25 March, 2018

Life's Ride Undulates - Swing Waxing Poetic

Desiderata
Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexatious to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter, for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism.
Be yourself.
Especially do not feign affection.
Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment, it is as perennial as the grass.
Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself.
You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be.
And whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul.
With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful.
Strive to be happy.

By Max Ehrmann © 1927
Original text

Ehrmann, M. (1927). Desiderata. Retrived from https://www.desiderata.com/desiderata.html


04 March, 2018

An Executive Appointment: FAA Administrator

The latest aviation internet news has been buzzing with articles about United States President Donald Trump’s preference of his long time personal pilot to be appointed as the next Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator.
 
Web article published by Axios on February 25th, 2018 titled, “Exclusive: Trump privately pushing personal pilot to run FAA” written by Jonathan Swan, describes President Trump’s personal pilot John Dunkin and reports his candidacy qualifications for yet to be appointed FAA Administrator position (Swan, 2018):
 
The president’s personal pilot is on the administration's short list to head the Federal Aviation Administration. Trump has told a host of administration officials and associates that he wants John Dunkin — his longtime personal pilot, who flew him around the country on Trump Force One during the campaign — to helm the agency, which has a budget in the billions and which oversees all civil aviation in the United States.
 
In response to my questions for this story, another administration source stressed that while no decision has been made, Dunkin has the appropriate experience to get the job.
 
“John Dunkin isn’t just a pilot," the administration official told me. "He’s managed airline and corporate flight departments, certified airlines from start-up under FAA regulations, and oversaw the Trump presidential campaign’s air fleet, which included managing all aviation transportation for travel to 203 cities in 43 states over the course of 21 months.”
 
Other candidates for the position, per my sources, include Rep. Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican; and current acting FAA Administrator Dan Elwell, who has impressed many in the administration and the industry (Swan, 2018).
 
The following remarks by President Donald Trump in meeting with the aviation industry on February 9th, 2017 supported strong opinions of his personal pilot John Dunkin’s merits (United States, Office of the Press Secretary, 2017):
 
And I can tell you that a lot of the new equipment that already is obsolete the day they order it — and that’s according to people that know, including my pilot. I have a pilot who’s a real expert, and he said, sir, the equipment they’re putting on is just the wrong stuff. And we’ll talk about that. Because if we’re going to modernize our systems, we should be using the right equipment. And I know Mr. Tilden is nodding. You know what I mean. It’s one thing to order equipment, but let’s order the right equipment. Probably the wrong equipment costs more. You can probably buy the right equipment for less money. So we want to talk about that. Because my pilot, he’s a smart guy, and knows what’s going on. He said the government is using the wrong equipment and instituting a massive, multibillion-dollar project, but they’re using the wrong type of equipment. So let’s find out about that (United States, Office of the Press Secretary, 2017).
 
The President was speaking regarding the FAA NextGen system which has not yet rolled out and is still undergoing research, development, and system testing.
 
Further research revealed that the qualifications for FAA Administrator appointment are not exceptionally restrictive. One might, as I had done, assume that it would be a position requiring advanced qualifications for eligibility. Contrarily, an FAA Administrator appointment is actually quite accessible by many with its relatively simple minimum standards of qualification.  According to United States Code, Title 49 U.S.C. § 106 (U.S.C., 2018):
 
Federal Aviation Administration §106. Federal Aviation Administration
(a) The Federal Aviation Administration is an administration in the Department of Transportation.
(b) The head of the Administration is the Administrator, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. When making an appointment, the President shall consider the fitness of the individual to carry out efficiently the duties and powers of the office. Except as provided in subsection (f) or in other provisions of law, the Administrator reports directly to the Secretary of Transportation. The term of office for any individual appointed as Administrator after August 23, 1994, shall be 5 years.
(c) The Administrator must-
(1) be a citizen of the United States;
(2) be a civilian; and
(3) have experience in a field directly related to aviation (U.S.C., 2018).
 
By the letter of United States Law, John Dunkin, seems qualified in his candidacy for FAA Administrator appointment. That is, if John Dunkin is in fact a civilian US citizen with aviation related experience; then they are indeed qualified.
 
The current FAA Acting Administrator Daniel K Elwell was previously the FAA Deputy Administrator. Elwell, a former American Airlines pilot of 16 years and retired U.S. Air Force pilot veteran; appointed following completion of previous FAA Administrator Michael Huerta’s five-year term as the FAA head. Former President Barack Obama appointed Huerta, who was also the then FAA Deputy Administrator, in response to incumbent FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt’s abrupt mid-term resignation.
 
 In 2011 Babbitt was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) in Virginia and resigned from his administrator position shortly thereafter. Before his appointment as FAA Administrator he was a former airline pilot, Eastern Air Lines for 25 years, and previously served in executive roles for the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA). It should be noted that Babbitt’s DWI charges were subsequently dismissed and continued along the path of his long career history within the aviation industry. Current, FAA Acting Administrator Elwell is widely considered as a well-respected head overseeing the administration. However, is only serving as such in interim until the next appointed FAA Administrator is officially sworn into office.
 
It is only appropriate to lay out the legal authority and expectations of the FAA Administrator with continued excerpt from United States Code, Title 49 U.S.C. § 106 (U.S.C., 2018):
 
(d)(1) The Administration has a Deputy Administrator, who shall be appointed by the President. In making an appointment, the President shall consider the fitness of the appointee to efficiently carry out the duties and powers of the office. The Deputy Administrator shall be a citizen of the United States and have experience in a field directly related to aviation. An officer on active duty in an armed force may be appointed as Deputy Administrator. However, if the Administrator is a former regular officer of an armed force, the Deputy Administrator may not be an officer on active duty in an armed force, a retired regular officer of an armed force, or a former regular officer of an armed force.
(2) The annual rate of basic pay of the Deputy Administrator shall be set by the Secretary but shall not exceed the annual rate of basic pay payable to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
(3) An officer on active duty or a retired officer serving as Deputy Administrator is entitled to hold a rank and grade not lower than that held when appointed as Deputy Administrator. The Deputy Administrator may elect to receive (A) the pay provided by law for the Deputy Administrator, or (B) the pay and allowances or the retired pay of the military grade held. If the Deputy Administrator elects to receive the military pay and allowances or retired pay, the Administration shall reimburse the appropriate military department from funds available for the expenses of the Administration.
(4) The appointment and service of a member of the armed forces as a Deputy Administrator does not affect the status, office, rank, or grade held by that member, or a right or benefit arising from the status, office, rank, or grade. The Secretary of a military department does not control the member when the member is carrying out duties and powers of the Deputy Administrator.
(e) The Administrator and the Deputy Administrator may not have a pecuniary interest in, or own stock in or bonds of, an aeronautical enterprise, or engage in another business, vocation, or employment.
(f) Authority of the Secretary and the Administrator.-
(1) Authority of the secretary.-Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary of Transportation shall carry out the duties and powers, and controls the personnel and activities, of the Administration. Neither the Secretary nor the Administrator may submit decisions for the approval of, or be bound by the decisions or recommendations of, a committee, board, or organization established by executive order.
(2) Authority of the administrator.-The Administrator-
(A) is the final authority for carrying out all functions, powers, and duties of the Administration relating to-
(i) the appointment and employment of all officers and employees of the Administration (other than Presidential and political appointees);
(ii) the acquisition and maintenance of property, services, and equipment of the Administration;
(iii) except as otherwise provided in paragraph (3), the promulgation of regulations, rules, orders, circulars, bulletins, and other official publications of the Administration; and
(iv) any obligation imposed on the Administrator, or power conferred on the Administrator, by the Air Traffic Management System Performance Improvement Act of 1996 (or any amendment made by that Act);
(B) shall offer advice and counsel to the President with respect to the appointment and qualifications of any officer or employee of the Administration to be appointed by the President or as a political appointee;
(C) may delegate, and authorize successive redelegations of, to an officer or employee of the Administration any function, power, or duty conferred upon the Administrator, unless such delegation is prohibited by law; and
(D) except as otherwise provided for in this title, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, shall not be required to coordinate, submit for approval or concurrence, or seek the advice or views of the Secretary or any other officer or employee of the Department of Transportation on any matter with respect to which the Administrator is the final authority (U.S.C., 2018).
 
Now, in all honesty, you probably skipped all of that U.S.C. legalese. So, in a medium sized nutshell, the FAA Administrator, appointed by the President of the United States of America, serves under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation, as the head of the FAA. Tasked with leadership, oversight, and assurance of the FAA, officers, employees, committees, and every other facet by which the administration is comprised.
 
Ultimately, they promote the FAA Mission: “Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.” The FAA administrator position is truly important as it carries an incredibly powerful measure of individual influence and impact over the aerospace system here in the United States and also upon other national aerospace systems abroad which are generally modeled and follow suit with the FAA.
 
In closing, the actions of this singly powerful individual do have an ability to send bureaucratic ripples around the aviation systems of the world. Yet, these systems are generally well insulated from any such wildly divergent actions by single powerful actors from generally agreed upon societal standards and norms, whether by an FAA Administrator or even a national head of state, through in-built systems of checks and balances. With that being said, I believe that one shouldn't worry too much. Go with the flow, yet, definitely stand up for the good fights, and always remember that the only guarantee in life is that everything changes in time.
 
-Aviator in Progress
 
Swan, J. (2018). Exclusive: Trump privately pushing personal pilot to run FAA. Axios. Retrieved from https://www.axios.com/exclusive-trump-privately-pushing-personal-pilot-to-run-faa-1519595187-5a735cc4-63e6-4348-b980-1aadf0b8e80d.html
United States, Office of the Press Secretary. (2017). Remarks by President Trump in meeting with the aviation industry. United States, Office of the Press Secretary. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-meeting-aviation-industry/
U.S.C. (2018). United States Code, Title 49 U.S.C. § 106. Retrieved from http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title49-section106&num=0&edition=prelim

10 February, 2018

Droning Onward: Unmanned Aircraft Systems


Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), Unmanned Aircraft (UA), Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), or simply “drones,” as they are colloquially known, are now ordinary fixtures of society.  They’ve become so commonplace in fact that their range spans broadly from childhood playthings, such as remote controlled miniature quad-copters generally bought for less than $20 USD, to complex military reconnaissance systems, such as the Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) with costs reaching upwards of $187 million USD per production unit as of 2017.  The wide gamut of variety in use today is inclusive of more types than would be practicably listed.  Platform uses vary from recreational hobby and sport, to commercial and industrial utility, as well as civil and military missions.  Continued growth is expected with their current and potential use cases; yet, only the future will reveal how they might become fully integrated into the fabric of the current aviation system.

Henceforth, for clarity’s sake, the term Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) will be generally used in reference to UAVs, UA, UAS, and drones.  U.S. Congress, Public Law 112-95, otherwise known as the “FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012” defines:
 
Unmanned aircraft system. – The term “unmanned aircraft system” means an unmanned aircraft and associated elements (including communication links and the components that control the unmanned aircraft) that are required for the pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace system (FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012).

 
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was tasked by the “FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012” for development of UAS regulations within the National Airspace System (NAS) of which oversight is their responsibility.  This was deemed necessary to maintain the integrity of NAS safety following an exponential growth of UAS manufacturing and availability and a resultant increase of civilian UAS operating within proximity of aircraft operations.  The FAA responded with creation of new Title 14 CFR Part 107, Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) regulations, with specific sUAS definitions, operational limitations, aircraft requirements, and remote pilot in command certification and responsibilities.
 
The FAA Unmanned Aircraft Systems webpage titled “Fly under the Small UAS Rule” explains in summary (2018):
 
To fly under the FAA's Small UAS Rule (14 CFR part 107), you must:
 
  • Get a Remote Pilot Certificate from the FAA.
  • Register your UAS as a "non-modeler."
  • Follow all part 107 rules.
 
Remote Pilot Certification:
  • Be at least 16 years old.
  • Pass an aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center.*
(* A person who already holds a pilot certificate issued under 14 CFR part 61 and has successfully completed a flight review within the previous 24 months can complete a part 107 online training course at www.faasafety.gov to satisfy this requirement.)
  • Undergo Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) security screening. 
Registration Requirements:
  • Unmanned aircraft not flown under section 336 must be registered under part 107.
 
Part 107 Operating Rules:
  • Unmanned aircraft must weigh less than 55 pounds, including payload, at takeoff.
  • Fly in Class G airspace.*
  • Keep the unmanned aircraft within visual line-of-sight.*
  • Fly at or below 400 feet.*
  • Fly during daylight or civil twilight.*
  • Fly at or under 100 mph.*
  • Yield right of way to manned aircraft.*
  • Do not fly directly over people.*
  • Do not fly from a moving vehicle, unless in a sparsely populated area.*
(*These rules are subject to waiver. (FAA, 2018.))
 
The FAA regulations however received considerable backlash from the well-established nationwide model aircraft community for overreaching and negative impact upon their hobby which previously operated safely and in harmony with the NAS.  The FAA responded with the “Special Rule for Model Aircraft” with provisions that exempted hobbyists from specifics within the sUAS Part 107 regulations.
 
The FAA Unmanned Aircraft Systems webpage titled "Fly under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft" explains in summary (2018):
To fly under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft you must:
  • Fly for hobby or recreation ONLY.
  • Register your model aircraft.
  • Fly within visual line-of-sight.
  • Follow community-based safety guidelines and fly within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization.
  • Fly a drone under 55 lbs. unless certified by a community-based organization.
  • Never fly near other aircraft.
  • Notify the airport and air traffic control tower prior to flying within 5 miles of an airport.*
(*The person flying the model aircraft is responsible for contacting the airport directly.)
  • Never fly near emergency response efforts.
 
For more information about what you can do with a model aircraft, please read FAA Advisory Circular 91-57A or read the Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft.
If you do not meet these requirements, you must fly under the FAA's small UAS Rule (part 107).
 
Many airports have processes for people who fly near their airport, and the model aircraft operator can talk with them directly about how to meet this rule.
 
Registration Requirements:
 
The FAA requires you to register as a "modeler" and mark your model aircraft with your registration number in case it is lost or stolen.
 
Registration costs $5 and is valid for 3 years (FAA, 2018).
 
The special rule while less restrictive than sUAS regulations overall, still in the end was less well received by many of the affected community for restrictions that were previously unimposed upon their hitherto self-regulated hobby.
 
Aviation Acronym Segue:  Yes, apologies are in order for the streaming plethora of acronyms – admittedly these may have become quite confusing.
 
Aviation is one of those specialized industries, encamped with the sciences and medicines amongst others, which has developed a unique flavor of acronym soup.  Selected excerpts from the academic-comedic article "Acronymesis: The Exploding Misuse of Acronyms," written by authors Fred, H. L., & Cheng, T. O expand nicely upon the acronym phenomenon (2003):
 
In fact, improper use of acronyms has become a nemesis.  Hence, our term ‘acronymesis.’ … We are not saying that all acronyms are ‘evil.’  On the contrary.  Acronyms can simplify and facilitate communication, enhance recall, and save time, space, and effort for everyone involved. … Failure to define acronyms is all too frequent and reflects inconsiderate writing, careless editing, and irresponsible publishing. ... In conclusion, acronymesis has become a Macho-driven Major Malady of Modern Medical Miscommunication (MMMMMM).  Meaningful Management of this MMMMMM Mandates Maximum effort to Minimize acronymic Misuse (MMMMMM).  Oops!  We just used the same ‘acronym’ for 2 different messages.  Does that ring a bell? (Fred, H. L., & Cheng, T. O. 2003.)

 
However, the use of acronyms is practically required for efficient communications between air traffic control (ATC) and pilots operating within the NAS.  Nonetheless, aviation and acronyms are more than likely forever and symbiotically intertwined with one another.  For this reason, handbooks will continue to exist with sole dedication to aviation acronym definition.  Sincerest apologies for so many three letter descriptors laid down in quick succession.
 
Now, we shall return to regularly scheduled UAS programming.
 
Following the FAA sUAS regulations, commercial UAS business ventures were required to comply with Part 107 in order to continue operating legally.  Market areas impacted greatest by the regulations were the aerial photography and videography media, and aerial real estate property surveyor, segments.  Of which had previously experienced a surge in growth with the access to more affordable and technologically capable mass produced UAS; such as UAS market leader “DJI Innovations” Phantom series of quad-copters and other competitor like kinds.  The UAS media capture market had become a wild west of sorts and businesses were popping up, a dime-a-dozen, across the country, across the globe.  The FAA sUAS regulations were in all probability expedited by the flush of UAS that were suddenly buzzing around the NAS.
 
Commercial UAS market utilization has been projected with an outlook of considerable fiscal growth.  Business Insider, an online business news website, published the July 13th, 2017 article “Drone Technology and Usage: Current Usage and Future Drone Technology” supporting the promising UAS outlook (Business Insider, 2017):
 
From technically manning sensitive military areas to luring hobbyists throughout the world, drone technology has developed and prospered in the last few years. Individuals, commercial entities, and governments have come to realize that drones have multiple uses, which include:
 
  • Aerial photography for journalism and film.
  • Express shipping and delivery.
  • Gathering information or supplying essentials for disaster management.
  • Thermal sensor drones for search and rescue operations.
  • Geographic mapping of inaccessible terrain and locations.
  • Building safety inspections.
  • Precision crop monitoring.
  • Unmanned cargo transport.
  • Law enforcement and border control surveillance.
  • Storm tracking and forecasting hurricanes and tornadoes.
 
The commercial drone industry is still young, but it has begun to see some consolidation and major investments from industrial conglomerates, chip companies, IT consulting firms, and major defense contractors.  For now, the industry leaders are still a handful of early-stage manufacturers in Europe, Asia, and North America.
 
As it becomes cheaper to customize commercial drones, the door will be opened to allow new functionality in a wide array of niche spaces.  Sophisticated drones could soon be doing everyday tasks like fertilizing crop fields on an automated basis, monitoring traffic incidents, surveying hard-to-reach places, or even delivering pizzas.
 
At the end of the day, the impact of commercial drones could be $82 billion and a 100,000 job boost to the U.S. economy by 2025, according to AUVSI “The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International” (Business Insider, 2017).
 
The most innovative contemporary UAS application that I've discovered to date and possibly the most directly positive, in terms of direct humanitarian impact is that of Zipline International, Inc.
 
The U.S. based company and Government of Rwanda partnership UAS system is especially unique and best described from the Zipline webpage (2018):
 
Lifesaving Deliveries by Drone:
Zipline operates the world’s only drone delivery system at national scale to send urgent medicines, such as blood and animal vaccines, to those in need – no matter where they live.
 
How Zipline Works:
Zipline provides a seamless delivery service, rain or shine.  We manage all aspects of the service, obsessing over every detail, so you can focus on patient health.
 
1. Order by Text Message:
Health workers at remote clinics and hospitals text orders to Zipline for the medical products they need, on demand.
 
2. Packed in Minutes:
Zipline safely stores medical products at its Distribution Center, enabling immediate access to even the most sensitive or scarce items. These items are packaged here and prepare for flight, maintaining cold-chain and product integrity.
 
3. Takeoff:
Within minutes, health workers receive confirmation that their order has launched. Racing along at 110 km/h, products arrive faster than any other mode of transport, no pilot required.
 
4. Direct Delivery:
Fifteen minutes later, the medical products are delivered gently by parachute, landing in a designated area the size of a few parking spaces. Hospital staff are notified via text message.
 
5. Recovery:
Zipline's drones return home, only landing at Zipline's distribution center for a a quick pit stop before taking off again.
About Zipline:
 
Zipline is an automated logistics company based in California.  The company—which includes seasoned aerospace veterans from teams like SpaceX, Google, Boeing, and NASA—designs and operates an autonomous system for delivering lifesaving medicine to the world’s most difficult to reach places.
 
Zipline’s long-term mission is to build instant delivery for the planet, allowing medicines and other products to be delivered on-demand and at low cost without using a drop of gasoline.
 
Zipline is supported by some of the smartest investors in the world, including Sequoia Capital, Google Ventures, SV Angel, Subtraction Capital, Yahoo founder Jerry Yang, Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen, and Stanford University (Zipline, 2018).
 
This is by far my personal favorite contemporary application of commercial UAS technology.  It is in my opinion the best current use case example of how UAS should be used toward positive impact upon humanity.  This seminal UAS development will likely serve as the framework for other such similar developments to be considered for integration within the NAS.  The challenging aspect of course would be the shared use of airspace with traditionally human piloted aircraft.
 
With advancement of technology, the aviation industry will likely one day see a future where UAS and manned aircraft will harmoniously share the NAS.  The expected 2020, FAA NextGen ADS-B, sunrise rollout will probably be the next foundational step toward this endeavor.  In time, I do believe we will see interesting changes within the NAS, both here and around the globe.
 
The aforementioned Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton UAS actually poses quite exciting advancements with regard to the idea of NAS integration.  The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO): Report to Congressional Committees: Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapons Programs, March 2017 report outlined how the U.S. Navy has been researching and developing technology to integrate UAS and manned aircraft technology (GAO, 2017):
 
The Navy's MQ-4C Triton is intended to provide persistent maritime intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) data collection and dissemination capability.  Triton is planned to be an unmanned aircraft system operated from five land-based sites worldwide as part of a family of maritime patrol and reconnaissance systems.  Based on the Air Force's RQ-4B Global Hawk air vehicle, Triton is part of the Navy's plan to recapitalize its airborne ISR assets by the end of the decade.
 
The program is developing new capabilities for Triton, including enhanced intelligence sensors and an aircraft avoidance capability.  The program plans to integrate these into production aircraft beginning in fiscal years 2020 and 2024, respectively.
 
The program now intends to demonstrate the software for the baseline configuration, along with the enhanced intelligence capabilities, by the May 2021 full-rate production date.
 
According to program officials, the MQ-4C Triton unmanned aircraft system program continues to demonstrate success during development and early operational flight and ground test (GAO, 2017. p. 117-118.).
 
The MQ-4C UAS is one among many U.S. defense UAS weapons systems that are being developed with intention of full integration with human piloted aircraft assets.  The GAO report outlined a long list of such UAS technology advancements that are under continuous development.  While the nature of advanced military technology applications are generally tasked toward maximum efficiency of life-taking – aka military power superiority – those same advancements could later ultimately become repurposed life-saving technologies.
 
This territorial area of ethics approaches taboo and is generally advised best to be left away from the dinner tables; however, most military technologies eventually are cascaded in a trickledown effect to the civilian sectors where they are often implemented as tremendous advancements to systems safety.
 
One might argue that the dark side, just may be as necessary, as the light side certainly is – the yin and yang.  It’s an idea to think about at least.
 
It is my belief that UAS technologies are truly only in their stages of infancy, perhaps even, they are only at the "zygote" stage of development.  What the future holds for them is uncertain but I have strong suspicion that autonomous or pseudo-autonomous aircraft systems are on the horizon.  What impact this might have upon the careers of human pilots currently tasked with operating aircraft in the NAS is unknown.
 
Removing the human pilot from aviation systems entirely has become an actuality that society generally accepts as technologically possible and is practically proven.  Although, this concept doesn’t sit well with people considering the consequences entailed in weighing the potential cost of their own lives when giving entirety of control over to the machine.
 
Society generally finds difficulty in fully trusting technology alone to maintain the assurance of their continued livelihood; this is due to a psychological theory described as “shared fate” where passengers believe humans piloting the machine have as much skin in the game to survive as they do.
 
UAS are posed to replace manned aviation tasks in certain markets and are currently transitioning to do so in select hazardous areas where reduced potential loss of life through UAS use exists; creating the double-effect of reduced overall economic operating cost and mitigating unnecessary risk to human lives.
 
However, potentiality of danger exists in removing the human factor completely from complex aircraft systems control.  Reliance on software, machines, and artificial intelligence of which are engineered and/or programmed to make life or death decisions are technologically unproven to be superior to human aeronautical decision making.  Strong ethical considerations of applicability exist regarding catastrophic automation failures and the potential cost measured in loss of human life.

Automated and human interdependent systems which rely upon linked redundancy of one another should be further explored.  There exists across the technology and humanity divide of automation in aviation, a middle ground where we should aim our innovations.  More research and development must be completed before society will entrust fully automated aviation models to maintain their safety.
 
– Aviator in Progress
References
Business Insider. (2017). Drone Technology and Usage: Current Usage and Future Drone Technology. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/drone-technology-uses-2017-7
FAA. (2018). Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Federal Aviation Administration. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/uas/
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. (2012). Public Law 112-95. U.S. Government Publishing Office. Retrived from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ95/html/PLAW-112publ95.htm
Fred, H. L., & Cheng, T. O. (2003). Acronymesis: The Exploding Misuse of Acronyms. Texas Heart Institute Journal, 30(4), 255–257. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC307708/
GAO. (2017). United States Government Accountability Office: Report to Congressional Committees: Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs. March 2017. GAO-17-333SP. United States Government Accountability Office. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-333SP
Zipline. (2018). Lifesaving Deliveries by Drone. Zipline International, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.flyzipline.com/

02 February, 2018

Effects of Pilot Fatigue: Are All-Cargo Pilots Affected Differently?

Without doubt, the accident and aftermath following Continental Connection flight 3407 operated by Colgan Air, Inc., affected the aviation industry substantially.  Tragedy of that wintery night on February 12th, 2009, just outside Buffalo, NY, resulted in sweeping rulemaking changes which increased airline transport pilot (ATP) minimum standards of qualification.  Alongside ATP changes - serious questions regarding pilot fatigue, fitness for duty, and flight duty period safety specifics were raised, and then subsequent laws were enacted to impose regulations upon those areas as well.

Such questions however had been raised before about pilot fatigue, yet, were legislatively mothballed due to the decidedly cost prohibitive economic effects projected to be felt upon the profits of industry.  Unfortunately the pilot fatigue issues were not seriously revisited, as historically is commonly seen with safety regulation in general, until after the cost of 50 lives was realized to be priceless.  Pilot fatigue was largely suspected toward the accident’s probable cause – fact until then of which was not fully appreciated.

Public outlash was severe following the Colgan accident.  No longer would the impacts of pilot fatigue rules be deemed, as were definitively “negotiated unregulated” by industry interests, as acceptable financial justification above that of safety paramount.  Lawmakers mandated regulation in the interest of aviation safety with regard to the present danger of pilot fatigue.  Following the mandate, the new Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulation 14 C.F.R. 117 “Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements” was created.

The FAA “Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements” final rule summary first published to the Federal Register on January 1st, 2012 comprehensively explains (2014):

This rule amends the FAA's existing flight, duty and rest regulations applicable to certificate holders and their flightcrew members operating under the domestic, flag, and supplemental operations rules.  The rule recognizes the universality of factors that lead to fatigue in most individuals and regulates these factors to ensure that flightcrew members in passenger operations do not accumulate dangerous amounts of fatigue.  Fatigue threatens aviation safety because it increases the risk of pilot error that could lead to an accident.  This risk is heightened in passenger operations because of the additional number of potentially impacted individuals.  The new requirements eliminate the current distinctions between domestic, flag and supplemental passenger operations.  The rule provides different requirements based on the time of day, whether an individual is acclimated to a new time zone, and the likelihood of being able to sleep under different circumstances (FAA, 2014, p.1).

Yet, key aviation interests were decidedly absent from the tables of regulation – the “All-Cargo” industry’s interests.  The all-cargo industry was purposefully excluded from 14 C.F.R. 117 regulations due to the expected negative financial impacts upon their business with consideration weighted in favor of the relatively “low” human costs of their business model.  An all-cargo aviation accident holds that some human cost risk exists; those statistically few people that may be impacted by a cargo aircraft crashing into them from above, with of course the added human costs of the few crew lives onboard.

Another excerpt from the FAA final rule supports this rationale (2014):

Turning to concerns expressed by air carriers conducting all-cargo operations, as discussed in the regulatory evaluation, the FAA has determined that this rule would create far smaller benefits for all-cargo operations than it does for passenger operations.  Consequently, the FAA is unable to justify imposing the cost of this rule on all-cargo operations.  The FAA notes that in the past it has excluded all-cargo operations from certain mandatory requirements due to the different cost-benefit comparison that applies to all-cargo operations.  For example, in 2007, the FAA excluded all-cargo operations of airplanes with more than two engines from many of the requirements of the extended range operations (ETOPS) rule because the cost of these provisions for all-cargo operations relative to the potential societal benefit was simply too high.  Based on the cost-benefit analysis of this rule and its past precedent, the FAA has amended this rule to make compliance with part 117 voluntary for all-cargo operations and to allow those operations to continue operating under the existing part 121 flight, duty, and rest regulations if they choose to do so.  As such, this rule now allows all-cargo operations to voluntarily determine, as part of their collective bargaining and business decisions, whether they wish to operate under part 117 (FAA, 2014, p.30).

Decidedly ruled were the nominally lower human costs of an all-cargo aircraft accident when compared to substantially higher human costs of a passenger airline aircraft accident.  An aircraft full of cargo, things, and stuff, was declared less valuable than one full of people’s lives.  It makes good sense; or does it?

The Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations (CAPA) is an industry group with strong alternate conviction against the exclusion of the all-cargo industry from the 14 C.F.R. 117 rule making.  They contend that the ruling actually promotes increased risk of danger to the entire aviation industry.  The CAPA website has a Legislative Issues section with Flight Time / Duty Time subsection titled “Cargo Carve-Out” – an interesting epithet for the all-cargo exclusions – that outline viewpoints supporting an inclusion of all-cargo amendments to the 14 C.F.R. 117 regulations.

Quoted from the CAPA Write Congress section of the website is succinct message on their perspective of pilot fatigue and aviation safety (2017):

Support Safe Skies Act

An opportunity to End Unsafe Cargo "Carve-Out" and ensure "One Level of Safety"

Revised flight-and duty-time regulations enacted recently for our nation’s commercial pilots contain an exemption for pilots who fly for cargo carriers, creating an unsafe regulatory double standard.  All commercial aircraft share the same taxiways, runways and airspace.  Permitting cargo carriers to operate by less stringent regulations governing flight and duty time makes no sense.  After all, pilot fatigue poses the same safety risk, whether the aircraft carries passengers or freight.

Congress is debating legislation to renew funding for the Federal Aviation Administration. This legislation provides an opportunity to correct the unsafe regulatory double standard that exists for cargo pilots (CAPA, 2017).

Below the aforementioned statement is a standard fill in the blanks of personal information web-form for easy automated submission to one’s congress person in support of the CAPA organization’s aim.  Their website had another simply stated quote that engaged sincere thought for consideration, “A pilot is a pilot and needs protection from fatigue whether flying for a cargo or flying passenger airline” (CAPA, 2017).  What is certainly clear of their organization is that they are strongly positioned in the interests of all-cargo pilots to be included in the 14 C.F.R. 117 regulations.

How would such inclusion affect the cargo pilot population directly?  A good question: One might assume that it would negatively affect the all-cargo aviation industry with a pilot shortage due to the reduced duty times placed upon the overall pool of pilots.  Inversely though it could positively affect the all-cargo pilot population in terms of financial wage improvement and quality of life.  Such changes could result in the all-cargo industry being forced with necessitated increases in pilot hiring, thereby forcing increased pilot wages, by virtue of "pilot scarcity" value.  Passenger airlines are currently experiencing such an effect of wage increases due to regulation related pilot shortages.  This fact may and very likely will be leveraged upon by the all-cargo industry as financial validation against their inclusion in future 14 C.F.R. 117 regulation amendments.

The CAPA perspective however seems to be a winning scenario for pilots and the flying public in general – less fatigue, higher wages, and most importantly increased safety.  Yet, there is no such thing as a free lunch, ever.  Someone would pick up the bill – probably the end of the line consumer of which ultimately relies upon the all-cargo industry’s services.  Safety however should never be considered as reasonable sacrifice bargained for financial gain.

As with practically all regulation, government actors’ ears are effectively pulled upon by those which present the most persuasive interests; financial considerations are greatly accounted into lawmaking.  The all-cargo industry was very effective at these persuasive aims; one can easily find such evidence in the scores of documentation and cost-benefit analysis studies found within the Federal Register website Supporting/Related Materials documentation section of the FAA final rule (FAA, 2014).  CAPA has presented their supportive persuasive interests as well.  Only time will tell which way the lawmakers will sway next and, as always - the wheels of law turn ever, ever, ever so slowly.

– Aviator in Progress

References
CAPA. (2017). Cargo Carve-Out. The Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations. Retrieved from https://www.capapilots.org/legislative-issues/cargo-carve-out/


FAA. (2014). Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements. Federal Aviation Administration. Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/01/04/2011-33078/flightcrew-member-duty-and-rest-requirements

Life's Ride Undulates - Swing Waxing Poetic

Desiderata Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible, without surr...