FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1985
1985 - 0135.PDF
Airfields from another angle SIR—We were sad to see Flight International present ing an over-reactive view on the problems of airfield devel opment ("The Wasteland", Leader, Flight, December 8). As long as aviation's sup porters pursue the aviation- at-any-cost line, they leave the way open to objection. Is the writer suggesting that, because he finds high noise levels in his domestic en vironment quite acceptable, legislation and decision making should be based on that criterion? The answer for the healthy development of aviation and reasonable protection of the environment lies in a balance between these often opposing interests. Given that aero planes make a noise which many people find unpleasant (singing birds may produce comparable noise emission levels, but how many "Say No to Nightingales" societies have you come across?), the Airfields Environment Feder ation (AEF) would urge poli cies for the development of airports which include consid eration of well-researched and understood information on public response to aircraft noise and other environ mental impacts. Public worries about achieving this are exacerbated because no agreement can be relied upon to hold against pressure for revision. Pledges thought by local residents to provide a fair balance have been abandoned to allow development or increased movements—small wonder cynicism and determined opposition follow. Indeed knowledge of this weakness has sometimes forced the AEF reluctantly to resist aerodrome development pro posals where environmen tally-acceptable terms of operation and use and the co-operation of the current owner were achievable. Accepting that changing circumstances over the years may well demand a fresh response, this problem of reliability needs to be tackled, nevertheless, with some urgency. Aviation is too important a FLIGHT International, 12 January 1985 feature of modern life not to merit our best efforts to get it right in all respects. Aviation needs to win the confidence not only of the users and other direct beneficiaries, but also of the public exposed to the detrimental effects. Based on each man's consideration of the next man's interests, compromise is the only civilised answer. MOYRA LOGAN (Mrs) Executive Secretary Airfields Environment Federation 17/19 Redcross Way London SE1 IT A The RAF and maintenance safety SIR—I read with interest your article entitled "Shall Safety be Maintained?" in the issue of Flight for November 17, 1984. In support of the article's conclusion that the Confidential Flight Safety reporting system should be expanded to encompass air craft maintenance engineers, it should be noted that the Royal Air Force has recently extended its own Confidential Flight Safety occurence reporting scheme to cover all aircraft maintenance person nel. Sgt T. J. ALLSOPP, RAF Sergeants Mess Kinloss Forres Morayshire IV36 OUH Skilled or unskilled? SIR—The letter from W. M. Dent (Flight, December 15, 1984) which in turn related to J. M. Ramsden's salutory "Shall safety be maintained?" (Flight, November 17, 1984) immediately took me back some three years. At that time one of the large engine manufacturers was introducing a new turboprop engine which is now in airline service. The manufacturer stated categori cally when relating to the servicing of this engine (and here I quote from Flight for November 21, 1981): "Highly skilled personnel are not necessary". This kind of claim scarcely equates with the tone of Mr Dent's letter, in which he rightly considers the mech anic^) responsible when O rings were omitted on component reassembly "incompetent", since the difference in meaning (in the UK engineering parlance, anyway) between "incompetent" and "un skilled" is a very fine one indeed. So, while I would think there is very little room for compromise on such an issue, Mr Dent suggests that "highly skilled and trained engineers are required on the hangar floor", and an engine manu facturer apparently claims otherwise. Anyway, Mr Dent, I would happily fly in an aircraft serviced by you, whereas I might be apprehensive in some others. I also hope that you don't opt out of aviation—it needs people of your dedication. S. R. HANCOCK "Birchwood" Birsco Carlisle CA2 4UN Beech: a matter of policy SIR—The Beech Aircraft Corporation is concerned with the impression given to potential customers by your November 10 article entitled "BAe ousts Beechcraft for Dutch order", concerning Netherlines' purchase of Jetstream 31 aircraft. In your article you state: "... it is a major setback for Beechcraft, which was pro claiming its first sale of 1900s to Europe". Since we are both well aware that not every letter of intent blossoms into a final sale, it is Beech policy never to comment on a poten tial sale before actual delivery of an aircraft. During a tele phone call from your writer Beech confirmed that a letter of intent had been signed, but that was the extent of Beech's discussion of the matter. At no time did we ever refer to the transaction as a "sale". As the article points out, it was Mr Jansson, Netherlines' managing director, who chose to refer to the transaction as a LETTERS "sale", and it was from his offices that notice of the signing of the letter of intent originated. We are also concerned with the statement that "BAe stressed the fact that. .. the Jetstream performance manual showed the aircraft to be 23 per cent better on fuel burn than its US competitor". Flight International should have noted that the quoted figures were derived from flights where the 1900 carried a payload more than twice that of the Jetstream's. We feel that the addition of this factor would place the fuel burn figures of the two competitors in better perspec tive. Beech has appreciated the fair coverage of our products received from Flight Inter national in the past, and hopes that it can minimise any misunderstanding con cerning the Beechcraft 1900 Airliner which may have resulted from this particular Article 'G. F. HARRINGTON Beech Aircraft Corporation Wichita Kansas 67201 USA Colonial objectivity? SIR—I was surprised to note the tone of the article "Rhodesia's Special Weapons Revealed". (Flight, December 15, 1984). According to the authors, the crash survivors of the Air Rhodesia Viscount were "massacred", but 1,500 resistance fighters were merely "killed". Only the one magazine which takes a balanced view of the aviation world would demand such objective language from its contributors. You did slip up with your dateline, Salisbury. This reve lation of development work on Alpha, Frantan, and Golf for British Armed Forces must create problems with the Official Secrets Act. I hope this supposition is mistaken, and that the dateline is a product of a colonial mentality over looking the political reality of Harare. C. C. MACAULAY 99 Haughton Court Brunei Terrace Newcastle Upon Tyne 63
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
