Basic HTML Version
38
The
PLAIN TRUTH
May 1971
An Open Letter on the SST
from Garner Ted Armst rong
Dear Mr. Armstrong,
1 enjoyed your program which I heard on KTAC, Tacoma, Wash–
ington at 7:30 A.M., on December
21.
You made statements about the
SST which you may wish to reconsider and hopefully retract in light of
the enclosed information.
The SST, by reason of its speed, altitude of flight, and superior
productivity, will allow the reduction of congestion in present airlines
and at airports. Airline traffic will inevitably grow as time progresses, and
without more efficient forros of air transportation such as the SST we
would be condemned to more jammed-up traffic patterns in the air and
on the ground.
Because of sensible curfews imposed at major international airports
such as London and París, current subsonic airplanes must take off at
New York in the evening and fly overnight to arrive after curfew lifts,
condemning the passengers to the uncomfortable overnight conditions you
complained of. However, the SST because of its superior speed will be
able to leave New York in the morning and arrive the same afternoon in
Europe.
Please remember that the majority of travellers on jet transports are
family roen like yourself who see in the reduction of travel time an oppor–
tunity for fewer nights away from home, and a chance to return to distant
homes and relatives which was not possible with slower forros of trans–
portation. The merey flights which made headlines a few years ago are
such common everyday occurrences now, that they are not even
newsworthy.
Let us not make inanimate technology the whipping boy, rather than
man's perversity in misusing the gifts of skillfull hands and brains that
God has given us.
Dear
Mr.
Porter:
Thank you for your letter concern–
ing the SST , and the literature you
sent. I am quite familiar witb the
arguments for and against tbe SST;
have attended the AAAS (American
Association for the Advancement of
Science) meetings the last severa!
years, and bave heard both govern–
mental representatives' as welt as
envirorunentalists' comments on both
sides of the issue.
I am aware of the arguments con–
cerning "depriving tens of thousands
of jobs," as well as the claims con–
cerning as yet unknown effects result–
ing from moisture, exbaust and ther–
mal pollution of the atmosphere.
rne
;%!"t5-
óy
no means-
a-
wdtppthg–
boy of mine. lt is only one case in
point (dozens could be cited, the
Yours sincerely,
Kenneth W. Portee
greatest of which could possibly be
the automobile) where a technology is
"hanged
if
it does, and hanged
if
it
doesn't." We know our total society
should change, virtually overnight, in
order to preserve the delicate balance
of our envirorunent. W e know we
cannot
continue ever upward in a
dizzying GNP, depletion of natural
reserves, and manufacture of a never–
ending array of mechanical slaves.
Somewhere, somehow, sometime - it
will all come to an end. Either we
shall gradually slow it, then stop it,
or it will kili us all.
The SST is, then, only
otte
example
in the midst of many. You say the
SST will allow the
reduction
of con–
gestion in
presmt
airlanes. Only par–
naüy
true.
t'óu
see,
{
nave nine
tir
Sabreliners (2 models), Jet Com–
mander, DH 125, Falcon Jet, and
Grumman Gulfstream II. I have hun·
dreds of hours of time IN those air–
lanes, and in the approach and depar–
ture corridors to and from the nation's
airports, large and small. 1 am famil–
iar with the procedures. The SST will
climb quickly to higher altitudes, and
new high-altitude corridors will have
to be established for them (it is
argued they will never fly at super–
sonic speeds over inhabited areas,
which is questionable, at least). How–
ever,
on
tbat dimbout, the SST will
be climbing
through
all the same low–
level traffic that a Falcon or a 707
does. The departure control pro–
cedures will be practically the same.
The speed of the aircraft will
require
greater
separation, both in
terms of miles (when on parallel
headings, or on the same J-route and
on the same heading), and in terms
of thousands of feet. That means that
the SST's will have to be "stacked"
much further apart, aod on even more
carefully controlled airlanes - this
over the ocean. However,
in
trans–
oceanic flight there is no radar (1
know, since I have flown the Atlantic
both North and South, and have bad
the same HF difficulties, poor recep–
tion, etc., that plagues them all) for
a good deal of the flight, and air–
craft are required to give position
reports en route, which is not required
in the Continental U. S. when in posi–
tive radar control. This means even
additional separation for collision
avoidance.
Further, while their approach speeds
can be brought within the same areas
as the subsonic jets, tbeir ar.dval
hllo
the approach control areas can be no
more frequent than IS PRESENTLY
THE CASE. And presently, as is the
DAILY situation in Kennedy (New
York), and O'Hare (Chicago) as well
as many others, the normal subsonic
jet traffic results in huge "stacks" of
waiting aircraft being given holding
patterns for upwards of one and more
bours (2 bours is not unheard of).
What is the use of "cutting four and
a quarter hours from a trip across tbe
Adaotic," if another 2 hours are
required in holding pattern prior to
landing? Not to mention another hour
or so clearing customs, wrestling with
baggage, and obtaining ground trans–
portation?
You said the SST will allow the
reduction of congestion at airports.
But I don't follow your reasoning.
If,
as
ðg-
i'UD-t~ .0Ce1~rni'Jm
prea\'crs;
practically everyone will be asking for
an SST fligbt (and, knowing human