FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1916
1916 - 0698.PDF
(fUGHf] AUGUST 17, 1916. R.F.C. INQUIRY COMMITTEE. INTERIM REPORT. AN interim report of the R.F.C. Inquiry Committee was issued or* Tuesday night as a White Paper. We reproduce this in full below :— The Committee appointed " to inquire into the adminis tration and command of the Royal Flying Corps with particular reference to the charges made both in Parliament and elsewhere against the officials and officers" responsible for that administration and command and to make any recommendations in relation thereto " make this interim report. In so doing, the Committee, apart from one general observation at the end of the report, deal only with the charge of criminal negligence made by Mr. Pemberton Billing against the administration and higher command. The Committee take this course because their final report must be delayed owing to the mass of evidence they .have had before them, evidence given for the most part in a spirit of informed and genuine criticism pointing out alleged short comings and suggesting means for their future avoidance. Mr. Pemberton Billing's charge of criminal negligence is one which readily separates itself from the criticisms referred to, depending as it does upon specific instances selected by Mr. Pemberton Billing in proof of his accusation. The charge, moreover, was made in Parliament. It caused a considerable amount of uneasiness, and as all the cases have been investi gated into which Mr. Pemberton Billing desired the Committee to inquire, it seems advisable to present an interim report upon the charge so made without loss of time. In order to make the report self-contained and the more easily intelligible, the precise words in which the charge of criminal negligence was made are here set out. Speaking in the House of Commons on March 22nd last, Mr. Pemberton Billing is reported to have said of men of the Royal Flying Corps who had met their deaths in flying : "I do not want to touch a dramatic note this afternoon, but if X^did I would suggest that quite a number of our gallant officers in the Royal Flying Corps have been rather murdered than killed." (See Official Report, Vol. 81, col. 244.) The Official Report is hereafter referred to under the more familiar title of Hansard. Speaking again in the House on March 28th, Mr. Pemberton Billing is reported (Hansard, Vol. 81, col. 615) to have used these words : " I would like to suggest that it is extremely difficult, even in law, to draw a hard and fast line between murder and manslaughter or between manslaughter and an accident caused by criminal negligence. When this negli gence is caused by the official folly of those in high places, coupled with entire ignorance of the technics (sic) which in this case can alone preserve human life, official folly becomes at any rate criminal negligence. When the death of a man ensues, the line between such official folly and murder is purely a matter for a man's conscience." This extract is set out at length in order to make it clear that the charge of criminal negligence is levied against the administration and higher command of the Royal Flying Corps and not against the subordinate officers or pilots. Whenrtherefore, in this report the question of negligence is considered and discussed, it must be understood that the Committee have in mind this question : Does the particular instance under consideration show negligence on the part of the higher command or the persons responsible for the administration of the service ? In support of his allegation of criminal negligence Mr. Pemberton Billing gave to the House on the same March 28th a number of specific instances. (See Hansard, Vol. 81, col. 611, et seq.). When Mr. Pemberton Billing appeared before the Committee he was invited to give the instances into which he desired inquiry to be made, and to give the evidence upon which he relied. He informed the Committee that many of the cases mentioned by him in the House had occurred in the naval service, but he selected for investigation anumber of cases in the Royal Flying Corps. The Committee have inquired into every one of the cases so selected and deal with them seriatim in this report. This report sets out in every case the statement as it appears in Hansard, where the case is there mentioned. Then a summary of any further information given to the Committee by Mr. Pemberton Billing. Then the facts as found by the Committee, and, lastly, tiieir conclusion. Where a case is numbered the number is that given by Mr. Pemberton Billing in his speech in the House. It is only necessary to add that in no case has any direct evidence been given in support of any allegation of negligence. Mr. Pemberton Billing informed the Committee that the source of his information was the talk of the messroom or statements written or oral made to him by persons whose names he was not at liberty to disclose. The Committee appreciated the difficulty experienced by him and others in getting officers of the Royal Flying Corps to come forward publicly, and, in order to meet this objection, made arrange ments to take their evidence in the absence of General Hender son and any of his staff, and in such a way as to prevent disclosure of their identity. These arrangements were communicated to Mr. Pemberton Billing, and it is to be regretted that, while certain officers availed themselves of the opportunity, none of Mr. Pemberton Billing's informants did so. Under these circumstances the Committee have followed up such information as Mr. Pemberton Billing could give them by their own enquiries and have obtained the best evidence available. To proceed to the instances—(a) No. 2, Hansard. Vol. 81, col. 611. Side-slip, nose-dive; bombs blew up everyone on board machine. Similar to that which killed two pilots previously. Liable to uncontrollable spirals. Supplemental statement to the Committee .—Type of machine, B.E. 2.8. Date, 16 August, 1914. Place, Minster. Persons killed—Lieutenant E. W. C. Perry ; air mechanic, Parfitt. Facts.—Mr. Perry flew over to Amiens on a B.E. 8 machine with the First Expeditionary Force. He with others landed at Amiens. He was one of the last to leave Amiens and was seen to start by Captain Cholmondeley, who has since been killed. Mr. Perry, on leaving Amiens, appears to have stalled his machine, i.e., to have attempted to climb too fast, with the result that the machine lost speed, turned on its side, fell to the ground, caught fire, and Mr. Perry was killed. Mr. Perry was pleased with the performance of his machine on the flight to France, and spoke of it as the pick of the bunch, The aerodrome at Amiens is particularly large. Mr. Perry was an experienced pilot. The type of machine has been aban doned. It was not successful and was somewhat under-engined. and was apt to lose speed quickly in the air. It was abandoned because it was not fast, and not sufficiently better than other machines then in use to justify its continuance at the Front. It is still used for training. Conclusion.—There was no negligence in giving this type of machine to an experienced pilot, as Mr. Perry was; although, with the 80 h.p. Gnome engine with which it was then fitted it required careful handling, especially in climbing, to prevent its losing its flying speed. In considering whether the use of a particular type of machine~was or was not negligent, it is necessary to bear in mind the enormous progress that has been made during the war in the development of aeroplanes and engines by ourselves and by other nations engaged in the war, although probably even yet no absolutely reliable type has been evolved. The question of negligence in the use of a particular type of machine must always be determined with reference to the types of machines and engines available at the date when a given accident occurred. It might be quite proper to use in the early stages of the war an aeroplane whose use to-day would be wholly wrong. , (b) No. 11. Hansard.—Machine caught fire in air with experimental Royal Aircraft Factory engine. Bombs on board burst; pilot burnt to death in air. Supplemental statement.—-Date November 5th, 1914. Place, Farnborough. Person killed, E. T. Busk. Type of machine, B.E. 2. Killed while doing experimental work for the Air Service. Facts.—Mr. E. T. Busk was conducting experimental work in the air. He was an experienced and intrepid flier, and had the rare faculty of being able to note and report upon the effect in actual flight in the air of experiments in construction and design. His work was highly dangerous, and he was killed while performing it. His death was described by General Henderson as one of the greatest losses to aeronautics we have ever suffered. The Committee desire to endorse the statement. Conclusion.—There is no evidence of negligence in the death of Mr. Busk, whose loss was due to the exceptionally dan gerous nature of the work to which he devoted himself. 696
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
