FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1973
1973 - 0082.PDF
54 Mandatory Defect Reporting SIR,—In your January 4 issue, you outline the paper from the CAA which asks for comments which will lead to a decision being taken either to continue with the present voluntary system, or to substitute a mandatory defect reporting system. I have some criticisms on the paper, and also one which is related to the general approach to the problem. The statistics given on defect reporting are absolutely meaningless unless they are related to the aircraft encom passed by the scheme at the time. For instance, from examination of the records, I find that there are four times as many defects reported per aircraft through summaries than there are through the Flight Safety Exchange Scheme, even though it must be understood that these are all going to the Flight Safety Committee. There are other inconsistencies in the present system. For instance, in 1970, there were several companies that did not submit any defect reports, and this may well be the case in 1971. I consider that all of the failings of the present system should be expanded upon. The paper does not say that, under the present voluntary exchange system, different operators work to different guidelines in respect of the defects to be reported, and that at present only one of the major operators renders reports on major defects, cracks and corrosion. The paper refers to CAA Circular 122/72, which gives the guidelines for either a mandatory or a voluntary system in relation to the scope of reporting, but it does not ask for comments on that circular. I feel that the paper could have said that the present system is patchy, and I think that some addi tional items should be added to the list of reportable defects and incidents contained in CAA Circular 122/72. The paper does not say how often, or how seldom, manufacturers have involved themselves in following up defects reported under the voluntary scheme, or how often they have gone back to the originating company to ask for further details. The paper says that the present voluntary system appears to be as effective as the overseas mandatory systems, which the authorities have studied. This is a meaningless statement unless the method of assessment is disclosed—was it worked out by the number of defects reported per aircraft, or by the passenger fatalities per passenger-mile, or by some other means? Before the recipients of the paper can make an objective assessment, this information must be made known. I am firmly of the opinion that the British voluntary system is not as effective as the American and Australian mandatory systems. The CAA says that it will be reaching a conclusion after it has considered the views of interested parties. It does not tell us who the interested parties are. I consider that the final decision should not rest in the hands of the operators and the manufacturers, but that the views of persons with legal and medical experience, practising pilots and engineers and, most important of all, representa tives of the users of the aircraft, should be obtained. If this is not done, I consider that the only alternative the CAA has is to introduce mandatory reporting, regardless of the recommendations received in the returns, because if the voluntary system is allowed to continue, it will eventually show its own weaknesses and will then have to be changed. One thing I hope is that there will be some reaction LETTERS for these columns should be addressed to the Editor, "Flight," Dorset House, Stamford Street, London SE1, and must bear the sender's full name and address, which will normally be published. A nom de plume is acceptable only in exceptional circumstances. Brief letters will stand a better chance of publication. FLIGHT International, 11 January 1973 from the operators and the industry about this very important subject. So often rules are made or altered against a background of apathy by the people affected, and one often finds that persons do not feel strongly enough about an issue even to bother to comment; they then complain bitterly when a decision with which they disagree is made. Luton Airport, G. D. PEACOCK, Luton, Beds Managing Director, Airline Engineering Understanding VAT SIR,—I refer to Rex Smith's interesting article on VAT published in Flight on December 7. There are two points which I think Mr Smith misunderstands, both arising from the part of his article dealing with industry and the airlines. He suggests that a tyre manufacturer would need to invoice differently when selling a tyre for an airliner and selling a tyre for a light aircraft. This, of course, is not the case. Tyres are not zero-rated and the tyre manufac turer would sell tyres for all types of aircraft with VAT on the invoice. It is the aircraft manufacturer who applies the zero rate of tax on the sale of an airliner and applies the standard rate of tax on the sale of a light aircraft. Mr Smith suggests that there would be cash-flow implica tions for sales of aircraft to the Government because these would be liable to VAT. This should not be the case because all stock and work in progress will be free of VAT excepting that stock which has been received in the current accounting period. There will be a swings-and-roundabouts effect even here so that generally speaking there should be little, if any, cash-flow effect on purchases. The only time that VAT enters the picture is when the aircraft manufacturer invoices the aircraft to the Government Department—if his invoice is liable to VAT it would be a matter of credit control to ensure that the account was settled before the company became liable to settle any VAT liabilities with Customs. Society of Motor Manufacturers E. H. COWNIE, and Traders, Economic Adviser Forbes House, Halkin Street, London SW1 Two-way Track? SIR,—Now that British Rail has, in its APT, learnt so much from the aircraft industry, perhaps a little learning may go the other way. According to Aviation Week (December 18, 1972, page 29) Balpa has disclosed an incident in which a BOAC VC10 pilot, starting to doze, looked about him to find two other pilots and the flight engineer asleep. Standard equipment on high-speed locomotives both in England and on the Continent includes an alert system which sounds a horn every two minutes. The driver has five seconds to cancel it with a push-button.'If he does not, the train is stopped immediately and automatically. Could not commercial transport cockpits have a similar device, operating at suitable intervals and taking appro priate alerting action? 77 Porreca Drive, A. R. G. DOW Millville, New Jersey, USA Smoke On—Go SIR,—The photographs on page 610 of your issue of November 2, 1972, are of Fit Lt Guest and myself, crew, and the Gloster Grebes we used for the first aerobatic display with coloured smoke, Hendon, 1929 (the inset is of me against my 1928 Singer Saloon). When we were selected to do combined aerobatics for the display we wracked our brains to think up something new. Filially the A&AEE Engineer Officer (the late Sqn Ldr Hugh McKenna) contacted Maj Jack Savage who was running "Skywriting" using 1918 SE.5s, and between them they evolved an installation in the Grebes. Long exhaust pipes were led aft from the manifolds of the Jaguar engines; the colour was a liquid aniline dye contained in a tank under pressure and fed into the exhaust pipe. The pressure
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
