FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1936
1936 - 1903.PDF
54 FLIGHT. JULY 9, 1936. SALVAGE Repercussions of a Croydon Landing Heard in Westminster : Imperial Airways Accused of " Boycotting " Unsubsidised Companies : Their Reply READERS may remember that last week, in his Croydon notes, " A. Viator " mentioned the case of an unsub sidised air line's crashed machine that spent a night in the middle of the aerodrome, owing, it was alleged, to the refusal of Imperial Airways to co-operate in its removal. The case now threatens to become something of a cause celebre. . During the discussion in the House of Commons on the Air Navigation Bill on June 25, Mr. Lindsay Everard, M.P., lagged to move an amendment to the Subsidy Section to the effect that— '' No subsidy shall be paid under any such agreement unless the persons intended to be subsidised shall agree to co-operate reasonably with the owners of other British air-transport services and not to use their subsidised position in any way which the Secretary of State may consider to be detrimental to such other services." In the discussion which followed this proposal Mr. O. E. Simmonds, M.P., quoted the case of the crashed machine. The Editor has since received from Col. H. Burchall, D.S.O., of Imperial Airways, a copy of a letter which he (Col. Bur chall) wrote to Mr. Simmonds following the latter's remarks in the House :— Dear Mr. Simmonds.—I see from Hansard that in the House of Commons on the 25th June, you read a letter from the Managing Director of an unsubsidised Company complaining that Imperial Airways refused to help them when one of their aircraft was damaged on landing with its undercarriage in the retracted position. I am sorry that you did not get into touch with me by telephone before you spoke in the House, as I could have given you the other side of the story. Several other Members of Parliament, namely Mrs. Tate and Messrs. Garro Jones, Moore-Brabazon, and Ede appear to have accepted the letter as conclusive evidence, and others who did not speak may have done so. When you know the correct story, which I give in the following paragraphs, you will, I expect, wish to take whatever steps you can to mitigate as far as possible the damage done to the Com pany's reputation by what appear to us to be totally unwarrantable allegations, which we strongly resent. The Occurrence At 21.30 hours on the night of June 8th, an aircraft belonging to Air Despatch, Limited, was damaged at Croydon, the pilot having failed to put the undercarriage in its proper position for landing. The Foreman of Imperial Airways' night shift was asked by Air Despatch, Limited, to bring it in. Our Foreman immediately went with our tractor over to the damaged machine and inspected it. He found that it could not be towed as it was, without risk of further damage, and that a considerable amount of work would be required to jack it up on to a trolley before it could be removed. Our night shift was fully engaged in preparing our own aircraft for the next day's work, and could not, without dislocation of our own work, be detailed for other work except in case of a real emer gency. The Airport Control Officer was therefore asked whether he considered that the damaged machine constituted a danger. He replied that it had been marked with red lights and that he did not propose to ask our assistance in removing it. This being so, it was obvious that there was no danger in leaving it where it was until the morning, when no doubt the owners of the aircraft could obtain plenty of labour without interfering with our services. We therefore did not feel justified in taking our night shift men off our normal maintenance work, but offered and did, in fact, lend to Air Dispatch, Limited, all the plant and tools they wanted, in cluding powerful jacks of various types, timbers, and other appli ances. About two hours later, our Foreman again went over to the damaged aircraft and spent three-quarters of an hour showing them the best way to prepare the aircraft for removal. You will doubtless have noted that Mrs. Victor Bruce, the Manag ing Director, mentions in the letter that you read in the House that after many hours' work the aircraft was towed from where it crashed and was damaged in the process. We can at least be thankful that our Foreman knew his business sufficiently well to decline, in spite of the pressure put upon him, to attempt to tow the damaged aircraft when he was first asked to do so. I might perhaps add that next day we were asked by the Aero drome Control Officer to remove the tools, jacks, etc., which we had lent to Air Dispatch and had been left on the aerodrome by them after they had removed their damaged aircraft. It is curious that Air Dispatch were so concerned over the obstruction on the aerodrome caused by their damaged aircraft, although the aerodrome Control Officer had marked it with red lamps, and d.'d nut consider it a danger, and yet saw no danger on leaving timber, jacks, etc., unmarked on "the aerodrome after the aircraft was removed. One might also have expected material and tools loaned in an emergency to be returned without delay, and perhaps with some expression of thanks. As the aeronautical world will doubtless have heard of the inci dent and possibly of your comments, I am sending a copy of this letter to The Aeroplane and Flight, and Mr. Woods Humphery is forwarding copies to the Under-Secretary of State for Air and to the Director General of Civil Aviation. In fairness to Imperial Airways, you will, I know, take the earliest suitable opportunity of correcting in the House the impression which may have been created by the letter which you read from the Managing Director of Air Dispatch.—Yours sincerely (Signed) H. BURCHALL. Mr. Simmonds' View Mr. Simmonds has also sent the Editor a copy of his letter in reply to Col. Burchall. He opens by refuting allegations, made a few days later in the House, that he had allowed him self to be misled by a letter from Air Dispatch, Ltd., and goes on to say that careful investigations have satisfied him that the contents of the letter are substantially accurate. He proceeds in his letter to Col. Burchall: — So far as the details of the incident itself are concerned, it may help you if I give you a copy of a letter I received on the ist July from the Managing Director of Air Dispatch, Ltd. This I attach hereto [see below.—ED.] The two salient points in this letter to which I desire to draw your attention are : — 1. That no permission was given by the Airport Control Officer to Air Dispatch, Ltd., to leave the wrecked aircraft in situ until the morning. 2. That, if it was some decision of the Airport Control Officer which, in your opinion, rendered your help unnecessary, your foreman, who had thus far shown willingness fully to assist, would in the very nature of things have conveyed this infor mation to the Chief Engineer of Air Dispatch, Ltd., whose immediate troubles would have thus been at an end. Instead, to quote from the Chief Engineer's report, when your foreman returned " his whole attitude had changed." Instead of one of co-operation, it was now one of aloofness, which can scarcely be explained by a decision of the Airport Control Officer to leave the wreck where it was, even if such a decision had been given. However, so far as the incident itself is concerned the Air Minis try is now making an investigation. I have thus, for the moment, fulfilled my public duty. I note that you make no complaint in your letter concerning the mirch more serious indictment of the policy of your Company, which I made in the same speech, and as you have given to your letter so large a circulation, I ought to recall that I protested against your attitude to, and treatment of, the unsubsidised Com panies as indicated in your Memorandum of nth February, 1936, an extract of which reads as follows: — "... if they " (that is, the unsubsidised Companies) " ask us to carry loads of freight, which for some reason or other they are unable to accommodate, we politely regret that owing to lack of space we are unable to assist them. With regard to any passengers they may not be able to carry on their ser vice through cancelled services, we are not prepared to accept them straight from the Companies concerned with a view to carrying them on behalf of these Companies. . ." " Losing You So Many Friends" That is the policy which is losing you so many friends and sup porters in the aeronautical world; the narrow selfish policy which a number of Members of Parliament feel it their duty to expose. I have confidence that your Directors will shortly review this whole question in the light of their clear national obligations, and hence forth adopt a policy of tolerance and consideration to these British aircraft operating Companies who receive less support from the State than you yourselves. I am giving to this letter, and to the attached letter from the Managing Director of Air Dispatch, Ltd., a similar circulation to that of which you advise me.—Yours sincerely, OLIVER SIMMONDS. The letter from Air Dispatch, Ltd., referred to by Mr. Simmonds, was as follows:— Dear Mr. Simmonds,—With reference to your enquiry about the accident to our aeroplane on June 8th I have obtained the follow ing Report from Mr. Vickers, our Chief Engineer: — . ^ At about n p.m. on June 8th an aeroplane belonging to my ••"'^Company crashed in the middle of the aerodrome. I proc* • to the plate of the accident with seven of my men. It was (Continued on page 55).
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
