FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1959
1959 - 1866.PDF
FLIGHT, 21 August 1959 49 The A.R.B. Report LORD BRABAZON REVIEWS THE YEAR 1958-59 Lord Brabazon of Taro, chairman of the Air •' '- Registration Board THE 22nd annual report of tfte Air Registration Board waspresented in July by the chairman, Lord Brabazon of Tara.riis introduction made clear that the A.R.B. is concerned, as is the aircraft industry, with the diminishing background ofresearch. "Were this kind of work to cease or to be substantially reduced," Lord Brabazon said, "the solution of many airworthi-ness problems would be impossible." Without adequate engin- eering development it became impracticable to build aeroplaneswhich met the competing demands of safety and efficiency. An indirect plea for Government support of research was con-tained in the chairman's remark: "Since the cost of such back- ground work is inevitably high, it seems unlikely to the Boardthat it could be borne solely by constructors and their customers." He noted that the A.R.B. staff had participated with the M.o.S.in a review of research programmes. "Provided these programmes can be implemented at a reasonable speed," he ended, "much ofthe Board's concern will disappear." Referring to the controversial question of backward-facingseats, the report noted "the Board has reached the conclusion that the operator should be free to offer the travelling public theaccommodation he believes to be most attractive." In reaching this conclusion the Board had borne in mind a statement by theMinister of Transport and Civil Aviation to the effect that he would not wish to force the use of backward-facing seats inadvance of international agreement to make them obligatory. Also among the chairman's opening remarks was a referenceto the tendency for private flying to decline. Though club and training aircraft had increased in numbers since 1951, and thenumber of gliders had doubled since 1949, private flying and business flying has declined slightly since 1951. The chairmannoted that the U.K. was a "very poor second" to France in the number of registered private and club aircraft, and fourth in thenumber of gliders. Popular flying was faced with difficulties such as shortage of airfields and ground facilities, lack of up-to-dateaircraft, increases in the area of controlled airspace and the "ever- present lack of finances." The arrangements made by the Boardfor delegating responsibility for airworthiness to the British Glid- ing Association and to the Popular Flying Association for "permitsto fly" for older light aircraft were working satisfactorily. On the subject of altimeter design, the committee set up by theMinistry to consider the whole question of presentation might well recommend further modifications. However, the Board"finds it difficult to visualize a presentation which will compen- sate entirely for any deficiencies in pilot training and discipline." The International Civil Aviation Organization. The Boardwas represented at the I.C.A.O. meetings during the year, one of which was the second gathering of the Airworthiness Com-mittee, in Montreal in July, 1958. A draft of an International Performance code was produced at that meeting. The Boardbelieved that discussion of this and other problems on an inter- national basis "is useful in providing means for assessing inter-national opinion and improving mutual understanding of national methods and difficulties." It was hoped that future meetings wouldsee progress on other important matters such as landing-distance requirements, flight-manual standardization and fatigue strength. U.S.A. and U.K. Certificates of Airworthiness. The previousannual report had referred to the efforts being made to reduce differences between the British and American airworthinesscodes. Having thoroughly examined the significant differences in collaboration with the Federal Aviation Agency, the Board hadin the past year amended its own requirements in every respect where it was considered that the U.S. requirements could, withadvantage, be adopted. The result of this was that the list of U.S. Special Conditions applicable to an aeroplane constructedto the 1959 British code would contain only half the items on the previous list. The British constructor was now assured that com-pliance with the British requirements, plus the relatively few stipulated Special Conditions, would result in both British andAmerican acceptance. Mr. R. E. Hardingham, the Board's secretary andchief executive In the particular field of performance requirements with tur-bine-engined aircraft, considerable steps had been taken towards unification. The F.A.A.'s recent re-issue of its recently intro-duced performance rules included a number of British views which had been met. Lord Brabazon added that l.C.A.O.'s draft "Pro-visional Acceptable Means of Compliance" on this subject, though non-mandatory, would command wide support from thestates contracting to I.C.A.O. It was encouraging to note that the current issue of British requirements was virtually identicalwith the I.C.A.O. specification. One of the few outstanding technical differences [between theU.S.A. and the U.K.] in performance requirements concerned take-off field length. British requirements were "rather morestringent." In this matter the Board considered that pending further experience of the operation of turbine-engined aircraftfrom runways of critical length, "no further reduction in the safety margins should be accepted." However, as the economy oflarger jets was substantially affected, this was a matter which would be kept "under active review." Requirements for Aircraft of the Future. Referring to presentBritish investigations into supersonic airliners, the A.R.B. con- sidered it to be already clear that "the operating cost of such anaeroplane would be far more sensitive to technical efficiency than is the case even with current subsonic jet aeroplanes, and that,unless the airworthiness requirements achieve comparable efficiency, the projected aeroplane will be either impracticableor unsafe." The Board was represented on the M.o.S. Supersonic TransportCommittee and aimed to assist not only in the recognition and evaluation of safety problems (which could decisively affect thedirection of research in this field) but was pressing for any neces- sary research or discussion needed for their solution to be putin hand by the appropriate body at a sufficiently early date. The problems to which attention was being given included the guststructure of the atmosphere at the relevant altitudes; the gust response of various plan-forms; stability; handling characteristicsrequired at take-off and approach speeds; field length criteria; icing; fuel reserves; and the much higher degree of reliance onautomatic devices. Whatever the ultimate decision on a supersonic transport aero-plane might be, invaluable by-products of the work were "the sense of direction given in thinking" on the safety problems of lessunorthodox future aeroplanes, and the promotion of contact with many scientists and technicians who hitherto had had little or nocontact with the Board. The Board had set up a Supersonic Aeroplane Airworthiness Committee. Certification Investigations were made during the year on theAW.650 Argosy, D.H.121, Vickers Vanguard, Vickers VC.10, Westland Wessex and Westland Westminster. Twenty-fivemodified aircraft were certificated during the year, and the Board had investigated six variants of the Viscount, two variants of theBritannia 300 and two variants of the Comet 4. Flight Testing. In the interests of economy in flight-testingtime, the Board was taking part in constructors' tests of the Vanguard in addition to conducting the Board's own special tests.This enabled the A.R.B. pilot to gain experience in flying the aircraft, and the observer to keep abreast of the technicalitiesinvolved and to arrange an economic series of A.R.B. tests. If successful, this method would be applied to other types. Among the cockpit layouts assessed during the year were thoseof the Vanguard, VC.10, D.H.121, AW.650 Argosy and Hunting H.107. Powerplant Development. A close liaison with the AmericanF.A.A. had been maintained and that body during the past year had certificated 16 British engines. "It is gratifying to know,"said the chairman, "that the F.A.A. has informed the Board that all Special Conditions for the acceptance of British gas turbineaircraft have now been removed."
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
