FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1964
1964 - 0799.PDF
,.l/f 7 HANS A Lufthansa's Boeing 727s will be making their first regular visits to London from May 10, when the airline's 727 services are extended to the United Kingdom from Frankfurt AIR COMMERCE... FOCUS ON CONTROL CONFUSION IN the March issue of the Flight Safety Committee's bulletin Focus a number of instances are described where control and trim surface positions have been confused by crews—leading to serious handling difficulties. In the first instance, full power was applied for take-off, and as forward speed increased the control wheel moved to a right wing down position. The captain, who was in the right-hand seat, steadied the control wheel to assist the co-pilot who was doing the actual take-off. The co-pilot endeavoured to exert a corrective force to centre the control wheel, but finding this difficult he assumed that the captain was holding the right wing down position. As forward speed increased and nosewheel steering was released, the co-pilot placed both hands on the control wheel and the captain released the right-hand wheel. At this point the co-pilot realized that, due to the position of the control wheel and the force required to centre it, something was wrong. The take-off was aban- doned from a speed of 112kt. On inspection it was found that the aileron trim tabs were fully deflected. The scale on the trim knob indicated zero trim. It was subsequently found that a snap-ring was missing, causing discon- nection of the trim knob and the scale pointer from the trim tab drive mechanism. When the flight engineer inspected the aircraft externally before departure the trim tabs were in their normal position. The co-pilot checking the trim tab positions in the cockpit found, however, that the aileron trim indicated full scale and after confirmation with the captain that he had not moved the aileron trim, trimmed back to zero. In so doing he unknowingly moved the trim tabs to the full right wing down position although he set the scale pointer to zero trim. The flight engineer upon entering the cockpit thus found the trim settings as expected. Pilots of this airline have been reminded of three things:— If any abnormal condition is noticed before departure, cross- check with all other cockpit crew members before correcting the situation and thoroughly check the affected system for proper operation; to abandon the take-off when a control problem is recognized during the take-off run and to be alert to detect such conditions; to be aware that the recognition of a control problem can be unduly delayed if both pilots are handling the controls and that this situation must therefore be avoided by strict adherence to the applicable crew briefing. Another airline commenting on this report describes an accident which occurred some time ago:— "The take-off was carried out by the first officer, who was relatively inexperienced. It is thought that the captain noticed he was having difficulty in maintaining directional control and assumed that the port engine had failed, so it was feathered. The aircraft went into an uncontrollable yaw and crashed, killing both pilots. The aircraft was completely destroyed. The subsequent investigation disclosed that whilst the rudder trim tab was functioning correctly, the pilots could not have been aware that full left trim was set and indicated in the cockpit. COMPETENT, FIT AND PROPER EARLIER this month Tyne Tees Airways was granted an E licence by the ATLB, an event which the company says "has passed almost unnoticed in the Press." Tyne Tees feels that "a little publicity of this fact is at least due to the company in view of the previous adverse impression given." On May 22 last year an Air Operators Certificate was granted to Tyne Tees by the Ministry of Aviation, which requires all com- panies* engineering organizations to be approved by the ARB. Tyne Tees applied to the Air Transport Licensing Board for an E licence to do general charter work with its two 32-seat DC-3s. This application, heard in May, was rejected by the ATLB with the words: "With regard to the matters set out in section 2(2)(a) of the Act, we are not satisfied that the applicant is competent, fit and proper to operate aircraft for the purposes for which he is seeking this licence." This wording is frequently used by the ATLB in its reasons for refusing licences and the words "competent, fit and proper" come from the Licensing Act. They are unfortunate words out of context, however, because they could easily give the public the impression that the applicant is being refused his licence on the grounds that he is likely to run an unsafe operation, which of course, is misleading; safety comes within the discretion of the Ministry of Aviation, who do not award Air Operators Certificates unless satisfied with a company's operating standards. In fact, of course, Tyne Tees' E licence was rejected because the ATLB thought that Tyne Tees' financial strength left something to be desired. The refusal had nothing to do, as Tyne Tees has rather tartly remarked, "with the company's ability to operate services to the required standards." Tyne Tees appealed against the decision. The appeal was heard by Ministry commissioner Sir Ralph Hone last August, and Tyne Tees lost. Accordingly the capital structure was strengthened, a fresh application for an E licence was submitted, and now it has been granted. Tyne Tees was naturally very upset at the publicity that was given to the ATLB's description of the airline as not "competent, fit and proper," phraseology which it considers to be "extremely damaging." Tyne Tees has a point, though it cannot blame the Press. It may well be thought fit and proper for the ATLB in future to avoid the use of this section 2(2)(a) phraseology if possible.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
