An Unsatisfactory Answer

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25271, 25 August 1947, Page 6

An Unsatisfactory Answer

No one will be satisfied with the reply of the Minister in charge of the Air Department (Mr F. Jones) to a question in Parliament about the use of Rongotai airport by Lodestar aircraft of the National Airways Corporation. The former ActingController of Civil Aviation (Mr J. M. Buckeridge) recently declared that the airport, at least in its present stage of development, is dangerous ior these machines; and that it is only through luck and the exceptional skill of pilots and engineers that no serious accident has so far occurred. The airport has been condemned by the Air Force for use by the military equivalent of the Lodestars and the findings of successive expert committees have all emphasised the shortcomings of the aerodrome. Only the airman appreciates the risks that are taken every time any but small aircraft lands or takes off from Rongotai. Their catalogue amply justifies Mr Buckeridge’s description—“ the “ world’s worst transport aerodrome “ No. 1 ”. The runways are short; the approaches are bad, with high hills on two sides and buildings and power lines obstructing the third; it has an unenviable reputation for down-draughts and gusty winds; the greater part of the landing strip is grassed; and as it is a “ wet ” aerodrome, pilots can never be sure that their brakes, which have to be used excessively when there is little wind, will be effective. The net result of all these defects is that pilots have to “ land short that is, they must touch down close to the near boundary so as to be sure of not overrunning the far one. This, in turn, often means perilously little clearance above the obstructions on the approach. Finally, it is a commonplace for pilots to be called on to make difficult and risky cross-wind or “ out of the wind ” landings and take-offs. When Mr Jones’s attention was directed to Mr Buckeridge’s scathing criticism, he replied that the diversion of trunk air traffic to Paraparaumu aerodrome, pending the;

development of Rongotai, might be ■ necessary and that the advisability l of this course was being “ consid- *• ered ”. The answer avoids the main question. Have the Government and the National Airways Corporation used Rongotai against the advice of their own experts? It is unlikely that Mr Buckeridge’s opinions on Rongotai have crystallised in this way only since he left New Zealand; nor is it likely that he would denounce, as a private citi- . zen, a practice to which he. assented ias an official. The probable, if not I inescapable, inference is that Rongoi tai has been used against expert advice and against the recommendations of the official chiefly responsible for the safe operation of the airlines.

Other questions are raised by the Minister’s reply. If the “ advisability” of transferring from Rongotai to Paraparaumu is only now being considered, what has prompted this review of a long-standing policy? Have the Government and the National Airways Corporation decided to pay more attention to Mr Gibson’s advice than they gave to Mr Buckeridge’s? Or is it merely that they were content to go on taking risks with the lives of air passengers who did not know the risks, but have been stirred to action, or thoughts of action, now that everybody has been emphatically warned? The course that should be taken is the one and only possible course; and it should not need protracted “ consideration ”. Notwithstanding its disadvantages and inconvenience, Paraparaumu offers a margin of safety; at Rongotai there is none. A little inconvenience is a small price to pay for the exchange.