FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1962
1962 - 1215.PDF
I.IGHT International, 19 July 1962 of Denny; Mr S. R. Hughes and Mr A E. Bingham, of Vickers; and Mr R. Stanton Jones, of Westland. Chairman of the committee is Mr Hughes, wearing a strictly neutral hat. As well as these two general com mittees, both of which may well regard tnemselves as more or less permanent, two further ad hoc groups of specialists have been gathered in an attempt to formulate legislation governing ACV design and operation. These are: The Design Requirements Panel: Mr D. S. Bliss and Mr. J. E. Rapson, of HDL; Mr G. T. Hudson, of Folland (as at last November); Mr C. F. Morris, of Denny; Mr A. E. Bingham, of Vickers; and Mr G. J. Thomson and Mr R. L. Wheeler, of Westland. Chairman of the design panel is Mr Thomson; and The Operational Requirements Panel: Lt-Cdr J. H. Hardwick, RN, and Mr J. E. Rapson, of HDL; Mr J. Britten, of Cushioncraft; Mr C. F. Morris, of Denny; Mr S. R. Hughes and Mr L. R. Colquhoun, of Vickers; and Cdr P. Lamb and Mr W. Worner, of Westland. Chairman of this panel is Mr Hughes. As might be expected, the Design panel consists largely of designers and the Operations panel largely of men skilled in practical ACV operation. These two panels are not permanent bodies attempting to chart the course of an industry, but strictly ad hoc groups charged with the task of getting down on paper a set of rules which can be taken as a working document for all time—a sort of ACV version of Air Publication 129 or 1208. This they have now accomplished. As might be expected, the resulting volumes are modest compared with the tomes which rule the British aircraft industry, but these are early days. They comprise two documents with pale- green cowers Provisional British Civil Air- Cushion Vehicle Safety Requirements, divided into Sections A and B (General Information and Vehicle Design) and— with the help of a separate electrics sub- panel—Sections C and D (Powerplant and Electrical and Electronic Systems), plus a single treatise within scarlet covers entitled Provisional British Air- Cushion Vehicle Operational Rules. After most careful discussion, it has been agreed that, at present, the Air Registration Board is best fitted to supervise the safety inherent in British ACV design and operation. This deci sion rests upon several grounds, some of which are the exceptional sophistica tion and experience of the ARB in probing the weaknesses of fundament ally new vehicles, the fact that—like :ne flying machine—the ACV is basic ally omnipotent over all land and water areas, and the largely fortuitous fact that the people most busily engaged in their development are essentially aircraft firms rather than shipbuilders. Already the ARB has been asked to form and run a "co-ordinating com mittee," with parallels in certain aero nautical fields. On it will serve Messrs Hennessey, Hughes and Morris, as well as representatives of the ARB, MoA and MoT. For the reasons already given, ACVs are at present regarded primarily as aircraft. They are examined by the ARB in the same manner as are new types of aircraft, and the ARB delegates authority to the constructor to a greater extent than does the MoT with marine vessels. It is proposed that the ARB will continue the practice which has, to all intents and purposes, always been followed in the aircraft industry: each firm engaged in the design or manufacture of an ACV will be ap proved as a design, inspection and maintenance organization, which will in turn bear the responsibility for all its products. This policy is in contrast to that followed by the MoT in the marine field, where representatives of that ministry personally inspect all licensed ships and relevant drawings. Little need be said here of the contents of the Provisional Safety Requirements, which—as any such draft provisions should be—are a distillation of experience and common sense. Broadly the text is based upon recommended practice for aircraft; but it is rather less stringent, for—as one engineer who helped to write them puts it—"If something does go wrong you can't fall more than about 18 inches." This is not to suggest that an ACV builder can get away with anything in the slightest degree shoddy in design, materials or workmanship; but the ARB will accept design and construc tional features simpler or cheaper than would be the case with aircraft. For example, the craft featured in this issue has belt-driven oil-cooler fans, which are perfectly adequate in such an ap plication but would be frowned upon in an airliner. During the development of any major ACV project the ARB keep closely in touch with the firm or group respon sible, making suggestions whenever it appears likely that difficulty will be met during certification. When the craft is finished to the Board's liking, the Board "recommend" the MoA to issue a Permit to Fly, which is equiva lent to an aircraft C of A. The MoA in turn consult on certain marine aspects with shipping experts at the MoT. The final document is issued by the MoA, and is signed by the Director of Flight Safety. It is styled a Certificate of Construction and Performance, and SUPPLEMENT Air-Cushion Vehicles "states the conditions affecting the manner in which a vehicle may be operated and the purposes for which it may be used." All ACVs will for this purpose be grouped into classes (land-borne, water- borne or amphibious), categories (trans port, transport [cargo], private or experimental), and performance (Groups A, B and C). The three performance Groups distinguish between vehicles which can continue their journey following engine failure, those which can continue their journey only in a different class—for example, failure of lift engines may turn an ACV into a displacement vessel, or ship—and those with no specific provision for perform ance following engine failure. At present the aircraft analogy has inevitably led to certain anomalies. Since any fully certificated ACV is qualified as a flying machine, the firm responsible have to go through the motions of obtaining exemption from the Air Navigation Order, Sections 13 or 14, which stipulate that the man in charge must be a fully qualified heavier-than-air pilot (and have an ALTP licence before the craft can carry passengers). Matters become almost ludicrous when it is realized that, if the letter of the law were followed, special dispensation would have to be obtained to carry out low flying. Before an ACV can be put on to an operational route further clearance must be obtained from local authorities and harbour boards to ensure compliance with local rules. It is probable that, in the present state of the art, an ACV would be cleared to operate only on one route, and only in stipulated conditions of sea-state, visibility and wind. The ARB will also wish to satisfy them selves as to the competency of the organization responsible for mainten ance. As far as payloads are concerned, the principal discrepancy between air and marine practice lies in the definition of a passenger. Air-transport operators have always cast a distinction between a "passenger" and a "fare-paying passenger," and have demanded special legislation to govern the carriage of the latter. Shipping people merely count heads to ensure that the legal maximum which may be carried is not exceeded (and, incidentally, persons rescued from shipwrecks and infants under one year of age are not counted). As for the crew of an ACV, it is merely laid down that they must hold a "valid licence issued by an appropriate authority." To show the flexibility which is at present permissable, the nominated crew for the VA-3 at present comprises Les Colquhoun, a qualified fixed-wing pilot, and Raymond Old, who holds a 1st Mate's ticket. 21
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
