FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1931
1931 - 0012.PDF
FLIGHT, JANUARY 2, 1931 CORRESPONDENCE The Editor, does Hot hold himself responsible for opinions expressed by correspondents. The names and addresses of the writers, not necessarily for publication, must in all cases accompany letters intended for insertion in these columns.] WHO WILL OBEY WHAT ? 2355] All concerned with the development of flying arebusily repeating that flying is not dangerous now, whatever it may have been in the early experimental days. Now coniesDaedalus saying that flying will be increasingly dangerous, however safe it has been in the early days of development.I take it that both are right. We have largely overcome the material dangers and we have now to fear the psychological•ones. The aircraft had to be made safe in order to get people into the air. When they have got into the air they willrapidly make it unsafe for each other, unless . . . ? It is really worth considering whether Daedalus is right ornot, and if he is, whether his suggested remedy is not the happiest that can be devised, at all events for the near future.Consider for a moment recent experience. At the most popular air meetings there have been, on one or two occasions,as many as one hundred aircraft present. This fact alone •called for special personnel, careful organisation and thewhole-hearted co-operation of all concerned. It is fair to say that all participants rose to the special occasion. Famili-arity, however, breeds contempt. In emergencies we willingly show a patience that in normal times do not alwayspractise. The skilled drivers on the road, irritated at the ineptitude of the less experienced, engender situations withwhich the clumsy cannot cope. It is human, it is deadly and for some time it appears to have been inevitable. The same characteristics will certainly reappear in flying.There are at present only four aerodromes to serve London. It will be disappointing if, in a short time, there is not anaverage of a hundred aircraft normally stationed at each of these aerodromes. If there were only a thousand aeroplanesat each aerodrome, flying could not be said to have developed very far • it would not even then be comparable to motoring.The modest four hundred aircraft for London, then, already present a traffic problem, and on any route fromLondon to anywhere, a very much sharper look out for other aircraft will have to be kept than is done habitually at present.The behaviour of the pilots quoted by Daedalus is abnormal, but not by any means infrequent. Similar instances can beremembered easily enough by any pilot who has flown during the past year. If a few pilots continue to be reckless, thelaws of chance are against their getting away with it. It is then that the trouble will begin for the others. Therewill follow an outcry against the dangers of flying, and we are a country that can be relied upon to take the pleasureout of anything about which we legislate. We hypocritically pretend that we are a flaccid, timid nation, worshippingsafety first. In principle, a thrill is illegal, because it is dangerous. Consider for a moment how new laws may come about.They may be made to still the squeals of the suburbs, growing like weeds, exclaiming their political consciousness by post-•cards to their members. From similar sources sprang the 20 miles an hour speed limit. It must not be imagined thatthat law exhausted man's capability for making a fool of himself. Urged from above, the Air Ministry will make recom-mendations after punctiliously seeking the counsels of the unejected elders of aviation. Round a table will be groupedthe proud air force, despising its unlovely brother in a bowler hat and disdaining to compromise with commercial operators ;the heads of representative bodies, risking their security •only among the familiar dangers of the ground, readingfrom ill-digested papers, vicariously written ; the sleek managers of the air ways elegantly aloof from the problems•of the ruck ; the bold adventurers of the trade, punctiliously dividing themselves into the humble, unsubsidised sheepand the grand state-aided goats, seeing in every regulation a cabining of their activities ; conscientious, remote abovethis medley and fraught with loss of dignity to the higher •civil servants, hover the technical advisers, voices cryingin the wilderness. By such as these can be made the Kingdom of the Sky for us suffering little children. We cannot discount the threat of international legislation,issuing from stifling halls of conference where men in ill- fitting clothes nurse black portfolios, their aching headsthrobbing to the deadening repetition of interpreters. Who is in favour of the motion ? Who against ? And if theagreement, too often but a pale echo of the domineering voice of Paris, is unfit to be put into practice, it is still in thegood old tradition. I think "we may be excused if we look elsewhere for asolution to our impending difficulties. Contrary to popular supposition, death is not a solution to all our difficulties.I am unable to state off hand how many people a day had to be killed for four years to make the world safe fordemocracy. It was either not enough, or too many. If we had to kill seven people a day for two years to make ourroads safe for democracy, it is doubtful if our task is yet completed. It would be interesting, therefore, to try a newmethod in the new world of the air. Daedalus has suggested one and I think we should examine it. He proposes that those who fly should draw up their owncode of laws, appoint their own judges, and inflict their own penalties ; that every pilot should represent justice and actas an informer against a fellow pilot guilty of breaking the law ; that penalties inflicted should be paid voluntarily withno other sanction than that of popular opinion. Baldly stated, it sounds solemn and formidable enough, but its onlyreal enemy seems to be solemnity. There are precedents enough for such a game. I believethere is a parlour game called forfeits. I have been the victim of codes of rules in various messes in the Army.I have played, or attempted to play, as long as my faculties permitted, a game called " Here's a Health to CardinalPuff." More pertinent still, there is, as Daedalus points out, the Stag Lane Rumble Club. All these have been successful.The British have a peculiar aptitude for this magincent type of fooling. The spirit behind it should make the suggestionof Daedalus a practical one in this country, if nowhere else in the world. As in private flying, where we have led, othersmay follow, if they can. The test of this idea is its popularity, without which itmust fail. The first thing to do in seeking a solution to a problem is to find the question. I suggest that the questionis, what is, or can be, the British Rumble Club ? As a practical step towards finding the answer, 1 proposeto offer, through the courtesy of FLIGHT, a prize of twoguineas to the person who shall submit the most ingenious reply. 1 shall ask the Editor of FLIGHT to appoint thejudges, to announce the winner and, subject to editorial discretion, to publish the winning solution.I would ask the judges to be influenced in their decisions by the following points:—The purposes of the BritishRumble Club should be to induce pilots (a) to adhere to the rules of the Air Navigation Orders for the convenienceand safety of themselves and of their fellow pilots ; (b) con- sistently to refrain from flying in a manner likely to beoffensive to ground folk ; (c) invariably to extend to ground folk the same help and courtesy that so many ground folkhave shown in the past to pilots. These points were more humorously set out by Daedalus inhis article, and I think that it is in the spirit of a Rumble Club that solemnity should be regarded as a necessarypunishment inflicted by God upon the authorities. The other points that I would put before the judges arethat the replies should contain practical suggestions for the working of the club, the nature of the fines, the methodof inflicting them, and what should ultimately be done with them, Finally, out of consideration for the judges, thatthe replies should be no longer than this article. SANDY MCTAVISH.London, W.I. December 29. 1930. A SUGGESTION [2356] May I, through the medium of your Correspondencecolumns, put forward a suggestion of my own ? I have always been interested in aviation . . . andtoday this form of transport affects the general public more and more. WThen motoring through various parts of thecountry, or on foot, I have often observed an aircraft making a lone flight ; often, to my own knowledge, a good distancefrom an aerodrome. 1 have also occasionally observed such aircraft getting into difficulties (though happily overcomingthem). The following suggestion perhaps, then, may be found to be practicable.Supposing such aircraft wished to make a forced landing and/or was in distress by day or night ? Would it not be agood thing for both parties if the general public could be taught to recognise the distress signals as mentioned for theuse of air-pilots in the Annex D section of the Convention 14
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
