“Was Not a Stunt”

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 668, 21 May 1929, Page 9

“Was Not a Stunt”

ULM ON FORCED LANDING Strong-Worded Repudiation (United P.A. —By Telegraph — Copyright) Received 1.45 p.m. SYDNEY, Today. FJENYING absolutely that there was anything in the ” nature of a stunt about the forced landing of the Southern Cross, Flight-Lieutenant C. T. P. L T lm gave evidence before The Committee of Inquiry today, evidence before the Committee of Inquiry yesterday and today. He described such suggestions as deliberate, despicable

The committee was set up to investigate the forced landings of the Southern Cross and the Kookaburra, also the loss of the search airplane DH9A. The tribunal comprises BrigadierGeneral L. C. Wilson, solicitor, of Brisbane; Captain G. Hughes, president of the New South Wales Aero Club; and Mr. C. N. McKay, president of the Victorian Aero Club. Mr. J. H. Hammond, K.C., assisted the committee. At the outset of the proceedings, Mr. Hammond said a number of anonymous letters bearing on the forced landing of the Southern Cross had been received, but no notice would be taken of them. Flight-Lieutenant C. T. P. Dim, in the course of his evidence, said the flight to England was financed by Squadron-Leader Kingsford Smith and himself. It was not backed by Australian Airways, Ltd. THAT FINAL “0.K.” Witness was questioned by Mr.. Hammond about Captain Chateau’s telegram received from Wyndham the day before the flight was commenced, saying “Weather fine, drying wind; further advice later.” Counsel: Did you regard that as a final “0.K.”? Witness: We regarded that telegram in conjunction with those received previously as sufficient to enable us to make a start. You did not wait for later advice from Captain Chateau?—We feared he might omit to send a final “0.K.” If your aerial had been in position, would it have been possible to recall you?—Experts tell us that it would have been impossible, because we were too far away when Captain Chateau’s final message arrived. Questioned about the emergency radio set carried on the trans-Pacific flight, witness said Mr. J. Warner, the radio operator on that occasion, described it as “so much junk.” Counsel: Then why did you describe it in your book about the flight as a great factor in the safety of that flight. Witness: I was not on oath at that time, and the wireless people had helped us greatly. We were not going to turn round and tell them their wireless goods were “so much junk” just because Jim Warner said so. “A CERTAIN CRASH” Continuing, Ulm said that if they had landed at the mission station there would have been a certain crash. The machine would have gone over on its nose. Mr. Hammond then examined witness about the entries he had made in his diary at “Cafe Royal,” as the airmen had named the spot where they landed on the mudflat. In reply, Ulm said some of the entries were written in extraordinary circumstances. On reading the diary again, he found

he had written: “We might get acclimatised and probably be able to walk to Derby.” He now believed that would have been impossible. Mr. Hammond: You had neither an emergency wireless set nor a proper set of tools? Witness: They were not necessary. So you would rather cut down a tree with a screwdriver? —I doubt whether a hacksaw would have been much good. Is it a mere coincidence that the agreement with your company sets out that you were "to start the flight not later than March 30?—Nothing more than a coincidence. Counsel showed Ulm a photograph of the marooned crew on the mudflat after the rescue. They were attired in shorts, stripped to the waist, sncT all smiling as they held Pilot Heath on their shoulders. Was that the most suitable way to dress with the flies and mosquitoes so bad?—Plies on the bare skin are not so troublesome as inside your shirt. Witness said: “In all our flights, we made a definite policy never to fix a starting date, for the reason that this long-distance flying is not ordinary flying. We were ready to go to New Zealand 10 days before we actually went. Quite a lot of people said we were frightened to tackle it. Moreover, if we had got Captain Chateau’s last telegram before starting from Wyndham we should never have started.” Ulm explained how the Southern Cross aerial was lost shortly after the flight began from Richmond. A thin strip of wood had been used to mend a broken mica window-pane. When it was lowered, the window itself cleared the aerial catch, but whqn Litchfield pushed the window down to take a sight the wooden latch fouled the catch and released it, and the aerial disappeared. Mr. Hammond: Well, th,e gentlemen ■who broke that window Is responsible for this Inquiry? XTlm: I do not think that. Mr. Hammond: Well, what’s the use of carrying an aerial at all? Ulm: To enable us to receive a message from where vie could receive them when near the stations. The witness described certain innuendoes about the forced landing of the Southern Cross as deliberate, despicable lies, adding: “I’d like to get some of those newspaper men out there awhile.” Ulm declared that the party was setting out on the flight again as soon as its members were released from the inquiry. Michael Shanahan, editor of the newspaper “Plain Talk,” which had commented adversely on the flight, stated in evidence that his article was based on rumours from “the man in the street.” He declared he was now glad to dissociate himself from such rumours. The inquiry was again adjourned.