“FLYING FLEAS”

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21807, 12 June 1936, Page 17

“FLYING FLEAS”

TO TH* tDITOB or TH* PMBB.

Sir—l feel it necessary to reply to the sub-leader in Wednesday’s edition of “The Press” on the subject of “Plying Fleas.” As the writer is apparently one of the school who favours vague generalities rather than cold fact, and certainly shows a lamentable lack of knowledge of his subject, his apparent unquestioning belief in all Information contained in the cable news is touching, and he has also made the error of interpreting the news somewhat inaccurately. I will endeavour to the best of my ability to set out the true facts concerning the Pou, not out of a somewhat vivid imagination, but by . +l P* facts and information supplied by the British Empire Air League, who are the sponsors of the Pou movement in England, and by other authorities on this interesting little craft. In the first place it was reported in the press some weeks ago that rlignt Lieutenant Cowell had crashed in a flying flea and had been killed—-a very regrettable accident, but none the less an occurrence always to be expected, as Flight Lieutenant Cowell was a test pilot, and to risk his life in all sorts and conditions of fleas was part of his job. I venture to suggest that the editorial writer was unaware of this fact, as he appears to be of so many others. It was also mentioned that there had been other fatal accidents in fleas and that there was to be an investigation. The report then goes on to say that the coroner’s finding was in agreement with the recommendation of the Air League that the control of fleas be taken over by the Air Ministry; and this is the crux of the whole matter. The only sane inference to be drawn from the report (full details of this accident are not yet to hand) is that the design of the flea is not necessarily at fault, nor has it been proved to have any serious vices, but that from unrestricted control of construction, etc., accidents are bound to happen. The whole Pou movement had grown too big for the Air League to control, and it was obliged to recommend that the Air Ministry take over. Can it be supposed for one moment that the flea is unsafe when we know from unquestionably authentic sources such as the Air League and the French aviation journal, “Les Ailes” (which sponsors the flea in France), that there are dozens of these machines flying safely and satisfactorily every day on the Continent, in England and America. Accidents are bound to occur so long as there is no proper supervision of construction and rigging and proper flight training. No one wishes to hamper the amateur constructor, but there must be some check or supervision of his activities, and it is the job of the local Pou-du-Ciel Club and kindred organisations to provide this supervision and instruction to amateurs with the approval of the Government. As Mr F. G. Dunn, president of the Canterbury Pou-du-Ciel Club, pointed out at the club’s general meeting, “The orthodox will always try to slam the unorthodox” —it seems one of the most illogical of the human faults. No one has any facts that can show that the flea is not a reasonably safe and practicable little machine, provided that it is properly constructed and rigged and not flown in bad weather. On the other hand, there are overwhelming facts to prove thejontriry.' Such men as Sir J"6nn Carden (now deceased, not as a result of flying a flea, but from an air liner crash!), Flight Lieutenant Atcherley, the Schneider Trophy pilot, and Air Commodore Chamfer, a leading aeronautical authority, have all flown the flea and speak in the highest terms of it. C. W. Scott, of Mildenhall-Melbourne Air Race fame, and Sir Alan Cobham have both used fleas in their flying circuses. „ . , ~ Facts speak for themselves, and it cannot be denied that the flea has proved itself worthy of more than the allegations that it is “under suspicion, and that a method must be foundof “ridding the sky of its lice. The statement that “the menace to persons and property of myriads of untamed fleas hopping about the sky is both ludicrous and fantastic, and what is more is a contradiction of the editorial writer’s earlier statement in the leader when he condescendingly states that apparently some pilots have succeeded in flying fleas over long distances, which seems to imply that most of them never get off the ground. If he believes this, how can he visualise the air teeming with Pous? Can anyone believe that the authorities at Home would allow fleas to continue flying (even pending an investigation) if there was any suspicion of a lerious fault in them. If amateurs were allowed to construct and fly orthodox aeroplanes such as the Moth I venture to suggest that the result would bo sn sbsolut© holocsust, snd yet the flea has been built and flown by dozens of amateurs to their eternal credit, with comparatively few serious accidents, and what accidents have occurred have nearly all been traced to the pilot and not the machine. Fools are always with us, and will undoubtedly have crashes, but why condemn the flea because fools fly it as well as normal persons? , . I will conclude by repeating that I have plenty of authentic proof to back up my statements which I would be happy for anyone to examine. I could also go into the matter of the fitness of the flea at much greater length, but I hope I have said sufficient to disperse any wrong impression that people may have gained by reading your misleadtag sub-leader. Yours, etc.. June 11, 1936. [A cablegram from London on May 9, which there is no reason to doubt, reported that there was to be an official enquiry into “flying fleas” after the death of Flight Lieutenant Cowell. The message also recorded seven other fatal accidents to pilots of “flying fleas.” Since then two more pilots have been killed in “flying fleas,” one in Britain and one in France. Both the machines were home-made and one of the pilots was a professional flying instructor. We were aware that Flight Lieutenant Cowell was | killed while testing a “flying flea,” • as this was stated in the message. It is a pity that his life was sacrificed in so poor a cause. The editorial did not suggest that the design of the “flying flea” was at fault. Such other parts of our correspondent’s letter as are relevant seem to support our contention that “flying fleas” should be subject to rigid inspection and con- 1 trol which, we repeat, is an essen- ] tial precaution for what at best ( are toys.—Ed. “The Press.”! ;