FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1977
1977 - 0143.PDF
FLIGHT International, IS January 1977 133 Letters Common-sense flying SIR—That dreaded word "legislation" seems to dominate the letter from Edmund Bewley (Flight, December 25). While everyone in general avia tion must be concerned about the Graham Hill accident, it is far from correct to suggest that legislation covering every light-aircraft would eliminate this sort of incident. Mr Bewley says that "a commercial pilot does not have to think about minima—he looks them up in the operations manual and applies them." My company's ops manual states that we can take off from Gatwick if the runway visual range is more than 150m. But nobody will do so unless a suitable bolthole—such as Bourne mouth, Manston or Heathrow—is available in case of emergency. The need for alternate fields is not spelled out in the manual, being left instead to the captain's judgement. This is where something called airmanship comes in. Complex avionic aids are now common in most light aircraft. With all this additional equipment at his disposal the modern PPL-holder tends to rely less and less on common sense and airmanship. The best way of stopping accidents in which over- ambitious PPLs fly into trouble is to make such pilots more aware of the dangers of entering situations which could have fatal consequences. . The lead must come from the CAA Panel of Examiners, which sets the- standard for all PPL training and flying in this country. A combination of the Panel's experience and the resources of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association would surely pro duce some practicable means of making people use their common sense and improve their airmanship. Redhill Aerodrome, BRIAN SMITH Surrey Ockham illusion SIR—At 8.20 a.m. on December 10 last year I saw a 747 approaching Gatwick from the north-west. Just north of the airport it turned through 180° at about 2,000-3,000ft. A second 747 then appeared, and both aircraft went on to carry out several turns at this position. Their flightpath took them directly across the right-hand- turn climb-out path (runway 26 was in use) of Gatwick's heavy early- morning traffic. It seems that a radar failure at Heathrow caused traffic problems that Correspondence for this page should be addressed to the Editor, Flight International, Dorset House, Stamford Street, London SE1 9LU, and marked "For Publication". Letters should preferably be no more than 300 words long. Letter of the week SIR—About once a month Flight falls under the spell of the British Aerospace Organising Committee's yuckspeak. Sensor staggered out of 1976 with four weighty news items full of doubt and despair voiced by this strange and expensive group. Imaginary executive appointments are leaked, politicians pilloried for not permitting stupidity to become law, and the Committee expresses concern about its "credibility in its negotiations" with partners who know that it cannot commit BAC and HSA to anything. Meanwhile, a General Election creeps nearer and nearer. Perhaps Sensor might care to ask the chaps at the Treasury if they have still got the money to buy the companies, let alone finance them. For nearly three years the men on the shop floor and in the design offices of Britain's aircraft industry have been conned into believing that their jobs will be secured by nationalisation. The Organising Committee is populated by men—several of them proven in the world of aviation—who believe that by "advancing the cause of Socialism" they are helping the industry. In fact they have been used as political pawns. Nationalisation will not sell a single extra aeroplane, let alone save anybody's job. Only customers create jobs. If you don't believe me, ask Boeing and Benn. House Of KENNETH WARREN MP Commons, London SW1A 0AA day. But couldn't a holding pattern have been devised to keep orbiting aircraft away from outbound traffic? Crawley, G. HOOPER Sussex [Sir Ivor Broom, Controller of National Air Traffic Services, replies: "There were no wide-bodied jets landing at Gatwick before 1 p.m. on December 10. Visibility at Heathrow was low and there were two 747s holding in the Ockham stack, north-west of Gatwick, at the time Mr Hooper quotes. One was at 7,000ft and the other at 8,000ft. It is not unusual even for experienced observers to under estimate the height of large aircraft or the height difference between aircraft. There were no radar failures at Heath row or Gatwick that morning."] Emergency descents: roll or bunt? SIR—I was very surprised to see in the article on the A300 (Flight, December 11) that the manufacturer of the very latest generation of passenger aircraft is still advocating a rolling entry into rapid descents. In my opinion this method of entry exacerbates one emergency, and is quite likely to lead rapidly to a second, a jet upset. Nowadays there is really only one reason for a "rapid descent" (com monly known as an emergency descent)—a decompression. This emergency has two basic causes: a failure of the aircraft pressurisation system, or the kind of structural problems caused by an explosion or collision. In the event of a pressurisation failure, both crew and passengers have oxygen available. There is no danger, except perhaps a mild dose of hypoxia for those passengers who fail to grasp a mask and "breathe normally." There is certainly no danger to crews who are well trained to deal with a decompression. What is dangerous is the action of putting the aircraft not only into a steep dive, but also into a bank which probably exceeds recommended limits. From experience I estimate that it takes no more than five seconds to obtain the desired rate of descent with a bunt manoeuvre so mild that pas sengers experience only a fraction of negative g. In the case of depressurisation as a result of structural damage, the argu ments against a rolling entry are even more telling. Only the gentlest of manoeuvres should be carried out with an aircraft whose structure is suspect. The captain of an aircraft so affected should be at liberty to choose the gentler, slightly slower method of descending to an acceptable cabin altitude, ensuring that no further un necessary stress is placed on the air frame. While it doesn't matter if passengers pass out briefly with hypoxia, there is a risk with the rolling entry that the whole aircraft will disintegrate when over-stressed in its weakened state. My own airline prescribes a rolling entry for emergency descents by its 707s. On its 747s, however, captains can choose between a straight or rolling entry. I would be interested in readers' comments on this matter. 64 Denman Parade, J. K. WINSLOW NSW 2076, Australia WHAT'S ON Jan 18-20 US Annual Reliability and Main tainability Conference; Marriott Hotel, Phil adelphia, Pa, USA. Jan 20 RAeS Test Pilots' Group: "Flying aeroplanes in buffet," by Dr Jean Ross (RAE Bedford); 7 p.m., 4 Hamilton Place, London W1V0BQ; telephone 01 -499 3515-9. Jan 20 IOA: informal discussion, "Should night flights be banned or derestricted?" to be opened by N. J. Deva-Aditya and D. R. Samson; 6 p.m., 66 Portland Place, London W1N 4AD; telephone 96 32219. Jan 24 AIAA: 15th Aerospace Sciences Meeting; Hyatt House Hotel, Los Angeles, Calif, USA; telephone (212) 581-4300. Jan 25 RAeS Graduates' and Students' Section: "Harrier past, present and future—a designer's review," by John Fozard (HSA); 6.30 p.m., 4 Hamilton Place. Jan 26 RAeS Management Studies Group: "The establishment and future of the new British Aerospace Corporation," by Lord Beswick; 6 p.m., 4 Hamilton Place.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
