FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1964
1964 - 0758.PDF
FLIGHT International, 19 March 1964 Letters Letters for these columns are welcomed, though "Flight Inter- national" does not necessarily endorse the views expressed. Name and address should be given, not necessarily for publication in full. Brief letters will have a better chance of early publication. The Concord: a BOAC Pilot's View SIR,—On February 20 you published a paper justifying the construction of the Concord. I must take issue with Sir George Edwards, the author. His main commercial justification was that the 707 had proved that man desired an increase in speed rather than economy. For the past few years BOAC, on the Prestwick - Montreal route, have operated Britannia 312s in competition with 707s. I would be surprised if the 707s have topped a load factor of 50 per cent, whilst I know the Britannias have topped 90 per cent. Why? Because it is a few pounds cheaper. Why should a man whose time is valued by others at 10s an hour value it himself at £3 ? Justification shattered. More serious are the moral questions involved. Firstly, during construction and operation the Concord will have to be heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. Is it right that the non-flying artisan should subsidize the luxury of his much wealthier boss? Secondly, on this breathtaking dash to Australia, what justification is there for one million people suffering discomfort (however slight) for the debatable advantage of 100 persons ? This discomfort will only be kept low over populated areas. In brutal English, if you can complain to your MP or equivalent you will be spared, but if you are a jungle dweller or the like, hard luck! What sort of morality is this ? There is a fair chance that I will be a captain, nominally in charge of one of these automatic masterpieces, but if the scientifically oppressed millions rise in mass Mini-mounted mutiny, I will tag my Rolls-Royce on behind. At least Concord redundancy pay should really be something! Longfield, Kent F. INSOLE, First Officer, BOAC A British-built Phantom? SIR,—Nobody should be displeased that the Royal Navy is to have the Phantom, for it is an excellent fighter. But why should it not be built in Britain ? Since the first are not required until mid-1967 there is ample time to establish production facilities. And any resulting increase in unit cost should be slight when spread over the total procurement, which is likely to be substantially greater than that envisaged in recent estimates. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, because of its high performance, the Phantom's effective "front-line" life before becoming obsolete will be longer than normal, thus necessitating more reserve machines than is usual. Secondly, the loss of over- seas land bases will increase the importance, and thus size, of the Fleet Air Arm, and also inevitably the number of carriers above the three anticipated as being sufficient. The advantages from building the plane ourselves, possibly by Shorts of Belfast, as was intended if the two- seat Crusader had been chosen, would be as follows: dollars would be saved; the reduction in size of the air- craft industry would not be so great as would otherwise be the case; the re-design work associated with installing Rolls- Royce engines would assist in keeping the design staff employed and in this country; the immediate future ot Shorts would be assured; and unemployment in Northern Ireland would be alleviated. Ipswich, Suffolk K- c- REAVELL [Contracts for the re-design of the F-4 Phantom necessitated by the change in powerplant have yet to be announced. i>o also have decisions regarding the assembly procedure; either Rolls-Royce must ship engines to St Louis or McDonnell must ship modified airframes to Britain. Possibly a British air- frame company could manufacture all parts not standard at McDonnell.—Ed] 441 A Plea for Decca From Sir Howard Hkkman. Bt) SIR,—As a frequent air traveller I am, in common with very many others, becoming increasingly apprehensive concerning the navigational security of scheduled airline services. We all remember the recent and acrimonious wrangle in which a British navigation system that provides a very accurate navigational coverage over a wide area, combined with a pictorial presentation in the cockpit of the actual position of the aircraft, suffered a political defeat in favour of an American radio beacon system, providing only bearing and (if one is lucky) distance to a point. I vividly recall the Stavanger disaster; and now, no matter what other factors may be involved, we have a case of an aircraft navigating itself straight into a mountainside on top of which such a beacon was located. Such a disaster could not have occurred if the pilot had been able to see his actual position on a display in the cockpit. Furthermore, I understand that the Constellation accident at Lake Tahoe, two days after Innsbruck, was caused by precisely the same set of circumstances. Is it not time that the British system was implemented on an international scale? Burgess Hill, Sussex A. H. W. HICKMAN, Chairman, Electronic Control Engineering Ltd [Although the full causes of the two recent accidents referred to can only be established by the official inquiries, we fully agree with Sir Howard's views on navaids and have often expessed our own opinions on the subject.—Ed] Grounded at Croydon SIR,—I am unable to understand the Ministry of Aviation's action over a precautionary landing which was made at Croydon recently by a light aircraft through bad weather. I understand that the aircraft, which was flown by an American, was impounded and permission to take off again when the weather improved was refused. It is understood that the only way the owner could have the use of his aircraft again was by having the wings taken off and the aircraft removed by road at a cost of at least £50. Action of this nature prompts the following points:— (1) The Ministry should be aware that many landings of a precautionary nature are made by light aircraft on farm land in similar circumstances to the landing at Croydon. I have yet to hear of a fanner who owns the land insisting that the aircraft be dismantled and taken out by road! (2) Action by the Ministry of this nature, particularly where an American is involved, can only do harm and confirm abroad that our Ministry of Aviation is not rational in its approach to general aviation. (3) Most serious of all is from the safety point of view: where a pilot in similar circumstances in the future, knowing the Ministry's reaction, might be tempted to press on and kill himself and his passengers, together with anyone on the ground who was unfortunate enough to be in the way. Crawley, Surrey K. S. SMITH (private pilot) [A Ministry spokesman said that Croydon (which is surrounded by built-up areas) has been closed to flying for several years and the Mo A did not feel justified in making an exception to the closure—which equally affects people still actually building and repairing aircraft there. In any case, the spokesman said, the Mo A was "not satisfied that it would have been safe" to allow the pilot to take off again.—Ed] Passage for the Beatles SIR,—Reference Roger Bacon's humorous mention of the Beatles (March 5); unfortunately, nobody here is amused. Passage for the Beatles was paid by Ed Sullivan's organiz- ation in New York for their appearances on nation-wide TV in America. I appreciate Bacon's point, but he must appreciate ours. Next thing you know, an IATA inspector will be round here banging on the door. London Wl FRED TOPPER, Public Relations, Pan American World Airways
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
