FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1911
1911 - 0538.PDF
IfLlGHT MISAPPREHENSION IN a recent issue of the Manchester Guardian there appeared a leading article on the subject of the Aerial Navigation Act, which is full of misapprehension and false premises, but which is withal so moderately expressed that it is impossible to suspect the writer of anything but goodwill towards aviators and the movement generally. Therefore we can only ascribe its arguments to a want of exact knowledge of the situation, and of the true relations subsisting between the Royal Aero Club and those engaged in the development of the science, backed up by some very uncalled for comments lately made by a writer on aviation matters, and that almost seem to suggest personal pique against the Aerial Defence Committee. Our Northern contemporary has nothing but praise for the Act, and is rather severe in its strictures on the attitude taken up by the Royal Aero Club and its leading supporters with regard to it. Taking as its text the parallel drawn by Lord Montagu and Mr. Roger Wallace between the Club and the Jockey Club, and the statement that the action of the Club would be a greater deterrent than any legislation, the Guardian calls it a fallacy, and lays it down that unless the Club recognises it for the error it is, it will be bad for the Club in the future. The Jockey Club, it continues, exercises beneficent control over the turf, but it cannot control the conduct of its members on the highways. It can stop any discreditable conduct on the part of its members on the course, but it cannot penalise a member for riding or driving to the danger of the public in the street. If it does penalise a member for anything done wrongly inside or outside a racecourse, the penalty extends strictly only within the limits of the Club itself. This, to begin with, is quite a fallacy, for the penalty extends a long way outside the strict limits of the Jockey Club itself. We should like our contemporary to tell us in what corner of the earth a person who has been "warned off" by the Jockey Club can run or ride horses at a race meeting. Surely the ban of the Jockey Club is a much more effective deterrent to the potential wrong doer on the Turf than any legislation, which could only be local in its effect. Bringing the illustration nearer home, the Guardian has it that there is no ground for supposing that the fact of the Royal Aero Club sus pending a flyer's certificate would have any effect on his pursuit of aviation, except the narrow one of debarring him from competitions in which he probably never intended to take part. On the contrary, the withdrawal of the Club's certificate would end, once and for all, the professional career of the offender, even as things exist to-day. He could take no part in competitions the world over ; he could not be employed as an instructor by any firm of aeroplane manutacturers for the very sufficient reason that 'hone of his pupils would be licensed by the Club; and he would find himself a pariah and an outcast in the world of flight. And how much greater would be its power if it had the State behind it—though the Guardian says that that it can never have—even to the small extent of making it compulsory on all who fly to obtain the Club's certificate. Does it not seem that the Club would be in a far more powerful position of control than even the Aerial Navigation Act places the State itself? We think so, despite,the arguments of our contemporary. Again, we are told that the revolution in flying which JUNE 24, 1911. AMD ITS DAMGER. has taken place in the last ten months has radically- altered the attitude of airmen to the Club and the Federation which it represents. The day of flying meetings is over, seemingly for good, and with them has gone the ability of the Club to control the rapidly increasing number of men who can fly. For ourselves,, we can see no alteration in the attitude of the flying men towards the Club. Why should there be ? The Guardian seems to be arguing from an entirely false premise, for it seems to think that the Royal Aero Club was in some way the cause or organiser of the circus-meetings which characterised the very earliest days of flying. That is an entirely wrong presumption, for the Club- has never approved of such meetings, nor lent them more- countenance than it was forced to do in order to retain the necessary control over promoter and aviator. The inference to be drawn from our contemporary's argument is that the day of the Royal Aero Club as a controlling body is past and done with, but so far from this being the case its real mission lies far more in the future than, in either past or present. It would be as logical to argue that the day of the Royal Automobile Club as- a governor is past, but all who know anything about automobilism know that this is very far from being the case. Even today, when the sport is in about as- decadent a state as can be well imagined, people are extremely careful how they transgress the laws of the- Club regarding, for instance, unauthorised trials. Yet in the case of a newer movement, in which the officially-sealed trial must have a great bearing upon* development, we are asked to believe that the loss of a certificate, which cannot be said to entail any social* stigma, is no great matter ! There the Guardian is most absolutely wrong in its facts. The loss of the Club's certificate is, on the contrary, the very worst thing that could befall the flying man, for at one stroke it deprives him of his whole ability to earn money as an aviator or to- take part in competitions. The answer to this may be that as flying becomes more popular there will inevitably arise a class of wealthy amateurs who are prepared to> spend money rather than to make it, and it is this class over whom the Club would have no control, because not being professionals they would not need the Club's- certificate. There is a very effective counter to that argument, which is that if the Government had been willing to accept the assistance of the Club in con trolling the use of the aeroplane to the extent of compelling every aviator to obtain the pilot certificate the same effective control could be exercised over the amateur as over the professional — a double- control, in that the State could fine or imprison him what time the Club suspended his certificate. As it is, the Government, by rushing into panic legislation, will simply put the Club in a defensive position. It is the story of automobilism over again. Had the Government of the day chosen to avail itself of the co-operation of the R.A.C., the last road-hog would have been laid by the heels years ago, but as it is, legislation placed the motorist and his organisations in the position of potential defendants, who had to be keenly on the alert to preserve their rights and privileges on the highway, the net result being that even now the understanding between- motorists and the constituted authorities is none too- good. And that is the position to which any restrictive aerial legislation will lead in the case of avianon. 540
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
