FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1918
1918 - 1476.PDF
DECEMBER 19, 1918 seems that the mooring of the aeroplane is more important than its protec-tion from the rain, in cases where the aircraft is only to be detained for some hours. Clause 16.—'Subject to a note in Appendix C the Committee approve thisclause. Clauses 17 and 18.—Subject to a drafting amendment in Clause 18, theCommittee approve these clauses. Clause 19.—The Committee think that the language of Section 2 of theAerial Navigation Act, 1913 (which closely corresponds with this clause), should be substituted. Recent experience has shown the danger of foreignaircraft flying over prohibited areas of strategic importance. The Com- mittee think that the regulations contemplated, and, indeed, the clauseitself, should be made more drastic, and that anyone flying over an area prohibited for naval or military reasons should be liable to be fired at by acommissioned officer in charge of an anti-aircraft gun, in his discretion, even without a preliminary signal, in a case of urgency. Clause 20.—The Committee think that this clause contains useful pro-visions which might well be extended to all British Possessions, subject to the right of the legislature of any such Possessions to alter them.Clauses 21 and 22.—The Committee approve these clauses. Clause 23.—The Committee think that Clause 23 would be clearer ifre-cast, and that it should provide that the Act and regulations should apply, mutatis mutandis, throughout all British Possessions, unless and until thelegislature sf any British Possession otherwise provides, subject to the exception that local legislatures should not be empowered to modify pro-visions of an international character—that is to say, those relating to'regis- tration, collisions, aircraft papers and signals of distress. Clause 24.—It appears to the Committee that certain provisions in theBill, at least those contained in Clause 12, should apply to aircraft belonging to His Majesty. They, therefore, recommend that this clause should be sodrafted as to make the Bill applicable to aircraft belonging to His Majesty, except in so far as any part thereof, other than Clause 12, may be excludedby Order in Council. 7. It will be observed that the Bill contains no provisions dealing withaerodromes or landing-places. The Committee have considered the question whether all aerodromes (including Flying Schools) and landing-places shouldbe State-owned. They have come to the conclusion that this is not desirable, but that, while private persons and companies should be allowed to establishand own aerodromes and landing-places, these should be subject to Govern- ment licence, inspection and regulation in some form. It seems to theCommittee that reasonable regulations will go a long way towards preventing injury aad annoyance to the public, and will at the same time protect air-craft owners from frivolous claims and proceedings. As experience accumu- lates the regulations will, no doubt, require modification and diflerentregulations will be appropriate according as the aerodromes and landing- places are in populous or sparsely populated districts. In licensing aero-dromes the State will, no doubt, have regard to strategic considerations , and provision should be made that when war is imminent any privately-owned aerodromes that may have been allowed to be established, with their equipment, should at once be available for military use. The Committee have already touched upon the necessity of some flyingregulations applicable particularly to aerodromes. With regard to this and any other regulations for preventing injury and annoyance to the public,they do not offer detailed suggestions, but they think that Section 126 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901 (Special Orders), furnishes a satis-factory precedent for the scope of the powers to make regulations to be conferred on the appropriate Government Department. 8. The consideration of aerodromes and landing-places involves the ques-tion of the compulsory acquisition of land for their establishment. The Committee are of opinion that the Government should be given similarrights of compulsorily acquiring land for aerodromes and landing-places as it has for acquiring land for military works. Private persons wishing toobtain powers for the compulsory acquisition of land for the establishment of aerodromes must proceed by way of private Act of Parliament or Pro-visional Order. Such powers would, presumably, have to include powers to cut down trees, remove wire, or perform other similar acts on adjoiningland not acquired. 9. It is scarcely within the province of the Committee to recommendalterations in procedure relating to the compulsory acquisition of land. At the same time they think that it would be of great assistance to the develop-ment of aeronauics generally if the determination of the amount of com- pensation payable to the landowner could be made the subject of a moresimple and less expensive procedure than that at present employed in private Bill legislation. The Light Railways Act of 1896 affords a useful precedentfor the avoidance of some of the difficulties. With regard to the amount of compensation payable to the landowners the principles of the LandClauses Acts have been construed to the landowner's advantage through the establishment by recent judicial decisions of the doctrine town as "specialadaptability," whereby the landowner can, in fact, obtain a sum repre- senting a value greater than the ordinary market value of his land wherehe can show that the land is specially adapted for the purpose for which it is being compulsorily taken. This judicial doctrine has in some instancesincreased the amount payable to landowners, and it is one which the land- owner might pray in aid successfully in the case of the compulsory acquisi-tion of land for an aerodrome. The Committee think that the application of this doctrine should be specifically excluded. 10. The Committee have also considered the subsidiary question ofclaims for compensation by persons, the value of whose property has been impaired by reason of the establishment of an aerodrome in the vicinity.They think that claims for such compensation should be entertained at any time within five years from the date of the establishment of the aerodrome,and that such compensation should be payable from State funds in the case of an aerodrome established by the Government and by the proprietor inthe case of a privately-owned aerodrome. 11. The Committee think that the matters referred to in paras. 7 to 10inclusive above should be the subject of legislation, and that as they are all matters affecting the development and regulation of aeronautics from thegeneral point of view, they can well be dealt with by the addition of further clauses to the Aerial Navigation Bill under consideration.In conclusion, the Special Committee wish to record their warm appre- ciation of the assistance rendered by the Secretaries, upon whom has fallenmuch work, which has been so ably carried out as greatly to facilitate their proceedings.Sydenham (Chairman), Butler Aspinall, J. H. Balfour Browne, M. D. Chalmers, Drogheda, W. Barnard Faraday, Wing-Capt. R. M. Groves, L. N.Guillemard, G. Holt Thomas,* W. Joynson-Hicks,* Major-Gen. J. White- side McCay,* G. E. P. Murray, Col. J. W. Pringle, Capt. E. Elvey Robb,Wing Comdr. W. Sempill, W. P. Schreiuer,» Lieut.-Col. E. R. Wayland. D. O. MAICOLM, Secretary. January 2nd, 1918.Those members whose names are marked with an asterisk append the following reservations to the Report : We concur in the Report with thereservation that in our opinion State-ownership of aerodromes and landing- places is necessary in the interests of national defence, and highly desirablealso for commercial purposes. (Signed) J. WHITESIDE McCAY, W. P. SCHREINER. I desire to add a few words by way of reservation to Clause 6 of Part IIof this Report, so far as it affects Clause 12 of the Home Office Bill. Our recommendations seem to leave it open to an aviator to fly over privateproperty at any height he likes unless actual material damage is proved, and even if a nuisance is created the aviator is still free if he keeps withincertain regulations, the terms of which we have not considered. In my view, though the whole doctrine of the right of the landowner to propertyin the air to an indefinite height must be curtailed, still I am clearly of the opinion that the public will demand, and rightly, a limit above which(except under stress of weather) aviators must fly above private property, and that any persistent flying under this height should be preventable byinjunction. The actual height should, I think, be the subject of consulta- tion with the other sub-committees, but probably somewhere between 2,000to 3,000 ft. would be fair. (Signed) W. JOYNSON-HICKS. I concur in the Report with the following reservations, which are onlymade with the object of avoiding restrictions which may hamper develop- ment of a new mode of transport, of which very little is known at thepresent time, whereas, as experience accumulates, it will be easy to mak such regulations as may be necessary :•— Patt I, para. 1.—'Whilst it is necessary to confer upon the Home Secretaryor other authority the right to prohibit the navigation of aircraft over pre- scribed areas, I should favour the expression of an opinion from this Co -mittee that the prohibition of flying over London should be repealed, also the regulations as to aircraft coming into England. Many of the regulationsmade were made naturally for war purposes. Compulsory landing of air- craft in England, for instance, must aft>ct British aircraft more than anyother, as it is probable that if compulsory landing is insisted upon in England, compulsory landing will be insisted upon in other countries. It will beeasy to make such regulations when circumstances show that it is necessary. The Committee, moreover, suggest that the powers at present wielded bythe Home Office and Board of Trade will be conferred upon the Air Ministry in which I quite concur, but it makes it more necessary to leave the newauthority a free hand to make such regulations as circumstances may prove necessary in the future. Part II, para. 6, Clause 5.—I see no reason at the present time forrequiring any Government certificate for private flyers, nor for restricting the use of the flying machine in this respect any more than a motor car orboat, especially as the public is protected by the fact that the flyer himself is always running a greater risk than anyone else. The conditions of theAero Club certificate have in the past been quite sufficient. > Para. 6, Clause 12.—Ditto. I am not in agreement with the Committee thatthe Bill should provide any regulations as to the altitude at which pilots should fly. I see no reason to suppose that in the immediate future moremachines will be in use at aerodromes than were in use previous to the war, and if circumstances show that a great many more machines are in use, tothe danger or annoyance of the public, such regulations as may be necessary may then be made. To hamper at the present time a new developmentwith regulations, which might be quite unnecessary, would probably restrict development. Para. 6, Clause 14.—I am not in agreement with giving the police suchpowers of search of aircraft and the persons therein, although it might be well to give the Secretary of State power to make regulations on this pointin the future should they be necessary. Para. 7.—I am not in agreement with any control whatever over aero-dromes and landing-places at the present time other than the powers which existed before the war, and which have proved quite satisfactory up to thepresent time. Any control must tend to hamper the establishment of private grounds and landing places, which is undesirable in the early stagesof development. The above reservations I have made solely with the object of permittingas free as possible development of the use oi aircraft. I do not, however, foresee any such development in the immediate future as will necessitateregulations other than those as existed before the War, and, in the absence -of more complete knowledge of the subject, I would suggest that, whereverpossible, conditions should be left as they are until our experience of the subject has so accumulated that we have a definite knowledge of whatregulations are expedient and desirable. (Signed) G.-HOLT THOMAS. Canadian Air Service ..'..•: IN a message dated December ioth, the Times corre-spondent in Ottawa states that the Royal Canadian Air Service organisation which was begun when the coast ofCanada was threatened by German submarines will be temporarily demobilised urttil the spring, when a decisionwill be reached as regards a permanent policy. The Times correspondent adds that there is a strong feeling amongCanadian airmen that the service should be continued, and that the application of aeroplanes should be developed forpeace purposes. UJS. Aerial Mail Service AFTBR a very successful start the U.S. aerial mail ser- vice appears to have encountered trouble. According toreports from New York, Capt. B. Lipsner, the superintendent, has resigned on the ground that since the signing of theArmistice the U.S. postal authorities have been experimenting with unsuitable machines and inexperienced pilots. It isstated that the U.S. War Department have turned over to the Post Office a large number of useful machines, butin spite of this the postal authorities, according to Capt. Lipsner, in deference to certain aircraft manufacturers, arecontemplating " large and wholly unnecessary expenditures for wholly unnecessary alterations and for special types ofmachines." Capt. Lipsner is joining a.new concern which has beenformed in connection with commercial aeronautics. 1445
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
