FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1960
1960 - 2156.PDF
540 Sport and Business Demonstrated at Farnborough by Ken Rutter was the Armstrong-Siddeley Cheetah-powered Lancashire Pros- pector. With 410 b.h.p. available for take off, initial rate of climb should be 1,200ft/min and cruising speed 140 m.p.h. at 4J00OU with a take-off to 50ft in 850ft. A similar conversion has already been undertaken in Australia and the Cheetah variant will now be available in the UK. Basic price will be less than that of the Lycoming powered version and engine overhaul life is 1,200 instead of 600hr. A fixed-pitch propeller is fitted IS MORE RADIO navigation equipment in privateaircraft going to make business and touring flying more, or less, safe? Are instruments and radio merelyan aid to the type of contact flying for which most general aviation pilots are qualified? Or are they alure to tempt the unwary to operate beyond their limits in instrument weather? There is a growing body of opinion among USbusiness pilots that the installation, almost as stan- dard, of autopilots, 90-channel radios, ADFs andOmni in modern light aeroplanes provides potential pitfalls to VFR navigators—although nothing could be morereassuring when the weather begins to close in. The only way to become really efficient in the use of radio aids is to use themas much as possible, and the temptation is always present to rely on their availability to stretch prudent limits a little beyond thebounds of safety. There is only one real solution to safer flight in poorer weather.That is to have sufficient equipment installed, to use it properly, and to train to fly within the limits of the equipment. In effect,this means obtaining an instrument rating, and every pilot who is seriously considering attempting to operate with regularitythroughout the year might give serious thought to obtaining official approval to fly by instruments. But whether, in the present scheme of things, this is a practicalpossibility for any normally busy man seems open to question. The requirements for an MoA Instrument Rating are 150hr aspilot-in-charge, of which at least 50hr should be cross-country experience; 20hr actual instrument flying of which 5hr shouldbe completed shortly before the test; and 20 hours' procedure experience on a Link trainer. Armed with this experience, a PPLand an R/T licence, the private pilot who wants to obtain an instrument rating must take an MoA Link trainer test, an initialflying test and an instrument rating test. Technical tests have also to be passed on aviation law, flight planning, meteorology,signals and navigation. The full syllabus is set out in the 1959 edition of the Ministry of Aviation pamphlets CAP.53 andCAP.54. It is hard to say how much spare time study all this wouldrequire, but it is obviously considerable. One authoritative estimate is that an intensive course devoted to the ground subjectsalone would take four full weeks and that a part-time corre- spondence course, with as much spare time as possible givento home study, might take four to five months. Viewed in the context of the pilot who operates an aircraft astransport in connection with his business, it seems that to all but a few the Ministry of Aviation instrument rating is out ofreach. But the equipment to fly in instrument weather is not, so that in order to achieve effective standards of safety eitherlimits must be placed on the conditions under which light aircraft may operate, or the instrument rating must in some way be modi-fied so that the skills it confers are brought within more practical reach of pilots who are genuinely prepared to submit to the hardwork and study that is involved. While it is true that some steps have been taken to make iteasier for a pilot to obtain an instrument rating in his own aircraft, the majority of the flying and ground tests are little FLIGHT, 30 September I960 altered. When suggestions for a simplification of the syllabushave previously been mooted there has in general been point- blank refusal to consider any modification of the standard. If theprivate pilot will not come to the rating, the rating is certainly not going to come to the pilot. It is not suggested here that therating standards should necessarily be sacrificed, only that they should be re-examined to see if there are not ways and meansof reducing to more practical proportions the long slog that the tests now demand. Or it might be that there are ways of makingsome type of limited rating possible—if not for regular flight along airways then to make more safe the occasional let-down throughcloud in bad weather into the aerodromes best equipped to ensure a safe arrival. The number of occasions when this assistancewould be required is likely to be relatively few, but it seems right that private pilots should press for more flexible thinking amongthose whose duty it is to lay down procedures and to award licences. It is doubtful whether any private pilot really wants safetystandards to be relaxed; but it does not necessarily follow that requirements set so high as to be virtually out of reach are thebest way of ensuring overall safety. It would surely be better to raise the standard of instrument competence of the majorityof private pilots with a rating of limited application than to restrict a full rating to the few who have time to spare to obtain it andcan keep in practice when they have done so. Arguments about the flying tests apart, one positive step thatmight be tried out now is to allow the technical ground tests to be taken with full reference to books and manuals. The argumenthere is that it is better to teach a pilot where to go for information than to train him to a high "swot standard" in procedures whichmay subsequently be forgotten and for which references will always subsequently be available. PRIVATE FLYING in Great Britain urgently needs encourage-ment. One of the ways that this might best be done is to introduce follow-up flying training to standards higher than the privatepilot's licence. Instrument training is one such step, and it might be worth considering the introduction of an intermediate typeof private pilot's licence for which a qualification of, say, lOOhr solo flying, 15hr Link and 5hr actual instrument flying was required.What the privileges of such a licence should be are open to argument, but this would seem to be a reasonable qualificationto demand of a pilot requesting a non-emergency special VFR clearance into an aerodrome within a control zone in IMC con-ditions. It should ensure a reasonable standard of competence on instruments should the weather deteriorate and should a GCA This is the instrument panel of the 1961 Comanche, described on page 493 last week. Engine instruments are now on the right, leaving room in the centre for a typical radio installation of (top to bottom) Piper Auto Nav ADF; Narco Mk V transmitter/receiver with VOR/ILS indicator on the left-hand panel; Narco Mk VI VOR receiver and th^ new AltiMatic three-axis autopilot. A second Narco Mk V for communications is installed on the left hand side of the panel. Extreme right, below the locker, are controls for tn new cabin air system
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
