AIRCRAFTSMAN’S DEATH

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23248, 7 February 1941, Page 4

AIRCRAFTSMAN’S DEATH

COURT-MARTIAL AT NEW PLYMOUTH STRUCK BY MACHINE IN LANDING (TIESS 18S0CUT10S TELEOIiK.' NEW PLYMOUTH, February 6. A Royal New Zealand Air Force court-martial sitting at the New Plymouth training school reserved its decision in charges preferred against Flying Officer R. Parker, arising from the death on December 6 of Leading Aircraftsman M. S. Best, who was apparently struck by the undercarriage of a descending aeroplane near the east boundary of the landing ground. Parker, instructor to a pupil in the aeroplane, was charged with neglect in' flying, causing loss of life, and alternatively with an act of flying causing loss of life, and also causing damage to an aircraft. For the prosecution, Flying Officer Jackson explained that accused could he guilty of one but not of both alternative charges. He suggested that the evidence tended to guilt on the first count, the third charge automatically following. The test of negligence was what a reasonably skilled pilot would have done under the circumstances of landing. He suggested the weight of evidence was that a reasonably skilled procedure was not practised. Tracing the events contributing to the accident, he said it was established that the aeroplane was handed over by the pupil to Parker for landing, and came down too low from a side-slip. Witnesses said they could see only the upper wing at a certain spot. It was obvious that the aeroplane at the moment was very near the ground, it not touching; Another witness said that it touched and rose again. The prosecutor said Parker admitted that the aeroplane was too low, and thought It did not touch the ground, but might have hit something. He had proceeded to lift the aeroplane 1 land. How the Aeroplane Landed The bulk of the evidence showed that the aeroplane either skimmed or actually touched the ground. Marks in the vicinity were attributed to the tail-skid. The trainee with Best did not see the accident or notice the aeroplane touch because he lay flat on the ground. The defence suggested that the evidence was vague, and stressed two points—no person on the busy aerodrome saw or heard the aeroplane strike the ground, and neither did the pilot, the pupil, or Best’s companion see it strike. An engineer officer and Flying Officer Tilson produced a plan of the locality with marks, but neither was prepared to state that the marks were made by the aeroplane. The significance of the marks was queried by the defence, which contended that the direction in which the aeroplane was travelling would make them impossible. Moreover, there was no evidence that the starboard wing was lower, though the right-hand wheel was alleged to have caused the accident.

It was suggested that Best and his companion sat by the high fern out of sight from the air, because they left the rifle range at 9.30 a.m, and the accident happened at 11.15 a.m. The distance travelled was only 600 yarcjs. Several pilots were flying, and others were landing and taking off All stated that they kept an efficient look-out, but not one saw any person or persons near the eastern boundary. There was evidence of a distinct down draught that morning. The eastern boundary was not clearly defined* The defence submitted that it was unfair and dangerous to hold Parker guilty of negligence or directly responsible for the accident.