FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1965
1965 - 0015.PDF
FLIGHT International, 7 January I96S AIR-CARGO CLOSED SHOP IN AUSTRALIA PERMISSION for two road haulage companies in Australia to import DC-4s for all-cargo services has been refused by the Director- General of Civil Aviation, Mr D. G. Anderson. IPEC Air Pty had proposed to import five aircraft and Comet Pty asked to be allowed to import three. IPEC Air is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Interstate Parcel Express Co and its plan was to operate all-freight charters serving Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Launceston. Its application for a charter licence has also been refused by the Government. IPEC's argument has been that Ansett-ANA and TAA were not doing all that could be done to develop air freight in Australia and that an operator for whom freight carriage was a total business, rather than a sideline to passenger carrying, would be much better able to develop the market (see "Presenting a Case," Flight, November 5, 1964, page 778). Comet Pty had proposed to operate freight services between Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. TREE-BRUSHING INCIDENT EXPLAINED THE incident on September 2, 1963, when an Iberia L-1049G (EC-AMQ), operated by Aviaco, brushed trees on a night approach to Gatwick in bad weather is the subject of a full, published report by the Ministry of Aviation Accidents Investigation Branch. For an incident involving a foreign aircraft, and in which there were no casualties or injuries among the seven crew and 75 passengers, this is a praiseworthy development. It also demonstrates the continuing good effect of the Cairns Committee report, in which it was recommended that full information on all accidents and incidents should be published. The L-1049G was on a charter (IT) flight from Barcelona to London (Gatwick) and the approach was being made in poor weather conditions with 6/8 cloud at 600ft, 8/8 cloud at 700ft and visibility of 4 n.m. at about Ol.SOhrs GMT. Radar positioning for an ILS approach to runway 09 was provided by approach control. When the aircraft was on base leg its captain reported that his glidepath equipment was inoperative. During the ILS approach the L-1049G brushed through the tops of trees on Russ Hill—which is about 220ft above and 1 j n.m. from the runway threshold. The aircraft was slightly damaged—including the loss of about 6in from a blade of No 3 propeller—but a safe landing was made. The accident report comments that in view of the availability of PAR at Gatwick, it would have been "good airmanship" on the part of the captain to have requested this facility when he became aware that his ILS glidepath receiver was unserviceable. A decision to continue the approach on the localizer only was not one which warranted criticism, but the decision did make it important for him to watch his altitude. The report also suggests, that, though responsibility for asking for the use of PAR lay with the aircraft captain, the ATC officer "might reasonably, as a matter of prudence, have reminded him of its availability." The captain apparently assumed, incorrectly, that the progress of his approach was being monitored in elevation by radar. In its conclusions the accident report suggests that the cloud base and visibility in the vicinity of Russ Hill were probably lower than those reported for the aerodrome, but points out that the captain did not maintain the notified minimum height (490ft) over the middle marker and descended below bis "personal" critical height (400ft) without having visual reference. The airline's operation manual did not specify weather minima for an approach using ILS without glidepath information—and this fact is given as a contributory factor in the incident. PLEA FOR FLIGHT-CHART CO-ORDINATION UNNECESSARY multiplication of effort, increased cost and loss of overseas business are arguments being put by Inter- national Aeradio in a campaign for the rationalization of the production of flight documentation such as navigation charts. In addition to commercial producers there are three other sources of charts—Government departments, the Services and individual airlines—and the products vary in coverage, speci- fication and means of amendment. In IAL's view, better and cheaper results would be obtained by combination of effort TWA's AUTO-SCAN APPLICATION has been made to the FAA by TWA for approval of the airline's new Auto-Scan landing aid for use in conditions down to the agency's category 2 minima of 1,200ft runway visual range (RVR) and 100ft cloudbase. The system has been under development by TWA in co-operation with Boeing, Safe Flight and Bendix for about three years. Pan American and United are each working on their own sys- tems and are about to apply for approval, while, according to an FAA official, American Airlines is not far behind. TWA has fitted Auto-Scan to three of its Convair 880s and three 707s. Initial approval will be for minima of 1,600 RVR The main elements of TWA's Auto-Scan system in a 707-130B and 150ft decision height; then, after six months if proved successful, 1,200ft/100ft may be approved. Auto-Scan consists of four integrated components: an advanced autopilot embodying automatic capture of the ILS beam; improved dual flight directors (to compute and indicate the aircraft's position along the ILS glidescope and localizer beams); a speed control device to give a continuous indication of the speed which should be maintained during the approach; and, finally, auto-thrust, a device receiving the same inputs that go to the speed control unit which are then used to con- trol the throttles. The speed control-altitude /target (SCAT) was developed by Safe Flight, and consists of an angle-of- attack sensor under the wing which detects the fundamental changes that result in subsequent speed variations. The signals from the sensor appear on a "slow-fast" dial on the instru- ment panel. The auto-thrust system, tied in with SCAT, is capable of coping with landing-gear and flap trim changes. The pilot can override the auto-thrust with normal manipu- lation of the throttles. In addition to the refined airborne equipment and flight crew expertise necessary to cope with the split-second decision and transfer to visual flying at the critical height, airports, too, must have special equipment. At the moment only Washing- ton's Dulles and Oakland, California, meet the requirements in the latter respect, which are: a high-precision ILS; standard approach lights with sequenced flashers; high-intensity run- way edge lights; touchdown zone and continuous centreline lights; all-weather runway markings; and RVR measuring equipment. A further 20 or so airports are believed to be planning for the necessary installations, and 50 airports are eventually expected to be equipped. The evaluation programme for the final step down to 1,200/100 requires at least 300 demonstrations to the critical height for each type of aircraft fitted. At least three ILS facili- ties must, be used.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
