FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1919
1919 - 0098.PDF
JANUARY 23, 1919 is even more true of their naval forces where the latter exist at all, and it scarcely seems to follow that an arrangement which might be excellent in the case of a small Power would be equally good in that of the British Empire. In fact, such a proposition is so tentative at the moment that we should not have troubled to discuss it at all were it not for the appoint ment we have adversely criticised. Mr. Churchill is an ambitious politician, and we are rather given to wonder if he has managed to get himself into control of two out of the three Services with an eye to the recasting of the whole administrative scheme of defence on the lines suggested. We are not at all certain that we should view it with complete dis favour if it were so, provided the scheme were well thought out and approved by the best naval, military and aerial advisers of the Crown. It would not be the same thing as tying the aerial arm to the chariot of the War Office, as seems to be the intention now. It is an idea that the public can understand, whereas the present position is one that nobody can either understand or appreciate. Certainly more will have to be forthcoming in the way of explanation than the very lame document issued by the Air Ministry, which really explains nothing and leaves us as suspicious as ever of the ultimate intentions of the Government. • • • Some few weeks ago we referred to Lord Government Weir's remarks on the subject of the C°ofr01 training of pilots for civilian purposes, Civilian and attacked the dictum that it was the Aviation business of the State to undertake all training, whether for the R.A.F. or for civilian work. General Brancker has now followed suit, and told an audience the other day that his opinion was that in future pilots will be trained at Government institutions, will wear uniform, and will be required to hold Government certificates. Will they, indeed ? We are certainly in agreement with one of the gallant general's articles of faith, but only one. The Government certificate is an excellent, even a necessary, provision, since the public, whether it elects to actively use aerial services or whether it prefers to go about its lawful occasions on the ground, will certainly ask that those who are entrusted with the navigation of aircraft shall be proved fit to be in charge and so certified by a responsible authority. That authority must necessarily be a Government department, since no other examining and licensing authority would adequately fill the requirements of the public ease of mind. Therefore, we are content to take the licensing of pilots by the State as being read and agreed, but when we come to the con sideration of the other two points—the training in Government institutions and the wearing of uniform —we are in total disagreement. We are very much afraid that General Brancker and those who think with him fail to appreciate the public sentiment in these matters. During the War, the people were content to watch the growth of bureaucratic institu tions, and to see more and more of their liberties taken from them and civilian activities placed under Government control, because they recognised that it was all a part of the sacrifice to victory. Unfor tunately the mind of the typical bureaucrat runs in a groove, and is quite incapable of appreciating that there is a great revulsion of feeling and opinion coming. It is not at all in derogation of our soldiers we say that the whole country is sick to death of seeing and wearing uniform. The British art- not a uniform-loving people, and the wearing of it has been another sacrifice to the exigencies of war, and all they want now is to get out of it and see as little as possible of it in the future. If any Government department thinks it is going to compel civilians to wear any sort of uniform after the War is finished and done with, it is making a capital mistake. We are certainly not going to imitate Germany of ante-igi^, in which nearly everybody wore uniform. Then, as to the suppression of civilian flying schools—for that is really what is connoted by Lord Weir and General Brancker when they speak of all pilots being trained in Government institutions—• we can say again that the country is not likely to tolerate anything of the sort. We have had quite enough Government control of our several businesses and occupations, and we have submitted to it as the only means of winning the War, and for that reason only. For the future, there has got to be as little interference with people's private concerns as there has been much during the past four years. In the specific matter of civilian flying schools, these are legitimate private enterprises created before the War, and at that time sealed with the seal of official approval. In what way has the position altered now that the Government seems so anxious to suppress them and filch the livelihood from the people to whom they belong ? Are they likely to be less efficiently conducted than they were in 1914, when there was infinitely more chance of serious accident than there is to-day ? Or are the people behind them any less honest in their dealing than they were ? Or is it not really the case that the more "control" can be exercised, and the more businesses the State can keep its fingers in, the more jobs there will be for the " temporaries " of the new bureaucracy ? If we could see the necessity of State training as well as of State licensing, we should be the first to say so, although it would be hard luck on those who look to these schools as a business or profession, but we see no more reason for a State monopoly than there is for a similar monopoly of training for the mercantile marine. By all means let the Air Ministry make all provision for the training of pilots and observers for the R.A.F., as the Navy does for training its own officers, but the training of civilian pilots is civilian business, and must be left at that. Agreed that in certain directions there must be a measure of Government control. Aviation being a vital part of the programme of future development, the State will have to actively interest itself, and as its scope is far too wide and far-reaching to be covered by private enterprise, we shall have to look to the State for a'large amount of encouragement and assistance. Private enterprise cannot develop the meteorological and wireless services that will be essential to the safety of aerial navigation, any more than it could have undertaken the lighting of the coasts of the world in the interests of marine naviga tion ; nor, to pursue the analogy, could the world's harbours and ports have been constructed and maintained privately by the shipowners. Com mercial aviation is absolutely on all-fours with mari time commerce in these matters, and, as the State has not actively interfered in its development, there is no more reason for such interference with aviation. The State examines masters and officers for their fitness to navigate the seas, but it does not train 98
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
