FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1959
1959 - 0554.PDF
FLIGHTy 20 February 1959 ,275 Correspondence rfce Editor of "Flight" is not necessarily in agreement with the viewsexpressed by correspondents in these columns. Names and addresses of writers, not for publication in detail, must in all cases accompany letters. Traffic Control: An American View I HAVE read with interest the article "The Traffic ControlProblem," by L. F. E. Coombs, in the December 26 issue of your magazine. When Mr. Coombs stated that "civil pilots are unanimous intheir opinion that any uncontrolled aircraft which is allowed to fly in controlled airspace constitutes a potential hazard," I am surethat he was speaking only for airline pilots and not for the great bulk of other civil pilots throughout the world. To give some ideaof comparative figures, using aircraft as a basis, the total airline fleet of the world is some 3,100 aircraft. This may be comparedto the U.S. general aviation fleet, which consists of more than 64,000 active aircraft, of which some 6,800 are multi-engined. Tolook at it another way, the U.S. general aviation fleet flew 10.9 million hours in 1958, as compared with the 3.6 millionhours flown by the U.S. domestic airline fleet. Most of the airspace over the continental United States is fastbecoming controlled area, and despite an announced programme of the U.S. scheduled airlines to file I.F.R. for all flights above10,000ft, we find a tremendous amount of both V.F.R. and I.F.R. flying by their pilots below 10,000ft. Obviously, the U.S. scheduledcarriers and thousands of our private and business pilots do not consider that uncontrolled V.F.R. flight in controlled airspaceconstitutes a hazard. The U.S. air traffic control system has grown to tremendoussize in the past few years both in terms of manpower and in terms of dollars required to keep it operating. The magnitude of theirpreseEt job may be appreciated after a study of the C.A.A. traffic figures for 1957, which show that their control centres handledapproximately 3 million I.F.R. departures. If we double this to include arrivals, we have in round figures approximately 6 millionoperations. This is about 35 per cent of the seventeen million itinerant operations (both V.F.R. and I.F.R.) handled by C.A.A.control towers. However, the C.A.A. in 1957 operated towers at only 207 locations out of the more than 7,000 airports and airfieldsshown on their records. Thus the 17 million itinerant operations that their towers reported represent approximately 3 per cent ofthe nation's landing areas. No accurate figures on nationwide traffic are available, but it is obvious that the 6 million I.F.R.operations handled by C.A.A. control centres in 1957 are only a drop in the bucket of U.S. nationwide traffic. To attempt to con-trol the remainder of this traffic under I.F.R. standards is a task so colossal as to stagger the imagination. Mr. Coombs's closing recommendation ("the essential need isto get something done well ahead of the next two major phases in aviation: the expansion of jet transport fleets and the intensiveUse of helicopters and business aircraft in all parts of the world") is indicative of the type of thinking that has effectively preventedextensive use of business aircraft in many parts of the world, including the U.K. It is safe to predict that there will be nointensive use of business aircraft in any country where this school of thought prevails. Washington, D.C. VICTOR J. KAVNE, Air Traffic Control Specialist. Flight-deck Layout '"THE presence and experience of a captain approaching retiring•"- age make him one of the most valuable members of the flying profession. Yet, because cockpit convention and layout have notkept pace with operational demands, he may retire too soon rather than attempt one trip too many. It is more than unfortunate that few flying crew can agree onwhat is essential in the cockpit. In an endeavour to make an old system fit, more and more instruments and switches are beingmassed in the front of the aircraft—so many it may need three crew-members to scan them. Space is at a premium, route booksare cumbersome, charts are mislaid, and the crew cannot put a cup of tea down anywhere—yet at the most critical moment ofany flight the pilot doing the landing or take-off needs only a yes/no reading or instruction. The following outline, to be studied in conjunction with thediagram, is presented as an idea for rationalization in the cockpit. It ma-; be of interest, and possibly of service: — Objects: (1) To allow captain to command and supervise execution oforders; (2) to make the most manually skilled crew-member available for actual flying; (3) to reduce number of incidents which with bad luckbecome accidents. Crew and Licences: No. 1, ALTP [airline transport pilot's licence],Nav., Eng., R/T. No. 2, Nav., Eng., R/T. No. 3, ALTP. These ENGINE. FLAP AND LANDING-GEAR CONTROLS FLIGHT-INSTRUMENT SYSTEM AND AUTOMATIC PILOT ENGINE INSTRUMENTS BASIC FLYING INSTRUMENTS AND U.S. MANUAL FLYING CONTROLS NAVIGATION AND RADIO-NAVIGATION INSTRUMENTS COMMUNICATIONS TABLES HINGED FOR ACCESS TO P0S.N..3 Suggested flight-deck layout (see letter from H. T. Thompson) licences are given as a suggested standard under present system ofexamination. However, as licences are constantly under review, doubt- less a system will evolve of endorsements to a basic academic andphysical examination. Positions: No. 1 (Captain).—Occupied only on take-off and landingor emergency; other than that of command, no flight duty necessaiy. No. 2.—Perform all communication orientation and direction functions.No. 3.—Manual flying and lookout; no loose-leaf navigation or mental guesstimation required. Additional crew-members would be for relief purposes only. It is appreciated the above might not be accepted overnight,but it is offered as a sincere attempt to give the cockpit a new look. When the most valuable members of a profession are dis-carded as a safety measure, change is overdue. With over 800 killed last year—long overdue.Woking. H. T. THOMPSON. A Famous Flying-boat VX^HILE I appreciate that it may be near impossible to make" " note of all the famous aircraft throughout the years, I do feel rather hurt that the Short Singapore III flying-boat failed evento get a mention in your Golden Jubilee number. These boats were, undoubtedly, among the world's most suc-cessful aircraft. They flew thousands of hours and yet had a remarkably low accident-rate. They did great work during 1935-36while operating from Aden and other overseas stations. In fact, one squadron (No. 203) held the greatest achievement of all pre-war flying-boat squadrons, i.e., the picking-up of coal from H.M.S. Fowey, a sloop (then at Muscat) and flying it down thePersian Gulf to another sloop H.M.S. Deptford (the latter ship having run out!). Fortunately the supply was only for the ship'sgalley. Surely no other aircraft or squadron of that time had such a record. I left No. 203 Squadron in 1938 on posting to India. But in1940 those flying-boats were still doing stalwart service. They were riding at moorings in Aden as decoys—proud, noble, finemachines that rode defiantly through storm and monsoon; foxing the enemy just as well as they would have fought him.Bravo the Singapore III! And, in particular, K4577, the oldest and most photographed of them all. Short Bros, should be asproud of building them as I am for having served and flown with them. Devizes, Wilts. WALTER R. PEARCE. [As to the fame of the Singapore we fully agree; but our "birthdayalbum" was in no sense a review of celebrated aircraft—Ed.] FORTHCOMING EVENTS Feb. 20. Avro 504 Club: Annual Reunion, Londonderry House. Feb. 23-24. Canadian Aeronautical Institute: Special Anniversary Meeting, Queen Elizabeth, Montreal. Feb. 24. R.Ae.S.: "Flight Development of Aircraft before and during Operation," by Dr. A. E. Russell, C. Abell and Dr. E. Warlow-Davies. Feb. 25. Aerodrome Owners Association: a.g.m. and Annual Dinner, London. Feb. 25. Kronfeld Club: "Some Medical Aspects of High-speed and High-altitude Flight," by Dr. R. Wombeek. Mar. 5. R.Ae.S. (Main Lecture, at London Airport Branch): First Fairey Memorial Lecture, "Sir Richard Fairey—an appre- ciation," by G. W. Hall. Mar. 6. Helicopter Association: "The Place of the Helicopter in a Modern Army," by Lt-Col. P. W. Mead. Mar. 7. Helicopter Association (Regional Lecture, at Yeo^il): "Helicopter Activities in the Royal Navy," by Lt-Cdr. J. S. Sproule. Mar. 7. British Interplanetary Society: "Radio Communications with a Space Probe," by Dr. W. T. Blackband. Mar. 10. R.Ae.S.: "Water and Ice in the Atmosphere," by R. F. Jones. Mar. 12. R.Ae.S.: 12th Louis Bleriot Lecture, "The Nord Griffon; and Turbo-ramjet Power," by M. I'lng. Gen. de I'Air Noel Daum. Junel2-21. Paris Aero Show. Sept. 7-13. S.B.A.C. Display ond Exhibition, Farnboraugh. R.Ae.S. Branch Fixtures (to Feb. 27): Feb. 25, Bristol, C.A.A./A.R.B. Lecture, "Future Safety Requirements in Air Transport," by R. B. Meyersburg and W. Tye; Christchurch, "Navigation Aids," by G. E. Beck; Hat field, "Development of the P.I Aircraft," by F. W. Page; Preston, "Operational Problems in Supersonic Flight Testing," by R P. Beamont. Feb. 26, Belfast, "Noise and its Effects on Aircraft Structures," by M. 0. W. Wolfe; Isle of Wight, "Development of Submarines," by R. N. Newton; Soirthend, "Aircraft Electrical Instal- lations," by G. G. Wakefield.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
