§ 3. Mr. Knox Cunninghamasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number of days during each of the past three years on which poor visibility has prevented aeroplanes landing at or taking off from London Airport and the aggregate number of hours of such interference in each of the past three years.
§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation(Mr. John Profumo)The lowest declared visibility for operations at 1054 London Airport is 150 yards. Visibility fell below this figure for more than one hour on forty-three days in 1953, on twelve days in 1954 and on eighteen days in 1955. The aggregate number of hours in each year was 200 hours in 1953, 60 hours in 1954 and 117 hours in 1955.
§ Mr. Knox CunninghamDoes my hon. Friend agree that it would be of great advantage to air transport if these delays at London Airport could be cut out, and if the airport could become one which is used at all stages of visibility?
§ Mr. ProfumoOne has to remember that there are diversionary airports to which the companies can operate in the case of fog. It must also be realised that F.I.D.O. will only clear fog; it will not clear low cloud, heavy rain or snow, which are responsible for some of the conditions that my hon. Friend has in mind.
§ Mr. BeswickDoes the Joint Parliamentary Secretary recall that when I gave that Answer six years ago there were howls of derision from the opposite benches, and that hon. Gentlemen opposite demanded F.I.D.O. before the next winter? Are we to understand that still no decision has been made?
§ Mr. ProfumoI am glad to know that the hon. Gentleman has not joined in any howls of derision at the Answer which I have just given.
§ 4. Mr. Knox Cunninghamasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will state the estimated cost of installing F.I.D.O. at London Airport: and the estimated annual running cost of such an installation.
§ Mr. ProfumoThe cost of installing a full F.I.D.O. system at London Airport was last estimated in 1954 at £335,000, and the annual standing charges at £74,000. These figures should now be increased by about 15 per cent. Annual fuel costs depend, of course, on how often the system is used in any year, but. assuming 1,000 burns spread between take-offs and landings, the annual fuel cost estimated at the time was £154,000. and would now be about £160,000.
§ Mr. Knox CunninghamAre those figures based on the addition of a percentage, or are they based on more recent 1055 estimates than those of I953? Can my hon. Friend also say how they compare with the similar work in the U.S.A.?
§ Mr. ProfumoI am afraid I cannot answer the last part of my hon. Friend's question, except that I can say that the tests in America proved to be unsuccessful. We are anxious to obtain more accurate figures than I have been able to give my hon. Friend, and only when we have managed to assess the cost of clearing various degrees of fog shall we be able to give a realistic assessment of the extent to which F.I.D.O. at London Airport would be economic to operate.
Mr Commodore HarveyWill my hon. Friend bear in mind that if the equipment saves even one aircraft from a fatal accident it will be cheap at the price? Will he confirm that the Government have not definitely ruled it out but will watch it all the time, with a view, should it prove to be practicable, to installing it at London Airport?
§ Mr. ProfumoI can give an assurance that the Government have not completely ruled it out. That is why joint experiments are to be carried out at a Royal Air Force station. The purpose is to enable us finally to make more realistic assessments.
§ Mr. BeswickCan the hon. Gentleman say whether the figures which he has quoted relate to the lower-cost apparatus burning heavy oil, or has he overlooked this recent development?
§ Mr. ProfumoThe figures relate to apparatus burning heavy oil.
§ 5. Mr. Knox Cunninghamasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will state the estimated increase in traffic likely to result from the installation of F.I.D.O. at London Airport, with reference to passenger numbers and volume of freight or money value in sterling.
§ Mr. ProfumoI regret that I have not sufficient information to enable a satisfactory estimate to be made.
§ Mr. Knox CunninghamHas my hon. Friend considered not only the saving which would be made by an increase in traffic but the safety factor, mentioned just now by my hon. and gallant Friend 1056 the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey), which would have a very considerable bearing on the matter?
§ Mr. ProfumoI should not like the House to believe that at the present stage of F.I.D.O. experiments it could be regarded as wholly safe. One has not only to bring one's aircraft down; one has also to be able to bring it in to land safely, and if there is only a narrow area which is cleared of fog, there may be difficulties if one runs off the runway into the fog. It is because of that sort of thing that my right hon. Friend is right to seek an accurate assessment before putting the apparatus on the market for commercial use of any sort.
§ 19. Mr. Hunterasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will give an approximate date when a commencement will be made on the building of the underground motor garage at London Airport.
§ Mr. ProfumoNo, Sir.
§ Mr. HunterMay I ask the Minister to pay special attention to the need for an underground motor garage at London Airport, the need for which is very urgent? Can the Minister announce a date when the project will be commenced?
§ Mr. ProfumoI think it is more likely that an above-ground multi-storey car park will have to be built. That cannot be planned in isolation. The planning of the centre area layout is now under active consideration.