Standard: £9 + VAT
Members/Subscribers, log in to access
An IStructE account gives you access to a world of knowledge. Create a profile to receive details of our unique range of resources, events and training.
Mr. H. Hitch: It is our belief in the aircraft industry that we have been involved in perhaps a rather higher measure of innovation over the last few years than other industries. Are we adequately conscious of the implications of this innovation? On the moral issues the main feature of our concern is that we reckon that we have no right to introduce to the general public any new device-I am thinking of an aeroplane-which is less safe than the standard of safety existing at the time. That does not mean, of course, that there is no possibility of innovation, but it does mean that when there is innovation the responsibility for safety and the complete onus of satisfactory operation is on the designer and the manufacturer and to an extent the operator. I understand that your industry splits these functions amongst different organizations. With ours the only split is with the operators. Some battles go on there-the operator blames us and we blame the operator-and, of course, it is always the operator’s fault. (I am a manufacturer!)
Dr. W. MacGregor: The steelworking facilities have been clearly described, and the authors have said that although they were not responsible for the plant and production lines they were deeply involved in the general planning and in the complex detailing and programming. This is an understatement-I know what work they did, and at no time on this job were we held up for lack of detail drawings. This is a tribute which certainly cannot be paid to every firm of consultants.
A Procedure to determine the static and incremental collapse load factors for plastic frames is introduced. The essential feature of the procedure is a systematic approach to the use of Neal's and Symonds's method of combined mechanisms. M.Z. Cohn and D.E. Grierson