SPEED OF PLANE

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20263, 4 August 1937, Page 8

SPEED OF PLANE

AIR CRASH INQUIRY. PILOT’S ACTION CRITICISED. ENDORSEMENT OF LICENSE. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. Various amendments to the air regulations were suggested as the outcome of the Inquiry into the Big Bay air tragedy on December 30 last. In its report,*which concluded that the tragedy, In which one passenger was killed and others were injured, was due to the negligence of the pilot, A. J. Bradshaw, the Board'of Inquiry appointed by the Government stated that according to the evidence the' machine was overloaded 151 b 2oz. as to passengers and 301 b 2oz. as to commercial load when it took off and by the time it reached Big Bay this would have been reduced by approximately 93£1-b in petrol and 3Jlb in oil. Bradshaw did not actually weigh his passengers. He gave instructions that they were to weigh themselves before arriving at the aerodrome. He said one gave his weight at 10.7, whereas three weeks before it was 12.2. The pilot also had loose a fourgallon drum of petrol weighing about 361 b. Machine Stalled. The report dealing with the actual approach to the landing at Big Bay fln ; ds that the machine stalled through insufficient speed and finds also that the pilot’s practice of a low speed glide approach with use of a little engine to the landings left a small safety margin. An experienced airman knew by his air sense that when speed was not increased a stall would occur. The board was satisfied on the evidence that there was no failure of the speed indicator. The Aero Club’s pilot-instructor Smith, gave 80 miles per hour as the minimum safe air speed, and Bradshaw admitted he was instructed by Smith, who trained him, that with a load of 4201 b he was to glide in at 70 to 75 miles per hour. The pilot said the indicator gave 70 at the time of the tragedy, but taking into consideration the rapid deceleration of the plane it? would be quite normal for the actual speed to toe 65 when the air indicator showed 70. Forced Into a Spin. Smith said that in the machine concerned he always approached the landings by means of a glide without using the engine and he so instructed trainees. Bradshaw, on the other hand, used little engine and reduced gliding speed. He admitted that in approaching this machine “quashed” and was therefore in a partially stalled condition. This method had always been looked on with disfavour by experienced pilots in single-engined machines when at a critical time. Approaching Big Bay there was evidence of the machine being in a stalled condition. There would be a tendency to spin through having a little engine on. The pilot at this stage misused the controls by easing the stick back a fraction. The effect would toe to force the machine into and to maintain a spin. In the board’s opinion it would have been possible to avoid a spin or even to correct a partially developed spin if the pilot had taken the correct action immediately, l.e. stick forward and full throttle. Defects Overlooked. The report says tha,t to comply with the requirements the pilot should have taken up only three passengers. That morning also he had landed at Myross Bush with four passengers and noticed that the machine did not behave well but he forgot about the incident till after the accident. The incident should, however, have warned him that when gliding in he should increase the margin of safety. He failed to exercise that care and skill which the circumstances demanded. Warning to Pilot. Because this is the first formal Inquiry Into an air accident, that the pilot is liable to pay £BOO, the value of the machine, that he was incapacitated for a lengthy period through injuries and that although seriously injured and suffering much pain he by almost superhuman efforts brought three passengers ashore and so probably saved their lives, no order was made against Bradshaw for payment of costs. It was also recommended that his license be not cancelled but that it be endorsed, with material particulars of the accident. The view was expressed that in future he should pay more regard to the opinions of more experienced pilots and conform to the regulations and directions and provide a larger margin of safety in his flights. PILOT’S DEFENCE. “ FULL EVIDENCE NOT PUBLIC.” ACCURACY QUESTIONED. (By Telea-rapn—Press Association.) INVERCARGILL, Tuesday. “ In the report of the board of inquiry is a finding of negligence against me as pilot of the machine,” said Mr Bradshaw in a statement, with leference to the report on the Big Bay air tragedy. “ Owing to the inquiry being held in camera in spite of my objections, the full evidence has not been made available to tlie public to read, but reference to parts of it is made in the report. Evidence given by Mr Clarke and myself that the machine would glide safely at 70 miles an hour is not mentioned. “ I questioned the accuracy of evidence given of the stalling speed ol 65 miles an hour, and asked that tests be made with a similar machine at present in use in New Zealand. This request has been ignored. “ Evidence of a plate screwed in the cockpit of the machine for the information of pilots lias also been ignored. This plate read as follows: ‘ Climb 65 miles an hour, stalling speed 50 miles an hour on normal load ’ I cabled tho makers, the do IJavilland Company, as follows:—‘Re Fox 2KADC, makers’ plate states stalling speed normal load 50. What would stalling speed be total weight 20001 b conditions normal, height above sea lexel 200ft.’ Information required in connection with an inquiry.’ They replied: 4 Stalling speed 18001 b 37.5 miles an hour; 20001 b, 50 miles an hour.’ Stalling Speed. “The finding of negligence by the board is based on evidence that I lie machine would stall at between 00 and (Continued In previous column.)