FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1946
1946 - 1362.PDF
FLIGHT JULY IITH, 1946 CORRESPONDENCE The Editor does not ho. a ktmseij responsible for the views expressed by correspondents. The names and addresses of the writers. not necessarily for publication, must in all cases accompany letters. FLIGHT OF BIRDS . Does the Leader Get Tired of Leading ?I AM very interested in the remarks made by Mr. Stanley Bradshaw [Flight, May 9th) and Mr. Labye Flight, June 27th) on "formation flying" by birds. No one can say why the leader changes position frequently. I think that perhaps the one in the lead sets a little faster pace, soon gets tired, and drops back to allow another to take its place. The " V " formation after all is the best formation in which to fly; the best view is obtained with the minimum of concen- tration. R. C. JAWKINS. RUNWAY CONTROLLERS Lower Age Limit Too high ABOUT two years ago, Indicator discussed the use of AirfieldControllers in the R.A.F. and the adoption of a similar idea in post-war civil aviation. The M.o.C.A. is apparently adopting a similar idea—" Hun way Controllers"—but may 1, through your columns, protest against the decision to establish 25 as the lower age limit. My application has been shelved because at 23I I am not yet eligible, and it was suggested that 1 obtain other employ- ment and apply again when I am 25. As this would probably involve my becoming completely out of touch with control work (M.o.C.A. seem to hold all the strings) I fail to see in just what way I shall be more suited at the age of 25 than 1 am at present—quite the reverse, in fact. Having just completed 5^ years' service in the R.A.F., the advantages of being released under the A. & S. scheme are completely lost to rne, and I feel that the M.o.C.A. should fall in line and adjust its age limits to embrace released service personnel. At 19 a pilot, at 21 an airfield controller in Burma, yet at 23 too young to continue! By the way, "Flying Instructor" (Flight, June 27th) com- plains that Training Command was left out of the V-Day fly past, but did he see the "Oxford" and " Tiger Moth " ex- hibited in Green Park as part of the V-Day celebrations? P. J. CROFTS. VICTORY FLY-PAST Air Ministry Explanation to an M.P. on Exclusion of Training Command Fr-jm the Hon. George Ward, M.P. •Y OUR correspondent's letter published in your issue of June 27th prompts me to draw your attention to my question addressed to the Under-Secretary of State for Air on May 15th, in which I asked why aircraft of Flying Training Command were to be excluded from the Victory Fly-past. The Under-Secretary's reply was not at all satisfactory, givipg as his only reason #' practical problems such as ren- dezvous, timing and control." I find it difficult to believe that such problems could not have been solved, and I still think that, to the general public, the sight of Tiger Moths, Harvards, and Oxfords leading the operational squadrons would have been a most striking demon- stration of the phases of training through which our pilots had to pass before graduating to operational types. Having myself served in Flying Training Command for a number of years during the war, I am well aware of the exact- ing work undertaken by flying instructors. I also know what little recognition they received either by awards or in such matters as leave and additional petrol enjoyed by operational pilots. Moreover, the scant publicity given to their work by the Press was in inverse proportion to their magnificent con- tribution to victory. In refusing the Command representation in the Fly-past, theAir Ministry missed a fine opportunity of showing the public its appreciation of the achievements of Flying Training Com-mand without whose labours the great fleets of bombers and fighters c mid not have taken the air. GEORGE WARD.House of Commons. [The full text of Mr. Strachey's reply in the House of Com- mons on May 15th was: "We should have been glad to have had aircraft of all Commands taking part in the Victory Parade, but practical problems, such as rendezvous, timing, and con- trol, set a limit to the size of this combined operation with the Fleet Air Arm, and we felt it would be right to choose the best- known war types. This is in no sense a reflection on the achievements of Flying Training Command, which, with all the other Commands, will, of course, be represented in the marching column."—ED.] Training Command's Jealousy ? WHY must certain members of Training Command give sucha poor impression of that Command by exhibiting regret- table jealousy at every conceivable opportunity? I refer not only to a letter published in Flight, June 27th, by "A Flying Instructor," but also to the previous contention regarding campaign stars. Operational types will, I am sure, acknowledge the valuable and indispensable work done by instructors, but is " Flying Instructor" suggesting that operational flying is " a piece of cake," or has he merely that instructor-pupil complex (really an inferiority one) so noticeable at most training stations? Let us drop this silly quest for recognition, or some one may be more outspoken than me in regard to the types who '' would have given a good deal to have been posted to a squadron in place of their pupils." ONE TOUR MAN. LONDON AIRPORT Disastrous Policy in the PastR ECENT comments and criticisms in the Press regarding the apparently inadequate accommodation and facilities for air travellers at Britain's premier airport at Heathrow, deserves some comment from you. So far, 1 have not had the pleasure of noting any. We are now only just beginning to realize just how disastrous has been the policy of those who were entrusted with these problems. And the public in general, I am sure, is also just beginning to realize that, like Rome or London, or any other place, aircraft and airfields cannot be built in a day. Only this morning, May 31st, 1 read an article in my morn- ing paper stating that some new and hitherto secret types of aircraft just announced by Mr. Wilmot, the Minister of Supply (I quote), " Should be ready for service in four or five years ..." Readers please note—"four or five years." Also, why secret? These facts reveal (and present facilities considered can only give weight to) the complete sterilization of past—I hope—• policy, and I wonder whether this result was because the actions of those in authority were completely nullified by higher authority, or whether those concerned were just unequal to their responsibilities. However, be that as it may, we are certainly passing through a very embarrassing period. Six long years passed and not a single civil airline aircraft was allowed to be produced. Even the Fairey Aviation Co.'s project, on which much of the preliminary work had been com- pleted, was shelved. We all know that the aircraft industry was hard pressed during the war, but one vital factor appears to have been overlooked; that transport aircraft were almost as vital as bombers and fighters, particularly at the latter stage of the war. Hundreds of this type of aircraft were urgently required; and who supplied them ? —America ! A handful of skilled men in the several factories could have been engaged upon building prototypes without in any way affecting production of fighters and bombers. Our present hopeless inferiority, temporary as it may be, '-• the work of past masters. Any inconvenience which is now being suffered must be laid at the feet of those who were responsible, and must be answered by them. It is unfair to place this blame on those who have just taken up the decayed remains and are attempting to remove the rot—the first essen- tial step before any other in the arduous task of complete restoration—and 1 don't owe allegiance to any political party. But was British civil aviation ever on a sound and enter- prising basis? E. G. SMART. [Comments on the accommodation situation at London Airport, Heathrow, appeared in Flight on May 30th under the descriptive title of "Tented Terminal." The general situa- tion there, as far as building and development are concerned, has been dealt with many times during the past few months. The fact that no transport types of aircraft were produced by this country during the war was due entirely to the ar- rangements made under the lease-lend terms. Whether or not, as our correspondents suggests, this decision was a tac- tical error, must be left to the judgment of history.—ED.]
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
