FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1962
1962 - 1485.PDF
young future pilots of Air Congo, created in June 1961 by the Congolese i and Sobelair, are being trained by Sabeno staff. Sabena itself no longer helping to build up the new independent national operator—"co-operating Government officials" BOAC Calendar BOAC have published a calendar of world events listing nearly 900 international fairs and exhibitions, festivals, sporting events and so on. The new service of the calendar will, it is hoped, be of considerable assistance to travel agents and also a useful source of information for industrial and professional bodies. Fifth DC-8 for CPAL Canadian Pacific Airlines announce the purchase of a fifth Douglas DC-8-40 (Rolls-Royce Conways). It is due to be delivered next May and is intended to meet the demand for increased frequencies on the international routes, on which CPAL introduced DC-8s in March 1961. COMET MAKES MONEY THREE more Comet 4Cs have been authorized for production by the de Havilland factory at Chester, against the probability of further orders. Sales to date, including the latest for one 4C from Kuwait Airways, amount to 70; and, according to de Havilland, production broke even at Comet number 67. If, as is believed, royalties to the Government have been fixed at approximately £100,000 per air craft up to Comet number 57, Government advances of between £5m and £6m on the Comet 4 have been repaid to the taxpayer. Reports that orders for another ten Comets are "in the bag" are not confirmed by de Havilland, though there is cautious optimism —as is evident from the financing of three more aircraft for the shelf—that sales may continue at a steady rate for some few years to come. Deliveries can be offered in 16 months, though it is believed that a possible repeat order for one 4C from United Arab Airlines could be fulfilled earlier. There were reports in the foreign press earlier this year (Flight International, January 18, page 82) that Comet production was to cease. At the time de Havilland vigorously countered with the state ment that this was not only untrue but that "a persistent interest" in the aircraft was being shown by various airlines. A few months earlier, in the issue of November 25, 1960, page 855 ("Breaking Even on the Comet") Flight suggested that UAA's repeat order at that time for two aircraft brought de Havilland to the point of breaking even on the Comet 4 programme. This, it now appears, was a little premature, sales at that time being 60; but in any case the latest news is a triumphant vindication of the aircraft which, as one newspaper has put it, suffered the most spectacular failure in air history. The Comet order-book for 70 aircraft comprises 12 customers, as follows: BOAC, 19 Comet 4; Aerolineas Argentinas, 6 Comet 4, 1 Comet 4C; EAAC, 3 Comet 4; BEA, 14 Comet 4B; Olympic, 4 Comet 4B; Mexicana, 3 Comet 4C; UAA, 7 Comet 4C; ME A, 4 Comet 4C; RAF, 5 Comet 4C; King Saud, 1 Comet 4C; Sudan Airways, 2 Comet 4C; Kuwait Airways, 1 Comet 4C. MR JOHN CITIZEN'S REDRESS THERE is a passage in the Licensing Act (Section 4) which gives any member of the public the right to make a representation to the Vr Transort Licensing Board. In its annual report, reviewed on Republic, Sabena, Air Rrousse operates Air Congo, but it is to the utmost with Congolese pages 261-262, the Board accepts its functions as a "consumers' council" as well as a licensing authority—but observes, in effect, that it is powerless to give satisfaction. If, therefore, Mr John Citizen is the angry victim of, say, overbooking or bad service he would appear to be wasting his time, if the Board's comments are valid, by making a representation under Section 4. The report does not comment on the curious fact that the only part of the UK for which there is no regional advisory council to advise the Board of the public's viewpoint is England. Again, if a passenger complains about inadequate service in a case where the Board has imposed frequency restrictions nothing, apparently, can be done. The Board will not listen, the airline is helpless, and the Minister is powerless. Is this a consumer council ? It certainly seems strange for a consumer council to say that it is under no obligation to "give satisfaction." The Board believes its prime function under Section 4 is to give advice to the Minister, but it declines to do this unless asked by the Minister if the matter is something which only he can put right. There is no justification for this in the Act. The Board also appears unwilling to influence an appeal by having a public hearing of a Section 4 representation. If this were a valid reason then the Board would even be inhibited from giving reasons for its own decision, because this could "indirectly influence the outcome" of an appeal. In fact there are only two real dangers:— (1) That the Board is suppressing evidence which would have been vital in its own hearings or might be vital at an appeal. (2) That the Board hears evidence in private without any oppor tunity to the rival parties to hear and contest the evidence. Neither of these are referred to in the Board's report. Most important of all, the Board is not right when it says that its functions under Section 4 are confined solely to giving advice to the Minister. If this was so, then the proviso of Section 4 (2) would refer to "this section" instead of "this sub-section." FOCUS ON SAFETY A RECENT issue of the Flight Safety Committee's excellent publication Flight Safety Focus describes an incident involving a twin-jet aircraft which experienced persistent engine flame-out while in the holding pattern and which for traffic reasons was not granted a normal request for descent clearance. At no time did the pilot consider a "Pan" call which would have properly acquainted traffic control with his difficulties. Flight Safety Focus recalls that reticence of this kind has contri buted to serious accidents, and repeats a Ministry of Aviation reminder:— "If an emergency situation arises and pilots wish to receive the full help of the air traffic control organization they should indicate clearly that assistance is needed, and should not hesitate to use the prefixes Mayday, Pan or Securite as appropriate. "The use of these prefixes will not only indicate a state of emer gency to the ground organization but will warn other aircraft on the radio frequency concerned, and help to eliminate unnecessary R/T communications, to the probable benefit of the aircraft which is in trouble."
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
