FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1969
1969 - 0124.PDF
102 LETTERS... good faith; but, should further work be found necessary or called for by the ARB, then the customer's approval is sought before continuing with the job. We try to give good service and always to honour our responsi bilities, and I am sure the same is true of the more well established firms. I suggest that Dr Macpherson discusses his main tenance problems with a reputable ARB-approved firm and takes an interest in the work carried out so that he can see what he is paying for. I don't think he will be cheated, and—if the accident analysis can be believed—he should not come to a sticky end main tenance-wise. There is one bright feature in light aviation, however: the subsidy granted, to the private owner by many small firms like my own. This subsidy is in the form of unlimited credit, expected and given in regard to main tenance and overhaul work. Let us make a New Year's resolution: Only pay for what you get—but pay for it when you get it. Marlow, Bucks D. E. BIANCHI, Director, Personal Plane Services Ltd QFE or QNH? SIR,—The amount of correspondence on QFE versus QNH appearing in Flight for December 26 was very gratifying, but the subject must not be allowed to cool off and further comment is required. M. S. Maas's assumption that reluctance to change is a British peculiarity is probably correct; but [ believe that the mounting toll of QFE accidents is beginning to cause some soul-searching, and action must be taken. It cannot be ignored that the number of accidents as a result of the use of QNH is considerably less in North America and the rest of the world. Part of this better record stems from the sole use of QNH from the time of initial training of a pilot and part from more difficult terrain which increases the awareness of danger. We in the UK have our share of obstructions in the flight path and the collision result can be as disastrous as elsewhere. The letter from Howard Easton in support of QNH is as good as any I have seen on this subject, and perhaps it should be reprinted. He is correct in stating that we do not engage in mental gymnastics to deter mine our minimum height for an approach. This simple calculation can be done any time in advance. For really low approaches I agree that a Tadio altimeter is necessary, because of the inaccuracy of conventional altimeters. This necessity also applies if one is using QFE; however, QFE relates to one specific point only, to the exclusion of all else, and therefore is operationally not acceptable. The problems of safety and "ill at ease" in the cockpit must certainly not be ignored. It does not take a Board of Trade directive for instructors to begin training student pilots and/or qualified pilots in the use of QNH. Time is all that is required. Perhaps our already over worked tower operators, for a period of one year from now, could acknowledge a report of "by the outer marker" with a readback of the altitude that the aircraft should be passing through. This would help in the transition to the use of QNH as well as providing a crude check on the altimeter reading and glide-slope deflection. Mike Conry is fortunate not to become involved in overshoots, but perhaps he is consistently more fortunate than the rest of us. The problems of an overshoot are most certainly considered in advance and it takes more mental distraction to add airfield elevation to QFE altitude for terrain clearance, particularly if the airfield is any great distance above sea level. FLIGHT International, 16 January 1969 An extra altimeter in view of both pilots is "not on," for lack of space and for the confusion which will result from two different settings and readings. In any event, if there were space for another instrument it would be better served by a radio altimeter. I propose, therefore, that the following be implemented immediately: — (1) That all of us familiar with the use of QNH begin using it from now and press for the installation of radio altimeters where possible. (2) That all club instructors cease any training with QFE and instruct their students in the use of QNH for all flying below the transition level. (3) That all airline check pilots, flight instructors and simulator instructors begin an intensive QNH conversion programme with a view to stopping the use of QFE and/or more than one altimeter setting being used in the cockpit. (4) That all control tower operators acknowledge a call by the outer marker, including in their answer the QNH altitude that the aircraft should have been passing through, for a period of one year or until such time as the transition can be considered complete. (5) That the Board of Trade assist in this conversion in every way possible with the intention of banning radio transmission of QFE settings as soon as safely possible. Gatwick, Surrey i. R. AUDETTE SIR,—The story of the railway company scrapping hundreds of train wheels before discovering that the wheel tapper's hammer was cracked illustrates the need really to understand the problem when discussing the relative values of QFE and QNH. Neither of these settings applied to altimeters will ensure accident pre vention, for a study of "hard ground" disasters shows that the QFE accidents occur in the final approach sector and the QNH accidents occur on high ground adjacent to airports, i.e., while aircraft are manoeuvring prior to final approach. These simple facts point to the problem being one other than of operating (mail practice. An examining panel should be established—made up of very open-minded men—thoroughly to research all aspects of this vital problem; psychological, physio logical and operating practices should be completely reviewed to enable our experts to come up with an answer once and for all—repeat, all! Lingfield, Surrey MIKE CONRY PAC and the Hercules SIR,—I read with interest the Parliamentary feature in your issue of December 12, but was sorry to see that the pressure on space had led you to so much compression that in dealing with the Hercules an entirely false picture was given. In Hansard (column 18561 the chairman of the Public- Accounts Committee is reported as saying that in buying foreign aircraft it was "enormously more economical to buy the aircraft 'off the peg' . . . than to .. . make substantial modifications in it." Later, however, he says of the Hercules: "We made no criticism of the trans action." It is therefore particularly unfortunate that your article should have dealt so unjustly with the Hercules. The operation by which the American radio, electronic and navigational equipment of the aircraft was almost entirely replaced by British equipment was a model of co-operation between the Ministry of Technology and the British manufacturers concerned—not to mention the USAF and Lockheed. The job was done at neglig ible extra cost to the taxpayer. No delay was caused to aircraft deliveries. The reputation of the British elec tronics industry has been sustained. The RAF have got an aircraft which much more completely meets their operational requirements, and which over a ten-year period will certainly be more economical to maintain, thus handsomely repaying with interest the slight extra charge incurred by supporting the British electronic industry. For these reasons I think you will agree that the
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
