TRANSPORT BOARD CRITICISED

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 248, 17 July 1935, Page 10

TRANSPORT BOARD CRITICISED

Legal Powers Exceeded

“LAYMEN PIONEERING FOR THE SPECIALISTS”

The Transport Co-ordination Board was criticised by a lawyer, a commercial air pilot and another authority, interviewed yesterday by a “Dominion’ representative following the announcement by the board of its decisions concerning aerodromes, machines and other technical matters bearing upon the granting of licenses for services. “The board is pretending to do things that it has not got the power by law to do, and, because there is- no appeal, and for other extraordinary reasons, is getting away with it,” said a lawyer who takes an Interest in aviation development. “For instance, it has been attaching, conditions to certain licenses that it has no right to attach. One taxi license was granted, for example, on condition that the gross weight carried does not exceed that specified by the makers. That shows how ridiculous the board has made itself. Every ipachine has to have a certificate of airworthiness —granted by the British Air Ministry or the Government of the country where the machine is made. That is made as a result of tests. The certificate of airworthiness might allow more or less than the maker’s estimate of weight to be carried. The Controller of Civil Aviation in New Zealand, by virtue of tlie Air Navigation Act, is the sole authority for the licensing of machines, and he is guided by the certificate of airworthiness —not the maker’s ideas. Then the board rushes in and pretends to attach such a condition. Licensing of Aerodromes. “Then the Transport Board has said ‘We won’t allow a service to call at Rongotai.’ The reason given is that there are certain defects. Are the board members iu a position as laymen to override the opinion of the Controller of Civil Aviation, when he—under the New Zealand Navigation Act based en tlie International Air Convention, to which New Zealand is a signatory—licenses an aerodrome such as Rongotai as safe for all types of aircraft? “The fact that the weather conditions may fir may not render an aerodrome usable at certain periods is not a matter that can be dealt with by the Transport Co-ordination Board’s lay members. It is a matter for pilots as with marine navigation. Fancy cap-, tains being told what they must do.' The board members are adopting all the technical prerogatives of specialists —and• literally doing what they have no right to do. Under tlie Acts they have no power to say whether an aerodrome is safe, and no power to say that aircraft shall carry certain loads. Those things have been placed in the bauds of other authority with full power. It is the board’s duty to abide by the decisions so made. “The methods being adopted by the Transport Co-ordination Board have got the Court of Star Chamber well beaten. Seeing that there is no appeal, one expecting British justice would think the issues would be fought out in Hie open with ample opportunity for all concerned to express their views. It is a very bad thing for common justice when a body with power to make decisions is free from appeal to the Supreme Court and can refuse to hear the views of people entitled to consideration. The last has not been heard of this; of that I am certain. People are wondering what is behind it all.” Discontent among Pilots. “Commercial pilots in New Zealand are seething with discontent and the transactions of the board are the subject of ridicule by people knowing anything about the technical side of aviation,” declared a commercial pilot interviewed last night. “There are only about 70 commercial pilots in New Zealand, and they are a small Section, but all I have discussed the matter with seem confounded. There are only two countries in the world that have attempted to control air transport services other than through a civil aviation authority linking up all the functions and centralising them. New Zealand is one and West Australia is the other. The rest of the world is out of step and the Transport Board is pioneering as laymen for the technical specialists! Neither in the case of New Zealand nor of West Australia can the experiment be viewed with other than grave disquiet.” “The board’s attitude in connection with the Boeing machines —counting them out as obsolescent —is at least inconsistent,” said another pilot. “The board bag licensed taxi services using British machines upward of five years old —still airworthy, of course, though near the end of their lives. Yet the board will not allow New Zealand Airways to use practically new Boeings simply because they have run out of production and as a type are obsolescent in the United States of America. It is a grave injustice. Tlie Boeings are new machines of a tried type and proved performance.” “Our only salvation seems to be the formation of an air ministry to bring New Zealand in line with world practice as argued by the New Zealand Aero Club deputation to the Minister of Defence about three weeks ago,” said another pilot.