THE FUTURE OF PRIVATE FLYING
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—I would like to criticize the letter of Mr. Trevenen James in your last number. Aeroplanes, like cars, should not be restricted to definite routes—surely this would increase the risk of collision, which hardly exists at all in cross-country flying. I do not refer to Air Lines, which naturally operate over specially chosen and lighted routes, and even these have to keep to one side of such route when travelling along it. Regarding flying at different altitudes, I will only say that it is much easier to see an aeroplane at approximately the same height than one lower or higher. Altitude is often governed by meteorological conditions.
Relating to noise—that of an aeroplane is no worse than a motor cycle, a train, tram, or cart on cobblestones ; noise will much be reduced by the greater use of engines with propellers running at half engine speed.
The country will have to be covered with aerodromes if a pilot is always to be within gliding distance.
Four thousand feet may be taken as an ultra-safe height for flying over good country, and a machine will normally fly about a mile per thousand feet without its engine in calm air. Regarding Mr. Herbert's letter, I have heard of one case of a house being set on fire in the manner he mentions. I am not sure that it was true, but the idea of compulsory third party insurance is good, and should be operated at a high rate with substantial no-claim bonus.—I am, Sir, &c., JOHN COLLINS,
Previous page
