Prevention is better than cure A gram of prevention is worth a kilo of cure, as your pilot training article (Flight International, 31 August-6 September) illustrates. From my experience, upset recovery training in a simulator costs little on a recurrent basis and can yield dividends as a tombstone imperative. It is treated as a training service bulletin rather than an airworthiness directive. It should be treated as the latter since loss of control events are relatively rare. Surely it is better to be proactive than reactive? Police extreme driving is not often called for, but clearly not superfluous. A recalcitrant aircraft can require extreme flying. Who knows for certain what such recalcitrance should befall a pilot. It could be inattention, atmosphere or wake. The Airbus contribution to the US National Transportation Board inquiry into the American Airlines A300-600 accident in December 2001 shows that it believes the maximum wake roll to be expected and countered with ailerons at 40°. No mention of high angle of attack, with low indicated airspeed and aileron bite. This is a "we-know-best philosophy". Boeing continues its philosophy of designing the aircraft around the lowest common denominator - the pilot. Assume the worst to make the best is a sound design philosophy. David Connolly Brussels, Belgium
Encourage young flyers Once more the European Commission has thrown a spanner in the works of the aviation industry (Flight International, 21-27 September). The closure of local airfields would have disastrous effects. This policy is not being flown by pilots, it is being driven by insurance companies. General aviation has operated into unregulated airstrips for years, with a better safety record than some airlines. The comment about meteorological information is fatuous: you can get reliable forecasts at the departure aerodrome and update them on radio. Let us issue these bureaucrats, who probably don't know a fuselage from a fusilier, with a Sigmet before they strangle private flying and discourage young people from taking it up. Steven Stott Thornton Heath, Surrey, UK
707 copies? Maurice Hendry does not seem to have learned much from his readings of technical journals since 1942, if his assertion that all Airbus airliners are "blatant copies of the original 707 concept" is anything to go by (Flight International, 31 August-6 September). I wonder, in any event, what "concept" he may have had in mind. If he means the jet airliner per se, Boeing, with the 707, was third into that particular arena. If he means, as I suspect, the superficial similarity of podded jet engines mounted under wings, I suggest he goes and has a closer look at the Messerschmitt Me 262. Tony Kilbride Newdigate, Surrey, UK
Hypocrisy? Thank you for publishing my letter defending Boeing from the virulent "sneer and smear" attacks by Airbus (Flight International, 31 August-6 September). This is clearly a combination of subsidised commercial ploy, plus the usual anti-American paranoia in continental Europe. Airbus attempts to answer the US charge of massive subsidies by claiming that Boeing gets the equivalent in the form of so-called "indirect subsidies" - that is government orders for military aircraft. This is a phoney argument. They are quite as legitimate as commercial orders. Airbus's hypocrisy is shown by its recent entries into the military field in addition to its existing commercial activities. Maurice Hendry Auckland, New Zealand
Foiling threats One potential way of avoiding the shootdown of a commercial airliner would be for fighter aircraft to have the capability to remotely trigger the dumping of most of the fuel of a hijacked airliner. Fuel is the warhead of an airliner commandeered as a cruise missile. Without a warhead, any weapon is severely degraded in its destructive impact. John Chevedden Redondo Beach, California, USA
Chicken date You report that Thailand is offering Russia 250,000t of chicken meat for six Sukhoi Su-30 multi-role fighters (Flight International, 7-13 September). Shouldn't this have been published on 1 April? Andrew Nicodemo Warriewood, New South Wales, Australia
Caravelle not alone I disagree with John Wallinger (Flight International, 14-20 September) about the Caravelle being the only jet airliner utilising a brake parachute. I remember seeing Caravelles and Tupolev Tu-104s in the 1950s and 1960s using brake chutes on several occasions at Copenhagen Kastrup airport. Marshallers, driving Volkswagen Beetles, had a special "basket", in which to put the spent parachutes. Lars Finken Køge, Denmark
Source: Flight International