FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1946
1946 - 0607.PDF
MARCH 28TH, 1946 FLIGHT 311 Eternal Triangle London Airport, Prestwick and the Ministry of Civil Aviation By " COMMENTATOR " WE live in an extremely critical world nowadays.This would, undoubtedly, be a good thing wereit not for the fact that nearly all the criticism which is levelled to-day is adverse, and it is seldom, appar- ently, that even the most knowledgeable people have any really helpful criticism to offer. Particularly is this true in the case of anything appertaining to civil aviation. What is the reason for this attitude? Why is it that so many people delight in placing the grimmest interpretation on every official utterance or decision, usually without any real knowledge of the underlying reasons? The fact is, of course, that almost everyone nowadays is hopelessly impatient—no doubt as a natural corollary of the change-over from war to peace. Thousands of men and women who have been accustomed to action suddenly find that the rapid tempo of war has given place to the slow and seemingly irksome tempo of peace. In wartime decisions had to be made on the spur of the moment if the country was to be saved from major disaster; now, important and far-reaching decisions are generally made only after considerable research, and this process brings unfamiliar delays—especially so when consideration has to be given to the current difficulties of organising labour, material and finance. Therefore, before one hastens to say that this or that Government decision is useless and will result in the eternal damnation of civil aviation in this country, perhaps one should remember the unpleasant fact that all natural reaction to-day is apparently towards un- charitableness, and adjust one's views accordingly. Also, that constant adverse criticism of British policy by its own people does not enhance our prestige abroad. A typical example is the case of Heathrow. Everyone now realises that Heathrow was an airfield which, rightly or wrongly, was built out of the R.A.F. Vote with an eye to the future of civil aviation. It is, therefore, not alto- gether surprising that, as originally planned, Heathrow followed the well-known triangulated R.A.F. airfield form. This form may not be the best for civil purposes, but, if we are charitable, we see that the triangle was planned on such a vast scale that it allowed each of the three initial runways to be duplicated, or even triplicated, and, additionally, it gave plenty of scope for yet a fourth series of runways from north to south. Those Terminal Buildings Further, if one examines the layout of the airfield care- fully, it also becomes clear that the permanent terminal buildings were to be built outside the main perimeter of the airfield—not alongside the Bath Road, but on some other obvious vacant space, such as that in the south-east corner of the airfield. No one planning an airfield of this nature would be likely to put temporary terminal facilities on the site which was required for the permanent build- ings. Then, again, a control tower intended to be other than temporary is not likely to "be built facing south, so that the controllers have to stare into the sun all day, What is happening, then, about the final plans for Heathrow? It is reasonable to suppose that the Ministry of Civil Aviation does not want to commit itself publicly until at least a substantial part of the future plans for the airfield are cut and dried, but it is already well known that there is a proposal to take over a large area of land to the north of the Bath Road and to extend the airfield in this direction. At this point, the sensation-mongers produce arguments about scores of houses which have to be pulled down, and hundreds of people who are to be rendered homeless. Maybe a few houses will have to come down, but surely no one seriously imagines that anything worse is likely to happen. Again, whether the ultimate airfield design will be tan- gential or otherwise, at the moment no one knows officially. One thing is certain, however—that the works planners at the Ministry of Civil Aviation know a good deal more about airfield layout than do many of the critics whose only knowledge of the subject is in some cases based on the bitter discussions in which they have indulged whilst prop- ping up the odd bar here and there. Let us also acknow- ledge that the Works Department of the Ministry of Civil Aviation has a nucleus of former members of the Air Ministry Directorate-General of Works which has carried out, on the whole, an extraordinarily good job of work throughout the war, although faced with an incredible number of difficulties. We all know the popular views about "Works and Bricks" held by certain R.A.F. officers and others, but the fact is that such critics are frequently ill-informed. The Department held no execu- tive authority, and, in those instances where seemingly it had boobed badly, it was often only carrying into effect someone else's brilliantly misconceived scheme. The Claims of Prestwick Arising out of this Heathrow controversy there is also the question of Prestwick. A letter is printed in our corre- spondence columns this week from an irate reader who advances the claims of Prestwick over Heathrow. We all know the claims of Prestwick and agree that, on the score of weather, they are justified, but why compare the two airfields? One is in England and the other in Scotland, and, with the best will in the world, the connection between an airfield for Scotland and one for London is hard to see. Prestwick, rightly, has its claim to become an inter- national airport for Scotland, and this has already been agreed by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Further, every- one is told that Prestwick is the answer to the pilot's prayer so far as a fair-weather end to an Atlantic air cross- ing is concerned. It should be realized, however, that this good weather still does not solve the problem of trans- Atlantic passengers who do not want to go to Prestwick, but want to land near London. Prestwick, therefore, is not the answer to poor visibility at Heathrow. The other claims for Presiwick and Scotland are that it should be run entirely by Scotland for Scotland, and moreover, that the Scots should have the right to make their own international air agreements with other countries. The latter, surely, is an astonishing suggestion It is tully agreed that the claims for a Scottish Division of European Airways and for the right of the Scots to carry out the detailed organisation of Scottish airlines are probably fully justified. The suggestion that any person or organiza- tion other than the appointed Government Ministry should venture into the maelstrom of international diplomacy and arrange private international air agreements is alarming. Apparently even six years of war has not taught every- one that strength lies only in unity. . Until the full-scale plans for the Heathrow project, and the final scheme for Scottish aviation interests are made known by the Government, there is every reason why wholesale and vague comments on the use of Heathrow and Prestwick should be withheld. In the meantime, by all means let us indulge in encouragement and constructive criticism, and lobby for what we honestly believe to be essential for the future of British civil aviation. [While we do not agree with everything our contributor says, we feel that his point of view deserves to be stated. No one regrets the need for criticism more than we do, but Heathrow will have to be London's air terminal for many years to come, and it is thus extremely important that no unsatisfactory feature should be allowed to mar it.—ED]
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
