CROSSING THE TASMAN

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 3750, 4 February 1928, Page 1

CROSSING THE TASMAN

MR. P. E. MOODY’S VENTURE. DISCOS'SION IN AUSTRALIA.

The proposed flight across the Tasman Sea by Messrs P. E. Moody and H. Jolley is still engaging a great deal of public attention (says the Auckland Herald’s Sydney correspondent).

It is stated that had the Ryan monoplane which it is proposed to use been registered in New Zealand the Commonwealth authorities would have been powerless to prevent the attempt, beyond deprecating the risk and danger which the aviators would have courted. New Zealand was a. signatory to the Air Convention in Paris in 1919 and any ma-i chine registered in that country would have enjoyed freedom of action in Australia so far as the New Zealand flight was concerned. The present proposed flight, however, does not fall within that category.

The Federal authorities are unaware whether the Ryan monoplane is registered in New Zealand. Should the machine not be so registered, registration in Australia would have to be sought, and any flight made before registration would be a breach of the law governing flying, which carries a penalty of a fine up to £2OO and (or) imprisonment up to six months. . “NOTHING BUT A STUM’.” Mr. Geoffrey Hughes, president of the New South Wales section of the Australian Aero Club, has assumed the role of spokesman for the unofficial opposition. Mr. Hughes, who took a great personal interest in the ill-fated Moncrieft'-Hood flight, says:—“The New South Wales section of the Australian. Aero Club is absolutely opposed to stunt flights of any description. Any perposal to fly to New Zealand in an aeroplane that is not seaworthy and specially-designed for such journeys is essentially a stunt flight which, whether it succeeds or fails, can have no real bearings or influence on the true progress of aviation. No one doubts that there are machines that, given the necessary element of good luck, may make the flight, but there is grave risk in such a flight of a forced descent on the sea, either through jerror in navigation or a trivial engine trouble, which means almost certain death to the crew, unless the machine is not only seaworthy but able to send wireless messages from the water.

“The present Moody-Jolley proposal is nothing but a stunt the suggestion that the placarding of the machine with advertisements and the carrying of a few samples will make it a true ‘commercial’ flight is too ludicrous to be taken seriously. This threatened epidemic of stunting once more emphasises the necessity for the complete surrender by the State Parliaments to the Commonwealth of all necessary powers to control air navigation, so that there can be no question raised as to the limits of the Federal authority in the air.”

VIGOROUS REPLY TO MR HUGHES.

Mr. Frank Goldberg, a New Zealander now settled in Sydney, who has undertaken the commercial organisation of the flight, has replied vigorously to Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hughes, he said, displayed an amazingly narrow conception of the term “commercial flight” and used the word “stunt” with a complete disregard for the scrupulous and minute precautions which were being taken to assure the absolute safety of the aviators. The word “stunt” was' an unmitigated misnomer. Would Mr. Hughes say that Columbus, Raleigh and Drake were “stunting?” Would he say that Captain Cook's adventure was a “stunt?” Yet these world-heroes took far greater risks and with infinitely less preliminary safeguards than pioneers of flight. The ascent, in recent years, of Mount Everest, said Mi’. Goldberg, had no definite purpose beyond the invincible British determination that the mountain should be conquered. Science could gain nothing from the ascent —yet beyond a shadow of doubt Mr. Hughes was among those who rightly acclaimed the heroic climb as a wonderful and praiseworthy performance. Had Mr. Hughes forgotten Captain Matthew Flinders, who, with his famous colleague, Bass, adventured forth in an absurdly inadequate 18-footei and added so much to the geographical knowledge of the Australian coast and the Tasman generally that numerous monuments acclaimed him a hero? Would Mr. Hughes word Captain Scott's, epitaph: “He attempted a stunt?” It would be a sorry day for the Empire when its menfolk ceased adventuring unless the material outcome of their daring was blatantly , obvious. The Aero Club could scarcely dispute that.

TWOFOLD PURPOSE IN VIEW. “I have made it very .clear that the flight is planned for a two-fold purpose,” added Mr. Goldberg. “The first is that the experience gained by those who pioneer the air route to New Zealand-will be of incalcuable assistance, when, as is inevitable, a regular aeroplane service between the Commonwealth and the Dominion is established. Secondly, I am convinced that an ocular demonstration to the public of an aeroplane in active commercial service will do more to arouse a general realisation of the business possibilities of flying than all the newspaper discussion in the world.” The Federal Government, it teems, has no control over aircraft engaged in commerce within the borders of any State, nor of aircraft not engaged in commerce or carrying passengers, flying over any part of Australia. If Messrs Moody and Jolley decide to make the flight against the wishes of the Government there is no provision in the Constitution Act to meet such a contingency. The position is now being widely discussed and the advisability of giving the Commonwealth absolute control over all aviation matters is being emphasised in all quarters.