FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1911
1911 - 0494.PDF
l/ycHf) JUNE IO, 191 I. REPRESSION THERE was not the slightest doubt that the panic Aerial Navigation Bill of the present Government would pass into law, even as amended, with its unnecessary and repressive clauses. It is hard to reconcile the Home Secretary's statement that this Bill is not put forward as a solution of the difficulties attending the legislative aspects of the new form of locomotion and that the Government would regret doing anything which would hamper the develop ment of the new science with the text of the Bill. Indeed, we would go farther and say that it is next to impossible to reconcile these avowed sentiments with the act of attempting legislation at all at the present juncture. There is not the slightest need for any interim legislation at all, unless such legislation were to take the form of strengthening the hands of the Royal Aero Club, which has already more power over the aviator than even the common law of the country. This aspect of the question is very well put by Mr. Gerald Biss in the Standard. As he points out, the Bill makes the same initial error as the Motor Car Act. It does not strive to work hand in hand with the already established authorities on the subject, but to set them in opposition and on the defensive. What this means is that the future function of the Royal Aero Club will be that of protecting the interests of aviation and aviators against oppression and prejudice on the part of local officials, whereas, had a wiser course been taken, its complete support would have readily been given to the authorities. The whole attitude of the Government towards aviation seems to us to savour of futility. Suppose, for example, that an aviator had made up his mind to fly over the Coronation procession. He would only have arrived at this determination because of one thing—that it would pay him to do so. The advertisement alone would be worth a good round sum of money, to say nothing of what he might make directly. In any case, he would certainly stand to make more than sufficient out of it to cheerfullycontemplate paying even the swingeing fine which is laid down by the Act as a penalty for transgressing its provisions. Therefore, why should he not deliberately break the law and make money out of doing it ? If the law stood alone, there is no adequate reason in the wide world why he should not, but at the back of it all lies the fiat of the Royal Aero Club which has ruled that if he do so his licence will be taken from him, which simply means that his career as an aviator is definitely and finally closed. Therefore, the whole aim and object of his flight would be defeated, for although his advertisement would be complete enough—too complete, in fact—the power to reap its results would be taken from him. Surely this is demonstration enough that legislation is both unnecessary and ill-judged. It is unnecessary for the reasons we have adduced and it is ill-judged from the point of view that it turns the Royal Aero Club from an active coadjutor of the constituted authorities into a latent enemy. The latter may be a somewhat strong term to use in this connection, but we think it is fully justified in the light of what has happened in motoring. For what reason do most of the motoring bodies exist to-day? Simply and primarily to protect their members from the harsher interpretation of harsh laws, which is merely another way of saying that they exist for the specific purpose of putting a brake upon authorities who through ignorance or prejudice would carry the law to its most ultimate end. The mistakes of the Motor Car Act have resulted in the generation of UP-TO-DATE. much bad feeling between those subject to them and the authorities charged with their administration. All this— or a great deal of it—could have been avoided if the Government of the day had thought fit to base its legislation upon the knowledge of experts instead of going blindly into questions of which it knew nothing. The case of the Bill under discussion is an absolute parallel to this and unless the Government can be induced to see it in this light the net results will be the same. Prejudice and ignorance will run riot; the story of the police trap and its iniquities of deliberate hard swearing will be rewritten ; and a growing and important industry will suffer untold harm. On the face of things, we should not object to the Bill so much—except on the ground of superfluity—did we not know by bitter experience that it is hopeless to expect any other result than that it will give a loose rein to that popular inertia which does so much to retard everything in the shape of progress. Already we see symptoms of the same campaign directed to the inflaming of the public mind which was characteristic of the earlier days of the automobile movement, the basis of which was pure distortion of fact. The Evening Times of the 29th ult. devoted a quarter of a column to what it termed "Aviation Disasters. An epidemic of fatal and other accidents." To read such a heading is to imagine a veritable holocaust, but what do we find on analysing the details ? That the fatal accidents were accounted for by the deaths of two women and a soldier, killed at Lyon in a scuffle among the crowd that was struggling to get near the competitors in the Paris-Turin flight ! Dissecting the other " disasters," we find that M. Vedrine's aeroplane was nearly destroyed by a gale; M. Vidart's capsized—this, for the sake of making the list bulk up, is recounted twice in somewhat different words ; an aeroplane fell into a street at Kursk, injuring a hundred people—no one but our contemporary appears to have heard anything about such an accident ; the death of Mr. Benson is included, as is also that of Mr. Smith, who was killed at St. Petersburg. The Editorial note to this wonderful list is to the effect that a Bill had been introduced providing against reckless or negligent aerial navigation, and adds that " The numbers of fatalities among spectators has rendered this step an imperative one." Was ever a more flagrant distortion of the truth ? Where, will our contemporary tell us, have occurred all these fatalities among spectators which has rendered imperative such a Bill. Ignorance has to be taken into account as well. During the debate on the Bill the other night, even so sound a lawyer and broad-minded a man as Sir William Bull displayed a woeful amount of ignorance of aviation and its conditions in the course of certain questions addressed by him to the Home Secretary. One of his brilliant ideas was that before a person could be allowed to become an aviator he should be guaranteed in a sum °f -£j>°°°) so that there would be something to draw upon in case of his causing an accident! But if the Government had done the logical thing and asked the Royal Aero Club to assist in the control of aviation, all this would have been saved, because the man in the street would have accepted the situation as being quite in order. Now he cannot help gathering the impression that aviation is some sort of a dangerous beast which needs to be kept under strict supervision and control.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
