THE KAIAPOI AIR CRASH

Evening Star, Issue 24005, 2 October 1941, Page 3

THE KAIAPOI AIR CRASH

CARELESS WORK ON TIE RODS ALLEGED COURT MARTIAL SITTING (P.A.) CHRISTCHURCH, Oct. 1. A general court martial was opened at Harewood to-day, when Flight-ser-geant John Richard Claydon faced two charges of negligence, thereby causing the death of Leading Aircraftman Bryan Walter Lamboum in an air crash at Kaiapoi on September 11. The first charge against Claydon was that he had been guilty of negligence in relation to certain aircraft material, as a result of which a person lost his life, in that at Harewood, on or about September 3, having authorised William Ridley Colo to carry out an operation on two tie-rods, he did neglect to exercise 'proper supervision, as a result of which the heads on the tie-rods were stripped, two nuts failed to hold on a service flight, and the aircraft crashed on September 11, causing the death of Lambourn. The second charge alleged that Claydon had not exercised proper supervision over the assembly of an aircraft to ensure that only serviceable tierods and nuts were fitted, as a consequence of which the front lower mainplane attachment fittings failed to hold to the fuselage, and the aircraft crashed. Claydon pleaded not guilty to both charges. Wing-commander K. L. Caldwell (Woodbourne) presided over the court, and Flying-officer M. R. Jadkson (Wellington) prosecuted. The defence was handled'by Mr C. S. Thomas and Mr C. G. Penlington. Outlining the case,_ Flying-officer Jackson said that the evidence of Pilotofficer K. S. Blair, an instructor who was in the plane with Lambourn when it crashed, would show that the port wing fell up and hack, the aircraft went into a spin, and then crashed. The machine had done two loops and bad its nose on the horizon for a third loop when the wing fell hack. Pilot-officer Blair used his parachute to land.' When the wreckage was examined it _ was found that two nuts had been stripped off two tie-rods. INSTRUCTOR’S EVIDENCE.

Pilot-officer K. S. Blair said he_ was taking Lambourn for an instructional flight. While he was teaching Lambourn to do a loop he heard a tearing sound, and the port wing fell back to an agle of 45deg. He closed the throttle and tried to get the aeroplane out of the spin into which it bad gone, but it did not answer the controls. He then told Lamboum to “ get out,” and witness made use of bis parachute. The aircraft was on the ground when he landed. He found Lambourn’s body nearby. Flight-lieutenant Noel E. Chandler, engineer officer, said that after threading the tie-rods should have been shown to him before they were installed. After the crash he found that the left wing had pulled away, and that the threads on the tie-rods were faulty. They had been screwed by the wrong dies, and were a good deal smaller in diameter than they should have been. To Mr "Thomas, witness said that Claydon was a good, conscientious, non-com-missioned officer.

A/c. 2 W. R. Cole, a flight rigger, said that on September 3 the aircraft concerned came in for a 30-hour inspection. Claydon told witness and A/c. 1 James Douglas Paterson that there was an Air Headquarters letter about loose attachment fittings on this type of aircraft, and he instructed them to pay particular attention to them. They found them loose on this aircraft, and after an inspection by Claydon the rods were removed, one nut being damaged. Claydon told them to run the threads down, not saying what that meant or how to do it. Witness and Paterson took the rods to the store. On the way witness asked somebody what size they were, and was told five-sixteenths, which was what witness thought they were. Witness used the die the store gave him, and after running it over the thread he thought it all right. He also got a new nut from the store. When the rod was put back in the aircraft the nut was screwed on and held by a split pin. Paterson also gave evidence. Pilot-officer 13. R. Bergin, of Air Headquarters, Wellington, said he examined the rods from the wrecked aircraft. The state of the threads was such that the rods should not have been put into service.

ACCUSED’S VERSION. Giving evidence on his own behalf, the accused said he was 24 years of ago and had served five years in the Air Force. The first he knew of the trouble with the type of aircraft concerned in tho accident was when War-rant-officer Thorpe showed him the original letter from Air Headquarters dealing with loose fittings and told him to check them over on the aircraft coming in for their next 30-hour inspection. He saw all the riggers, and told them specially to inspect this part and to report to him if there was any looseness. The aircraft concerned came in, and a loose fitting was reported to him. After an inspection, and finding that the nuts on the tie rods could not be tightened, he caused the rods to be removed, and instructed Cole to thread them down. He did' not tell him what die to use, and he'did not inspect the thread himself. The accused said he considered that Cole was a qualified flight rigger, and! was qualified to do this threading down, which was an elementary job. Cole did not tell witness lie had not previously done any threading. Witness did not know at the time what the thread was, and he expected Cole to use a thread gauge before drawing a die from the store and not to rely on the opinion of a friend. A proper-sized die would not have cut until it got on to new metal. Ho would certainly expect Cole, who would have to ropear the action four times, to realise that something was wrong. He was informed that the rods had been put back, and he inspected them and found them quite tight and different from what they bad been at first. He saw that one nut was of a different type, and he said that that was all right. After addresses by the prosecuting officer and Mr Thomas, the court adjourned to hear the judge advocate's summing up.,