Pilot training: I find the lack of students distrubing, but helpful

Its comes as no shock to any pilots out there the eye watering cost of aviation training is crazy. For most, that means taking on a lot of early debt, that should be repaid within at least 10 years because of how well the wages for pilots scale, but that often means lost time in acquiring a house, a new car and not to mention any student loan debt that is incurred as well. Because of this cost, there have been less and less student pilots every year, as you can see via this AOPA study: http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2010/March/15/FAA-forecasts-dwindling-student-pilot-numbers

Add into the fact that many pilots are reaching the required retirement age on the airline side, and that big vacuum in the middle, and it truly means there will be a large pilot shortage for years to come. http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/14/airlines-face-worst-pilot-shortage-since-the-1960s/As aviation becomes inevitably more expensive over time, it may still lead to a decrease in the student pilots entering training, to the point that airlines are going to have to add some more incentives to sweeten the deal of the initial cost of training, if not offer some training outright of their own.

With less students, that means that there are that many more jobs available for my future career in aviation. Since its been more of a trickle then a full bleed, that means that once I obtain an CFI, I should have just enough students to get my by, but once I get to the next step in my career, it might mean that getting a job is as simple as walking into the interview (although I do not want to at all discount how hard it is to become a pilot, merely stating how big the shortage may be). As mentioned before, this should also mean a better deal for the beginning pilot, so it can almost be said that this is one of the best careers to be going into today.

Its a good time to be a pilot.

The EX-IM debate: Not a fair fight

Passenger carrying Aviation in the US has been a fragile operation ever since gas prices dragged down price margins for the major carriers. Because of this, we have seen the fall of quite a few players in the market and even more so we have seen builders of aircraft go from at least a dozen different companies to effectively two. An issue that appears to have been overlooked is the Export-Import Bank of the United States and their role in today's aviation world

The Export-Import Bank, or EX-IM for short is in a nutshell a export credit agency that assists in financing the export of US goods to places around the world. The way they go about this is offering foreign companies great financing on products in order to promote US production overseas, as well as insurance, loan guarantees and direct loans. www.exim.gov/about/. On the governments website they claim to have "supported more then 600 billon dollars of exports"

The specific issues with US carriers is that this has resulted in huge orders for large jets from Boeing, including 777's and 787's, Boeings most expensive products from foreign carriers. This allows them to have the newest and up to date aircraft, while due to the global recession and the shockwaves from 9/11, and including the after mentioned fuel prices puts US carriers at a distinct disadvantage on international flights. ALPA and the US carriers have both pointed this problem out repeatedly http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ata-criticises-us-ex-in-bank-support-for-foreign-carriers-singling-out-air-india-loan-guarantees-63548 

ALPA: http://www.alpa.org/Portals/Alpa/PressRoom/PressReleases/2013/11-17-13_13.62.htm

With that being laid out, my input into the matter is that the playing field is clearly not leveled and we are not doing ourselves any favors. The basic structure of the EX-IM is sound, it helps US companies compete with other producers overseas and that is good for US manufacturing jobs, and is great for Boeing but its a great harm to our own carriers. It doesn't make sense to offer such steep discounts and funding to foreign carriers at a time when US carriers need to both get back on their feet and have nearly no support from the US government to run their routes. Its a bad position to put ourselves into because if we don't offer the loans or financing, then we lose manufacturing jobs, but if we do we lose airline market share, which represents even more jobs and additionally is one of the few ways left in the world that America is still a leader in

The best way to solve this in my eyes would be not the elimination of the financing for foreign companies but to give every US carrier the same options. It doesn't make any sense to give the foreign carriers huge advantages when they are also state operated and as a result can theoretically operate at a loss just to force others out of the market. Not only would giving US carriers the same options re-level this problem, it could result in the sales of even more aircraft to US carriers to replace their old ones. This would be a great boon for manufactures, it would directly impact the use of less fossil fuels due to more efficient designs and may even lead to a reduction of pricing, thereby increasing profits even more. The biggest hurdle would be implementing this sort of deal however, as Airbus would need to be granted the same sort of deal Boeing would be offering and it would need to be done on a semi-quiet basis, something very difficult in todays world.

It is something that needs to be done however. Most of the big US carriers make huge profits on their overseas routes and while we need not protect their routes from other carriers, we shouldn't start them off on a huge disadvantage as well.

UAV roles in todays aviation world

As time moves forward, we continue to create more and more advanced technology. Aviation in particular has always had a fast track of technology, as in a mere century we have seen the first true manned flight, to the invention of the jet engine, and now the rise of UAV's. Today's UAV world is still a complicated one, as the FAA has yet to allow them fly legally. Currently, that means that there are no official civilian users in the US but it they have been reported to be used by law enforcement for surveillance, for farmers to keep track of crops, and there is currently a program at University of North Dakota, one of the prominent aviation colleges in the US that teaches students on the use of drones. That being said, drones have been used around the rest of the world, such as in Canada for search and rescues use.

While this paints a somewhat gloomy picture on the current state of UAV use, the reality is that they will be part of our skies in the near future. The FAA is open to discussion to limited drone use being possible in 2015 and that will only be the beginning. There are many roles that UAV's can play in our world, and the cost savings, as well as the job creation is endless. The question is how can they be integrated in our current airspace. The most likely scenario that I can conceive is the creation of a new airspace (Hotel airspace?), a separate airspace that has a very limited ceiling as to not interfere with current GA traffic. If a drone were to say fly above this airspace, there must be some sort of beacon, either radio, visual or both to show exactly where it is. The problem is how small some of these drones can get might mean that GA aircraft will inevitability collide, causing a crash or even a death that would not have happened.  The other big issue has to be privacy. While privacy is currently protected under law, its going to be hard to enforce if a drone can fly from nearly anywhere in a local area, spy on whomever they want to and return to either the owner, or even just crash the drone in a remote location to deny any evidence of use. As far as logistical problems, it seems like there are quite a few producers out there just waiting for the official word, so there will be no problems of getting ahold of a UAV

Military aviation, in contrast to the civilian side has been booming. Initial UAV use, starting during the first Gulf War was limited to spotting targets, and being a new technology was costly. Fast forward 20 years and now a drone strike is a common occurrence nearly every day. Drones can be flown from one spot in California, by a two man crew, who are controlling a UAV nearly six thousand miles away, for a fraction of the cost of a manned aircraft. This also allows for the crew to remain in a safe area and if the aircraft is lost then its as simple as buying another one. There are many ethical questions that have been linked to drone use, but the way I see it is that drone or not if the USAF or CIA is trying to kill somebody, they will use anyway possible and currently the best technology today is a drone.

 I think a better ethical question would be the removal of man from conflict. Losses in war is something that is always considered, and sending people on dangerous missions can result in their death. The removal of a pilot means that this mission can be taken on without worrying about the loss of a solider. I'm all for ensuring any and all of our soldiers come home to their family safe and sound and this is a huge advantage for the US, but if there are no men fighting wars, does that mean that the world will see more conflict? Does that mean one nation can inflict horrible losses on their enemy with no repercussion, and therefor assume an overwhelming power to hold nations effectively hostage. Its a difficult question to answer, as we have already seen in human conflict throughout history that old men are willing to send their young men to die in wars, and to be specific World War I but could this result in a willingness to start conflict as opposed to avoiding it? The world has had a unprecedented period of peace in terms of actual world wars, but if the balance of power is tipped could this mean another arms race?

Lastly, it doesn't appear there are many civilian jobs that involve UAV's. Its mostly military, or training military pilots or testing military drones for future operations. As far as future jobs however, this article looks like there are some promising fields for UAV use http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130606-drone-uav-surveillance-unmanned-domicopter-flight-civilian-helicopter/

UAVs will be a part of aviation, it may take a good amount of time for UAV use to reach what some are predicting, or it may only take a few years for UAV's to be used in our everyday life. Only time will tell on how fast the future of aviation evolves.

My aviation groups: AOPA and EAA

The two aviation groups that come to mind that I should consider joining are AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) and the EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association).

The first one, AOPA is certainly the most important one, and may even be the most important group in all of aviation to join. Founded in 1939, AOPA is a group made up of pilots that are usually fighting for pilot rights. This can mean anything from permits that operate airports to major rule changes by the FAA. Most importantly, they are probably the biggest advocators for GA aircraft, something that the FAA has neglected since Sept 11th. GA aircraft operations still play a vital role in aviation, from the sales of aircraft to the current problems with GA aircraft making up the majority of crashes. http://www.aopa.org/About-AOPA/Governance/Mission-and-History-of-AOPA.aspx

The EAA is nearly as important but from a different standpoint. While AOPA defends pilots rights, EAA helps ensure that pilots can create and fly hand built aircraft that don't need to meet FAA specifications. Now if you haven't heard about experimental aircraft, it can be quite scary to learn about. They are aircraft that are mostly homebuilt by hand over usually the space of many years, that don't need to meet rigorous FAA regulations in order to fly. Does this mean that they are poorly built, or might not fly? The answer is somewhere in between a yes and a no. I would consider a majority of pilots are professional enough to know their limits, to know what will work and what won't, and that if any homebuilt aircraft are completed, and that they do test flights over a proper area (which can be easier said then done) to insure that any problems won't result in the death of any bystanders. The EAA allows pilots to build their own aircraft, something that just comes natural to anybody interest in their industry. http://www.eaa.org/about/

As for the benefits of these groups, they touch on different things. AOPA as stated defend pilot rights. This means that anything that could be unfair or unjust to pilots, wither it be new FAA rules or certain airline operations is fought against by not just a few pilots but a 100,000 strong group. AOPA also offers discounted insurance rates, lawyers and insight into aviation.

The EAA on the other hand I think will help because of the people that are part of the group. Talking to pilots that have built their own aircraft adds a different perspective on flying, and some of the stories that come along with it can help new pilots. One time at the Great Lakes conference last year, I had the privilege to sit in on one pilots tale about his home built aircraft. To make a long story short, he managed to crash this aircraft 3 times, and walked away from all three of them. Hearing what he did in those situations, what he did to build the aircraft, and the ins and outs of experimental aviation gave very good insight on emergencies and the possibility of owning an affordable aircraft. I also think its important to be able to allow people the chance to come up with something new, something that hasn't been done before but isn't tied down to regulations.

These two groups I believe are the most important to join. I am part of one of them so far, but the other will have to wait a few years, for various reasons!

Future thoughs and Fling Cheap.

To start off todays blog, what an eye opener "Flying Cheap" is. I understood that the regionals were bad when it came to salaries, and worker hours, but I didn't know the extent of it until seeing this, and it makes me re-consider many things about how the aviation industry really works.

Getting back to that later, I have two jobs that I would be interested in. The first one is business jets. Its an area that is completely different from the majors, with no set schedule, the opportunity to fly some awesome business jets, and the possibility to see many different locations including overseas. That being said, because of how many companies actually operate business jets, its too hard to focus on just one, and because there are individuals that have their own private jets, the options can be endless. That is why I will focus on the second job, which would be cargo operations, specifically a captain at Fed Ex. https://fedex.pilotcredentials.com/index.php?a=qualifications

A captain at Fed Ex seems like it would entail flying the daylight hours, while the less senior pilots would get the night hours. That's all that I was able to find without digging too deep. I think it goes without saying who Fed Ex is.

Fed Ex is a hard job to get into. It requires over 1,000 hours in large jets or turboprops alone, along with the basic ATP license. Most of the hours would be at different times of the day as well, but I think it has a couple things going for it. The pay is just as good, sometimes better then the majors, the aircraft are older types, which may seem odd but the chance to fly an MD-11 is just too hard to pass up, and lastly would be that cargo doesn't talk back if a landing is rough.

There are risks to flying cargo however. Most of it will probably be at night until you move up. While this isn't inherently dangerous, it still upsets a humans Circadian rhythm, which is basically the bodies natural rhythm for rest. Because of this, fatigue can set in much sooner then flying a day shift. The second risk I can see, and have found a little bit on aviation forums is the possibility that the crew will either take more risks, as they are only risking their own lives. The third risk I can see is that the FAA has yet to mandate the current fatigue rules from the majors over to cargo. While cargo pilots may just be flying boxes around, that doesn't mean the pilots aren't flying basically the same aircraft in the same environments, including crowded airports.

To switch gears now back towards "Flying Cheap", lets talk about professionalism. I define professionalism as somebody who acts with the upmost respect towards either their co-workers or their customers, as somebody who knows their industry inside and out and who can accept valid input from others.

To point this out, its quite obvious to the entire audience that Roger Cohen is about as unprofessional as anybody could be. When there is concrete proof that pilots were paid below poverty wages at Colgan, he starts to state averages instead of addressing the issue. Its clear that he either does not care one bit about the people that work for him, or he is completely oblivious to the issues that are presented. The second would certainly be the captain that altered his co-pilots weight data sheet to reflect an incorrect weight so that the aircraft could fly. Regardless of how late an aircraft can run, the safety of all involved in a flight should not come down to a single captain deciding he is above the regulations and rules, and the fact that he got absolutely no punishment for this act is beyond wrong.

To end on that note, there are two things I would do to stay professional in aviation. The first is that ones self integrity is of up most importance. This involves making decisions that not only reflect on you but on the fraternity of pilots around you. As pointed out, the captain who lied about the weight data is an example of somebody who has lost their integrity, and as a result makes pilots around the world look extremely stupid. The second is listening to those around you. You never know in the future when you may be somebodies boss, or that they may be yours. If you choose to ignore others valid input, there is the chance that either they ignore yours when they are above you, or you ignoring something important that could lead to major consequences, especially in this industry.

NTSB most wanted list

So the NTSB released their most wanted list, and two aviation topics were part of the list this year. The one I would like to focus on is identify and communicate hazardous weather. Its no secret that GA aviation has the highest rate of accidents, as its the branch of aviation with the most pilots and the ones with the lowest flight times. It's a fact however, that two thirds of these accidents happen in metrological conditions (IMC) http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl7_2014.html.

IMC conditions, at least from a textbook sense are probably the most dangerous flying a pilot can do. Its not the fact that the weather is a hazard, as pilots can be taught how to fly in IMC conditions, more so the fact that its hard to teach pilots when to recognize that something is out of their skillset to fly through. One aspect that I found interesting about the report is that it lacked VFR pilots flying into IFR conditions. This is something that certainly needs to be attended to as much as IFR pilots flying into conditions they can't fly out of.

Concerning both of these making the list, I do believe both are some of the biggest problems in aviation. Helicopters in terms of accidents tend to be higher then even GA aircraft, or at least have the perception that they are not as safe. Helicopter pilots are held to the same standard as other GA pilots, but their area of operation is inherently more dangerous, due to their proximity to the ground, or buildings. Because of this, a better focus is required. GA pilots crashing in IMC conditions is just as big an issue, for both loss of life and materials. This high figure also leads to an unnecessary focus on aviation crashes.

Lastly, I see many more jobs being created by the helicopter accident focus then I do the GA problem. The GA problem may be addressed by a simple program, or addition of new training for CFI-II pilots to both recognize when these pilots make poor decisions. The helicopter issue however, is going to require a more in depth look, to both identify how the hazards effect the pilots and what sort of training is going to have to be added to the license process of helicopter pilots.

Hard to believe pilots land at the wrong airport, but are they not only human?

As of last week, we have all seen the Southwest 737 land at the wrong airport, and this past year we have seen a few more incidents like this happen, but this is nothing that is new to the aviation world. Back in 2011, a Continental Connection flight 3222 landed at a small private airport. The aircraft was able to safely stop and nobody was injured. Continental Connection operated under Colgan air at the time, which was itself under the microscope due to the Buffalo crash that had highlighted many issues with regional airlines. Both the pilots were suspended because of the incident.  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/15/flight-crew-relieved-from-duty-following-landing-at-wrong-airport/

The hazards of landing at a wrong airport are many. There is the chance that runway isn't long enough that the aircraft can run off of it and there is an even bigger problem with landing at GA airports, which often seems to be the norm in these types of incidents. While most commercial airports have hazards such as trees removed, most GA airports tend to have many hazards at the ends of their runways, that while are easily avoided by light aircraft, can be a much bigger problem if a plane were to run off the runway. Additionally, most GA airports while up to FAA code with their runways, are not maintained to the same standard as an large commercial airport, which could cause damage a large aircraft that accidently lands on it. Lastly, if too large an aircraft lands on too small an airport, and assuming it survives the incident intact, if it cannot take off, it will cost a company possibly millions just to remove it. While landing at the wrong runway already costs a company a loss of profits, the possibility that an aircraft would have to be disassembled would be disastrous, both in profits and PR.

I believe that both this is a correctible mistake, and that the media inflates this issue far too much. While being just a GA pilot myself, and only having to deal with a 100 kt top speed, it's hard to phantom landing at the wrong airport because its hard to get lost (or lost for long) at that slow of a speed. With an increase of speed, there has to be much more planning involved, and the pilot has to be ahead of his aircraft. This however, shouldn't be an issue for a pilot with hundreds of hours and somebody who flies faster aircraft. As for the media, they seem ready to pounce on an issue such as this when it comes up, even when nobody is hurt. It is a mistake when an aircraft lands on the wrong airport, but in light of what could have happened, when at the end of the day all passengers and crew are not hurt, and the aircraft isn't damaged, it shouldn't dominate the news as this past incident has. The media just loves anything aviation related that can make a good story.

Lastly, I do believe Southwest is right in their action to suspend the pilots. The pilot has a reasonability to land his passengers at the correct airport. They have many tools at their disposal, from GPS, to VOR's, to basic maps on the MDFs as well as ATC and themselves. To land a plane at the wrong airport is a big issue, and if a pilot were to do so, they need to be evaluated to make sure they are up to the standards that are necessary to fly commercial aircraft. To lose their job would be too far (unless they are truly not up to standard), but to have additional training must be an option if the pilot is up to the job.

Introduction

Hello and welcome to my blog,

So first the basics.  My names Tom Barlow, I'm from the small town of South Lyon, about 20 minutes north of Ypsilanti. It's where I've lived for most of my entire life, and naturally I work in the town as well.

My interest in aviation started as a little kid. As any guy, I was interested in anything mechanical growing up, mostly trains to start out with but I gradually got attached to aviation as I got older. The New Hudson airport is located right next to my house basically, and the runway is lined up so that planes take off or land over my house, so its nearly guaranteed I'll see at least one plane a day. I also have an interest in American history, so its only natural for me to run into aviation. Add Thunder over Michigan in and well aviation is the most interesting thing I could think of.

 Right now in aviation I'm looking at starting Instrument training here, as soon as I can, so I'm going to just focus on that right now. If I had any sort of plans, it would be to work towards business jets at some point, but that's a little far in the future right now.

So far as current topics go, I've taken an interest in cars. My current job deals with them on a daily basis, and it has always been an interest as well, although never to the extent of aviation. It does go hand in hand however, knowing that a 1992 Chevy K1500 has a 5.7L 350 cubic inch is almost the same as saying a B-17G has 4 Wright Cyclones R-1820 radials rated at 1,300hp,almost. Because of this interest, I've gotten into repairing my own vehicle and a couple of friends, so anytime I can learn a new repair I've jumped at it in order to know what I'm doing when the time comes to fix the same problem on my own car.

Looking forward to another year of aviation oriented college at EMU