1) Write a brief statement about each aircraft. Basic stats (long haul/short haul, wide/narrow body, etc.), current status (in development, currently in production), what makes this aircraft different than previous aircraft from that manufacturer and anything else that may be noteworthy about the aircraft.
Boeing 787; Basic Stats: Long Range - Wide body - In Production
Boeing primarily wanted one major important function from the 787; fuel efficiency. This was to be accomplished via various means, but primarily through the reduction of aircraft weight. The easiest way to reduce weight on the 787? Change the fuselage composition, which would cause a significant decrease in the basic operating weight of the aircraft. Historically, airliners were manufactured from various metals, primarily aluminum. However, the Boeing 787 was to be designed by a new material called "Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic (CFRP)". Essentially, a composite-based fuselage structure. Obviously, using a composite based on polymers derived from Plexiglas, carbon, and various reinforced plastics is going to be significantly lighter than metal-based fuselages (i.e.: aluminum). This is the primary difference between the 787 and Boeing's preceding line of manufactured aircraft.
Moreover, another difference from the 787 is its use on primarily electrically operated systems. Utilizing electronic-based systems offers even further reduced aircraft weight by avoiding the numerous heavy-weighted hydraulic systems found on common airliners today (and on Boeing's previous aircraft). There's much more to the Boeing 787 and it's such a vastly different aircraft than nearly any other commercial aircraft currently in existence.
Fun fact: American Airlines, a Boeing 787 customer, relies on polished-aluminum fuselages for their paint scheme -- (click here to see photo). Because you cannot polish a composite-based fuselage (think of it like polishing a coarse surface, such as plastic, or sandpaper, etc.), it remains to be seen as to how American will paint their fleet of 787's. Either the 787's for American will look entirely different (paint-scheme wise) than any of American's other aircraft, or American will redesign a new livery/corporate image for the entire airline.
Airbus A380; Basic Stats: Long Range - Wide body - In Production
What makes the A380 different from any of Airbus's preceding aircraft is pretty obvious in the aircrafts appearance; a double decker. Historically, airbus has never had a double-decker based aircraft, and the A380 is the first of its kind for the company. The A380 was conceived in the 90's and was to serve as a strategic competitor to Boeing's 747 line. Moreover, Airbus wanted to round out their product line, wanting to have a "flagship" based aircraft of their product line, which the A380 was to become.
The A380 is a unique aircraft and features an array of amenities never before seen on an airliner. A few interesting facts about the A380: Features a semi-composite based fuselage, utilizing 'GLARE' materials (an aluminum/glass fiber based composite -- this is different than the 787); the A380 has the largest passenger carrying capacity of any commercial aircraft in the world; and an interesting thing to note is that the A380 Freighter had received several orders from UPS, FedEx, and other cargo operators, however because Airbus could not guarantee a firm delivery date, every cargo carrier cancelled their orders. Moreover, all of them then later purchased either the Boeing 777LRF (Long Range Freighter) or the Boeing 747-800F instead. As of now, the orders for the A380F stand at 0, and airbus still has no specified delivery date (at this point, who knows if they'll ever even manufacture it).
Boeing 748; Basic Stats: Long Range - Wide body - 747-800F (Freighter): In Production; 747-800 Passenger: Under Development
The Boeing 747-800 is yet another extension to Boeing's highly successful 747 line of aircraft. There are several differences between the Boeing 747-800, Boeing's older 747 family line of aircraft, and other Boeing aircraft. Compared to the older Boeing 747-400, the 747-800 shares a nearly identical cockpit, thereby allowing crews to transition with ease under the same type rating. The 747-800 is a stretched variant of the 747-400, having increased by 18.3 feet in fuselage length. The 747-800 has an interim technological design between the older 747-400 based technology and newer 787 technologies. The 748 has completely redesigned wings to take into effect the significant-new increases in passenger and/or weight/cargo carrying capacity. The new wings have been the primary change of the 747-800. The new wings add increased fuel capacity, decreased wake turbulence, decreased drag, and obviously can support an increased load. Because of the newly designed wings and more modern engines (GEnx), the 747-800 offers an approximate 16% decrease in fuel consumption over the 747-400.
Interesting fact: The GE "GEnx" engines for the 747-800 are identical to the 787; the 747 simply featuring four, of course, instead of two on the 787.
Boeing 747-800 Facts -- Click Here
Boeing 747-800 Information -- Click Here
Airbus A350; Basic Stats: Long Range - Wide body - Under Development
The A350 is a competing aircraft to the Boeing 787 and Boeing 777. The A350 will be Airbus's first CFRP (Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic) based fuselage and CFRP based wing design. Interesting fact about this aircraft is that Airbus was more less pressured into designing it, due to the development of the 787. Originally, the A350 was simply an "updated A330"; however Airbus received a relatively poor response to the prospect of a vaguely updated A330 to compete with the 787. In October 2005, Airbus officially announced they would design an entirely new A350, stretching the fuselage (width wise) to compete with the capacity of the Boeing 777, but also offering several technological features, fuel enhancements, and several other amenities comparable to the Boeing 787, thus also competing with the 787. Therefore, the A350 can be best thought of as primarily a competitor to the Boeing 787, with the capacity and size comparable to the 777.
2) Based on these current aircraft and the current status of these manufacturers and the industry, who do you foresee taking the lead in commercial jet manufacturing and why?
Personally, I believe Boeing has the advantage due to the 787 and 747-800 product lines, in comparison to the A350 and A380. Boeing has an extensive history of 767 customers and, being the old aircraft that the 767 is, many of Boeing's 767 customers will soon be replacing these 80's-era based aircraft. They'll likely choose the 787 when doing so because the capacity is comparable and the 787 would easily fit into 767-based networks with ease. Most 767 operators operate the 767-300, which is right up the 787's market. The 747-800 will largely be successful because the 747 family line is already a huge success. The 748 is simply an extension of that. As older 747-400 aircraft become obsolete over the next decade, one could expect several airlines to replace their 747-400 fleet with the 747-800. The A380, however, is in a league of its own. After all, it is a "super jumbo". While comparable to the 747-800 in carrying capacity, think of it like this -- if an airline already has a fleet of 747-400 aircraft, and are interested in an upgrade, they'll certainly choose the 748 due to crew commonality (same type rating). The A350 is an interesting aircraft and already has accumulated orders en mass; however it's already a few years behind. The 787 is nearing its delivery date to the airlines while production is slowly coming together on the A350. I think the A350 will be a popular aircraft and popular for the same reason the 747-800 will be; commonality. A330/A340 operators will go with the A350, while the 757/767 operators will choose the 787.
3) There is potential third manufacturer trying to make their debut in China. Identify the name of this company as well as the aircraft that they are currently developing.
I believe this is referencing COMAC (The Commercial Aircraft Corp. of China [the ARJ-21]). It's being lead by the ACAC consortium, which is a group of aviation companies in China. This aircraft has already been developed, however, and flew its first flight on November 28th, 2008. There's another aircraft company in China called the Commercial Aircraft Corp. of China, whom are developing a 168-seat based "C919" aircraft, due to enter service in 2016 -- Chinese C919
Though, don't forget about Mitsubishi jet, which is already under development in Japan, and has 50 orders from Trans States Airlines (US company). Maiden flight is scheduled for 2012 for the MRJ70/MRJ90 aircraft. Japan's quite a ways ahead of China.
-- Trans States Holdings Orders 50 Firm Regional Jets; Options for 50 More
4) Do you feel that the company you identified in #3 will ever be a direct competitor with Boeing and Airbus? Why or why not?
China has a problem with manufacturing poor quality products and a counterfeiting dilemma. Counterfeiting in China is more less a hobby it seems, than illegal. The only reason COMAC has designed the ARJ-21 is because it's a DC9/MD80-90 based aircraft. The problem is that McDonnell Douglas (before they were purchased by Boeing) began manufacturing their MD-90's in China. It's no coincidence that the ARJ-21 looks VERY much like a DC-9 derivative. The Chinese (like any foreign nation wanting to get in on a lucrative manufacturing market) reverse engineer many of the aircraft (and products) that are designed in the country. The Boeing 707 was reverse-engineered by the Chinese. The Chinese later developed an eerily similar looking aircraft to the Boeing 707 called the "Shanghai Y-10" (yes, this is a real aircraft). It seems as if every time China gets their hands on a successful aircraft, be it Airbus, Canadair, Boeing, or whomever, an eerily similar looking aircraft is manufactured by a Chinese aviation firm. Nonetheless, the only way China could directly compete with Boeing and Airbus is if they offer extremely low prices (i.e. -- half off). Even then so, I doubt they'd be able to compete. The US has never supported communist-based aircraft manufacturing firms. Take a look at how many airlines in the USA operate Russian-built aircraft; none. Russia hasn't done well in keeping up with the technological advancements Airbus and Boeing have reached. Moreover, so long as we don't start manufacturing the 787 in China (for reverse-engineering reasons), I don't think we'll have to worry about China catching up anytime soon.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
New FAA Rules & Regulations Regarding Pilot Fatigue
1) Which of the key points has the potential to have the largest impact on the safety of the industry and why? Be specific.
There are many points in the article that have a significant impact with regards to safety in the industry. However, I believe that the greatest point lies with the newly defined 10-hour minimum rest period. There are two key concepts to discuss with regards to the new 10 hour minimum rest period. One, the fact that the rest period has been increased by 2 hours (previously set at 8 hours, now 10). Two, and the most important point, is how this new 10-hour minimum rest period is defined. Notice how the FAA now describes the rest period as "a pilot must have an opportunity for eight hours of uninterrupted sleep within the 10-hour rest period". The key word here is uninterrupted. Previously, this designation was never mentioned, and pilots simply had an 8 hour rest period, but the "uninterrupted" part was omitted. For example, in the past, a pilot having done a days worth of flights, say, arrives into Detroit at 11:00pm. By regulations, they only needed an 8 hour "rest period". Therefore, the airline was legal to call them for duty for say, a 7:30am flight. There was never any mention of sleep. Therefore, the pilot could get to his/her hotel at 11:45pm, by the time they eat, shower, and wear down for the day, they may not fall asleep till 1am. Next, they'd likely have to wake up by 6am to prepare for the day, eat, shuttle to the airport, and catch their flight -- with only 5 hours of sleep.
Clearly, between the shuttles to the hotel, common 'no brainers' (i.e. -- the need to eat, and personal hygiene), you could see that many pilots could begin a new workday with only 4-6 hours of sleep. That's why this newly defined rest period has such a significant impact on the safety of the industry. Now, that same pilot could arrive at 11:00pm in Detroit, get to his hotel by midnight, eat, shower, get to sleep by 1am and actually be able to obtain 8 hours of sleep within the 10 hour rest period, an opportunity that was not previously afforded to them.
2) Using the key point you selected in #1, discuss how this is a change from the previous regulation. If you have selected Fatigue Risk Management Systems, discuss how companies were managing fatigue prior to this regulation.
I ended up answering this in the first question; however I’ll reiterate what I said. The prior regulation had omitted any reference to the word "uninterrupted" (sleep), or essentially any guarantee to the pilot having the opportunity to obtain eight hours of uninterrupted sleep. Now, the pilots have this opportunity, fortunately.
3) Discuss how the change in the regulation (the specific one that you addressed in the above questions) will have a financial impact on the industry.
While the new regulations will be costly to the aviation industry, with respect to the newly defined 10-hour minimum rest period, the airlines will need to hire more pilots to fill certain rest-period based gaps that'll now exist. Since pilots are now entitled to more rest time, this reduces the amount of pilots once available at certain times of the day. This may not be a dramatic change (or large change) to the airlines but significant enough that they'll probably need to hire more pilots, or exercise their reserve pilots more frequently. As a result, expect the airlines to incur more costs with respect to the training of those new pilots, and of course the salaries of those new pilots. It's also possible that the new regulation may have an impact on how flights are scheduled or timed, which changing the scheduling (the times of the flights) could have an effect on the yields the airline receives. Lastly, any cost is sure to be passed on to the passengers, so you could likely expect some sort of increase in ticket fares.
4) Do you agree with the exemption of cargo carriers? Why or why not? If you disagree, what is your solution to the financial impact of cargo carrier compliance? If you agree, what is your solution to the fatigue issues that continue to exist within the cargo industry?
I agree with the exemption of cargo carriers, and there are several reasons why. First and foremost, the cargo environment (from a pilot perspective) itself is pretty lax and laid back. Cargo pilots are not subjected to the noise and people stressors that plague passenger-pilots. Nonetheless, I think this is something that should be worked out within each individual airline, and should not be a federal regulation. The FAA was right in ensuring that cargo carriers are exempt from the new rule. Why? Because the cost would be enormous, and would probably drive several cargo carriers (especially the smaller ones) immediately into bankruptcy -- or worst, sending all their planes to the desert (with their company out of business).
Smaller cargo carriers such as Ameriflight, Key Lime Air, US Star Check, and others couldn't possibly fathom the costs incurred by a regulation. However, larger carriers such as FedEx and UPS probably could. What you'd end up with, possibly, is a near-monopoly amongst the U.S. cargo giants. That is, the big cargo companies whom are able to effectively cope with the new costs (had the regulation passed) would succeed, while the smaller cargo companies with little capital, would likely fold. The markets served by the smaller cargo carriers would then be absorbed by the larger cargo companies (and subjected to higher freight costs), or lose service all together (likely in many rural communities).
Cargo companies have a relatively simple solution that they should offer their pilots. A rough estimate, I’d say, is that if the pilots voted to opt the new rule voluntarily (as the FAA encouraged) for the airline, then they should do so while agreeing to a (probably maximum) 50% pay cut. The <50% pay cut would be necessary to mitigate the costs of hiring nearly double the amount of pilots for the new fatigue rules. The net loss by the cargo carrier from adopting the new rule would then be relatively negligible. This would really be the only feasible option based on cargo-carrier's flight schedules which are often highly unpredictable.
Also, the impact on some sectors of the economy (had this rule been passed for cargo carriers) would be enormous. Take a look at the US Postal Service, whom is undergoing a pretty severe financial crisis of its own -- and on the brink of financial collapse -- How Should U.S. Postal Service's Financial Problems Be Fixed? The US Postal Service no longer flies its own mail, and nearly all domestic airlines have abandoned domestic mail-based cargo. Now, who hauls nearly all of the domestic mail and package freight flown by air? FedEx. If you've ever wondered why there's almost always a FedEx drop box right at the front door of every post office, it's because that drop box is a stipulation mentioned in the contract to haul the USPS mail that was signed nearly a decade ago in 2001 -- FedEx, USPS Forge Two New Service Agreements. The contract was a seven-year contract, however was extended to 2013 in 2007. Imagine if the costs of this new fatigue rule (which would likely be passed on to consumers, if unable to make up for it elsewhere), were then passed on to the US Postal Service? Afterall, the USPS is FedEx's largest customer. The impact on the economy (and every American citizen) would be huge, as mail costs would soar. The US Postal Service, already dealing with a financial crisis, would likely suffer an immediate collapse.
There are many points in the article that have a significant impact with regards to safety in the industry. However, I believe that the greatest point lies with the newly defined 10-hour minimum rest period. There are two key concepts to discuss with regards to the new 10 hour minimum rest period. One, the fact that the rest period has been increased by 2 hours (previously set at 8 hours, now 10). Two, and the most important point, is how this new 10-hour minimum rest period is defined. Notice how the FAA now describes the rest period as "a pilot must have an opportunity for eight hours of uninterrupted sleep within the 10-hour rest period". The key word here is uninterrupted. Previously, this designation was never mentioned, and pilots simply had an 8 hour rest period, but the "uninterrupted" part was omitted. For example, in the past, a pilot having done a days worth of flights, say, arrives into Detroit at 11:00pm. By regulations, they only needed an 8 hour "rest period". Therefore, the airline was legal to call them for duty for say, a 7:30am flight. There was never any mention of sleep. Therefore, the pilot could get to his/her hotel at 11:45pm, by the time they eat, shower, and wear down for the day, they may not fall asleep till 1am. Next, they'd likely have to wake up by 6am to prepare for the day, eat, shuttle to the airport, and catch their flight -- with only 5 hours of sleep.
Clearly, between the shuttles to the hotel, common 'no brainers' (i.e. -- the need to eat, and personal hygiene), you could see that many pilots could begin a new workday with only 4-6 hours of sleep. That's why this newly defined rest period has such a significant impact on the safety of the industry. Now, that same pilot could arrive at 11:00pm in Detroit, get to his hotel by midnight, eat, shower, get to sleep by 1am and actually be able to obtain 8 hours of sleep within the 10 hour rest period, an opportunity that was not previously afforded to them.
2) Using the key point you selected in #1, discuss how this is a change from the previous regulation. If you have selected Fatigue Risk Management Systems, discuss how companies were managing fatigue prior to this regulation.
I ended up answering this in the first question; however I’ll reiterate what I said. The prior regulation had omitted any reference to the word "uninterrupted" (sleep), or essentially any guarantee to the pilot having the opportunity to obtain eight hours of uninterrupted sleep. Now, the pilots have this opportunity, fortunately.
3) Discuss how the change in the regulation (the specific one that you addressed in the above questions) will have a financial impact on the industry.
While the new regulations will be costly to the aviation industry, with respect to the newly defined 10-hour minimum rest period, the airlines will need to hire more pilots to fill certain rest-period based gaps that'll now exist. Since pilots are now entitled to more rest time, this reduces the amount of pilots once available at certain times of the day. This may not be a dramatic change (or large change) to the airlines but significant enough that they'll probably need to hire more pilots, or exercise their reserve pilots more frequently. As a result, expect the airlines to incur more costs with respect to the training of those new pilots, and of course the salaries of those new pilots. It's also possible that the new regulation may have an impact on how flights are scheduled or timed, which changing the scheduling (the times of the flights) could have an effect on the yields the airline receives. Lastly, any cost is sure to be passed on to the passengers, so you could likely expect some sort of increase in ticket fares.
4) Do you agree with the exemption of cargo carriers? Why or why not? If you disagree, what is your solution to the financial impact of cargo carrier compliance? If you agree, what is your solution to the fatigue issues that continue to exist within the cargo industry?
I agree with the exemption of cargo carriers, and there are several reasons why. First and foremost, the cargo environment (from a pilot perspective) itself is pretty lax and laid back. Cargo pilots are not subjected to the noise and people stressors that plague passenger-pilots. Nonetheless, I think this is something that should be worked out within each individual airline, and should not be a federal regulation. The FAA was right in ensuring that cargo carriers are exempt from the new rule. Why? Because the cost would be enormous, and would probably drive several cargo carriers (especially the smaller ones) immediately into bankruptcy -- or worst, sending all their planes to the desert (with their company out of business).
Smaller cargo carriers such as Ameriflight, Key Lime Air, US Star Check, and others couldn't possibly fathom the costs incurred by a regulation. However, larger carriers such as FedEx and UPS probably could. What you'd end up with, possibly, is a near-monopoly amongst the U.S. cargo giants. That is, the big cargo companies whom are able to effectively cope with the new costs (had the regulation passed) would succeed, while the smaller cargo companies with little capital, would likely fold. The markets served by the smaller cargo carriers would then be absorbed by the larger cargo companies (and subjected to higher freight costs), or lose service all together (likely in many rural communities).
Cargo companies have a relatively simple solution that they should offer their pilots. A rough estimate, I’d say, is that if the pilots voted to opt the new rule voluntarily (as the FAA encouraged) for the airline, then they should do so while agreeing to a (probably maximum) 50% pay cut. The <50% pay cut would be necessary to mitigate the costs of hiring nearly double the amount of pilots for the new fatigue rules. The net loss by the cargo carrier from adopting the new rule would then be relatively negligible. This would really be the only feasible option based on cargo-carrier's flight schedules which are often highly unpredictable.
Also, the impact on some sectors of the economy (had this rule been passed for cargo carriers) would be enormous. Take a look at the US Postal Service, whom is undergoing a pretty severe financial crisis of its own -- and on the brink of financial collapse -- How Should U.S. Postal Service's Financial Problems Be Fixed? The US Postal Service no longer flies its own mail, and nearly all domestic airlines have abandoned domestic mail-based cargo. Now, who hauls nearly all of the domestic mail and package freight flown by air? FedEx. If you've ever wondered why there's almost always a FedEx drop box right at the front door of every post office, it's because that drop box is a stipulation mentioned in the contract to haul the USPS mail that was signed nearly a decade ago in 2001 -- FedEx, USPS Forge Two New Service Agreements. The contract was a seven-year contract, however was extended to 2013 in 2007. Imagine if the costs of this new fatigue rule (which would likely be passed on to consumers, if unable to make up for it elsewhere), were then passed on to the US Postal Service? Afterall, the USPS is FedEx's largest customer. The impact on the economy (and every American citizen) would be huge, as mail costs would soar. The US Postal Service, already dealing with a financial crisis, would likely suffer an immediate collapse.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Introduction
I first started getting into aviation about mid-Freshman year in high school (2001-2002). In fact, the way I came into aviation is kind of odd, it's something I never thought I’d be interested in. Back in 1999, I recall that my family and I were shopping at Wal-Mart. I was browsing amidst the electronics department and, being a video game enthusiast as most young kids are, came across a copy of Flight Simulator 98. Normally this game would never catch my eye, or interest -- but this did, purely because it was mispriced. Normally, the game was $59.99, and as far as I can recall it was mispriced at $29.99. I ended up buying it -- took it home, but never played it.
A couple years pass. Come 2001-2002, freshman year of high school, my interest in the games I was playing at the time was lacking. Digging through all the games I had, that being a pile of computer games and Nintendo 64 games, I came across the copy of Flight Simulator 98 I bought a couple years back, still in the box -- never opened. Out of curiosity, I figured I’d give it a shot. I remember the first time I played the game; it initially started you out at San Francisco Intl. Airport in a 737-400, in the cockpit of course. I was completely baffled by all the controls, dials, gauges, settings, etc. and thought to myself, good grief, this must be the hardest game I’ve ever seen, yet alone played. Nonetheless, over the course of a few months I messed around with the game, slowly developing an interest in it. It wasn't until about February 2002 that I came across an entire flight simulator community on the internet, composed of virtual airlines, simulation networks (multiplayer flying on the computer), and more. I came across a virtual airline that interested me, UPS Virtual Air Cargo to be exact, a virtual airline (with real flight simulator/aviation enthusiasts), and was "hired" into the airline as a 757 First Officer based out of the Dallas Ft. Worth hub. Kind of funny, I know, but to a 16 year old kid this was pretty cool stuff!
Nonetheless, that's really where it all began. After a few years pass and hundreds of 'virtual' flight hours later, gaining bits of experience and knowledge along the way, I knew what I wanted to do after graduating high school. I also did a bit of simulated air traffic control, too, which you can do online through flight simulator and a network called VATSIM (Virtual Air Traffic Simulation). I was based out of VZAU (Chicago ARTCC) and almost always controlled out of O’Hare (ORD). Most find that pretty laughable, sure, and it is simulated, but -- it was fairly realistic. There were times where I was so busy with air traffic control instructions that I couldn't leave my seat for over 2 hours, loaded with nonstop talking, typing, and issuing instructions. This experience and my experience as a 'virtual pilot' for a few years helped when I began my freshman year in college at Eastern Michigan University in 2005. Coming in pursuing an Aviation Flight major, I already had extensive knowledge on radio communications, which helped when I started flight training (for real) in 2005. After finishing my freshman year of college in 2006, I took a few years off from school -- not sure if pursuing the pilot route was a good idea, or not. My only concern was money, and at the time (2006-2009) pilot furloughs seemed endless, the pay was pretty poor, and the turnover rates at most regional’s was very high. I came back to Eastern in 2009, switched my major to Aviation Management, and figured that if I still wanted to become a pilot, I could decide when I graduate in 2012. After all, the management degree is a great backup anyways.
As to where I’d like to go in aviation, it seems like every sector of an aviation career has its pros and cons. Part of me would love to be an airline pilot, yet I’m also the kind of person that likes to come home every night (not constantly travelling). Though, I also don't care for an 8-5 office job, I’d rather be out and about when I’m working, not stuck in a building (or office) for 8 hours. I've considered air traffic control, but have little knowledge how the ATC lifestyle really is, or whether I’d fully enjoy that. I wouldn't mind to be the director of operations for a particular airport, an interest that I picked up after taking the Aviation Management course here at Eastern, taught by Kenneth Szymanski, whom is the director of operations at Detroit-Metro airport. I also have an interest in dispatching. Nonetheless, as to a specific direction -- each seems to have its pros and cons, I’m not sure where I’ll go, really, and as of now it's really just where the jobs are.
There are a broad range of topics that interest me in aviation. I'm interested in airport/airfield operations, air traffic control, flying (pilot aspect), and dispatch. I've never found an interest in maintenance (A&P Mechanic) or anything that deals directly with the public (customer service, manager-level position, etc.). Air disasters and NTSB-related topics are somewhat interesting to me also, but not so much because it’s kind of the 'doom and gloom' side of aviation, in my opinion. Airline related news, mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcies, fleet adjustments, new aircraft, retiring aircraft, etc. I’ve always had a lot of interest in. I like seeing the changes in the industry and keeping up to date with those changes. Air traffic control is intriguing, having done it simulated it's still an interest of mine, but also one of those topics that you really don't hear about too often compared to everything else. Dispatching, of course, is also a small but neat sector in the aviation community that I also find pretty interesting.
A couple years pass. Come 2001-2002, freshman year of high school, my interest in the games I was playing at the time was lacking. Digging through all the games I had, that being a pile of computer games and Nintendo 64 games, I came across the copy of Flight Simulator 98 I bought a couple years back, still in the box -- never opened. Out of curiosity, I figured I’d give it a shot. I remember the first time I played the game; it initially started you out at San Francisco Intl. Airport in a 737-400, in the cockpit of course. I was completely baffled by all the controls, dials, gauges, settings, etc. and thought to myself, good grief, this must be the hardest game I’ve ever seen, yet alone played. Nonetheless, over the course of a few months I messed around with the game, slowly developing an interest in it. It wasn't until about February 2002 that I came across an entire flight simulator community on the internet, composed of virtual airlines, simulation networks (multiplayer flying on the computer), and more. I came across a virtual airline that interested me, UPS Virtual Air Cargo to be exact, a virtual airline (with real flight simulator/aviation enthusiasts), and was "hired" into the airline as a 757 First Officer based out of the Dallas Ft. Worth hub. Kind of funny, I know, but to a 16 year old kid this was pretty cool stuff!
Nonetheless, that's really where it all began. After a few years pass and hundreds of 'virtual' flight hours later, gaining bits of experience and knowledge along the way, I knew what I wanted to do after graduating high school. I also did a bit of simulated air traffic control, too, which you can do online through flight simulator and a network called VATSIM (Virtual Air Traffic Simulation). I was based out of VZAU (Chicago ARTCC) and almost always controlled out of O’Hare (ORD). Most find that pretty laughable, sure, and it is simulated, but -- it was fairly realistic. There were times where I was so busy with air traffic control instructions that I couldn't leave my seat for over 2 hours, loaded with nonstop talking, typing, and issuing instructions. This experience and my experience as a 'virtual pilot' for a few years helped when I began my freshman year in college at Eastern Michigan University in 2005. Coming in pursuing an Aviation Flight major, I already had extensive knowledge on radio communications, which helped when I started flight training (for real) in 2005. After finishing my freshman year of college in 2006, I took a few years off from school -- not sure if pursuing the pilot route was a good idea, or not. My only concern was money, and at the time (2006-2009) pilot furloughs seemed endless, the pay was pretty poor, and the turnover rates at most regional’s was very high. I came back to Eastern in 2009, switched my major to Aviation Management, and figured that if I still wanted to become a pilot, I could decide when I graduate in 2012. After all, the management degree is a great backup anyways.
As to where I’d like to go in aviation, it seems like every sector of an aviation career has its pros and cons. Part of me would love to be an airline pilot, yet I’m also the kind of person that likes to come home every night (not constantly travelling). Though, I also don't care for an 8-5 office job, I’d rather be out and about when I’m working, not stuck in a building (or office) for 8 hours. I've considered air traffic control, but have little knowledge how the ATC lifestyle really is, or whether I’d fully enjoy that. I wouldn't mind to be the director of operations for a particular airport, an interest that I picked up after taking the Aviation Management course here at Eastern, taught by Kenneth Szymanski, whom is the director of operations at Detroit-Metro airport. I also have an interest in dispatching. Nonetheless, as to a specific direction -- each seems to have its pros and cons, I’m not sure where I’ll go, really, and as of now it's really just where the jobs are.
There are a broad range of topics that interest me in aviation. I'm interested in airport/airfield operations, air traffic control, flying (pilot aspect), and dispatch. I've never found an interest in maintenance (A&P Mechanic) or anything that deals directly with the public (customer service, manager-level position, etc.). Air disasters and NTSB-related topics are somewhat interesting to me also, but not so much because it’s kind of the 'doom and gloom' side of aviation, in my opinion. Airline related news, mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcies, fleet adjustments, new aircraft, retiring aircraft, etc. I’ve always had a lot of interest in. I like seeing the changes in the industry and keeping up to date with those changes. Air traffic control is intriguing, having done it simulated it's still an interest of mine, but also one of those topics that you really don't hear about too often compared to everything else. Dispatching, of course, is also a small but neat sector in the aviation community that I also find pretty interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)