FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1916
1916 - 0588.PDF
i/DCHT] carefully worked out, but if another man was killed I should very seriously consider what was the matter with the cable. The stress on the cable has been worked out before many times. When two are killed you would consider the matter again ?—It is not a matter of men being killed, but of an accident bappening. I have no reason to believe that the cable broke under undue strain. Sir Charles Parsons : I have been an engineer for many years, and no engineer would make the insinuation Mr. Billing is making. It is not right to make these insinuations. There is no evidence that the cable was overstressed. There is nothing, to my mind, to show anything wrong with it at all. With regard to an Avro which was upset by a gust of wind when too near the ground to enable the pilot to recover control, Mr, Billing stated that the R.N.A.S. had discovered a remedy for this spin. Sir David Henderson said that there was a certain amount of exchange of information between the Services, but he should not like to say that it was as complete as he could wish. He would bring evidence to show what interchange had taken place. The Avro was not an inherently stable machine. The Chairman questioned Sir David Henderson about the case of Lieutenant Littlewood, who landed a new machine in the Ger man lines at Lille. He said that, as he understood it, Lieutenant Littlewood started from Farnborough, where he picked up an ob server to take with him—an observer who had been left behind and was disappointed in going over with some other pilot on some other machine. Was it a fact, when sending over new machines to France, that somebody went with the pilot as a fighting man? Sir David Henderson replied that that was so. The Chairman : Does the pilot choose his own companion, or is somebody allotted him for this specific purpose ?— The proper course is that somebody should be allotted to him. It is the duty of somebody, I suppose, to make that selection ?— Yes, sir. Would that, in this particular instance, be the duty of somebody at Farnborough ?—YfiS. I am very much puzzled how this man, if he was not a trained observer, got into this machine?—I am very much puzzled also. Ttiere appears to have been some misunderstanding. Whatever I find out will be put forward. Is it anybody's duty at Farnborough when a pilot goes to France in a machine to see him start ?—Yes. The duty of some superior officer ?—It is the responsibility of the Cfficer Commanding the Administration Wing. If he, for any reason, cannot be there, he must depute the duty to another officer. He cannot go there and pick up a machine and beckon to some body else and say : " I am going to France, come along with me " ? —He cannot do that. And, I suppose, it is also the duty of somebody at the starting point to see the class of map with which the pilot is supplied, and also the general equipment of the machine, such as compass, &c. ? —Yes. The public proceedings at the sitting on July 5th opened with the calling of Capt. Valentine, R.F.C., as a witness. Replying to Sir David Henderson, he said he began flying in 1910, had flown in the circuits of Europe and Britain, had flown fifty different types of machine, and was still flying. He joined the R.F.C. at the beginning of the war, and in October, 1914, was sent to Paris to organise a department for the supply of machines and engines. He had to report to headquarters all machines and engines likely to be of use to the R.F.C. In cases where machines were thought suitable a pilot was sent from headquarters to test them. Orders to buy came from General Headquarters in the Field. Sir David Henderson : It has been suggested that you recom mended that the Nieuport machines should not be bought. Was that so ?—No. The Chairman : It has been suggested that you failed to recom mend the Nieuport for purchase. The Witness: I reported it as a good machine, as I did other machines. In some cases machines were bad, and I so reported. The Chairman : Was there ever a question between you and the Nieuport people as to receiving a commission from them ?—Never. Did you ever intimate to them in any*shape or form you would be prepared to take a commission ?—Never. Did they offer a commission or hint about it ?—Never. Did you take a commission from any other people ?—Never. Did you ever take a commission in respect of any machine you reported about ?—Never. What were your instructions with regard to your dealings with the Navy ?—I was ordered to be on good terms with them, and to work in conjunction with their representative, and generally to see that we did not clash. I was not to compete in any way which would restrict the output or affect the Flying Corps in any way. It was arranged that the price at which machines should bj purchased should be the prices fixed by the French Government. JCl.Y 13, I9l6. Sir David Henderson: Did I give you any personal instructions about competition ?—Yes, sir. What were they ?—I was not to compete, so that either the out put of the Naval or the R.F.C. should be interfered with in any way, or that it should annoy the French Government. The Chairman : Did any friction arise between you and Com mander Thurotan as representing the Navy ?—Commander Thurs'an tried to get as much material as he could, even before the French prices were fixed and the competition became accentuated. .; What were your personal relations?—I myself was always as friendly as possible with Commander Thurstan. Did you complain to him about what he was doing to the disad vantage of the Flying Corps ?—I very often spoke to him about it. Did that lead to friction ?—I don't think he quite liked me speaking to him. Mr. Bright asked General Henderson if it was the custom for any commis-ions, secret or otherwise, to be offered to, or accepted by, officers in the R.F.C. ?—Certainly not. Replying to Captain Goldney, M.P., the witness said he under stood that when his report on the Nieuport machine was made it was found that the firm was very busy with orders from the French Government, and that the latter were reluctant to the Flying Corps or the Navy having machines delivered to them from that source, as their requirements were so numerous. M. Baszaine, one of the managing directors of the Nieuport Com pany, was called, and emphatically denied that there had ever been any conversation with Captain Valentine with regard to the payment by his firm of a commission to him. General Smith-Dorrien said he thought that Major Sir Bryan Leighton should make a public apology to Captain Valentine. Mr. Butcher : It was a gross charge, but he did not put it forward as a direct charge so much as the result of gossip. Mr. Shortt added that Sir Bryan Leighton did not make the statement voluntarily; he was asked about it. Mr. Balfour Browne: It is rather our fault that the statement was allowed to be made, brcause Sir Bryan distinctly stated it was gossip. The Chairman : We are all agreed—and I am very pleased to state it publicly—that we are peifectly satisfied with Captain Valentine's very clear statement and we have not the slightest doubt that the story has not the slightest foundation. Captain Noel Sampson was called to speak to the accident to Major Penn Gaskell on January 31st, on the occasion of a Zeppelin raid. Orders were received from the War Office to send up pilots if the weather permitted. Major Gaskell told the witness not to go up until he had had a "chucker" round first. Major Gaskell had been up at night very often on the same type of machine—B. E. 2 C. He believed that Major Gaskell got into the low mist and lost sight of the flares. He caught the tops of some trees, which brought him down. Captain W. R. Barker gave confirmatory evidence. Mr. Billing inquired as to the system of lighting of the ground. The Chairman ruled that the question could not be put in public. Mr. Billing protested, and asked how the charge of negligence could be investigated if these details were not gone into. This accident happened six months ago, and the information could be of no value to the enemy. The Chairman said that he had given his ruling on the point, and invited Mr. Billing to proceed with his cross-examination. With regard to the death of Major Unwin, Captain Valentine was recalled, and said that he taught him night flying. He was a quite qualified night pilot, and a very courageous man. Staff-Sergeant Stubbins said that Major Unwin hit a tree on a B.E. 2 C. The machine caught fire. There was a slight ground mist, but he could see the machine 400 ft. overhead. He did not think there was any danger from the fog that night. The flares were quite clear. Sir David Henderson then dealt with the case of Captain Warren, who was alleged to have been shot down because the machine could not climb fast enough. Captain Warren with two others went before daylight on a bombing expedition well within the enemy's country. It was foggy, and the pilot had to descend very low to accomplish his object. The objective was well protected by anti-aircraft guns, and the result was that Captain Warren was shot down and his leg broken. He bad been mentioned in orders for his gallantry. Mr. Billing asked if it was absolutely necessary that Captain Warren should be sent on this particular expedition that morning. Sir David Henderson replied that it was not absolutely necessary, but in the opinion of the Higher Command it was necessary. He considered the machine used was the most suitable for the work. The Chairman said it did not seem to be a question of the machine, seeing that the pilot was shot down from a low altitude, which was necessary for him to carry oat his objective.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
