FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1962
1962 - 2198.PDF
FLIGHT International, 27 September 1962 521 Cranfield Society Airs Industry Problems RELIABILITY and survival—the reliability of aircraft and their components, and the survival of today's aviation industry—were the two main themes at the Cranfield Society's 1962 symposium. The Society is the association of former students of the College of Aeronautics, Cranfield, and, as reported briefly last week, it was at the College on September 15-16 that this year's symposium was held. The two themes—one specialized, the other general, but both of vital importance at the present time—were outlined in a keynote speech at the meeting by the chairman of the Society, Mr J. Seddon. Main speakers in the "functional reliability" session were Gp Capt R. E. W. Harland, commanding officer of the RAF's Central Servicing Development Establishment at Swanton Morley; and Mr A. J. Cope, superintendent of systems development for BEA. Gp Capt Harland began by recalling that, during the Battle of Britain, which took place 22 years ago, RAF lives had been lost in accidents arising from defects as well as by enemy action. Similar defects were still costing lives and money, although methods were now known which could greatly reduce the number of defects. Both speakers emphasized the penalties which military and civil operators were paying through unreliability. Quite apart from flight safety considerations, unreliability was enormously expensive. Conversely, Gp Capt Harland suggested that a nominal halving of the present defect rate in the RAF would save some £125m per year—approxi mately one-quarter of the Air Force vote. From the examples given it appeared that much unreliability was caused by poor quality-control (both in design and manufacture), by ignorance, or by disregard of environmental usage. It was suggested that reliability began with good design. Gp Capt Harland disclosed that RAF equipment suffered over a million defects per year, of which approximately 25,000 were reported "fairly fully" through the Ministry of Aviation. "How many of you realize," he asked his mainly-industry audience, "that the thousand or so pea-lamps now fitted to the V-bombers give rise to one-third of the electrical defects in these much-electrified aircraft ? How many of you realize that the RAF have to change a micro- switch every ten minutes of the working week, this cause alone keeping many aircraft grounded?" The Central Servicing Development Establishment, Gp Capt Harland revealed, was now compiling a series of reports on com ponents considered to have been "most continuously and unneces sarily unreliable." He added, "We hope that the next generation of these components will be considerably better." On the question of the cost of improved reliability, Gp Capt Harland said: "My estimate is that most parts could be made more than twice as reliable for an increase in development and production costs of less than 10 per cent overall." Selling Reliability During the discussion there was general agreement that reliability was now a major selling point and, in a competitive market, was one of the necessary costs of staying in business. All levels of industry (and of the Ministry of Aviation) needed to be educated in this basic fact. To achieve greater reliability one must have careful diagnosis, recording and analysis of defects occurring in service, coupled with a rapid feedback of such information to the design departments. There was some divergence of opinion as to whether this could best be achieved by using automatic data-recording equipment, but there was no disagreement on the need for better quality-control both throughout industry and in the users' maintenance techniques. Certain minimum reliability targets were discussed, and it was suggested that, although it was in the interests of manufacturers to prove and publicize good reliability achievements, reliability develop ment would be expensive and the customer should specify contract ually, and be prepared to pay for, the reliability required. From functional reliability the meeting turned to discuss the broader question of the survival of an aviation industry in Britain, now and in the future, and in particular to attempt to answer four main questions: (1) Does Britain need the equivalent of the US Project Horizon? (2) If British industry develops sufficient inter national links, does it need a national policy? (3) Is internationalism itself a satisfactory national policy for the aircraft industry? (4) If planning is to be done, should it be by Government alone, by industry alone or by both? Under the chairmanship of Mr Alan Vines, executive chairman of Fairey Engineering Ltd and a director of Avions Fairey SA, the two main speakers at this session were Mr Frank Beswick, Flight International contributor and a former Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Air Minister, Parlimentary Secretary to the MTCA, and chairman of the Labour Party Civil Aviation Subcommittee; and Mr F. H. Robertson, chief designer (new projects) of Short Brothers and Harland. The past partnership between the Government and the aircraft industry, Mr Beswick said, had not been satisfactory. There had been continual crises throughout the post-war period. "We want a new arrangement between the State supplying the capital and the people working to use it," Mr Beswick continued: "If we are going to get a proper partner ship, then we must have more honesty and less self-deception. I have a great respect for pride in a product, but sometimes pride, either in an industrialist or a citizen, leads to self-deception. The record has not always been as good as it was claimed." Six conclusions were listed by Mr Beswick: (1) a decision was needed that the industry was essential not only for defence, but for economic reasons; (2) the National Economic Development Council should decide that a certain sum must be allocated, and that the manner in which it is allocated should be decided by technically qualified advisers and not by the Treasury; (3) a group of such technically qualified advisers should be set up to perform the allocation; (4) the State must have a share in the industry and must ensure continuity, stability, fewer delays and more reliable estimates; (5) we must estimate what we can do in space; and (6) we must invest in mass transport. Lack of Continuity Mr Robertson echoed Mr Beswick's remarks on the continuing crises in the industry. Examining the industry as a national invest ment, he pointed out that, with a £300m capital investment and a labour force of 300,000, its £30m profit on overseas sales represented a 10 per cent profit on investment. But the export value per man was poor by comparison with other industries: this was caused by the fact that the industry was forever working on new projects and very rarely had a long production run. Continuity was lacking. The Government had failed to recognize the need for greater expenditure in order to achieve adequate rewards, Mr Robertson said, but the industry itself was far from blameless. For the future, the speaker suggested that the first thing to do was to set up a small committee of industry, Government and Service representatives, who would waste no time in producing a ten-year plan. Such a plan, based on, say, treble the present expenditure, could produce a range of advanced aircraft, missiles and aerospace craft. "If the aircraft industry is not fostered and brought to fulfilment it will die," Mr Robertson concluded, "and with it will die a lot of Britain's chances to remain a leading technical power and exporter of high-quality products." In the discussion period which followed there was general agreement on the necessity of planning, and an acceptance by industry personnel of the criticisms of industry which had been made. The chairman spoke strongly in favour of the diversion of military spending to the problem of mass communications. Also mentioned was the enthusiasm generated among the engi neers in Britain, Belgium, France, Italy and Germany who were now working on common projects: although in many cases these were military projects, there also existed the need for the rapid movement of more people and of more information over a wide field of subjects. Communications by Telstar, and by air-cushion vehicles on redundant railways—both were included in the aerospace field. The main conclusions from the discussion were that co-operative planning between Government and industry was essential; this planning should be long-term to permit the development and evolu tion of aircraft types in an economic and orderly manner; and the future of the industry might well lie more in mass communications —the transport of people, material and ideas—rather than in the defence roles of the past.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
