FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1959
1959 - 1377.PDF
666 FLIGHT, 15 May 1959 Qj Straight and Level I WONDER whether you are aspuzzled as I am about the SupplyMinister's latest move on Britain's supersonic airliner. He has directed Air Chief Marshal Sir Claude Pelly to ask individual avia- tion companies for their views on the recommendations of the Supersonic Air Transport Committee. "It will be left open to individual firms," Mr. Aubrey Jones explains, "to give considered views on the type and speed of aircraft they would recommend." Was not this the purpose of the 1956 Supersonic Air Transport Committee, upon which were eventually represented a total of 12 British aircraft firms? What are the firms concerned now going to tell Sir Claude that they haven't already told the Committee? The Supply Minister will probably get as many technical and commercial recommendations as the number of air- craft firms Sir Claude consults. Then, of course, the Minister will have to appoint another Supersonic Air Trans- port Committee to co-ordinate all the views. And then Sir Claude willagain be directed to ask individual companies for their views on the recommendations. . . . And so it will go on, until my old friend Sir Charles Boost, firebrand champion of British supremacy in the air, decides to adopt U.S. nationality. • Which reminds me: I have been thinking again about Britain's super- sonic airliner policy, and I have decided that there is only one sensible course of action. The Ministry of Supply should buy up Lockheed lock, stock and barrel, perhaps at the same time offering peer- ages and knighthoods to Lockheed's top management. I am not quite sure how much Lockheed would cost, or whether Baron Gross of Burbank or Sir Hall Hibbard would be prepared to work with the Ministry of Supply. But I am sure that this is the way to get the best and cheapest British supersonic airliner. • In view of the carefully considered decision of the Canadian Government to throw away the Arrow and to buy the American Bomarc missile, I cannot help being interested in the view of Gen. Earle Partridge, C-in-C. of NORAD. Speaking before the House of Representatives in Washington, he said: "In my view the only way to assure the positive identification of unidentified objects on radar scopes is through the use of long-range intercepters." But we must not get too discouraged. The science which threatens to become known as "missilonics" will soon pro- duce a Bomarc which can formate on the source of a blip and say: "It's only a T.C.A. Viscount—one of their first batch of V.724s with stubby noses." • Northwest Airlines said, in hearingsbefore the American Civil Aeronautics Board, that if B.O.A.C. are allowed toinclude Tokyo in their Hong Kong - San Francisco service, about £5,356,000revenue a year would be diverted from American carriers. B.O.A.C.,at the same hearing, retortedthat the maximum diversion could not be more than £1,117,367 per year. This sort of claim and counter-claimis routine stuff at hearings before our own Air Transport Advisory Council—usually in respect of controversies between Corporations and independents. But—unlike the C.A.B.—our ownA.T.A.C. has neither the staff nor the time independently to decide which sidehas the more reasonable claim. In the case of the B.O.A.C.-Northwest contro-versy, the C.A.B.'s Bureau of Air Opera- tions did their own sums and decidedthat the diversion would be £1,786,000. I do not record this to show that theAmerican authorities are not standing in B.O.A.C.'s way on this particular issue.It's simply that I wish our A.T.A.C. had a proper staff capable of decidingscientifically which party in an air trans- port controversy is less wrong thananother. How can it otherwise make correct decisions? • This is a question, indeed, which puzzles me very much. And it prompts me to wonder whether you read the recent series of articles in The Daily Telegraph by an American road traffic engineer? Something he said about the way we tackle our road problems struck me as being applicable to the way we face our air transport problems. Here is what he said, slightly paraphrased: — "A representative advisory council is nosubstitute for an executive agency which bases clear and consistent policy onadequate facts and research by trained specialists. . . . Without this isn't thereserious danger of wrong policies, unwise decisions, and improper actions?" As they say on TV quiz shows—he's so right! Meet the daringyoung men on the flying trampoline—Sgt. Quinney and Cpl. Portas of theR.A.F. School of Physical Training, St.Athan. I suppose they'll be trying ittied together next. Then, in due course,with coloured smoke • A member of Bristol's servicedepartment protests at my comparison of B.O.A.C. Britannia 312 and Ansett-A.N.A. Electra utilizations. You may recall my note that the former clocked-up 3i hr per day after one year, and the latter 11 hr per day after one week. Hethinks that this shows up the Britannia in a poor light. I'm sure he will agree that it alldepends on who is operating the Bri- tannia. During the last 100 days Aero-naves de Mexico, for example, averaged 10^ hr per day with one Britannia whiletheir second one was hors de combat for repairs after a training accident. You need a pretty good aeroplane forthat kind of utilization. In fact, I would go as far as to guess that no single aero-plane has ever produced so much air transport over such a long period—acapacity-ton-mileage equivalent to the normal three-month output of a fleet of25 DC-3s. • The most illuminating pages in the44th annual report of the American National Advisory Committee for Aero-nautics (now the N.A.S.A.) are those in which eminent men send special greet-ings to Gen. James H. Doolittle. The Chief of Staff of the U.S. AirForce signs a letter written on a com- mon, or garden, typewriter addressed to"Dr. Doolittle." The Assistant Secre- tary of the Navy for Air's letter is doneon a machine with big, light-face, round type (and a rubber-stamp date), and itgoes to "Dear Jimmy." The Secretary of Commerce adheres to an obviouslymuch-battered instrument with archaic bold-condensed type-face, and he sendshis regards to "General Doolittle." The recipient, the renowned GeneralDoolittle himself, is the proud possessor of an electronic typewriter, and hisreplies are immaculate. • D.H.86 pilot to Dar-es-Salaam con- trol: "Please may I land into wind? It's my birthday." ROGER BACON
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
