FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1925
1925 - 0085.PDF
FEBRUARY 12, 1925 tubing was explained by the fact that they were using up old stock, approved by the Air Ministry. Mr. H. R. Ricardo, consulting engineer to the Air Ministry in 1917, and a member of the Engine Advisory Committee, said he did not consider there was any need for a test flight under normal conditions, although it was easy to overstrain an engine by too much ground testing. Mr. Watson, representing the Air Ministry, went very carefully over the carburation conditions with Mr. Ricardo, and established that there was a critical point in the supply, when at one moment the supply was sufficient and the next was not, owing to a reduction in the petrol level in the carburettor. He thought it quite conceivable that the flight from Lympne to Croydon with a light load, and the short period of full throttle run on the ground, did not make such demands on the carburettor as to reduce the level to that critical point. Further, in the ground test the engine was under a heavier load than when in the air, which would mean that the revolutions would not be so high as when the machine got into the air. The main points of the evidence at the resumed sitting on January 30 consisted of a statement by Col. F. F. Minchin, one of the pilots of Imperial Airways, to the effect that he considered Croydon Aerodrome a very bad one to take off from, and a report by Mr. Ricardo, in respect to some labora- tory experiments with Petro-Flex tubing, in which it was not possible to reproduce the conditions as obtained in that part of the tube of the wrecked aeroplane. Mr. Hall, mechanical superintendent at Croydon, also answered several questions regarding the substitution of a piece of armoured tubing for unarmoured—in reference to which he stated he was unable to trace any record of the change—and the steps taken to test the engine when Mr. Hinchliffe reported on same. The inquiry was resumed on January 31, when Major Cooper was recalled at the request of "Mr. Wilfrid Lewis (representing Petro-Flex Tubing Co.), and said that he did not think it possible for water to get into the piping from the fire-hosing of the wreckage. Mr. John Edye, general manager of the Petro-Flex Tubing Co., gave evidence as to having tested with heat pieces of piping similar to that which had been used on the air liner, and on the basis of his experiments propounded a theory that the condition of the gut in " the suspect piece " of piping was due to the heat of the flames in the disaster. Other than this witness could find nothing to account for the blockage. Major Bulman, Chief Inspector of the Aeronautical Inspec- tion Department of the Air Ministry, questioned by Mr. Trevor Watson in regard to engine tests, said that with a standard combination he would not normally expect to find in an air test any troulble of which there would be no symptom in a ground test. Cross-examined by Mr. Beyius. witness said there was nothing in the case of the aeroplane in question as presented in evidence before that inquiry that would suggest to him that there should have been a test "flight beiore the machine started on its journey. On February 2 the hearing of evidence was concluded, and the speeches of Counsel were opened. Final evidence was given by Maj. Brackley, who agreed that Croydon aero- drome was unsatisfactory when the wind was south-westerly. He said he had made suggestions to the Air Ministry with a view to improvements. Col. Edwards, of the Air Ministry, outlined a scheme of extensions and alterations which, when completed, would convert Croydon aerodrome into a satis- factory one. Mr. Beyfus then addressed the Court on behalf of the rela- tives of Mr. Luxenburg, one of the victims. He submitted that the only finding possible was " that this disaster was due to the gross and culpable negligence of Imperial Air- ways." He submitted that it is clearly due to engine failure. After the engine trouble reported he held that it was culpable negligence to send out the machine with practically a full load, with a bad " take off " and in gusty weather. Mr. Gilbert Stone (for the De Havilland Aircraft Co.) suggested that carburettor trouble was the cause of the dis- aster, and that negligence could be attributed to no one. It seemed clear that engine trouble, unforeseen by Capt. Stewart, brought about the trouble, " My clients," said Mr. Stone. " feel that this deplorable accident has nothing to do with this machine. The D.H. 34 has flown 1,500,000 miles and has "got off ' not fewer than 12,000 times, and, with thepossible exception of trouble on one occasion at Cologne, we know of no case which could in any way be ascribed tofailure to climb." Mr. H. Gray (for Imperial Airways) complained of the violence and vituperation which Mr. Beyfus had given expression to. Mr. Beyfus said that Imperial Airways, Ltd., were guilty of gross and culpable negligence in the'conduct of their work. One usually expected when such a charge was made that the question of negligence would be put to one or more of the witnesses called on behalf of the company accused. No witness had made any allegation as to the question of negligence. He asked the Court to make a specific part of their report the definite statement that, so far as the Imperial Airways were concerned, they had done everything possible to avoid accidents. The charges were wholly unfounded, and he asked the President not to allow it to go out to the world that Imperial Airways had been guilty of gross or culpable neglig- ence in the way they had conducted their onerous and exceed- ingly difficult business. On February 3 Mr. Hunter Gray concluded his speech for Imperial Airways, and while agreeing that the actual cause of the accident must be a matter of speculation, argued that the one thing to be ruled out as a possibility was the question of a damaged engine. Mr. W. Lewis (for the Petro-Flex Tubing Company) asked the Court to make it clear in their report that his clients had not placed a defective article on the market or had been guilty of any kind of negligence. He submitted that the result of the experiments with tubing subjected to fire and water proved conclusively that the condition of the tubing was the result of the fire, and not the cause of the accident. Mr. Trevor Watson (for the Air Ministry) then addressed the Court. First the inquiry was in the main to elucidate the cause of that particular accident ; secondly, it might have been that in the course of the inquiry circumstances were revealed which, while one might be certain that they had no connection with that particular accident, yet be such as to make it desirable for the Court to make some recom- mendations. With regard to the suggestion that it was desirable that engineers at aerodromes abroad should be licensed, that was a question upon which the Air Ministry would be glad to receive any suggestions the Court might make, but he would call their attention to the fact that the Air Ministry had no control over foreign aerodromes as such. Mr. Watson then dealt with the conditions governing civil flying in this country, and the criticisms regarding same made by Mr. Beyfus. He suggested that an examination of the evidence, and particularly Mr. Ricardo's, showed that the roughness referred to in the evidence was due to something wholly unconnected with the ultimate cause of the accident, and that it would be wrong to draw any inference founded upon the supposition that if the cause of the roughness had been detected and eliminated the accident would not have happened. Whatever the cause of the accident, it was a very unlikely cause, even an improbable one, because the Court had to find a cause consistent with these very remark- able factors—(1) the flight from Lympne to Croydon on un- impaired engine revolutions and power ; (2) the successive ground tests at Croydon carried out in accordance with the best regulations for testing engines which could be devised : (3) the machine got off the ground successfully and continued to climb with reasonable success under conditions of ground and weather which certainly imposed a severe strain on machine and engine ; and, finally, the presumed cause of the accident had to be consistent with the sudden return of the pilot in the direction of the aerodrome at a time when, accord- ing to the best observation, his difficulties were at an end. Only a very unusual concatenation of circumstances could have caused that accident, and he would remind the Court that Major Cooper's theory of a stoppage in the petrol supply put forward with the utmost reserve, was the only one con- sistent with the whole course of events from Lympne and upheld the view that a criticial period in the blocking of the petrol pipe might have changed the whole course of events. The Chairman, in closing the inquiry, said that the Court was under a deep obligation to counsel for the assistance rendered. He and the assessors would visit the aerodrome before he gave his report. An Italian World-Flight MAJ. DE PINEDO, Chief of Air Staff in Italy, intends to attempt a flight round the world, starting probably about May. He will fly an S.16 flying boat, fitted with a 400 h.p. engine, and will be accompanied by a mechanic. The route will be via Athens, Egypt, Red Sea, along the south coast of Asia (India and Burma), Tokvo, Pacific Archipelago, and Svdnev. 85
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
