An Overview of Corporate Aviation: Can it Save Your Company Money?

            If you are from Michigan you will remember well the bailout of the Big Three. You also may recall a headline news story that blasted the Big Three executives for arriving at Washington D.C. in private jets to ask for bailout money. Politicians seized the moment to lash out at the executives in order to show they were fighting for the average Joe whose tax money was going to be bailing out these hot shot high rollers. How dare they fly luxury jets and ask for money from hurting Americans! And for the most part the average Joe read the headline and listened to the politicians and scoffed at what he believed was blatant disrespect of and disregard for the working class. What the politicians and headlines did not tell Joe was that corporate aviation fleets are very practical and save time and money, all the while providing a competitive edge in a global industry.

            It is true that the face value cost of commercial flying is typically less than that of hiring a corporate jet or running a corporate fleet. However, what businesses can gain by using a corporate jet is invaluable. Time is money in business. Using a corporate jet greatly reduces time spent waiting at an airport where one has to worry about luggage and security lines. This is just one advantage of many that comes with flying corporate jets over commercial. The following is a list of benefits put together K.C. Dermody of the Sherpa Report:

• ·     The loss of time is a major issue on commercial flights. From the long lines, potential layovers and the often longer trip to the airport as well as having to check in early. This can easily add up to losing hours upon hours of time that could have been spent more productively. In addition, security delays can not only be a huge hassle, they can cost more time as well.
• ·      Passengers have to find a flight that fits in with their schedule or can be forced to alter their calendar to fit in with the airlines.
• ·      With crowded seating, there is little space to conduct business and even less privacy. If you had hoped to conduct a meeting or negotiate a deal in private, other passengers and crew are likely to overhear those conversation s.
• ·      Commercial airlines offer little in the way of amenities. Today, food and beverages options rarely include much more than a drink and a bag of pretzels. First class is better, but you still get what you get.
• ·      The risk of lost luggage with passengers separated from their bags is another issue when flying commercially.
• ·      You'll avoid the inconvenience of the liquid bans that come with flying commercially.
• ·      You can travel with special belongings, business samples, sports gear, instruments or even bring you pet into the cabin if you so choose.
• ·      You'll not only have more time to conduct business, you'll have more time to spend with your family and friends by reducing the hours you spend traveling.
• ·      Flying on a private jet projects an image of success. You'll be seen as an individual or organization that is well-run, efficient and can afford to fly privately (para. 5-10, 2013).

This lengthy list does not include all of the benefits provided by corporate jets, but I believe it is clear to see why they are invaluable to the success of an organization.

       Walmart is a great example of a large successful organization that enjoys massive benefits from an organization run aviation department. From pilots to aviation safety managers Walmart has it all, including a fleet of 20 corporate jets based out of Rogers, Arkansas. To give you an example of what a corporate aviation job may entail I have listed the job requirements from an open position in Walmart’s aviation department. They are as follows:

Position Type
Salary

Shift
0

Position Description

·         Acts a liaison for other country aviation department Safety Management Systems Programs

·         Demonstrates up-to-date expertise in aviation safety and applies this to the development, execution, and improvement of action plans

·         Establishes safety and security objectives

·         Manages the development and maintenance of safety awareness program

·         Models compliance with company policies and procedures and supports company mission, values, and standards of ethics and integrity

·         Provides and supports the implementation of business solutions

·         Serves as an advisor and consultant on aviation safety and security

Minimum Qualifications

·         10 years operations experience in safety risk management as a Flight Deck Crew Member, Aviation Manager, or related field.

Job Role
Manager Safety-Aviation

Location
ROGERS

As a management student myself, hiring in as a safety manager would be a great job were I to choose a career outside of commercial aviation. This is just one job of many that corporate aviation offers. Corporate aviation provides the same types of careers that commercial may provide, albeit the number of jobs available is smaller.

      In summary, corporate aviation is a growing business that is invaluable to the success of an organization. For those of us in the aviation industry it provides many opportunities if a commercial job is not what you are looking for.

Bibliography

Donnelly, B. (2013, May 13). Comparing private jets to commercial airlines. Retrieved February 15, 2015, from http://www.sherpareport.com/aircraft/aircraft-overview/comparing-private-jets-commercial-airlines.html

Levin, A., Litvan, L., Dudley, R. (2013, August 14). Wal-Mart air fleet gets taxpayer support for controllers. Retrieved February 15, 2015, from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-08-14/wal-mart-fleet-gets-taxpayer-support-to-pay-controllers

Levs, J. (2008, November 19). Big three auto CEOs flew private jets to ask for taxpayer money. Retrieved February 15, 2015, from http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/19/autos.ceo.jets/

Walmart. (n.d.). Manager safety aviation jobs in rogers at Walmart. Retrieved February 15, 2015, from http://jobs.walmart.com/rogers/aviation-﹠-travel/jobid5502986-manager-safety-aviation-jobs

The National Transportation Safety Board’s Most Wanted List: Improving Safety in Aviation

The National Transportation Safety Board’s Most Wanted List: Improving Safety in Aviation

            It is safer to fly today than at any other point in history.  A great deal of the increase in safety is a result of changing the ideology surrounding aviation safety. In a broad sense, the aviation industry has gone from a reactive approach to accidents that looks to single out lone causes, and transitioned into a culture that is proactive that analyzes the entire system in order to prevent future accidents.

            The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), in keeping with the proactive approach to preventing accidents, has created a most wanted list that singles out problematic areas in different modes of transportation. The link to this list is: http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/default.aspx. The two areas that I will be focusing on are “Prevent Loss of Control In Flight In General Aviation and Strengthen Procedural Compliance” (NTSB).

            There is indeed a problem with the loss of control in flight in general aviation, the first issue I will touch on. In fact, according to a fact sheet released by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), loss of control in flight was found to be the number one cause of fatal accidents in general aviation between the years 2001 and 2011 (FAA, para. 32). This statistic is even more unsettling considering that the rates of fatal accidents over the last decade in general aviation, “have remained relatively static” (FAA, para. 31).

            In my opinion the leading factor in these accidents is a lack of proficiency due to either a lack of, or improper, training. Because of the recent economic downturn less pilots are taking to the skies. This has also led to a lack of pilot proficiency resulting from the lack of flight time that pilots are registering. More and more pilots have found it difficult to keep up with rising costs in fuel and parts, consequently keeping them out of the cockpit. In the NTSB report on loss of control in general aviation it was pointed out that, “GA pilot proficiency requirements are much less rigorous than those of airline pilots. GA pilots are much more likely to have longer intervals between training sessions and longer intervals between flights” (para. 3).

            Further complicating matters is poor initial training methods. Rich Stowell, the first to be designated a Master Aerobatic Instructor, had this to say about training for loss of control in flights:

Take the typical stall training conducted to satisfy the FAA's Practical Test Standards, for instance. The emphasis is placed on detailed procedures used to configure for, perform and exit a couple of specific types of stalls. Treated as an independent maneuver unto itself, the whole ordeal is often enveloped in unnecessary melodrama as well. The actual lessons learned, however, are fear and a false association between the stall and slow airspeed.

Consequently, the student granted private pilot privileges might then adopt what seems to be a perfectly reasonable strategy: fly a little faster to have greater margin against those scary stalls. More instances of flat-spotted or blown tires and burned-up brakes result during landing, as do cases where airplanes overrun seemingly short runways. Yet the blame is pinned on the educationally deprived pilot's improper airspeed control and poor judgment. And rather than dealing with the underlying problem, some flight schools simply prohibit pilots from taking their high-performance rental airplanes to airports with runways shorter than 5000 feet (para. 7-8).

            The recommendations that the NTSB has put forth to combat this issue call for pilots to increase their individual efforts to stay proficient, know the limitations of their aircraft, and maintain training. These recommendations are common sense initiatives that every pilot should be doing on their own. The NTSB fails to attack the root causes of the issue, focusing on the pilot instead of looking at the systemic problems, i.e. improper initial training. Based on the research I have conducted I believe the NTSB needs to perform a broad review of training techniques and, based on their results, implement a nationwide program that seeks to correct improper training techniques. Additionally, The FAA should require higher standards of performance from general aviation pilots by revising the current testing standards pilots must pass in order to retain their certification.

            Of greater risk to the public is the issue of procedural non-compliance among commercial aviation. A study done by Boeing from 1982-1991 found that, “claimed that flight crew adherence to procedures could have prevented more than 50 percent of the 232 fatal hull losses” (Aviation Today, para. 5). Keep in mind that this number does not take into consideration nonfatal accidents.

            The cause of these breakdown in procedures is psychological, and differs from system to system. In an article done by Aviation Today, several theories are given as to why people break procedures:

Actually, there are a number of psychological factors hard-wired into humans that can predispose employees to PiNC. The Modified Situation Control Theory 7 indicates that given a reasonable benefit and reasonable chance that no one may detect the violation and the violator would not suffer adversely from their peer group — there is a far greater than even chance the person would violate. The debatable Risk Homeostasis Theory 8 as well as established social psychological thinking indicates that people are natural risk optimizers and generally tend to overestimate their abilities and to underestimate levels of risk (para. 21).

Although the cause of the non-compliance of procedures is situationally dependent and due to varying psychological factors, there is a way to prevent breakdowns in procedure.

            The NTSB has called for an increase in training for abnormal situations, along with the revision and exclusion of several standing procedures. The proposed changes by the NTSB would most assuredly have a positive impact on the industry as a whole, however I would take it a step further. Organizations within the aviation industry need to constantly review and revise procedures in order to eliminate unnecessary steps and add new ones which could lead to higher safety levels. In order to establish such an evolving system managers will need to be provided with continuous feedback from employees about where they see issues with procedural non-compliance, as well as how the employees feel the procedures can be improved. This is a proactive approach that can be used to enhance systems safety in any organization.

            In summary, the most wanted list put forth by the NTSB takes a positive proactive step towards increasing safety in general and commercial aviation. With that being said, the NTSB does not dig deep enough into the root causes of the issues they have focused upon. If there are changes to be made they must be on an industry level, accomplished through training and education of safe practices. Stephen Pope of Flying Mag gives us the bottom line saying, “U.S. airline operations were fatality free in 2011 and 2012, while on-demand Part 135 operations showed safety improvements across the board. That left general aviation as the lone segment where initiatives aimed at improving safety appear to be having little effect.”

Bibliography

Aviation Today. (2007, February 1). Aftermarket: Why good employees violate procedures — Is it inevitable. Retrieved February 8, 2015, from http://www.aviationtoday.com/am/categories/maintenance/Aftermarket-Why-Good-Employees-Violate-Procedures-Is-it-Inevitable_8188.html#.VNe8Y53F8TU

Federal Aviation Administration. (2014, July 30). Fact sheet – General aviation safety. Retrieved February 8, 2015, from http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=16774

National Transportation Safety Board. (2015). Strengthen procedural compliance. Retrieved February 8, 2015, from http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/mwl10_2015.aspx

National Transportation Safety Board. (2015). Prevent loss of control in flight in general aviation. Retrieved February 8, 2015, from http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/mwl7_2015.aspx

Pope, S. (2013, August 8). Why can't general aviation move the safety needle? Retrieved February 8, 2015, from http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/accidents/why-cant-general-aviation-move-safety-needle

Stowell, R. (n.d.). The problem with flight training. Retrieved February 8, 2015, from http://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/airplane/Flight-Training-Mistakes.html