Archive for the ‘Aviation Safety’ Category:
Uh-Oh. Here Comes The Sun.
My mother was a chemistry teacher who, much to the dismay of her chart memorization-minded colleagues, left a copy of the periodic table uncovered on the wall for student reference. I’m sure that period table memorization is just another circle in Dante’s Hell, but I digress. Mother’s belief was that the students would end up remembering what they needed from using the chart. Those that didn’t probably weren’t going to be chemists, anyway; so, it didn’t matter in the long run. Her belief was that if they used information and skills, students would learn the basics in a more organic way than by memorization.
In his book Fate Is The Hunter, Ernest K. Gann describes crossing the North Atlantic using basic navigational tools of a watch and a sextant. Certainly, today’s aviators have it much easier using radio beacons and even GPS. Glass cockpits have replaced many gauges and dials with heads-up displays and automatic computation. Once at cruising altitude, aircraft fly themselves, as some Northwest passengers unwittingly found out. But what happens when these automations are interrupted? Are today’s pilots comfortable enough with the basics?
When cell phones were new technology, people talked about losing reception due to solar activity. Since normal cell phones don’t actually use satellites, dropped calls may have been more the result of the lack of a tower than a solar flare. However, today’s technology is worlds different and global navigation systems do use those satellites to triangulate signals to pinpoint a location. In a BBC News article, author Jason Palmer points out that the navigation systems use signals that are “incredibly weak and, as researchers have only recently begun to learn, sensitive to the activity on the Sun. … Solar flares – vast exhalations of magnetic energy from the Sun’s surface – spray out radiation across the electromagnetic spectrum, from low-energy radio waves through to high-energy gamma-rays, along with bursts of high-energy particles toward the Earth. The radiation or waves that come from the Sun can make sat-nav receivers unable to pick out the weak signal from satellites from the solar flare’s aftermath.”
While Business Week’s Jeremy van Loon contends that solar activity is currently at its lowest point in the century, Stuart Tiffen of Das Welt quotes Dr. Dirk Soltau of the Kiepenheuer Institute for Solar Physics as saying that sunspots seen on the face of the sun in recent months indicate that the star is at the beginning of another 11-year cycle. Using past cycle activity to predict the behavior of this one, “by 2015, more charged particles from the sun will be interacting with the ionosphere in the Earth’s upper atmosphere. This can lead to the ionosphere thickening and interfering with orbiting satellites, Soltau said.” However, Tiffen notes, many global agencies are working towards a solution, including the European Space Agency (ESA), which “recently launched the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS), which improves the accuracy of satellite navigation signals over Europe. … Using EGNOS, signal accuracy can be improved down to 1.5 meters, according to ESA.” And Mark Petovello and Joe Kunches add in Inside GNSS, that agencies are constantly monitoring solar activity and are constantly moving satellites to avoid or diminish the effects of the increased radioactivity. Clearly the global navigation industry is taking the situation seriously and is actively planning solutions.
What does this mean for aviation?
Since many aircraft currently use some sort of global positioning device for navigation, devices disabled or misdirected by the sun’s interference could wreak havoc with the entire system. As antiquated and inefficient as the current ATC system in the United States is, it is less vulnerable to solar activity than the proposed NextGen system based on satellite communications. Now, I’m no Luddite; so, I’m not about to propose that we stick with our current system any more than I would propose that we go back to flying low, following highways and train tracks. The vulnerability of the system does make me a little uneasy, though, particularly given the newest generation of pilots who, while certainly capable, have not been trained to navigate the old-fashioned way. What sort of back-up system do they have in their knowledge bases to deal with an outage of computer navigation systems?
Stay with me now, I’m going to make a big leap.
Colgan Air lost flight 3407 as a result of many factors culminating, according to the extensive NTSB investigation, in pilot error. The pilots’ error was leaving the autopilot engaged when they encountered icing conditions. In response, the US Congress proposed legislation in H.R. 3371 requiring, in part, that pilots “have at least 1,500 flight hours to qualify for a certificate.” To be honest, I’m not sure that section of the bill really needs to be there. Earlier sections emphasize training, which is a more important issue. After all, you can have 50,000 hours of flying tourists in the tropics, but that’s not going to help you in Sweden. It’s not all about experience. Training plays a huge role.
Now, let’s get back to solar flares. How many pilots today routinely receive navigation training using any method other than global navigation or other systems vulnerable to solar activity? Not that many. So, unless we want to find ourselves back on the train, I would propose that pilot training include more navigational basics. It’s not quick. It’s not sexy. But it works.
Safety Management System Debate Gets Hot
As the CEO of a Part 135 / 91 aircraft charter and management company, I can not proclaim to be an expert on SMS. There are people in our industry a lot smarter on the subject than I am because they have taken the time and energy to study, learn, listen, share knowledge, and attempt to develop systems that incorporate the best practices of the collective knowledge of our industry.
What I can proclaim is that Safety is critical to our company. The fact is that Safety is the most critical issue we face. We cannot afford to do anything that does not allow us to operate at the highest level of safety. The group of people I have worked with over the years will tell you that I support them in operating at that level. I have often said, and I truly mean it when I say it, that if we cannot make a profit and operate at the highest level of safety, then I will get out of this business and do something else to make a living.
So, I have taken the time to listen and learn SMS and, as a company, we have invested money developing the processes and taking the time to put a true SMS in place – and, more importantly, to actually use the system.
Our industry and the consumers that use us have not always rewarded those who adhere to the highest level of safety. Some users of our services have either assumed that the FAA keeps our industry “safe enough” or they just don’t care, concerning themselves only with price.
Safety Requires Thought and Time Investment! Safety Costs Money!
The debate has gotten heated over the requirement to have a Safety Management System in place, even in operations that do not hold themselves out for hire. The NBAA Avmgr Forum has hundreds of emails over the past few weeks from flight department managers and consultants to the industry on the subject of SMS.
There are two sides to the debate and some merit exists even on the side that I do not sit on.
Here are comments from the side that says we don’t need SMS in our world of flying aircraft:
- Common sense, good, real training and operational policies that make sense (not policies on what to do when the pencil holder fails) are what we need to improve safety.
- I have only been flying for 38 years and never needed a SMS manual to be safe. It might be a useful tool for larger operations but for a 2-5 pilot ops is simply a waste of time, money and trees.
- Having me write a SMS manual for my three pilot one aircraft operation is a waste of my time, but reviewing a good document on aviation safety and best practices could be a good read on occasion. Such an approach could generate discussion among pilots, promoting teamwork and better understanding of safe decision making… The bureaucratic approach to safety will yield lots of paper documents but I suspect it will do little to actually advance safe operations.
And from the pro-SMS side:
- Many in our industry are making IS-BAO a lot more complex than it needs to be. The discipline of having an outside perspective (auditor) is a generally accepted business practice. It is designed to give you credibility as a leader, not talk behind your back. ”Because I said so….” Is not an effective tool. We do this in the cockpit and call it CRM, line checks, etc. Why not with our overall operations?
- Yes, common sense is king. Commons sense is missing from allot [sic]of issues, in and out of aviation. Sure, he who flies with the most paper is not the winner. But neither is he who flies with the least paper the most competent and safe. It all requires balancing common sense, necessity, need and what really works.
- The concept of risk identification and mitigation is embraced in many industries…. We often like to think we are ahead of the pact[sic], but the reality is most of the world has left us (Aviation) in the dust when it comes to codification of best practices and risk mitigation.
From Dwayne McMurry, our Director of Operations, with whom I have worked side by side for over 20 years, the following observation:
“If I were the owner of an operation that had a flight department with 2 or 3 pilots, I would suggest that the Chief Pilot is not guaranteed to be at my company forever and the airplane, pilots and flight department as a whole would most likely survive him/her. I would certainly want an Operations Manual or SOP of some type and a Safety Management System in place to pass down established policy, procedure and history of my flight department to the next pilot(s) for the future of my flight department.
Sometimes pilots and flight department managers forget they work for somebody and feel they only have to answer to themselves. If you wrote the check for the plane and fly it yourself, that’s one thing. When someone hires you to do a job … most likely, some day, for some reason, someone will replace you and a legacy should be passed on. What better way to do it?”
This is a complex debate that cannot be fully covered in one blog post or article. What I will say is this: that I would not want our company to operate on pure common sense alone and would also not want to operate strictly from the manual without common sense. What about a combination of good common sense and experience combined with a system that establishes processes, procedures and ways to measure safety? Could it be that we need both?!
PBS Frontlines Documentary on the Crash of Flight 3407 a Must See
PBS Frontline’s Documentary investigates the crash of the Colgan Air Dash 8-Q400 flight number 3407.
Reporter Miles O’Brien is a pilot and 20 year veteran of reporting on aviation issues. He gives this story the time and depth it deserves, covering an issue that has long been brewing about the regional airlines hiring and training practices, as well as their dismal pay scales, all driven by the demand to offer seats at the lowest possible price.
No one in the airline industry or the private aviation side of air travel sets out at the beginning of each day making decisions that they believe will lead to a fatal crash of one of their aircraft. So how does it happen, and what part can the NTSB, FAA, DOT and the industry play in doing everything possible to prevent it from happening again?
When is the consumer educated to the point they realize that the airlines cannot deliver increased safety at lower costs? Safety costs money!
This story is worth an hour of your time to gain a better understanding of the issues our air transportation system faces with the economics of safety.
In a world where mainstream media sensationalizes everything and looks for the one minute stories to feed us in sound bites, the guys who have produced this have created a story that will, or at least should, make a difference.
Aging Aircraft of US Airlines: Safety Issue or Just a Service Issue?
A February 1 article by A. Pawlowski of CNN titled “How old is the plane you’re flying on?” says the following: “Few people expect luxury while flying, but these days, even the basics seem to be in bad shape. It’s not uncommon to find your tray table broken, the in-flight entertainment system not working and your seat cushion worn — all of which can make you think, how old is this plane anyway?”
“But for now, the reality for many U.S. air travelers is that most of their journeys take place on planes that have been in service for a decade or more and show it, though in ways that have no impact on their safety – like worn interiors, broken creature comforts and less than spotless conditions.”
Sounds more like riding on the metro rail than flying on an aircraft. Maybe that is what the experience ends up being in the future? Mass transit by Air!
The average age of the fleet of the seven large U.S. passenger airlines – including American, Alaska, Continental, the merged Delta and Northwest, Southwest, United and US Airways – is about 14 years old, according to The Airline Monitor. It found American and Delta/Northwest had the oldest fleets, at about 16 years on average. As of the end of 2008, a small percentage of the merged Delta/Northwest’s planes dated back to the late 1960s.
U.S. fleets are among the oldest in the world, said Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst at the Teal Group in Fairfax, Virginia.
So all of this begs the question about safety and are these aircraft still safe?
Most everyone will agree, as do the experts quoted in the article, that the fleet of airline aircraft in the United States are maintained to the highest standards in the world and that they are safe. The safety record of US airlines have continued to improve each decade due to good maintenance, technology upgrades in the cockpit and better training of pilots and maintenance personnel.
I have no fear of getting on a 16-year-old aircraft operated by a major air carrier in this country and no worry about arriving safely. The professionals who fly and maintain these aircraft are the best in the world, in spite of the bad press of a very few isolated incidents where the pilots are “working on their laptops” and forget where they are.
The Airline Industry is Safe! But what about the experience?
Is the traveling public going to resign themselves to the idea that all they can expect is to safely arrive? That’s all you expect when you hop on the metro rail in any major city.
There is an alternative for the traveler - it’s called private aviation or business aviation and it’s anything but the same old experience!
Fighting Terrorism with Social Currency?
(Author’s note: The following is meant to engage new ideas rather than promote any specific scheme or ideology)
Given the events of the last few months weeks, it’s time to for the aviation industry to get serious with Social Media. This article demonstrates how an alternate currency can be used to severely reduce or eliminate terrorist risk in commercial aviation. Think I’m kidding, read on.
Obviously an airline will not let you board an airplane if you don’t have the financial currency sufficient to buy ticket. Why should an airline let you board an airplane if you do not have social currency sufficient to fulfill your social obligations while in the air?
People with extreme social currency deficiencies are routinely stripped of their rights by a jury of peers and isolated from society for a period of time (where they would not board an airplane anyway). While there are many systems in place to manage the various degrees of social currency deficiency, none appear to be able to identify a terrorist without also violating the rights of non-terrorists.
Human Writes
However, many people are willing to share information about themselves to associates with whom an economic benefit is shared or exchanged. This happens a billion times per week on Linkedin, Facebook, and Twitter – why not among fellow passengers? After all everyone is already connected by six degrees.
What would a terrorist’s Facebook profile say about them? Do they have a lot of referrals on Linkedin? Do they post great work on Flikr? Is their community orchestra featured on My Space? Are their posts popular on twitter?
Should a social currency credit score become imperative to social transactions as the financial credit score is for financial transactions?
Banks and Insurance companies already rely on a highly invasive “Credit Score” to establish financial risk profile as a means of protecting themselves and their other clients. Why wouldn’t an airline use a social credit score to establish a social risk profile as a means of protecting themselves and the lives of their other clients?
Ruse and lose
Sure, the bad guys can adapt to social media as they have adapted to all other measures. The problem is that the greater the size and scope of their social media ruse, the more difficult it is to maintain the ruse. A threshold score could be set to nearly eliminate this possibility. Those folks can then simply opt into the full body scan.
The Paradigm Shift
As the saying goes, the attacker needs to be successful only once, while the defender needs to be successful every time. The concept of a Social media credit score flips this paradigm on it’s head. The attacker’s social credit score needs to be successful every time. The defender needs to be successful only once.
That Wet Sneaker Feeling
You know that feeling in the pit of your stomach when you just know something bad is about to happen? You don’t know when, you don’t know where - you just know it’s coming. I call that the “wet sneaker” feeling. Recent airport security breaches have resulted in some serious wet sneaker feelings for me.
I blogged about air mass-transit security issues on 27 December and 2 January. I no longer work in air mass-transit. However, their reality affects mine; so, I pay attention. Airline security failures have resulted in enormous losses for private aviation in the past and I am concerned that they will again.
We all remember the September 11 attacks with sickening clarity. Even typing the words, I find myself feeling nauseated. At 9:30 AM that morning, the FAA issued a nationwide ground stop followed by instructions to airborne aircraft to land at the nearest airport. On September 12, the ground stop was slowly lifted, allowing air carriers, both scheduled and unscheduled, back in the sky. That same day, aviation insurance underwriters began canceling all War Risk coverage. At 4:00 PM on September 14, the ground stop was lifted for general aviation flights operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). Although no general aviation aircraft were involved in the attacks, they were grounded for 78.5 hours. War Risk coverage was eventually offered again at an increased rate. In the case some of our aircraft, the rate increased by about 100%. Many small operators closed their doors.
I’m sure I’m not the only person who saw a causal relationship there. To be honest, I started this article with the angle of “air mass-transit security failure = loss of life and property = higher insurance premiums = business closures.” Recently, I spoke with our insurance agent, Tom Chappell of CS&A Insurance, who destroyed my theory with facts. With 35 years of experience, Tom has forgotten more about aviation insurance than I’ll ever know. Even before the attacks, he noted an aviation underwriting trend towards a hardening market. The market was already moving towards to higher premiums. The attacks just accelerated the process which was, in Tom’s words, “like hitting a slice into the wind – it just exacerbates the slice.” But, insurance premiums weren’t the only costs that went through the roof- fuel prices also soared. Adequately capitalized operators with good business plans had a tough time of it; but, under capitalized operators and those with poor business plans shut down. It’s industrial evolution, I suppose: The survival of the fittest. (Somehow this process doesn’t apply to air mass-transit, but Allen Howell addressed that on Friday.) Time passed. Fuel costs decreased to near pre-attack rates. Aviation insurance underwriters calmed down and reversed some of the drastic rate increases that were knee-jerk reactions to the attacks. The market softened.
The last 18 months have been very difficult for private aviation. Charter operations and corporate flight departments have disappeared. Many previously strong operations are foundering. Extremists are exploiting gaps in security for air mass-transit and, according to Tom Chappell, the insurance market is beginning to harden again. Enter the wet sneaker feeling.
Aviation as a whole is a fluid and volatile industry. There are cycles of highs and lows that sometimes change with little warning. The industry is vulnerable to outside changes over which it has little or no control – things like fuel costs, insurance, employee benefits, government policy and regulation. Private aviation accidents and incidents have an inconsequential effect on air mass-transit. However, in stark contrast, air mass-transit accidents and incidents can have catastrophic effects on private aviation.
I seriously doubt that any general aviation contingent will be invited to participate in the decision-making process concerning new airport security procedures, even though our livelihoods may depend on it. So, until we effectively band together, we eat our Tums, write our legislators and live with wet sneakers.
Tales From the Ticket Counter – Just When You Thought It Was Safe, Furthermore..
Last Sunday, prompted by the attempted bombing on Christmas, I shared with you two stories of passengers bringing banned items through security and trying to board the aircraft with them. I posited that “(t)otal aircraft security means body scans, Tyveck suits, no carry-on or checked luggage.” I was half kidding, but only half.
A reader offered arguments supporting the use of body scanners, pointing out that if she is not wearing anything metallic: “I am able to walk through the MAGNETOMETER with the plastic explosives or liquid explosives secured to my waist. WHY, because I did not beep.” She goes further to point out that even if she is manually searched, the agent would not find any explosives because the “agent first runs the hand wand over her watch to ensure the wand beeps and is properly working; she then runs it the proper distance over my entire body. She is only allowed to physically touch the area of my body sets off the hand wand. And to ensure she does not OFFEND me, she must touch the beeping source with the back of her hand to ensure it is not a weapon.” Because of the obvious weaknesses in the present system, the reader volunteers: “I want to be body scanned! I do not care if a TSA agent anywhere in the world knows that I am lying about my weight!”
On December 29, John Schwartz noted in The New York Times that the use of body scanners raises serious privacy issues. Schwartz quoted Representative Jason Chaffetz as saying: “The big question to our country is how to balance the need for personal privacy with the safety and security needs of our country…..I’m on an airplane every three or four days; I want that plane to be as safe and secure as possible,” Mr. Chaffetz said. However, he added, “I don’t think anybody needs to see my 8-year-old naked in order to secure that airplane.” Perhaps, but that is applying the American ethos to other cultures. That hasn’t worked before and I don’t see it suddenly working now. We might not use a child as a soldier, but, look in the news. It happens every day.
So, the question that comes to mind for me is, “How much privacy can individuals expect when traveling on a public transport?” I’m a utilitarian, a big believer in “the greatest good for the greatest number,” and I don’t think that giving up some privacy is necessarily a slippery slope and a danger to American civil liberties. I don’t think that a body scan necessarily leads to martial law, unrestrained wire tapping and fascism. Admittedly, the scans could conceivably be posted to the internet; however, technology and policies are already in place to preclude those occurrences. Schwartz’s article quotes Kristin Lee, a spokeswoman for the TSA, as saying that: “Depending on the specific technology used, faces might be obscured or bodies reduced to the equivalent of a chalk outline. Also, the person reviewing the images must be in a separate room and cannot see who is entering the scanner. The machines have been modified to make it impossible to store the images,” Ms. Lee said, and the procedure “is always optional to all passengers.” Anyone who refuses to be scanned “will receive an equivalent screening”: a full pat-down.”
This reminds me of travelling through the Orlando International Airport with my mother who, in the last stages of lymphoma, was confined to a wheelchair. We took the wheelchair through security, with the agents performing all of the appropriate pat-downs. As it happened, Mother ended up being the random person selected for further scrutiny. A fellow passenger saw the inspection and expressed outrage that such an obviously ill woman should be subjected to this somewhat invasive search. Mother didn’t mind; however, the passenger’s comments made me wonder who would be a better bomber than my mother? Already terminally ill, what did she have to lose? But what good did that pat-down really do? Not much. The agent who checked Mother was afraid of hurting her; so, although we lifted Mother out of the chair, the inspection was cursory, at best. A scan would have allowed her to stay in her chair, but would have performed a far more thorough search.
If someone is intent on causing harm, they probably will, but that doesn’t mean we have to make it easy for them. Security already x-rays or hand-searches our luggage,and as I discovered much to my dismay at the Santa Barbara Airport, some of those searches are conducted in full view of anyone who cares to watch. We don’t object to that “invasion of privacy” because we don’t see it; it doesn’t make us uncomfortable (unless you’re in Santa Barbara). But the idea of a stranger looking at the shadowed outline of our bodies, which to me seems no more an invasion of privacy that handling my knickers, we object to. I don’t see the big deal, honestly. I have nothing to hide in either my luggage or on my person. Like the reader, I don’t care of a random TSA agent knows that I lie about my weight. I’d rather be a little bit embarrassed than a whole lot dead.
The Runways Still Look Clearer From Alternate Airports
On November 22, we talked about delays at hub airports – like we needed to. You’ve flown through them; you know all about it. We also talked about some alternate airports that are available for general aviation use. Those alternate airports take some of the traffic strain off of the hub airports through which air mass-transit providers are routing more and more aircraft. The risks of running so many aircraft through that finite space are many, including the delays we discussed. Other risks increased by the heavy traffic through those airports are runway incursions and aircraft near misses.
On 25 October 2009, while moving on the ground, a Midwest Express Embraer regional jet and a Northwest Airlines 757 came within 82 feet of each other in a runway incursion event, the Los Angeles Times reports. A runway incursion is “any occurrence at an airport involving an aircraft, vehicle, person, or object on the ground that creates a collision hazard or results in loss of separation with an aircraft taking off, intending to take off, landing or intending to land.” While the FAA ultimately determined that the incident was a Category C incursion, thus, minor since there was “ample time and distance to avoid a potential collision,” according to the Associated Press, I’m sure that the passengers might have classified it a little differently.
Less than a month later, on 23 November 2009, two passenger jets missed each other over the Denver International Airport by 200 vertical feet, according to The Denver Channel. The incident was classified as a Category B incident since it was “operational error” which occurred when the flight was handed off from Longmont Center to DIA Approach Control. The two ATC entities apparently did not communicate well in this situation. The passengers probably never even knew that their aircraft were that close.
No one was hurt in either of these events – thankfully.
Let’s put those numbers in perspective. A basketball court is 94 feet long. A tennis court is 78 feet long. School buses are about 40 feet long. The aircraft in Los Angeles were about two school buses apart.
New York City’s Chrysler building is 1047 feet tall. London’s Big Ben is 315.9 feet tall. New Orleans’ Super Dome is 253 feet tall. The aircraft over Denver were closer to each other than the Saints fans in the nose-bleed seats are to the field.
Thousands of flights take-off and land without incident every single day in this country. However, in 2008, there were 1009 runway incursions. That number is a little alarming; but, to be fair, I must point out that most of these really were minor and no one was in any serious danger. There are hundreds of near-misses annually. Several factors prevent these incidents from evolving into accidents. ATC has some back-ups in place. Pilots may visually see the other aircraft. However, perhaps the best tool to keep aircraft from colliding is called TCAS – Traffic Collision Avoidance Systems. Within a certain distance, the aircraft detect each other and advise the crew on the course of action to follow to avoid the collision.
Runway incursions and near misses can and do happen at any airport or in any airspace. The thing is, the more aircraft you have in a finite space, the greater the risks. Air mass-transit aircraft were involved in both of the incidents I’ve cited here; so, using an alternate airport like Centennial in Denver or Van Nuys in Los Angeles wasn’t really an option. And unless air mass-transit providers reverse their trend of moving more flights to hubs airports, the situation isn’t likely to get any better.
Until then, the way still just looks clearer from the Dallas Executive taxiway.
How Is That Working For You?
Private aviation is feeling the effects of the economic downturn with growing job losses and plummeting business confidence. This has translated into cuts in private aircraft usage; so, many in the private charter brand category are looking for ways to reach the business market in a more cost-effective way. In a departure from traditional marketing practices, private aviation brands ought to be increasingly turning to the web for promoting their proposition as well as seeking out new audiences that would like to find alternative ways to travel. The problem is that although private aviation businesses all have web presences now, many fail to realize the full potential of this new thing called social media.
Since private aviation is considered a luxury, one wonders whether other luxury brands are using social media. According to the Luxury Institute the trend towards e-commerce is already happening in the US:
- In 2008, 33% of luxury brands had e-commerce sites.
- In 2009, 66% percent had e-commerce sites.
- Luxury consumers are individuals who make $419,000+ per year.
- 48% of them are on Facebook, and 14% of them are on Twitter.
How Does Private Aviation Stack Up?
While all private charter businesses now have established websites, generally their approach to digital marketing (specifically, search, social & target marketing) is often sub-optimal and fails to unleash the full potential of this channel and the related technology. This is because the aviation industry has failed to educate itself as to the power of this thing called social media. This is evident by:
- Insufficient senior management buy-in (e.g. formal corporate KPI’s for digital marketing)
- Organizational ‘silos’ causing disconnects between ‘digital initiatives’ and ‘physical initiatives’ – for example the industry continues to use old media channels and chases the same old audience rather than trying to expand the audience.
- Lack of clarity around the objectives (selling vs branding vs engaging) – this then reflects as a lack of an online strategy, leading to confusion and a total lack of knowledge and understanding
- Small marketing budgets, if any, allocated for online activities while still using expensive off-line channels to message a shrinking market of listeners
- Within the online budget, poor use of distribution tools and conversational content. The Aviation Industry needs education on various other channels that would produce much better outcomes (such as search and social).
- A tendency to consider this thing called social media as something buyers of charter service don’t use. Wrong again, the largest adoption of this new technology is from people in the age bracket of 45 – 55 and their average income is in the high six figures. Does that sound like a market operators should reach?
From my prospective, while the private aviation industry moans about a depressed market, few if any show evidence of innovative ways to expand their market and reach a larger audience. Many operators take the attitude that their service is too costly for the larger audience. Really? Then how about leveraging a larger user base, fill your seats and subsequently lower your cost per seat, per leg? Doing so would enable your market to expand and applying the innovation afforded by social technology would allow you to reach the larger audience efficiently and effectively.
There is an old saying “If you keep doing what you’ve always done you’ll get what you’ve always got but today you’ll get less.” How are those old ways working for you? Not good huh? Then innovate!
Auditing To Keep You From Being Snakebit
On Wednesday and Friday of last week , we shared with you the importance of safety in aviation operations, which (let’s be honest) is a little like sharing the importance of using seat belts in automobiles – it’s something you already know, at least subconsciously. The question that logically follows is: how do I tell if an operator is safe?
When you walk into the terminal at Kansas City International Airport to buy a ticket, you can chose from the Delta, United, American or Frontier ticket counters. You base your purchase on price, route structure and, maybe, frequent flyer miles; but, you get pretty much the same level of safety with each carrier. The FAA enforces a baseline level of safety among all carriers – scheduled or unscheduled. When choosing a charter operator, you want more than baseline safety practices and there are operators who provide it. so, how do you pick those operators out of the thousands currently operating in the US?
Enter aviation auditing firms. The two largest are the Aviation Research Group / U.S., Inc. and Wyvern, Ltd. As a potential client, you may contact one of the firms to vet the safety practices of an operator whose services interest you. The auditing firm then descends upon the operator and inspects their processes, procedures and practices. Auditing firm inspectors are aviation professionals with decades of experience in aircraft maintenance and operations, or in government oversight with the FAA or NTSB. When they inspect an operation, they leave no stone unturned. Based on their findings, they either issue a rating to the operator or give the operator an action list which must be completed to earn a rating. ARG/US has a three-tiered rating system – Gold, Gold Plus and Platinum – and offers a Trip Cheq service you can use to look at your carrier a little more closely. Wyvern offers a single rating called simply a recommendation - the operator either passes or fails. They also offer a Pass Ready service for a closer look. Each auditing firm offers more operator ratings reports on their websites.
Now, just because an operator doesn’t hold one of these ratings doesn’t necessarily mean that the operation is less safe than the next guy. Perhaps the unrated operator hasn’t had a client who required one of those audits. If an operator does not hold one of these ratings, you can ask them for their FAA issued operating certificate number. You can contact the NTSB to check that certificate number for any incidents or accidents associated with it. If your operator cannot supply a certificate number, they may not be an FAA certified charter operator. They may be a charter broker, who is roughly the charter equivalent of travel agents to mass air transit. Your charter broker should be able to procure the certificate number of the operator whose services they have secured on your behalf. An unwillingness or inability to provide a certificate number or a history of instability in management are giant red flags. In either case, you really need to start asking questions or looking for another provider.
As of November 6, 2009, there are about 2,231 certificated US aircraft charter operators. Of them, 278 hold ARG/US Gold status, 30 hold ARG/US Gold Plus status, and 71 hold ARG/US Platinum status. 372 operators are Pass Ready at Wyvern with 97 holding Wyvern Recommendations. These numbers change constantly; so, be sure to check those websites for today’s numbers. There are some operators who have held high ratings for several auditing procedures. If your operator is one of them, that is a good indication of the consistent solid safety practices you want in the operator you trust with yourself, your family or your board of directors.