APPENDIX A-2 JUNE 24, 1953. Mr. RALPH S. DAMON, New York City, N. Y. DEAR MR. DAMON: The airline navigators of TWA have been notified by the company that they are being removed, as of July 1, 1953, from the Paris-Rome segment. All phases of the airline industry are continually looking ahead to improve efficiency of operation, safety measures, and effect economies. The navigators have always advocated and promoted advancements in each of these phases of development. This removal of navigators retards progress, decreases efficiency of operation and safety, thereby increases operating costs. Not too many years ago the general concept of efficient operation was to fly from point A to B on a great circle course. Today, pressure-pattern flying has disproved this concept, and through this progress the navigators are saving the company money. In Europe, not many years ago, the pilots and navigators flew from Paris to Rome on a direct route. Today the company is proposing a costly backward step by eliminating the navigator and forcing the pilots to zigzag back and forth to check over points which are off the direct route. This indirect method of flying will cost the company money. It has been proven that pressure-pattern flight over the ocean has saved the company flight time. This time saved is money saved. These savings over the ocean in 2,000 miles of pressure-pattern flying will be lost in Europe due to the ridiculous zigzagging along 600 miles between Paris and Rome. Why does the same company, which realizes the saving on one segment, intentionally throw it away on the next segment? To enlarge on the fact that the company will not save money by removing navigators-let's go into it further. A "Connie" costs approximately $10 a minute to operate, a navigator's salary is about $10 per hour. The average flying time-Paris to Rome-is 3 hours. TWA at present operates about 44 flights per week over this segment. By eliminating the above-mentioned off the direct route check points and substituting direct flying where feasible (as shown on the accompanying charts) we can make a saving for the company. It would take a saving of only 3 minutes on the Paris-Rome leg for the company to write off its navigation costs. (These facts are proven by the accompanying charts A and B). Volumes have been written on safety, and it is a recognized fact that specialized navigation contributes immeasurably to safety. TWA would be getting this safety factor at no cost to the company. In this letter we are not stressing many other well-known arguments for keeping a full-time navigator aboard, such as 1. Flexibility of flight planning. 2. Circumnavigating danger areas. 3. Circumnavigating weather. 4. Readily available headings, distances, and times to all alternates, and the fuel remaining over these alternates. 5. Pilot fatigue reduced by the additional crew member. 6. Deviation checks. 7. Constant drift checks. 8. Constant observation of the absolute altimeter. 9. Increased safety factors. 10. Increased accuracy of inflight weather data. We do wish to stress however, that if the company will eliminate indirect flying and substitute direct flying where feasible, we can easily realize a saving in time which, as we have shown, only has to amount to 3 minutes in a 3-hour flight to pay the navigator's salary. In other words, under our proposal we are advocating a simplified direct flying which results in less fatigue for the pilots and less cost for the company. In summarizing, we have shown by our figures, after writing off navigational costs, the company will realize a saving of over $6,000 per week on this 600-mile Paris-Rome segment alone. This is progress which directly reflects savings to the company. We hope we will be able to meet with you at your earlies convenience to discuss this matter further. Very truly yours, JOHN D. NICHOLAS, Air Line Navigators Association, The following is the result of TWA Council No. 24 meeting of 23d June 1953: Whereas the company failed to notify the pilots of the exact proposed operation prior to June 16, 1953, which did not permit sufficient time to properly analyze and present the pilot recommendations on the proposed removal of FRO's and NAV's over portions of the European routes to be effective July 1, 1953; and whereas the crew members to be removed do aid in the safe operation of flights: Be it therefore Resolved, That headquarters notify the company and CAA that the pilots consider, as previously stated, that route facilities, communications and equipment are not satisfactory to conduct a safe operation under all conditions as the company proposed to put into effect July 1, 1953: Be it further Resolved, That the company allow sufficient time so that the operation may continue with present crew complement, in order that the pilots may further study, analyze and make recommendations to the proposed plan of operating with fewer crew members in the cockpit. And further that any company action involving any pilot who has refused a flight in the interest of safety, shall be considered an action against all pilots of the international division: And further that ALPA shall be instructed to pursue an intense investigation of this matter and report their findings to council No. 24 without delay. DEAR MR. NICHOLAS: Your letter of June 24, 1953, on the subject of the removal of navigators between Paris and Rome has been received. In this letter you note that because of the removal of the navigator, in this instance, we are obliged to fly a zigzag route and if the navigator was retained direct flying might be substituted at a substantial saving per week. This does not represent the situation as it actually exists. The French, Swiss, and Italian Governments, not TWA, have established certain routes through their territory, similar to airways in this country, and we are required by them to fly only on those routes. Furthermore, this requirement is effective whether or not a navigator is carried on these segments, which I feel nullifies the argument of greater economy realized through the retention of the navigator. The CAA has investigated and reviewed our policies and procedures in this matter at great length. They have found, as we did, that the quantity, reliability, and location of the navigational facilities in this area were such as to allow the removal of the navigator. They have agreed, by their approval, that the route can be operated without navigators at no sacrifice of safety. Considering these points I feel that we have taken the most economic and logical measures in this respect. Sincerely yours, To All Members TWA No. 24: JOHN A. COLLINGS, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, The following resolution is self-explanatory and is the MEC reaction to our resolution of July 20 and will be our guide in respect to the company's proposed North Atlantic route without navigators. SWEDE ERICSON. Whereas the MEC is recognized as the policymaking body for the TWA pilots, and whereas the MEC has given serious consideration to the action taken by council No. 24 in the meeting of July 20, 1953: Be it Resolved, That, in the interest of safety, the MEC alter said resolution by council No. 24 to the extent of disapproval of flying the North Atlantic segments without navigators at the present time: be it further Resolved, That TWA management be advised that the MEC will not make a decision which could be conceived to have influence in the settlement of the current navigator's strike; be it further Resolved, That TWA management be advised that the pilots will cooperate in research into a nonnavigator operation on the basis of a navigator being on board during such flights; further that this research period be limited to a period extending to 60 days from formal date of approval of pending route applications; also that the pilots shall willingly meet with the company prior to that date to reconsider the feasibility of such an operation and to negotiate possible changes in pay and working conditions as a result of possible pilot approval. EIDGENOSSISCHES LUFTAMT, Bern, Bundeshaus-Nord, August 1, 1953. Re Airways in Switzerland HERRN F. WIRTH, I. A. N. C.-Sekretar, Postfach 116: We confirm the receipt of your inquiry of August 4, 1953, and offer you the following information. A requirement that the airlines in Switzerland must fly airways does not exist, for the simple reason that airways have not yet been introduced. As is well known to you, the European ICAO plan is being successively introduced in the various countries of Europe; correspondingly the electronic navigation aids were in part newly located and the airways-control procedures were put into operation. Corresponding to this, aircraft, which fly to or from Switzerland, are today given over to our control on the airways or advisory routes which are here projected and which have been partially introduced outside of Switzerland. Also our control organization is successively passing over to airways procedure. Its inception will be publicized when it occurs. At We must ask you to take care of the translation to English of this answer. the time we have several absentees due to vacations and we should not like to delay our answer because of the translation. Respectfully, [Signature illegible], Flight Safety Division of Federal Air Office. SYNDICAT NATIONAL DES OFFICIERS DE L'AVIATION MARCHANDE, Monsieur JOHN D. NICHOLAS, Great Neck, Long Island, N. Y. BUREAU CENTRAL, DEAR MR. NICHOLAS: In response to your question which you have asked us we wish to state that in France, outside of the control areas, airways represents not obligatory routes for airlines, but simply routes with maximum radio aids. Airplanes can therefore use direct routes, and observe only quadrantal separation authorized by ATC. They must report either over or abeam the reporting points. For example between Paris and Geneva the routes flown are Orly-Paris south and direct Geneva (HEW). Paris control asks only that we report Dijon. Between Paris and Rome the routing is as follows: Orly-PS-Dijon-HEW-Genoa-Elba-NR, and Rome. We hope that this information will be of help to you. Sincerely yours, R. MAROTIN, Le President. SECRETARY GENERAL FOR OFFICE OF AIR NAVIGATION, 1, quai Branly, Paris, April 11, 1953. Subject: Use of airways by planes belonging to foreign companies. 6, rue des Italiens, Paris (1X) DEAR SIR: In a letter dated October 1, you asked me to furnish a reply to a question raised by the International Association of Navigation Officers of Air Transport Aviation, concerning the obligation of foreign owned planes to use the airway Paris-Rome, while flying over French territory. I am pleased to inform you that the use of airways does not have such an obligatory character for airplanes flying over French territory. Planes which decide not to use these airways, in spite of the greatest flying safety that these airways guarantee, must in all cases respect the limits of such airways and must not enter such airways without the permission of air traffic control. The SECRETARY GENERAL FOR CIVIL AND R. LEMAIRE, (For the Secretary of State for Public Works and Commercial Aviation, and by delegated authority). OVERSEAS OPERATIONS BULLETIN No. 53-17 P-17, E-10, N-10, R-11 To: International pilots, flight engineer, navigators, and flight radio officers. 1. Altitude clearances It is noted from debriefing reports that a certain amount of confusion still exists on the matter of clearances along the variously classified air routes in European countries. For the purpose of clarification, particularly in view of the recent activation of advisory routes, you are reminded of the following: A. Flights along established airways.-Altitude clearances are requested and issued in much the same manner as along domestic airways, i. e., positive control is exercised by the air traffic control center. B. Flights along advisory routes.-Pilots are provided only advisory service but the control center cannot require compliance with its suggestions. This service consists of: (1) Issuance of flight information generally issued under flight information service to all aircraft proceeding along advisory routes. (2) Suggestions to pilots to ensure required separation along advisory routes considering the reported traffic (under the form "advise" or "suggest"). NOTE. The advisory service does not relieve the pilot in command of any of his responsibilities since the final decision concerning any suggestions made under advisory service remains the prerogative of the pilot. As a result, the pilot is not compelled to follow the suggestions made by the advisory service but he is rerequired to notify the control center as to whether the suggestions are followed or not. C. Flights within flight information regions.-Pilots are furnished information, when they so request, as to known traffic and are encouraged to give information as to their own status but are not given clearances until joining airways or air traffic control zones. In other words, the pilot is furnished only that information which he has requested and that which other aircraft have volunteered. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, Kansas City, Mo., February 9, 1954. SYSTEM OPERATIONS BULLETIN No. 54-3 To: All pilot personnel. METHODS OF REDUCING ENGINE AND AIRPLANE TIME Each 1049 engine must be overhauled each 1,200 hours of airtime. The BA's are overhauled every 1,300 hours; Martin engines each 1,400 hours; C-54's each 1,500 hours; and the BD's each 1,700 hours. The cost of a complete engine overhaul, on a "time-engine", averages around $5,000. Present domestic operations schedule 2,943:16 daily hours of engine time. This represents slightly more than 2 daily engine overhauls, at an approximate cost of $10,510 per day, or approximately $3,836,150 per year. Add our international operation, and the time-engine overhaul cost figure reaches approximately $5 million annually. You have already been bulletined on the necessity for accurate reporting of on and off times. Your reported times are the records upon which the company computes the time for engine overhaul. The 2 or 3 minutes given to some agent to improve a station's performance record was costly, unrealistic, and in the end deterimental to all concerned. We currently schedule an average of 510 landings per day, of which approximately one-half are 4-engine airplanes. This totals approximately 1,530 enginelandings per day. Money wasted per year on engine overhaul: approximately $65,000. Why fly from MKC to CHI at 8,000 feet when 14,000 feet may get you there 10 or 15 minutes sooner? Why operate from CHI to LAX via DEN when an operation via MKC-ABQ may result in less headwind and a 30-minute arrival? These are just hypothetical examples-the principles are applicable to almost every flight and every route. It may interest you to know that TWA's Flight 90, LAX-IDL, in the week ending January 17, arrived at IDL on 4 of the 7 days ahead of a competitor with an identical departure from LAX; and that on 3 of those 4 days, we had a faster running time than the competitive flight. This didn't just happen; it resulted from proper preplanning the consideration of routes, altitudes and weather to predetermine how to get there the "fustest with the mostest." A record such as the preceding is a tribute to the flight crews, dispatch, meterology, and station personnel. Similar timesavings can be accomplished on all flights. Plan your flight accurately. A sloppy flight plan gives an inaccurate estimate of arrival. You may get halfway to your destination, discover you are going to arrive late, and then even additional horsepower won't make it. Plan your flight, where practicable, to arrive at least 10 percent ahead of time. If the original plan falls short, look for a better altitude, a more favorable route, or plan additional horsepower if within allowable range. A flight plan is of no more value than the accuracy of the planning. Recent checks of a number of flight plans indicate an increa sing tendency toward carelessThis is inexcusable. The most complicated of plans can be prepared in ness. |