Pilots and Depression

There are many mental health issues that people can suffer from but one of the most common is depression. Mostly everyone will suffer from some form of depression in their lifetime which can range from having a bad day to life crippling depression that needs medical attention. It is important to screen pilots for depression and depression should not bar pilots from continuing their job if they have undergone adequate treatment.

Depression is so common that between 10 million and 20 million people in our country need treatment for the disorder. As stated above there is a huge spectrum when it comes to depression but the important matter is to determine how depression is affecting the person’s life. (Stoutt) Sometimes the symptoms are easy to spot. Social people become withdrawn, changes in appetite, fatigued, etc. In others the symptom are much more subtle or are easy to hide from examiners and co-workers.

Depression should not be a career ender for pilots. The Germanwings accident has sparked a debate on how we should treat pilots who suffer from depression but we should not allow this accident to create fear of depressed pilots. I think that the stigma associated with depression has a worse effect on pilots than the possibility of losing their careers. If faced with the possibility of losing their career many pilots will choose not to seek treatment and may hide their depression from their employers. Depression in addition to being the most common mental illness is also the most treatable. About 80 to 90 percent of depression victims can be treated successfully with the combination of psychotherapy and psychopharmacology. 

There needs to be a change in the way we screen pilots for depression. No amount of testing can completely guarantee that pilots with mental health issues will be flying but there is much more that we can do which has been highlighted by the crash of Germanwings flight 9525. One problem is that there is no incentive for pilots to report their depression. It may not immediately cause them to be terminated but it can be a black mark on their medical records and remove them from their flight schedule. Another problem that I see is that there is no test dedicated to screening for mental health. This should change because depression can happen at any point in someone’s life. Currently pilots go through annual or semiannual medical exams with mental health questions about depression, substance abuse, and suicidal thoughts but it is up to pilots to answer these questions truthfully. (Davies, 2015)

In 2010 the FAA allowed pilots to be able to fly while on antidepressants. The new policy was put into place to improve safety and allow pilots to come forward with their mental issues. I see this as a huge step in the right direction especially with the fear that many pilots would have by disclosing personal health information. The new policy allows pilots to fly with mild to moderate depression as long as they have demonstrated that they were satisfactorily treated for 12 months. (Ahlers, 2010)

Depression is a mental issue that will affect many pilots over the years at any age or background and it is important to encourage depressed pilots to seek the help that they need. On the management side it is important to learn about the issue that will affect our employees so that we are better able to assist them.

References

Ahlers, M. (2010, April 2). FAA to allow pilots to fly while on antidepressants. Retrieved from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/04/02/pilots.depression/

Davies, A. (2015, March 27). We Have No Way to Screen Every Pilot for Mental Illness. Retrieved from Wired: http://www.wired.com/2015/03/no-way-screen-every-pilot-mental-illness/

Stoutt, G. (n.d.). Just for the Health of Pilots: Depression a Recoverable Stall. Retrieved from Just for the Health of Pilots: https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/medical_certification/hop/media/depression.pdf

ATC Privatization

In order for the privatization of the ATC system to be in effect it would somehow have to be funded. The main proposal for funding has been through user fees which have been rejected by groups such as AOPA and the NBAA. Mark Baker and Ed Bolen. The heads of these organizations have been rallying against privatization and have stated that imposing user fees will stifle general aviation by restricting access to airport and airspace. (Pope, 2015)

For a while the airline industry has been quiet about the privatization plan but have recently suggested that the system should be privatized. In the hands of the FAA modernization of the ATC system has been severely flawed by expensive costs, failed promises, and missed deadlines. These problems costs $12 billion annually for the airlines which is then passed onto the consumer so it makes sense why the airlines are for privatization. (Boyd, 2015)

As far as I know Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, and the United Kingdom have either fully or partially privatized ATC systems. Nav Canada, led by John Crichton, is the private ATC system used in Canada. Before its creation ATC was run by the government much like it is in the U.S. being underfunded and using backwards technology. Nav Canada has been the inspiration for U.S. advocates who want to strip control of ATC away from the FAA and provide more reliable funding. The move is also said will advance NextGen, the FAA’s over budget and delayed modernization plan. (Carey, 2015) The bill has been introduced through Congress and will have to go through the House of Representatives, the Senate, and finally the President.

I can see why privatizing our ATC system is important and I like the idea but I don’t think that it would be as smooth or simple as it seems. I am against privatization because of the uncertainty of implementation and the costs to the general public. Privatization will most likely increase the tax on the general public and the general aviation community. There is also the worry that it privatization will not work well in the U.S. Nav Canada has been good for Canadian aviation industry but that does not mean that it would work for the U.S. especially since Canada has much fewer flights with 3 million per year compared to the U.S. with 15 million per year. As stated before I like the idea of privatization and want to see it eventually, but there is a lot more planning that has to be done within the government and the aviation industry.

References

Boyd, M. (2015, October 6). Time To Privatize U.S. Air Traffic Control, The Right Way. Retrieved from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeboyd/2015/10/06/time-to-privatize-air-traffic-control-the-right-way/

Carey, S. (2015, October 18). Nav Canada Draws Interest in U.S. Retrieved from Wall Street Journal: http://www.wsj.com/articles/nav-canada-draws-interest-in-u-s-1445160603

Pope, S. (2015, June 23). AOPA, NBAA Warn of 'Troubling' ATC User Fee Bill. Retrieved from Flyingmag: http://www.flyingmag.com/news/aopa-nbaa-warn-troubling-atc-user-fee-bill

Medical Reform in General Aviation

Currently many people feel that the requirements for general aviation pilots to hold a third class medical certificate are unnecessary. Some problems with the certificate process are that it does little to reduce safety and is just another annoying government process.

Third class medical reform has been added to a bill proposed by Senators Joe Machin and Jim Inhofe. Under the new rules general aviation pilots will not have to be certified by a medical examiner every two years but will be certified every four years in addition to taking an online medical course every two years. There is also change on who can examine pilots. Under the new proposal pilots will have the option to be certified by a doctor of their choosing instead of waiting for the few available medical examiners. (Lowy, 2015) The bill seems like it will give pilots more freedom in determining if they are fit to fly.

One aspect of the amendment that I agree with is not requiring a medical examination for pilots who have held a certificate in the past 10 years. I can see how that may be a long time for many people but that is assuming that pilots cannot tell if they are fit to fly or that they haven’t seen a personal doctor at all. I think that reform isn’t necessary but that doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be any changes. If pilots feel that the current system is broken then and could be more efficient than it is worth looking into. I support the proposed amendments because the requirements for general aviation pilots are just unnecessary and time consuming.

The one thing that I do not understand about the amendment is why the ALPA is against it. Safety cannot be the only reason because light sport pilots do not have to have a medical examination if they hold a current driver’s license. There has also been a few instances where pilots holding a medical license have been involved in accidents while there is little chance that a general aviation pilot will cause threat to an airliner. ALPA’s position is very surprising since general aviation supplies many of its pilots and I’m sure that many who are in the organization want to continue flying after they retire.

References

Lowy, J. (2015, November 18). Senator pushing medical exam bill to benefit pilots like him. Retrieved from AP The Big Story: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/2f0beb20eaac42fbae469726a42dee8a/senator-pushing-medical-exam-bill-benefit-pilots-him

Tennyson, E. (2015, November 18). Committee passes Manchin amendment to Pilot's Bill of Rights 2. Retrieved from Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association: http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/November/18/Committee-passes-Manchin-amendment-to-PBR2

A Chinese competitor to Airbus and Boeing?

It is hard to tell if the FAA will be willing to certify the new Chinese COMAC C919 which is a major setback for the company as this means that the C919 will not be able to be sold in the United States. A previous jet, the ARJ21, also hasn’t been certified by the FAA even though orders are set to be delivered globally. Since the certification of the C919 is directly affected by the ARJ21 it is not likely to receive certification anytime in the near future and COMAC has been mainly focused on getting certification from the Civil Aviation Administration of China.

The C919 will be a source of national pride for China and I believe that COMAC do its best to prove that the airplane is safe by getting certification in China and the United States. Even with most of the key components of the aircraft coming from foreign companies I think that U.S. air carriers will be hesitant on purchasing the C919. Whatever decisions airlines make will depend on what makes money and if people have the idea that Chinese made products are inferior then air carriers will be reluctant to make the C919 an addition to their fleets. Public perception will be a huge problem for any airline planning to fly the C919 as it will be seen as unsafe. There are also past Chinese domestic aircraft that have had a negative effect on Western perceptions of Chinese produced aircraft. The XIAN MA-60 is an aircraft that has been in the spotlight negatively for many years following a high number of accidents. Even Chinese airlines refuse to fly it and they have to be highly subsidized and in some cases gifted in order to reach the market.

If U.S. carriers purchase the C919 will COMAC how quickly will COMAC be able to produce the aircraft? 517 of the aircraft have been ordered so far and that is almost exclusively domestically. The aircraft is also not expected to be introduced until 2019. It will take years to deliver enough aircraft to meet demand and that is without any international orders. According to Boeing, in 2017 it will produce 47 single-aisle airplanes per month, more than 560 per year.  I do not see many air carriers using the C919 especially since Airbus and Boeing have already proven to be reliable with decades of service. The C919 may be a safe aircraft but in order to compete it would have to offer something new or innovative to the market.

COMCAC is a limited liability company that is owned by the People’s Republic of China. It implements large passenger aircraft programs within China as well as developing regional jet liners in China. The mission of COMAC is to let Chinese made aircraft fly through the sky. COMAC wants its aircraft program to be a symbol of reform and open policy in the new era of China as well as making COMAC a world-class aviation enterprise. Through COMAC China hopes to create an innovative aviation industry with its own characteristics and technology. Currently COMAC has developed the CRJ21 and the C919. The CRJ is a short and medium range regional aircraft that was developed in China with its own intellectual property rights (COMAC, 2015). In addition to the two aircraft already developed the company is already planning to produce a competitor to the Boeing 777, the C929. The C929 is in the research stage of key technologies and is reported to use domestic engines and carry 300 passengers (Jin, 2015).

The C919 was built as a direct competitor to the duopoly of Airbus and Boeing in the global market. COMAC expects to sell 2,000 of its aircraft within the next 20 years and has received about 517 orders (Jiang, 2015). Even with certification I do not think that the C919 can compete in the global market on the scale of Airbus and Boeing. One reason is that it is too dependent on foreign suppliers to produce the aircraft which is not unusual because even Airbus and Boeing outsource part globally. China requires its suppliers to form joint-ventures with Chinese which caused international companies to balance accessing the C919 with protecting their intellectual property rights. Another problem I see with China being able to compete is the duopoly that Boeing and Airbus have on the global market. Boeing, which currently dominates the market at 43%, has 648 commercial aircraft deliveries. Airbus comes in a close second with 626 deliveries (Team, 2014). There is no doubt that the C919 will compete domestically but internationally Western companies will still dominate the industry. It will take a long time for COMAC to become a serious competitor but it is possible if even a couple of decades away.  Irkut, a Russian company has unveiled an aircraft that may compete with Boeing and Airbus. The MC-21 has performed outstandingly and will most likely be cheaper due to the weak ruble. A big challenge to the program will be Russia’s international relations and political pressure within Russia to use domestic suppliers. Bombardier has been trying to compete with the introduction of its CSeries program but the rising costs and long delays have left investors worrying whether the company will be able to pull through. As of now it looks as if Boeing and Airbus will not have to worry anytime soon but a lot can happen in only a few years.

So far both Airbus and Boeing have been supportive of COMAC and have congratulated then, stating that the market is big enough for another manufacturer. Both of the companies have been increasing their foothold in China and developing aircraft to compete with their Chinese rival.

References

COMAC. (2015). Company Profile. Retrieved from COMAC: http://english.comac.cc/aboutus/introduction/

Jiang, S. (2015, November 2). China to take on Boeing, Airbus with homegrown C919 passenger jet. Retrieved from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/02/asia/china-new-c919-passenger-jet/

Jin, H. (2015, October 26). China-developed aircraft C929 aims to replace Boeing 777 in the future. Retrieved from People's Daily Online : http://en.people.cn/n/2015/1026/c98649-8966958.html

Smith, D. (2013, October 31). Boeing to Increase 737 Production Rate in 2017. Retrieved from Boeing: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2013-10-31-Boeing-to-Increase-737-Production-Rate-in-2017

Team, T. (2014, March 6). New Entrants Pose A Challenge To Boeing's Share Of The Global Commercial Airplane Market. Retrieved from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2014/03/06/new-entrants-pose-a-challenge-to-boeings-share-of-the-global-commercial-airplane-market/

Aviation Organizations

Of all of the organizations that I have come across over the years I have attended Eastern the one that stands out the most to me is the American Association of Airport Executives. It wasn’t until this year that I first heard of the organization and decided that it would be beneficial for me to become a member at some point. AAAE is an organization dedicated to representing airport management across the country and serving its members through representation in government, training, and industry services.  AAAE helps its members reach their goals by providing tools for airport managers to create an effective training program. They offer on-site courses, taught by trained professionals, and an Interactive Employee Training system.  

Another group that I find interesting and relevant to those in the management side of the industry is the National Association of State Aviation Officials. Established in 1931 the NASAO is one of the most senior aviation organizations in the United States. NASOA, in contrast to many special interest groups, does not just focus on one issue but focusses on all aspects of the aviation industry. In 2015 they have been active in advocating in aviation fuel taxes, FAA authorization, Pilots Bill of Rights legislation, the pilot shortage, and UAS. I think that this organization is important because working in state government is at the top of my career choices and the organization focuses on the issues that I will be dealing with in a few years.

References

About. (2015, November 1). Retrieved from National Association of State Aviation Officials: http://www.nasao.org/about/

About AAAE. (2015, November 1). Retrieved from American Association of Airport Executives: http://www.aaae.org/

Global Airlines - Is it a Fair?

Two airlines that have been found to receive government subsidies are Qatar and Emirates. Both airlines are within violation of the Open Skies policy. The Open Skies policy is an agreement in place to promote travel, increase economic growth and promote job opportunities by eliminating government interference on routes, capacity, and price. Qatar has violated this policy by receiving government aid with over $16 billion in the last decade alone. Qatar’s CEO Akbar Al Baker has publicly denied any government interference with the airline but its financial statements have proven this to be false. Emirates has shown to have received at least $5 billion in subsidies since 2004 (Partnership for Open and Fair Skies, 2015). Last year they made a profit of $1.6 billion of which $700 million was given to shareholders and $300 million in bonuses for its employees.

Though not in the exact same way as the Gulf airlines the U.S. government has been providing subsidies to American aviation companies as well. A government document shows that $155 billion has been received by U.S. airlines between 1919 and 1998. Of the $155 billion spent, $140 was spent by the trust fund that supports FAA spending. Historical data from the FAA also shows that since 1971 passengers and airlines have contributed $247 billion to the trust fund with $10 billion being contributed annually today. Unlike the Gulf airlines the U.S. airlines pay into what they are given to by the government. The Gulf carriers argue that many countries subsidize their commercial airline industries, especially start-ups but they are not exactly parallel events. U.S. airlines started with mail being carried by airlines and being required to carry passengers to lead to a reduction in the need for air mail subsidies. Airlines were provided with more subsidies in the second half of the century. The Gulf carriers are relatively new. Emirates was founded in 1985, Qatar in 1993, and Etihad in 2003. Instead of letting the market expand their airlines over time the Gulf governments spent billions of dollars rapidly to provide the three airlines with the most expensive aircraft and gigantic new airports (Reed, 2015).

Another controversial issue with foreign carriers is their purchasing of aircraft at lower interest rates than U.S. carriers. The Export-Import Bank, the federal creditor of the United States, is accused of reducing the investment required to purchase new aircraft for foreign carriers. The subsidized aircraft are then put onto routes that directly compete with U.S. carriers. U.S. carriers not receiving the same deal and the Bank’s activity in the wide body aircraft sector has resulted in job loss for American airlines (Keep America Flying). Boeing is currently the biggest beneficiary of the bank and according to the Government Accountability Office represents about 28 percent of agency’s financial exposure.  The Bank providing subsidies to foreign airlines to buy Boeing aircraft has cost the U.S. airline industry 7500 jobs and $684,000 each year (Lee, 2015).

I feel that a level playing field with foreign carriers could be achieved but the problem is that it requires everyone to play by the same rules. Governments often get too involved with commercial business especially regarding the airlines and there are different beliefs on what is acceptable or not. In order to have a level playing field the international aviation industry has to come to a conclusion on what defines a level playing field and follow the same procedures. The international business community is not fair and I don’t think it ever will be. 

Keep America Flying. (n.d.). Retrieved from Air Line Pilots Association, International: http://www.alpa.org/~/media/ALPA/Files/pdfs/news-events/white-papers/keep-america-flying.pdf?la=en

Lee, M. Y. (2015, April 10). Does the Export-Import Bank ‘prop’ foreign corporations to compete unfairly with the U.S.? Retrieved from The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/04/10/does-the-export-import-bank-prop-foreign-corporations-to-compete-unfairly-with-the-u-s/

Partnership for Open and Fair Skies. (2015, January 28). Retrieved from Open and Fair Skies: http://www.openandfairskies.com/wp-content/themes/custom/media/White.Paper.pdf

Reed, T. (2015, April 14). U.S. Airlines Have Paid the Government $250 Billion -- Amazingly, Some Claim They Are Subsidized. Retrieved from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2015/04/14/u-s-airlines-have-paid-the-government-250-billion-amazingly-some-claim-they-are-subsidized/3/

The Cargo Industry and Duty Regulations

The new ruling comes as a result of the Colgan Air Flight 3407 accident on February 12, 2009. About 5 nautical miles short of buffalo-Niagara airport the pilot lost control of the Bombardier DHC-8-400 and it crashed killing everyone onboard including one person on the ground. Not only did the accident put focus on aspects of pilot qualifications and air carrier training requirements but the amount of hours that pilots were being encouraged to work were also examined.

The new rules take into consideration the time of day a pilot’s duty begins and adjusts the requirements accordingly. Some important changes implemented in the new ruling are that pilots must be well rested before beginning their duty in addition to stating that they are fit for duty before beginning flight. If a pilot feels he or she is not fit to fly the air carrier must be notified. The previous FAR was vague in regard to pilot fatigue and limitations for pilots and as was seen in the Flying Cheaper documentary some pilots could be encouraged to fly while being fatigued.

Under the new rule there is a restriction on a pilot’s flight duty period (FDP) which begins when a pilot is to report for the day and ends when the aircraft is parked after the last flight. Minimum rest is 10 hours, two more than the old rules, beginning when the crew is released in order to ensure that at least 8 hours of sleep is received. In the past minimum rest was 9 hours reducible to 8 but did not factor in a sleep opportunity. (ALPA’s FTDT Comparison: New FAR vs. Existing Rules, 2011)

Cargo carrier operators are exempt from the new rulings simply because of money. The FAA does not require cargo operations to be held accountable for the new part 117 rules due to the compliance costs exceeding the societal benefits. Cargo carriers may voluntarily comply with the new rules but it is not mandatory on the other hand passenger carrier benefits did outweigh the costs. They carry more people and the DOT values the cost of a human life to be about $6.2 million. (Compart, 2012) Considering that in fatal crashes hundreds of people can be killed it is easy to see why the airlines are held to a higher safety standard.

Personally I do not feel that cargo carriers should be left out of the provision. Even though cargo pilots are not carrying people the pilots themselves should be enough reason for compliance. Not only that but you have many people on the ground that could be injured. It would be terribly devastating if there was an accident in a congested area like O’Hare, La Guardia, or Detroit Metro. Even though cargo carriers can voluntarily adhere to the rules there is no reason to expect them to comply especially when it saves them time and money. I do like the fact that there are a few pilots and politicians that support making cargo carriers comply with the new rules. Recently a lawsuit was filed against the FAA by the Independent Pilot Association, the union representing UPS pilots, to compel cargo carriers to comply. “Carving us out is akin to telling bus drivers you have fatigue requirements, [but] truck drivers, you’re just hauling freight, so it doesn’t matter,” argues Bill Soer, a Federal Express pilot and chairman of the president’s committee for cargo at ALPA. About 15% of flights in the U.S. are operated by cargo carriers, he says, so “if we’re out there flying tired, did you really make the entire system any safer?”

If cargo carriers would be included in the new rules they would have many of the same problems as the airlines. The most troublesome aspect that I can imagine at the moment is dealing with the rearrangement of pilot schedules. There is also the problem of coming up with a training program that educates trainees on fatigue, the effects of fatigue on pilots, and fatigue countermeasures. The good thing is that since the airlines already have to comply with the new rules there will be examples to build off so hopefully integrating won’t be too costly in time.

References:

ALPA’s FTDT Comparison: New FAR vs. Existing Rules. (2011, December 23). Retrieved from ALPA: http://www3.alpa.org/portals/alpa/fastread/2011/FastReadNewsflash_20111223.htm

Compart, A. (2012, April 17). ALPA Champions Cargo Carrier Fatigue Bill. Retrieved from Aviation Week Network: http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/alpa-champions-cargo-carrier-fatigue-bill