FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1937
1937 - 0567.PDF
MARCH 4, 1937- FLIGHT. 215 Correspondence The Editor does not hold himself responsible for the views expressed by correspondents. The names and addresses of the writers, not necessarily for publication, must in all cases accompany letters intended for publication in these columns. AUSTRALIA AND THE MAILS MR LYONS' recent statement announcing the agreement with Great Britain for a twice-weekly service by flying boat raises an interesting point. Mr. Lyons stated: "The Commonwealth feels, however, it would not be justified in abolishing the surcharge unless it does the same for internal mails and this will require expenditure so great that it would prejudice the further development of the internal services." Are not the internal services being prejudiced by the decision of the Federal Government to continue to control the Singa pore-Brisbane section of the U.K.-Australia air route? With her huge area and small population, would not it have been wiser to allow Imperial Airways to manage this sector, make a small contribution by way of subsidy, and, with the money saved, abolish internal and external mail sur charges? W. L. NAYLOR. London, W.9. THOSE WIRELESS OPERATORS Y OUK correspondent Mr. W. II. Hamblin (February 18) writes a pretty letter, but suffers from the delusion that a' higher standard of air wireless operating is called for. in this he is all wrong, for more education and skill would probably only render the average W/O. a greater menace than he is already, and I shudder 10 think of pilots losing themselves really scientifically, aided and abetted by the W/'O.-cum- navigator. Raising his standard might also give him ideas that he is worth more than his present £4 10s. a week and, for another thing, a highly skilled, responsible man might not favour the idea of carrying the pilot's bag. The present scheme of employing hairless lads fresh from the wireless schools and then bunging them out into QBI seems quite the easiest and obvious method of killing birds by drop ping a brick. Not only does this offer a sporting chance of disposing of obsolete aircraft without financial loss, but at the same time keeps pilots and Control tuned to concert pitch and prepared for anything. Why change a procedure that has stood the test of time and appears to satisfy all concerned, undertakers and underwriters included? The latter don't usually suffer in silence, and if they had any kick coming they would have by now (as they do to shipping firms) offered a reduction of premium on aircraft fitted with reliable radio and D/F., ami carrying a man who can efficiently use such gear. EX-MARINE. Croydon, " MASS CONSUMPTION J" DO not wish to occupy valuable space with a personal * matter, but I do feel'that I must reply to Mr. H. R. Dimock s attack caused by mv recent letter in Flight, in case anyone else has gone away with the wrong idea. Had he real my letter a little more carefully and refrained rom jumping to conclusions before rushing "into print his letter would never have been written. Or perhaps he does not understand the meaning of the word "impecunious." first of all, to remove the foundations of his argument. I in"1 wt 0Wmr oi (as he statt"R) a " Pos" car " ; my exist ing vehicle is .third-hand ! Nor was 1 able to afford " the neces- w2 , , exPensive tuition " ; I learned to fly because it oiih/ft • aS a commercial proposition that I should. The y nying tbae I have been able to do at my own expense mflJrlS an odd hour here and there "hen ] have felt h Z V wt'alHly lo afford such toxury. But I have not w this warp my sense ol proportion. round" . V ,hat Pilots can verY quickly lie taught to fly- is a fen- tk r°meS in ultra-Kght machines. " Unfortunately it to hJl" r a Pllot so trained will take practically as long to become . practically useful and safe commercial or service pilot as one the samf£"[.""'to, both starting on genuine training types at a lot of h I'T hls is hecause the former has to unlearn in g a rnarh- g&™cd on the> ultra-light. For advanced train- much t-• ?i T • !ch ls werstable and nearly flies itself leaves of which 11 Lesiro7' because the pupil will develop bad habits 1,0 instruct ,machine dops not warn him ; and if there is The * faults KOeS °" doinS them not knowing any better. "nen \v geVann'jt always be seen from the ground, and on to a larger machine the crash comes. Mr. Dimock admits this when he states that his ultra-light pilots "have a complete indifference to engine failure." Perhaps he regards the ultimate criterion of flying as having innumerable swarms of these aircraft flying round aerodromes in small circles ! In a country such as ours, where the winds at operational heights are, more often than not, over 30 m.p.h., an aircraft with a cruising speed of 60-70 m.p.h. is useless for serious work. However, I would be the first to admit that they make most amusing toys. My original letter was directed against the half-trained pilot who endangers the lives of others. May I quote from Major Richards' excellent little book on Aerodrome Manage ment:—"Practically the big risk remaining in civil aviation to-day is that of collision, and anything you . . . can do to minimise tfcsK risk must be done. Remember that a Moth, through disobeying the regulations, particularly in 'Q.B.I.' conditions, can wreck an airliner and kill some forty people." Mr Dimock's attitude seems to be similar to that which, I regret to say is so prevalent among cyclists, i.e., "We have as much right to the road as the motorists." Would he, when in a rowing beat in the Solent, expect the Queen Mary or the Nelson to make sundry alterations of course to avoid him * I rather think he would be greeted with four short blasts which mean "keep out of my way—I cannot keep out of yours." It is a pity that the rules of the road at sea cannot be applied as stringently to the roads and the air. I do not wish to deprive the owner of the cheap car or aircraft of his pleasure as long as he takes it in a way that does not endanger the lives of those who use the road and air "on their lawful occasions." I was trying to point out that we should consider the lesson taught us by the roads : That an enormous influx of cheap vehicles, while providing employment for many, has also caused an alarming increase in the accident figures. I am confident that this increase is not due solely to the increase in numbers but largely to in experience ana lack of imagination. Might I suggest that Mr. Dimock reads my first letter again? I regret that I must use a nam de plume. HEADLIGHT. Kent. THE PRIVATE OWNER AND QBI AS you are probably aware the International Chamber of Commerce recently published a special Commercial Aviation Number of World Trade. This contained several articles, written by prominent aviation personalities. I am picking out from these one paragraph, which, after dealing with the speeds of two aircraft approaching one another and the time allowed for pilots' reactions, reads: — " It is not, therefore, sufficient for aircraft not equipped with radio to keep constant watch when flying on a regular airway in bad visibility. Privately owned aircraft should not be allowed to enter the zone in which commercial services are operated." Does the writer really mean what he says? Did he pause for one second to think on the effect of bringing about his suggestion ? Let me say, here and now, that I am far more interested, directly, in the safety of commercial aviation than in the private owner movement. However, no one should make rash and sweeping statements which are likely to hinder rather than further the interests of both. Privately owned aircraft are not allowed, without two-way radio, to fly in the controlled zones in bad visibility. Debar them from doing so, even in good weather, and you will debar them from ever going abroad, from the chief and most valuable incentive for using their craft, from getting to half the seaside- resorts to which so many now fly in the summer; in fact, the private owner movement in this country would cease. The majority of those owners who reside in Kent, Surrey and Sussex would be forbidden even to take off! Led by the invaluable example of the Hon. F. Guest, Sir Philip Sassoon, and Mr. Nigel Norman, among others, the private owner movement has been one of the mainstays of the R.A.F. Reserve. Surely, this alone is sufficient to encourage the movement and to fight all movements \o curtail it. Let us all think again, and that impartially. London, S.W.i. MUSKETEER.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
