FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1962
1962 - 0410.PDF
410 FLIGHT International, 15 March 1962 LETTERS . . . will be prepared for SST. Future traffic loads will therefore require fleets at least as large as at present, and when the SST is available, there should be no fare increases (and no SST surcharge, please). The airlines should have made all air travel as feasible a proposition as running for a train or hopping on a bus. With reference to charter company traffic on the North Atlantic, perhaps the established airlines should not com plain because they themselves carry much of this traffic in aircraft of their own. But if every airline employed Jere miah's policy of not selling off aircraft, there would be some pretty large fleets parked about—most of which would be reduced to worthless heaps without full utilization. "Keeping up with the Joneses" is inevitable whether one likes it or not, as every airline wants aircraft as good as its rivals. I would point out that BOAC already has on order a sub stantial number of Vickers VC10 and Super VC10 airliners —the order book would look rather slim without this con tract, would it not? Let it be understood that no British type was available when BOAC ordered its 707s, and the time from first planning to revenue-earning means that the Cor poration would have to order some six years prior to use for passenger-carrying. With regard to your correspondent's comment on late delivery, don't let us pretend that any British firm would turn down an order equivalent to fifteen 707s with any number of modifications during development —many of which, 1 hasten to add, were made at the instiga tion of the ARB, rather than BOAC, for safety reasons, and have since been included as standard on subsequent aircraft. The 707 has proved itself, but what of the VC10?—is it going to be so much better? One could argue that BOAC might well have been wiser to order forty more Boeings. Why the narrow-minded thinking that our industry should rely upon our airlines for juicy contracts ? Here the policies of the Government and BOAC obviously differed. Do not let us imagine that BOAC would ever have wanted to buy American equipment if British had been available, and the Government least of all wished BOAC to part with much- wanted dollars; yet the Government has jibbed at subsidizing airliner development to foster and stimulate our industry, and obviously BOAC cannot afford to sit around waiting while Government policy is sorted out. We have to face up to the fact that much of this problem stems from the old sore point of £ s d—the Americans have the cash, therefore they can finance development; we have the skill, but it is money, and a lot of it, that is needed to meet the challenge of production and eventual marketing of aircraft. The soundest trade lies overseas, and Vickers proved so with the Viscount, and 1 hardly think The Boeing Company is on its knees. Who, then, is to blame?—the Government per haps, but not BOAC whose responsibility it is to provide efficient and adequate service to the public, not to keep our aircraft industry in business. As I mentioned earlier, it is basically a matter of money available. The Americans are now setting the pace. Granted the Comet 1 project was a disastrous setback in a sense, but let's stop begrudging the Americans the position they now hold and stop criticizing the airlines for the industry's present dilemma. The Government alone can do a great deal to sort out the problem. Many people need to change their thinking and approach, and the sooner the better— before West Germany starts selling a supersonic airliner in half the time at half our price. London Wll WINGS Cockpit Collision Warning SIR,—With reference to the letter by Capt R. G. Williams of British United Airways (Flight International, February 22), I would like to comment on his appreciation of the question of an airborne, aircraft interpreted air traffic control system as against air traffic units on the ground. Capt Williams makes a basic mistake in his statement that he has given much thought to anti-collision systems in aircraft, implying that no one else has. This is not so; both the electronics industry and the air traffic control authorities have given the matter considerable thought, and have con cluded that an unco-ordinated sequence of aircraft-initiated collision-avoidance manoeuvres in congested airspace would almost certainly create more hazards than it averts: it would certainly create chaos. The system does, however, have considerable merit in uncongested airspace and in clear weather; but the best all-round substitute is at present the controller. The other point, that further steps into the realms of com plete radar surveillance and the use of computers will be in the wrong direction, is no more correct. More complete radar coverage will give better knowledge of aircraft posi tion at all times; I fail to see how this can possibly be a retrograde step. As for computers, the next step is nowhere so near in time, nor so drastic as the letter supposes—the majority of controllers feel that no computer can ever match the situation-evaluation capabilities of a trained man and they still need an awful lot more convincing before even the first steps towards automation can be taken! Finally, as to Capt Williams' rather uncharitable attitude towards ATC in general, I feel it is unwarranted and can only conclude that he has never been nearer to an ATC unit than his cockpit headset. However, as he is obviously keenly interested in ATC problems, I would like to hear further criticism from him, friendly or unfriendly, constructive or destructive, but above all informed criticism. London Wl CONTROLLER Brantlys in Britain SIR,—In the March 1 issue of Flight International, mention is made of the new Brantly B2 which has been delivered to British Executive Air Services. You state that this is the first to be imported into Britain; but in 1960, if I remember correctly, two of these machines, G-APSE and -F actually reached these shores. G-APSF obtained its C of A on March 31 that year, and was based at Swansea, though it seems unlikely that -PSE ever left its crate. At any rate G-APSF appeared at the RAeS Garden Party on June 11, 1960, and so it would seem to hold the indisputable place as first Brantly in Britain, and the new machine, G-ARVY, can only claim third place. Both -PSE and -PSF have now returned to the USA. Edinburgh 5 R. w. SIMPSON Air-Britain No 2557 FORTHCOMING EVENTS Mar 16 RAeS (London Airport Branch): Fourth Sir Richard Fairey Memorial Lecture, by Dr G. Hislop, and Annual Dinner. Mar 16 Institute of Transport: Annual Dinner. Mar 16 Institute of Navigation: " VLF Navigation." Mar 19 RAeS Historical Group: "Aviation Journalism" by Maj Oliver Stewart. Mar 22 RAeS (Main lecture at Glasgow Branch): Pilcher Memorial Lecture, "Facilities at the National Physical Laboratory for Research on Hypersonics and Low Density" by Prof D. W. Holder. Mar 27 Institute of Transport (West Middlesex Group): "The Car Ferry" by M. Barron. Mar 28 RAes Graduates' and Students' Section: a.g.m. Mar 30 RAeS Man-powered Aircraft Group: Film Evening. Apr 2 Institution of Electrical Engineers (Electronics and Communications Section): "Progress in Aircraft Aerials," by R. A. Burberry. Apr 5 RAeS: First Reynolds-Prandtl Lecture. Apr 7 British Interplanetary Society: Film Show. Apr 10 RAeS Astronautics and Guided Flight Sections: "Ref- coverable Air-breathing Boosts for Space Vehicles," by R. J. Lane. Apr 11 Royal United Service Institution: "An introduction to Space Warfare," by M. Golovine.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
