FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1946
1946 - 2142.PDF
45«> FLIGHT OCTOBER 24TH, 1946 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. EX-AIRCRAFT APPRENTICES Their Lot in War and PeaceO N the outbreak of war, some of my ex-aircraft apprentice N .CO.-pilot-instructor contemporaries were granted CD. commissions. The impression then was that such a step on the gold-braided ladder held much more promise than entry into the new and rather tarnished Technical Branch. Some continued to instruct their future Air Officers Commanding in the old, old way, some went on operations and returned to instruct, and some did not return at all—What now? I hear that hopes of permanent commissions have faded into an offer ol an extended service commission in Flying Control, Admin., or what will you have! Now, some will say that Flying Control would benefit by the recruitment of some real, if somewhat dead-beat airmen— but really, sir, if this is to be the method I consider it a little bleak, to say the very least. How did we all get into the senile score of 35 or so, too old for further use, if not in the service of His Majesty and his Air Council—God bless them all! Then, as if in a dream, we hear Lord Tedder complaining about the failure of the recruiting campaign! Well, waggle my wings, as Tommy Handley would say! Are they so out of touch with realities? Surely not. There must be a plan somewhere on the future composition of the R.A.F., based on universal suffrage—or something. It must be that 1 am too old and stupid to suit. "WING-CO., RTD." LANDING FEES The Position of the Private Airfield Owner I HAVE not seen a lettei from an airfield owner oa thequestion of landing fees, so send a few particulars on the subject. The airfield we own has been left with almost completely wrecked hangars, no petrol pumps, fences or gates, and a bad surface; yet how are we to remain solvent without reason- able landing fees? How else can we obtain revenue? The land is of extreme value for building and was bought at top building prices. The expenses are enormous; insur- ance, land tax, property tax, tithes, rates, legal charges, accountant fees, maintenance of surface, buildings, water rates, electricity costs, telephone, petrol licences, airfield licence, fees, wages, etc. Tractors and mowers have to be kept in order and grass cut, refuse has to be collected and disposed of. There are a thousand-and-one expenses to be met. Where is the necessary revenue to come from ? To sell up is very tempting. AIRFIELD OWNER. The Amateur Pilot and the Tax-payer A LTHOUGH very many of Flight's readers are not fortunate •i*-'enough to be owners of light aircraft, all of them are tax- payers—or will be when old enough to earn their own livings. And it is primarily as an ordinary taxpayer that I found myself reacting to your editorial, "Killing the Goose," of October 3rd, and the letter from "Let The People Fly," in Flight,' October 10th. It is agreed, presumably, that the existing landing fees at State airfields are not going to drive the charter people out of business, and that business firms who employ light aircraft for their representatives find that, despite these fees, it is well worth while. Charter and air taxi firms will, of course, just pass the charge on to their customers in the time-honoured fashion, so it is only the unfortunate amateur, or owner-pilot, flying for plea- sure and/or convenience, who is being hard hit by the present scale of landing fees. It might be possible to devise some simple, " fiddle-proof " method by which the bona fide amateur owner-pilot could be charged less in the way of landing fees than the owners of revenue-earning aircraft, and if so, then nobody could reason- ably object to his having such a concession. But if this is not possible, then the vast majority of ordinary taxpayers who are NOT owners of light aircraft will certainly otject to their money being used *to provide and maintain airfields for ths benefit of a small minority of owner-pilots who are patently in a better financial position than most. Surely the owner-pilot to-day is analagous to the private motorist of the early 1900s—he is a person with sufficient money (and leisure) to indulge in a comparatively new (and therefore expensive) pastime. If he says that he can afford to own and fly a light aircraft, but cannot afford the landing fees, then he is taking on a hobby just beyond his means, and had better either give it up or find the extra few shillings by economies elsewhere. I see no reason why I, as a taxpayer, should help to finance him! Incidentally, exactly what "golden egg" is this particular goose '' supposed to lay ? As for "Let the People Fly," I couldn't agree more, as a motorist of over 20 years' experience, with your footnote, and in case any one imagines I "don't 'old with these 'ere noo- fangled airyplanes! " let me add that I have quite a few hours in my pre-war logbook as a club member. Let the people, fly by all means—and me too—but let us not expect the non- flying members of the public to help pay for it, unless we are potential Service pilots. " INDEPENDENT." [This letter arrived before the announcement of reduction, but we consider the points worthy of note. There is no earthly reason why the taxpayer should be asked to support members of the public in their pastime—even if this pastime might be considered, in a general way, to be a Good Thing for the Community. But our contention was that the charges were far too high in proportion to the services rendered, and that in making them the State would, in the long run, be the loser. Obviously, since the charge is an upkeep tax rather than a payment for wear and tear, there will be more revenue accruing frorn sixty landings at 3s each than from ten landings at 17s od a time. Hence the "golden egg" analogy.—ED.] FLYING POST OFFICES Which Was the World's First?W ITH reference to the wording under " Flying Post Office," illustrated on page 388 of Flight, October 10th, although the American claim to be the first may be intended to denote the first permanent aerial post office—and even this remains to be proved—surely the distinction of having operated the first flying post office was secured back in the summer of 1928 by the joint efforts of the English and Swedish P.O.s, when correspondence with various cachets, one of which read "Air Post Office, Overnight Service," etc., was carried in both directions between the above two countries, all sorting, post- marking, etc., being carried out on board the aircraft. J. FRANKLIN. "WHY 'CENTRIFUGAL' FORCE"? Use of AbbreviationsM R. DUGUID'S article in Flight, October 10th, must have helped to sweep the cobwebs from many minds. While the terms "pound mass" and "pound weight" are tedious to write in full, I cannot believe that the continued indiscriminate use of the abbreviation " lb" for both is justified. I suggest that the abbreviation " 1b " be retained for the pound mass only, while the abbreviation " Lb " be used for the pound weight. This would serve as a reminder that the dimensions of the two units are different and would, for ex- ample, explain the difference in numerical value between a moment of inertia expressed in 1b ft2 and one expressed in. Lb ft sec2. ^f This suggestion is not, of course, original (it was in into me as a student), but it seems to meet the need! • • S. W. G. BACK NUMBER Belated Thoughts on a Whitley Query /'"'LANCING through Flight, April 18, 1946, I discovered a V letter corrpcting a statement by "Indicator" that the Tiger-engined Whitley went into retirement n 1941. This is quite incorrect! My log-book recalls that in July, 1942, I was a member of a ferrying crew in a Whitley—K7196 and later, in December, 1942, in a Whitley III—K8972. Lest this be thought out of date and irrelevant—well, there are a lot of people who are still interested in such things, and the mention of them brings on a feeling of nostalgia ! More "Indicator," Please! RON D. T. NEAL.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
