FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1957
1957 - 0086.PDF
86 FLIGHT, 18 January 1957 CORRESPONDENCE The Editor of "Flight" is not necessarily in agreement with the views expressed by c the names and addresses of the writers, not for publication in detail, must in all cases coiumws,- accompany letters. A.T.C. Cadets' War ServiceI WAS very pleased to read in your issue of December 21 thatVeronica Wolkersz, in her book The Sky And I, makes reference to the fact that a select band of A.T.C. cadets carried out flyingduties with A.T.A. during the war. However, it would appear from your review that the cadets flew only with women pilots. In actual fact, about early 1941, representations were made onbehalf of the cadets employed by A.T.A. on various ground duties for permission to fly as passenger when possible, purely to gainair experience. The Chief Operations Officer, Cdr. Wills (Philip Wills of gliding fame) gave a sympathetic hearing but pointed outthe insurance problem. At this time, however, a number of aircraft (Whitley, Hudson, etc.) were being flown by a crew of pilot andsecond pilot, the latter's duties being mainly the operation of the hydraulics in the event of failure, as they could not be operated bythe pilot alone. It was decided that A.T.C. cadets could admirably fulfil theseduties, and from then until the end of the war in 1945, these cadets, and their successors, flew many hundred hours on a variety ofaircraft including all the four-engined bombers, and also flying- boats. The writer personally flew some 300 hours on over a scoreof types before joining the R.A.F.V.R. in October 1943. One cadet met his death in a Hudson, piloted by a womanpupil, which stalled and crashed in a field at Taplow, Bucks, in late 1944.The above may be of some slight interest to those who have probably never heard of this small service performed by the A.T.C. during the war. R. D. BROWNMaidenhead, Berks. (Late 155 Sqn., A.T.C.). London Off-limits ComparedI WAS particularly interested to read the article "London Off-Limits" in your November 23 issue. In my opinion, this article does an excellent job of outlining the official Government philo-sophy responsible for the lack of general civil aviation in the U.K., although the article itself probably was not written with that pointof view in mind. First, let me correct one statement made in it. This says thatIdlewild and La Guardia Airports at New York are limited to scheduled and transport aircraft in much the same manner as areLondon and Paris Airports. This is not correct. The Govern- ment of the United States expressly forbids such discriminations atany civil airport in which Federal funds have been invested. I can and do use either La Guardia or Idlewild in my own airplane,whenever I have the need to do so. The operators of those two airports—the Port of New York Authority—would like very muchto have the situation exist as you have said it does. They try to achieve this by charging very high landing and parking feesto private aircraft. But that's as far as they can go; neither those airports nor any comparable airports anywhere in the United States—including Chicago Midway, the world's busiest—can forbid non-airline civil aircraft from using their fields whenever theychoose. Now to get back to my point about official government attitudetoward civil aviation. I realize that there are a number of reasons why private and business flying in the British Isles is limited.Governmental attitude is just one—but it's an extremely important one. The attitude that is applied to London Airport, as describedin your article, outlines the problem very well. British Govern- ment officials responsible for civil aviation have arbitrarily barrednon-transport aircraft from that field. They have arbitrarily declared that such operations would be unsafe. If they wereseriously concerned with the facts, and had a sympathetic desire to encourage and promote any civil aviation other than that of thescheduled airlines, they could quickly determine that their traffic congestion explanation is fallacious. The latest annual traffic countI have for London Airport is 124,434 total movements. At the risk of incurring British displeasure at what might seem to be Yankeeboasting, I feel that in the interest of factual accuracy I should point out that the following United States airports handle a highervolume of traffic than London: Austin, Texas; Bedford, Mass ; Dayton, Ohio; Des Moines, Iowa; Newark, N.J.; Nashville, Tenn •Lubbock, Texas; Richmond, Va.; Sacramento, Calif.; and Talla- hassee, Fla. None of these I have named, as you can see, is amongour busiest civil airports in the United States. So the fact appears to be that either London Airport is really not even remotely ashazardous as British Government officials would have you believe, or we in the U.S. are inviting disaster throughout the country atevery hour of the day and night. Fortunately, I think our accidents clearly refute the latter. So we once again must point to the Government attitude and philosophy. London Airport is closed to other than transport aircraft because British officials arbitrarily want to limit it in that manner These officials, while presumably charged with res- ponsibility for the development and promotion of civil aviation in your country, in reality have neither the knowledge nor the interest in any civil aviation other than that of the scheduled airlines. I am sure they regard what we call business and private flying as the sort of thing done by flying clubs far out in the provinces with ancient, rickety Tiger Moths. _ The actions and reactions of British civil aviation officials clearlyreflect this attitude. This results in complex and oppressive regu- lations being applied to pilots, aircraft, airports, traffic control,communications and so on. All of these added together make it highly impractical, if not impossible, to own and operate a privatecivil aircraft in the British Isles. The policies that are applied at London airport, then, are thepersonification of this philosophy. I am as certain as I have eyer been about anything that private and business flying in the BritishIsles never will achieve any significance, so long as this government attitude prevails. Let me hasten to point out that I am fully aware of some ofthe other limitations that keep down private and business flying in the British Isles. I have discussed them a number of times atI.C.A.O. meetings with representatives of your government. I know that the small size of your country is often cited as an impor-tant reason why there is no practical service to be rendered by a private or business aircraft. I disagree with this, because in myopinion at least it is this very type of aircraft that makes the whole of the European continent easily and conveniently available to theaverage British citizen flying a private aircraft. I know too that you have a lot of beastly weather in the British Isles. But so dowe; some of the most heavily populated areas of the United States also are subjected to some of the worst flying weather of any inthe country—and, as you know, the vast majority (between 80 and 90 per cant) of all flying in the United States is done V.F.R. I realize, too, that economics play a vitally important role in allthis. Suffice to say that we too are faced with the loss of economics and we too had a very small aviation industry when the civil air-craft and facilities that served them were so limited that their use was economically unsound. Today many thousands of peoplethroughout the United States (A.O.P.A. alone has 62,000 members, about 75 per cent of whom own aircraft) fly privately on a sound,economical basis. That this is even possible in the United States is due in greatpart to the fact that the attitude and philosophy of the United States Government has been directed toward encouraging thegrowth of ±is industry. Because of that attitude on the part of our Government, we have excellent airway facilities, airportfacilities, and an enlightened regulatory attitude. And because of this, aircraft manufacturers in the United States are able toproduce useful aircraft that are economically sound. When the British Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation takesthe steps it should to correct the problem outlined in your article, then I believe you will see the beginning of the growth of privateand business flying in the British Isles. But that type of civil aviation will barely survive so long as the attitude of the M. of Tand C.A. remains what it is today. Washington 14, D.C. MAX KARANT, Vice-President, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association«J 1Lni>t exactlv ttue t0 saY that non-transport aircraft are barred from London Airport; but, as the article pointed out,entry is so hedged about with restrictions as to be virtually im- possible.—Ed.] Non-performing Flea POLLOWING the trend of previous letters towards "diggingup aircraft which are more or less just rotting away in some SSET C°mer' d likC t0 repOrt a find * h d ^ several ?ti?n is' accordmg to a mechanic I questioned,£-£ % I*?*1 <?nn? c?nfirm as Aerc seems » me to be ircraft of differing design with this appendage This ^ I c™naLvneh^a3i°-UlderWing (3S °n ComPer ^ft> »* "toas 1 can say, has a twin-cylinder vee-type engine The aircraft is frontCwfn?6/^ ? t* •"•¥- ™th *^"useSe separa edfrom he wings and tail surfaces. Its registration is G-AEKR aerodanderT cT^ ^ remembe'** flights of this diminu ive BTrnTey, YorkT' **"* * M kd" °f 18 *•»• ofM. £ ?
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
