FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1995
1995 - 0404.PDF
Updating SR-71 airframe and avionics is relatively straightforward Aurora not up to scratch yet? Sir — In view of the detail on operating and support costs published since the withdrawal from service of the Lockheed SR-71, it is surprising to read that this aircraft is to be revived in the US Air Force inventoiy (plight International, 18-24 January, PI6). It has been widely assumed by most observers that the SR-71's role would be taken over by its replacement, the Aurora, and that the retirement of the SR-71 was an indication that die replacement programme had progressed to the point where this decision could be taken. It would seem that the Flight duty times: 'harmonisation' not the main aim Sir — My first impression from R P Holubowicz's letter (Flight International, 11-17 and 25-31 January) was that the general secretary of the International Air Carriers Association expects pilots to act like robots. More interesting is die statement by K Koplin (Flight International, Letters, 1 -7 February), die new sec retary general of the European Joint Aviation Authorities QAA), who was unhappy about the article "Duty bound" (Flight International, 14-20 December, P32). I believe the article to be correct and I claim that it was the JAA Operations (OPS) Committee which "thought up" the latest pro posal and has, over the years, changed proposals quite arbitrarily. The validity of this process must further be questioned in view of the also-arbitrary imposi tion of a requirement for a two- thirds majority of votes from member authorities, a procedure which has been used throughout the last two or three OPS Committee meetings before changes could be made to the pro posals. Thus, after proper discus sion and consultation, amend ments sought by a significant retirement decision was premature and that the Aurora is proving more difficult to develop than expected. This would not be surprising if the speculation on the powerplant is correct. An update on the SR-71's airframe and majority of OPS Committee Members were still rejected. Worst of all, however, is that the JAA did not listen to medical advice. I have proposed that the 1 medical experts alone be tasked with finding a new scientific pro posal, but that was not acceptable to the Committee. We are awaiting a medical report compiled by NASA, "Principles and guidelines for t duty and rest scheduling in com- ', mercial aviation", wherein five of the world's leading scientists in t the area of fatigue are stating s "hard figures" for maximum flight f duty times. It is interesting to note ) that one of the authors is the JAA OPS Committee medical advisor, t Dr Hans Wegmann. ^ It is also interesting to note that, i since the latest proposal has been published, the definition of flight- , duty period has been changed to r. "check-in to check-out" — a lower- s ing of the time by half an hour. It l seems that the proposals are at least going in the right direction. To conclude: the secretary gen- i eral of the JAA states that the OPS t Committee believes that these t proposals represent the highest 5 level of harmonisation attainable i between the European aviation authorities.The pilots say that the proposals were supposed to be a flight-safety system, definitely not t an "attainable harmonisation". avionics is relatively straightfor ward; development of a mixed-cycle powerplant is not, particularly as such an engine would have limited application in the immediate future. DFNEWLAND Watford, Hertfordshire, UK ; The International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations, t therefore, remains strongly 1 opposed to the proposals in their : current form — they are unsafe 1 and dangerous. CAPT FLEMMING S0RENSEN 5 PRINCIPAL VICE-PRESIDENT International Federation of Air 1 Line Pilots'Associations , Chertsey, Surrey, UK r ...Sir — I was amazed at Mr f Koplin's final sentence: "The l Operations Committee believes r that the proposals represent the t highest level of harmonisation i attainable between the European i aviation authorities." Medical , evidence: ignore it; pilots' views: ignore them — above all we must , get agreement. i It is a shame that the Com mittee did not have the confi- ) dence to draw up and publish a safe flight-time limitation scheme t (FTLS) and challenge the states t of Europe to comply. Mr Koplin and his Committee should realise that, sooner or later, they will have J to explain to an accident inquiry : how they arrived at their FTLS t and why the views of doctors and i pilots were ignored. I am sure that I no legal expert in Europe is going ! to be impressed with "harmonisa- a tion" as the answer. t ADBRINKMAN Wilmslow, Cheshire, UK LETTERS WHAT'S ON Flight International Aerospace Industry- Awards: deadline for entries is 24 March, 1995. Contact: Lisa Devlin, Flight International, Quadrant House, Sutton, Surrey SM2 SAS, UK; tel: +44(181) 652 3315; fax: +44(181) 652 8981. Russian Aerospace '95 - a Flight International conference in co operation with Aviaexport, 25-27 April. Contact: First Europe Communications, 43-45 St John Street, London EC1M 4AN, UK; tel: +44 (171) 490 3318; fax:+44 (171) 490 3319. Safe Flight: the Enduring Challenge - 7th Annual EASS Seminar 28 February-2 March, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Contact: Flight Safety Foundation, 2200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22201- 3306, USA; tel: +1 (703) 522 8300; fax: +1(703)525 6047. 20th Annual FAA Commercial Aviation Conference: Restructuring for Growth and Profitability 3 March, Washington DC, USA. 5th Annual FAA General Aviation Forecast Conference: Strategies for the New Beginning 16-17 March, Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Contact: +1 (301)949 7477. The Expansion of the Remote Sensing Market - 1st International Symposium 6-8 March, Paris, France. Contact: Martina Weber, A\AF, 6 rue Galilee, 75782 Paris 16, France; tel: +33 (1) 47 23 07 49; fax: +33(1)47 23 89 11. SnecmaJs engine core is a new- technology concept Sir — I refer to the article "Snecma to lead CFM56-XX development programme" (Flight International, 25-31 January, P4). It is indeed true that Snecma wants to develop the 200kN (43,0001b) engine core, but: • this core will be based upon technologies of Snecma's PAT (Plan d'Actions Technologiques) demonstrator. PAT is a new technology and not a derivative of the GE90 or CFM56-7; • this demonstrator will find an application for a new engine whose designation will be CFMXX(the"56"willbe dropped because the core will be different). JACQUES CARUEL VICE-PRESIDENT, ENGINEERING Snecma Paris, France The opinions on this page do not necessarily represent those of the editor. Flight International cannot undertake to publish letters •without name and address and resei~ves the right to select or edit letters FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL 22 - 28 February 1995
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
