FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1972
1972 - 0090.PDF
58 C of A = Cost of Aviating? SIR,—Some weeks ago a trio of your readers in a joint letter asked why the cost of certification of light aircraft was suddenly so high. Since that date, a discreet absence of comment in your pages. It is bureaucratically fashionable to mouth "via bility" and to talk in terms of "user fees," but as in all business activity involving charges the customer has a right to know, in detail, what he receives, if anything, for his money. The Air Navigation (Fees) Regulations are an excellent case in point. They are so vicious that it seems unlikely that any representa tive body was consulted as to their acceptability. One is only able to assume that the cost of aero nautical bureaucracy was placed above a line and the aeroplanes were put underneath, the resulting mathematical revelation being accepted by those in authority on its sole merit of simplicity in arithmetic. Much of the present fees seem to have quietly slipped in while the light aeroplane movement in its various headgear was busy having its heads turned and applauding the promised land of the "new C of A." Surely the situation merits some attention from Organisation and Methods people rather than blind acceptance. This particularly applies in the interests of those honest citizens who pay for their aviation, be it amateur construction or flying, out of heavily taxed income. Is it really necessary for an ARB surveyor to deal with a simple light aircraft like a Jodel once per year if it is in the "Special" category, particularly at nearly £20 a time when not so long ago it was £5 for three years? Equally, should it cost £85 in "fees" as a penalty for having the temerity to import a motorised glider, or over £70 for a quaint old French ultra-light? These tithes are bad news for light air craft, they are too much and the content of bureau cracy is too high. They have broken down the excellent approachability of ARB which provided in the past a valuable two-way benefit. The latest bureaucratically twisted elastic, prompt ing me to write these words, is the classification by ARB of a home-built Wittman Tailwind and a master craftsman-built Pitts Special as "prototypes." Pre sumably Miss Skelton 20 years ago at Gatwick and the US aerobatic team at Hullavington last year were phantom manifestations which, if we look for long enough in the other direction, won't appear. Presumably also the large W formation of about 20 Tailwinds at the EAA Convention a year or so ago was just an un-British trick to kid people that aero planes with performance superior to powered para chutes are a perfectly reasonable proposition. What we must remember of course is that if these aircraft, and any other interesting well known type, are classified as "prototypes" the legal liability to pay fees is at one pound sterling to one avoirdupois. There may be justification for this state of affairs on a large industrially produced public passenger transport aircraft, but for puddle jumpers we should be able to do better; or what will happen when young designers produce real prototypes as part of the necessary step towards retrieving our place in the world league of light aeroplane design and know ledge? Welwyn Garden City, HAROLD BEST-DEVEREUX Herts FLIGHT International, 13 January 1972 Airways Base Levels SIR,—Perhaps Air Cdre Harbison, Director of Control (Operations) at NATS (Letters, December 9, 1971), would care to reconcile his statement regarding air ways base levels with London (Heathrow) SIDs when using an easterly take-off direction. One would imagine that in this day and age aircraft crossing "Kilburn at 3,000ft, Brookmans Park at 4,000ft climbing" are capable of making FL 50 by abeam Luton. Additionally Luton's traffic is consistently held (when on easterlies) at not above 3,000ft until cross ing the 037 Bovingdon radial, and again one must assume that London's traffic is above this. Even our elephantine Jumbo 747s are required to comply. Kempston, Beds L. D. GRANT SIR,—Reference Air Cdre Harbison's letter of Decem ber 9, 1971, I am sure that he will agree that there are still some areas in which there is very little clearance below the base of the airway—places like in North Wales around reporting point Wrexham with spot heights of 2,000ft plus and an airway base of 3,000ft; the masts south of Huddersfield, 2,500ft, with airway base at 3,000ft; the area north-west of Pole Hill VOR; and of course the Lake District. All high ground with low airway bases. And all of these areas are susceptible to turbulence. Stansted, Essex L. RICHARDS Thermal Imaging SIR,—I read Ian Crichton's article in the Daily Telegraph magazine (December 10) about instru ments to aid night vision, etc, and although I am interested I admit that I know nothing at all about the subject. I have had a thought, however, which I put forward in all innocence, fully expecting to do nothing more than amuse the experts. With the exception of autoland, all approach aids aim only to guide an aircraft to a position from which it can either land or must overshoot, depending on whether the crew can see the runway or the lights; at critical height everything depends on eyesight. Lasers and image intensifiers are of no use at this point because they rely on light rays. All other aids use radio transmissions. Since the crew is looking outside, a head-up display would seem to be the ideal medium. So why not use a head-up display linked to a thermal imager (as in the Daily Telegraph article) to pick out the heat from the runway lights? I realise that the overall picture would be a tangle, rather like a radar return, but the lights would stand out, and in perspective (see Information Circular 84/1971). Glideslope information might even be realised, using the Vasis already installed, with a reference light added; but here I'm only guessing. The advantage of the system is that no separate ground transmitters are required, as with ILS; and it is in any case an adaptation of a system already developed. The disadvantage is that I haven't a clue if it is really practical. If it ever does evolve, for my personal amusement I think I would like it to be called Thermal Image of Lighting Equipment Receiver. Rayleigh, Essex ALAN TYLER Open Skies SIR,—Referring to your excellent article "London- Paris History" in your issue for November 11 in which you congratulate the British and French politicians on their decision to authorise British Caledonian to serve the Paris route, I would like to point out that these same politicians have success fully voted against Modern Air's application for a
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
