Under the influence Flying with drugs (Flight International, 31 August-6 September) is a subject that I claim extensive experience of, after millions of kilometres as a passenger in economy. I am sure that a substantial percentage of travellers dose themselves to face the ordeal either with drugs or alcohol, which could add to the difficulties of any emergency evacuation. Flying long haul across time zones, plus the assault and battery of check-in to boarding, baggage claim to bus, is a strain at best, but has to be faced if we want to get anywhere. Insomnia, anxiety, muscular pains and so on are part of the inevitable price. There are prescription drugs available which can temporarily alleviate these problems without the debilitating side effects of older medicines. Diphenhydramine has been around for decades, used mainly as an antihistamine, and known to have a sedating effect. It has been available for many years either alone or as part of cough and cold remedies. The drug has a "half-life" (hangover) that can affect people for many hours after its initial purpose, such as a few hours sleep, has elapsed. A pilot is in such a responsible position that to take anything for insomnia without a physician's supervision is too dangerous. Insomnia can be treated very effectively, without people being adversely affected when they need to be alert. There are also medications available to prevent sleepiness that are much safer and less habit forming than stimulants that were used so extensively by the military in wartime. Zak Caretta Newport Beach, California, USA
Better briefing was needed Your Comment (Flight International, 7-13 September) highlights the report on a commercial airline accident, although fortunately with only one fatality, caused mainly it would appear by "human factors". This is despite of all the effort, time and dedication to building more robust and sophisticated aircraft and to improve pilot technical training. This training has subsequently been reinforced by the introduction of standard operating procedures and crew resource management training and in quality- assurance programmes. What else can be done? Once could say that this accident began in Cardiff at the planning and briefing when it was decide that a token 15min of extra fuel was needed. We have now a situation where the "self-brief" is the acceptable pre-flight procedure with no input from any ground personnel other than to ensure that the computerised flight plan has come out. Had the crew been operating in a system whereby a flight operations control officer or flight dispatcher with a recognised qualification charged with keeping the crew updated with, among other things, the weather trends at the destination and likely close and distant alternate airports, then the chances are that more than 15min of extra fuel would have been loaded. Vincent Oliver Cuddington, Cheshire, UK
Learn to cope with stress Many letters and articles about accidents and pilots' behaviour complain about the lack of airmanship and demand higher academic or cognitive standards to improve airmanship. But people who work in the real world know that you cannot "produce" airmanship without theoretical knowledge. Airmanship has to do with feeling and instinct that stem from previously experienced or trained situations, while theoretical knowledge is good for the analysis of a problem. But you cannot fly an aircraft just with analysis and thinking, we need to train our instincts. In a critical situation, the analytical part of the brain switches off and we will not understand the reasons for accidents. What most accidents so far have proved is the inadequate training in stress prevention techniques. So the answer to "stupid" looking incidents and accidents is not academic knowledge and more skill training, but a practical and usable stress coping technique. Capt Awad Thomas Fakoussa Mossautal, Germany
Hidden risks of financial strain I have recently heard a suggestion that up to 90% of people embarking on integrated air transport pilot licencing (ATPL) courses borrow heavily to finance their training, with no guarantee of employment at the end of it. These loans can entail repayments of as much as £700 ($1,250) a month for as long as 11 years. In the present climate, where international terrorism is a major threat and security is so important in the industry, it is surely a worry that the majority of pilots entering the job market in the next few years will be under major financial strain. People in financial difficulties are easy targets for exploitation by illegal organisations. Given the lower level of airport security applied to pilots and their access to sensitive information, this would make them a target for exploitation by criminals and terrorists. It would only require one pilot to succumb to result in a disaster. It must surely be in the airlines' interests, therefore, to ensure a continuing supply of well-trained and financially secure pilots by reintroducing sponsored schemes, especially in view of the projected growth in the industry. Is the current move towards pre-selection of self-financed trainees not likely to prove counterproductive, encouraging people to take out loans to fund their training? A Cunningham London, UK
Technical surprises I was surprised and disturbed to find no less than three blatant technical inaccuracies in the third paragraph of "737 kit cuts drag and fuel burn", (Flight International, 17-23 August). Firstly, the modification clearly does not increase the wing area, as is stated. Secondly, there is no way that the modification illustrated would result in a 5° reduction in cruise angle of attack. I guess that 0.5° may have been intended. Thirdly, induced drag is unaffected, since it depends on lift coefficient (not angle of attack), and for the same weight, speed and height the lift coefficient is unchanged. Chris Carpenter Sleaford, Lincolnshire, UK Editor's reply: AvAero says that the new cam tracks and cable drums reposition the outboard and inboard aft flap segments aft, increasing the wing area by about 3ft2 (0.278m2) per wing. The angle of attack reduction should indeed read 0.5°. The statement "consequent reduction in induced drag" should read "and a consequent improvement of the CL [coefficient of lift] to CD [coeficient of drag] relationship".
Mobile zones Before mobile telephones are permitted on flights, could we get mobile-free zones in the cabin and make it an offence to use a mobile outside the designated zones. Even better, the telephones should only work in the telephone zones. These zones should be adequately screened from the rest of the cabin. If mobile telephones are now safe for use, can CD players, electronic games, etc also be permitted? Phil Cochrane Freshwater, Australia
A job well done With the creation of the European Aviation Safety Agency, virtually all civil aircraft maintenance regulation responsibility has been handed on by the Joint Aviation Authorities maintenance division. It is an appropriate point, therefore, to reflect on the achievements of the JAA in the field of maintenance regulation and, in particular, the creation of JAR 145, the requirement for the approval of aircraft maintenance organisations. JAR 145 has established itself worldwide over a relatively short period as the most influential of such regulatory requirements, including some areas where its FAR equivalent was once dominant. The success of JAR 145, now adopted in its entirety by EASA as Part 135, owes much to a unique spirit of co-operation among the JAA member nations' regulators and industry, excellently supported by the small and always overworked staff of the JAA maintenance division. Particular recognition, however, must go to the maintenance directors: Bob Williams, whose foresight and determination ensured the creation of the original model, and his successor, Gert Litterscheidt, who ably continued to ensure that the JAA's maintenance requirements reflected the real needs of a rapidly developing industry. The UK Civil Aviation Authority wishes to endorse their contribution to air safety in the maintenance field and record appreciation of their efforts. J McKenna Head of Maintenance Standards, CAA, Gatwick, UK
Ryanair not alone Francis Raith (Flight International, 21-27 September) is shocked that Ryanair crew "found some exits difficult to open because they were 'armed'". Ryanair is not alone in having cabin crew experience difficulty in opening doors in an emergency. Flightdeck and cabin crew often find the real world at variance with that experienced in training centres. In all probability, most airlines would find potential hazards dormant in their training systems if they were to look close enough. The proposed European Joint Aviation Authorities Alternative Training and Qualification Programme regulations offer a remedy, if correctly applied. Norman MacLeod Buckden, Cambridgeshire, UK
Source: Flight International