GA Medical Reform

The current agenda for medical reform is to waive the third class medical requirement.  This September an amended form of the Pilots Bill of Rights 2 S. 571. introduced on the Senate floor by Senator Jim Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma. Inhofe, who introduced the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 earlier this year in efforts to push the FAA for the medical exemption, said the bill as it stands now would require pilots to do three things: take an online aeromedical course every two years, make logbook entries certifying they’ve seen their personal doctors at least once every four years (and received any needed treatment for medical conditions), and what Inhofe described as “a comprehensive medical review by the FAA” for new pilots. Pilots without medicals for more than 10 years also would need the one-time certification. Pilots with current medicals or those lapsed within 10 years would be exempt. (AVWEB, 2015) Senator Inhofe’s original bill proposed had included exemptions for private pilots from the third-class medical for VFR and IFR flights under 14,000 feet, provided their aircraft carried a maximum of five passengers and weighed under 6,000 pounds.  While this bill had much bipartisan support, the support of the AOPA and EAA, it was strongly opposed by ALPA. The next question I’d ask is why ALPA even has a dog in the fight with third class medicals?  This is where common sense falls to politics and lobbyists once again.

As of October 1^st, the bill has 67 Senate sponsors, if it passes there, it will go onto the House of Representatives. So far only 150 sponsors in the House, so we’ll just have to wait and see if it can gain any more traction in congress. (AOPA, 2015)

I am all for the general idea of this reform, but obviously not for all the meaningless concessions they’ve had to make to appease the critics.  My feelings are this; it just makes common sense that if someone passes an initial third class medical, they’re not blind, they’re not dying, that should be good enough for a private pilot certificate.  After that, it should be up to that pilot to determine fitness to fly, just as it is for granny or grandpa to know or be told its time to stop driving.  It’s so much more dangerous on our highways with drunks, people on drugs, or yes that old blue-hair, than up in our skies where pilots take the task a tad more seriously.  So private pilots flying aircraft under 6000 lbs., maximum of 5 pax, under 14,000 ft., VFR or IFR if they are current, why not?

What I do not like about the current proposal is…not a whole lot actually.  Sure you may get a small percentage of pilots, who will be in denial about their health and fitness to fly, not be honest with their self-reporting, but its about time we have some say-so in our lives again.

This reform is absolutely necessary, I feel this third class medical is simply embedded in the bureaucracy, and they don’t want to let go. (plus it’s a joke)  It’s a good way for the medical examiners to keep cranking pilots through and collect their $150 for 5 minutes of work.  Flying is such a costly investment, with so many hoops to jump through already, why can’t we reduce any burden we can for the recreational aviator?

Reference:

Pilot's Bill Of Rights Changes; One-Time Medicals For Some - AVweb flash Article. (2015, October 15). Retrieved from http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Pilots-Bill-Of-Rights-Changes-Medicals-Required-For-Some-224918-1.html

AOPA, EAA answer questions about medical reform. (2015, September 30). Retrieved from https://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/September/30/AOPA-and-EAA-answer-questions-about-medical-reform

A Chinese competitor to Airbus and Boeing?

With rollout of the of the new COMAC 919 having yet to receive FAA certification, the question has been raised, “will it ever?”  Maybe… possibly… I don’t know.  But never is a strong word.  It’s quite ever for some to say that products ‘Made in China’ items are cheap, unreliable, and just garbage as a whole, what are we talking about? Developed and produced, or assembled?  Most of Apple products, our HD TV’s, watches, hell you name it- all “assembled” in China, but with our U.S. intellectual technology and ingenuity.  Ever drive a Chinese “produced” car? You wouldn’t want to.  Even though they have cloned BMW’s, Range Rovers, and many others, no one is trading in their U.S. or German made car keys for a Chinese knock off.  That’s what I think the overall public option will be regarding the C919.  Now back to “assembled” in China- Airbus began a joint venture with a Chinese consortium of Tianjin Free Trade Zone (TJFTZ) and China Aviation Industry Corporation (AVIC) back in 2008 to create an A320 final assembly line. (Airbus in China, 2015)  So for all intensive purposes, those A320’s can already be stamped, “Made in China”.  Unfortunately until we can rein in our corporate taxes, reduce regulatory costs and undue burden, reduce labor costs (not Chinese sweat shop low), our products will continue to be (assembled) and ever more- “Made in China”. 

According to Airbus’ market forecast (Airbus in China, 2015), China is poised to become the world’s leading country for passenger air traffic, and it already is a major geographical region for the company. With over 1,150 of the company’s aircraft in operation with Chinese airlines as of mid-2015, this represents 50 percent of the market share. That logistics alone makes sense as to why they created ‘Airbus China’. Even still, I’m certain the Peoples Republic of China will sell (force) that C919 Airbus/Boeing knock off to all their Chinese Airline entities regardless of their net profit.  

Should the day come that the C919 receives FAA certification, I don’t think it will have much of an impact on U.S. carriers at all.  IF, COMAC can actually produce the C919 for considerably (and I mean considerably) less than that a B737 or A320, a low cost airline may be tempted to purchase it in order to make their numbers work, but I don’t foresee any major carrier replace their time tested reliable aircraft.  Of those whom chose to fill their fleet with the Chinese made 919’s…I think the U.S. general public will cast their vote with their tickets, and not fly with those carriers.

According to the English COMAC site, “Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, Ltd. (COMAC, 2015) is a state-owned limited liability company, which is formed with the approval of the State Council and jointly invested by State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) of the State Council, Shanghai Guo Sheng (Group) Co., Ltd., Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), Aluminum Corporation of China Limited (CHALCO), Baosteel Group Corporation, and Sinochem Corporation.” (COMAC, 2015) What does that mean? It means that Chinese State owned companies invested in State owned COMAC, to sell to State owned airlines.  The notion that some 500 or so C919’s have already been “ordered” by Chinese carriers, does not represent the true value and worth of that aircraft.  It could be interpreted incorrectly, as though this aircraft is a “must have’.  No…The Chinese government simply “told” the airlines they will be buying them. COMAC also has a “advanced regional” jet, the ARJ21, developed to service the hub-spoke routes in China.  The COMAC website claims the same with their C919 as with this ARJ21- “designed and manufactured in China with our own independent intellectual property rights.” (COMAC, 2015) That’s HILARIOUS.

Other companies (past and present) have tried to upset incumbents with little luck. Japans’ Mitsubishi and Russian UAC have been trying to break into the regional market where Bombardier and Embraer dominate. (SCMP, 2015)

Regardless of the success or impending failure of COMACs 919, I don’t think they will actually be competitive with Boeing and/or Airbus.  It is also reported that due to the actual quantity of components that will still have to be imported to build a C919, the net profitability will likely not be that impressive, and not make it significantly less expensive than a B737 or A320.

Airbus and Boeing have not been too vocal about the C919 roll out.  (Boeing, Airbus Quiet so far, 2014) I believe the Airbus CEO publically congratulated COMAC on their milestone achievement to the press.  Yet both Boeing and Airbus have responded in terms of increasing their respective aircraft production numbers.  Boeing is set to bump their B737 numbers to 52 aircraft per month, up from 42, while Airbus is aiming to increase A320 production from 42 to 46 aircraft per month.   

Reference:

Airbus in China | Airbus, a leading aircraft manufacturer. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.airbus.com/company/worldwide-presence/airbus-in-china/

Boeing, Airbus Group Could Possibly Take On Comac C919 Market. (2015, May 14). Retrieved from http://www.bidnessetc.com/42768-boeing-airbus-group-could-possibly-take-on-comac-c919-market/

Boeing, Airbus Quiet So Far at Zhuhai Air Show. (2014). Retrieved from http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2014/11/11/boeing-airbus-quiet-so-far-at-zhuhai-air-show/

Company Profile Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, Ltd. (2015). Retrieved from http://english.comac.cc/aboutus/introduction/

China-Russia tie-up on widebody jet may get started before home-grown plane makes maiden flight. (2015, September 16). Retrieved from http://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/1858850/china-russia-tie-widebody-jet-may-get-started-home-grown