FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1961
1961 - 0358.PDF
366 FLIGHT, 23 March 1961 PRIVATE AND EXECUTIVE FLYING... Private Flying's Problems . . . feeling that a high-level co-ordinating committee was needed. How high the level? Parliamentary-secretary level, it was decided. With Mr Airey Neave as chairman, therefore, the Standing Joint Committee on Private and Club Flying and Gliding came into being in October 1958. The aim of the new group was "To assist the Minister in keeping under review all matters appertaining to the development of private and club flying and gliding in the United Kingdom." Its member- ship came both from the Ministry and from outside bodies. In the committee's brief history to date Mr Neave was succeeded by Mr John Hay, who in turn has been succeeded by Mr Geoffrey Rippon. What is the composition of the committee in 1961, how does it work, and what has it accomplished since 1958 ? The committee consists of eight men from the Ministry of Aviation, including the chairman and secretary, and seven men and one woman from the four outside organizations which represent the various private-flying interests. Two members each were nominated by the Association of British Aero Clubs, the British Gliding Association, the Popular Flying Association and the Royal Aero Club. The ABAC is represented by Mr G. H. M. Miles and Wg Cdr R. J. B. Pearse; the BGA by Mr Philip Wills and Mrs Ann Welch; the PFA by Mr Peter Masefield and Mr David Armstrong; and the Royal Aero Club by Mr J. J. Dykes and Mr. R. R. Stephenson. On the Ministry side, the members of the committee are the Parlia- mentary Secretary, Mr Rippon; Mr L. C. Nash (secretary); Mr S. R. Walton, Aviation Safety and General Division; Mr N. Craig, Air Division; Mr G. F. Gainsborough, Aerodromes Plan- ning Division; Mr W. E. B. Griffiths, Aviation Safety Directorate; Gp Capt J. B. Veal, Director-General of Navigation Services; and Mr R. R. Goodison, Under Secretary, Aviation Safety and General Division. For the representatives of the light-aviation bodies, membership of the committee is on a personal basis: if they themselves are unable to attend, they cannot send along deputies. This applies also to the Ministry side, but the committee has found it useful to have MoA specialists present in an advisory or observing capacity for particular discussions. These two points are well illustrated in the photo- graph of the February 28 meeting, which was attended by fewer outside members, and perhaps more Ministry people, than is usual. Another important point is that all discussions are open to all members of the committee: comments and sug- gestions by the BGA representatives, for example, are not limited to gliding topics. It would be surprising, also, if Mr Masefield (who is chairman of the RAeC Aviation Committee as well as PFA member of the joint committee) failed to represent Royal Aero Club views in the unavoidable absence, as on February 28, of the club's nominated members. Meetings of the committee are held at intervals of approximately three months, except for a longer gap which occurred at the time of the general election. Subcommittees have been formed for specific studies, but the main flow of information is based on papers and reports written by members and discussed by the full committee. In all its deliberations the recognized aim is for current problems to be aired and, if possible, solved by joint agreement. The presence of the Parliamentary Secretary implies that the Minister will not be unaware of the problems, and the fact that the committee proceed- ings are confidential permits Ministry officials to indicate future plans which might not have been publicly announced. The committee is inevitably limited because of its terms of reference. Its job is not to enforce action nor to draw up the appropriate regulations. Neither is it meant to replace the normal channels of communication between those inside and those outside the Ministry. On the other hand, its field of interest is interpreted widely, to cover all applications of private, club and business aviation, Mr Airey Neave Mr John Hay and within this field it endeavours to find solutions to the problemsfacing the movement. In the course of its reviews the commiUee can draw the Minister's attention to problems which it has not beenable to handle itself. Three subcommittees have been formed to date, concernedrespectively with aircraft, radio and aerodromes. Specifications for a light training aircraft and for inexpensive radio equipment havingbeen written and circulated, the first two of these subcommittees have completed their work. The crippling shortage of aerodromescontinues to occupy the aerodromes subcommittee at present. The committee claims a share of the credit for a number ofachievements in addition to producing the aircraft and radio specifications. These include the relaxation of ARB airworthinessrequirements for light aircraft; re- moval of import restrictions on foreignaircraft; and steps towards the issue of a simplified flight guide (a crusadein which, readers may recall. Flight has also played an active part). The relaxation of restrictions onlight aircraft at London Airport, the continuance of the petrol-taxrebate for clubs, and the security of tenure of Lasham Gliding Centre mustalso have been among the commit- tee's major topics of discussion inrecent months. Behind the major problems andachievements lies the routine back- ground work involved in preparingcommittee papers on a variety of subjects. The number and titles ofpapers produced is regarded by the Ministry as confidential, but the main problems are all too wellknown and could be listed without undue strain by most people in the light-aviation business. Perhaps the most concise single outline of the major problemswas contained in the article What Course for the Private Pilot'.' in the 1960 Sport and Business Flying issue of Flight. Six mainheadings were given: (1) new aircraft, (2) new flying aids, (3) benevolent legislation, including the provision of a simplified AirPilot, (4) freedom of the air, including access to aerodromes in control zones, (5) greater responsibility on the part of the privatepilot, possibly with the introduction of a limited instrument rating and (6) contact airways. Various aspects of the first four of thesein particular, have presumably been the subject of many of the committee's reports. In addition, a first review of the committee's work was writterduring 1959 and submitted to the Minister; a second review is now being prepared. This will include an outline of what has beeraccomplished and what remains to be done. This, then, is how the Standing Joint Committee has workedand these are some of its achievements. Is it working efficiently and could it achieve more?The following points might occur to the outsider:— (1) Four meetings per year does not seem a particularly intensivtrate of working, in view of the size and number of problems. (2) The blanket in-confidence rule of silence does not seem justifiable. Although committee members need to be given confi dential information, this should not prevent regular publiiannouncements being made of the committee's work. Th< Ministry has undoubtedly gained the confidence of the eighoutside members, and vice versa, but the committee itself ha: yet to gain the confidence of the private-flying public. (3) The effectiveness of the committee depends on the effectivenes:of the chairman, and parliamentary secretaries come and g< relatively frequently these days. A change in chairman caimean a drastic change in the tempo of the committee's work. (4) At present the committee works within the existing Mo/policy framework in an endeavour to effect improvements oi detail points. Still lacking is a Government statement of thprinciple of active support for light aviation in general. At its very least, the Standing Joint Committee is useful as :safety valve and as a forum for the outspoken exchange of views At its best, it can give the inspired lead and sense of direction whiclprivate flying needs more than anything else at this time. On the one hand, it has an impressive array of brainpower readto be focused on the important problems. On the other hand, i must inevitably suffer from the effects of conflicting pohticatechnical, personal and commercial pressures. In its work so far, the committee has done a good job in clearinthe decks for action and in tackling specific problems. The tim has now come for it to strive for a new and progressive officifphilosophy of positive encouragement for light aviation which woul set the pattern for the next ten years. And, having planned thipattern, the committee should be a little less reticent about tellin us all about it. KENNETH OWEN
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
