FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1948
1948 - 0873.PDF
JUNE IOTH, 1948 FLIGHT 643 Article 41 An Explanation of the Clause in the Chicago Convention Which the Ministry af Civil Aviation is Seeking to Have Deleted WHEN, in his speech at the Commonwealth Air Trans-port Council meeting on May 27th, Lord Nathan'announced that the U.K. delegation was about to propose deletion of Article 41 of the Chicago Con-vention considerable confusion resulted. The P.I.C.A.O. Con- vention drafted at Chicago in 1944 included two articles relatingto the adoption of standards: Article 90 refers to all standards, and in prescribing the procedure for adoption of all standardsby the Council it leaves the Council free to select any dates for enforcement. A two-thirds majority of the Council to approveadoption is required and after a period for consideration a majority vote of member Stales can confirm or reject it. f f: Article 41 in Chapter 6, dealing with international standardsand recommended practices, states that the provisions of the chapter shall not apply to aircraft and aircraft equipment oftypes of which the prototype is submitted to the appropriate national authorities for certification prior to a date three yearsafter the date of adoption of an international standard of air- worthiness for such equipment. The obvious good intentionbehind Article 41 was to prevent over-hasty action by the Council or member States. It became evident later, however, that there were seriousobjections, in that the Article was subject to the widest varia- tion of interpretation since national definitions of '' prototype ''could vary considerably, as for example in the later marks of Spitfire, which might be considered as prototypes or merelymodifications of the original pre-war Spitfire Mark I. Also the submission for certification might be interpreted as theinitial application for a certificate, the commencement of flight trials, or the lodging of the type record. The Article also might delay the bringing into force of essen-tial safety requirements for a period too long for acceptance. For example, if an airworthiness standard recommended byI.C.A.O. was adopted in 1948, then a prototype might be sub- mitted in two years and 11 months' time, i.e., in 1951. Whenthe prototype flew, perhaps in 1954, three years later, it would receive a Certificate of Airworthiness, after which the aircraftwould be in production for perhaps four years, the last one coming off the line in 1958, so giving that aircraft a workinglife until 1968. Such a possible delay of 20 years could be ex- tended even further to about 30 years if several developmentversions, each based on the original prototype, were produced. In 1946 the I.C.A.O. Airworthiness Division met, the objec-tions were appreciated and Article 41 was considered to be unsatisfactory, and it was recommended that: Each aircraftbefore being operated must comply with I.C.A.O. standards if introduced into international aviation for hire or rewardafter Tanuary 1st, 1951. All aircraft brought into use before that date could continue to operate until January 1st, 1954,when all aircraft engaged for hire or reward must comply with I.C.A.O. standards.w The British constructors agreed those dates and since 1946 have been designing and constructing to comply with the regu-lations. It is, perhaps, necessary to point out that although these clauses refer to all aircraft, the present standards in factrefer to those in transport category A, which includes large or medium multi-engined aircraft. Categories for single and low-power twin-engined aircraft remain to be developed. In the following year, 1947, the Airworthiness Division of I.C.A.Oconfirmed the dates, but certain delegates pointed out that their views had been based upon technical requirements, and thattheir representatives on the I.C.A.O. Council might state a different view, having regard to the economic consequences. United States Favoured Deletion It is understood that at the last Assembly meeting the U.S.delegation unofficially suggested to the U.K. delegation that Article 41 should be deleted. The U.K. delegation wasadvised by the Ministry of Civil Aviation not to support the suggestion, upon which the Americans dropped the proposal. Recently the Ministry of Civil Aviation discussed Article 41with the S.B.A.C. and the A.R.B. and agreed that it was neces- sary and desirable to delete it, since legally it was meaninglessand through its vagueness it was certainly dangerous. More- over, the safeguard which Article 41 was said to offer againstover-hasty introduction of new standards was considered by the S.B.A.C. and A.R.B. to be unnecessary in view of themajority vote required by Article 90. The British delegation will move at the I.C.A.O. Assemblymeeting in Geneva that Article 41 shall be deleted, but it is believed that the I.C.A.O. Council may raise objections to anysuch amendment of the Convention before 1950. It is import- ant also that the question of dates for enforcing the Standardsis closely related to proposals to amend the flight performance standards. The I.C.A.O. Air Standards have been substanti-ally accepted on their technical merits with the exception ot those for aircraft performance dealing with rates of climb andstalling speeds, which are considered by the U.K. to be ir- rational and liable to cause unnecessary economic penalties. TheU.K. has already lodged a protest against the offending requirements. At the next meeting of the Air Division the more rationalperformance requirements will be put forward by the U.K. delegation for discussion together with recommendations forany amendment to Article 41 if it is not deleted. All recom- mendations made by the committee will be pruned by the AirNavigation Committee before being submitted to the I.C.A.O. Council meeting this autumn. It is known that although theU.S. delegation in 1947 was in favour of keeping the dates, the operators may have taken the opposite view, since the datesaffect mostly those aircraft which have come into service during the past four years and which have, probably, a lifeof 10 years. The operator's view will be expressed after the International Air Transport Association has discussed theproblem. SIR JOHN HIGGINS AIR MARSHAL SIR JOHN FREDERICK ANDREWSHIGGINS, K.C.B., K.B.E., D.S.O., A.F.C., whose deathoccurred at his home in Leamington on June 1st, was one of the sm#ll band of high-ranking officers to have served in. theSouth African War, World War I and World War II. Born in 1875, he went to Charterhouse and was trained at the RoyalMilitary Academy, afterwards serving in the South African War from 1899 to 1902. He was one of the youngest officersto be made captain in that campaign, in which he was wounded, received the Queen's Medal with four clasps, theKing's Medal with two clasps, and the D.S.O. Like many other Army officers John Higgins attemptedto transfer to the R.F.C. when it was formed, but was to find that he was considered too old to be a pilot. He returnedto his regiment—the Royal Artillery—keenly disappointed, and shortly afterwards was promoted major. He was thenasked to enter the R.F.C., and, or. declining, was ordered to do so being seconded in October, 1912, after having qualifiedas a pilot at Brooklands, as a pupil of the Bristol School. He commanded No. 5 Squadron when it went to France in1914 but in October of that year was wounded. He subse- quently became CO. of No. 4 Wing, Netheravon, and latercommanded the 3rd Brigade. Many stories are told of General Higgins'S meetings withfirst world-war ace, Capt. Albert Ball, V.C. Unfortunately, these did not always end as agreeably as the latter would havewished. In one of his letters Captain Ball wrote: "All is going fine again and I am good friends with G. II. and allthe ticks/' A short time later, General Higgins, who always had a very high regard for Ball, said to him: "I am puttingyour name on a big board in the trenches to frighten the Huns." Ball then wrote home: "So much for the general,for I am in his good books again." From 1924 to 1926, Sir John was A.O.C. Iraq, and wasAir Member for Supply and Research of the Air Council from 1926 to 1930, when he was placed on the retired list. In 1939,however, he was recalled to the R.A.F. and was A.O.C. India until he was retired in 1940. In addition to his Service activities, Sir John had otherinterests in aviation, joining the board of Armstrong Siddeley Motors, Ltd.. in 1930 for five years. For the same time hewas also a director of Sir W. G. Armstrong Whitworth Air- craft Co., Ltd. Just prior to the last war he took a greatinterest in what is now the A.T.C.. and also in the Boy Scout movement, and was a prominent figure at British Legion func-tions. Sir John leaves a widow but no family.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
