FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1974
1974 - 0086.PDF
80 FLIGHT International, 17 January 1974 LETTERS nevertheless assumes some measure of actual gilt by foolishness. Taking a leaf out of your book, the Council of Air-Britain is also taking an unusual step. It will be issuing this month to its 3,000 members an eyewitness account of the Sarajevo trial of December 4-6, 1973. They will be invited to make this tragic travesty of justice known to their elected Members of Parliament, as well as any other platform to protest such as the local Press. If the real experts of aviation enthusiasm (and the Council of Air-Britain largely comprises men of middle-management status and in their forties) can be moved to act in protest, is there any valid reason for those who have not examined all the available evidence in support of Mason and Curtis to continue condemning their wrongfully imprisoned compatriots? 18 Argyll Mansions, CHARLES W. CAIN Bishop Kings Road, Founder, Air-Britain London W14 8QG Preventive Medicine SIR,—All professional aircrew are concerned about their medical status, and the article by Mainliner in the Decem ber 6 issue may well have given rise to undue alarm and despondency, for more rigorous standards than those prescribed by Icao are not being pursued. What the CAA is trying to do is really rather the reverse of what was implied, for it is trying to keep more pilots flying for longer by encouraging preventive medical pro grammes aimed at the early detection of conditions such as coronary disease at a stage when something positive can be done about them. As I noted in an article in Flight earlier last year, too many of our most experienced aircrew are being lost from what is essentially a preventable disorder. The changes proposed by the CAA are threefold. First, since aircrew have to be medically examined every six or 12 months, we want these examinations to be done by doctors who have special training or experience in avia tion medicine so that the best advice can be given. Secondly, we wish to encourage airlines to develop broader occupational health services for their aircrew, so we are permitting suitably qualified airline medical officers to use their examinations for licensing purposes also—if the pilots concerned wish this to be done. This is completely voluntary. Thirdly, we are setting up a Central London clinic to which professional aircrew will be referred at periodic intervals for more comprehensive medical examinations orientated to the long-term prevention of the disorders we know to be common. Special consultation facilities will be available to those attending this clinic to sort out medical problems which we know from experi ence are of concern to aircrew, though not immediately threatening their licences. At the price of slightly reduced convenience of location of medical examination facilities—but still considerably more convenient than was the case only a few years ago— and at very small financial cost, we hope and expect to enhance both safety and efficiency; to benefit aircrew, airlines and the travelling public. Shell-Mex House, DR G. BENNETT, Strand, London WC2 Chief Medical Officer, Civil Aviation Authority Fuel Savings SIR,—I am not sure that Mr Bott is entirely correct in his letter of January 3, regarding fuel saving, in saying that gliders are probably worst hit by the present shortage. Consider the position of those light aircraft owners who keep their planes on unlicensed strips and who are there fore obliged to purchase their fuel elsewhere. Under the current policy of serving only one's regular home-based aircraft, licensed airfields are in effect completely denying any fuel to such owners. Consider also the position of civilian parachuting which demands the use of aircraft— at least gliders can be winch-launched or auto-towed. If the present shortage is to continue, it would seem far fairer to have some form of rationing, based on engine size and numbers, when at least these aircraft owners would be able to undertake a limited amount of flying. 17 Westhill Close, PATRICK HOWELL Olton, Solihull. Warwicks Diversions and Delays SIR,—The Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers certainly appreciates and sympathises with Mainliner the diffi- ties referred to in his article of January 3 relating to diversions from or delays into Heathrow—for whatever reason. He may be assured that controllers at the London ATCC and at Heathrow also become disenchanted with prospects of single-runway operation by day. However, even allowing for quite valid reasons for diver sion, Mainliner fails to be constructive in his reference to diverted aircraft which he terms "a silly problem caused by artificial deficiencies," causing the article to end with a fall from grace into an aimless bleat. The ATC task of getting diverted aircraft back once landings have com menced is compounded by the in-rush from a tightly controlled en-route and TMA holding situation where flight levels are generally fully occupied for long periods. There are many priorities for ATC to consider other than those of retrieval of diverted aircraft—which are at least safely on the ground. It is a complicated exercise embracing LATCC sector handling capacities, controller workload, the Heathrow landing rate and EAT assessment. At the same time, overflying aircraft in the system are entitled to proceed without penalties incurred by terminal ATC delay problems into one airport. Controllers do not claim that the EAT allocation system where large numbers of aircraft are concerned is perfect— far from it. At best, it gives an approximation affected by mainly tactical variables. If, by inference, Mainliner is postulating a glorious free-for-all method of return from diversion then he is not only spelling out a prescription for ATC system chaos but also a certain guarantee of totally unacceptable, fuel wastage. A co-ordinated system, based on fairly allocated slot times integrating into the airborne flow rate per LATCC sector, in which a measure of reasonable ATC flexibility is preserved, is the only one in our opinion which, at the present time, can reasonably be employed in such dis rupted situations. Surely it is the better of two evils. The Guild's Technical Committee is always ready to study any proposal to improve the situation. If Mainliner has a bright idea to improve the post-diversion scene in conditions of high-density delayed traffic flow, we would be delighted to hear about it. 4 Hamilton Place, L. S. VASS, London W1V OBQ Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers DIARY Jan 22 RAeS: half-day symposium; 2.15 p.m., followed by AGM at 6 p.m.; "It's our Industry: Don't leave its Future to Others. How can we Make it More Competitive?"; Lecture Theatre, 4 Hamilton Place, London W1. Jan 23 RAeS Southampton Branch: "Why Should we Put up with Aircraft Noise?", by Dr P. J. Dickinson; 8 p.m., Southampton University, Engineering Theatre A. Jan 30 RAeS Boscombe Down Branch: "The Evolution of Army Aviation", by Maj Gen T. A. Richardson; AAAEE Boscombe Down, Wilts. Jan 30 RAeS Rotorcraft Section: symposium, "The Use of Heli copters in the Field of Public Service"; 10.30 a.m., further details from Secretary of the section. Feb 7 RAeS Rotacraft Section: AGM, 12 noon, review of films, 2 p.m.; 4 Hamilton Place, London W1. Feb 13 Joint RAeS/Slaet symposium, "Training Engineers for Operational Safety"; 2.15 p.m., further details from Secretary of the Society. Feb 20 RAeS: "Technical and Operational Aspects of Concorde", by R. Chevalier; 7 p.m., College of Air Training, Hamble. Feb 20-21 Joint RAeS/IEE symposium: "The Application of Electrical Control to Aircraft Propulsion Systems"; further details from the Secretary of the Society.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
