FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1934
1934 - 0755.PDF
JULY 2t), 1934. FLIGHT. The'Outlooks A Running Commentary on Ait Topics The Minority Report M R. E. C. GORDON ENGLAND and Lt. Col. J. T. C.Moore-Brabazon unequivocally, in Reservation I ofthe Gorell Report, demand that civil aviation should be entirely divorced from the Air Ministry. They subscribe to the general conclusions, but make it quite clear that what they really want is to put civil aviation under the jurisdiction of another Government Department, free, as they put it, of the war complex. This sweeping change they look upon as a panacea for the growing-pains which now beset civil aviation. Although Lord Londonderry states that this minority report, and the first two recom- mendations of the main report which deal with the same subject, but in a less definite manner, concern questions which were not remitted to the Committee, he, neverthe- less, sees fit to comment upon them at great length. We do not agree that civil aviation would be served best by removal from Air Ministry control. We have, ever since we first drew attention to the whole question, frequently pointed out that all our investigations went to show that what was wanted was simplification of the existing regu- lations rather than the imposition of new regulations by another controlling body ; moreover, there was much evi- dence to show that constructors received a great deal of help at a very small cost from departments like the R.A.E. Lord Londonderry obviously tries to substantiate ' the Government's view by refuting many of the state- ments in the minority report, but seems to us to have lost weight in his arguments by doing so. He, for example, is surely a bit hard on some of the other members of the Committee, who are actual owners and operators of private aeroplanes, when he quotes the signee of a second reser- vation which subscribes to the Government view, as having the "most extensive practical experience of the problems involved." He further states that the design of civil aircraft has not been influenced by military requirements, but he does not recall that considerable numbers of those aircraft have proved to be' just what certain nations wanted for military purposes. He holds it up as an argu- ment in the Government's favour that other countries have copied our administration, and quotes Italy and France as examples; but it can hardly be said that the civil aircraft of either of these countries are vastly better than our own, bearing in mind the purposes for which they are designed. Lord Londonderry would have done better to have let the matter rest after stating that the first two recommenda- tions and the two minority reservations were somewhat irrelevant, and to have shown, with greater exactness, the extent to which the Government propose to carry out the general findings of the Committee. LC.A.N.r HE recommendation that the international airworthi- ness standards, as laid down by the International Commission for Air Navigation, should only be formulated on broad lmes, and should cease to deal with details of performance is admirable. These detail require- ments serve no useful purpose at present, and are no guarantee that any particular machine is airworthy. They are a hindrance to the development of commercial aircraft, particularly of multi-engined types which, as the risk of forced landings is negligible, only use certain aerodromes on fixed routes. The questions of take-off _ and climb are matters for the operator and user, and, within limits, do not affect the structural airworthiness of the machine. Unapproved Firms A MONG the suggestions is one of financial assistance f~\ to enable unapproved firms to bear the cost of sub- mitting their designs to officially approved "con- sultants " for check stressing. It would seem more logical for the Board itself to deal with checking and approval, and not to subsidise private individuals in this manner. The regulations in the past have tended to make the air- craft industry a '' closed'' one; the substitution of approved consultants for the R.A.E. at Farnborough hardly seems likely to improve the position. Experimental Aircraft / F the recommendations are accepted, then people will be able to build experimental aircraft, and to fly them without let or hindrance, except that of third-party insurance when flying over open country, and the avoid- ance of populous areas. This may lead to some " crashery" by young and inexperienced inventors, but it will certainly assist established firms very greatly, and will form an open door through which designs may see the light of day when they would otherwise have been smothered at birth by the "pillow of red tape." Gliding ]\JOW that the announcement has already been made _/ \ that a subsidy of £5,000 per annum for five years is being allocated to the gliding movement, the findings of the Committee on the subject lose some of their in- terest. In fact, they, in most cases, appear to be at variance with the views of the majority of those concerned ; views which were stated in our leader of June 14, 1934. They cast some doubt upon the possible value of gliding as preparatory training for the pilotage of power-driven aircraft, and, therefore, consider State assistance unwar- ranted. Gliding is undoubtedly of value to those who are subsequently going to pilot power-driven aircraft, and both Poland and Italy make their military pilots go through the State gliding school before joining their Air Forces. The Committee try to anticipate the inevitable by say- ing that if a subsidy must be given then it ought to take the same form as that to light aeroplane clubs. As we stated in our leader, we do not agree with that view. lt will only lead to a mushroom and forced growth in the number of pilots, few of whom will remain of value to the movement as a whole. •*. •'•'••_ R.T.O.'s -'--: rT^HERE appears to be some slight unclearness in the / Report on the subject of Resident Technical Officers. In paragraph 41 (i) it is stated that " the supervision of these firms (i.e., approved firms) would, however, be carried out, not by resident officers, but by check inspec- tions from time to time." Yet on the next page one finds the following sentence: '' The Air Ministry research and experimental stations should be regarded as available to undertake work for the Board, and the resident technical officials at the works of approved firms should render assist- ance, if required." The explanation of this seeming contra- diction probably is that the Committee had in mind firms which build military aircraft, and which would have R.T.O.'s, but many of the smaller firms build civil types only.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
