FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1963
1963 - 0120.PDF
108 /X/( Intematk 24 January j As seen in this photograph taken at Hurn last week, the wings and fuselage of the first BAC One-Eleven have now been joined. Both Rolls- Royce Spey turbofans for this aircraft have been delivered to Hurn. The second aircraft, the first for BUA, is now in the main fuselage assembly jig AIR COM MERCE . . . but the aircraft failed to gain height. Veering to the right, it flew a short distance with the starboard propeller rotating slowh- until the starboard wing struck the ground and the aircraft cartwheeled. The passenger cabin broke away from the main wreckage, which caught fire. Both pilots were killed and the steward and seven passengers were seriously injured. It was the first fatal accident to a Silver City vehicle-ferry flight since operations began in 1948. The engines fitted were Bristol Siddeley Hercules 734 driving de Havilland four-bladed constant speed feathering propellers. The starboard propeller was overhauled by the manufacturer in June 1961 and installed in July 1961, since when it had run 563hr. Parts of the automatic pitch-coarsening system were removed for examination and test. The cut-out switch unit of the starboard engine was not, tests showed, operating within the prescribed limits. Among other discrepancies, the backing spring of the unit was found to be non-standard in dimensions and rating, and had been adapted from a longer spring by cutting and filing, leaving one end improperly finished. Bristol Siddeley Engines, manufacturers of the unit, carried out a laboratory examination and commented upon "possible bowing and tilting of the spring when in position." This is considered to have resulted in chafing with the light alloy body of the unit, producing swarf. The micro-switch was found to be fitted with a rubber cowl also contrary to the maker's drawing. The report finds that the maintenance schedule approved for the aircraft did not specify any life or overhaul period for the auto matic pitch-coarsening units. The key finding is that the unit of the starboard propeller "differed from design standard." The report observes, however: "It has not been possible to determine when or by whom this was introduced." The report contains a note, unusual in British accident reports, about the action that was taken to avoid recurrence of the accident, until which there had never been any suggestion of inadequacy in the maintenance schedule. But changes have, as a result of the accident, been shown to be desirable and a Special Recommenda tion Maintenance detailing an overhaul procedure for the cut-out switches, and a flight manual amendment requiring the system to be switched off after take-off, have been issued by the ARB. IATA IN SOUTH AMERICA CONCERN among the airlines about the backward state of navi gation aids in South America is clearly the reason behind the open ing, announced last week, of a new IATA technical liaison office in Rio de Janeiro. It is to be opened on January 29 and will be located at Evenida Rio Branco 156, Sala 2816, and will be managed by Mr Peter Lopez, IATA technical liaison officer. The office will co-ordinate IATA requirements for facilities and operating procedures in the region; will offer the countries of South America guidance and advice; and will co-operate with the ICAO regional office in Lima on all matters of technical interest. There are alread> 1ATA regional technical offices established in London for the European-Mediterranean region and in Bangkok for the South East Asia and Pacific region. BEA v. CITIZEN LUCKING WHO is to pronounce on the justification for a fare increase? Who can presume to know more about an airline's costs than the airline itself? Should not domestic operators, like Dr Beeching of British Railways, be allowed to regulate their own fares? The Air Trans port Licensing Board, which has the power to approve or reject domestic tariffs (though no power to substitute its own ideas), does not think so, and rightly. It sent an eleven-point questionnaire to the would-be fare-hikers, and called for a public hearing. This took place on January 17. A lively meeting was expected, with BEA facing a new species of objector, a private citizen by the name of Mr A. J. Lucking of Putney. Support for Mr Lucking was heard from Mr Michael Bishop of Manchester, another private citizen. No clash was expected between BEA and the independents, the light of whose competitive spirit shines rather dimly in the matter of fares. But perhaps there would be some sharp questioning by the Board. In the event, and rather depres- singly, the Board probed BEA's costs hardly at all; their examina tion of Mr Henry Marking of BEA treated mainly of the effect, rather than the cause, of the proposed higher fares. It emerged during questioning that the new fares would not put domestic routes on a profitable basis within two years, and further increases might have to be applied for, though not in 1963. BEA were of the view that the increases may affect traffic growth slightly. "You don't think," a Board member asked, "that future fare increases will have a deterrent effect if done in steps?" BEA agreed. The Board also questioned BEA about their plans for 33£ per cent cheaper experimental "stand by" fares, which were part and parcel of the BEA application. Mr Marking's case was that the increases would be "a step towards" putting BEA's domestic routes on a profitable basis. He said BEA was an efficient airline whose costs, despite their very short stages (230 miles average) and imbalanced seasonal traffic flow, compared well with those of any other comparable operator for example, in France, Germany, Scandinavia, Australia and the USA. He tackled the question of BEA's revenue rate compared with that of US domestic airlines, saying that those who felt that BEA's revenue rate should be less because things cost more in America ought to remember the difference in the cost of such things as landing fees and fuel. Mr Marking did not, however, cite any items other than these two. After the independents had echoed BEA, Mr Lucking was invited to speak. His argument in a nutshell was that BEA's domestic costs were too high, having deteriorated £2m last year despite a 17 per cent increase in revenues. His analysis of BEA's account suggested an unduly heavy, and unaudited, allocation of over heads, including £2m Vanguard development costs. He alleged that discounts to international passengers were too great, that there was too much free staff travel, and that there was an illogical scatter in the pattern of rates charged between different cities. The Board could well, as citizen Lucking has done in his spar; time, challenge much more persistently the costs that are alway; the basis of the airlines' disturbing tendency to price away the new passengers they need so much. j. M. K.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
