FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1916
1916 - 0587.PDF
JDLY 13, 1916. THE R.F.C WHEN the R.F.C. Inquiry was continued at Westminster Hall on July 4th, the Chairman (Mr. Justice Bailhache) referred to:a state ment in one of the papers that General Sir David Henderson admitted there had been two cases of improper promotion, and that he (the Chairman) had added y," And a third." That, he said, was quite wrong. It was not admitted that there were two cases of improper promotion, but that there had been two alleged cases. Mr. Balfour Browne said the suggestion of Mr. Pemberton Billing was not that the promotion was improper but was rapid. Mr. Pemberton Billing agreed, and asked if he might supply the Committee with many instances of irregular reports to be cleared up in a like manner. The Chairman : Don't. I do not want them. I did not want this one, but it was given to me, and I was obliged to refer to it. The Chairman said that Lord Montaga was ready to bring certain mechanics to give evidence. He assumed that General Henderson's statement that pilots would not be prejudiced in their service career by giving evidence applied aUo to mechanics. Sir David Henderson said that he had no objection, and the men would not be victimised. He su^g sted that he should be absent when the men gave evidence, and that he should bj told what they said, but be given no names. Major Sir Bryan Leighton, late lieutenant-colonel, R.F.C., called as a witness by Captain Bennett Goldney, M.P., said he had been flying since 1913, and joined the Royal Flying Corps in 1914. In May and June, 1915, he was at the front, attached to Headquarters. He came to the conclusion at the front that we ought to have had more and better machines. One neve* could have enough machines. As for their quality, the Morane " Parasol " was not a great success and the Voisin was afterwards discarded, though the French went on using them. A good machine in those days was the Nieuport. The sailors got most ot them—the Navy had more money to spend. Very few Nieuports were ordered at that time for the Army. The squadron commanders at that time considered the B.E. 2 C. with R.A.F. engine the best they could get. He had been at the British Headquarters in Paris, where the naval wing of the air service was in charge of Flight Commander Thurstan, R.N.A.S., and the military wing was under Captain Valentine. The Chairman: What were the relations between these two officers ?—They were very strained while I was there. I found there was great ri.alry in obtnining machines from French firms. Were you friendly with both ofnceis?—No. I scarcely spoke three words to Lieut. Thurstan. My information did not all come from Captain Valentine, because I heard it talked among other officers. Mr. Bright: Was the ill-feeling entirely due to the rivalry with regard to orders?—Yes, I consider that was so. The Navy had more money to spend than we had, and I think that accounts for it entirely. General Sir H. L. Smith-Dorrien : You mean that the Navy had a freer hand than you had in spending money ?—Yes. Replying to Captain Goldney, witness said that the Nieuport machines were not bought, because, according to gossip, the firm did not pay commission. Mr. Shortt: Who was lo get the commission ? Capt. Valentine ? —-That was the report. Mr. Butcher: The suggestion is, as I understand it, that an ( fficer goe s out to buy machines for the British Government, and does not buy them because he is not bribed. It is a shocking suggestion. Have you any foundation, beyond gossip, for it ?— None. You did not have it from any manufacturer—from the Nieuport people ?—I was told, not by one person, but by several. Did you have it from the Nieuport people?—They did not actually say so, but they inferred that in my conversation with tnem. Mi.' B ight: Do you think that that was the origin of the report ? —No, I do not think so ; I can only say that it was gossip. Mr. Shortt: You did .not seem fa attach much importance to it at the time?—No, I did not; I did not go into :t at all; it was not put of my business. Sir David Henderson : You sugge t that the rivalry between the Services was partly due to the Navy having more money to spend than the Army ?—Yes. Captain Bennett Goldney asked witness if discarded machines, which were known as *' dud " machines, were being sent to the front for flying purposes when they were only useful for school purposes. Witness replied in the affirmative, and said he had known ot accidents to those machines. l/TlGHT] INQUIRY. Replying to Sir David Henderson, Sir Bryan admitted that he had not actually seen any of these " dud " machines sent home. Sir David Henderson declined to accept the synonym that a " dud " machine meant a discarded machine, and contended that a " dud " machine was something quite different. Captain .Bennett Goldney contended that discarded machines were generally described a* " dud " machines ; it was not his suggestion. Sir David Henderson: There is the discarded machine, but a " dud" machine is one that won't fly properly. Sir Bryan Leighton asked whether he might say under what conditions he left the Flying Corps. He had no personal feelings against the Corps. The Chairman : If you want to destroy a suggestion that has not been made, you can do so. If you wish to make a personal state ment, 1 will listen to it. Sir David Henderson said that if Sir Bryan insisted on going into the matter he should have to ask certain questions, and he suggested that it would have to be done in private. The Chairman (to witness): Is it worth while ? The witness: I am in your hands. The Chairman : No ; 1 think it is not. Lieutenant the Hon. Henry Lygon said that he had been an observer in the R.F.C. from January to May, 1915, and was after wards in the ballooning branch, which he left because it made him sea-sick. He was now in the Yeomanry. He had a number of suggestions to make which were not grievances. As soon as an observer at the front got useful at the job he went home and learnt to fly, because only as a pilot could he get promotion. It was only since last au'umn that observers had been part of the R.F.C. In order lo give observers a proper position they should have been encouraged to remain by being given promotion. The alternative was to do away with observers altogether. Their duties were either reconnaissance, which might perfectly well be undertaken by officers of the In telligence Department, or pho'ography, which could easily be done by the pil<»', or artillery spotting, which would be better done by artillery officers detail-d for the purpose. General Sir H. Smith-Dorrien : Artillery efficers have their own duty, and if you use them as observeis you will need to increase very largely the number available. I agree with your suggestion that unless an observer is in touch with the situation it would l>e difficult to obtain the right sort of report. I used always, in France, when an important reconnaissance was bsing made, to see the observer myself, so that he might intelligently reconnoitre the country and bring me back the information I wanted. That is what you mean ?—Yes. Would it not meet the case if the observers lived with the Intelli gence Department rather than with the pilots?—Yes; that would bring them into touch. In reply to Mr. Bright, the witness said there was something worth considering in the suggestion that observers snould tram as pilots, but he thought it a pity to take away observers who had become efficient in o der to become pilots to get promotion. Replying to Sir David Henderson, the Witness said he was not aware that during the last six months th: rule had been that an observer could be recommended for flight-commander. He knew that a very large proportion of observers wanted to learn to fly irrespective of pay or promotion. Sir David Henderson's evidence was then resumed. He said that the finding of the Court of Inquiry into Lieutenant Tennant's accident was sent back because LL-utenant Tennant was not able in the first instance to give evidence. In the case of Second Lieutenant J. R. Chamberlain, killed in June owing to the wings of a B. E. 2 B. breaking in the air at Netheravon the first report of the Court of Inquiry stated that the wings broke in the air owing to abnormal strain caused by nose dive. The officer commanding the wing disagreed, and the machine was ordered to be re-examined, when it was reported that two cables had broken, which might have been caused by the air screw breaking in the air. Mr. Billing : Is there any possible methods by which such accidents can be averted ?—That is a very difficult question to answer. I do not think you can insure that such accidents can be averted. You don't consider there was any negligence on the part of the inspection durir g building or fVght ?—No, I have no evidence but what is here. Have the strains on the cable of such a machine l>een again worked out since the accident ?—I do not think so. If a second pilot was killed by the same kind of accident, would you go into the question of the strains on the cable again ?—I should think very seriously indeed about it Do you always wait until two men are killed before you take precautions ?—I took all precautions, and the subject was
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
