Waking up to pilotless costs J Horspool (Flight International, 19-25 October) suggests that the development of remotely piloted passenger aircraft would save on the cost of training and employing pilots. I'm sure some savings could be made, but a substantial amount would be offset by the expense of training and employing staff to monitor and control the remotely piloted aircraft. This all assumes that the public can be persuaded to fly in a pilotless aircraft and ignores the issue of locating the ground-based pilots for a large number of aircraft in a single establishment, thereby presenting a ripe target for any would-be hijacker. On the final note of low-cost airlines doing away with cabin crew, in view of passenger control issues, perhaps this theory should be extended to include sedating the passengers before loading? Then the real cost savings would begin: with sedated passengers there would be no need for windows because the passengers would be asleep (this would save the airframers the cost of building windows into the airframe and commonising the passenger and freight variants); minimal in-flight dietary requirements (because the passengers would be asleep), no in-flight entertainment (ditto) and no fancy seating arrangements (ditto). The reduced cabin conditioning requirements (sedated passengers having a reduced respiratory rate) would also lead to improved fuel consumption as there would be reduction in power and bleed offtake from the engines. Of course, the description "self-loading cargo" would no longer apply. Steve Woodbridge Bristol, UK
The eyes have it in cockpits The "Airbus glider" incident (Flight International, 26 October-1 November) again reveals the need for a third set of eyes on the flightdeck. In the Air New Zealand McDonnell Douglas DC-10 crash into Mount Erebus in Antarctica 25 years ago, the cockpit voice traces indicate that the flight engineer was the sole voice that came up with a note of warning. While the pilots were looking out and sighting bits of shoreline through the cloud cover he said: "I don't like this." Even though the Airbus cockpit is packed with modern computer-based wonders such devices as the head-up display and the third set of eyes still seem to be out there in the future for today's airliner fleets and the query "What's it doing now Fred?" is a repeated expression of confused reality. Maurice McGreal Auckland, New Zealand
Leak strategies Air Transit's gravity glider (Flight International, 26 October-1 November) illustrates that the most hopeful result in extremis is a gravitational draw. As befell this crew, with extraordinary airmanship and abysmal macro-management, where, alas, the twain did meet. Quick reference checklists prevent wasteful haste. When the electronic centralised aircraft monitor and quick checklist consultation establish a fuel imbalance increase of about 500kg (1,100lb) in 30min, then checklists suggest switching the boost pumps off and closing X-feed valves to establish isolation, initially. The vessel is leaking, perhaps? If there is a pylon leak, the engine will now be suction feeding fuel and air and likely to be suffering indigestion difficulties. If the leak is after the fuel flow transmitter, loss of the engine is more likely. If the engine performance is normal, then a tank leak is probable. The options are an immediate landing or intermediate diversion with both or more engines to "feed from the dead", in flight engineer parlance, within lateral imbalance tolerances. This latent failure illustrates the insidious nature and efficiency of the centre-of-gravity stab tank trim system. David Connolly Brussels, Belgium
Relax about pilot loads I believe your correspondent Steven Stott (Flight International, 26 October-1 November) should relax about the possibility of any significant air traffic management (ATM) functions being delegated to the cockpit. Ideas for self-separation have existed since at least the late 1950s, but the difficulty of dealing with emergencies is only one of the obstacles to be overcome. Notwithstanding the benefits of high-capacity datalinks, the only sensible place to put computer power is on the ground. Ground-based computers can be better protected against unlawful interference and can be configured with any desired degree of redundancy. They are able to collect data from many sources and can continuously compute and update gate-to-gate conflict-free trajectories for large populations of aircraft. Ground-based systems can be much more easily modified to meet evolving requirements such as those for flexible use of airspace and reduced vertical separation minimum. Moreover, it is clearly more reasonable to put one system on the ground than to demand that operators install yet more equipment in every aircraft. Your other item "Eurocontrol identifies runway and airport concerns" (Flight International, 12-18 October) admits that our ATM infrastructure is still not meeting the demand. All airspace users should press Eurocontrol as a matter of urgency to set aside high-technology projects and to focus on the simple and obvious provision of ground-based automation. The only alternative is for the European Aviation Safety Agency to take over the responsibility for our ATM problems as soon as possible. David Parkinson Guildford, Surrey, UK
Rutan's edge Several correspondents have tried to belittle the achievements of SpaceShipOne. Peter Johnson (Flight International, 19-25 October) is typical of these when he compares the missions of NASA's International Space Station supply flights with SpaceShipOne's trip and concludes there is no comparison. Of course there isn't. A more sensible comparison would be between how NASA sent Alan Shepherd into sub-orbital space and Rutan's approach. In this I suggest Mr Rutan has demonstrated rather more than an edge on reduced complexity and cost. To say nothing of improved safety. John Farley Chichester, Sussex, UK
Creative spirit Peter Johnson (Flight International, 19-25 October) has failed to grasp the point in his letter "Rutan has a long way to go". The comparison between SpaceShipOne and NASA's offerings made by Rob Wallace (Flight International, 12-18 October) was never intended to demonstrate a technological parity. Burt Rutan's achievement is indeed small in comparison to NASA's overfunded, overstaffed, overpriced miracles. Rutan's lesson to NASA is in terms of creative spirit, joie de vivre and vision. There was a lot of that in the industry a few years ago. It now seems unfashionable. Neil Peterson Boroko, Papua New Guinea
Entertaining, but is it safe? To judge by your report "Ryanair shoots to frill with video" (Flight International, 28 September-4 October), the cabins of airliners are now to be filled with loose, hard, sharp cornered boxes each weighing 1.5kg (3.3lb). Where does that leave passenger safety in severe turbulence, or a 6g crash landing deceleration, or will we all be issued with helmets? And if you're counting votes - I'm against unrestricted in-flight mobile telephone use. Peter Johnson Gloucester, UK
Training routes I feel Colin Green's comments (Flight International, 19-25 October) are a little naive. I am struggling to raise funds for training and am finding it impossible. There are two options, but for someone who has zero, or very few hours, the modular route is not necessarily an attractive option. By my calculation, if one were to undertake all the modules concurrently at one school, which I am advised is desirable to increase employability, the costs are not nearly halved. Medical and other professions are largely funded by the state while the student is at university and when they do have to fund themselves they have the luxury of being able to work at the same time. The flexibility afforded by the modular route for time/money may mean that the student can raise smaller amounts at different times, but this means there will be gaps in between modules when loans will have to be repaid and employment sought. Then there is the question of raising money for the next module either through loans or saving money from working. All this means that the process could take years. Not such a good deal after all. It seems that this career is open only to those lucky enough to have rich parents or lottery winners. Rupert McLeod Reading, Berkshire, UK
UK CAA: pats on the back? Struck by the J McKenna's laudatory comments (Flight International, 28 September-4 October) on the achievements of the European Joint Aviation Authorities in the field of maintenance regulation, I was wondering whether the heads of design, operations and licensing in the UK Civil Aviation Authority could say the same regarding their areas of responsibility. Roger Beazley Salisbury, Wiltshire, UK
Source: Flight International
