Corporate Aviation

The difference between corporate aviation and the airlines can be very different.  It is often said that life as a corporate pilot is anything but routine.  Corporate pilots are often on call and can travel anywhere in the world with short notice. Corporate typically fly less hours per year but typically get paid more than most airline pilots.  Other than the irregular schedule difference, corporate pilots must also do all of the flight planning, calculate take off and landing data, weight & balance data, and are responsible for setting up appropriate ground services. 

Corporate aviation is often misunderstood in the public’s eye. I agree with the statement that corporate aviation can actually save company money.  What a company’s CEO and other executives do with their time can be invaluable and a company that has its own flight department can increase efficiency by traveling privately rather than via the airlines. Corporate flight departments can begin a flight in short notice (compared to the airlines) and travel to many more destinations around the world.  While commercial airline flights serve around 500 destinations, corporate aviation flights serve over 5,000 different destinations in the United States alone.  This means that corporate flights can bypass the busy airports that can cost more time and travel to smaller locations that are closer to their final destination.   Studies also show that business executives are productive 30% of the time while on a commercial airline flight, on a corporate flight they are productive 80% of the time.  This is often due to the fact that company employees can have business meetings during the flight. 

Corporate aviation is not new and I don’t believe that it would still exist today if was not beneficial for company’s to have a flight department.  It is not just major Fortune 500 companies that have flight departments.  Fortune 500 companies only make up 3% of the business aviation industry in the United States and small to mid-sized companies make up about 85% of business aviation.

One corporate flight department that I was able to find information about is McDonalds.  The  flight department consists of 8 pilots that fly a Bombardier Global 6000 and a Challenger 300.  The Captain position requires a minimum of 5000 total hours, 2000 PIC, and an ATP certificate.  McDonald’s flight department is based at DuPage, Chicago Illinois.

References

Business Aviation Fact Book [PDF]. (n.d.).

Donnelly, B. (2012, June 08). Business Aviation: The Unfair Advantage. Retrieved February 12, 2015, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/businessaviation/2012/08/06/business-aviation-the-unfair-advantage/

�FLIGHT DEPT OF THE YEAR. (n.d.). Retrieved February 13, 2015, from http://www.propilotmag.com/archives/2012/December%2012/A2_McDonalds_p1.html

Policies & Utilization. (n.d.). Retrieved February 12, 2015, from http://www.nbaa.org/admin/policies/why/

NTSB Most Wanted

Every year the National Transportation Safety Board releases what is called the NTSB most wanted list.  The NTSB most wanted list is a list of issues that the NTSB believe need to change the most in order to increase safety in various modes of transportation in the United States.  This year for commercial aviation, the NTSB is advocating for strengthening procedural compliance.  For general aviation, the NTSB is advocating for preventing loss of control in flight.

I believe that it is undeniable that these two issues are in fact significant problems.  According to NTSB data, over 40 percent of the general aviation fatal accidents between 2001 and 2010 were due to loss of control (Namowtz, 2013).  The loss of control can be due to a variety of reasons such as spatial disorientation, improper stall/spin recovery procedures, and many others.

In the commercial aviation industry, procedural compliance is at the top of the NTSB’s most wanted list. Again, I do believe that this is for a good reason and that it is a significant problem today.  In order to consistently conduct flights as safely as possible, it is important for pilots to follow procedures proven procedures that have been set in place such as running checklists, making call-outs, and monitoring flight instruments. Every airline has standard operating procedures set in place for various different circumstances.  Theses are procedures that pilots are required to follow in order to keep all flights as uniform as possible.  Skipping a procedure or improperly running a checklist item can result in a fatal accident. One example that is listed in the by the NTSB is the crash of Asiana Airlines flight 214 when the pilots improperly conducted the approach procedure and failed to monitor their instruments properly resulting in the accident (Croft, 2013).  I believe that the failure to follow procedures is the greatest negative factor impacting commercial aviation today.  

I believe that the greatest factor that is negatively impacting general aviation right now is poor aeronautical decision-making (ADM) and lack of judgment by pilots. More than 75 percent of general aviation accidents are the result of pilot error (Ison, 2005).  A prime example of this is recently made national news when a pilot in a Cessna 150 crashed in Colorado.  The pilot was allegedly taking pictures while conducting night time take off and landings at an airport was reporting Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) (Cutler, 2015).  This flight should have never happened.  Unfortunately, examples of poor decision-making can be found in the majority of general aviation accidents. 

The recommendations that the NTSB provides in the most wanted list, in my opinions seem reasonable but almost impossible to implement with the exception of aircraft owners installing angle of attack indicators on their airplanes.  The recommendations require the pilots to be proactive and make the changes within themselves.  For examples, the NTSB stated that pilots should be honest with themselves about their knowledge level of stall, and their ability to recognize and handle them.  This is not something that the FAA can implement; pilots must do it themselves. Some things that I believe might work in combating this loss of control issue would be to implement more strict currency requirements and increase unusual attitude and instrument training in private and recreational pilot certification training.  This added training could increase situational awareness in situations when pilots become spatially disoriented.

The NTSB’s recommendations in stopping the procedural compliance issues that have been a problem in commercial aviation, I believe, are fair but incomplete.  One thing that they recommend is that the FAA requires pilot training programs that emphasize in monitoring skills.  I think that this is a good idea but that they should also require more automation training.  In the accident of Asiana Airlines flight 214, the pilots failed to properly monitor their airspeed but they were also confused about the automation in the cockpit.

Since the NTSB is not a regulatory agency, it is up to the FAA, air carriers, and pilots to implement the NTSB’s recommendations.  The FAA and air carriers are responsible for the training of crewmembers and holding them to higher standards must come from them.  In general aviation, much of the problems involve pilots making poor choices. This is more difficult for any rule change to stop from happening since pilots are ultimately responsible for making good decisions, and conducting a safe flight.

References

Croft, J. (2013, July 22). Ending Automation Addiction. Aviation Week & Space Technology, 58.

Cutler, C. (2015, February 04). Did A Pilot Selfie Really Cause This Accident? Retrieved February 04, 2015, from http://www.boldmethod.com/blog/lists/2015/02/did-pilot-selfie-really-cause-this-accident/

Federal Aviation Administration. (2013, July 30). Fact Sheet – General Aviation Safety. Retrieved February 04, 2015, from http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=16774

Ison, D. (2005, August 01). Top 10 Pilot Errors. Retrieved February 04, 2015, from http%3A%2F%2Fwww.planeandpilotmag.com%2Fproficiency%2Fpilot-skills%2Ftop-10-pilot-errors.html%23.VNgPm2TF98s

Namowitz, D. (2013, March 27). Safety committee’s report focuses on loss-of-control accidents. Retrieved February 05, 2015, from http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2013/March/27/Safety-committees-report-focuses-on-loss-of-control-accidents

 Prevent Loss of Control in Flight in General Aviation. (n.d.). Retrieved February 04, 2015, from http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/mwl7_2015.aspx

 Strengthen Procedural Compliance. (n.d.). Retrieved February 04, 2015, from http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/mwl10_2015.aspx

Tennyson, E. A. (2015, January 13). GA safety improving as NTSB targets loss of control. Retrieved February 05, 2015, from http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/January/13/GA-safety-improving-as-NTSB-targets-loss-of-control