struggle because UAV's can be flown from so many places. Its not like the FAA can monitor all the potential locations drones can be flown like they can with airplanes because they're limited to airports usually.

Military strategy has changed drastically since the implementation of UAV's. We can now fire missiles from remotely piloted drones and the pilot is completely safe and free from harm even if the aircraft is shot down or crashes. UAV's integration into the military has been incredibly efficient financially but has raised some ethical issues. Drones cost less then F18's to manufatcure, operate, and train pilots to fly. Plus they don't put an American pilot in danger when they go down. The fact is that integrating drones into the military has saved American lives. However some say that it's ethically wrong to send a machine to kill a human target or enemy. Some say our military is more trigger happy and more prone to confrontation because of our use of unmanned aircraft instead manned aircraft. One of their arguments is that  if our own human lives aren't at risk then we care less about the possibility of collateral damage. I personally don't have any ethical issues with UAV's integrated into the military. If anything I think we're more ethically efficient because we don't have to put American lives in danger to kill enemy targets. We can also do more reconnaissance  with less human sacrifice which is a huge improvement from flying SR-71's half way around the world to take some pictures that lack in quality compared to today's photos taken by unmanned drones.

In the future there will be an abundance of UAV related jobs. I was unable to find a direct link to a job posting but I've have heard of numerous job opportunities that have to do with surveying property for realtors. I've even had a realtor friend of mine personally offer me a job opportunity if I had my own drone with an on board camera. I have also heard of job opportunities at my mom's civil engineering firm to inspect bridges and buildings with drones. Another potential job in high demand will be teaching these drone classes to non private pilot people that want to get their commercial drone operating certificate for work related reasons. I have a cousin that works for an agricultural company that was payed to get his certificate so that he could legally inspect fields with drones commercially.

References
https://www.faa.gov/uas/ retrieved on 10-13-16, FAA
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-drone-rules-20160829-snap-htmlstory.html retrieved on 10-13-16, Samantha Masunaga

The new pilot flight and duty regulations require that pilots get at least 10 hours of rest between shifts. To be more specific 8 of those 10 hours must be uninterrupted sleep. Pilots are also limited to only flying 8 or 9 hours straight depending on the time of day that they start (Trejos, 2014).  Also pilots must have at least 30 consecutive hours of rest each week. In the past pilots could use the eight hours of  "uninterrupted sleep" to basically due as they please.  For example these 8 hours were commonly used to get to or from the hotel and/or shower and eat. Previous regulations only required that pilots get at least 24 hours of rest straight a week.

Cargo Pilots are allowed to fly up to 8 hours but then must have a rest period unless there are three crew members or more. If this is the case a cargo pilot my fly up to 12 hours straight (Boxer, 2016). For example if a crew of 3 Boeing 747 pilots are flying from Detroit to Hong Kong the pilots can fly up to 12 hours straight. Cargo pilots can legally be on duty for up to 16 hours straight but it's illegal for them to fly 16 hours without rest.

I feel that cargo carriers have been excluded from these new rule changes for a number of reasons. For one I believe the public perception is that human lives are valued more then cargo and so the FAA molded these rules to that perception accordingly. Basically the FAA is saying that a 747 full of human passengers is more valuable then a 747 with millions of dollars of cargo therefore the passenger carrying 747 should be under more stringent safety regulations. This may make the pilots of the cargo companies feel like their lives are devalued in the eyes of the FAA but I do agree it's right for the cargo carriers to not be held to these stricter flight and duty regulations. I also believe many cargo companies made the argument that it would be hard or impossible for them to survive if they were subject to these stricter flight and duty regulations. I believe this is true especially when you consider the operating models of  "on demand" cargo companies.

I personally don't believe the cargo carriers should be held to these more stringent new rules and standards. It may not be morally correct but in business world morals aren't the highest priority, making money is. Numerous cargo carrying companies have shown through careful examinations that they would likely go out of business or be unable to operate under the new flight and duty regulations of the airlines.

 If cargo companies were subject to the new rules regarding flight and duty that airlines are it would be harder for a new inexperienced pilot to find cargo jobs because many of the on demand companies would go out of business and shut down. I also believe newly certificated commercial pilots working for cargo carriers would be more encouraged to break the regulations in order to get the cargo delivered on time.

References
Nancy Trejos, January 4th 2014, retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2014/01/03/pilot-fatigue-mandatory-rest-new-faa-rules/4304417/ on October 5th 2016
Senator Barbara Boxer, April 13th 2016, retrieved from http://www.cargoair.org/2016/04/setting-the-record-straight-on-all-cargo-duty-and-rest-amendment/ on October 6th 2016

I personally believe that the pilot shortage is 100 percent real and that it's due to an increasing number of senior pilots retiring. It's true that until recent years the regional airline pay has been so low that it has discouraged pilots from joining the industry. The shortage is so real that regional airlines have recently almost doubled the potential pay for an incoming new first officer. Five years ago it wasn't uncommon to have incoming first officers of regional airlines making below 20 thousand a year. Now after incentives some regional airlines make it possible to make over 50 thousand a year as a first year first officer. The bottom line is that between a mixture of traditionally low pay and retiring senior pilot populations between the ages of 55 and 65 there is in fact a pilot shortage and there will continue to be in the foreseeable future.

Regional airlines may be concerned with their hiring pool because the pool is not big enough to supply them with enough pilots. This is for a number of reasons but mainly that the pool has shrunk due to the knee jerk reaction regulations after the Colgan accident discussed in the movie we watched. To legally acquire an ATP a pilot needs to have logged 1500 hours these days (Shlangenstien and Sasso 2016). So airlines wont hire you unless you have 1500 hours as opposed to the 250 they could potentially hire you at 7 years ago. This regulatory requirement has good and bad things about it but I would argue it has more bad. For starters, it decreases the amount of pilots in the pilot pool that regional airlines can draw from which decreases competition which in turn decreases quality of pilots. For a new pilot to reach 1500 hours you almost have to flight instruct which in my opinion is not meant for everyone. Not everyone is a good teacher and furthermore flight instruction is mostly hands off watching someone else fly. These hours are of lower quality then hands on flying in most aviators' opinions. Alternatives for pilots seeking to meet this minimum hour requirement would be getting employed as a pilot in jobs other then flight instructing where they could use their commercial certificate. These jobs could include banner towing, flying skydive jump planes, crop dusting, Ariel photography, and charter or tour flying. There are other alternatives to instructing too but the reality is that these jobs are very few and far between and hard to build significant amounts of hours quickly (Croft,John 2015). There really aren't many alternatives for the regional airlines themselves because they are so desperate for pilots right now and will continue to be in the near future. They are so desperate for pilots that basically if you have 1500 hours they will hire you even if they think you're not the greatest pilot. This is sad but very true and leads to a decrease in the quality of our nations airline pilot population

There is not a blanket organization or association that covers everyone else in the airline business besides the pilots. Instead there are separate organizations that cover specific people such as air traffic controllers or management. For example there exists the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) and the Air Traffic Control Association (ATCA).

Professionalism to me is simply doing the very best job you are capable of when a consumer hires you to do something, whether it's making a widget or flying an airplane. Sometimes this means having more overhead or spending more money to do a better job. It sounds simple but in reality it's very hard when the ultimate goal of business is to make as big of a profit as possible.

Professionalism was lacked by Colgan Airlines in many ways. First of all they were employing a captain that in my opinion was not monitored enough and adequately trained to fly the aircraft that crashed. Also professionalism was lacked by the first officer who had commuted from across the country from the northwest coast all night and was sick. The circumstances that Colgan provided to her may have forced her to commute. But if she felt she was unfit for duty she should have never boarded that plane, even if it meant she would have to get a hotel under her own dime.

I strongly believe that first year pilot pay and/or the compensation structure of a regional airline is a contributing factor in the lack of professionalism demonstrated in the documentary. The documentary did a very good job of giving the general public a look into the lives of some starting first officers at regional airlines. It gave us a glimpse of what living in a "crash pad" looks like. It's obvious to anyone that has seen the documentary that it would be hard to remain professional when living in those conditions. Some pilots are more fortunate then others but if your pay is so low that you need to live like that I think the airlines should pay you more. However a pilot should always remain professional no matter what and at the end of the day it's a pilots choice to live in a crash pad. He/she has no one to blame but themselves. No one forces someone to be a regional airline pilot so lacking professionalism should never be accepted with the excuse of "I don't get paid enough". On the other hand I believe regional airlines need to take better care of their pilots and in past years we have started to see that in many ways throughout the country with the obvious change in an increase in pay. Some would argue this change is rooted in desperation of regional airlines to acquire pilots but i believe it is also because they have realized they need to take better care of their pilots if they want them to remain professional.

When I become a regional airline pilot I will always maintain vigilance and professionalism by aspiring to be the very best airline pilot I can be. One thing I will do is always make sure I get adequate rest before I fly. If this means I have to live at the hub I fly out of I will choose to do so. Also I will never accept making excuses to provide reasons for me to act in an unprofessional matter. As airline pilots we are looked up to and we need to set examples of some of the best professionalism in the business world. I will always continue to be educated beyond the minimum recur-ency requirements of the FAA.

References
John Croft, US Carriers face shrinking pool of pilots, retrieved from http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/us-carriers-face-shrinking-pool-pilots, on 9-30-16

 Mary Shlangenstien and Michael Sasso, Shrinking pool of Future Pilots Keeps Major Airlines on Edge, retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-29/shrinking-pool-of-future-pilots-keeps-major-airlines-on-edge, on 9-30-16

ATC Privatization and Next Gen

Our ATC system as it has traditionally operated has been with ground based stations such as radar to monitor and control traffic flow. Note that radar is a technology that has been around since before the second world war. Next Gen is the opposite in that it's a new and improved system that uses satellite air based GPS systems to monitor and control traffic. The overall main advantage of the Next Gen ATC system is accuracy and efficiency. It's more efficient because the satellite based GPS navigation is more accurate then traditional radar coverage methods of monitoring aircraft and traffic flow. For this reason separation between traffic can be safely decreased which in turn increases traffic flow and density and increases effeciency. This decreases the amount of fuel needed to complete flights because aircraft can fly more direct routes. Decreasing fuel usage is obviously a huge advantage for everyone in that is saves money and decreases carbon emissions.(https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/)

GA  has spoken out against the privatization of ATC for one reason and that reason is simply money. The typical GA pilot doesn't want to have to pay out of pocket for when they use ATC services. Imagine getting a bill in the mail from an ATC agency for the times you used their services last month. This is exactly what GA groups such as the AOPA and EAA are trying to avoid. The stance of U.S. airlines is usually that they are against ATC privatization as well for similar reasons. Airlines use the ATC system more then anyone else therefore they would have the biggest bill to foot if ATC was ever privatized. For this reason they would rather not have ATC privatized. However some airlines would prefer it be privatized so that new technology could be input and upgraded more quickly to increase effeciency thereby saving airlines fuel costs, The AOPA and EAA have both publicly stated their opposition to ATC provatization.

ATC is privatized in some other countries. ATC is currently privatized in countries such as France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Canada. (http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/10/transportation-watchdog-lauds-privatized-air-traffic-control/) In these countries ATC is basically run like a normal business would in that they are responsible for making there own money. The big advantage to this is that that are also responsible for choosing operating procedures and can decide when to modernize equipment which is what is traditionally very slow and delayed in the United States and has been an area of complaint by the airlines. In countries like these the ATC facilities are privately funded by the entities that use the services such as the individual airlines. For example Nav Canada is one of these private operators. Most people agree that ATC in these countries runs somewhat more efficiently then ours because technology can be modernized and replaced quicker because the individual ATC facilities themselves have the power to decide. As opposed to a goverment agency having deciding control such as in the United States.

In order for the privatization of the Unites States ATC system to happen it would have to go through congress. The FAA cannot make this decision on its own because it needs to be approved through congress with a bill. ATC privatization was addressed in the latest FAA re-authorization of 2016 by a provision specifically for ATC privatization.

I personally feel that ATC in the United States would run more efficiently if it were privatized, That's not to say that I'm one hundred percent for it. But I do believe it would be more efficient just as I believe taking government out of anything makes it simpler and more efficient. However I really don't want to have one more monthly bill to come in the mail for me to pay either. The main reason it would be more efficient is because removing government control would speed up processes of change such as upgrading to more efficient technology which is a necessity in our ever changing technologically advanced world.

References
https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/10/transportation-watchdog-lauds-privatized-air-traffic-control/

Hello my name is Jason Dickinson and I'm currently in the aviation flight program at EMU. I hold a private pilot single engine land certificate with an instrument rating. I'm half way through the commercial syllabubs and am looking forward to taking my commercial check-ride. My goal is to have it done by the new year.

My experience in flying the last year and a half has been nothing but fun and I'm looking forward to the future. My long term goal is to be a captain at a major airline someday. My short term goal is to graduate and obtain as many ratings and certifications along the way as possible. I like to adventure and learning to fly has been a great outlet for me to do this. I love taking trips up north to small airports and exploring new places. I would say that's the highlight of my career as a pilot so far. I'm looking forward to this course and have heard great things about it.