FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1962
1962 - 2338.PDF
FLIGHT International, 11 October 1962 Letters The Editor of "Flight International" is not necessarily in agreement with the views expressed by correspondents in these columns. Names and addresses of writers, not for publication in detail, must in all cases accompany letters. Civil Safeland SIR,—I was very interested in your article in Flight Inter national for September 20 regarding the Swedish Safeland arrester barrier and its estimated cost at Heathrow. Firstly, there are only five operational runways at LAP, 15L/33R having been disused for take-offs and landings now for at least two years, probably longer. Therefore a maximum number of ten barriers would be needed—cost, about £330,000. Secondly, one of the primary objectives of fitting barriers would be the arresting of heavily laden big jets suffering engine or other failure on take-off and unable to stop, e.g. the Air France Boeing 707 crash at Orly. Only one runway, 28L/10R, is used for take-off by long-range 707s and DC-8s, most other aircraft using only half of 28R to become air borne, 10L being used for landings only. Therefore only two barriers are needed—cost £66,000, or at the most three—cost about £100,000. I wonder how many readers have seen US- and Canada- bound jets lifting from runway 28L. Those who have would realize that a barrier at the end of the runway large enough to stop a 707 would constitute a definite danger of arresting aircraft which had become airborne using almost the whole of the runway. The easiest way to overcome this difficulty and keep the barriers permanently upright is surely to place them in the overrun areas. No doubt the Ministry of Aviation will consider the matter thoroughly. With a few more aircraft a few days' landing fees should cover the cost. London Airport SAFETY FIRST [Whilst the regulated take-off weights of transatlantic jets obviously result in the maximum use of available runway length, experience shows that aircraft taklng-off and landing at lighter weights have been equally prone to over-run accidents. Therefore if the installation of this expensive equipment is to be justified bearing in mind that It is theoretically unnecessary), then the economics of the matter will almost certainly dictate an end to all over-run incidents involving every class of trans port aircraft. Our correspondent has not realized that the barrier normally lies flush with the ground and is raised in a matter of seconds by any one of a variety of manual or auto matic trip switches.—Ed.] Photographic Facilities SIR,—The British public, when it goes out today, takes a camera to record the highlights of its favourite sport. The SBAC have long known this, and have always arranged aircraft so that the public could photograph them. Now adays the RAF also takes care to advertise the fact that photographs are allowed. Yet civil air displays quite often advertise the aircraft that will be on show, tell the public what a good time will be had by those who pay the entrance fee, then put the machines out of reach (and almost out of sight). A case in point was Shoreham on September 22. I did not see a single notice to the effect that cameras were not allowed. But as soon as I went to take a picture of the Sopwith Pup, I was stopped and made to go to a roped-off park, at one corner of the aerodrome. Even with a telephoto lens, this would not have allowed anyone to get even an average coverage, as the machines were arranged three deep and away from the public. The commentator was busy all the afternoon telling people not to go near the aircraft. But when one has travelled 605 many miles just to get a shot of an aircraft what can one do ? Surely the answer is that the aircraft should be arranged in the form of a U behind a barrier. People could then see all round the machines and at the same time could be easily controlled, so easing tempers on both sides. In conclusion, I would say that if an aircraft is advertised to be on view, then it is up to the people concerned to see that it is and can be photographed. Emsworth, Hants F. HONEY [The Shoreham meeting, combining as it did air races and a display, was a rather special case. It was primarily for their own safety that the public were asked to keep away from the aircraft.—Ed.] Words, Words, Words SIR,—William Shakespeare was getting well into his stride with Hamlet when from his quill flowed: "What do you read, my lord? HAMLET: Words, words, words." While I cannot claim the right to wear a coronet, I have at least stood bare headed in the courtyard of Elsinore Castle, and for the past three years I have read, read, read, for words, words, words. Nothing unusual in reading. An admirable pursuit, in fact, for those who have the time and inclination. However, my reading has, for the most part, been concerned not with the highly imaginative prose of Fleming but with matters avia tion, aeronautics, rocketry and all allied subjects. Why? Because I am interested in the broader aspects of aviation, and because I was asked to contribute to the compilation of the Oxford English Dictionary Supplement, now in the course of preparation. What this really means is that I read a wide variety of publications, dating back to the early thirties, which deal with everything and anything mechanical which moves off the ground, from the Hovercraft to space probes and satellites. Even science/space fiction has its use where the coinage of new words, expressions and slang is concerned. The nuts-and-bolts side of aeronautics and astro nautics has given the vocabulary a tremendous boost over the past half-century, as have the mysterious goings-on by boffins in their back rooms. (Boffin—there's a quaint neologism for you. Why not substitute "boffinry" for back room?) Mark you, some of the stuff I have waded through has been heavy going. I am not an engineer (or "plumber," as the Royal Air Force equivalent is unofficially called) nor am I a budding Einstein. Consequently, some of the more techni cal papers and articles I have read, comprising pages and pages of equations and hieroglyphics, have left me squirming on my chair like a snake about to be got at by a mongoose. Nonetheless, the flippancy of science fiction does help to leaven what might otherwise be a mentally indigestible chore. Whatever the subject, light or heavy, no word or phrase is ignored, however bizarre or crude it may appear in cold print. Since the Russians blasted off their first sputnik in the late 'fifties, the realm of rocketry has proved a pro lific breeding ground for new terms and words, although long before this historic occasion the once-sneered-at enthusiasts of interplanetary flight formed their own societies and wrote lots of books on the subject which contributed many new words. Pioneers like Ley, Goddard, Cleator, Clarke and others had all gone into print many years before we all became familiar with "all systems go," "countdown," "AOK," "cosmonaut," "re-entry," and so on ad infinitum. Not to forget H. G. Wells and Jules Verne, who got into the act many moons ago and have added their share to the tomes of the OED. Into this world of philology and etymology burst the pedants and the humorists. They, in turn, appeared in print at frequent intervals to air their knowledge or poke innocent fun at some of the newer expressions and words in current use. The light-hearted usually write over noms de plume such as "Herr Schplitter" or "C. Mantix," and they don't really wish to re-hash the whole language or advertise the fact that they have a working knowledge of Latin or Greek. The more serious of the brigade really get the bit between their teeth and more often than not demand that certain words be struck from the record because... and suggest alternatives which, they claim, are logically more
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
