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.
Saturday, October 29, 2016
Friday, October 21, 2016
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
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
Saturday, October 15, 2016
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
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
Friday, October 7, 2016
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)