Who will make non-mobile break? Your anti-mobile telephone correspondent (Flight International, 17-23 August) has truly hit the nail on the head. Whereas in days past you could request a non-smoking seat, how would today's request of "non-laptop, non-telephone seat please" be greeted? At least you can kill the in-flight entertainment if you wish, but how do you silence the keyboard click and Hooray Henry on his telephone? By installing soundproof rows at the back of each class? The total ban on smoking on flights was preceded by some no-smoking flights. Come on airlines, who is going to be the first to introduce non-gizmo flights for those who just want to sit back and relax? Richard Dawnay Ryde, Isle of Wight, UK
Gazelle's licence lesson Your caption writer has done Westland a disservice (Flight International, 10-16 August) by suggesting that the Gazelle was "built under licence". A long-term agreement was signed on 1 December 1972, between Aerospatiale and Westland after being mooted in February 1967. It covered joint development and production of the Puma, Gazelle and Lynx, with the French having design authority for the first two and Westland being responsible for the Lynx. It was understood that the work carried out at Yeovil on the semi-rigid rotor for the Lynx was fed back into the Gazelle programme, greatly to the benefit of that design. The anomaly of the agreement was that although described at the time as long term, there was no provision for its continuation. Thus, Aerospatiale went on to produce the successful Dauphin and Ecureuil models without reference to the UK, despite both having rotors based on the Gazelle. Hugh Field Cambridge, UK
Military buzz In Working Week (Flight International, 6-12 July) an air traffic controller at Swanwick says her job could be made "a lot easier without the military buzzing around". Without the endeavours of the military, past and present, the freedom of domestic and international flight might not have become ours to enjoy. Military aviation plays a significant part in UK defence policy, but with the need to ensure the safe co-existence of civil and military activity in UK airspace being well recognised. Consequently, the UK has a joint and integrated approach to the provision of air traffic control services and, moreover, employs a flexible use of airspace policy, which ensures that civil and military airspace requirements are taken into account in both strategic and tactical airspace management planning. Air traffic control is not intended to be easy, it is intended to ensure airspace can be used safely, efficiently and equitably by all legitimate airspace users. As a military air traffic controller officer I consider it my duty to do my utmost to ensure civil and military airspace users are accommodated. I hope the air traffic controller will come to think the same way. Chris Hill Gloucester, UK
Caravelle first As an admirer of the pioneering Sud Aviation Caravelle, I was pleased to see that it had not been forgotten in your EADS supplement (Flight International, 10-16 August). Although the Caravelle holds title to many "firsts", it was not the first jet airliner operated by Air France. That distinction belongs to the de Havilland Comet 1A. John Wegg Sandpoint, Idaho, USA
Not forgotten Am I the only reader to notice we have had two weeks without a letter from David Connolly of Brussels? Rob Travers Chester le Street, Durham, UK
Off the scale Paul Buckland (Flight International, 3-9 August) raises the issue of man/machine interface and its evolution. Substitution errors in overwriting the "balanced field flight management computer-calculated V speeds" will always be present. On other designs, the V speeds V1, VR, V2 are depicted on the multifunction central display unit (MCDU) and primary flight display (PFD) speed tape as such, the only "substitution" safeguard being an error message if less than 100kt (185km/h) is entered. To mitigate, we need an "are you sure you wish to amend V speeds?" error message. The Airbus A320 series seems less than seamless in that the V speeds depicted on the PFD are V1 when it is off scale and "1" when on scale. VR is a blue/cyan circle. There is no indication if it is off scale. What is wrong with a consistent MCDU/PFD VR and an indication that it is off scale? This would probably have prevented the Air Canada tailstrike. Here, both pilots were approved check pilots and the captain was conducting a requalification route check on the co-pilot. A flat authority gradient prevailed and as the V-speed spread was "normally" within a few knots, the pilot not flying assumed that he saw the VR "symbol", or what he expected…take your choice. People will always override safeguards. The Auckland SIA tailstrike is an example, but the Airbus design seems to invite expectation and induce "automaton" assumption. Great expectations have been illustrated to invite tailscrapes of the unexpected. David Connolly Brussels, Belgium
Source: Flight International
