FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1961
1961 - 0034.PDF
32 FLIGHT, 6 January 1961 AIR COMMERCE . . . NO RUNWAYS LEFT AT LONDON "TN view of the fantastic fees already charged at London A Airport and the increases proposed, it is appalling that something more effective cannot be provided. We can understand and appreciate the need for repairs but, as an airline operator, we have to consider an efficient service for our passengers. It is most unfortunate that only one runway is normally available." These angry words from TWA were the result of an MoA warning last week that London Airport's only remaining service- able jet runway, 10L/28R, would be closed for repairs on December 29 between seven and eight o'clock in the morning. In practice no aircraft were delayed or diverted, and the work was completed in time for a PanAm 707 to land at 0745hr. Recent lifting of tarmac repair patches on No 1 runway has made it necessary to close it on most nights between 2300hr and 0600hr, although last winter this runway was out of commis- sion for six months for resurfacing and the installation of new The first of four Fokker Friendships ordered by New Zealand National Airways Corporation, seen here on a manufacturers' test flight, was delivered on December 12; it arrived in Wellington, say the manu- facturers, "exactly on schedule" lighting. The parallel No 5 runway, 28L/10R, was withdrawn from service some months ago for extension and improve- ments and will not open again until March. Moreover, because runways Nos 6 and 7 cross or overlap it, they are closed as well. No 2 runway (05R/23L), the only present alternative to 10L/28R, was put out of action by the BOAC Boeing 707 which swung oT it when landing from Chicago on Christmas Eve, and until the aircraft was moved five days later it restricted the effective length to 6,000ft and its use to much lighter aircraft. Delay in moving the Boeing, G-APFN, was the result of difficulty in obtaining the necessary equipment over the Christmas holiday; air bags and 2,000 railway sleepers were required to raise the aircraft and work it across muddy ground towards the hangars. The Boeing, which left the runway after touching down, was badly damaged, although none of the 95 passengers or 12 crew was injured. It is reported that one wing was reduced to "a tangled mass of metal," the lower part of the undercarriage fractured and the engines forced upwards. THE AIRLINES WIN FACED with the possibility of refusal by the airlines usingUK airports to co-operate over the proposed travel cards, the Board of Trade has decided not to proceed with the scheme. It was to have been introduced by an Order, and brought into effect on January 1. Instead, says the Board of Trade in a Press notice, "the Government have decided to collect migration and tourist statistics of British and Commonwealth passengers travelling on the long air routes (beyond Europe) by means of a voluntary sample." It remains to be seen whether distribution and collection of sampling cards will be done by the Board of Trade. LORD BRABAZON v SIR WILLIAM REACTION by IATA to Lord Brabazon's "fuel duel"challenge, expressed in a letter to him from Sir William Hildred, the Association's director-general, reflects airline irritation with what they feel is the over-simplification of tech- nical argument aired in public. When Lord Brabazon first raised the issue of JP.4 versus kerosine, he said that he hoped that his words would "echo round the world." But it was his fuel- ignition demonstration on the BBC television programme "Panorama" which has aroused the strongest reactions. Secure in the knowledge that his case is a strong one, Lord Brabazon offered The Listener the letters exchanged between him and Sir William. They are reproduced here in full: — December 2, 1960 My dear Brab:When some months ago you expressed views about JP.4 at an ARB lunch, I wrote to you limiting myself to a correction of the accidentfigures wrongly ascribed to you in the Press reports. I now learn from Flight and other sources that the subject has beenraised again, this time on television before 8,000,000 viewers. The incident has been, I find, brought up at a meeting of IATA's technicalcommittee which is at present meeting in Rio and I have just received the following cable from the chairman: "I wish to inform you that as result of discussion at technicalcommittee meeting in Rio it is their unanimous opinion that recent public statements and television demonstration in the UK on JP.4versus kerosine are harmful to the worldwide airline industry and might indirectly be handicap to the British aviation manufacturers.The Committee feels most strongly that generalized public state- ments on such complicated technical matters by persons holdingresponsible positions in aviation and particularly airworthiness authorities are wrong in principle and can only be harmful to theformulation of sound technical decisions based on factual evidence.— Chairman IATA technical committee." This Committee contains a score of the best technical operators inthe international industry. The annual conference which they control brings together over 500 of the best minds from research establishments,government departments, fuel specialists, engine, airframe and accessory manufacturers, and fightine services. They are doing a serious andvaluable job. I have no difficulty in placing before you their opinion, with which I agree. I am very good at minding my own business, but supposing you wereabsolutely right in your views, is it good to ventilate those views before 8,000,000 "sweaty"nightcaps." What does it avail you? With yourenormous prestige is it not better to hammer those views out with technical peoDle rather than to make dangerous statements to theemotional millions? And if you were wrong in your views, then have you not done areal disservice to the cause of aviation in general and perhaps to British aviation in particular? I am puzzled and disturbed to find that youhave chosen such a form. Yours sincerely, WILLIAM P. HILDRED,Director-General December 12, 1960My dear Hildred, Always pleasant to have a letter from you, but the one I am aboutto answer is signed by you as Director-General of IATA and it is to that individual I must address these somewhat harsh words.Let us be perfectly clear about the subject. No one has disputed, least of all myself, that turbine engines can run satisfactorily and safelyon kerosine or JP.4, otherwise the ARB would not have certified them. The point is that speeds of take-off and landing have gone up andin the event of a minor crash fuel will be spilt. What I have done is to show the somewhat axiomatic fact graphicallythat whereas kerosine takes time to ignite, JP.4 flashes into a bonfire. No conference of so-called experts gathered at Rio or anywhere elsecan dispute this. I cannot follow why the truth about the behaviour of the two fuels under the circumstances named should not be knownand is it not an example of contempt for your passengers, upon whom you exist, and your desire to keep them in ignorance of something thataffects them, that you should dub those that saw the BBC television programme as "8,000,000 sweaty nightcaps"? The crux of the question was given away by Mr Knut Hagrup atCopenhagen when he said "The point is that if JP.4 tends to become cheaper (it isn't now, but it may become cheaper) then we must beready for it." Strange that there was no desire to use JP.4 when it was dearer. Thesame so-called experts existed before, but their super knowledge was never voiced! It is patently clear that the desire to use JP.4 is based on monevmaking. I freely admit it has always been a question as to how much you should pay for safety. In this case on the basis that truth andknowledge should be known, it may be passengers might b? prepared to pay a surcharge for travelling by kerosine, but I cannot and will notsubscribe to your views that everyone except those interested in running airlines should be kept in ignorance of basic facts. A word about the rather comic telegram from Rio. First of all, ifthe technical committee are unconvinced as to what happens to the respective fuels in the case of a minor crash I am quite prepared torepeat the experiment, but a study of the La Guardia accident to an Electra when seventy peoole walked out of an aeroplane usin? kerosinethat crashed and caught fire, instead of being burned alive, will appeal to Dassengers, if not apparently to some operators. Second of all I do not follow the rather sinister veiled threat toBritish aviation. Turbine engines are turbine engines wherever they are made, and most reputable operators all over the world use kerosine. The question your "best minds" have to answer is, in what way hasJP.4 suddenly become so safe, now it is cheaper than kerosine? I will not disclose to you my real opinion of IATA, but you mustbear in mind that it is an organization of operators and for that very reason the decisions they take are for their own advantage. There areother points of view and the time has come when they will be aired even if it is disagreeable to the Association. It is indeed a strange situation I find myself in to be accused of doingharm to aviation by endeavouring to make it safer. As it was the BBC who inspired the demonstration I am sending thiscorrespondence to them, as it will interest them. Yours sincerely, BRABAZON OF TARA
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
