FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1999
1999 - 2651.PDF
WHAT'S ON ACI World Assembly, Conference and Exhibition 12-15 September Geneva, Switzerland Contact Airports Council International, Geneva, Switzerland Tel+41 (22)7984141 Fax+41 (22)7880909 Sea Rescue Operations Seminar 13-14 September Singapore Safety Oversight Management Conference 14-15 September Singapore Contact Chan Pin Pin, Singapore Aviation Academy Tel+65 540 6211 Fax+65 542 9890 AFA Aerospace Technology Exposition '99 13-15 September Washington DC, USA Contact AFA, Arlington, Virginia, USA Tel+1 (703)247 5800 Fax+1 (703)247 5853 IATA Financial Forum '99 14-16 September Hong Kong, China Contact Elaine Turner, IATA Tel+44(181)607 6246 DSEi'99 14-17 September Chertsey, Surrey, UK Contact DSEi, New Maldon, Surrey Tel+44(181)949 9222 Fax+44(181)9498168 E-mail enquiries@dsei.co.uk International Aircraft Economics 14-17 September Sonesta Beach, Florida Contact Paul Elboum, Euromoney Tel+44 (171) 779 8575 Fax+44 (171) 779 8603 E-mail pelbourne@euromoneyplc.com St Thomas International Air Show 18-19 September St Thomas, Ontario, Canada Contact Walsh Air Show Productions, London, Ontario, Canada Tel+1 (519)6593298 Fax+1 (519)6590720 Routes route planning Forum Organised by Airline Business and Airport Strategy if Marketing 20-21 September Rome, Italy Contact Nickie Hollick Fax+44(161)8394252 E-mail nicki.hollick@asmltd.co.uk Missile Aerodynamics 23 September London, UK Contact Royal Aeronautical Society Tel+44(171)4993515 Fax+44(171)6704349 Flight International's "Beneath the skin" exhibition of cutaway drawings has transferred from London's Science Museum to Royal Air Force Museum Cosford, Shifnal, Shropshire TF11 8UP, UK. The exhibition runs until September. For further information contact: Tel +44 (1902) 376200 Airbus' A3XXconfiguration is still a safe bet Noel Falconer's letter "Airbus needs to switch horses" (Flight International, 18-24 August, P47) has missed some fundamental arguments that support Airbus' reasoning on the current design configuration of the A3 XX. The current low-wing, twin- aisle, twindeck design, after over 40 different fuselage and wing configurations, has been chosen primarily on the grounds of airport compatibility. Regu lations on aircraft width, length and height in relation to aircraft and building clearances means that the A3XX "box" of 80 x 80 x 24m [262 x262 x78ft] will ensure maximum airport com patibility with minimum cost for alterations to the surrounding airport infrastructure. In 1996, the ACI [Airports Council International] estimated that the average cost per airport for alterations to accommodate NLAs [New Large Aircraft] would be $90 million for an 80m wingspan, and $125 million for an 85m wingspan. GPS in a jam over weapons role The report that the US DoD [Department of Defense] is trying to combat jamming of the GPS [global positioning system] (Flight International, 28 July-3 August, P20) by retransmitting the satellite signals at higher power from a UAV [unmanned air vehicle] - presumably circling over the battle area - is an acknowledgement that jamming is a serious threat to GPS viability as a weapon-aiming system. Assuming that the trials show that it provides an adequate performance, a circling UAV could be effective only for a limited period over a restricted battle area where there is a specific threat. Continuous deployment over a wide area would hardly be practicable (as well as being a danger to air navigation). Therefore, getting the wing position and aircraft dimensions right for obstacle clearance regulations and, more import antly, compatibility with existing stands and airbridges, is vital if airports are to accept the NLA and keep costs to a minimum. Also, a higher wing may hinder potential direct upper deck access, a major selling point of the A3 XX that will dramat ically speed up turnaround, improving its utilisation and the speed at which passengers can board/disembark the aircraft. On Mr Falconer's comments about size not being the answer (yet), I disagree. Advances in technology can only go so far within a specific timeframe. Airlines are demanding an aircraft with 15-20% lower direct operating costs than those of current benchmark types. Technology can give them this to a certain extent, but the rest must come from more passeng ers aboard larger aircraft, to cut the cost per head per flight. The proposed system would therefore not be suitable for the continuous protection of ap proach and landing systems over a wide area, where jammers may be introduced covertly at any time or jamming may be caused inad vertently by malfunctioning or misused equipment of some kind. This indicates, once again, that microwave landing systems (MLS), providing guidance beams to the runway threshold at relatively high power, should not be abandoned in favour of a solely GPS-based one. Time signals, allowing one-way ranging, could still be obtained from the GPS, since short outages would not seriously affect their accuracy. The ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organisation] MLS is, however, unnecessarily complex, and a simpler and cheaper system working in the same frequency band should be preferred. AH THOMAS Epsom, Surrey, UK Despite the apparent European trend towards smaller aircraft, and a more fragmented route network, the Asian market (which is where over half the projected A3XX deliveries will be) is already showing signs of recovery. Their route network and high load factors on many domestic and international flights means that a higher capacity aircraft such as the A3 XX may be required sooner rather than later, should economic activity return to previous levels. A potential return to the unprecedented Asian passenger growth rates means that Airbus should forge ahead now to capture the NIA market before Boeing decides to re-enter the race. The odds are stacked in favour of the current A3 XX configura tion, and I for one will not be changing my bet to a different design. GRAHAM WILKES Worcester, UK "Slotology" is out of control In his letter "Airlines should call for end to slots" (Flight Internat ional, 4-10 August, P71) Lars Friberg's remarks are correct. I have had the same experience - asking for start-up 2h ahead of allocated slot time resulted in immediate clearance and direct routings en route without questions raised. It seems that "slotology" is out of control. We receive slots/calculated take-off times on routes such as Zurich-Innsbruck, where the only air traffic control affected is Zurich, which says we do not need a slot to get out of their airspace. We fly a direct route through an area with no conflicting airways, but must tell an astonished crowd to expect delays of up to lh'due to airspace congestion". HANSSIEGL Polling, Austria 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 reserves the right to select or edit letters. Address: The Editor, Flight International, Quadrant House, The Quadrant, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5AS, UK 74 FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL 1 - 7 September 1999
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
