CAUSE OF AIR ACCIDENT

Chronicle (Levin), 14 June 1948, Page 7

CAUSE OF AIR ACCIDENT

Press Association)

Error Of Judgment On Pilot's Part

(Per

WELLINGTON, June 13. The eause^of the accident to National Airways Corporation Electra pasdenger aircraft Kahu wliich ianded on Tau ranga Harbour on Aprii 19 was. the continued loss of height in pthe turnawa;from the airtield » aggravated by tui - bulanee and decreasing visibility. This is the prineipai flnding of the board ap pointed by the Minister in Cliarge of Civil Aviatiotf (Hon. F. Jones) to inquire into the accident. The Board also considered that the accident occurerd as a i\esult of an error of .jiidgment on the part of the pilot, . Commander Harris, in that without fully apappreciating the circumstances he ailowed his aircraft to get in. such a position with regard to the weather conditions prevailing that extrication became beyond his capabilities and the right wing struck the water. The Board was of opinion-. that the accident could liave readily been avoided by the pilot remaining in the area of clear visibility until conditions over the airfield became 'suitable' for landing' as tliey iu faet did some 5 minutes after impact. It did not eonsider that any disciplinary . action against the pilot was warranted. The Board appointed consistqd of Mr. H. J. Thompson, S.M. (chairman), Mr. R. A. Kirkup and Wing Commander J. M. de Lange. It sat at Palmerston North on May 7. The Board 's findings on specilic questions wrere: There were.uo acts or omission in the functioning of the ground organisation services which eontributed to the accident. There was no breac-h of the requireuients of the Air Navigation RegulatiCbis which contributed in any way to the accident. As it seemed to the Board that lack j of experience was a contributing factor (he remedy to avoid the recurrence of'Such accident appeared to be an increase in the niinimum requirements specified in the air navigation regulations for "B" licensed pilots. It also considered that care sliould be laken to stress to pilots Ihe character istics and li-mitations of their instruments, particularly during the instrument flying phase." Referring to the safeguarding of aircraft wreckage, the Board stated it considered it higlily desirable that aircraft after an accident should be lcept free from all interference until the investigation authorised under the regulations had been compieted. It was not suggested, of course, that there should be any restriteions which would in any way prejodice or delay any action necessary for ensuring the •-afetv of the passengers and crew and of Ihe aircraft and its contehts, .but it was obvious that anv interference with instruments or controls in an aircraft would render futile any attempt to obtain data of value from- such instruments or controls. The Board suggested that in all eases of accident coming within the.' seope','0.f the Air Navigation Regulations arrangements sliould be made' by .the Dcpartment to ensure that an aircraft was complete'ly free from interference until aJl necessary investigation compieted and tliai such arrangements could possibly lie made in conjunction with the Police Departinent. During the inquirv it appeared thal there had been iinauthorised interference with the wreckage before the departmental investigation. Subsequent evidence placcd before fne Board satisfied it that there was no tampering with anything in the aircraft which affected the deductions conceraing the cause of the accident and there was no snggestion whatsoever of any attempt by the owners' staff to coveT up any evidence concerning the accident.