Commercial Space

The idea of space tourism was brought up over a decade ago in 1996. It all started with a competition named “X Prize” and was later named the Ansari X Prize due to a substantial donation from the Ansari family in 2004 (Wall, 2014). Later, in 2006, Anousheh Ansari made history by becoming the first woman to ever travel to the International Space Station on a privately funded trip. Essentially, the Ansari challenge provoked teams throughout the world to compete in the ability to build a “manned vehicle capable of carrying three people to an altitude of 62 miles (100 kilometers) — the generally accepted boundary marking where outer space begins — and back twice within a two-week span” (Wall, 2014). One team in particular, out of the 25 that competed, set a record in 2004. This team was called Mojave Aerospace Ventures, headed by Burt Rutan and it received funding from Paul Allen who was the co-founder of Microsoft. Rutan and his team designed and built a “28-foot-long (8.5 meters) vehicle called SpaceShipOne, which was lofted to an altitude of about 50,000 feet (15,000 m) by a carrier plane and then released, using its onboard rocket engine to blast into suborbital space” (Wall, 2014). SpaceShipOne was the first manned aircraft to reach space at 62.5 on June 21, 2004. There have been many accomplishments throughout the past decade solely due to the competition of teams. The biggest hurdle is finding the money to build and maintain these manned vehicles along with the challenge of getting passengers to and from space safely.

Currently, the commercial space industry is governed by rules and regulations established by The Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) which was originally governed by the Department of Transportation until 1995. In 1995, the AST was transferred to the FAA and their main objective was to “regulate the U.S. commercial space transportation industry, to ensure compliance with international obligations of the United States, and to protect the public health and safety, safety of property, and national security and foreign policy interests of the United States” (14 C.F.R. § 460 (2016)). The rules and regulations for space flight are in the FAR under Title 14 part 460 for Human Space Flight Requirements. As far as crew qualifications, I do not see them as being over restrictive, given the circumstance that they are operating a complex space craft carrying passengers with the potential of causing damage or harm to others. Since this is a growing sector of aviation, there will be incidents along the way that will spark new regulations. As of now, some of the crew requirements entail the following:

“ 1. Possess and carry an FAA pilot certificate with an instrument rating. 2. Possess aeronautical knowledge, experience, and skills necessary to pilot and control the launch or reentry vehicle that will operate in the National Airspace System (NAS). Aeronautical experience may include hours in flight, ratings, and training. 3. Receive vehicle and mission-specific training for each phase of flight by using one or more of the following— A method or device that simulates the flight; An aircraft whose characteristics are similar to the vehicle or that has similar phases of flight to the vehicle; Flight testing; or An equivalent method of training approved by the FAA through the license or permit process. 4. Train in procedures that direct the vehicle away from the public in the event the flight crew abandons the vehicle during flight; and 5.  Train for each mode of control or propulsion, including any transition between modes, such that the pilot or remote operator is able to control the vehicle.” (14 C.F.R. § 460 (2016)).

The following regulations listed above are current as of March 11, 2016. Personally, I feel as if the posted regulations are appropriate in the scope of things. Take into consideration that these aircraft that are being operated are traveling to extremely high altitudes at very high speeds; therefore the training and requirements for the crew should be set to a higher standard to help ensure higher means of safety to the crew, passengers, and the public.

As of right now, I see space tourism only being accessible to high salary people. With ticket prices up to $250,000, it is very unlikely that an ordinary family or even individual would be able to front that type of money. When commercial aviation first started out, only the wealthy people were the ones flying. I think with more time and technology, the prices will drop substantially and it will eventually be more affordable for the general public. I personally think that it will stay as a one-time bucket list adventure. To develop an aircraft large enough that will reach those altitudes would be a whole another project. Think of it as the Concorde, they accomplished the speed of sound, but there were some other faults that needed to be fixed. It would be decades until we see commercial space flights, in my opinion.

References:

Wall, M. (2014). Space. How SpaceShipOne and X Prize Launched Commercial Spaceflight 10 Years Ago. Retrieved from http://www.space.com/27339-spaceshipone-xprize-launched-commercial-spaceflight.html

Human Space Flight Requirements, 14 C.F.R. § 460 (2016).

Global Airline Issues

For a while now, there have been three major foreign airline carriers that have been using United States subsidies. Since 2004, Qatar Airways, Etihad Airways and Emirates Airlines have been collecting subsidies. It is estimated that the Qatar and United Arab Emirate governments have received over 42 billion dollars in U.S. subsidies.  In 2001, the Open skies agreement was first signed by Qatar, and in 2002 the United Arab Emirates signed as well. The purpose of the Open Skies agreement is to “eliminate government interference in the commercial decisions of air carriers about routes, capacity, and pricing, freeing carriers to provide more affordable, convenient, and efficient air service for consumers" (Laing, 2015). It is seen by the United States that "these subsidies are a clear violation of Open Skies policy, which is based on the principle of fair competition in a marketplace free of government distortion"(Laing, 2015). Essentially, the subsidized supports that they have been receiving are loans from the government that are interest free. Also, this government support has no payback obligations along with, airport fee exemptions, free land, grants, and capital injections. This poses a serious threat to the U.S. airline companies because the Gulf region is definitely taking advantage of the support given. It’s been going on since 2001, and they have accumulated over 42 billion in subsidies. If this keeps up, the United States airlines will face a serious threat competition wise with the foreign airlines. So basically what needs to happen is that the playing field between the two needs to be evened out.

On top of the foreign airlines using U.S. subsidies, they have been getting their aircraft at below market interest rates, which the U.S. carriers are unable to get. Again, this is a huge disadvantage to the U.S. airlines in which they have to pay more money for wide body aircraft. A point that I found very interesting in an article by business wire was that “providing low-cost financing to foreign airlines, for example, the U.S. Export–Import Bank not only saves the state-owned carriers millions on each aircraft, the financing also enables these airlines to purchase state-of-the-art aircraft that are more fuel efficient and attractive to passengers”(Foreign State-Owned Airlines, 2015). The United States airline companies have been trying to upgrade their aircraft to compete with the foreing companies, but at the rates they are getting, it is extremely difficult for them to front the money to upgrade the interiors of their aircraft. There is no doubt that the foreign airlines have aircraft that look way more appealing than the U.S., but that is solely because they are getting them for such a discount. Consumer quality is much better with the Gulf airlines, so they will continue to steal customers from the U.S. airlines if these below market interest rates continue throughout the next few years.

I believe that it is safe to say that it is clearly an uneven playing field between the United States airlines and the Gulf airlines. If the U.S. has to pay top dollar for their aircraft, which limits them in how many alterations they can make for consumer satisfaction, then the Gulf should be held to the same standards. It is a competitive business, and in order to stay in business, they have to satisfy their customers. Now that these foreign airlines are getting Trans-Atlantic routes, they have been stealing business from the U.S. carriers. Nowadays, everything is about quality and price to the customer, and the foreign carriers are getting cheaper and more efficient aircraft. By having more efficient aircraft, they are able to have cheaper ticket prices, which is a huge attention getter with long distance flights. If the U.S wants to stand a chance, something needs to be done about the government subsidies that these foreign carriers are receiving.

Foreign State-Owned Airlines’ $162 Billion in Aircraft Orders Threaten U.S. Airline Industry and its Workers. (2013, November 17). Business Wire. Retrieved from http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20131117005060/en/Foreign-State-Owned-Airlines’-162-Billion-Aircraft-Orders

Laing, K. (2015, March 12). Airlines: Foreign subsidies are destroying flight competition. The Hill. Retrieved from http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/235543-airlines-foreign-subsidies-destroying-flight-competition

UAV

With technology constantly advancing, we are capable of doing things we normally wouldn’t be capable of doing. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are quickly advancing, and they are opening up more opportunities for civilian operators. One use that I found very interesting is that farmers can now use drones to monitor their fields. Being able to monitor the fields with drones gives the farmers countless capabilities such as“ precision applications of pesticides, water, or fertilizers, which drones can help by identifying exactly where such resources are needed and delivering them there, is better for the environment and for a farmer's bottom line” (Handwerk, 2013). UAV’s are also capable of hurricane hunting, which is a huge step forward simply in regards to saving human life. I found it very interesting that NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and Northrop Grumman collaborated together to use long range UAVS to monitor evolving storms.  It is extremely impressive that the “Global Hawk drones can stay aloft for 30 hours and fly 11,000 miles (17,700 kilometers) with their 116-foot (35-meter) wingspans. That lets them reach and stay in stormy areas that manned planes can't, performing valuable surveillance” (Handwerk, 2013). If there is a way to eliminate the risk of sending a human pilot into a hurricane, then why not seek further advancements with UAV’s. Currently, the FAA has regulations in place for UAVS which consist of flying below 400 feet and remaining clear of obstacles, remain clear of manned aircraft operations, keep the UAV in sight at all times, and it must weigh under 55 pounds. Also, the FAA states that civilian operators should not be “careless or reckless with your unmanned aircraft – you could be fined for endangering people or other aircraft” (FAA,2015). It is good to see that the FAA will enforce these regulations on civilian UAV operators, because they should be held just as liable as general aviation pilots.

Eventually, with further advancements in technology I can see UAV’s being integrated into the National Airspace System. If they utilized flight plans for UAV’s or even designated a specific altitude just for UAV use; that could be a simple way of alerting all pilots. If a specific altitude is assigned for UAV flight operations in the NAS, then it would drastically decrease the amount of potential incursions that could happen. The main problem that I see with integrating UAV’s into the NAS would be the lack of communication from UAV operators to pilots. UAV operators should be expected to communicate just as if they were piloting an actual aircraft. Lack of communication could potential cause a lot of accidents, so that is definitely an area that they would need to strongly focus on.

When it comes to military operations, they have been trying to cut back on human involvement in hostile areas, especially in 50 million dollar aircraft. The use of UAV’s takes away from pilots being fatigued from flying, and the stress of going into a hostile area. There are six general applications that the military uses UAV’s for, which include the following: security, search and rescue, monitoring, impact and disaster management, communications, and munitions. To go into more depth, security entitles operations such as aerial reconnaissance, detecting chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear condition, as well as battlefield management. Search and rescue operations can vary from all terrain search and rescue, deployment of life rafts, and marking rescue points.  The military does monitoring of waterways, shipping, pollution control and even air sampling. Impact and disaster management is self explanatory, as well as communications. UAV’s are capable of air to ground, air to air, anti-tank, wide area munition deployments, and they can even be equipped with guided shells. Although the Navy is capable of taking any target out with the use of their Tomahawk missiles, drones provide a strategic advantage with a heavier munition load.

This website is offering a negotiable payment for UAV operations and PIC time 

 http://www.barefootstudent.com/seattle/jobs/part_time/drone_pilot_in_charge_pic_284638?utm_source=SimplyHired&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=SimplyHired

References:

FAA. (2015, March 4). Model Aircraft Operations. Retrieved February 14, 2016, from https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/

Handwerk, B. (2013, December 2). National Geographic. 5 Surprising Drone Uses (Besides Amazon Delivery). Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131202-drone-uav-uas-amazon-octocopter-bezos-science-aircraft-unmanned-robot/

Cargo Industry Rest Rugulations

After the Colgan accident, the FAA and the NTSB both dug deep into the cause of the accident. Even though both pilots had well over 1,500 hours, the FAA has now made this a new requirement in order to make it to the commercial level. According to the USA Today article covering this topic, it is stated that “It's not always about the hours because we see very experienced pilots with tens of thousands of hours making mistakes” (Tumulty,2014). I personally think the 1,500 hour rule is just a regulation they put in place to make the public feel better or better yet, more safe, when it comes to flying with the airlines. The Colgan accident was not due to lack of experience, but lack of rest. The flight crews were only given eight hours of rest time, and that clock started as soon as they landed. By the time the crews got to their hotels, they most likely had about 6 hours of actual rest time.  The new policy ensures that the rest time starts when the crew leaves the airport. Giving the crew a 10 hour rest period now ensures the crew a minimum of 8 hours of actual rest.

Cargo pilots are exempt from the new limitations, because their flights are sporadically planned. Cargo pilots are expected to fly flights at any time of the day, and even through the middle of the night.  According to Cornell’s law website, flight crews must have “10 consecutive hours of rest for 8 or more but less than 9 hours of scheduled flight time”.  Since cargo pilots tend to fly mostly at night, they are going to be more fatigued no matter what. The human brain is not capable of being 100 percent responsive and alert as it would be during the day. From working previous midnight shifts, I know that I was not capable of completing tasks as efficiently as I could during normal daylight hours.

Essentially, the thought process behind exempting the cargo carriers from the new regulations is due to the fact that they are not carrying passengers. Since they are not liable for other souls on board the aircraft, the FAA believes that the cargo pilots do not need the additional rest that the commercial pilots get. Also, another reason why they are exempt is due to finances.  They believe that it will cost way too much money and would not be worth the safety benefits in the long run.  This is absurd, you can’t put a price tag on safety; these companies should be paying to keep their pilots safe. They will only be losing more money if they have an accident killing innocent families when a cargo plane crashes into their house.  Cargo carries definitely need to be included into the new rules, because they are flying at the most inconvenient times, and they accumulate more flight time than commercial pilots. If they are flying more than commercial pilots, then why are they getting less rest time?

Personally, I have never considered flying cargo. Since I work at Avflight at Willow Run, I get to see the pilots from USA Jet and Ameristar all the time. Honestly, they all look like they hate their lives and don’t even like flying because of the hours they are given. If they were to be included in the new regulations, I believe there would be a drastic change in the cargo industry. They would see more pilots willing to fly cargo rather than fly 200-300 passengers if the limitations were the same. Personally, I would rather fly cargo than be responsible for the lives of 200-300 passengers.

References:

Tumulty, B. (2014, February 11). 5 years after N.Y. crash, some airline safety progress. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/11/colgan-air-crash-prompts-safety-regulations/5372353/

14 CFR Part 135, Subpart F - Crewmember Flight Time and Duty Period Limitations and Rest Requirements. (n.d.). Retrieved February 09, 2016, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-135/subpart-F