AIR DISASTER

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 58, Issue 237, 19 July 1938, Page 3

AIR DISASTER

EVIDENCE AT THE INQUIRY.

STATEMENT BY ENGINEERS. NO DEFINITE CONCLUSION. (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, July 18. An official inquiry into the crash of the Lockheed air-liner Kotare at Mangere on May 10, causing the death of Commander C. M. Duthie and SecondOfficer J. W. Peel, commenced on the Magistrate’s Court to-day^ Mr W. F. Stilwell, S.M., presided, and with him were Squadron-Leader H. B. Burrell (Royal N.Z. Air Force) and Fiight-Lieut. D. M. Allan. Dr. N. A. Foden (Wellington) represented the Air Department. Associated with him were Messrs J. N. Buckeiidge (Wellington), Senior-Assistant Controller of Aviation, and E. F. Carpenter (Wellington), Chief Inspector of Aircraft. Mi; H. E. Barrowclough represented Union Airways, Ltd., and Mr W. L. Wiseman the relatives of Commander Duthie. “Began lo Rock Terribly.” Herbert William Pennant, a farmer of Mangerc, who watched from an adjacent field, said he judged from the sound of the engines that something was wrong. It passed overhead at a height of 800 feet. It was coming lowcV, with a. strong wind behind, and began to rock terribly, getting lower with each rock. Witness said he was one of the first to arrive, about five minutes after the crash, and all he could see were the charred bodies of the men. Mr Barrowclough asked if any expert witness was being called regarding a suggestion that an engine was “missing” before it left the ground. “We feel,”'said Dr. Foden, “that the machine was ‘ missing ’ practically from the start.” Dr. Foden added that he did not wish to make any statement of conclusions. It was his task to call evidence.

Kenneth Blackwood Robinson, as-sistant-instructor to the Auckland Aero Club, said that he saw several puffs of smoke come from the machine as it came down the runway. That was the first indication he had that anything was wrong. He saw the propeller slow down and stop just before the machine ■went over the top of the hangar. The ■wheels were down when it passed out of his sight. ' Engineer’s Evidence. Andrew Neil Patterson, chief engineer for Union Airways at Mangere, said that he had to take over the machine when it arrived. A machine that came from Wellington and returned the same day could not be checked over in detail as there was not enough time. The incoming pilot, Captain Brownjohn, told him in reply to his question that the engines had be.en running all right. Witness went up to the cockpit and checked oil and' petrol. He had read the pilot’s log book and noticed that the starboard engine bad recently been overhauled. Ho had learned the following day, however, that it was the port engine that had been overhauled. His assistant, Leggett, said that the right-hand propeller seemed stiff. Witness felt it, and it was stiff, such as might be experienced in a, newlv-over-haijled engine. It was his opinion at the time that it was due to the engine having recently been overhauled. Had ho known- that the engine had not been overhauled lit would have seemed unusual. He would have run the engine up first and made an external inspection of the engine itself. If there was no noticeable defect, the next stage would have been a. test flight. If no defect was noticed after the test, he would have no reason for preventing it from leaving the ground. His actions on this occasion were influenced by the entry in the log-book. In tests, the machine performed quite normally. Commander Duthie apparently started on the flight still under the impression that it was the starboaid engine that had been overhauled. After the machine got into the air witness saw that the starboard engine had lost power. Inspected Before Flying. “I am definitely of opinion that it was the port wing that hit the tree, said witness to Mr Barrowclough. Witness said he was a pilot as well as an engineer. Witness said he was aware of tile regulation that no aeroplane should l).rflown unless within 24 hours it had been inspected by a qualified engineer. Witness daily checked over one machine at Auckland and gave a certificate. The other machine was checked over, usually at Wellington. The Kotare was certified from Palmerston North at 9.40 a.m. on the morning of the accident. “There was no obligation on me, as far as the regulation was concerned, to make an inspection; but we always do. We have a look around. We always turn the'propellers.” Witness t sa-i(l that the machine was about half on hour at Auckland, and during that time the oil should not have had time to congeal. On this occasion witness had run up the engine to circulate the oil, and afterwards there was only a, slight stiffness, which was quite normal in a newly overhauled engine. If there had been serious stiffness, witness would nave hold it.

No Sign of Seizing. Dr. Foden: Have you boon able to put forward any theory as to why the engine stopper! r l —No. 1 wish I. could. Witness said that he had seen the cylinders since at Hobsonville, and saw in them no sign of seizing. “I ran think of an engine stopping from a reason unconnected with its mechanical condition” said witness. “It might stop from failure of the fuel supply, or from the presence of foreign matter or water, or faulty ignition. If it happened, it would happen suddenly.

The fan blades of the supercharger might have cracked, or there might be loose jets or blocked jets in the carburettor. An examination of the wrecked engine did not allow of any conclusion of a definite nature to be reached.”

Albert Ernest Leggett, a ground engineer employed bv Union Airways at Mangere, denied that he had said previously that he hail seen in his inspection of the aeroplane that the port engine had just been overhauled. He had seen no sign of a recent overhaul about the port engine. It was possible that a, mistake had been made in the typing of his previous statement. He might not have noticed it at the time. Witness had been told that the starboard engine had just, been overhauled. He had noticed, and remarked on, a. slight stiffness of the starboard propeller, and had then gone about his work. Leonard Maugham, chief engineer of Union Airways, Ltd., at Palmerston North, was the first witness in the afternoon session. He said that he had issued a certificate for the Kotare on May 10. He had run the machine up for 10 minutes before giving the 1 certificate. Clerical Records. To Dr. Foden, witness said that he could not explain why the date. May 10, was written over a. “9” on both the safety certificate and the tost sheet. “It does not seem very satisfactory, floes it?’’, asked Dr. Foden. Witness: I think it might occur on quite a. number of occasions'. Dr. Foden: It is still not very satisfactory, is it?—l have no suggestion to make. The port motor had recently been overhauled, said witness, and if the log book said that the starboard engine had been run for 350 hours since overhaul, that would be correct. He had told Commander Brownjohn that it was the port engine that had been overhauled. Dr. Foden: How did you know? —Because 1 am in charge at Milson, and know every engine that is overhauled.

You have learned since that Commander Brcwnjohn thought you said the starboard, engine?—Yes. Witness said that he had known’it was the port engine from observation. Hie had watched it right through its overhaul. The records supported that observation. Entries in a Log Book. After questioning the witness about entries in another log book, iD'r. Foden inquired whether witness thought so many errors, however small, indicated a satisfactory clerical record. “P certainly do not,” said witness. -Subject to the workmanship being first-class, the engine, when overhauled, would be in perfect condition. Dr. Foden : What check is there that the pilot knows which engine has been overhauled?—There is no need for a check, for there is no need for a pilot to know that an engine has been overhauled,. Dr. Foden: I understand that you asked Commander Brownjohn to check that engine ?—That is so. This was done, he- -said, to allay any minor worry that a pilot might have with a newly-overhauled engine. Dr. Foden: What do you think caused the engine to cut out? —I have no idea. Further evidence was heard to-night. “We- think the matter has been taken as far as it can he on the evidence available, and it only remains for the Board to consider its finding, and convey it to the Minister, who, no doubt, will make it public,” the chairman said. This concluded proceedings.