UAV Industry at Large

The Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) concept was first thought of during the civil war when the North and South tried launching balloons with explosives to the other side. The Japanese also tried the concept in World War I but neither was effectual. Over the decades the concept has been improved to point in the 1960’s when the US developed drones (robots of the sky). During the Vietnam War they proved their purpose in reconnaissance, but today the civil and commercial world has been finding a way to incorporate their operations. Currently operations in different areas of the agricultural industry for crop control and monitoring, environmental control, mineral explorations, coast watch, news broadcasting, and surveillance in high crime areas. Through my research I was quite surprised to find found there are more than 50 corporations, which manufacture UAVs and growing.  The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) held its conference in April to spread the word on the innovative future incoming with robots on land, sea, and air. The AUVSI conference focused on the military perspective of the future and how the drone technology will be the modern battlefield. Predicting the next generation of UAVs to be nano-sized as operational needs push the manufacturers to develop miniaturized systems.

Over the next 5-10 years the industry will expand within the commercial and civil operations as well as produce a new generation of UAV’s. These UAVs will be smaller, affordable, and more precise. The Military is predicating them to be able to detect nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. There are hopes the new technology with help them see through the thick double canopy jungles and provide reliable communication and data across the battlefield.

The New York Times published an article, which addresses some underlying and ethical issues with the rapid involvement and development of these robots to fight our battles. The highest ethical issue in question being, how this technology will change the government’s outlook on war. We are facing a time of the discontinuity between the general public and its wars. Moreover the drones are turning war into a video game where Americans are not at a direct risk. With that being said analyst argue the drones could easily bring the US in conflicts if there is no risk factor present.

For a more civilian side of issues the general public would argue the issue of personal privacy. Privacy is always imminent in this country and part of its foundation. We have a certain amount of freedoms and question in infringement of those freedoms with technology. Day to day we here how detrimental technology is to information, UAV bring the same concerns. As much as they may bring the crime rates down and show to be productive in multiple industries they also will bring up personal concerns. Just as social networks were supposed to bring people closer together and create longer lasting relationships we never thought they would actual degrade interpersonal social skills and one on one relationship. A study done last year shows in 1/3 (33%) of divorces social media played a substantial role not to mention 33% of youth has suffered from a form of cyber abuse and stalking where there are 50-75 cases recorded weekly.  These are the technological issue, which have spiked in the last decade and civil UAVs would bring new parameters to stalking and abuse. We obviously cannot pin point all the pros and cons to the new technology but modern society should consider them. The public would be concerned if they were aware they had been being monitored without them having the knowledge.

The Government is obviously major factor in the development of UAVs and their creation through military operations. As far as the commercial operations the FAA is in the process of developing specific regulations for civilian use.  The prospective career opportunities in the industry are vas and still under development with pilots and technicians. Because the commercial industry is under development the educational standards are undefined and dependent on the company for either of the above-mentioned occupations.  Just by looking on some job posting sites it seems employers are looking for experience within the aviation industry and a bachelors degree, but some require less and others require airplane certifications and an hour limitations.   Understandably if you were looking for a job on the management, sales, marketing, or customer service end of things a bachelor’s degree and experience are needed but the industry is still at birth and therefore the standard is not allowably a standard across the board. 

The Export Import Bank Concerns

The Export- Import Bank of the United States was established in 1934 by Franklin D. Roosevelt to support the foreign policy and aid the financing of exports and imports.

It is the official export credit agency for the United States federal government, which supports companies with purchasing American products, thus supporting the U.S. economy to grow and prosper. The Export-Import Act made substantial impact in the states during the rough times of the Great Depression, WWI, and WWII. The bank was originally a government agency but became an independent agency in 1945, but maintains their principles as to not compete with other private lenders or credit agencies.  

The bank today provides a number of services, such as capital guarantees, also known as pre-export financing, export credit insurance, loan guarantees and direct loans. In whole, the transactions usually directly benefit small U.S. businesses by providing the export financing needed for their products, but the bank is available for all types of businesses such as aircraft, power plants, engineering equipment, industrial equipment, locomotive cars, automobile parts, pharmaceuticals, etc.

In the past the Export- Import Bank has received censure for their ties with aviation due to the close relationship aviation has with the government. The complaints were said allegations against the bank’s performance towards favoring heavily government-subsidized companies in comparison to the Joe Shmoe United States taxpayer. The fact of the matter is the aviation depends on the Export- Import bank to finance the leasing and sales of aircraft, manufacturing equipment, and maintenance parts. As we are all well aware aviation is an extremely expensive business. Therefore, if the Ex-Im Bank is supporting the sales of aircraft to other countries we are looking at anywhere from a couple million to a couple hundred million per aircraft figure.

The Export-Import Bank has a lending cap where if and when reached is the end of the financing services that being said it is clear to see why there would be some complaints from smaller business holders on the larger subsidized companies taking all the financial benefit essential starving the small companies of business. The bank has doubled its financial support over the past four years as the economy has been struggling through a rough patch. Recently though there has been another downfall for the Export Import Bank as the $100 billion lending cap is fast approaching and projected to be reached in the next couple months. The bank has asked Congress  to raise its financial limit, as there are more pros to their existence than cons. Congress has been evaluating and arguing the future of the bank as Republicans push to eradicate the bank. Opposing the motion, the Democrats are finding ways to expand and reauthorize the bank.

The issue is thick in the news today for the wide relevance it has on the general public. The Export-Import Bank finances mainly loans to small business but the large transactions support major manufacturers. Boeing is the banks top beneficiary as the bank finances billions to Boeing annually and will radically impact the company and the industry if there is no supportive financing. Thus understandably Boeing supports the proposal to congress to raise the lending cap. On the other hand, the Air Transport Association of America (ATA) is against the increase and has been raising concern for the U.S. airlines future due to recent decisions made by the Ex-Im Bank in financing recent aircraft orders. In November ATA filed a complaint against the Bank for violating provisions in the Export Import Act or 1945 within a contract with Air India. The U.S. District Court denied the motion but ATA is still fighting allegations against the Export Import Bank.

To find out more about the Export-Import Bank of the United States please visit their website.

The Company

Corporate aviation meets the needs of businesses that utilize personal air transportation rather than relying on commercial carriers for business travel. Sometimes called business aviation, it allows business people to travel as necessary without the inconvenience of scheduling trips around commercial carrier flight schedules. There is not one company, which outlines this definition more than NetJets. Mrs. Wall introduced me to the company NetJets my first year at Eastern Michigan University in a discussion about fractional ownership. I have never heard of this type of operation, but saw it as very inventive and a massive opportunity. Marveled by this approach over the last few years I have made contact with a few individuals within the company to get their opinion. The pilots speak very highly of the company and therefore the reason I chose to base this blog on.

The concept of NetJets, formerly Executive Jet, was first thought of in 1986 by the companies chairman, Brigadier General O.F. Lassiter, to provide a service to individuals looking to have the convenience of their own plane without all the hassles of hiring and scheduling crew, hangaring the aircraft, maintenance, and other operational procedures. NetJets provides the opportune service by taking care of all the background tasks allowing for the owners to literally show up and leave right away. NetJets sells aircraft to the customer in what is comparable to a time-share. Each customer is part owner of the aircraft and enters into a contract upon purchase. The customers have the option between 13 different aircraft types, which can accommodate up to 18 passengers. The company started with just 10 Lear 23s, but today has over 800 aircraft worldwide. The selection includes a variety of Cessna Citations (Bravo, V Ultra, Encore, Excel, sovereign, and X) Gulfstreams (200, 400, 550), Falcons (2000EX and 7X), Hawkers (400XP and 900XP) and newly acquired Phenom 300. These aircraft range from light, midsize, and large cabin corporate jets. NetJets prides themselves in offering the most diverse, safe, and reliable aircraft variety.  Since 1986 NetJets has expanded the operation to 4 companies; NetJets Aviation, NetJets Europe, Executive Jet Management, and Marquis Jet Partners.  NetJets visits more than 170 countries annually racking up over 285,000 flights at 2,000 airports. The pilots average 7500 hours of experience and have simulator training twice a year to refresh their skills. Netjets employs over 6,300 people globally providing jobs to dispatchers, flight attendants, pilots, and corporate management positions as well as the sales and marketing. With our Aviation Flight or Management degrees we are certainly capable of all these positions. According to the website the qualifications for a pilot (which is my hopefully conclusion) are a ATP certification, first class medical, 2500 hours or total time, 500 hours fixed multi time, and 259 hours instrument time. First officers make rough anywhere from $56,000 to $69,000 their first year and top out between $80,000 and $100,000 before they move to the left seat. I'd like to think I'm not too far off but that just isn't with my slice of pie. The flight attendants are required to have safety, service, exceed the expectations of the company, and be open to an ever-changing schedule. There was no other information I could find on the site on information about these positions, but I'm sure its out there somewhere and I will be sure to look for it int he future. 

Reauthorization Influences

In this past month, the House and the Senate of the United States passed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act of 2012. President Obama signed the Reauthorization Act on February 14^th 2012 therefore binding the new rules implementation. The Act funds the FAA $63 billion dollars to through 2015 allowing the FAA to continue streamlining the traffic method with Next Gen technology as well as refining airports and safety.  Three issues I would like to shed light on are the user fees, the UAS development, and the tail end time limits.

Many aviation enthusiasts are supportive of the bill and its motive concerns but not all made it through the political viewpoint. AOPA, Airport Owner’s and Pilots Association, from the General Aviation perspective were very pleased with the new bill, because government vetoed user fees and increased taxation on fuel. General aviation would have to incur these costs and therefore impact the industry in a negative manner and impede on the economic revenue achievable.  As we are well aware here in Michigan the economy doesn’t need any more acquired costs. AOPA wrote an article about their support with President of AOPA, Criag Fuller, stating, “AOPA thanks the Senate for approving this long-overdue legislation.”  From the flight student and soon to be Certified Flight Instructor the user fees could have impeded on flight training student and prospects by raising the flight costs per hour. Therefore influencing the jobs of flight instructors and many CFI on their stepping-stones to larger operations. General aviation is the food for corporate and commercial. Luckily for the most part legislation understand this small but crucial fact.


The Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS or UAV) issue really opened my eyes to the concept. I did not know UAV regulations have been in discussion since 2005 until this assignment. In fact I quite honestly had no concern for the development and production of UAV’s at all. However, as a pilot I did have concern for their influence on the airborne traffic, prospective risks and accidents, and communications. Therefore, I do agree with the development of strict regulations like the other airborne objects. The FAA released a memorandum of the UAS policy number AFS-400 on September 16, 2005 to be used in the evaluation or UAS’s. This policy outlines some current concerns with UAV and the parameters their operations are contained within. I was amazed to find within the policy UAS’ can operate on an IFR flight plan if abiding by certain rules. The Reauthorization Act would revise and develop these standard to include certification standards. The most interesting thing about this new technology is that this will allow those interested in being airborne, but are medically, financially or physically unable, to make a sufficient income being as close as they can get to their dreams. I’m intrigued to see if there will be an age restriction on UAS operations implemented in the new regulations. In short I feel this concern and development will greatly change the industry by opening it up to more options but also giving the skies foreign ground for accidents. Over the next twenty years and the popularity bursts even more I am very interested to see the impact.

Tail end ferry flights are the third issue I would like to address, as they have been a concern for the aviation community for over ten years. The CEO of Air Transportation Association in 2001 wrote an article published by USA Today about the FAA’s lack of rest and duty time concern. She mentions her recommendation to count ferry flights into duty time and rest limitations on all carriers. It amazes me that this been a concern for over ten years and even after extensive research and a major amendment involving rest and duty times takes place the ferry flight were not included. There is sufficient concern from a pilot, management, and passenger standpoint of the intensity these Part 91 flights can cause on the 121 industry. As a result I am extremely pleased to see ferry flight time to be consider in the 121 operation restrictions. Even though there is a benefit and disadvantage to the rule I feel the mitigation on risk outruns the profits and have either the pilot or company.