When first I heard that I was to be asked to give this Paper to the Association, one of those present asked me what I knew about Rotor Stations I had to admit that it was very little Some of the remarks I shall make in the paper will seem so obvious as to appear platitudes Others, particularly those relating to the dimensions of the landing area, are offered in the absence of a significant amount of directly applicable data and may be treated as one individual’s guess In these circumstances, the discussion which follows should be of even greater importance relative to the Paper than is normally the case in our meetings

A Rotor Station can be viewed from a number of standpoints Those of the public user, the town planning authority and the civil-engineer-architect will be dealt with by other speakers I propose to look at it from the standpoint of the scheduled operator

The previous speaker has briefly stated the requirements which for satisfactory operation of a helicopter service should govern the siting of a Rotor Station they may be summarised as—commercially “a central location in the town, with convenient access by road and rail”, and—operationally “relative freedom from local ‘smog’ and from high obstructions”

It is probable that the travelling public also would describe their chief requirement as “a central location and convenient road and rail access”, but when the question of siting is viewed disinterestedly—as it must be by the town planning authority—when account is taken of the probable effect that the Rotor Station, its use and its situation, may have upon the public in general, and on the owners and occupiers of adjacent property in particular—a rather different set of criteria must be considered

Previous papers have dealt with the operational and planning criteria for Rotor Stations The architectural and engineering aspects will derive directly from the site selected in accordance with these requirements Such sites can be classified into the categories of ground level, roof-top, bridge platform and flexible pontoon sites These will be examined in detail, together with some estimates of the clear spans and floor areas of the buildings required to serve the stations

Ground level sites have much to commend them from the engineering point of view For relatively low rates of operation, the landing area may be turf, provided that the subgrade is well drained For aircraft movements of the order of 10 to 15 per hour, however, a paved surface will be required The buildings necessary will comprise the terminal building and control tower, fuel store, and open air parking facilities for aircraft passengers’ and staff cars, and in some cases hangars and workshops From the layout aspect, it would be desirable to keep all buildings to one side of the landing area, though the car parking area need not be so located

May I congratulate Mr WHITBY on his excellent and lucid paper It has filled me with interest and admiration Interest, because the subject is one in which for some time past I have tried, by preaching and propaganda, to interest others Admiration, because, judging by my own reaction, he seems likely to succeed where I have failed

From this well deserved tribute to the lecturer I do not wish it to be inferred that I agree with all he has said on the subject

He has stated at the outset that the “public user” and other aspects are left by him to be dealt with by other speakers—in the case of the “public user” this is my unfortunate self But he nevertheless goes on, in the latter part of his paper under the heading of “Traffic requirements for booking and handling passengers,” to state what the passenger or public user must do to satisfy the operator