TRAGIC FLIGHT

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 104, 30 October 1933, Page 5

TRAGIC FLIGHT

BLENHEIM AIR CRASH

EVIDENCE AT INQUEST

PILOT COMMENDED

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.) BLENHEIM, October 2S. A graphic story of a tragic flight in an uncontrollable aeroplane was told at the resumed inquest this afternoon concerning the death after tho crash at the Blenheim aerodrome on September 24 bf-Mr. Edgar Thomas Maindonald, of Reefton. The Coroner, Mr. E. J. Hill, in. returning a verdict of accidental death, said that the evidence disclosed that tho pilot, Mr. A. E. Willis, deserved commendation for his presence of mind, aviation skill, and the nerve he displayed. "In my opinion ho did everything humanly possible in circumstances in which, with a loss experienced pilot, the tragedy might have been much more appalling."

Formal evidence disclosed that tho aeroplane had beeu thoroughly examined by Flight-Lieutenant Bolt, of the ■Wellington Aero Club, at the request of the Marlborough Aero Club, on tho Friday before the accident, and it was then in good order. It flew only an hour and a half afterwards before the crash. Medical evidence was that death was due to a fractured skull. • TENDENCY TO DIVE. Bert lan Cummings, contractor, of Ikamatua, who was a passenger in the aeroplane, described how they left •Blenheim on the morning of- Saturday, September 23, for Wellington, whore they spent tho day, and the following morning left on the return journey to Blenheim. Mr. Willis piloted the aeroplane on both occasions. On the way to Wellington the machine functioned perfectly, and-also on tho way back up to' within a few minutes before landing. Sergeant Pctersen (for the police): What did ypu .notico then?—l noticed that the,aeroplane was inclined to divo as soon as the power was shut off. Did the pilot try to draw your attention to anything after you noticed the aeroplane not behaving as usual? —Ho tried, but wo could not hear what he was saying., Wo realised that something was wrong, and concluded that that was what he was trying to tell us. From the time the machine behaved strangely, what policy did the pilot adopt?—-He kept shutting the engine off and putting it on again, and the aeroplane came down in a series of steps. And that continued up to the time of the crash?— Yes. Have you any idea of the elevation you were at when tho pilot last shut off the power?—l don't know. I was well down in the cockpit by then. I realised what was coming. So you tied yourself up in a ball ready for the crash? —Yes. DEFECTIVE ELEVATOR CONTROL. The pilot, of the ill-fated aeroplane,, Alexander Estcourt Willis, stated that on the day preceding the crash he piloted the same machine.to Wellington with the deceased and Cummings as passengers. They returned on the Sunday. ■ Sergeant Peterscn: Prior to leaving

Wellington did you test tho controls? — Yes. . , The Coroner: Including the elevator controlI? — Yes, it functioned perfectly.

Did you have any difficulty in leaving the ground?— None at all.

On the journey over did you notice any trouble?— About opposito the entrance to Port Underwood I first noticed there was something wrong. I found immediately that the elevator control was not working as it should. That was at an elevation of about 5500 feet. From then on did you at any time get control of tho elevator?— No. Did you test it?—No, I did not in any way touch it until I was over land. Then I started to test the controls and discovered they wore all functioning normally except tho backward movement of the stick, which I'aises the elevator. I looked over my shoulder and could sco that tho elevators were hot functioning. THE CRASH. What course did you then adopt?— After I had gone through the test I tried to notify Cummings, who was sitting immediately in front of mo, that something .was wrong. I then throttled back the engine, and tho machine wont into a steep dive. I immediately opened the throttle again wido. Tho noso came up gradually and the machine levelled out. I then decided that the only way to get down was by working the engine and coming down in a .series of short dives, which I did. When tho machine was over the aerodrome I gave the engino a final burst to level the machine and then switched off the ignition. The machine started to dive again and hit the ground, I should say, at an angle of 45 degrees. Of its movements on the ground I don't know. The Sergeant: It was too erratic to follow? —I was rolling about insido it when tho machine came to rest. I pulled tho passengers clear and then ran for assistance. Cross-examined by Mr. P. J. o'Regan, who appeared for Mrs. Maindonald, witness said ho was aware that a passenger machine must bo inspected by a licensed ground engineer every 24 hours. In this case it.had not boon so inspected since tho Friday before tho crash, 38 hours, except by himself. The reason was that the Marlborough Club's ground engineer happened •to bo absent from Blenheim. BROKEN SHACKLE PIN. Squadron-Leader T. M. Wilkes, Controller of Civil Aviation, gave evidence of •■'an. inspection of the damaged machine. Ho described the tests made, which disclosed that one of the control cables was detached from the bell crank level, arid, on investigation among the debris in the rear of tho fuselage, he located a broken shackle-pin and a split pin, such as would be used for securing the cable to the lever. There was nothing to show that it was the' actual split pin that had been in the shackles, and it might have been an old pin that had been dropped there, but he could find no other.

The Sergeant: What would be the effect of the pin being out of the shackle? —The pilot would be unable to raise the nose of the aeroplane. The Coroner: To what do you ascribe the accident? —That is what I am trying to find out. The accident could have been caused by the split pin coming out of the shackle and the shackle becoming detached, but it could have been due to there being no split pin in in.the first place. I want your opinion whether the pilot did everything possible to make a landing with the least ill-cffeets. —I think he put up a very excellent show. The Sergeant: If the cable had been disconnected he could not havu left Rongotai?—No. ♦ If the ground engineer's inspection had been mado before the flight and the controls had been found lo have been functioning1, it is reasonable to

say that the aeroplane would have been certified? —Yes. OCCURRED DURING FLIGHT. It is quite apparent, then, that this disability occurred during the flight?— Obviously. Would a ground engineer's ordinary inspection have disclosed that this cable was not a)l right?— Not a daily one. Replying to Mr. Scantlobury (for' Mr. Cummings), the witness said that the split pin he found had only one wing bent back, tho other being broken off where it would coino through the shackle pin, and ho took it that such a pin would bo rejected by a ground engineer if tho defects showed when tho pin was put in. Examined by Mr. O'Rogan, witness said that the departmental inquiry which had been conducted .at Blenheim, Wellington, and Christchurch, had not yet been, concluded. It was not a public inquiry, and the relatives of tho passengers wore not represented, but tho finding would bo made public. If the split pin had been properly put in at the outset it would not have come out. The machine was repaired some three months ago by New Zealand Airways at Timaru. It was practically rebuilt, and the cables would be dismantled and replaced. This completed the evidence offered by the police, but Mr. O'Regan submitted that, as tho inquest was of great public importance, Flight-Lioutenant Bolt, the Wellington Club's ground engineer, should bo called. The Coroner, however, said ho hud made up his mind as to how the deceased met his death, and there was no need to call Flight-Lieutenant Bolt. He then, delivered the verdict as stated.