HC Deb 16 February 1966 vol 724 cc1290-2
2. Sir A. V. Harvey

asked the Minister of Aviation what difficulties have been encountered in granting a British certificate of airworthiness for the two British Overseas Airways Corporation Boeing 707–336 freighters; and when these aircraft will be in regular service.

29. Mr. Onslow

asked the Minister of Aviation whether he is satisfied that British Overseas Airways Corporation's two Boeing 707–336 freighters fully conformed with current British civil airworthiness requirements at the time when they were granted a certificate of airworthiness by the Air Registration Board; and if he will make a statement.

50. Mr. Lubbock

asked the Minister of Aviation whether the Air Registration Board has granted a full certificate of airworthiness for British Overseas Airways Corporation's two Boeing 707–336 aircraft.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. John Stone-house)

When this aircraft type was flight tested by the Air Registration Board for a British certificate of airworthiness, certain features were found unacceptable for certification. After these features had been rectified to the satisfaction of the Board, a transport category certificate of airworthiness was issued.

The first aircraft was put into service on 14th January and the second on 28th January.

Sir A. V. Harvey

Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that what he has said does not square with information I have received from the professional pilots association that the regulations have been relaxed in reference to the Boeing aircraft? Can he imagine the United States relaxing their regulations for British exports to their country? Will he bear in mind that where lives are concerned it is just as important for the crew to be safeguarded as for the 100 passengers sitting behind the crew?

Mr. Stonehouse

I am satisfied that the A.R.B. did its job in this case and did it well. As the House will recognise, this is not a new aircraft type. The 336 is practically identical with the 320 which has been flying for a great many years and has been certificated by the American authorities. I do not think we have any cause to complain about the activities of the A.R.B. in this case.

Mr. Onslow

Is it still not a fact that the Board first refused a certificate and then, after receiving certain representations and after a telephone canvass of its available members, changed its decision? Is it not unfortunate that the Board should apparently have made a concession for an American aircraft which in the past it has refused for an aircraft of British manufacture?

Mr. Stonehouse

It is correct that originally there were features about this aircraft which the A.R.B. found unacceptable and it had these changed before the aircraft were flown here. Certain other modifications were made to the aircraft before it was allowed to fly with B.O.A.C.

Mr. Lubbock

When similar difficulties were encountered with a British aircraft, did not the Air Registration Board insist on boundary layer fences, and should it not have done the same with the 336?

Mr. Stonehouse

The procedures followed by the A. R. B. with the American aircraft were similar to those with the VC10 and the BAC111. I think the A. R. B. did a good job in this case.

Mr. R. Carr

Does the Minister realise that there is genuine disquiet on this point? Will he consider some way of putting before us, either by a longer statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT or in some other way, a blow by blow account of what happened here?

Mr. Stonehouse

Yes, I am quite prepared to give the details of the unacceptable features which the A.R.B. had to have corrected. I am quite prepared to do that and will write to the hon. Members who have raised this point with me.