Final Blog Post: Medical Reform

I decided to talk about the FAA general aviation medical reform because it will definitely affect the aviation community and it is a hot topic right now in the news. Myself as well as others have heard a lot of talk from aviation enthusiasts and Washington about the reform that will be coming to FAA airmen medical certificate regulations but not much work has been done to get the bill into motion other than AOPA trying to push the legislation on law makers. I am skeptical of the repercussions that have the potential to ensue if the bill does go into effect and there are pilots out there flying with nothing more than a drivers license, provided they fly smaller general aviation aircraft. There is much debate on the topic, people like myself who strongly oppose the idea and others that are very pro the idea. For the most part the community of people who strongly support the legislation are older aviators who have lost their medical and can no longer fly or aviators who have not lost their medical yet but fear they will lose it in the future. There is also the community of people who just dislike the necessity that requires them to go and receive a medical examination every year or so depending on their age (Tennyson, E).

Currently the medical reform only applies to smaller aircraft with certain stipulations that they must meet to be exempt from the legislation that the Bill of Rights 2 calls for under a third class medical certificate.  The medical requirement will not apply to anyone who is engaging any any of the following operations

• Aircraft that have a max gross weight of 6000 lbs or more
• Aircraft carrying more than 5 passengers
• Aircraft climbing through 14,000' or higher 
• Aircraft traveling in excess of 250 KIAS
• Aircraft operating for compensation or hire

Aviation enthusiasts for the most part will not be engaging in any of the criteria above so many will be exempt from holding a medical certificate at all. From my experience I have encountered people on the road driving that scare me and should have their drivers license taken away, with this bill it will allow those same people to operate aircraft at their leisure as long as they do not engage in any of aforementioned criteria. My opinion on the subject matter is not bias because it will do me no good whether the bill goes into effect or not I will have to maintain a first class medical. I disagree with allowing pilots without medicals to fly for the safety of not only pilots in the air but also innocent homeowners and pedestrians on the ground. If a unfit to fly pilot, but still legal due to him having a drivers license decides to go up and soar after recent chest pains and has a heart attack and kills innocent people on the ground that is what will most likely have to happen first for the government to think twice about authorizing this bill.

Just recently, and since my original post the Senate passed by a unanimous decision the Pilots Bill of Rights 2 which is now on its way to the House for consideration. Most likely what will happen is the bill will go to the House and the House will add or edit some part of the legislation in their favor and send it back to the Senate a number of times before both parties can agree. Eventually after they have came to an agreement it will be sent to the white house to be signed by the president as law (Tennyson, E).

Although the House and Senate are talking about the proposed law the FAA will not implement the regulation into the FAR's until it goes through a Notice of Proposed Rule making period and has allowed the public to comment on potential changes to the legislation. What I believe will most likely happen once it has reached the FAA's hands is a great majority of people will support the legislation and only a small majority of people like myself will be against it. By the time it is in the NPRM stage unfortunately the public will not be able to convince the FAA to not allow it, by that time it would have been placed upon the FAA by congress and given a time period during which it must be complied with. 

Similar to what I had to say in my original blog post the pros and cons of the implementation of the regulation allowing recreational flying without a medical is an easy one, with many points in favor of both parties. The older generation of aviators who have lost their medical and have been unable to fly for sometime have the greatest incentive for this bill to go into effect. On the flip side, aviators such as professional airline pilots want to operate in airspace not plagued by pilots who may or may not be physically unfit to fly. I also suspect that the majority of the U.S population has no idea that these regulations are even in the process of being talked about, and if they were to get more attention by the media I suspect that many would not be okay with this. There really is only one way to make this fair for everyone, pilots who cannot pass their medical and physically fit pilots alike and that is the implementation of a regulation that requires a less stringent examination but more frequent medical examinations. I personally cannot tell you how often the Secretary of State checks vision for drivers or how else they determine if a applicant is physically fit to perform duties as a driver and or pilot but I suspect them to be very easy to pass. I personally am not okay with allowing this lax of a requirement for aviators (Text - S.571)

I do believe that the Pilots Bill of Rights 2 will go through both the House and the Senate but the only way to keep our skies safe is to come to a compromise requiring more frequent medicals. I am very passionate about this bill going into effect and believe that more people need to stand up for what is right so that the airspace overlying our land is safe and not compromised.

Tennyson, E. (2015, February 26). Medical reform legislation introduced in House, Senate. Retrieved November 30, 2015, from http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/February/26/Medical-reform-legislation-introduced-in-House-and-Senate

Tennyson, E. Full Senate passes medical reform. (2015, December 15). Retrieved December 15, 2015, from http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/December/15/Full-Senate-passes-medical-reform

Text - S.571 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Pilot's Bill of Rights 2. (2015, February 25). Retrieved November 30, 2015, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/571/text  

ATC Privatization

If the bill governing the implementation of privatized air traffic control services goes into effect it will undoubtedly be a terrible mistake made by the our policy makers decisions. The general aviation community strongly opposes this shift to privatizing air traffic control for one reason specifically, and that is the addition of user fees on an per time basis.  Currently air traffic control is government subsidized by a tax through fuel fees, which has been a efficient way of providing services to pilots for decades. While the general aviation perspective on privatization is double-sided, the most common argument I have seen while researching the topic is the strong opposition for another fee being added to the cost of owning an airplane. The more important area of interest that law makers and pilots should be concerned about is repercussions that will follow by pilots opting to not use services they normally would such as; flight following, or filing an IFR flight plan in marginal VFR conditions due to the user fees associated with such services.

To my surprise major airlines are big supporters of the push to allow for privatized air traffic control facilities. Similar to all decisions made by the executives within fortune 500 companies there is always a motive when a push for a change within the industry exists. In the case of this regulation and almost all other reforms, it concerns potential savings or money! By air traffic control transitioning to a privatized system there are a number of benefits to air carriers such as a quicker implementation of NextGen into the NAS and a large reduction in the amount of money spent on fuel, which is an airlines single handedly largest cost. JetBlue Airlines is one of the U.S carriers to voice their opinion on the bill that will allow for the reduction in route times and fuel burn per hour which equals large savings even at small percentages (Jansen, B). Delta Airlines on the other hand is not a proponent of the idea of privatized ATC. I am not sure of this to be true or not but since Delta Airlines is the biggest airline in the United States their opinion on the matter may weigh more heavily in the eyes of the FAA when it comes time to make such a decision (Barton, E)

The privatization of air traffic control is not a new idea and other foreign countries have been on board with the idea for some time now. Canada is the home to the most well known subsidized ATC facilities out there today, even being used by the United States as a model to use when creating our own model plan for the future. There are associated risks and rewards for implementing a system to this degree as can be expected. The system runs more efficiently by allowing equipment and services to be updated at a faster rate than could be experienced by a government ran ATC (Call to action issued over ATC privatization).

Similar to all laws, if the lawmakers do decide it will be in the best interest of the people to hand over the responsibilities of the FAA over to civilian contractors, the idea will go through the same process that other pre laws go through before they actually become added to U.S Code. To my understanding since the FAA has the jurisdiction over air transportation it will not be debated across the house and senate but will be an internal matter resolved only within the FAA.

I cannot emphasize enough how against the privatization of of FAA control towers that I am. Not only do I think they will be inefficient but the dramatic effect on safety that they have will be paramount. It is possible that 50 or more years from now when our technology is so advanced that we hardly need human ATC intervention at all that the privatization of ATC could be efficient. Like I have already mentioned a number of times, the safety of the ATC system will be adversely affected by this shift to privatization. To make up for the lack of funding that normally comes through a fuel tax, the private ATC towers will generate their revenue by charging for services, similar to an a la carté style. What I mean by that is, pilots will no longer be provided all services equally for free . It so detrimental to safety that we do not go through with this method of ATC privatization because pilots will most likely stop using services that aid with safety like vfr flight following or filing an ifr flight plan in efforts to save money when able.

Barton, E. (2015, September 10). Transportation Watchdog Lauds Privatized Air Traffic Control. Retrieved December 5, 2015, from http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/10/transportation-watchdog-lauds-privatized-air-traffic-control/

Call to action issued over ATC privatization. (2015, July 8). Retrieved December 5, 2015, from http://generalaviationnews.com/2015/07/08/call-to-action-issued-over-atc-privatization/

Jansen, B. (2015, December 2). Airline executives urge privatization of air-traffic control. Retrieved December 6, 2015, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/12/01/airline-executives-urge-privatization-air-traffic-control/76604766/

FAA GA Medical Reform

While conducting research for the current state of medical reform for recreation pilots I found a plethora of information which was a big surprise to me. July 2014, while at the Oskhosk airshow was the last time I had heard about any sort of medial reform coming to the general aviation community and honestly at the time I was not a big supporter. I still am skeptical about the whole idea of letting people fly airplanes in VMC and IMC with nothing more than a valid drivers license but there are provisions to the proposed rule that make it not quite as dangerous as I once thought (Tennyson, E).

The current agenda for medical reform within the aviation community is to propose an updated pilots bill of rights that will address the need for a third class medical which will include pilots who will be engaging in any of the following (Text - S.571 - 114th Congress).

• Aircraft over 6000 lbs gross weight
• More than 5 passengers
• Higher than 14,000ft
• More than 250 KIAS

Another way of looking at that list is to interpret it the people who do not need a third class medical to fly which is basically if you do not meet all of those criteria you will be legal to go fly. 

While searching for information regarding the amended Pilots Bill of Rights 2 I was unable to find an associated NPRM but while searching more I found that the proposed rule change is actually not formally a proposed rule in the eyes of the federal registrar. The proposition to amend the regulations was put together by senators in congress and has been formally written up and introduced into the house and senate but has not progressed any further (Tennyson, E).

Determining the pros and cons to the implementation of a regulation allowing recreation pilots to fly without a medical is a easy one in my opinion. A positive aspect of the regulation if it goes through is that it will stimulate the GA community and allow many previously grounded pilots to become current again, which will thus stimulate the economy from the people buying and selling airplanes. A negative aspect of the rule if it goes through I believe is obvious, if it does go through there could be potentially a lot of incidents and accidents polluting our aviation community by old pilots who are able to pass a drivers test but probably are not well enough to be at the controls of any airplane regardless of how fast or slow it is. 

I truly do have mixed feelings for this topic, I know that the potential for many more accidents caused by incompetent pilots will likely increase by the passing of this law but at the same time I know that when I am 70 plus years old and maybe cannot pass a medical and am permanently grounded I will be devastated. In my opinion the physical ability to pass a drivers test by an unhappy desk agent at the secretary of state is pretty easy, meaning that almost anyone would be able to fly an airplane which is scary. There seems to be only one logical way to make this work for old pilots who still may be physically fit to fly, the addition of a regulation that requires more frequent flight reviews. If pilots who really are physically fit to fly can pass a flight review maybe two times a year instead of once every other year I think that would be the perfect implementation of regulation to address both problems. 

Tennyson, E. (2015, February 26). Medical reform legislation introduced in House, Senate. Retrieved November 30, 2015, from http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/February/26/Medical-reform-legislation-introduced-in-House-and-Senate

Text - S.571 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Pilot's Bill of Rights 2. (2015, February 25). Retrieved November 30, 2015, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/571/text  

Chinese Competitor to Airbus

COMAC, in my opinion has started down a road of aircraft manufacturing with hopes of one day surpassing its competitors; Boeing and Airbus. Unfortunately for COMAC it lacks the innovation and reputation that its competitors currently hold. Both Boeing and Airbus have established reputations for themselves over the years as industry leaders for transport category aircraft and have left little room for smaller companies to build up a reputation for themselves. In my opinion the C919 will receive certification but I do not think that it will ever surpass its American and French competitors in the airline industry and eventually will fizzle out similar to a super nova, shine bright die young.

I personally believe that the C919 will pose but a minuscule risk to US carriers. The probability of the major US air carriers transitioning to a Chinese made transport category aircraft is next to none for a variety of reasons such as; negative media due to public perception and also just for their own sake they would rather rely on products with known and proven safety records than something new. For the most part the majority of accidents and incidents do not happen when aircraft are old but rather when they are new and in the initial introduction stage of the products life cycle where there has not been nearly enough testing done to ensure any type of reliability. While major US air carriers probably opt to pass on the Chinese jet it is possible that some of the smaller regional airlines will take advantage of the lower operating cost and implement the jet into their fleet. (Harjani, A.)

The Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China Ldt or COMAC is a government owned aircraft manufacturer based out of Shanghai, China with hopes of one day being a major competitor for airline aircraft purchases and adding the C to the major aircraft manufacturing companies (A-B-C) Airbus, Boeing, and then COMAC. Currently there are two airplanes in the process of becoming certificated the C919 and the ARJ21, although the company has aspirations of certificating two more aircraft in the future, the C929 and C939 which are proposed wide body jets. With regard to major competitors to Boeing and Airbus I believe that eventually the Chinese equivalent of the already popular 200 seater jets will be worth noting but it will take a considerable amount of time for the company to build a solid reputation, as with any new company. The likelihood of other manufacturers joining the ranks is up for debate, there is always the possibility for competition but any new manufacturer has to take into consideration that there is some serious competition already available to the market and should be monetarily prepared for this. The fact that the Chinese manufacturer COMAC is backed by the Chinese government is a huge advantage to allowing them to enter the market, where as a privately funded company may never be able to survive the period of time where it is essential for them to build a reputation and stay afloat. 

While researching this topic I was unable to find any significant responses from Airbus or Boeing with regard to their new competitor COMAC. Airbus did however forecast the potential boom in aviation over the next few decades and sees the potential risk involved for their company with regard to a new, cheaper manufacturer. The competitor, COMAC does has a advantage over other manufacturers due to the fact that it is owned by the Chinese government so it definitely has the potential to stick around and build a reputation for itself. With regard to public perception i'm not sure that that specifically will influence the market all that much primarily due to the fact that people are comfortable with Chinese manufacturing to a certain extent. Most people are aware that the majority of our goods come from oversees, specifically China, and that some of the most reliable automobiles on the road are of Chinese descent, such as Honda. The Chinese manufacturer Honda has build a great reputation for themselves in the auto sector and when transitioned to building aircraft it seemed to pan out for them positively with the Honda Jet due to the large amount of orders. (Ostrower, J.)

Harjani, A. (2014, February 12). Made-in-China aircraft to rule skies sooner than you think. Retrieved November 8, 2015, from http://www.cnbc.com/2014/02/12/you-may-fly-on-a-made-in-china-aircraft-sooner-than-you-think.html

Ostrower, J. (2015, March 18). A Closer Look at the Comac C919 - Why Does it Exist? - AirlineReporter. Retrieved November 8, 2015, from http://www.airlinereporter.com/2015/03/closer-look-comac-c919-exist/

Aviation Organizations

Belonging to professional organizations within your career is of utmost importance for a number of reasons, such as (Hood, T);

1. It brings like minded professional individuals together to accomplish goals
2. Promotes leadership and how to be a professional
3. Creates invaluable professional relationship and networks

"Nobody is going to look out for your profession like your professional association, nobody" says Clark Price, a CEO for a professional organization for CPA's. His words really are true though, no one is going to look out for the best interest of your future career like the like minded individuals from a professional organization filled with people who have the same goals. Aviation organizations such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), and Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) are great associations to become a member of for a plethora of reasons.

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association is probably one of the largest aviation related organizations in existence. Their primary mission is to protect pilots freedom to fly by; advocating, educating, and supporting the aviation industry. There are many services offered to members of this association such as the latest industry news, free training seminars, a monthly magazine and aviation attorneys available to pilots at their disposal in the event of a accident or incident in which there is a need of representation. The Airline Pilots Association, which is the largest airline union out there, has the primary mission of advocating and promoting aviation safety from within airlines. ALPA has helped negotiate hundreds of airline pilot contracts and provides representation when needed.

AOPA and ALPA help secure aviators best interest in every sense of the word. Although they both are different and have different primary functions, supporting different types of aviators they both promote aviation. AOPA has helped shape a lot of regulatory mandates from the FAA positively over the years, more notably such as a reduction in the AME medical examination fee and they are currently trying to change the medical requirement for certain operators (Mission and History of AOPA). ALPA has also helped regulate changes within the industry such as the implementation of the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) and the addition of certain collision avoidance equipment in part 121 operators flight decks. (Advancing Aviation Safety)

When a group of people get together with the a common goal that is when real change can take place. An organization of people will always have a greater impact on the system than any one person could ever hope to accomplish. By joining these organizations you are supporting positive change throughout the aviation industry and on top of that they usually offer many services to their members pro bono. The association fee typically does not exceed $100 a year but yet offers many invaluable services. These reasons alone are enough to me to convince me why its important to become and stay a member of these organizations and hopefully they are for you as well.

ADVANCING AVIATION SAFETY AND SECURITY SINCE 1931. (2005, July 10). Retrieved November 1, 2015, from http://www.alpa.org/about-alpa/our-history

Hood, T. (2009, September 23). 6 reasons to belong to your professional associations. Retrieved November 1, 2015, from http://www.macpa.org/blog/2196/top-five-reasons-to-belong-to-your-professional-associations

Mission and History of AOPA. (2005, June 10). Retrieved October 31, 2015, from http://www.aopa.org/About-AOPA/Governance/Mission-and-History-of-AOPA 

Global Airlines

The most notorious airlines for receiving government subsidies are Etihad, Emirates and Qatar airlines, all of which are owned by the governments of Emirates and Qatar, respectively. The subsidies are received by the airlines from their government as a loan at a heavily reduced interest rate or non existent interest rates so that the airlines can buy aircraft from aircraft manufacturers and still be able to keep the commodity price low.

With regard to subsidies provided to US airlines by the US government, the air carriers do receive fuel and tax subsidies, such as Delta, American and United. While the subsidies do not portray themselves to be glamours at first like with foreign carriers who receive the money directly from their government for the purpose of being able to provide a commodity at an affordable rate, they still do affect the companies revenue. Companies such as Emirates and Etihad have made claims that they do not think the subsidies they receive from their respective countries is unfair because the US air carriers have also received the equivalent of these incentives. (CAPA) The legacy carriers seem to think that the incentives they receive are the same as what US air carriers receive, but this is simply not the case.

The United States has developed an export-import bank with the primary function of granting reduced rate loans to foreign countries with the intent of lending capital to those countries so that they may purchase U.S made tools or equipment to be payed back at a later time and stimulate the U.S economy (Bhaskara, V). The United States legacy carriers see a problem with this incentive to foreign carriers because not only can the U.S carriers not take advantage of this but the foreign countries airlines have more than enough financial backing so that they could sustain themselves and their airlines without help from our export import bank but they see the potential and take advantage of it by purchasing numerous U.S made aircraft from Boeing, etc. This would be a fair practice that would also stimulate our economy if it were available to the U.S air carriers, such as Delta, American, and United, but it simply is not.

To a certain degree this whole practice that these air carriers part take in is fair. The foreign carriers see the problem with the way that the system currently is set up and take advantage of it, while the U.S carriers who give most to the economy are not offered this huge incentive. I get the idea behind the import export bank and how it can stimulate an economy tremendously but there needs to be limits to the people who can use it and for what purposes. The foreign carriers all originating out of the middle east are owned by some of the wealthiest people in the world who do not necessarily need the huge benefit of using the U.S bank but elect to use it anyways to further improve their business like any smart business owner would do. This is a huge benefit that is only plausible due to a technicality in the verbiage of the law.

Bhaskara, V. (2014, September 2). The Fight Over the Export-Import Bank Has No Easy Answers.
     Retrieved October 22, 2015, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/airchive/2014/09/02/the-fight-over-the-export-import-bank-has-no-easy-answers/

CAPA. (2014, May 4). Chinese airlines overtake US carriers across the Pacific. The big dilemma: US-China open skies? Retrieved October 26, 2015, from http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/chinese-airlines-overtake-us-carriers-across-the-pacific-time-for-us-china-open-skies-222454

Cargo Flight/Duty Regulations

The FAA changed many of the Part 121 and ATP requirements following the Colgan Air Buffalo accident, many which in my opinion were over kill and hardly addressed the real problem. Prior to the Colgan accident an FO at an airline was only required to hold a Commercial Pilot Certificate and a minimum of 250 hours, those minimum requirements have since changed and require all FO's to hold an ATP certificate and a minimum of 1500 hours (Depending on if a the pilot graduated from an approved school or is a military pilot (really hope Eastern gets this exemption)). The FAA and congress responded to the families of the lives lost in this accident and the general public by presenting these new regulations with hope that they would address the problem but if you were to take a further look you would see that that is not the case.  Both the Captain and FO on this flight were more than qualified to fly the aircraft and had accumulated over 2000 hours each. The new regulation that requires FO's to have 1500 hours seems to me to be counter productive and just deter future aviations from wanting to become airline pilots (Collins, R)

Cargo carriers are subject to less restrictive flight and duty limits such as, no more than; 1200 hours a year, 120 hours a month, 34 hours in any 7 days, 8 hours during any consecutive 24 hour period, and 8 hours between required rest periods. Basically what i've taken from the regulations is that the regulations limit the cargo carriers from scheduling a pilot in a single pilot operation for more than 8 hours a day but if it is a two man operation or more then the pilot can fly more than 8 hours provided it is not within a required rest period. A minimum amount of rest must also be observed between the duty times to abide by the regulations (ECFR).

The cargo carriers have undoubtedly been excluded from the 121 fatigue regs due to the lack of outsider perception into the operation that cargo operators receive since they fly boxes rather than people. With regard to a part 121 carrier, the fuselage holds paying passengers who come into contact with the crew routinely the same is not the case in a part 135 carrier. Even though some part 135 operations involve unscheduled transportation of passengers the negative perception of tired pilots is not as forthcoming as with part 121 carriers. 

In my own personal opinion I think it only makes sense for part 135 carriers to abide by the same duty and rest requirements that part 121 carriers do. The Colgan air crash was a direct result of fatigued pilots who made bad decisions most likely due to their fatigue. Regardless if there are passengers who can witness these unsafe acts or not, a fatigued pilot still can cause a lot of damage and loss of life if they suffer from the same fatigue and drive an aircraft into the ground. Although we dont hear about these cargo carrier accidents they do happen occasionally. The perception is of no importance with these accidents, regardless of whether a box or passenger is in the back of the plane a tired pilot is a tired pilot and can cause a lot of harm.

If the FAA were to mandate the part 121 rest and duty requirements onto the part 135 cargo carriers it would be a safer sky but potentially bad for business. The implementation of these rules would reduce the amount of legs or flights these pilots fly which would require a greater number of pilots which then would require a larger portion of the companies income to pay for the increase in pilots. The increase in the amount of required pilots would be good for the industry because it would promote more people into becoming pilots but at the same time it would be worse for the employed pilots because with a reduction in the companies income comes a reduction in the pilots wages. 

Collins, R. (2014, March 28). A double tragedy: Colgan Air Flight 3407 - Air Facts Journal. Retrieved October 17, 2015, from http://airfactsjournal.com/2014/03/double-tragedy-colgan-air-flight-3407/

ECFR — Code of Federal Regulations. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2015, from http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=1c888f32227c060f4083b50b8bc020af&mc=true&node=pt14.3.135&rgn=div5#sp14.3.135.f