FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1957
1957 - 1007.PDF
FIRST AERONAUTICAL WEEKLY IN THE WORLD FOUNDED 1909 and AIRCRAFT ENGINEER No 2531 Vol 72 FRIDAY 26 JULY 1 95 7 Editor MAURICE A. SMITH D.F.C. and BAR Associate Editor H. F. KING M.B.E. Technical Editor W. T. GUNSTON Production Editor ROY CASEY Iliffe and Sons Ltd Dorset House Stamford Street London, S.E.1 Telephone • Waterloo 3333 (60 lines) BRANCH OFFICES Coventry 8-10 Corporation Street Telephone • Coventry 5210 Birmingham 2 King Edward House, New Street Telephone • Midland 7191 (7 lines) Manchester 3 260 Deansgate Telephone • Blackfriars 4412 (3 lines) Deansgate 3595 (2 lines) Glasgow C.2 26B Renfield Street Telephone • Central 1265 (2 lines) Toronto 1, Ontario Thomas Skinner of Canada, Ltd. 67 Yonge Street Telephone • Empire 6-0873 New York 6, N.Y. Thomas Skinner and Co. (Publishers), Ltd. Ill Broadway Telephone • Digby 9-1197 SUBSCRIPTION RATES Home and Overseas • Twelve Months. £4 10s. U.S.A. and Canada $14.00 In this issue 98 From All Quarters 101 Civil Aviation 103 Russian Contenders 104 Handling the Super Aero 106 Here and There 107 Aero Engines 1967 111 Aero Engines 1957 144 Correspondence 145 The Industry 146 Service Aviation Hard Bargaining NGLO-AMERICAN discord, whenever it arises, is always regarded as news, so much so that it is sometimes suspected when it does not in fact exist. Two discords are evident at the moment, both of them in the sphere of civil air transport. Strong words have been flying across the Atlantic, and it is as well to examine them in their contexts. Discord No. 1 concerns traffic rights. "It's not the Germans or the Swiss who won't let T.W.A. fly Frankfurt-Zurich," said (in so many words) a member of the U.S. Senate: "It's the British." The context of this quotation is the bargaining which has been going on between the governments of the two countries over traffic rights, under die terms of the Bermuda Agreement. B.O.A.C. would like trans-Pacific rights between Cali- fornia and Australia. The Americans are prepared to grant them, but in return they want Trans World Airlines to be able to lift traffic out of London to the many points on its network in Europe and the East. This, feels the British government, would seriously affect B.E.A.'s European business and B.O.A.C.'s Middle and Far Eastern traffic. The Americans also want traffic rights at Hong Kong for North- west Airlines. The implications of this, our own government feels, would be that Northwest, a trans-Pacific operator, could link with T.W.A.'s Eastern services and further jeopardize B.O.A.C.'s Eastern business. There the matter rests—further evidence of the political climate in which air commerce has to work. It would be good to feel that it is the British who are seek- ing a way out of the impasse: although it may seem on this occasion that we hold most of the cards, it is certain that in the future, if Britain's share of international air transport is to expand as it should, we shall be seeking more than we can give. Discord No. 2 concerns airworthiness. Lord Brabazon, chairman of the Air Registration Board, has referred to "a battle of special requirements, some of them very, very silly." It was good to hear someone speak up at last on this topic. Man to man, the A.R.B. and C.A.A. talk as engineers, insulated from politics and big business. It would be a pity if their inevitable differences of technical opinion were to be turned to other ends. The Big TopN OT long ago there was a great pother about the number of admirals deemed necessary to run our diminishing Royal Navy. Now, in answer to a Parlia- mentary question, the Under-Secretary of State for Air has had to admit that the Royal Air Force is even more top-heavy. For every officer of air rank there are only 761 other ranks; whereas the ratio for each rear admiral or above is the comparatively respectable figure of 930, and every major-general or above heads a veritable army of 2,100 men. How does the R.A.F. come to have such a flourish of air officers, and can all this scrambled egg be digested by a slimmer Service? One of the Under-Secretary's questioners suggested that when an air marshal was appointed to a guided-missile post there should be a corresponding reduction in manned-aircraft posts, and Mr. Orr-Ewing spoke of "a most careful survey." It is quite understandable that the R.A.F., with its brilliant war record and its very high standards of selection, should throw up so many first-class senior officers; even with an inflated establishment there is not nearly room for everyone at the top and many men of high ability must leave the Service disappointed at not having got there. Nevertheless, the ratio of one air rank officer to 761 other ranks is too high, and the Air Minister should indeed examine all appointments to see if they are justified. Otherwise the R.A.F. is going to find itself in the Gilbertian situation of everyone being somebody and no one anybody. Present prospects, of course, are encouraging for the air officers of tomorrow, training at Cranwell or Halton—for with a ratio of 1:761 they have more than a sporting chance of finding the proverbial baton in their small-kit, and may confidently dream of scrambled egg when they hang up their hats for the night.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
