FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1962
1962 - 0329.PDF
FLIGHT International, 1 March 1962 Safety, Economy, Comfort IN AIR TRANSPORT 331 FRANK BESWICK interviews R. E. HARDINGHAM and WALTER TYE IN this, the sixth of a special series of interviews, Frank Beswick seeks the views of two well-known ARB officials on the three vital factors named in the heading. In the previous articles he has recorded the opinions of Sir Frederick Handley Page, Lord Brabazon, Lord Douglas, Sir Miles Thomas and Gp Capt John Cunningham. FOURTEEN years ago, as a member of the Helmore Committee on Certification of Civil Aircraft and Approval of Equip ment, it was part of my duty to ask a lot of questions about airworthiness certification procedures and I learned to respect the men responsible for grappling with the problems involved. It is salutory to reflect on the growth of those problems since the Helmore Committee made its recommendations about the responsibilities of the Air Registration Board. I therefore particu larly appreciated the opportunity, given by the present series of interviews, to put questions to Mr R. E. Hardingham, CMG, OBE, chief executive and secretary to the Board, and to Mr W. Tye, OBE, the chief technical officer. No contribution to the present struggle for maximum air safety is more important than theirs. First [I asked] would you agree that, from your point of view, the problem of maintaining, let alone advancing, safety standards, involves an entirely new scale of effort as compared with fifteen years ago ? HARDINGHAM: The answer is yes; we have much more complex aeroplanes; we have the turbine engine; and every piece of equip ment is more complicated. For us, fifteen years ago means our experience before the war. The Comet 1 was an aircraft which brought us many new problems. To what extent has your organization grown to cope with these additional problems ? I am not thinking of the extra duties recently allotted to you, but the certification of aircraft and equipment. HARDINGHAM: Our staff has increased by 30 to 40 per cent; it was about 200 and is now around 300, but there has also been a change in the character of the work. There is far more specializa tion by individuals: we now have specialists in radio, electrics, electronics, and powerplants—and we can keep a specialist fully employed on propellers alone. TYE: It is true to say that the volume of work done on airworthi ness is far greater in proportion than the increase in the staff. The constructors themselves have the delegated responsibility for dealing with airworthiness investigations once these reach the routine stage. We in the Board tend to concentrate on the new features. Does this delegation of responsibility mean that the constructors are now deciding, to a greater extent, what is airworthy; are you content with this situation ? HARDINGHAM: Only the very large organizations with all the facilities and qualified personnel attempt to build large transport aircraft. Our difficulties begin when new, small firms attempt a project for which they are not really equipped. The big firms are able to show us quite satisfactorily that they can comply with our requirements. TYE: On this point of constructors judging their own work, we should bear in mind that there are two stages. First the statement of requirements, and secondly the proof that a particular type complies with the requirements as stated. The task of stating a requirement, although done in consultation with the constructors, operators and pilots, is basically an ARB responsibility. It is the latter stage that is delegated to the constructor. Our role is not really that of policeman but rather of ensuring that the constructor understands the requirements. It is the constructor who produces the detailed design calculations, and if we think they should be checked then we would check them. But we are dealing with honest men, and it is not usually necessary to go over such work. HARDINGHAM: In all our history—and we are now in our twenty- fifth year—we have not shirked the task of doing work which the constructors should do, but this is rarely necessary. Of course, I accept that you are dealing with men of honesty and integrity, but the point I now want to put is that even the big firms are today up against problems which tax their capabilities. When the designers and engineers are all the time pressing against the frontiers of knowledge and throwing \up entirely novel problems with every new machine, surely it is difficult to be entirely confident when you pass judgment on the proposals which they put before you ? HARDINGHAM : We are fortunate in being able to call on the best brains of the industry and the Government research establishments. It is often necessary for us now to initiate research by the RAE, for example. We have an agreed system by which we can get research done by the organizations in the country best able to do it. TYE: Looking back over our post-war history, we have always been dealing with novel problems, but I think we have succeeded pretty satisfactorily. The modern problems may be different in degree, but we have always succeeded previously, and successful aeroplanes have usually emerged. Yes, but surely the point is that the penalty of failure is now that much more severe. I recall Sir Geoffrey de Havilland saying that in his early days one flew an aircraft and if it crashed one simply stepped out of the wreckage and built it again a little stronger. Obviously today one cannot do that, and indeed the problems seem so different in degree as to be completely different in kind. What developments in your organization correspond with this change of problem ? HARDINGHAM : Part of the answer is that although the scale of problems is greater, we have a far greater pool of brain-power to tap. But is not the difficulty that these brains are constantly being faced with completely new problems, about which they cannot be considered infallible? One is bound to think of such comparatively recent advances as the Comet 1 aircraft and the Proteus engine. HARDINGHAM: We are used to advances, but it is when there is too big a jump forward that mistakes are made. In the case of the Comet 1 we went to operation at 40,000ft when all our previous experience had been up to 20,000ft. Even then the answers were very nearly right. In the case of the Proteus, I assume you are referring to the trouble with dry ice. We applied every kind of test humanly known at that time, but we came across a pheno menon never encountered before. It is, incidentally, relevant to say that, for all its early troubles, the Britannia with its Proteus engines has to date never killed a fare-paying passenger. TYE: It is also true that at the time when the icing trouble was at its worst, the engine failure-rate from all causes was below the world average. You certainly have been faced with novel problems, but it Is easy to oresee that they will be as nothing compared with ,he prob:em of passing a judgment on a supersonic transport. How do you contem plate that prospect ? [Continued overleaf
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
