FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1919
1919 - 1036.PDF
AUGUST 7, 1919 The fact of the matter is that the negotiations between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry have been dragging on for some time. The former desired to retain control, and the latter was at one time—and that very recently—inclined to give way. It was only that very broad hints of impending trouble if the Air Force were split in the way contemplated reached the right quarter which really brought the question to a head last week, and, what is better, resolved it satisfactorily. Even after it had been decided that the airships were to pass over to the Air Ministry, there were suspicions that all was not as clear as might be, and hence the questions. How ever, the future is settled, and the R.A.F. is to be as Parliament intended it should be, a separate, united and independent Force. It is worth while referring to certain aspects raised by the questions. A great point was made of the desire to know whether airships working with the Fleet are to be under the orders of the Air Ministry or of the Admiralty. It is perfectly clear that when aircraft are working either with the armies in the field or fleets at sea they must be, for operations, under the sole command of the commander-in-chief or of officers of general rank delegated by him to carry out certain military tasks. There can be no question about this. Any other system would be fore-doomed to failure and disaster. But they will not be under the War Office or the Admiralty, as the case may be, and it was in order to clear up the situation that the apparently futile questions were put. Adminis tratively, units of the R.A.F. will always remain as much under the Air Ministry as a Naval contingent serving with troops ashore is under the Admiralty. In such a case, the force retains all its Naval status, and is as much subject to Admiralty administration as ever, although for purposes of military command it must take the orders of the senior military authority on the spot. ' Now, so long as it is understood that this is to be the status of R.A.F. units working with the fleets or armies, the position is unexceptionable. But there was an uneasy suspicion in the minds of the ques tioners that something different was intended under the cloak of the taking over of the airships by the Air Ministry. We do not say whether it was justified or not, but it was thought that the taking over was to be purely nominal, and that airships actually- supplied for naval purposes would be handed over to the Admiralty, lock, stock and barrel, to become not only under the military command of the Navy, but to be under Admiralty administration as well. Whether that was the intention of the powers that be or not, it has been very effectually put to one side, and we feel that Col. Malone and those who were with him,in insisting that full information should be given the House, are deserving of the thanks of all who believe in the Royal Air Force one and indivisible. • • * Arising in some part out of the fore- German going discussion of the fight for the ^fa^the* contro1 OI the airship branch—for it R.A.F. ? has been nothing less—it is interesting to note the reply of Gen. Seely to Col. Moore-Brabazon on the subject of the allocation of German airships. The latter desired to know how many airships would be allocated to this country under the terms of Peace, and whether they would pass under the control of the Admiralty or of the Air Ministry. The Under-Secretary was not too precise in his answer. All the information he vouch safed was that under the Peace terms all German airships are to be handed over to the Allies, but the exact number allotted to this country has not yet been decided. The airships will be taken over in Ger many by the R.A.F. Section of the Inter-Allied Aeronautical Commission"of Control, and their allot ment as between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry will be determined by the decision made on the general question of responsibility for airships ! So that at the time this answer was given—one day last week—the " general question of responsi bility for airships" had not been decided! It would seem as though there had been need for pressing and searching questions on the matter of policy regarding airship control. Undoubtedly a very ugly situation has been very narrowly avoided. • • • The Air Ministry has thought it necessary Na is^ti to issue the following important noti- Rules ftcation to aviators and firms engaged in civil flying :—• It is notified that, though the Air Navigation Regulations have been in force since May 1, and it is lelt that pilots and others have now had ample opportunity of acquainting themselves with the regulations, numerous instances of their infringement are still being reported. ' The regulations were made with a view to securing the public safety, and in future proceedings will be-taken when they are contravened. The public are requested to co-operate with the Air Ministry in this matter by forwarding to the Secretary (C.G.C.A.), Air Ministry, London, particulars of alleged offences, including, if possible, the registration number or mark of the machine in question. The most common instances of infringement are :— 1. Dropping of leaflets and other advertising matter. (For the purposes of the Victory Loan campaign the Secre tary of State for Air waived the provision in the regulations against the dropping of leaflets from aircraft, but the exemption has now been withdrawn.) 2. Taking up and landing passengers as a regular proceeding at places which have not been licensed as aerodromes. 3. Low flying—(a) over towns ; (b) to the danger of the public elsewhere. 4. Neglecting to obliterate military markings when a machine has ceased to be a military machine. 5. Obscuring registration marks by means of advertise ments or otherwise. We are quite in accord with the determination of the Ministry to suppress dangerous flying over populous areas, and for the sake of the cause of safety we trust that the appeal to the public to assist in bringing offenders to book will bear fruit. But there is one aspect of the matter to which we should like to refer. In (1) the Ministry refers to the dropping of leaflets and other advertising matter, and then goes on to explain that for the purposes of the Victory Loan campaign the Secretary of State waived this provision. Now, we feel very strongly that this was quite wrong. If it is an offence against public safety to drop advertising matter from aircraft—and such a proceeding might easily lead to serious accidents in the streets—in one case, it is no less in another. If, for example, it be wrong to advertise FLIGHT in this manner, it is equally wrong to thus advertise a Government loan. More so, in fact, inasmuch as a Government Department should set an example rather than attempt to set itself above the law with the connivance of another Department. To our way of thinking, the methods adopted to advertise the recent loan were undignified in the extreme—to call them cheap would be to mix a metaphor, for they cost the nation a good round sum of money 1038
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
