USA should use Russian launcher It is discouraging that all the options being considered for heavylift rockets capable of launching the sizeable payloads necessary for returning men to the Moon involve being "developed from scratch" in the USA (Flight International, 5-11 October). As cost containment must be an essential element in generating and retaining political support for this ambitious project, surely this approach is fundamentally misconceived given that a cheaper, and easier, alternative is available. That alternative is to use an already developed rocket - the Russian Energia. Although not flown since 1988 (principally because of Russia's recurring cash shortages), the infrastructure for its manufacture and launch remains in place, and resuming production of this versatile launcher, with a payload capability of at least 100t, and potentially much more, would be a vastly less expensive option. The Russians' recent suggestion of US participation in the proposed restarting of Energia operations could form the basis of a mutually beneficial agreement. Perhaps the Americans should not just accept the offer (which would, presumably, result essentially in US funds being used to help the Russians resume Energia missions) but go further, and make a counter-proposal that they acquire the licensing rights to manufacture and launch the rocket in the USA too. This would have several advantages: it would give NASA its heavylift launcher at a fraction of the cost involved otherwise; boosting dented Russian pride; and injecting an international dimension into a bold plan that, given political and financial constraints, Congress might yet deem beyond US resources alone. Mike Richardson Blandford, Dorset, UK
Lofty ideals in the cockpit The Air Transat Airbus A330 "glider" story (Flight International, 26 October-1 November) once again underlines the vagaries of computerised flightdeck instrument design and the resultant effects it has on crew behaviour. We have seen previous reference to such issues - the Emirates Airbus A340 take-off incident, for example (Flight International, 15-21 June). Again, the design of instruments in the electronic flightdeck is an issue. The A330 accident report clearly raises the effects of such presentations to the crew upon their performance. The A330 electronic aircraft monitoring did not provide "a clear unambiguous indication or warning". It seems the crew were dissuaded from alarm by the systems design - the computer is "God". Your editorial is correct: only line-orientated flightcrew training (LOFT) can address each pilot's thinking process: meanwhile ATTIC - Airbus total technology in control - is evident. Blame the crew? No, blame the system, and praise the crew for some remarkable gliding skills and take the LOFT out of the ATTIC. Lance Cole Swindon, Wiltshire, UK
Fire risk An International Civil Aviation Organisation "recommendation" states that from 1 January 2005 the level of rescue and firefighting services provided at airports should be equal to the category required by the size of aircraft used, with no more alleviation for infrequency of movement. The recommendation seems to have been given the weight of a standard by some authorities, with the result that a number of airlines are in a quandary, airports in their schedules insisting they cannot afford the higher categories of rescue and firefighting services required. Aircraft have been destroyed at airports where the rescue and firefighting services categories were at the high end of the scale, so a high category does not guarantee survival of the airframe or its occupants. As for P-RNAV procedures: where the navigation database (ND) supplier has not been "officially" approved, then the airline operators are responsible for checking the integrity of the ND data. Neither the European or US authorities seem to have prepared any timetable for audit procedures, so the ND suppliers are unlikely to be approved by the time P-RNAV procedures begin. The airlines are faced with another time-consuming and expensive task because other agencies seem to be out of sync with each other. The airlines have been badly supported on these issues. Norman Foster Duxford, Cambridgeshire, UK
Put Rutan in charge I don't know how the objective of NASA is worded, but it should be "To lead mankind into the universe". That once-glorious organisation has neglected this and become a cash cow that feeds billions to US aerospace for precious little return. It cannot now be saved - but its mission could be. Give Burt Rutan the job, with $1 billion a year and the authority to cherry-pick NASA and close the bloated, bureaucratic rest. Noel Falconer Couiza, France
Why fight 7E7? If Airbus is so sure it knows what the customer wants and has got it right with the A380 and Boeing is so wrong with the 7E7, why is Airbus countering the 7E7-8 and -9 with the A350-800 and - 900? Dennis Wills Havant, Hampshire, UK
Source: Flight International
