‘NOT A STUNT!’

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 270, 4 February 1928, Page 5

‘NOT A STUNT!’

The Moody Flight Australian Opposition The assertion that the proposed flight by Captain Moody will be made from Australia to New Zealand, despite any prohibition that may be issued by the Federal Government, raises constitutional issues of the greatest importance respecting the future control of aviation in Australia. Mr. Geoffrey F. Hughes, president of the Aero Club, New South Wales section, said that there was absolutely no provision for such a contingency in the Commonwealth Constitutional Act. writes a Sydney correspondent, as naturally commercial aviation was not dreamt of by the framers of that Act.

“The State Premiers who attended the Premiers’ Conference in 1920,” said Mr. Hughes, “were favourable to the control of aviation being vested in the Federal Government, but since then nothing has been done to carry such an agreement into effect. It would con.sequently appear that the Commonwealth Air Navigation Act of 1920 and the Air Regulations of February 1 1, 1921, constitute the full power of the Federal Government in regard to regulating aviation in Australia. This power would, it seems, be limited t j inter-State trade and commerce, defence, quarantine, immigration and emigration, and Customs. No Control • “So far as I can ascertain, the Federal Government 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. The very nature of aviation makes it essential that the Comm nwealth should have complete control of all aircraft within Australia. It is absolutely essential that there should be uniformity of control of aviation throughout the Commonwealth, and that the controlling authority should have power to make regulations for the safety of air navigation. The division of control between in-ter-State and intra-State aviation is, in my opinion, utterly impracticable. It would appear, therefore, that with the advent of various proposals for ‘stunt’ and dangerous flying, the Commonwealth should be given .effective powers to prevent unduly risky flights being undertaken; and, in all cases, to insist that proper precautions be taken to protect the lives of aviators and those using aircraft for purposes other than for defence.” Mr. Frank Goldberg, who has undertaken the commercial organisation of the proposed Moody flight replying to Mr. Geoffrey Hughes’s statements, denied that a “stunt” flight was proposed. “While I acknowledge the standing of Mr. Hughes in connection with matters aeronautical,” said Mr. Goldberg, “he displays an amazingly narrow conception of the term ‘commercial flight,’ and uses the word with a complete disregard for the scrupulous and minute precautions which are being taken to ensure the absolute safety of the Moody flight. The word ‘stunt’ is an unmitigated mienomer in this connection. Would Mr. Hughes say that Columbus, Raleigh, and Drake were ‘stunting?’ “Would he say that Captain Cook’s adventurous voyage was a ‘stunt?’ Yet these world-heroes, who contributed so much to the glorious history of civilisation and the Empire, took far greater risks, and with infintely less preliminary safeguard, than any pioneer of flight. The ascent, in recent years, of Mount Everest 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. Acclaimed As Hero

“Has Mr. Hughes forgotten Captain Matthew Flinders, who, with his famous colleague, Bass, adventured forth in an absurdly inadequate 10-footer—-the Tom Thumb —and added so much to geographical knowledge of the Australian coast and the Tasman generally that numerous monuments acclaim him a hero? Would Mr. Hughes word Captain Scott’s epitaph, ‘He attempted a stunt?’ It will be a sorry day for the Empire when its menfolk cease adventuring, unless the material outcome of their daring is blatantly obvious. The Aero Club can scarcely dispute this.

“I have made it very clear that the flight is being made for a two-fold purpose. The first is that the experience gained by those who pioneer the air-route to New Zealand will be of incalculable assistance, when, as is inevitable, a regular airplane service between the Commonwealth and the

Dominion is established. Secondly, I am convinced that an ocular demonstration to the public of an airplane 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.” Discussing a suggestion to constitute a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the causes of the failure of the attempt made by Captain Hood and Lieutenant Moncrieff to fly from Australia to New Zealand, Sir Keith Smith said that it was rather too late to constitute such a commission. He did not think that any good purpose would be served by it. Unless the machine could be found, and definite evidence were available as to the events that immediately preceded the loss of the ’plane, the commission would have to work in the dark. “The more important thing,” Sir Keith added, “is to stop other men from attempting to make the same flight in unsuitable machines.”