FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1933
1933 - 0963.PDF
FLIGHT, NOVEMBER 9, 1933 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL AND THE PRIVATE OWNER By A. VIATOR I FOUND it of extreme interest to read some of the comments which followed Maj. Healing's recent paper on " Air Traffic Control." From the use of such phrases as " Private owners, are we the last of our race ? '' and '' Sounding the death knell of private flying," it would appear that a number of private owners scarcely understand this question in its entirety. There is no intention on the part of the Air Ministry or anyone else to try to freeze the private owner out of the skies, and the control zone system is only to be in force on days when weather conditions are such that it is not particularly wise to fly around a busy airport without wireless. When conditions of bad visibility are in force, in fact, the average private owner, who is not compelled to fly, will probably stay at home for his own sake. These con ditions only occur on a limited number of days in the year, and not very frequently during the summer season. Everybody who has taken any interest in the matter will know that the controlled zone which is proposed is an area of about 10-15 miles round the Airport of Croydon, within which, in bad weather, danger of collision is bound to exist because of the increasing volume of air traffic con verging upon and radiating from the airport. At present all wireless-equipped aeroplanes are kept clear of each other and guided in and out of Croydon by means of close co-operation with the Traffic Officer in the Control Tower. It is not the intention of the Air Ministry or of the other people concerned in the present attempt to elimi nate the very grave danger attendant upon unregulated traffic in a congested area (that is, the Air Traffic Com panies and the R.A.F.) to give undue preference to any one part of the flying community. What is being*said is, that whereas aircraft fitted with wireless and in close communication with the ground con trol, can be so guided, instructed, or advised that they will not be a menace to other traffic, non-wireless machines must not be allowed to roam at will in a dangerous area, because they constitute a menace to themselves and to all other traffic. Here is no question of private owner versus the rest, but equal treatment for all. If a R.A.F. aeroplane with out wireless or a commercial machine not working wireless wishes to proceed to Croydon when the zone system is in force owing to bad visibility conditions, the pilot of that machine will have to land outside the zone and ask per mission. If traffic allows, he will be told to come on along a route or at a height where he will be safe from collision danger. Quite naturally, this will have to apply to non- wireless private owners, but if a privately-owned machine is working wireless, it will have exactly the same treat ment from the Control Tower as a 40-seater commercial machine or a Royal Air Force bomber carrying wireless. The whole thing is merely a matter of vitally necessary communication with the ground Traffic Control in bad weather. No aeroplane will be allowed to enter the con trolled zone if it is already too congested for additional traffic to approach, and it is quite obvious that all machines within the area must be able to receive infor mation and instructions from the Central Ground Control if air traffic chaos is to be avoided. When contemplating the terrible risks which machines flying dumb, blind and deaf in thick weather can place upon the whole of the traffic within an area, it is useless to bemoan the fact that private owners cannot afford to fit wireless and could not perhaps use it adequately if they had it. I am not justified in charging about on the roads m a car not fitted with brakes to my own and everybody else's peril because I cannot afford to fit brakes, and there is an end to the matter. After Maj. Mealing's paper a number of questions were asked and comments made which seemed to indicate that private owners felt that preference should be given to them which it was not proposed to extend to other groups in the flying community. The relative importance of a private owner flying for pleasure or possibly on urgent business and that of a big air liner with 30 or so people, most of them on equally urgent business, a machine, moreover, carrying His Majesty's mails, is a question which can safely be left to the judgment of any unbiased individual and need not detain us here. 1 The question I refer to was, " Why should the airways i.e., the main lines to and from the Continent used regu larly by scheduled air services) be kept clear for commer cial machines? " Policemen," added the speaker, " were not planted about our roads to keep private cars out of the way of lorries and charabancs." The answer is, that the airways—or rather the controlled zone—is not to be kept clear for commercial machines, but for machines of all classes so equipped that they can enter it with safety. If policemen are not planted about our roads to keep private cars clear of lorries and charabancs, they very soon would be in the parallel case of private cars proceeding at speed, frequently on the wrong side of the road, without horn, brakes or headlights during foggy weather, up and down and across the Brighton road with week-end traffic about. At a recent meeting on the subject of Air Traffic Con trol, an interesting contrast to the above attitude was afforded by the point of view of the Royal Air Force as expressed by its representative. The R.A.F. does a very great deal of fog, cloud and bad weather flying in the vicinity of London in pursuit of its lawful occasions, and it meant making a definite sacrifice when the R.A.F. re presentative announced that, when " zone control " was in force, R.A.F. machines without wireless would be in structed to land outside the zone and communicate with the Croydon Control Tower just like all other aircraft. Maybe the R.A.F. is as entitled as anyone else to refer to the commercial machines which are making history on Empire routes as aerial lorries and charabancs. It is purely a matter of good—or bad—taste, but the R.A.F. at least escapes the swift retort of " air-hog." In order to realise the position quite clearly, it is neces sary to know what can happen in actual practice when a casual and from a traffic point of view uncontrollable aeroplane suddenly drifts into an area where all other air craft are controlled. On one particular occasion, to take a single example from many, a number of big passenger machines were approaching Croydon in weather conditions which, though distinctly bad, by no means precluded the possibility of coming in to land, especially in view of the guidance they were receiving from the Control Tower. Every machine was being kept clear of all danger of meeting another in the fog. Then, like a submarine amongst peaceful merchantmen, the presence of a small aeroplane was reported. The pilot flew up and down and round and round for a considerable time in an attempt to find the aerodrome and land. He could be given no assistance nor advice, and he could not be directed to another airport where conditions might have been perfectly good. The officer in the tower informed the other incoming machines that somewhere near Croydon, flying in one direction or another, they might meet a small aeroplane very suddenly when both they and he were moving at about 100 m.p.h. in very bad visibility. Several of the airliner pilots having their very grave respon sibilities in mind, decided to abandon the idea of coming on to their home airport, and put down at emergency aerodromes where there were few facilities and where they were obliged to picket their machines out for the night. The disorganisation, trouble and expense involved were very much to be preferred to the risk of collision. The private owner on this occasion had the airport and its environs more or less to himself, and it may be that this situation is what the private owner referred to when, at the end of Maj. Mealing's paper, he remarked that instead of interfering with private flying the fully-equipped com mercial machines should be directed to the various aero dromes round London. We of the air traffic companies, with our responsibilities to the travelling public, can hardly be expected to agree that private owners should be allowed to constitute a serious menace to air traffic because they are not in a position to equip themselves with what is agreed on all sides to be a vitally necessary means of communication with the ground control. Everybody concerned may sympathise with the private owner in the difficult position he is placed in, but unless those who object to the Air Traffic Control Scheme which is proposed can think of some means of overcoming the difficulty of the non-wireless machine, the answer must obviously be that such aircraft must obey the new regulations when they come into operation. 125
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
