AIR ENQUIRY

Hokitika Guardian, 25 June 1929, Page 3

AIR ENQUIRY

THE FINDING. SMITH AND ULM EXONERATED. (Australian Press Association) SYDNEY, June 24. The Air Commission’s report was issued to-day. The report states: There was lio evidence placed before the Committee ol Inquiry which would support the rumours and public allegations that the forced landing of the Southern Cross on April 12th was premeditated. 'There had been nothing to impugn the honesty of the crew, or any member thereof.

The evidence showed that the crew intended to fly to Wyndham on March 31st, and made every effort to do so; and, although, through certain errors I of judgment, and defects of organisation, they failed to accomplish this object, there was nothing to lead , the Committee to the belief that the forced landing, was the result ol a pre-ar-ranged plan. h The Committee expressed the opinion tljat the forced landing was due to the aeroplane running into adverse weather, depriving the crew of: every means ol ascertaining tlioir exhet position, which Resulted in tjiem being completely lost, and in the exhaustion of their petrol, necessitating an immediate landing. Contributory "causes were insufficient weather reports,’ and their inability to receive during the actual (light the advice of Captain Chateau’s j warning message of March 30th, re- , commending their immediate return. The Committee considered that it was an error of judgment that the mithern Cross had not carried tools * such as a hatchet and hammer, as the possesion of a hatchet would have enabled them to start their friction drives several days earlier, and would have enabled them to make larger smoke fires.

The crew should also havo used their eighteen gallons of oil for the purpose of supplementing the fires. Their failure to make use ol this valuable medium is inexplicable. The Committee found the crew was justified in remaining with their machine, rather than sending out parties to search for the Port George Mission station. ,

The Committee is satisfied the Southern Cross was in first-class order and condition, and its instruments thoroughly efficient.

Me WILLIAMS C’ENSUR ED

FOR, LACK OF INITIATIVE

SYDNEY, June 24,

In regard to McWilliams’ claim that the loss of the receiving aerial was not of material importance, as he could not, after ten hours’ flying, receive messages owing to deafness, the Air Inquiry Committee could not accept this explanation. Evidence was produced that for the last seven hours oif. the New Zealand-Australia flight and the Perth-Adelaide flight, numerous messages were received by this plane on an inferior radio set.

The Committee felt that the real reason for not returning to Richmond . after losing the aerial was the reluctance of the commanders to dump the bulk of their petrol, in order to make such a landing safe, and, anticipating no trouble on their journey, they took the risk of proceeding without any means of reception. This had proved an error of judgment, because they ran into adverse weather, about which the-v could have been advised had tho receiving set been intact. Reasonable care was not taken to whether emergency rations were on the machine before the departure. Such rations would have enabled + iie crew to maintain full vitality alter the forced landing, and to make greater efforts to communicate with ' the outside world.

The Committee considered certain adjustments to the receiving set could have been made on the spot which would have enabled it to have been used as a sending set. There was an alternative method of transmission available by connecting the receiving batteries to the transmitting set. The Committee • .was surprised at McWilliams’ lack of knowledge as to tho adaptability of the : apparatus under his control, particularly in view of his recent position as an instructor in the Union Company’s School in New Zealand. The Committee attributes the failure of the crew to communicate by wireless after the forced landing to ignorance and lack off initiative on the part of McWilliams. TJLM, DOUBTED. ON CERTAIN POINTS. SYDNEY, June 24. Concerning the evidence of the three witnesses as to Flight-Lieutenant Ulm’s alleged suggestion of getting lost in central Australia as a means to publicity and finance, the Committee expressed the opinion that some such remarks were made by Ulm, hut probably with some suspicion, and particularly so in the matter'of his diary, which contained internal evidence that it was no daily record, but obviously one written for publication. The Committee considered Ulm’s account of the crew’s weakness was exaggerated. There was, however, no evidence from which the Committee could infer that the crew of the Southern Cross took any steps to conceal their position to avoid being found.” THE KOOKABURRA. The report dealt with the Kookaburra f raized v. and paid a tribute to the gallant efforts of various Air Force

and private aviators to find the lost crews. The Committee lias submitted a number of recommendations for the future control of long distance flights. The Committee has also expressed the opinion that the Kookaburra was unsuitable for long flights. While the primary cause of the tragedy was a faulty compass, causing Anderson to lose Ins direction, there was engine trouble, necessitating a forced landing, and an inability to rise again, nnd'ilack of equipment to clear a. runway