Tasman Flying-Boats

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25483, 1 May 1948, Page 6

Tasman Flying-Boats

Discussing the failure of the aircraft manufacturers (Short Brothers) to supply the type record of the Sandringham flying-boats as required by the Civil Aviation Branch of the New Zealand Air Department, the commission which inquired into the December incident remarks at one point in its report that “ some indi- “ vidual or authority ” in the- United Kingdom had been obstructive or at fault and that this w r as prejudicial to the reputation of the British aircraft industry. The statements of a representative of Short Brothers, as reported by cablegram this morning, do even less credit to the industry in Britain. Obviously without having seen more than a summary of the commission’s report—and therefore without knowing the full extent of the complaints against his company and the aircraft concerned—this spokesman attempts to dismiss them as trivial.

The spokesman of the company is surely on very dangerous ground when he claims that, because an aircraft type is well known, official requirements are valueless and so much red tape. This is to claim, in effect, immunity -from the regulations which the country importing the aircraft deems necessary for the safety 'of air travellers. The company admits, indeed, that because aircraft of this type were used in large numbers during the war, and subsequently in large numbers by the British Overseas Airways Corporation, it was not thought necessary to put the aircraft through the “ really fujl ” civilian flying tests. That the incomplete tests were not as satisfactory as expected is made clear by the commission, which quoted from the incomplete type record received on November 7, 1947—17 months after it was first asked for and five months after the aircraft commenced operations: * The climb performance at rated power is very disappointing. However, the rate of climb at 45,0001 b all-up-weight [i.e., only 75 per cent, of the maximum all-up-weight for operation over the Tasman] is little, if anything, better than that of the Sunderland 111 at the same weight. Compared with the estimate, the recorded rates of climb are down by 35 per cent. . . . The reason for this poor performance is not quite clear. The commission draws attention to “ marked variations ” between performance data quoted in the manufacturers’ brochures and those given in the test reports of. the Civil Aviation Branch. A brochure quoted a climbing rate on three engines of 420 ft a minute; subsequently, at the request of the commission, the manufacturers submitted a revised estimate of 270 ft a minute. Findings such as these make nonsense of the company’s claim that because an aircraft type has a good reputation it can be taken on trust. So, indeed, does the actual performance of the flyingboats on the Tasman service. For it must be remembered that the incident inquired into by the commission was not isolated. At least three other cases of engine trouble came to the notice of the commission, and caused it to make the urgent representations which led to the grounding of all the Sandringham flying-boats. In a statement printed to-day, the Minister of Civil Aviation (Mr Jones) expresses the hope that now that the engines of the flying-boats have been modified to give better cooling, they will soon be in service again. Mr Jones gives an impressive list of the experts and officials who are supervising the tests which will determine whether certificates of airworthiness will be given. He also gives an assurance that “ full consideration will be “ given to the various recommenda- “ tions in the report and whatever “ action is necessary to bring about “ improvements will be done ”. This will not go far to allay the deep misgivings of the public concerning the control of civil aviation. More than “ improvements ” are needed here; what is called for is a complete change of Government, policy; and it will not be easy for the Government to convince the public, or for the public to be satisfied, that such a change has been brought about. The Government has never admitted what the report of the commission shows to be true —that the Civil Aviation Branch, in its administration of the regulations designed to secure the safety of the public, is not beyond influence or dictation. How will the public know that it has been placed beyond such interference? The commission does not offer an answer; the Royal Commission which the commissioners proposed as an alternative to the adoption of their recommendations might provide an answer. The public, wondering whether there are other important matters affecting air safety in which the Civil Aviation Branch has been overruled, may well feel that a Royal Commission is called for in any case. And to return to the immediate issue, how will the public satisfy itself that the Civil Aviation Branch is in truth satisfied with the results of all the tests through which the modified flying-boats are now being put. Nothing less than the full publication of all the reports and the opinions of the experts listed by Mr Jones, together with an assurance by the Civil Aviation Branch that it has made its decision without influence, dictation, or interference, would seem to suffice.