FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1978
1978 - 0265.PDF
FLIGHT International, 18 February 1978 Ground captains to reduce collision risk? SIR—In recent issues you have rightly pointed out that pilots are less and less making the decisions affecting the safety of their aircraft from col lision. You have also made a con structive proposal for a new cockpit display, Flightwatch, to enable pilots to assess collision risk themselves. However, the basic problem is how to reduce collision risk, not how to get the pilot back in charge of his air craft. Flightwatch requires data collected on the ground to be passed to the air craft and then displayed so that pilots may observe the possibility of collision. But surely it would be far better to pass the information to a simple ground computer, which would be near certain to give the alarm if a possible collision was detected. The existence of collision risk, even where full air traffic control is pro vided, can be blamed on two defects of the current system. First, there is no real assignment to each aircraft of a four-dimensional (three spatial dimensions and time) track which the aircraft is required to follow within defined limits. Second, there is no automatic alarm system to detect any error beyond these limits. Under such a system, all possible collisions within, say, the next ten minutes would be foreseen and eliminated. Pilots in the air would have a clear-cut responsibility to main tain their four-dimensional clearance (presented perhaps on a visual dis play unit in the cockpit, a far better use for a VDU and data link). Admit tedly this proposal aggravates rather than eliminates the problem of the pilot losing full command of his air craft, but this too could be solved by going back to first principles. If we accept that the prime func tion of the captain should be the mak ing of safety decisions, why is he currently having to surrender this role to the air traffic controller? Even Flightwatch does not really return decision-making to the aircraft cap tain, since he will still respond to the ATCO except in a last-minute panic. I suggest that the solution is to put the captain on the ground. Modern communications are excellent, and with a minor readjustment of responsibilities it would be entirely practical for an aircraft captain on the ground to carry out his prime safety responsibility while at the same time exercising command of the pilots actually in the aircraft. This suggestion offers an enormous air traffic control advantage. At present controllers have to employ wide separations, since there is no guarantee that an aircraft will do 451 exactly what it is requested to> do. The controller has in effect to wait and see what the aircraft does before making the next move. An aircraft captain in the air traffic control centre could take responsibility for stating what his aircraft would do and then ensuring that it did it. All con flicts could be sorted out ten to fifteen minutes ahead of time, leading to a much more efficient use of air space, easy sequencing for landings, a higher probability of getting desired routes, and a real opportunity to minimise block fuel. The aircraft captain, after discus sion with an incoming flight, would indent to a computer for a four- dimensional route. The computer would then examine the proposed route for conflicts with routes already filed before allotting it to the captain, who would only have to ensure that his aircraft followed it within the prescribed limits. If the computer detected conflicts on the proposed route, it would select alternatives and offer them to the captain. Medical standards for ground cap tains could be very much relaxed. What better way of offering a full career to retiring age and at the same time giving the actual aeroplane- driving to those of optimum age for the job? Lower Farm, H. C. N. GOODHART Inkpen Common, Newbury, Berks General aviation at Blackbushe . . . SIR—This week's White Paper on the future of London's airports indicates that an awareness of general aviation may exist within the corridors of power. One hopes that the decision to develop Biggin Hill as the general- aviation terminal for London was based on sound research and con sumer demand. But while accepting that Biggin Hill is a plausible site for business operations, is it the right one? A chain of GA airfields around London would be necessary to realise fully the potential of the company aero plane. Such a chain would clearly be out of the question, but putting all of London's GA eggs into one basket is equally impractical. The BAA is planning a larger GA apron at Gatwick. Was it sound judge ment to locate the new GA airfield so close to an existing facility? More over, the Biggin Hill site is not the most accessible by surface transport, nor is it the best topographically, geographically or environmentally. Why was Blackbushe not men tioned in the White Paper? Biggin Hill can certainly take care of GA needs (including club flying) south-east of London, but south-west London, north Hampshire, Berkshire and west Surrey completely lack proper GA facilities. Blackbushe has close connections to the M4 and M3/M25 motorways, and is only two miles from a mainline rail connection. There are three superb runways with hard, all-weather surfaces, and its plateau site blesses it with the best weather record of any airfield in southern England. Environmentally, Blackbushe wins again. Almost completely surrounded by open common ground and Forestry Commission land, Blackbushe has long unobstructed approaches which cause virtually no noise nuisance. Blackbushe is without doubt a premier site for a business airport: London is easily accessible, while the airport lies in the centre of the Bead ing, Basingstoke, Guildford, Staines and Slough circle, an area of tre mendous commercial activity and growth. The ever-increasing number of business flights from Blackbushe demonstrates the need for a GA centre here. At this moment, due to the deplor able way in which Hampshire County Council has treated Blackbushe and owner Doug Arnold, this airport is fighting a last desperate struggle for survival. On February 28 the Land Tribunal will be attending to estab- ... or Northolt. . . SIR—As an operator of a British- registered aircraft, I was horrified to read the latest Government sugges tions for a business users' airfield at lish the price at which Blackbushe will be transferred to the Hampshire County Council. Former owner AVM Don Bennett served a purchase notice on Hampshire County Council when it would not permit Blackbushe development. Now, despite Doug Arnold's efforts to get the purchase order lifted, the County Council is hell bent on rushing the transaction through. The County Council expects to turn the site into a public open space, an open space within many thousands of acres of more open space! By the end of the month London's finest GA site could be lost for all time. Everyone who has any belief in aviation and freedom from bureauc racy should write immediately to Keith Bobinson, the chief executive of Hampshire County Council, and to their MPs to demand that Blackbushe be allowed to continue as an airport. Blackbushe Airport PETER BROWN Users' Association, Blackbushe Airport, Camberley, Surrey Biggin Hill. This airfield operates reasonably satisfactorily at the moment as a home for many flying clubs. It also provides limited Cus-
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
