FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1965
1965 - 0152.PDF
88 FUGHT International, 21 January AIR TRANSPORT. . . (b) The ticket does attempt to incorporate "General Conditions of Carriage" by reference and, if the passenger succeeds in obtaining a copy, he will in most cases find therein a clause saying "Carrier's rules, regulations and conditions of carriage are subject to change without notice." It will be a nice question for the courts as to whether this well-hidden clause offers the carriers any consolation. The burden of proof is on the carrier to demonstrate that this clause was drawn to the passenger's attention in good time. (c) Airline timetables and fares publicity sheets often contain no warning. A random sampling of current literature shows that BOAC, BUA, Lufthansa and Qantas make no mention of the Departure Charge (but Qantas do say that fares are "subject to change without notice") and that BEA, Sabena, PAA give some details of the Departure Charge (PAA is most detailed). Even the airlines which mention the charge give no hint that it is an airline surcharge and they separate it quite clearly from their lists of fares. In any case, many passengers never see this litera- ture and it is doubtful whether any of it is really part of the conditions of contract. (d) The ABC World Airways Guide still shows the UK Departure Charge under the heading of "Local Taxes," which implies a charge imposed by and for the benefit of a local government— which it most certainly is not. This article is in no sense a justification of the scale of UK airport and air navigation charges which appear to be high by anyone's standards. It is concerned with points of principle for the airlines in their contractual relationships with the travelling public. Only small charges are involved for each passenger, but the year's end total may be considerable. The discussion suggests the following conclusions:— 1. Most passengers who have travelled internationally from UK prior to November 1, 1964, are unlikely to realize that the purpose and beneficiary of the 7s 6d departure charge has changed and is no longer the Ministry of Aviation. 2. Not one airline (at the time of writing) advises passengers that the 7s 6d is a surcharge for the benefit of the air carrier. 3. I AT A members, by charging an amount identical to the previous Ministry charge (without proper economic justification in the eyes of the CAB) have taken advantage of this situation. 4. Apart from the CAB, there is no visible official consideration of the overall public interest and the helpless position of the passenger in particular. 5. The acts and publications of the airlines tend to conceal the truth from ordinary passengers. 6. The Ministry of Aviation has connived at the overall pattern of deception and thereby displays a disregard for the travelling public. 7. In many cases the 7s 6d surcharge is legally unenforceable against a passenger who meets it for the first time on check-in. The airlines, IATA and the Ministry should answer these allegations and, if they find them well-founded, show that they are capable of acting in the interests of the travelling public by suspend- ing the operation of Resolution 295b. At the moment, any IATA airline which feels sufficiently moved by these arguments to wish to suspend the practice or to refund the 7s 6d on request is presum- ably in breach of IATA obligations and liable to a fine. There is no similar inhibition on the non-IATA members such as Aerolineas Argentinas and Icelandic, although officially they would presumably incur the displeasure of their own governments if they failed to collect a surcharge which had been agreed with the UK. If BUA can dispense with the surcharge in certain cases, then there can be no serious obstacle to an extension of the practice which would be welcome not only to the public but also to the airline and agents' staff who have the task of making collections. H. CITIZEN MORE INERTIAL EQUIPMENT FOR PANAM LAST summer we reported (page 171, July 30) Pan American's decision to adopt inertial navigation for all its 48 Boeing 707s then operating and for seven more on order. The system chosen was the, new Sperry New York SGN-10 and the value of the order was $12m. Now comes news of a repeat order, worth just under llmillion, for an additional ten systems for use on five newly purchased 707-321 Bs. Installation of the equipment concerned in both orders is to start this summer and the whole 707 fleet is to be equipped by June 1966. TRIDENT IE TRIALS PROGRESS FLIGHT testing of the Hawker Siddeley Trident IE, begun on November 2 last, has already shown the aircraft to be free from major problems and confirmed most performance and handling estimates. The first of this longer-range bigger-lift and more power- ful export version of the Trident (ultimately destined for Kuwait Airways) completed 55 trouble-free hours flying in its first full month of trials; these included a tentative exploration into all aspects of the full trials programme. There seems every likelihood that the certification and delivery programme will go through on time. During the first flight, Hawker Siddeley say, it was evident that the new wing design was superior in lift and drag characteristics and in low-speed handling, and there were no difficult stall prob- lems. The satisfactory results of the first handling flights and the excellent serviceability have enabled the preliminary tests and measurements to be completed quickly. At the high-speed end of the flight speed-range, the Trident IE has been flown to well beyond its maximum design speed, and has reached Mach 0.975 (650 m.p.h. TAS at 35,000ft—only some 10 m.p.h. less than the speed of sound); flutter and buffet tests were completed satisfactorily at this speed. At high speed the aircraft is said to have even better hand- ling characteristics than the Trident 1. At low speed the stalling characteristics followed very closely the results obtained with the temporary slat fitted experimentally *5J> Tnd??tJ1- The tests with this fixed slat, carried out during 1963, enabled production of the IE wing, of bigger span and area, less sweep and with a movable slat, to be put in hand with con- fidence. With the slat open, the IE is reported to stall nicely with a positive nose drop and wings level. Tests with tufts have shown a small area of disturbed airflow at the junction of the inner and outer slats; smoothing the discontinuity is expected to increase further the already higher Cunax of this latest Trident. On the approach the low-speed handling is understood to be most satisfactory, with the speed-stability in particular showing an improvement on the Trident 1. The clean-wing characteristics also show all-round improvements compared with the earlier aircraft. Gross-weight take-offs at 132,0001b, with engine-cuts at the critical point, have been measured, and tail-d@wn take-offs with engine-cuts and with different flap settings have demonstrated the total absence of ground stall. Take-offs and landings over the full eg. range have been performed successfully and take-off and initial climb measurements to finalize flap settings have been completed. Measurements of cruise performance show that the figures fer overall drag and fuel consumption are in accordance with estimates. The Rolls-Royce engines at present installed are pre-production examples of the Spey 25 series. Hawker Siddeley say: "So far engine behaviour has been exemplary and preliminary measure- ments indicate that the installed performance as regards power and consumption are as predicted." FRONT-SEAT PASSENGER RISK WITH the increasing use of light aircraft for general charter work, where passengers are frequently seated next to -the pilot, the latest Ministry of Aviation pink Civil Aviation Information Circular warns of the dangers in this arrangement. Instances have been reported, the circular states, where passengers sitting in the right- hand seat have taken hold of the control column during flight in order, for instance, to help them to turn round to talk to the passengers in the rear seats. Such action could obviously lead to a difficult situation if it occurred at a critical time in the flight. The circular suggests that when the second pilot's seat is to be occupied by a passenger, pilots of such aircraft should consider removing the dual column. Where this is not practicable, pilots should ensure that the passenger concerned is clearly briefed not to touch the controls.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
