FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1964
1964 - 0663.PDF
386 FUGHT International, 12 March !96-> AIR COMMERCE . MOUNTAIN AIRLINE PILOTS (Continued from Page 384) I have found the following aircraft configuration of wheels down, wing flaps up, and power minimum offers the most reasonable ride while descending in rough air. If the aircraft can be turned with a 30° bank while inducing a slight skid, the ride is even better. A steep bank reduces wing efficiency, the skid acts as a yaw damper. The rapid descent slices vertical currents at a more shallow angle, reducing acceleration forces. Pressurized aircraft aid this manoeuvre which can reach descent speeds up to 5,000ft per minute. This is, of course, a VFR manoeuvre. Automatic pilot approach couplers are deficient in their ability quickly to sense and determine wind drift on ILS approaches. I believe that the last drift correction before touchdown will have to be a pilot-set drift correction. The bottom layer of wind extending upward from the airport will be pre-computed and set in the auto- pilot. When the descending aircraft encounters the wind in the final stage of approach, the pilot will push a button. The old drift correction will be cancelled and a new one will be applied imme- diately. This may prevent this last-stage rolling as the coupler attempts to sense drift. A possible answer to low-cost approach lights may be found in the new strobe lights. A manufacturer has given us a cost estimate of $8,000 for ten lights 200ft apart. We think they have value for improving mountain airports. Our company believes the pilot must have the best cockpit that minds and material can produce. Our F-27s are tops in functional design. Our radio equipment is excellent. Radio failure is rare. We allow an altimeter error of 50ft at sea level and 150ft at 10,000ft. Any time the two altimeters disagree by 50ft when on the ground we want to know the reason and maintenance checks it out. The aviation community has a general feeling that mountain operations can be adequately met with "hand-me-down aeroplanes" and a single-strip runway equipped with a low-frequency homing beacon. This idea has to be jarred loose and a new concept estab- lished to replace it. We need a real Bearcat* aeroplane with a wide performance spectrum. It is possible to give the mountain com- munity first-class service, but it takes more than guts, skill, and determination. Piedmont captains enjoy a freedom that few airline pilots do. Our flights are released with a minimum fuel; we can take as much above this as we think we need and refuel as often as we like with- out any further communications with Flight Control. We can overfly any airport where we believe conditions aren't reasonable, with the simple explanation, "No stop due to: wind, ice, turbulence, etc," and that's the end of it. In 16 years I have never had to explain my flight decisions to anyone. When the weather is bad, we are expected to forward plans of action to Flight Control to help keep the operation active and sensible. In short, we are expected to be the pilot-in-command. We think this idea is the only one that fits a man and a machine to the mountain operation. * The Grumman Bearcat of the mid-forties was noted particularly for its rate of climb.—Ed. WAKE UP ENGLAND! THE 1929 Warsaw Convention for the unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air needed five ratifications before it came into operation on February 13, 1933—just over 31 years ago. It is now accepted by over 70 nations. The time which elapsed between opening this pioneering convention for signature and its operation was nearly 2\ years, and although the United Kingdom Parliament gave authority in good time, we were a little late in ratification so that the Warsaw Convention became operative for the United Kingdom on May 15, 1933—only three months after the first five. As the gap between the deposit of instruments of ratification and their taking effect is exactly three months (90 days) this was not a discreditable performance. What a shameful contrast is the position on the 1955 Hague Protocol to amend the Warsaw Convention. This is now accepted by 35 nations and it came into force on August 1, 1963, after receiving the necessary minimum of 30 ratifications. The UK has been in a position to ratify ever since June 22, 1961, when the Carriage by Air Act 1961 received the Royal Assent (Flight Inter- national, September 21, 1961, page 487). It is over eight years since the Hague Conference and we shall soon be a year behind everybody else. What is happening? This, in effect, was the question first posed last November by Mr H. J. Boyden, MP, who wanted to know why other airlines could not follow the example of BEA in accepting a liability limit of £6,000, which as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out is more than the generally available legal limit of £3,000. Mr Boyden quite rightly was not satisfied with the answers he received and returned to the attack on February 5—this time asking two more specific questions:— (i) Why have Her Majesty's Government not ratified the Hague Protocol? (ii) In how many flights from British airports are some passen- gers governed by a limit of £3,000 and others by a limit of £6,000? The Parliamentary Secretary explained that we had refrained from ratification because it was the intention of HMG to denounce the unamended Warsaw Convention before accepting the amended Convention and this would cause difficulties because a number of countries, including the USA, still adhere to the unamended Convention. Mr Boyden wondered why Britain should be different from the other nations ratifying the Hague Protocol and Mr Marten replied "They have taken a different legal view about the conse- quences . .." "if we signed, certain risks would flow from it which we arc not prepared at this stage to accept. But we are anxious to go ahead." He did not explain what the risks were, but it was quite clear that all the difficulties arose from the UK's desire to denounce the old Convention (£3,000) before accepting the new (£6,000) Convention —a step which other nations have not apparently found necessary. The eminent scholar Dr Bin Cheng, writing in the Law Society's Gazette for July 1963, has pointed out that denunciation of the old is not necessary before accepting the new. In fact he has also demon- strated that it is probably necessary to be a party to both in order that the new Convention shall apply! It is hoped therefore that Mr Boyden had Dr Cheng's article in mind when he offered to send Mr Marten an air law textbook. Mr Boyden's second question is very difficult to answer and Mr Marten thought it was very unlikely that in flights from British airports some passengers could be governed by the £3,000 Con- vention and some by the £6,000 Convention. However, it is easy to quote examples:— (1) A British passenger takes a return ticket from Paris to Manchester and return via London. He flies the sector Manchester - London by BEA. This passenger is governed by the new Convention, whereas other passengers on the same aircraft may be governed either by the £3,000 Convention or • by the 1952 "non-international carriage" Order. (2) A British passenger takes a single ticket from Amsterdam to Dublin via London. He is governed by the £6,000 Convention throughout even when flying by a British carrier to or from London. Other passengers are likely to be governed by the £3,000 Convention. (3) A passenger takes a return ticket from Rome to New York via London and return. He is governed by the £6,000 Convention throughout, for example, when flying Pan Amer- ican London - New York, or BOAC London - Rome. But he can only make claims under the £6,000 Convention by suing in Italy because neither the US nor the UK has accepted the Hague Protocol. Are we really "anxious to go ahead" as Mr Marten has said? \ Better reasons must be found if we are to prove that we are right ; and the rest of the world is out of step.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
