FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1951
1951 - 1009.PDF
632 FLIGHT, 25 May 1951 CORRESPONDENCE The Editor of "Flight" does not hold himself responsible for the views expressed by correspondents in these columns. The names and addresses of the writers, not necessarily for publication, must in all cases accompany letters. The Corporations and Charter Operations TN his letter published in your issue of April 20th, Mr. Stuart--*- Shaw sets out to "debunk the unrealistic nonsense" concerning the Corporations' charter activities, and apparently advocatesthat the quotations offered by the Corporations for the charter of their aircraft should not include a loading comprising a proportionof their general overhead costs. In other words vthis seems.to meanthat the CorporatiQns should be allowed to make a quotation based on the direct cost of |he charter of the aircraft, whereas thecompanies whose sole business is air charter must obviously add to the. direct cost of each-charter a proportion of their overheads.This is, clearly unfair commercial competition, and Mr. Stuart- Shaw's specious argument that the profits from such charteroperations would reduce the Corporations' deficits is unsound. When the Civil Aviation Act was passed in 1946 a specific assur-ance was given (by the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Ivor Thomas, vide Hansard for May 21st, 1946) that the Corporations would notcompete unfairly with the charter companies; accordingly it behoves the Corporations to arrange the scale of their activitiesso that they may reduce their deficits without breaking this pledge. Mr. Stuart-Shaw refers to his experience, when in B.O.A.C., of"the frustration of being unable to compete in the charter market because every quotation was so weighted with overheads that itwas farcical to submit it to a possible client"; the answer to this is not to submit quotations which ignore the existence of over-heads, but to reduce the overhead costs which exist and which at present are borne by the taxpayer.Derby. D. W. South Bank AircraftI HAVE read with interest your Editorial (May 4th) regardingthe aircraft section of the South Bank Exhibition. I do agree most emphatically with your remarks in regard tothe Gloster-Whittle E.28/39. It was always my intention to have this most important historical exhibit on show, as can be seenfrom my original script for the display in this section. Unfortu- nately, all efforts to borrow this and some other items from theScience Museum were unsuccessful, as instructions were given for the museums to put on spe«si shows during the Festival p«iod,and they, of course, were not allowed to release their finest exhibits.With regard to the showing of two sailplanes, I was forced by the S.B.A.C. to show both or none at all, and I felt that it wasmost important to show, if possible, some full-size modern air- craft. As you know, the Olympia Eon holds the British NationalHeight Record, and the new Slingsby Sky is probably the most efficient sailplane built to date anywhere in the world, and. on thisscore I consider they should be shown. London, S.W.i. P. WARING,Industrial Officer (Aircraft), Council of Industrial Design. The Longbridge BattlesM AY I, in fairness to those concerned, correct a statementpublished in a letter from Mr. P. R. Hornidge (May 4th) to the effect that the Austin-produced Fairey Battles were "neverlanded at Longbridge"? Several hundred of these aircraft were tested at, and deliveredfrom, Longbridge. Wartime dispersal requirements, and the advent of a balloon barrage of remarkable density, considerablyreduced the number of landings at this astonishing flying ground, but landings were frequently carried out, despite balloons andother snares, right up to the end of Battle production from this factory.Northam, N. Devon. L. M. KELSEA-WILLIAMS. Rearward-facing SeatsT HE statements attributed to Mr. Masefield in your report ofthe R.Ae.S. discussion, "Air Travel from the Passenger's Point of View" (May 1 ith issue), suggest that the head of one ofBritain's greatest air passenger undertakings is not "sold" on the idea of backward-facing seats for the reason that "it did not seemthe ideal arrangement to have a door at the back and a lot of goggling eyes facing the passenger when he went in." Of all the red herrings drawn across the trail of serious considera-tion of such an elementary precaution as rearward seats, this must beat all! Mr. Masefield evidently prefers to treat the subjectwith levity, but, taking his comment on its face value, one infers that he cannot have looked round the inside of a passenger aircraft in recent years. Anyone knows that when passengers are seated,in modern aircraft seats, the headrests of the seats in front prevent any direct view along the aircraft to the door, and this thereforescreens the passenger entering the door from the seated passengers' view, whether or not the latter's seats face aft. But even if thiswere not so, what on earth does it matter whether a passenger should be fleetingly exposed to such a very minor embarrassmenton entering an aircraft, compared to hours of unnecessary potential danger in flight which could be minimized if such a very unlikelyembarrassment were ignored ? Moreover, even if there were any substance in Mr. Masefield's objections, it would be simple toavoid them by providing another entrance door forward of the seats rather than to do so by forfeiting the immense advantagesof backward facing seats—always provided an equally effective form of rear emergency escape were retained.Both Mr. Masefield and Captain Parker agree on one surprisingly revolutionary theory, however—they both think it isbetter not to have a crash at all rather than to have one and face the chance of burning to death ! It is also better for ships not tosink—but lifeboats and lifebelts are still provided, perhaps because mariners have had enough time to realize that the wayto Davy Jones is paved with "good" intentions. In other words, aircraft will crash, and ships will sink, however much wishfulthinking we may indulge in. (Much of the fire risk present in modern passenger aircraft today could, in any case, be reduced bythe universal adoption of flexible fuel tanks; together with the elimination of fuselage fuel tanks, save, perhaps, where they arejettisonable; plus the use of fireproof bulkheads in the fuselage., and impact-operated fire extinguishers and electrical services cut-out switches, as standard equipment.) It would be as logical to scrap fire-tenders on airfields on the;plea that it is better to concentrate on preventing accidents rather than to minimize their effects when they occur, as it is to refrainfrom providing rearward facing seats for such a reason. Our Messrs. Facing-Both-Ways of Aviation certainly have a curiouslyblind spot where air safety is concerned ! East Twickenham, Middlesex. DENIS HORNSEY.[Our correspondent's opening paragraphs are a little unfair to B.E.A.'s chief executive: as was apparent from the report, thedebate was not an altogether serious one and, that being so, it would have been a pity to omit the more entertaining remarks fromour precis of the proceedings.—ED.] Overworked King's Messenger? ASSUMING that Flight of May nth accurately reported the• R.Ae.S. discussion of "Air Travel from the Passenger's Point of View", might I, here and now, commiserate with Mr. Hunting-ton, King's Messenger, on the arduous nature of his duties? Eight thousand flying hours per annum, or 21.9 hours per day,is surely too much flying. Does he have time to deliver Ws^ diplomatic bags, or are they parachuted to our embassies and?consulates ? Brentford, Middlesex. L. TAYLOR.[Apologies to Mr. Huntington, to whose flying hours a nought was inadvertently added. Actually, he quoted a figure of "between •'800 and 1,200 per annum."—ED.] MayMay May June June JuneJune JuneJune JuneJune June JuneJuly JuneJune June June JuneJuly JuneJuly July 26.26. 31- 3.2. 3.8-10. 8-15.9. 9-10. 10.15-18. 15- 1.23. 24.24. 27-28. 30-1. 30-2. 1. FORTHCOMING EVENTS Newcastle-on-Tyne Air Display.Wolverhampton Aero Club: "At Home" (sponsored by A.B.A.C.) and Goodyear Trophy Race. Iranian International Rally. Auster Flying Club: Rally, Rearsby.Auster-Ragosine Homing Trophy, Rearsby. Air Circuit of Sicily.Spanish International Rally. Rally and Race, Fairwood Common Aerodrome, Swansea.Royal Air Farces Association: Annual Conference, Torquay. Lancashire Aero Club: "At Home" (sponsored by A.B.A.C.).Royal Danish Aero Club: International Rally. Paris Aero Show. ' 1 R.Ae.C: Festival of Britain National Air Races, Hatfield.International Rally, Pisa, Italy. Northern Heights Model Flying Club: Gala Day, HawkerAirfield, Langley. Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences: Annual SummerMeeting, Los Angeles. Cognac International Rally, France. R.Ae.C.: Members' Deauville Rally.International Rally, Savona, Italy.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
