Further Evidence In Claim By Auckland Aero Club

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29232, 16 June 1960, Page 19

Further Evidence In Claim By Auckland Aero Club

(New Zealand Press Association)

AUCKLAND, June 14. Further evidence in the hearing a claim for £2853 17s 7d by the Auckland Aero Club against the Attorney-General in respect of replacement costs and damage done to two of the club’s aircraft in a collision on August 3. 1958, K as heard before Mr Justice Shorland an a jury in the ’Supreme Court at Auckland today. The club, which is represented bv Mr C. A. Hamer, alleges that two of its aircraft were involved in a collision through the negligence of an air traffic controller employed by the Air Traffic Control Branch of the Air Department, The defence denies negligence, and submits that the accident was caused solely, or was contributed to materially, by the negligence or breach of statutory duty by Peter Justin Selby, pilot of the Cessna aircraft involved in the accident. Mr G. D. Speight is representing the AttorneyGeneral. Instructor’s Evidence When the hearing continued today Reginald Shand, chief instructor at the Auckland Aero Club, continued his evidence. He said that at the time of the accident a man called Morgan was in charge of air traffic control. The witness did not see the accident. The witness said he saw the Cessna and Piper aircraft making their final approaches and saw the Cessna aircraft go into the trees. As the aerodrome was under control he expected some action would be taken in respect of the aircraft, because from where he was standing it was obvious they should alter course. Some action, said the witness, could have been taken to divert the aircraft by the controller, either by recircling the aircraft by Aldis lamp or by Very light.

The witness said that after the accident he conducted his own inquiry, and after obtaining statements from the oilots of the two aircraft he spoke to the assistant-controller. The assistantcontroller told the witness that he asked the controller if he should give a red light to the aircraft on the final approach. “As far as I can remember," continued the witness, “the assistant-controller said the controller did not think a red light was necessary.” The witness said he then spoke briefly to the controller, who said he did not think the aircraft would collide.

His inquiries showed that Selby the pilot of the Cessna, did not see the Piper aircraft. Selby was a very experienced pilot.

lan Everard Martin, an air traffic control officer stationed at Wellington airport, said that at the time of the accident he was an assistant air traffic control officer. He was under the instruction of Richard Morgan. Three Planes In Circuit

At the time of the accident he was undertaking controlling of aircraft under the supervision of Morgan, who was standing to his right They had red and green Aldis lamps for giving directions. He had the Tiger Moth, a Cessna and Piper aircraft in circuit The Tiger Moth came in on being given a green light Witness said he gave a green light to the Piper, but the pilot

appear to acknowledge ft- Puots did not always acknowledge lights. The Cessna had been flying parallel with the Piper about two or three wing spans to the Pilot of the Piper. The Cessna, coming on to short final approach, made an alignment to the left, increased its descent and came over the top of the Piper. The Cessna ended up in some trees. Richard Grosvenor Morgan, air traffic controller, said that as far as he could remember two Cessna and three Piper aircraft were flying from the club that afternoon. A Tiger Moth came in first. It landed out of wind and he was a little disturbed. Two other aircraft continued their approach. Martin asked him if he should give the Piper the “red” and the witness said “No.” Martin gave the Piper a green light ana about the same time the Cessna suddenly turned left and turned toward the trees. There was nothing in the approach to cause him any concern. The Piper made a “dead stick” landing, but the witness did not see any collision.