Corporate Aviation Assignment

           Pilot careers in corporate aviation can differ greatly from the airlines. Corporate pilots are often on-call and work infrequent schedules. They usually spend less hours flying than their airline counterparts, but they can earn higher salaries despite the difference in flying time. The higher initial salaries at the entry level and home-centric lifestyle are probably the most appealing aspects of corporate aviation to a pilot otherwise looking at plunging into the regional airlines. Other draws might be a more varied option of aircraft available to fly, or the possible variety in destinations.

            Corporate flight departments are meant to save the company time and money. They certainly get a bad reputation for being used to whisk senior executives and family around the world, but the almighty dollar is inevitably the deciding factor in whether or not a company will maintain a flight department. Companies without enough need or enough revenue to sustain a flight department might invest in a fractional ownership endeavor to utilize flight benefits without the headache.

            An example of such a fractional ownership operation is Corporate Eagle. Operating out of Pontiac, MI (KPTK) Corporate Eagle is a fractional management company that owns and operates a fleet of aircraft to serve private and corporate clients who either do not want or cannot justify an in-house flight department. They have a fleet of 13 aircraft consisting of Beechcraft 200’s, Hawker 700’s and 800XP’s, and Falcon 2000’s. Salaries start at $46,000 (about twice the average first year regional airline pay) and minimum requirements are slightly more stringent in the hourly requirements than what the regional airlines require, except that an ATP certificate is not mandatory and 1200 total hours is the minimum. It is reassuring to know that opportunities like these exist in the event that someone might not want to go to the regional airlines to build their initial turbine time and build up total time in order to find a corporate job.

References:

Career options. (n.d.). Retrieved February 13, 2015, from http://www.aopa.org/letsgoflying/dream/whyfly/careers.html

Corporate Eagle. (n.d.). Retrieved February 13, 2015, from http://www.corporateeagle.com/

Donnelly, B. (2012, August 6). Business Aviation: The Unfair Advantage. Retrieved February 13, 2015, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/businessaviation/2012/08/06/business-aviation-the-unfair-advantage/

Job Post: Corporate Eagle - First Officer/Second-In-Command. (n.d.). Retrieved February 13, 2015, from http://aviation.wmich.edu/jobs-scholarships-and-internship-postings/bid/355164/Job-Post-Corporate-Eagle-First-Officer-Second-In-Command

NTSB Most Wanted 2015 assignment

             The recent NTSB 2015 Most Wanted List focuses on two aviation-specific topics. The first issue is preventing loss of control accidents in general aviation (GA). The FAA has listed loss of control as the leading cause of GA aircraft accidents. The NTSB cites lack of pilot proficiency as the underlying cause of these accidents. I think lack of training and lack of proficiency are the root causes of the majority of GA accidents, beyond loss of control. The FAA’s list only covers fatal accidents, but AOPA releases the Nall Report annually which provides a much more illuminating breakdown of fatal and non-fatal accidents. According to the 2011 Nall report private pilots were the worst offenders, accounting for nearly half of the total accidents and over half of the fatal accidents. I also found it interesting that an IFR-rated pilot on board (whether the flying pilot or not) was involved in over 50% of accidents. The instrument rating is supposed to make us safer pilots, and perhaps it does as less than 5% of accidents occurred in instrument conditions. If general aviation is having so many problems in fair weather then a lack of training and proficiency has to be a significant factor.
            To mitigate these loss of control accidents the NTSB recommends stall awareness and recovery training, good aeronautical decision making, maintaining situational awareness, and that pilots seek training and currency in the aircraft flown. The NTSB also recommends angle of attack (AOA) indicators as a tool to help pilots identify stall situations. With the exception of the AOA devices all of these solutions rely on individual pilots to pay attention and keep their skills sharp. There isn’t much more that GA pilots can do beyond committing themselves to staying proficient and maintaining vigilance in the air.
            The second NTSB most wanted issue is to strengthen procedural compliance in commercial aviation. The crux of this issue is that if pilots have good procedures, are trained to use them, and then follow those procedures every time, then safety will be increased. Procedural compliance is a significant safety issue, but the accidents the NTSB references have significant failures on the part of the pilots beyond merely disregarding procedures. Lack of situational awareness and poor flying skills seem to be a bigger concern than the fact that a procedure was disregarded. In the San Francisco crash mentioned in the NTSB article the pilots failed to stay on top of the automation and did not recognize dangerously slow airspeeds. In the Birmingham, Alabama crash the pilots did not adhere to their minimum descent altitude during a non-precision approach. These are complacent crews. They did neglect procedures, but I feel the bigger problem was that the pilots simply did not have their heads in the game.
            The NTSB recommends better procedures, more training, and a safety culture. Implementing these changes will certainly make a safe system even safer, but it feels like the NTSB is nit-picking in an effort to try and make even an inch of safety gains. I think that more time hand flying the aircraft, and perhaps an extra day in the simulator during recurrent training to cover extra topics, might be better solutions to the issue the NTSB is trying to resolve.

References:

ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 777-28EER HL7742 San Francisco International Airport, CA (SFO). (n.d.). Retrieved February 8, 2015, from http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20130706-0

Fact Sheet – General Aviation Safety. (n.d.). Retrieved February 8, 2015, from http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=16774

General Aviation Accidents in 2011. (n.d.). Retrieved February 8, 2015, from http://www.aopa.org/-/media/Files/AOPA/Home/Pilot Resources/Safety & Proficiency/Accident Analysis/Nall Report/Nall_23_R4.pdf

NTSB Points To Unstable Approach in UPS A300 Crash. (n.d.). Retrieved February 8, 2015, from http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-10-01/ntsb-points-unstable-approach-ups-a300-crash

Pappas, S. (2015, February 5). Why Private Planes Are Nearly as Deadly as Cars. Retrieved February 8, 2015, from http://www.livescience.com/49701-private-planes-safety.html

Prevent Loss of Control in Flight in General Aviation. (n.d.). Retrieved February 8, 2015, from http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/mwl7_2015.aspx

Strengthen Procedural Compliance. (n.d.). Retrieved February 8, 2015, from http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/mwl10_2015.aspx