FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1919
1919 - 1490.PDF
the requirements of the R.A.F., it is for consideration whether it will not be necessary to adopt a combination of subsidies and grants for services rendered. To our way of thinking, it is not so much a matter for consideration as for immediate decision. The prin ciple of encouragement has been passed by the Government long ago, and sufficient time should have elapsed by now for the formulation of a concrete scheme through which the principle can be applied. It would seem, on the face of it, that a combination of paragraphs (i) and (2) of the alternatives quoted above would best meet the case as it exists. The simple allocation of a grant to " approved " com panies for mileage and weight carried is good, but it seems to us to be too restricted in its incidence. Manifestly it would be out of the question to subsidise every company or concern embarking on aerial trans port, but at the same time it seems essential that some measure of support should be given to the industry as a whole. That is where (3) seems to come in, and we suggest, therefore, that a combination scheme, including the two, would probably be best. • • • Not the least remarkable feature of the Safety of Memorandum is the light it sheds on Flying the safety of flying as a means of trans port. The table given in the Memo randum is exceedingly interesting, and will repay study by those who labour under the delusion that flying is unsafe. Briefly, it shows that the percentage of pilots killed is -095 per thousand flights, and of pilots injured • 286 per thousand flights. No passengers were killed during the six months covered by the Memorandum, and the percentage injured was no more than "476 per thousand flights. These percentages have been taken because it is almost invariably in landing or taking off that accidents occur, and it is thus a better guide to assess them on the number of nights than to take mileage flown. As a matter of fact, the record shows that there was one death for each 151,500 miles flown, which is assuredly below the record of any other form of transport. We have not at hand the figures relating to railway or marine transport; but, speaking from recollection, the averages of killed work out very much higher than these. Therefore, we feel we are on safe ground when we claim that in so far as actual mileage tra versed is concerned, flying has been actually demon strated to be the safest form of transport. Taking another form of assessment, for every 5,200 passengers carried one has been injured, which again is a splendid record and one which should convince even the most sceptical that there is really nothing of the heroic in trusting oneself to aerial transport. Another point that emerges from these statistics is that the regulations made by Gen. Sykes' department for the conduct of aerial navigation seem to have worked out very well. As we said at the time of their issue, they are drastic, and very rightly so. We cannot afford at this stage of the development of flight, when the public is looking to see whether it can be trusted or not, to have serious and avoidable accidents. It is far better that the regulations should err on the side of severity than that we should incur a series of accidents which might well retard develop ment by years. At the present moment what seems to be wanted in general is the declaration of a general policy towards civil flying. Two Committees have investigated the NOVEMBER 20, 1919 subject. First of all there was the Civil Aerial Trans port Committee, which enquired exhaustively into the prospects, and reported before the end of the War that civilian aviation ought to be afforded a sub stantial measure of support. The whole question was again enquired into by Lord Weir's Committee, which has reported to the Secretary of State for Air. How long it will be before that Report is issued as a public document we have no means of knowing, but it is to be hoped it will not be delayed a moment more than is necessary. The whole industry, and a very large section of the public outside, is waiting anxiously for a revelation of real policy. For some time past it has been abund- ^eely'31 antty c^ear tnat tne dual control exer- Resignation cised by the Secretary of State for War over his own special department, and the Air Ministry was not working as well as the Government assured us it would work. Now matters have, as we fully expected, come to a head, and Gen. Seely, who has filled the post of Under-Secretary for Air since the present Cabinet was formed,has resigned, and, what is more important than all, has given his reasons publicly for taking this inevitable course of action. He objects that subordination to the War Office is wasteful of time, of energy, and of money. By practically making the Air Ministry an annexe of the War Office the country is involved in a gigantic waste of commercial possibilities, and a waste of money on a great scale, by not taking advantage of the new inventions and of the new power the air has given to undertake our great and increased responsi bilities in the world. Gen. Seely, after an experience of the working of this pernicious arrangement—one we have condemned from the first—has, like a man of honour, decided that he can no longer identify himself with a policy he feels to be inimical to the best interests of the country, and has taken the only possible course open to him of resigning. We need not follow him through the convincing and straightforward explanatory speech he made in the House of Commons after his resignation. That is now a matter of past history, and what we are mostly concerned with is the future. Mr. Bonar Law, in his usual cynical way, affected to make light of the matter by describing it as a mere difference of opinion as between the Cabinet and Gen. Seely. That will not do. It has become quite clear as a result of the matters which led up to the resignation of the Under-Secretary that the Government has determined to make of the Air Ministry a mere appendage of the War Office. It is true that only the day before Gen. Seely's explanation the Leader of the House had given an explicit assurance that it was intended to maintain the unity of the Royal Air Force, but since Lord Weir's characteristic explana tion before the Douglas-Pennant Committee of the difference between a Parliamentary and a truthful answer to a question, these assurances have less weight than ever. What, then, is the ultimate inten tion ? The Government, it is quite apparent, does not propose to willingly appoint a Secretary of State for Air. Does it mean to institute a Ministry of Defence, and to group all three fighting Services together under a single Minister, with an Under- Secretary each for the Admiralty, War and Air ? And if so, is Mr. Churchill to be the first tenant of the office ? It is common knowledge that he, like 1492
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
