HL Deb 24 June 1959 vol 217 cc228-38

5.5 p.m.

LORD BRAYE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government if they will order some adequate type of fog dispersal unit to be installed at London Airport or some adjacent airport in order considerably to reduce the hazards of landing in foggy weather and to enable air line operators to continue normal service on foggy days; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the question which I am raising to-day concerns London Airport and adjacent airports under the control of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. It has been raised before in your Lordships' House in a debate we had last year on blind landing and it has also been raised on two occasions in another place. If I may, I would quote some figures. From November 1, 1958, until March 24, 1959, there were 52 days in which fog affected landing at London Airport, and 53 days at Gatwick Airport. That is a serious thing for operators, and I am sure that many noble Lords have been among those who have spent many hours, and even days, waiting to get away from London by air.

The fog dispersal unit I am asking for is not the old form that we used to call "F.I.D.O" in the Royal Air Force, which is extremely expensive and would not be practical to install nowadays. I am given to understand that the Ministry have been experimenting, for about a year I believe, with a modified form of F.I.D.O., and, if it is possible, I should be pleased to hear the results of those experiments and whether it will be possible to install this modified form of fog dispersal unit at one or other of the airports. I am quite aware that inventions come along so quickly nowadays, especially in aviation and electronics, that it is perfectly possible that a new form of landing device may be introduced within a year or two, and in view of that I can understand that the Government may think it is a waste of money to put in a fog dispersal unit at the airports. But I can assure your Lordships that any pilot or captain of aircraft would far rather be able to see the ground or feel it than look into a small radar screen, which is the sort of device that I understand is being worked on at the moment.

Your Lordships may be interested to know that the conditions of fog laid down at present are 150 yards minimum visibility required for taking off and 400 yards minimum visibility for landing. One may be asking for something which is very expensive, but more and more people are travelling by air and we are reaching the stage when people going on long-distance journeys are travelling almost exclusively by air. The other point I would make is the possibility of using the fog dispersal device for taking off as well as for landing. If long-distance aircraft going to Africa, India and other places could only get off the airport and rise 3,000 to 4,000 feet, they would be in clear sunshine and able to get away on their trip. If we could have a fog dispersal put on for, say, an hour we could probably get all these fogbound machines off. As it is, if the fog comes down and the visibility is less flan 400 yards, no machine can leave London Airport or Gatwick Airport. From what I have heard, the operators would welcome this device; but, I suppose, like many other people, they are not anxious to subscribe to it.

To sum up, if we could have this equipment it would be of great assistance to the operators, the passengers and all concerned, provided it is not too costly. I would only say, in conclusion, that there may be the possibility (I have not seen this new apparatus, and I do not know exactly how it works) of danger in landing, because those nozzles are open fans which disperse the fog, and an aircraft making a bad landing and running off the runway might be endangered. But when we consider the advantages we could have in taking off, even if not entirely in landing—when an aircraft is taking off it is unlikely to skid across the runway—it is well worth considering. I do not intend to keep your Lordships longer, but I hope I have made my point. I beg to move for Papers.

5.12 p.m.

LORD BRABAZON OF TARA

My Lords, I think we ought to be thankful to the noble Lord, Lord Braye, for raising this important question, because we have come to a time when we have got to make a decision upon this equipment. What is rather curious in the development of aviation is that electronics have gone along pari passu with it, and aviation to-day—at any rate, commercial aviation—would be a poor thing were it not for electronic control. The way the whole traffic control system picks up every aeroplane before it arrives on the coast and tells it what lane it should go down and what height it should maintain is something that we little appreciate but which does conduce very much to our safety.

So far all the resources of the electronic world have failed to produce what was hoped for some years ago—namely, a system of landing under conditions of complete invisibility. That has not occurred. The only thing we have at present is I.L.S., which is coming down on a beam, and G.C.A., which is ground control on a radar screen. Those are fairly satisfactory, but they do not really meet the difficulty of fog. We must remember that modern machines are making flying much more difficult, for the reason that the modern jet will touch down at the horrible speed of over 160 m.p.h; and if you are going to touch down at that speed you at least want to see where you are going or to be pretty certain about your electronic control.

We have curious conditions in this country in relation to fog, because when we have a fog the conditions are calm; there is seldom a fog with a wind. That is quite unlike conditions in Newfoundland, where you have a high wind and a dense fog. So that this particular form of apparatus called F.I.D.O. is efficient in our country, but it would be of no use in places like Newfoundland. Consequently, it means that we need fit up, so to sneak, only one runway and need not fit up runways in every direction varying with the wind.

The question we have to consider is whether or not electronics in the near future will produce an apparatus which will bring us down in conditions of complete invisibility. They will eventually, of course; but how long will that be? Is it worth while spending the money, which is a big figure, on equipping London Airport with F.I.D.O.? The suggestion I should like the Minister to consider is whether F.I.D.O. might not be fitted up at Blackbushe Airport, because there we have already in existence the old-fashioned equipment. The general technique of F.I.D.O. has been greatly improved, but I am sure the initial excavations in the ground, and that sort of thing, are there, and that would save a lot of money. It would not be a great deviation from London Airport to Blackbushe Airport. It is all a question of money and how much the operators are prepared to pay to come down at London Airport. One person who could tell us the economics of it is sitting on my left, the noble Lord the Director of B.E.A., who by the rules of the House is not allowed to tell us anything that we want to know. That is a great pity. However, I should like to know from the noble Earl who is to reply whether we could be given Blackbushe Airport, if we could not be given London Airport.

5.17 p.m.

LORD MERRIVALE

My Lords, I should like to add my plea to that of the two noble Lords who have spoken in regard to the provision of some sort of fog dispersal equipment at one of our London Airports. My sole purpose in rising is to ask the noble Earl who is to reply whether the Government—that is, the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation—have considered a process which from tests so far carried out in France appears to be satisfactory. The tests were carried out at Orley, and I think they have been quite encouraging in regard to the dispersal of fog. I believe the process involved is that of producing artificial cold. I am advised that this process involves the atomisation of cold-producing liquid consisting of propane and silver iodine. The effect is that when this liquid is atomised into the heart of the fog it lowers the temperature and the fog becomes crystallized; in other words, it forms minute crystals and these crystals, or artificial snow, fall to the around. I am advised that when it was tried out under fog conditions where the visibility was fifty yards, after approxi- mately a quarter of an hour the visibility became 500 yards. It seems to me that this process offers certain advantages, which might well include the advantage that it would not endanger any aircraft coming in to land or taking off, such as may be involved with F.I.D.O., as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Braye.

As I have said, my sole purpose in rising to my feet is to ask the noble Earl whether the Government have considered this process, which has been sponsored by the French Government under the Recherche Scientifique, and which I believe is proving quite promising, in view of the large amounts which are lost through fog. I think that Mr. Hay, the Government spokesman in another place, said on February 4 last that B.E.A. had lost approximately £200,000 recently on account of fog. I believe that Air France consider that it costs them approximately £400 to divert an aircraft from Paris to Lyons. This problem affects a great number of airlines, and that is why we shall all be extremely interested to hear what the noble Earl has to say with regard to Government proposals on this matter.

5.20 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I should like to join this short debate on this important subject as a fairly frequent user of London Airport, although I must say that I have been lucky so far, in that I have never been stranded by fog. I certainly feel like touching wood, because it was not many days ago that I was boasting that I had travelled with B.O.A.C. to most parts of the world and had never been more than half an hour late. Within hours of making that boast, I was on my way back with one engine stopped.

This is, I believe, a very important subject, and one which will become increasingly more important with the rapid growth of traffic through London. I am told that one of the great objections to F.I.D.O. has been the cost of setting the equipment up and the cost of operation. It is interesting to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara—who is, as we know, probably the greatest expert in air matters to-day—that there is a system in existence at Blackbushe. With him, I should like to know how much it would cost to convert that system into practical use to-day. My own feeling is that the real advance will be in the field of electronic equipment. I recall last year reading a report showing that at Farnborough (I think it was) they have designed and produced equipment by which a man on the spot can actually bring the aircraft down without the pilot being at the controls. I was wondering whether the Minister, coming well armed for this debate, has any information about this equipment. I feel that the future for operations in all types of weather will depend upon advancement and development of electronic equipment.

5.23 p.m.

THE EARL OF GOSFORD

My Lords, I should like to start by emphasising that I subscribe wholeheartedly to the contention of my noble friend Lord Braye, and others of your Lordships that 'a means of enabling aircraft to land and take off in foggy weather would certainly be a boon to aircraft operators and to passengers. But it is not so simple a matter as the wording of the Motion, asking Her Majesty's Government to order that some such equipment should be installed at London Airport or any other airports might suggest. To begin with, no fog-dispersal system has yet reached a stage when it could be satisfactorily used for civil aviation; and until that time comes there is no question of Her Majesty's Government making such an order. My noble friend Lord Braye, has said that trials of a modified F.I.D.O.system—that is, modified from the old war-time system—have been taking place at the Royal Air Force Station at Marham.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl would elaborate on what he has just said. Apparently it is possible to land a bomber with F.I.D.O., or an improved F.I.D.O. Why, in that case, cannot a civil aircraft be landed in the same way?

THE EARL OF GOSFORD

If the noble Earl will allow me, I will come to that later: it is an important point. These trials started at Marham in the spring of 1957, and after all the various difficulties, chiefly due to land acquisition, had been solved, the main installation was completed in the summer of last year. Unfortunately, as soon as these trials had begun troubles of a technical nature occurred, with the result that trial burns had to be put off until this year. Unfortunately, the remedies then suggested were not sufficient to cure these troubles, and certain moditications are now being carried out.

I should emphasise here that the technical difficulties which have occurred could not easily have been foreseen and must be taken as the natural course of events when experimenting in a comparatively unknown field. As the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has said, we had this sort of equipment during the war to enable bombers to land. But in those days the system was one of pure petrol being burnt in large and enormously expensive quantities—a system which would be quite unacceptable, not only because of price but because of the danger and the dirt. The modern system, although it is the same basic idea, applies a different system of burning altogether. The result of these setbacks is that at present until such times as these difficulties have been solved, there is no question of installing F.I.D.O. at any commercial airfield.

I turn now from the physical position, that there is no such fully approved system, to the theoretical problem of whether, once a F.I.D.O. system has been developed to the point of being an economical proposition from the commercial aviation point of view, it should be installed at London or any other airport. Let me assume for the moment that the fog dispersal system had, in fact, been developed to this point, and that it would be physically possible and acceptable to install it at a commercial airfield. The next problem to be solved is who should bear the cost of the installation, and whether, in view of possible developments of other techniques, which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, 1have already mentioned, for landing in conditions of low visibility, the cost of this installation would be justified.

I should like to make it clear, first of all, that in spite of appearances a fog dispersal system is not primarily intended for the safety of civil aviation operations. This may seem to your Lordships to be a rather remarkable and extraordinary statement, but I think I can explain it in the following way. At the present time safety is secured by the pilot's observation of weather minima regulations; and operations must be planned accordingly. I admit that the avoidance of diversion to airports other than the scheduled destination by the use of a fog dispersal system would be a great convenience to air passengers and aircraft operators; but I submit that it is a convenience more than a safety operation. It may surprise your Lordships to know that the war-time F.I.D.O. which remained installed at Manston and Blackbushe, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has already mentioned, was not used by any civil aircraft for an emergency landing, and last year it was decided to let it be discontinued for an emergency landing at either aerodrome. The only time it was used was for a take-off at Blackbushe on one occasion, to take gold bullion which had to be got away by a certain time. I hope that dispels the argument that this is an emergency necessity. It has been used only once by any civil aircraft in all the years since the war, although it has been available.

Your Lordships might argue, "But if it were installed at London Airport it would be used more frequently". I am now talking about the new F.I.D.O. system. But, to my mind, this only reinforces my argument that it is a matter of operational convenience to operators and not a matter of operational safety. There is a further point which I think it, would be as well that I brought to your Lordships' attention, and that is that even F.I.D.O. has its limitations, in that when visibility falls below 50 yards surface transport comes to a standstill, and without further expensive installations aircraft would be unable to taxi to and from the runway and to and from the terminal area.

That brings me to my second problem, and that is who should pay for this system if in fact it is to be installed. I hope that I have shown your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government consider that the installation of F.I.D.O. is one of convenience to aircraft operators. For this reason we consider that it would be more appropriate for civil air operators benefiting from the system to meet the cost. The problem therefore becomes one of whether airline operators who use London Airport would be willing to subscribe to the capital and the operational cost. I do not think there is any question of the civil operators being willing to contribute to the capital cost, and in any case, it would not be easy to parcel this out fairly between the operators who use London Airport. The problem therefore comes down to the installation being paid for in arrear by increasing the present landing fees. It is not easy to present figures to your Lordships, since they are entirely hypothetical. We do know, however, that the basic cost of installation would be not far short of half a million pounds. What we do not know is the amount of money it would be necessary to charge per landing with any hope of coming somewhere near to covering the initial cost of installation and subsequent operation. It obviously must depend on the number of landings and take-offs which take place during the year, and for this we have no real basis to work on.

Let me, however, assume for a moment that it is somewhere in the region of 1,000 landings and 1,000 take-offs. At this rate the fees for its use would be somewhere in the region of £300 per landing and £150 per take-off. These figures have already been put to the aircraft operators at London Airport and they are higher than even those operators who are most keen on a F.I.D.O. being installed would accept. Nevertheless, talks are going on in this matter. Furthermore, in the absence of operational experience of F.I.D.O., most operators when asked had reservations as to the extent to which they might use it even were the fees acceptable to them. Obviously, therefore, it is not possible to come to a decision to under-take this large expenditure of money until we know more as to whether the operators would be willing to use it when installed, and, emerging from that, whether they would be willing to help to pay towards its cost.

We have to consider the other developments for blind landing which those noble Lords who spoke before me have already mentioned, the electronic methods. But I think before I do so, if your Lordships will forgive me I will refer at once to what the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, mentioned, and that was the experiment which took place and is taking place in France. I understand that the experiments were on a small scale; that a number of propane cylinders were placed round the perimeter tracks and that gas was released under pressure from nozzles some 10 feet above ground. This system was used and enabled General de Gaulle on one occasion to take off in conditions in which he would not otherwise have been able to do so. But unfortunately the system would not work in this country except on a very small number of occasions, because it relies entirely on the fact that the foggy conditions are near or below freezing point, and the occasions on which fog exists in this country at that temperature are in a minority.

Your Lordships have heard of the systems at the B.L.E.U. at Bedford. This is an electronic system and one which I think will be eventually installed in all large transport aircraft of the world. It has not been perfected, by any means, but there is no doubt whatever that it is a development to come, and one can say with certainty that some form of equipment on the lines of the experiment at Bedford will become world wide. If that is installed universally we can expect all commercial aircraft who use main aerodromes to be equipped with these equipments, and we might find ourselves, if we were to install F.I.D.O., in a position where a large amount of money had been spent on a system which shortly after its completion might well be rendered redundant.

I am not advancing this argument as a reason for not installing F.I.D.O.—far from it. This is one of the problems that we must solve when the time comes when a suitable F.I.D.O. system is ready for installation. Nevertheless if, when the technical difficulties of F.I.D.O. have been resolved, it appears that other blind landing systems which I have mentioned are not sufficiently far advanced, and provided that some agreement can be reached with the airline operators about the financial problem, it may be that a decision to install F.I.D.O. at London Airport could be taken. Meanwhile we are pressing on with the experiments at Marham.

LORD BRAYE

My Lords, before withdrawing my Motion I should like to thank the noble Lords who spoke and also the noble Earl for his reply. I am pleased to hear that experiments are still proceeding and that if a suitable form of F.I.D.O. can be produced it will at some future date be installed at London Airport or some adjacent airport. I think it undoubtedly would be a great help. It may be a long time yet before we get the perfect electronic landing. I believe that ever since flying started men have been trying to invent automatic landing gear, but so far none of them has been a great success. My Lords, with those few words I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.