AIRCRAFT COVERED BY MACHINERY ACT

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29339, 19 October 1960, Page 8

AIRCRAFT COVERED BY MACHINERY ACT

“The Press’* Special Service

WELLINGTON, October 18. How legislation for one purpose may apply in anomalous and unexpected fashion in other directions is shown in the annual report of the Aviation Industry Association.

The Inspection of Machinery Act, 1951, required fences or guards round power-driven fans. Radiator fans on motor vehicles were excluded from this requirement, but aircraft propellers were not.

In two cases aircraft operators were involved in expense running into many thousands of pounds in meeting claims for injuries sustained from aircraft propellers. In neither case was’ there any effective defence, because it was beyond dispute that the propellers were not surrounded by fences or guards. If they had been, the aircraft would, of course, have been useless for their designed purpose of Hying. Settlements were made out of Court, and a third case had arisen since.

The engineering and aerial work divisions of the association both requested urgent action to remedy the situation, but the Labour Department declined for many months to meet the position. It was understood that steps were now being taken to exempt aircraft propellers from the operation of the act, but in the meantime it continued to be an offence to own any piece of machinery not protected in accordance with the act. “The continued emergence of cases in which statutes unrelated to aviation activities are found to have application to aircraft, points to the need for the Civil Aviation Act to be the sole legislative authority in matters of safety related to aircraft,” stated the repjort.

There was reference also to losses sustained by some aerial operators whose aircraft were grounded as part of the precautions against the spread of mucosal disease among stock in the Wairarapa last year. Twelve agricultural aircraft were so grounded, and though those from outside areas were after a time

freed after complying with special conditions, aircraft licensed for the Wairarapa only were unable to do so and remained idle on the ground. Owners of infected animals which died or were destroyed to prevent the spread of the disease, and of equipment destroyed on instruction, were compensated for their losses, but the Government declined to entertain Claims by aircraft operators affected by grounding.