FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1963
1963 - 0843.PDF
810 FLIGHT International, 6 June 1963 AIR COM MERCE .. . PRIVATE AND PROUD OF IT SHOULD an airline feel proud of the fact that it is government- owned? To hear Swissair talk, the answer is no. Dr Walter Berch- told, president of the Swiss airline, is evidently tired of being lumped together in the minds of Americans with the rest of Europe's state-owned and, more often than not, state-aided air lines. "The view that Swissair is a national undertaking," he de clares, "or at least gets considerable subsidies from the Swiss Con federation, persists with particular obstinacy." There is, says Dr Berchtold, "no truth in it." For the record, Dr Berchtold explains that Swissair is a mixed ownership joint stock company with a fully paid-up stock of SwFrl05m. The expression "mixed ownership" means that in addition to private investors, public bodies have a financial share in the undertaking. To these belong the Confederation, the Postal, Telegraph and Telephone Administration, the Swiss Federal Rail ways, cantons, cantonal banks, towns and municipalities. Jointly they own 30 per cent of the stock and have ten seats on the board of directors counting 27 members. Seventy per cent of the joint stock is in private hands, so that the shareholders are people from all walks of life. Of the total of more than 11,000 shareholders- Swiss nationals exclusively—about 68 per cent hold less than ten shares; consequently the distribution of the stock is wide. The shares have a nominal value of SwFr350 and are registered in the name of the holder. Dr Berchtold, proudly noting that his airline is "managed in accordance with the principles of private enterprise," outlines Swissair's objectives. The company operates only on such routes which are in the general interest of the national economy. Swiss trade is based on the import of raw materials and the export of finished goods. As hardly any other, the Swiss economy has to rely on sources of supply and market outlets abroad. Aircraft make it possible to reach these markets quickly and to study them per sonally. Speedy connections with suppliers and customers are im portant if not decisive for every businessman for reasons of com petition." As to subsidies, "Swissair do not draw any subsidies. As a com pany governed by civil law it is not being granted any fiscal con cession. Since 1951, with the exception of 1961, it was able to pay a dividend of 4 to 6 per cent." STARWAYS DC-4 ACCIDENT REPORT THE Ministry of Aviation has now published the report* of the Irish Inspector of Accidents on the accident to the Starways DC-4 G-ARJY during the approach to Dublin Airport on September 19, 1961. After a normal flight from Tarbes (Lourdes) Airport the aircraft was cleared number one to land on runway 24 and Capt J. Maclean stated his intention of making a visual approach. As the aircraft was turned on to final approach a loss of power occurred on the port side and the captain noticed the No 1 engine manifold and fuel pressures dropping. Up to this time each engine had been fed from its appropriate tank and there had been no cross-feeding. The captain then opened the Nos 1 and 2 cross-feed cocks, assuming that fuel starvation had caused the failure of No 1 engine after noting that the tank needle was flickering around 80 US gal although all four tanks totalled about 400 US gal. As the turn was com pleted about 5 to 6 seconds after opening the Nos 1 and 2 cross-feed valves, the No 2 engine lost power, and all the cross-feed selector valves were then opened. This did not restore power to the port engines and so power on the Nos 3 and 4 engines was increased to take-off rating to avoid losing airspeed and height. In this condition and with both port propellers windmilling, control of the aeroplane became critically difficult even with the co-pilot assisting; with full right rudder it was moving left off the line of approach with the nose swinging to port. Shortly after opening the Nos 3 and 4 cross- feed valves, the situation was further complicated by symptoms of power failure from the starboard engines. It is certain that to main tain even partial control under the circumstances involved a high rate of descent, and a forced landing became inevitable. A successful belly-landing was made in a field beside the airport buildings with the aircraft coming to rest astride the main Dublin - Belfast road. None of the 69 passengers, two crew or two steward esses was seriously injured. * C.A.P. 190 published by HMSO, price 3s 6d. £_ One of Swissair's eight Caravelles seen against the most appropriate background, the Swiss Alps. A note on recent remarks by Swissair's president (" Private and Proud Of It") appears on this page From the outset the accident investigation centred on the fuel and the supply system. Examination of fuel remaining in the tanks revealed no sign of contamination; the No 1 tank was virtually empty, the No 2 tank 141 US gal, the No 3 tank 176 US gal, and the No 4 tank 83 US gal. There was no evidence of failure or defect in the aircraft or in its fuel system, and the total fuel load on board was of the correct grade and sufficient for the flight. The report concludes that shortcomings in fuel management were the major contributory factor in the accident. From the known contents of the No 1 tank and the engine fuel consumption, Capt Maclean should have expected the possibility of the No 1 tank becoming exhausted before the end of the flight. However, the emergency action carried out to restore the fuel supply to the No 1 engine was incorrect. The physical layout of the fuel system is such that, if cross-feeding has to be resorted to, it is essential to close the tank selector valve of that tank as soon as possible, and preferably before opening the cross-feed valves immediately concerned. If this is not done, air will be drawn into the fuel system from the empty tank by the combined suction effect of the engine-driven and booster pumps and, if the cross-feed valves are open, not only will the in drawn air prevent restoration of fuel supply to the failed engine but it will also induce fuel starvation, through aeration, in any engine to which open cross-feed valves allow access. The report says: "In this connection, it was concluded from state ments by the crew that they were unaware of the vital necessity of isolating a suspect tank when cross-feeding in emergency largely because their previous experience of DC-4s had been confined to versions, other than the four-tank C-54A, in which different fuel system layouts, especially in regard to booster pump positions, rendered cross-feeding possible without the closing of individual tank selector valves. Their lack of knowledge in this most important matter of the fuel system was certainly contributed to by deficiencies in the information made available to them in the Starways oper ations manual for this aeroplane. Although marked G-ARJY on the cover, the manual appears to have been, except for a small number of amended or added pages, that used for all the DC-4 type aeroplanes operated by the company before the acquisition of G-ARJY in February 1961. Information in the manual on the fuel system appears to apply to these other aeroplanes and not to have been amended, as it should have been, for the C-54A; and it is considered inadequate in essential items, including those in relation to cross-feeding. Capt Maclean did not attempt to feather the No 1 propeller because he did not think the No 1 tank was empty, and because he thought opening the cross-feed cocks from the No 2 tanks would assist recovery." The report says that "had the captain feathered the propeller as soon as the No 1 engine failed there is little doubt that a successful landing could have been completed without difficulty. In the circumstances, this would have been a safe
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
