FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1920
1920 - 0516.PDF
MAY 13, 1920 The lesson of the meeting, if there is And its one ^o be learned from the half-hearted Lessons interest taken in it by constructors generally, seems to be the folly of unpreparedness, as fatal, evidently, in peace as it is in war. Not only were most of the machines entered for the Grand Prix not ready in time for the race, but those which were ready were only just finished in time, and no extended trial nights had been possible. The Tellier-Nieuport-Sunbeam machine was not in readi- ness at St. Raphael until two days after the meeting was due to start, and even then M. .Lecointe had had JIO opportunity of trying out the machine. In fact, one believes that his flight from St. Raphael to Monaco was not only his first flight in that machine, but his first flight as pilot of a flying boat. Let it be clearly understood that we are not attempting to belittle his flying of the machine. On the contrary, with such a lack of practice Lecointe did uncommonly well, but it is evident that he could not have that instinctive mastery of the machine which is attained only after long practice. Again, there was no. time to ascertain any of the weak points of the machine, and even the best of machines have their little idiosyncrasies. The Caudrons, which were the only other machines to arrive at St. Raphael in reasonable time after the opening date, had, we understand, never been flown previous to their* flight from Paris to St Raphael, and the machine which ultimately did get as far as Monaco-—the three-engined biplane flown by Ma'icon—had never had its floats tested out, with the result that a faulty step design was only discovered when the machine Was making its altitude elimination flight. With regard to the Italian contingent, the Savoias and the Nieuport-Macchis, these did not arrive in time to be able to start in the Tunis flight. Alto- gether, then, the failure of the meeting would appear to be caused by one thing, and by one thing only : Uapreparedness. We have no doubt that excuses will be advanced. Transport difficulties, strikes, etc., will be blamed. But, after all, a state of preparedness should foresee these obstacles and, by taking them into account, see to it that they are overcome in time. It appears to us that the organisers of the meeting did all they could to make the show a success, and that constructors have only themselves to blame. As for the part this country played, or rather did not play, in the meeting we cannot refrain from a few words of comment. Great Britain, the country which produces without a doubt the finest seaplanes in the world, was not represented at all. But this we do not only mean that no British machines were in.Monaco bay, but British aviation was not even represented ashore. High officials were sent by France as well as by Italy, but as far as our representative could find, not a single official representative of any of the bodies which are supposed to represent aviation in this country was to be found in the Principality. Neither the Royal Aero Club, which is imagined to represent the sporting side, nor the Royal Aeronautical Society, as representing the scientific side, nor the Society of British Aircraft Constructors, representing the Trade, had an official representative at the meeting. As commercial aviation of the future is most certainly going to be chiefly an international affair, such a policy of apparent neglect is not likely to promote the interests of British aviation abroad. Turning now to the absence of British machines at the Monaco meeting, we sincerely regret that the only machine entered—the Fairey seaplane—was prevented from taking part. That the pilot nomi- nated for the Fairey should have had to leave for America at the last moment is sincerely to be regretted, and the fact that this prevented the machine from taking part only goes to show that for these great international events the representa- tion of this country should not be left entirely to private enterprise. It appears to us that one of the functions of the Society of British Aircraft Con structors would be to select a certain number of representatives, not necessarily with a view . to sending them all to the meeting, but so as to have always at least one or • two in reserve in case of emergency. In this manner the industry would always be well represented abroad, to the common good of all its members. If the industry is to have any hopes of surviving these difficult times,-it will not do to sit down with its hands in its lap and wait lor the Government to find a market for it. We know that British aircraft are second to none in the world, but if it is to be accepted that everybody will take this for granted without any demon- stration, then we can foresee a very sad awakening. The text of a Government Bill to enableA effect to be given to the provisions ofCont £^trsial the Convention on Air Navigation, Settled signed in Paris last October, has just been issued. There is a memorandum prefacing the Bill, which sets forth that it is proposed to apply the principles of the Convention not only as respects the cases to which it specifically relates, that is to say, international flying, but also to internal flying in the British Islands. The Bill is intended to repeal all the existing laws relating to air navigation, which will in future be governed entirely by the principles adopted in the Convention and applied by the present Bill. One of the most interesting points of the Bill is that it sets at rest the old controversy relating to aerial trespass. It has been gravely argued that ownership of land extends also to the air as far up as the limit of the atmosphere. If that were accepted as a principle of law, it would of necessity follow that aircraft flying over private property would be guilty of trespass and proceedings would lie against their owners and pilots. The question has never been settled by the courts, so far as our recollection serves, probably because no one has been sufficiently pig- headed to take the necessary proceedings at law. It is a practical certainty, however, that unless the law were made absolutely clear it would not be long before litigation was undertaken by someone with a fancied grievance, and while that might be good for the lawyers it would certainly not help aviation. As a purely academic question it is interesting, but that is as far as it goes. The new Bill settles the matter, once and for all, since Clause 9 lays down that : No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance by reason only of the flight of aircraft over any property or the ordinary incidents of such flight, so long as the provisions of this Act and any Order r made thereunder and of the Convention are duly complied with ; but where material damage or loss is caused by an aircraft in flight, taking off, or landing, , or by any person in any such aircraft, or by any article falling from any such aircraft, to any person or ; 516
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
