US aviation needs leadership I have just read the executive summary of the report on the future of US aviation (Flight International, 10-16 May). As an objective reviewer, I was impressed by the hilarity of its awfulness. It is such a rehash of failed NASA plans that I am amazed it took $5 million to produce. Essentially, the report recommends a return to the NASA aeronautics programme of 1998; there are no new ideas. I also noted that a significant number of the strategy team were former NASA executives in disguise, so perhaps the "rehash" is not unexpected. The logic in the report is shaky, although its flaws are hidden under the Viagra-inspired prose so beloved by NASA. The major problem is that aviation is just one part of the transport system, which, in turn, is a part of the socio-economic-political system in which we live. Any ideas for the future of aviation must be compatible with the realities of the socio-economic-political system. This constrains future air transport to something similar to its present form, just as road transport today is little different from its form 100 years ago. There are important advances to be made in aviation, but they are difficult to attain and require inspired technical leadership. NASA has not had such leadership for over 25 years, so there is little chance of advances in aviation being made in the USA. David Nixon Los Altos, California, USA
Airports will cope with giant Peter Gray's letter "A380 will take a lot of learning" (Flight International, 17-23 May) is similar to a host of similar letters and articles that appeared in the late 1960s ahead of the Boeing 747's arrival. Airlines were playing with models of ground equipment and working out how they would handle turnarounds and hordes of people. There were shock-horror stories of what would happen at check-in, on the ramp and in baggage halls. A decade before that the same was being said about the imminent arrival of the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8. The outcome? A few fumbles in the first weeks of any operator's experience, a steep learning curve and rapid solutions. The professionals of the industry have always been practical, innovative and driven by a desire to make it work. On the day we can be sure they will make it all work and the Airbus A380 will be a great success on the high-demand, high-capacity routes. Currently, no international operator is proposing a configuration above around 550, which is roughly the same as the simultaneous handling of one 747 and one Airbus A320, so it is unlikely that any airport used by the 747 is going to be overwhelmed. Peter Woodrow Haddenham, Buckinghamshire, UK
Improving the A340-500/600 It is with great interest I read your A340-500/600 in-service report (Flight International, 3-9 May). The statement by Virgin suggesting a forward shift of the centre of gravity (CG) to improve the fuel burn seems to directly contradict the one given by Lufthansa. Shifting the CG rearwards will relax the stability margins and reduce the cruise drag but the active control hydraulics that augments stability will have to work harder, resulting in a marginal increase in fuel consumption. Improvements in the design of feedback control system designs will reduce maintenance problems while improving safety, reliability and efficiency. Hence, Lufthansa'a claims are likely to prove more accurate in the long term. Dr Thurai Rahulan University of Salford, UK
Cameras can check debris Your article "FOD still a danger, post-Concorde" (Flight International, 10-16 May) highlights the difficulties faced by airport operators when attempting to balance the disruption to normal operations caused by visual runway inspections, against the need to monitor the build-up of debris on the runway. In the example quoted, four runway inspections are carried out daily, with one more at night. This means that for several hours at a time debris has time to accumulate unnoticed. Yet a practical and affordable solution to this problem is available. I refer to the remote camera systems frequently seen on television broadcasts from athletics meetings, where a self-propelled camera pod travels alongside the athletes, using a high-definition television camera with a zoom lens. Four of these systems situated between the high-speed turn-offs would in most cases be sufficient to provide complete, continuous coverage of the entire runway surface and would eliminate the need for manual runway inspections and the disruption they cause. Brian Matthews Forres, Morayshire, UK
Misguided? Hisham Cararah's faith in the three organisations to which he refers (Flight International, 10-16 May) is touching, but a healthy sceptic should ask two questions: first, will not any airline want to give priority to getting an aircraft with a defect back to its home base, where the cost of the rectifying the fault will be minimised? Second, do not national aviation authorities have roles far beyond safety regulation, creating conflicts of interest? Peter Wilkins Diss, Norfolk, UK
Source: Flight International
