FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1961
1961 - 1760.PDF
870 FLIGHT, 7 December 1961 Safety, Economy, Comfort IN AIR TRANSPORT FRANK BESWICK interviews LORD BRABAZON LAST week Frank Beswick interviewed Sir Frederick Handley Page onthe subject of three topical factors in airline operation. Here, continuing the series, he puts questions to Lord Brabazon. Though chairman of theAir Registration Board and the new Air Safety Board, Lord Brabazon gives the replies from a purely personal angle. ONE of the two most inane remarks I have come across, inan aviation context, was by a Canadian who said recently;"There is a Lord Brabazon who flew in 1909. We under- stand his knighthood was the result of these accomplishments."This observation, apparently, was designed to belittle Lord Braba- zon's arguments in the JP.4 v. kerosine controversy. Apart from the inaccuracy (he was created a baron in 1942 forpolitical services and was appointed GBE in 1953), and the impu- dence ("a Lord Brabazon" indeed!) the remark could scarcely beless apt where used of a man who has made such a direct and con- tinuous impact upon, and contribution to, aviation. What, of course, upset that Canadian commentator was LordBrabazon's readiness to speak the truth as he sees it—and in most compelling terms. There may be some who will feel impatient atsome of his answers to my questions below on this subject of air transport safety, economy and comfort. But they will also be givenfood for useful thought. First [I asked] do you consider that the present public concern over air safety is justified ? If you mean because of the recent accidents [Lord Brabazon replied], no, I don't think so. There is no pattern to the accidents that can be picked out; and you can't say that there is any one thing that has gone wrong. Can I put the question this way: bearing in mind recent accidents, doyou think that we have made the progress in air safety over the past decade which might have been expected? You can't put so much emphasis on speed and increase safety at the same time; the two are almost contradictory. The tragedy of aircraft design is that whilst we had hoped that the duties of the pilot would be simplified they have in fact become a good deal more complex and difficult. You mean that too much of the effort and energy in designing, and inresearch and development, has gone into problems of flying faster ? Yes, too much on speed and too little on safety and on what I might call popularity. I would rather we thought about a good machine flying the mass of the public safely and cheaply between London and Paris than spend millions on a machine that could do the journev in five minutes—with all the attendant risks. I think I look at this from a different standpoint from the opera- tor. He wants speed because the faster the machine the more journeys he can get into the twenty-four hours. But the real future lies in getting the multitudes into the air, and you won't do that whilst the constructors are concentrating on machines to fly at over Mach 1 and costing over a million pounds. Do you think that the trouble is that the pattern has been set, or the pace set, by engines developed primarily for military purposes ? At first we thought that after the war the de-rated military enginewould be satisfactory; but not so—far from it. When the jets came in—the straight jets—civil aviation here did a splendid thing inharnessing the principle to the propeller and the finest civil aircraft ever developed appeared. When we came to use the straight jet, which was bound to come,we did everything right excepting to make proper allowance for fatigue under pressurization. And the result has been that all thatearly work and experience, which failed in one local particular, was handed over to the Americans. Thev have had a great success withthe 707s and DC-8s—though basically they are not very remarkable machines. Even they have killed a few people, have they not ? Yes, though not from structural failure. No, their trouble is thatthey are so complicated, and the pilots have not only to deal with the complications of the machine, but with some tiresome flyingtraits. What about comfort ? Would you say we fly any more comfortablynow than we did a few years ago ? Of course, this is where the load factor comes in; the operatorprefers a lot of tourists rather than a few first-class passengers. But is it necessarily a choice between tourist and first-class accom- modation ? Is is not also possible to choose between speed and comfort'! Well, certainly, if you sacrificed speed for another eighteen inches in the beam then you could have quite a comfortable interior. But no one seems to worry; the passenger puts up with it. But there is some evidence that potential passengers are beginning to complain; don't you think the passenger squeeze has gone far enough'.' I would agree that a London bus is more comfortable, and for aviation that is not a very distinguished achievement. How do we reverse this trend ? Do you think it would be useful to havea committee look at this problem; a committee with wider terms of reference than your original body, but probably less wide than theFinletter; an international committee if possible? Don't you think such a body might give guidance about the future development of airtransport and the type of machines required ? There is some merit in the idea. But when you get down to it. who gives the evidence? The expert operators put their point of view, but who represents the man in the street? The operator wants to make the service pay; you and I want to be comfortable. But what I have been trying to get at is whether comfort and profit- ability, or economy, are irreconcilable. I am not sure that they are. You may well be right, and certainly we see there are still many people with the taste and time for social life who prefer to travel by sea. The question is how many people are there who cannot afford fivedays to cross the Atlantic by ship, but are prepared to spend twelve hours or so and cross in comfort, on say a flying-boat ? Of all the fragrant memories there is the nostalgic flying-boat.It wasn't the factor of safety which made the journey so agreeable. but the room, the feeling of space. By-pass engines in a big flying-boat could give us a most attractive machine. You have made some very forthright criticisms of the cult of thesupersonic; do you still hold to them ? I do indeed; I don't think we have explored the problem enough.A great mathematician told us the other day that if we could have two bangs instead of one when the machines go through the barrierthen we should feel more reassured. The theorv is that you would get accustomed to the noise and feel reassured with the second b;mgYou can be sitting at home playing chess; one big bang cracks your window, and you are worried. But I cannot see that it will be morereassuring if you get two bangs and two cracks. No, there are so manv problems we have not explored. Can asupersonic aircraft flv subsonic satisfactorily over land? Can you restrict flying to davlight? Is noise a function of size and speed1How do you assess the toleration of the public to these new barsjs1 After all, we have not much experience to go on as yet and wecannot be sure. You feel some social investigation ought to take place before we commit large sums of money to the manufacture of these machi: \s' Yes, we are making the same mistakes all the time; just con "ti- trating on immense speeds and higher prices.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
