THE MISSING AIRMEN.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 3743, 19 January 1928, Page 3

THE MISSING AIRMEN.

“DISQUIETING STORIES.” W|ERE NAVIGATING INSTRUMENTS EFFICIENT? Sydney, January 17. The Morning Herald, in a leader on the Tasman flight, says: “There have heen disquieting stories of the ill condition of the ship’s navigating instruments, and it is said that the New Zealand airmen were pressed at Richmond to delay the flight until everything had been thoroughly tested, but that they would not listen to arguments. If the stories are true, and if the macbinc’s instruments were defective, the airmen should not have been allowed to leave. The Federal Government afforded assistance to the extent that Australian Air Force mechanics would see, as far as possible, that the machine was airworthy before it took off on the flight.”

The Herald asks, “How can a machine be considered airworthy if the navigating instruments are defective ?”/ r lt continues, “This criticism is not uttered agaisst the officers and machanics at Richmond, who did their utmost. The New Zealanders rejected the professional advice they were given on the points; but some inquiry and report seem to be demanded, because the further question arises whether, in thos_e circumstances, tho Government’s lifted embargo should not have been re-imposed. The truth or otherwise of the rumour® referred to ought, if in justice only to our own Air Force, to be set at rest. Had they been current so as to arouse these desperate suspicions before the flight began, the local demand would have been unanimous that it should have been forbidden. Both the /Commonwealth and New Zealand Governments were in a degree responsible. They condoned passively the general recklessness of the venture. They should have prohibited the . flight; but the New Zealand Government responded to representations from local interests on behalf of the 'airmen, and the Australian Government lifted its ban out of courtesy to the New Zealand Government’s request. Each Government washed its hands of responsibility, and the airmen were allowed to ily on their own gambler’s judgment, on the principle that it was their ,own risk. We maintain that, with official control of flying, all Government responsibility is not so easily disowned. That, is at least the moral view of the affair, and local inquiry should enforce very salutary lessons.” CAPTAIN KNIGHT’S REPLY. When Captain Knight was handed the above cable he said: “The statement in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald,’ ‘that the navigating instruments -were not in good condition which could only mean the compass —is incorrect. Further, no pressure was brought to bear ou the .airmen to delay their departure. They were absolutely satisfied with the ability of the machine to complete the flight. There was no question of any argument, and the machine was perfectly airworthy. We never rejected any professional advice, and there was absolute unanimity between ourselves and the R.A.A.F. No rumours as to the unfitness of the machine had been circulated by any party, although certain articles appealing in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald 7 had been against the flight from the inception, and it had done everything to cast suspicion on the flight. None of their criticism has been veracious, and now, after the event, they are publishing this. If they were aware of such tilings they should have brought them to oux notice at the time. “The article inf the ‘Sydney Morning Herald,’ ” continued Gaptain Knight, “is tine first intimation we have had ttiat the airplane was not airworthy, that tests had not been completed, and that navigation arrangements; were not suitable.

“We received ev<jry assistance and courtesy from the R.A.A.F.; they gave every ffielp imaginable. On seeing an article in the ‘Herald’ on the day after the ffight had ta--ken place, making certain allega- . tions in connection w.ith the machine —which they the 11.A.A.F. had issued: —w r e immediately got in touch with tlue commanding officer at Kiehmont 1, who informed me that no statement had been made by himself or t by bus officers, and that they Avea'G satisfied that the machine.was capable of the flight, and was proved in evary way, although we all had some doubts as to the efficiency of the wireless. The navigating officer had himself assisted in the laying of the course before the start, and saw that every detail was accurate. Once the start was made it was a matter of bringing the machine across as no sight other than the sun could be taken. It was then a matter of dead reckoning, for it was impossible to gauge the drift of the wind; for that we had to rely entirely on meteorological data.”