FLYING-BOAT TRAGEDY

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 847, 16 December 1929, Page 1

FLYING-BOAT TRAGEDY

Did Pilot Intend to Rise? THEORY ABOUT BALLAST “IT is my firm contention that Captain llarkness did. not I intend to fly the machine; but it left the water unexpectedly and lie carried on. The stone which wao found in the cockpit after the mishap was possibly carried to improve the attitude of the machine on the water; but once in the air this stone, which would bo about 501 b in weight, may have caused the mishap,” said Captain \V. Man. in evidence n( the Court of Inquiry which was opened this morning to inquire into the flying tragedy at Milford Beach last Thursday evening.

The commission consists of Major L. M. Isitt, officer in charge of the Hobsonville Airdrome; Captain S. Wallingford, of the New Zealand Air Force; and Flying Officer R. H. Copley, ground engineer to the Auckland Aero Club. In opening the inquiry, Major Isitt, who is presiding, said that it was not usual to make such inquiries open to the Press; but owing to the great public interest which the disaster to the Dornier-Libelle flying-boat had caused, it was decided to permit the evidence to be taken, although the actual finding would not be made public until it had been submitted to General Headquarters. In his evidence, Captain Man, late of the R.N.A.S., and R.A.F., said that he had given his services freely (b Aerial Services, Ltd., for the purpose of piloting the Dornier-Libelle, and he was to be employed as chief pilot as soon as the machine had passed the Government tests. His flying experience included 900 hours in the air, of which 800 hours were given to flying-boats and seaplanes. The flying-boat was assembled in Auckland, and was ready for tests on November 15. It was taken out into the ■water, but owing to lack of steerage room it bumped into an anchored launch, and the propeller was damaged. The damage was repaired, and on November 19 Major Cowper, of the Auckland Aero Club, accompanied him on a trial flight. Conditions were not satisfactory for actual tests, and two of the instruments were not registering. Alterations were made, and the machine was flown for an hour and 15 minutes on November 21. An attempt was made to lift the pilot and two passengers, but this was not possible owing to the low revolutions of the engine. An Austrian known by the name of Rudolph was engaged the following day as mechanic, and on November 24 more tests were made; but owing to insufficient revolutions of the engine the machine would not lift with the pilot alone. The late Mr. F. C. Goldsbro was employed as engineer on December 6 and the following week a solo flight was made in the machine, while later the machine flew with one passenger with the “revs” ranging from 1,800 to 1,775 while in the air. The petrol pressure was holding sufficiently, but was erratic. The machine failed to lift two passengers and pilot. In continuing, Coptain Mann said that an auxiliary petrol system was fitted. He had no knowledge of it until about to fly the machine, when he immediately switched on to the ordinary feed, thus making the auxiliary system inoperative. While he was flying on that occasion the engineer who was with him suggested that the auxiliary should be brought into operation; but, not having had an opportunitl to investigate it thoroughly he refused to allow this to be done. “There were 13 connections between the petrol-pump and the tank, and I consider that it was this large number of connections and the length of the suction pipe, coupled with a Gft lift, that was the cause of the repeated failure to maitafn a steady

pressure. The trouble originated after approximately six hours' running,” said Captain Mann. The spare tank which was put into the machine made no difference to the trim of the machine while in the air, when it was flown by him on the day previous to the mishap. In answer to a question by Major Isitt. Captain Mann said that Captain Harkness and he assembled the machine. There was no ground engineer to inspect it. “Rudolph,” who had been an officer in the Austrian Air Force during the war. and who had subsequently studied engineering: iu Austria and was later a mechanic in the American Air Force, was undoubtedly a competent aero engine mechanic. Captain Harkness had not flown the machine previous to the day of the mishap nor had he at any time been a passenger. He had no dual instruction on flyingboats. “It is my firm contention that Captain Harkness did not intend to fly the machine. He was a very careful pilot and a careful man generally. I would describe him perhaps as being "fussy.” He was not the sort to ever take the air without his flying gear; but on Thursday he had no helmet, and was only in his shirt sleeves. That; was not atall like Captain Harkness, and makes me think that he never intended to leave the water. Then I cannot imagine that the mechanic would accompany him on a flight knowing that he had not had experience with flying-boats:” STONE IN COCKPIT The stone which was found in the cockpit after the mishap was undoubtedly carried to improve the attitude of the machine on the water; but once in the air the stone may have given a good deal of trouble. “When it was found it was wedged in between the pilot and passenger, and from this it appears that the mechanic was endeavouring to bring it forward from the back cockpit in order to have less weight in the back and consequently to help to raise the tail. He may have even dropped it on the pilot's foot, which would cause him to pull his foot from the bar. Or the stone may have even bumped up against the controls.” DANGER OF STALLING The danger of stalling was greater in a flying-boat than an airplane and before gliding in a boat it was ssential to have fore and aft control. It was inded possible that Captain Harkness found trouble with one of the petrol systems and switched over to the other, for when the plane was examined after the mishap it was found that both petrol cocks were turned on. Major Isitt: When you flew the machine on the day previous, did you consider that it was airworthy? Captain Manff Yes, in every respect. Mr. D. Seymour, who appeared on behalf of Aerial Services, Ltd., said that Mrs. Harkness was emphatic that her husband did not intend to take the air, but was taxi-ing for the purpose of testing the revolutions of this engine.