Originally the P-3 Orion was THE maritime patrol aircraft for the U.S. Navy. It's unique requirement of needing more non-flying aircrew (naval flight officers & enlisted aircrew) than flying aircrew (pilots) and its ability to be land-based rather than aircraft carrier-based made it a solid choice for naval flight officers (NFO). It requires several naval flight officers because of all the maritime capabilities that it provides, such as anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, intelligence gathering, and much more.
However, in 2000, a request was made for a replacement to the P-3 that would have a reduction in the operating and support costs. Boeing was selected with their P-8A Poseidon design, which was based after an already reliable aircraft, the 737-800 airliner. The Poseidon reduced the crew requirement from 12 to 9. Since then, Boeing has provided 13 Poseidons to the U.S. Navy with an additional 16 in production. By 2019 it is projected to have 117 P-8As in the fleet, thus rendering the P-3 useless.
The Poseidon has provides glass cockpit avionics and slightly more comfortability for its operators than its predecessor. As a future NFO, all of the factors discussed previous greatly impact my decision of which aircraft I want to fly in. Since the P-3 will still be in service when I receive my wings, there is a strong chance if I chose maritime aviation I could receive the older beat-up (but still fashionable) P-3, or jump into the fancy all glass P-8A. As an NFO, the glass cockpit interface will help to provide better results at a much faster rate and less mental wear and tear on the aircrew. In addition with the P-8, there will be more flight-time than ground-time due to less heavy maintenance downtime.
As graduation rapidly approaches, I am struggling to narrow down which flight platforms I would like to choose as my top 3 choices to fly in as an NFO. The integration of the Poseidon, as well as the E/A-18 Growler, the passed few years has given me more opportunities, but has thus added to my decision-making problems. Before the P-8A, I had not given maritime aviation a second look, but now I'm looking and I'm kind of liking it. Decisions decisions.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Sunday, March 30, 2014
How are foreign governments buying so many aircraft?!
Because of the Export-Import Bank, that's how.
The Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank) is an independent agency that works as the official credit agency of the United States. The purpose of the Ex-Im Bank is to sustain and create jobs in the U.S. by by financing large and small businesses to turn potential export opportunities into real sales. The Ex-Im Bank operates by providing direct loans or loan guarantees (with tax-payers money) to international buyers, which maintains and creates jobs because businesses have a demand for their products or services.
Although the Ex-Im is designed to help businesses and stimulate job growth, Delta Airlines CEO, Richard Anderson, would argue just the opposite for U.S. aviation jobs. According to Anderson, foreign airlines using subsidized loans from the Ex-Im Bank to purchase widebodied aircraft from Boeing are receiving these aircraft at a substantially lower commitment, that it is hurting Delta (and other U.S. carriers) and affecting the job economy. Since U.S. carriers are unable to receive the subsidized loans from the Ex-Im Bank, the overall expenses of the widebodied aircrafts are much greater for U.S. carriers than their international counterparts. This lowered expense allows their competitors to lower their ticket prices without adversely affecting their relative rate of return.
I personally believe the Ex-Im Bank is a fantastic idea. I believe, overall, it's doing its job of providing more job opportunities for Americans. I would have to agree with the United States Court of Appeals, that the negative impact on Delta and other U.S. carriers does not outweigh the positive impact it has on the rest of the economy. However, I believe a solution can be found to maintain the positive impact and reduce or eliminate the negative one. For example, the Ex-Im Bank can include U.S. carriers in their subsidized loan guarantees, which would level the playing field for all air carriers. Another idea, proposed by Delta, is to completely eliminate the opportunities of subsidized loans for all widebodied aircraft for all carriers. A third option, which would reduce but not eliminate the negative issue, could be to decrease the subsidized loan amount or percentage, which increases the foreign carrier's out-of-pocket expenses.
Overall, Obama's decision to continue the Ex-Im Bank for another three years was an excellent idea, and I am excited to see what happens when a solution is found for this aviation issue.
The Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank) is an independent agency that works as the official credit agency of the United States. The purpose of the Ex-Im Bank is to sustain and create jobs in the U.S. by by financing large and small businesses to turn potential export opportunities into real sales. The Ex-Im Bank operates by providing direct loans or loan guarantees (with tax-payers money) to international buyers, which maintains and creates jobs because businesses have a demand for their products or services.
Although the Ex-Im is designed to help businesses and stimulate job growth, Delta Airlines CEO, Richard Anderson, would argue just the opposite for U.S. aviation jobs. According to Anderson, foreign airlines using subsidized loans from the Ex-Im Bank to purchase widebodied aircraft from Boeing are receiving these aircraft at a substantially lower commitment, that it is hurting Delta (and other U.S. carriers) and affecting the job economy. Since U.S. carriers are unable to receive the subsidized loans from the Ex-Im Bank, the overall expenses of the widebodied aircrafts are much greater for U.S. carriers than their international counterparts. This lowered expense allows their competitors to lower their ticket prices without adversely affecting their relative rate of return.
I personally believe the Ex-Im Bank is a fantastic idea. I believe, overall, it's doing its job of providing more job opportunities for Americans. I would have to agree with the United States Court of Appeals, that the negative impact on Delta and other U.S. carriers does not outweigh the positive impact it has on the rest of the economy. However, I believe a solution can be found to maintain the positive impact and reduce or eliminate the negative one. For example, the Ex-Im Bank can include U.S. carriers in their subsidized loan guarantees, which would level the playing field for all air carriers. Another idea, proposed by Delta, is to completely eliminate the opportunities of subsidized loans for all widebodied aircraft for all carriers. A third option, which would reduce but not eliminate the negative issue, could be to decrease the subsidized loan amount or percentage, which increases the foreign carrier's out-of-pocket expenses.
Overall, Obama's decision to continue the Ex-Im Bank for another three years was an excellent idea, and I am excited to see what happens when a solution is found for this aviation issue.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Unmanned what?!
For people who utilize civilian aviation, the term Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), or drone, is a futuristic nightmare. However, the future is fast approaching and civilian aviation customers need to suck it up, because UAVs are making a statement and are here to stay.
According to The American Bar Association the FAA has only certified two UAVs for commercial use, one by Boeing and one by AeroVironment. Boeing's UAV, the ScanEagle, will be used off the coast of Alaska to survey ice flows and whale migrations. AeroVironment's UAV, the Puma, will be used to monitor oil spills and wildlife surveillance over the Beaufort Sea. Other than these two drones, the FAA has not authorized any use of drones in the National Airspace System (NAS). However, Congress has given the FAA a deadline of September 30, 2015. This deadline requires the FAA to have "safe integration" of drones into the NAS by this date. In the meantime, the regulation of UAVs in the NAS is not very stritc, although the FAA said they would resort to civil penalties if a UAV is caught in the NAS, they are only convicting series issues that result from this breech.
As stated above, it is only a matter of time before UAVs are fully integrated into the NAS. In order for this integration to run smoothly, there will need to be additions and redesigns of the NAS procedures to prevent future issues that UAVs will bring. For example, a solution needs to be found to allow UAVs, ATC, and other NAS users the ability communicate with one another efficiently. From a performance view, the FAA needs to develop minimum standards for "sense and avoid" and separation assurance. These are just a view of the many issues that are involved in the integration process.
These issues are important, but another issue that I'd like to discuss is perception. How will UAVs in commercial aviation be perceived by the general public? According to The American Bar Association, people are already worried about the government "spying" on them with UAVs, and grow more concerned as they become more prominent in our society. People are worried that these drones will be used to collect evidence on people using surveillance and images, then Part of this fear comes from the misuse of drones, when people who are operating them lose control and accidents occur. This was unfortunately the case for a New Yorker, who crashed his own helicopter drone into his own head and killed himself. To the world, drones are dangerous and that paints a negative image for UAVs in the NAS.
Military operations of UAVs has increased the military strategy by allowing more information to be collected before action is taken. For example, the military's high altitude drones are capable of flying at altitudes of 60,000 to 65,000 feet, which makes them extremely difficult to detect. The military can authorize these drones to fly in airspace that is typically not allowed due to territorial issues, but because of their high altitude they are less likely to be detected. These "hidden" drones survey the area of which they are flying over. The information is sent back to the military and now information we never would have received prior to drones is now readily accessible. Financially, drones are less expensive than conventional aircraft, because parts of the aircraft like the cockpit, ejection seat, and everything else a pilot needs is not required since there is no man in the aircraft. This reduction in necessary parts allows for a lighter and cheaper aircraft. However, ethically people believe UAVs in combat are inhumane, because it now becomes man vs. machine, and a machine feels no pain or grief. Personally, I feel it saves lives.
Even though UAVs are still working their way into our society, jobs are already being created. There is an increase demand for UAV external pilots (EP) and internal pilots (IP). Most of these jobs are working for the military as a civilian contractor. Below is a link to a company out of New Jersey who is seeking a full-time UAV operator.
Monday, February 17, 2014
Where do I belong? Organizations right for me.
People who do not get involved in their community are hindering their ability to improve their life. More specifically, individuals who do not join an organization geared towards their interests and career path are shortening the amount of knowledge being offered to them. I'm not saying to join every club and magazine catalog you can, but I'm saying to join a few and actively use your membership.
As a potential naval flight officer and potential civilian aviator after the military, there are several organizations that have the potential of increasing my knowledge of aviation and the Navy. A few of these organizations are Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Navy Times, and the U.S. Naval Institute. Currently, I am only a member of the U.S. Naval Institute and will discuss why it is beneficial for me, but I will also touch on AOPA and discuss why it may be beneficial to me to join. Who knows, maybe by the end of this, and with your comments, I will join AOPA.
According to The U.S. Naval Institute's mission statement, it was created to provide information to those who wished to expand their professionalism and scientific understanding of sea power and other national defense issues. With a membership in this organization, a member receives a magazine subscription to "Proceedings", conferences with other members in the organization and opportunities to meet with prior/current military members of distinguished honor. This organization is a benefit to me because it continues to update me with events happening in my service branch and allows me to access several articles, books, and other media networks through their website to increase my knowledge in my field of work. I am proud to be a member.
According to AOPA's mission statement, it was created to protect general aviation. This organization represents, educates, and secures success of general aviation pilots, which sounds pretty important to me. I used to be a member of AOPA a few years ago, but I realized I never read the magazines and almost never used their website, so I thought "why am I a member?" However, after recently looking through their website, I've noticed there is a lot of information I could have used, but never did. There are tons and tons of documents, quizzes, seminars, etc that are open to members of AOPA. All of which would significantly increase my knowledge in aviation and, more specifically, safety in aviation. As a potential member, this organization can benefit me through several avenues, such as:
As a potential naval flight officer and potential civilian aviator after the military, there are several organizations that have the potential of increasing my knowledge of aviation and the Navy. A few of these organizations are Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Navy Times, and the U.S. Naval Institute. Currently, I am only a member of the U.S. Naval Institute and will discuss why it is beneficial for me, but I will also touch on AOPA and discuss why it may be beneficial to me to join. Who knows, maybe by the end of this, and with your comments, I will join AOPA.
According to The U.S. Naval Institute's mission statement, it was created to provide information to those who wished to expand their professionalism and scientific understanding of sea power and other national defense issues. With a membership in this organization, a member receives a magazine subscription to "Proceedings", conferences with other members in the organization and opportunities to meet with prior/current military members of distinguished honor. This organization is a benefit to me because it continues to update me with events happening in my service branch and allows me to access several articles, books, and other media networks through their website to increase my knowledge in my field of work. I am proud to be a member.
According to AOPA's mission statement, it was created to protect general aviation. This organization represents, educates, and secures success of general aviation pilots, which sounds pretty important to me. I used to be a member of AOPA a few years ago, but I realized I never read the magazines and almost never used their website, so I thought "why am I a member?" However, after recently looking through their website, I've noticed there is a lot of information I could have used, but never did. There are tons and tons of documents, quizzes, seminars, etc that are open to members of AOPA. All of which would significantly increase my knowledge in aviation and, more specifically, safety in aviation. As a potential member, this organization can benefit me through several avenues, such as:
- Pilot insurance
- Seminars for safety, landings, ifr, etc.
- Easily accessible UPDATED information (regulations, runway environments, etc)
- Discounts are services and products
- Flight planning aids
All of these benefits, plus a magazine subscription to AOPA Pilot, are only $45/year. Personally, I think I just convinced myself to rejoin AOPA. I hope I also sparked the desire in you as well!
Monday, February 3, 2014
Professional Pilots...Are they really pro's?
The "normal" citizen who is not equipped with the basic knowledge of the aviation community, is typically unaware of who is actually flying their plane. Now, you're probably thinking, "people are not going to be able to meet every captain that flies their plane," but that's not what I'm referring to. What I mean is, they don't know the amount of training that goes into becoming a pilot and, nowadays, the minimum requirements that must be met by pilots just to receive a regional pilot position. Prior to the Colgan accident, pilot picked up regional airline positions and called themselves "professionals" with cumulative flight hours as low as 400 hours, but were they really professionals? I will touch of this later in my discussion.
People often say to me, "Barabe, what is your ultimate goal in aviation?" Well, I plan to make a career flying in the Navy. If you didn't already know, flight jobs in the Navy don't last forever, eventually I will be placed in a complete administrative position and no longer have the opportunity to fly. For the sake of time, I am only going to discuss, what I would like to have as my last flight job in the United States Navy. Also, I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate on description of my "company" (Mrs. Wall I hope you understand).
Regarding my flight career, I would like to end up in an F/A-18 Super Hornet squadron. At this point in my career (if all goes well), I presume I will be the Commanding Officer (CO) of the squadron. As CO, I would fly a little, but but a lot of paperwork needs to be done. In this position, I would be responsible for implementing safe operating procedures and ensuring all Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization (NATOPS) and FAA regulations are being met. This is all in addition to having a flight job as well. On days I am required to fly I will need to brief all aircrew involved with the mission and flight and execute the flight, which may be located in a hostile environment.
A couple safety concerns I foresee arising when I reach this point in my career are previous conditions the relieved CO left me with and the attitude "mission over safety." As an incoming CO, I have no clue what type of working environment the previous CO left the squadron in. Since every person has their own way of running things, I may not accept his ways. For example, he may have a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it policy," which allows his maintenance personnel to have more time on the big problems and blow off little problems. I wouldn't be okay with that, because it's the little problems that create big problems and I would need to work hard to change that attitude he instilled. A big issue that worries me is pilots thinking the mission is more important than safety. Yes, the mission a pilot's top priority, but if that pilot dies, the mission dies with him. Now this would be a more difficult fix, because my boss could be breathing down my neck to execute the mission in unsafe conditions, which would require me to make the decision whether or not I want to piss him off or not.
As promised, I am coming back to the discussion regarding professionalism. In my opinion, professionalism is being able to provide a desirable attitude, commitment, and skill set when faced with adversity even in the most difficult of scenarios. Let's focus on a scenario to better understand this definition. Take the incident regarding the captain who forged the weight & balance so they can continue with the flight. The captain lacked professionalism, because he didn't have the commitment to safety to make the correct and safe "no-go" decision. Instead, he proved his skill-set was enough to execute the mission. Having one of these traits is not enough. Another issue that continues to show a lack in professionalism is the big airline's lack of commitment to it's regional counterparts. More specifically, I am referring to the clause that allows them to refrain from being responsible when an accident occurs at the regional level. This shows a lack of commitment to its customers, its employees, and safety. It also shows an undesirable attitude, as if all they care about is themselves.
If my time comes to be CO on an aviation squadron, I have a few ideas that will help me develop professionally. One, possibly the most doable, is constantly expanding my knowledge of aviation. Whether it's reading a book on accidents to learn what went wrong, or actually flying the aircraft and trying to learn something knew from every flight. Another method to improve professionalism, is maintain a positive attitude in the toughest of times. Granted, this one is much more difficult to do, but practice makes perfect and if I am able to control my attitude in any given situation, I could potentially control my attitude in the event a major event occurs in mid-flight.
People often say to me, "Barabe, what is your ultimate goal in aviation?" Well, I plan to make a career flying in the Navy. If you didn't already know, flight jobs in the Navy don't last forever, eventually I will be placed in a complete administrative position and no longer have the opportunity to fly. For the sake of time, I am only going to discuss, what I would like to have as my last flight job in the United States Navy. Also, I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate on description of my "company" (Mrs. Wall I hope you understand).
Regarding my flight career, I would like to end up in an F/A-18 Super Hornet squadron. At this point in my career (if all goes well), I presume I will be the Commanding Officer (CO) of the squadron. As CO, I would fly a little, but but a lot of paperwork needs to be done. In this position, I would be responsible for implementing safe operating procedures and ensuring all Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization (NATOPS) and FAA regulations are being met. This is all in addition to having a flight job as well. On days I am required to fly I will need to brief all aircrew involved with the mission and flight and execute the flight, which may be located in a hostile environment.
A couple safety concerns I foresee arising when I reach this point in my career are previous conditions the relieved CO left me with and the attitude "mission over safety." As an incoming CO, I have no clue what type of working environment the previous CO left the squadron in. Since every person has their own way of running things, I may not accept his ways. For example, he may have a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it policy," which allows his maintenance personnel to have more time on the big problems and blow off little problems. I wouldn't be okay with that, because it's the little problems that create big problems and I would need to work hard to change that attitude he instilled. A big issue that worries me is pilots thinking the mission is more important than safety. Yes, the mission a pilot's top priority, but if that pilot dies, the mission dies with him. Now this would be a more difficult fix, because my boss could be breathing down my neck to execute the mission in unsafe conditions, which would require me to make the decision whether or not I want to piss him off or not.
As promised, I am coming back to the discussion regarding professionalism. In my opinion, professionalism is being able to provide a desirable attitude, commitment, and skill set when faced with adversity even in the most difficult of scenarios. Let's focus on a scenario to better understand this definition. Take the incident regarding the captain who forged the weight & balance so they can continue with the flight. The captain lacked professionalism, because he didn't have the commitment to safety to make the correct and safe "no-go" decision. Instead, he proved his skill-set was enough to execute the mission. Having one of these traits is not enough. Another issue that continues to show a lack in professionalism is the big airline's lack of commitment to it's regional counterparts. More specifically, I am referring to the clause that allows them to refrain from being responsible when an accident occurs at the regional level. This shows a lack of commitment to its customers, its employees, and safety. It also shows an undesirable attitude, as if all they care about is themselves.
If my time comes to be CO on an aviation squadron, I have a few ideas that will help me develop professionally. One, possibly the most doable, is constantly expanding my knowledge of aviation. Whether it's reading a book on accidents to learn what went wrong, or actually flying the aircraft and trying to learn something knew from every flight. Another method to improve professionalism, is maintain a positive attitude in the toughest of times. Granted, this one is much more difficult to do, but practice makes perfect and if I am able to control my attitude in any given situation, I could potentially control my attitude in the event a major event occurs in mid-flight.
Monday, January 27, 2014
NTSB Most Wanted
There comes a time, when repeated problems with similar themes are no longer tolerated as acceptable risk and action needs to be taken. For any correction to occur, there needs to be someone (organization, individual, etc.) to take action against the matter. In this discussion, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is the "someone" who is actively taking action on the problem. The two problems that will be discussed are General Aviation's ineffective use of identifying and communicating hazardous weather, and the issues faced with helicopter operations, both of which fall under the NTSB's most wanted list.
The issue revolved around helicopter operations is that regardless of weather, time of day, or stressful environments, helicopter operators are of high demand. High demand requires more operations in not ideal conditions, thus increasing the margin for error. For example, if a helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) pilot is responding to a medical emergency, weather becomes a lesser factor in the "go no-go" decision process, because other outside factors are now involved. Such as, severity of emergency and available supplemental aid for the victim. These types of flights are recipes for disaster, because the combination factors like stressful flights environment, poor weather, and time management all contribute to operational failure.
I believe that with the increasing utilization of helicopters over the past few decades, this problem is very significant and important to discuss, as we can simply see by the NTSB placing it as number one on it's Most Wanted List for 2013. We have seen through the ages that the helicopter was a daring device used relatively little compared to the airplane, but has grown to be a very productive system in the aviation community. With it's increasing use and high demand, the NTSB is doing the right thing to formulate a solution to the growing problem, because if helicopter operations continue to increase but there is nothing done about the underlying issues, we may face greater casualty rates that otherwise could have been prevented.
Both of these topics create foreseeable job opportunities. In regards to the general aviation issue, the efforts that are being put forth by the NTSB discussed in the "What Can be Done" section will require a lot of man-power from the management side of the house. Potential jobs that can be created are management and pilot positions that deal with pilot training, more so for "pilots to be" (student pilots in training), since a lot of this occurs in general aviation where proficiency training is not continuously conducted. A few examples of the jobs being created are people who will update the required knowledge in weather briefing expected from upcoming pilots. Additional flight instructor's will need training on how to train their students to meet these expectations, so those individuals who are training the instructors (typically chief instructors) will see an increase in job opportunities.
The helicopter safety issue will create job opportunities for pilots, manufacturers, and management. The NTSB's plan is to incorporate key stake holders of these departments into formulating a more safe operating environment. Jobs in the manufactures field will be focused around the development of new safety management functions onboard the aircraft. Management will focus heavily on developing/improving new safety risk management procedures and operations. With each of these changes comes with repetition to instill good habits for when the situation arises. This brings us to the increase in pilot demand, because an increase in flight hours typically requires more pilots; test pilots, instructor pilots, and simply just pilots, so that pilots are not pushing either their limits or the minimum limits set forth in the FARs. Correcting both of these safety issues will be a positive experience for both the job economy and the safety and welfare of the aviation community and its occupants.
The issue revolved around helicopter operations is that regardless of weather, time of day, or stressful environments, helicopter operators are of high demand. High demand requires more operations in not ideal conditions, thus increasing the margin for error. For example, if a helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) pilot is responding to a medical emergency, weather becomes a lesser factor in the "go no-go" decision process, because other outside factors are now involved. Such as, severity of emergency and available supplemental aid for the victim. These types of flights are recipes for disaster, because the combination factors like stressful flights environment, poor weather, and time management all contribute to operational failure.
I believe that with the increasing utilization of helicopters over the past few decades, this problem is very significant and important to discuss, as we can simply see by the NTSB placing it as number one on it's Most Wanted List for 2013. We have seen through the ages that the helicopter was a daring device used relatively little compared to the airplane, but has grown to be a very productive system in the aviation community. With it's increasing use and high demand, the NTSB is doing the right thing to formulate a solution to the growing problem, because if helicopter operations continue to increase but there is nothing done about the underlying issues, we may face greater casualty rates that otherwise could have been prevented.
Both of these topics create foreseeable job opportunities. In regards to the general aviation issue, the efforts that are being put forth by the NTSB discussed in the "What Can be Done" section will require a lot of man-power from the management side of the house. Potential jobs that can be created are management and pilot positions that deal with pilot training, more so for "pilots to be" (student pilots in training), since a lot of this occurs in general aviation where proficiency training is not continuously conducted. A few examples of the jobs being created are people who will update the required knowledge in weather briefing expected from upcoming pilots. Additional flight instructor's will need training on how to train their students to meet these expectations, so those individuals who are training the instructors (typically chief instructors) will see an increase in job opportunities.
The helicopter safety issue will create job opportunities for pilots, manufacturers, and management. The NTSB's plan is to incorporate key stake holders of these departments into formulating a more safe operating environment. Jobs in the manufactures field will be focused around the development of new safety management functions onboard the aircraft. Management will focus heavily on developing/improving new safety risk management procedures and operations. With each of these changes comes with repetition to instill good habits for when the situation arises. This brings us to the increase in pilot demand, because an increase in flight hours typically requires more pilots; test pilots, instructor pilots, and simply just pilots, so that pilots are not pushing either their limits or the minimum limits set forth in the FARs. Correcting both of these safety issues will be a positive experience for both the job economy and the safety and welfare of the aviation community and its occupants.
Saturday, January 18, 2014
"Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your captain, I made a boo-boo. I thought we were going to Paris, France, not Paris, Idaho."
Are you kidding me?!
As you can clearly see, the pilots immediately started flying in the wrong direction. Whether the pilots were flying VFR or IFR, it doesn't look as though they were prepared with an adequate flight plan that would help them estimate time, distance, and course heading, because it looks as though none of those items were lined up with the intended destination.
As a fellow pilot and fairly frequent flyer of major airlines, I understand people make mistakes. However, there's a difference between a mistake and simply not caring about your job. Knowing the behind the scenes work and preparation that goes into flying an aircraft and all of the advanced automation in today's society to help prevent incidents/accidents, I firmly believe that aircraft such as a Boeing 747 and 737 have no excuse for landing at the incorrect airport. The reason these incidences occur is because of poor task management and pre-flight preparation. For example, on August 9, 2012, United Flight 4049, a Saab 340 turboprop landed at an airport 10 miles away from its intended destination in West Virginia. Below is a picture of the flight path the aircraft took.
 |
| United Flight 4049 flight path |
When incidences like this occur, it creates several hazards and complications for everyone involved, from passengers to management. Passengers need to find an alternate way to their destination, which may increase they payout and obviously their intended arrival time. Some of you may think, "why is this such a big deal? Can't they just take-off again and land at the intended airport?" Well, yes they can...sometimes, but for an aircraft as large as a 737, sometimes that's not feasible because there may not be sufficient runway length at the incorrect airport. As stated in the following article, http://www.forbes.com/, this was the case for flight 4013, a Southwest 737 that landed at the wrong airport in Missouri. When the plane landed it was just feet away from the edge of the cliff and this was after the pilot executed an emergency braking procedure. After the hard landing, the aircraft was unable to take-off again because the runway was not long enough for the aircraft with the amount of weight on board. Passengers were forced to find other means of transportation to their destination, which was 9 miles away.
This mistakes happen more often than people realize, but usually it goes unnoticed, because it involves smaller aircraft not carrying passengers. Although wrong airport landings are preventable, there are some situations that are more difficult to place blame than others. In reference to flight 4013, these pilots seemed to have everything correctly prepared for. They knew their destination, they contacted the tower, but unfortunately the controllers didn't catch that their decent rate didn't match up with their distance from the airport. Also, the pilots may have known the general airport environment, but both airports only had one runway, both of very similar magnetic bearing. In these types of situations, I would consider this an isolated incident, but for flight 4049, the Saab 340, I feel there were many issues that could have been corrected that could have help prevent that incident, starting with the pre-flight preparation.
After hearing that Southwest suspended their pilots, I applauded them for making a decision both safe for themselves and the pilots. Yes, the pilots made a mistake, but aside from this incident, maybe they are exceptional and dependable aviators. So, I believe Southwest's decision to only suspend the two pilots shows that their management trusts their employees and is willing to put in the extra effort to fix their mistakes, rather than just "cutting the dead ends." The pilots are very lucky that they were only suspended after making Southwest dish out as much money to fix the problem. I am glad that their management's decision was a carefully thought out one, not an impulse out of angry.
Thank you for reading and please stay tuned for further blogs of aviation current events.
This mistakes happen more often than people realize, but usually it goes unnoticed, because it involves smaller aircraft not carrying passengers. Although wrong airport landings are preventable, there are some situations that are more difficult to place blame than others. In reference to flight 4013, these pilots seemed to have everything correctly prepared for. They knew their destination, they contacted the tower, but unfortunately the controllers didn't catch that their decent rate didn't match up with their distance from the airport. Also, the pilots may have known the general airport environment, but both airports only had one runway, both of very similar magnetic bearing. In these types of situations, I would consider this an isolated incident, but for flight 4049, the Saab 340, I feel there were many issues that could have been corrected that could have help prevent that incident, starting with the pre-flight preparation.
After hearing that Southwest suspended their pilots, I applauded them for making a decision both safe for themselves and the pilots. Yes, the pilots made a mistake, but aside from this incident, maybe they are exceptional and dependable aviators. So, I believe Southwest's decision to only suspend the two pilots shows that their management trusts their employees and is willing to put in the extra effort to fix their mistakes, rather than just "cutting the dead ends." The pilots are very lucky that they were only suspended after making Southwest dish out as much money to fix the problem. I am glad that their management's decision was a carefully thought out one, not an impulse out of angry.
Thank you for reading and please stay tuned for further blogs of aviation current events.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)