FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1974
1974 - 0413.PDF
IFILDiiKnr INTERNATIONAL Published by IPC Transport Press Ltd © IBC Business Press Ltd 1974 Dorset House, Stamford Street, London SE1 9LU Subscriptions: UK, £12 p.a. Overseas, £10-30 p.a. USA airspeeded, $28 p.a. B. J. F. Nason, Oakfield House, Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, Sussex RH16 3DH; Tel 0444 53281 A subscription form is at the back of this issue Subscriptions are zero-rated for VAT Thursday 21 March 1974 Number 3393 Volume 105 Founded in 1909 First aeronautical weekly in the world Official organ of the United Service and Royal Aero Club Telephone: 01-261 8070 (Editorial) 01-261 8081 (Advertisement Sales) 01-261 8392 (Advertisement Production) Telegrams/Telex: Bisnespres Ldn, 25137 Publishing Director Maurice A. Smith, DFC Advertisement Manager David Holmes International Business Press Associates ibjll I Editor J. M, Ramsden Assistant Editor Hugh Field International Editor Mark Lambert Technical Editor Michael Wilson. BSc, CEng, FBIS, AFRAeS Assistant Editor (Technical) Andrew Holton, MSc Editorial Staff Charles M. Gilson Ian R. Goold Charles Heathcote-Smlth Mark Hewish David Kent Member of the Audit Bureau of Circulations jABC! Air Photography Tom Hamill MM Windsors" Concorde The new Minister who speaks for British civil aviation, Mr Peter Shore, rightly compli mented the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) for being, to quote him, "on the ball" after the DC-10 accident at Ermenon- ville. The question that should really have been put to Mr Shore is, however, different. If the pre vious "Windsor" cargo-door inci dent had occurred over Britain, would it have been the subject of an inquiry? Would the UK Department of Trade and Indus try (DTI) have inquired into it as thoroughly as the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) did? Would it have pub lished a detailed accident report — with recommendations for modifications and a statement by the CAA of its actions on the recommendations? It is certain that a British airline would have reported a Windsor to the CAA, whose sur veyors covering the operator's base would have been on the telephone that day to the manu facturer. But it is not certain that the incident would have been fully and publicly scrutinised by the DTI. Whatever may be said about the apparent failure of the American system to make the Windsor modifications mandatory, all things are relative. If Wind sor had occurred over Britain, and if controls had not been fouled because the pressure dif ferential had been a couple of pounds lower, the matter might not have been given the "NTSB treatment." If, like the "Naples Trident droop," the incident had reached the ears of the safety authorities, it might have fallen between the stools of operations and airworthiness. Or—like the Vanguard pressure-bulkhead cor rosion discovered in the hangar in 1969 and which in 1971 caused disaster over Ghent—it might have got no further than the air line concerned. Mr Shore will find that the British system still remains virtually unchanged and potentially fail-dangerous. Communications failures hap pen wherever there are human beings. But in air safety they are much more likely to happen with such hit-or-miss hazard- alerting. The CAA, to its credit, is proposing to make reporting mandatory, as it is in the USA. But time flies. We may now have seen how even a fully docu mented incident can become a disaster. How much more is an undocumented incident likely to become one. The question for Mr Shore to ask both the CAA and his own DTI is how many Windsors hap pen in British air transport which are not investigated or even reported, and which could become Ermenonvilles. Mr Benn could easily have sup pressed the facts about Concorde costs, as he himself did from 1966 to 1970, and as all other Ministers have done. In revealing them he appears to seek three advantages: to stir the Civil Ser vice and firms into publishing more information about industry; to strengthen his bargaining position with the French; and to shake Concorde workers and management into cost-conscious ness. The arguments for going on with Concorde were summarised on this page for February 7. The Minister is right to publish the full facts about costs, but the case for Concorde is not diminished. IN THIS ISSUE World News Air Transport Defence Avionics Private Flight Light Commercial The Simple Flying Virtues Letters Industry International WORLD AIRLINE DIRECTORY Spaceflight Defence Straight and Level 356 358 363 368 369 370 371 373 374 375 378 380 Front cover: Singapore Airlines has two 747s in service and one on order. Details of the fleet, routes and senior executives of this and more than 500 scheduled and charter airlines are to be found in the "Flight" World Airline Directory, which is bound into the centre of this issue
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
