FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1954
1954 - 2071.PDF
92 FLIGET CIVIL AVIATION . . . all 18 passengers, in 20g rearward-facing seats, escaped with minor injuries. Another Valetta crashed near Boscombe Down on November 25th, 1952, after being in collision with a Venom. The nine passengers (paratroops) stepped out of their rearward- facing seats unhurt, and the crew of four all received injuries. In a third Valetta accident, at Lyneham, on January 20th this year, one of the crew of five was killed and four injured; the six passengers, all in aft-facing seats, received only very slight injuries. Both theory and practice, then, show that there is a strong case for fitting rearward-facing seats in transport aircraft. What are the arguments against such a step? Objections have been raised, mainly by airline operators, under two main headings. What of passenger reaction? "The passenger wouldn't like it" is by far the most popular argument. Undoubtedly this would be true of a proportion of passengers, although the surveys men tioned earlier suggest that the proportion might not be large. It is worth remembering, too, that R.A.F. transport aircraft have tailwheel undercarriages, and aft-facing passengers tend to slip off the seat during the first part of the take-off run. Even this small element of discomfort would be absent in the vast majority of modern airliners. Presumably objections to facing aft in flight would be based on the argument that it is unnatural not to face HERMES IVA troopers operated by Airwork are fitted with aft-facing seats. One of the company's pilots, Capt. C. D. Stenner, reports in the "Handley Page Bulleti/i" that "Many of our passengers are travelling by air for the first tide and do not think it unusual to face backwards. There is certainly\np unfavourable reaction to seats which face aft." the direction of travel. Perhaps it is. But flying is still regarded by the majority of airline passengers as an "unnatural" mode of travel anyway. Nothing but a 100 per cent survival record will change this eutlook. Finally we come to the fatuous argument that aft-facing seats are psychologically bad, because they suggest the possibility of an accident. One might carry this argument further and advocate the abolition of lifejackets and instructions on how to wear them. Somebody, I feel sure, is going to point out that some aircraft now in airline service carry equal numbers of rearward- and forward-facing seats, and that most passengers choose the latter. Even if this is true, it does not affect the basic issue at stake. As it happens, choice of seating is influenced by the fact that forward- facing seats in the aircraft concerned occupy the after part of the cabin, which is usually (a) quieter and (b) more crashworthy. As to cost, it would undoubtedly be an expensive and incon venient process to uproot all current seating arrangements. How ever, the cost penalties have been greatly exaggerated. At present, floors, anchorages and seats in civil airliners are stressed for 6 to 12g. All arguments put forward for the ideal rearward-facing seat have assumed an ability to withstand 20 to 25g. Airline operators naturally shrink at the thought of a costly, wholesale switch from existing forward-facing seats to much stronger aft-facing seats. But such a drastic step is not immediately advocated. Acceptance of the principle of rearward-facing seats, coupled with a progressive stepping-up of stress factors, promises to offer a real improvement in crashworthiness. Can the airlines prove otherwise? Regardless of whether a decision is reached on this matter, air craft of the near future are certain to have stronger floors and stronger seats. Airworthiness authorities are now talking in terms of 15 to 25g. Aft-facing seats may then be essential if full advan tage is to be taken of this additional strength, in order to avoid the danger of head injuries from closely pitched seats. The passenger's chances of escaping uninjured from a 20g impact, using a 20g forward-facing seat and simple lap-strap, seem very doubtful—whereas there is little doubt about the efficiency of a rearward-facing seat under these circumstances. In fact, the exist ing type of lap-strap may have to be replaced by a full Sutton harness and head-band if forward-facing seats are retained—one more point in favour of facing the other way. R. B. AMERICAN VISCOUNTS 'T'HE appearance of an American report listing some of the -*• "hundred modifications" to the Viscounts for Capital Airlines is considered by Vickers Armstrongs to be misleading. Many of the so-called modifications, they point out, are merely choices "off the shelf" from a large number of fully developed alternatives while others are features which have always been standard on every production machine. The following is a brief history of the Americanization of the Viscount, since the first order for 15 Viscount 724s for Trans-Canada Airlines was placed in the autumn of 1952. The order for the 15 Canadian machines was a sufficiently large one to justify the development of a Viscount specifically tailored to the needs of North American operators. To this end, thousands of hours of drawing-office time have been expended in such items as the following: — (1) Conversion of the whole aircraft to accept some American flight instrumentation and radio. (2) Redesign of the cockpit in detail to conform to transatlantic practice. (3) A general re-engineering of the entire machine to North American standards (neither tetter nor worse than our own) and conditions, in such items as threads, wiring, pipe connectors, and so forth, together with some production of drawings to third-angle projection. This done, work proceeded on developing certain items re quested tajfT.CA. These included: — (1) Pjdvision of a third wiper on the centre cockpit window, for use during cross-wind landings in bad weather. Contrary to the American report, T.C.A. did not call for "bigger windshields." (2) A redesign of the water system to incorporate a purifier. This was done owing to a reported mistrust by the airline of the potable quality of some Canadian water. (3) A redesign of the cabin-air system, with AiResearch pressure controllers and Janitrol heaters. (4) Deletion of the autopilot ("Smiths S.E.P.2) but with provision for the equipment to be installed if required. (5) Installation of NESA electrically heated cockpit windows. All these modifications having been carried out, it has proved a relatively simple task to develop Viscounts to the requirements of Capital Airlines. At present three, with the type number 744, are being made for delivery to Capital early next year, this early delivery having been made possible by the fact that the aircraft take the place of three originally earmarked for B.E.A. Equip ment specified by Capital (and generally available "off the shelf') includes: — (1) Provision of fixed crew-oxygen, this being standard Capital equip ment. (2) Installation of the airline's own standard public-address system. (3) Use of the "Americanized" cabin-air system, without the Janitrol heaters. (4) As the,radio is remotely controlled, me window normally provided for the radio -officer is to be deleted. (5) In place of the cockpit synchroscopes, which tell the pilot whether or not all four Rolls-Royce Darts are in phase, the full Rotol automatic engine synchronization system will be installed. (6) Following competitive trials with other autopilots, Capital have placed a firm order for British Smiths S.E.P.2 equipment in their Viscounts. (7) Contrary to T.C.A. practice, the Viscount 744s will revert to standard B.E.A. windscreen de-icing by hot air and alcohol. The report published in an American journal, referred to above, appears to list "specified" features rather than modifications; for example, brakes for the retracted nosewheels and seat-mounting tracks have been fitted to every production Viscount. Some of the specified equipment is, however, worth quoting, and includes such items as Rotol rebated-blade airscrews, winterized door- seals of neoprene rubber, a Perspex blister to protect the landing- gear visual indicators (which project upwards above the inier wings) and a form of fuselage soundproofing slightly different from that normally fitted. It is also worth noting that, perhips owing to a reported dislike on the part of T.C.A. to knobs r no catches which can be reached by passengers, the number of windows fitted as inward-pulling emergency exits is reduced to six (the legal minimum) in the American machines. In B.I A. Viscounts all but four of the 20 windows can be used as exits. Vickers, we learn, are concerned to note that the Ameri< in journal has stated that "Viscounts also have lost baggage dot rs on the lower right side . . . Several have been lost in flight by
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
