TAURANGA PLANE SMASH RESULT PILOT’S ERROR OF JUDGMENT

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22663, 14 June 1948, Page 6

TAURANGA PLANE SMASH RESULT PILOT’S ERROR OF JUDGMENT

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, June 14. The cause of the accident to the National Airways Corporation’s Elcctra passenger aircraft Kahu, which landed on Taufanga Harbour on April 19, was continued loss of height in the turn away from the airfield, aggravated by turbulence and decreasing visibility. This is the principal finding of the board appointed by the Minister in charge of civil aviation, Mr. F. Jones, to inquire into the accident.

The board also considered that the accident occurred as a result of an error of judgment on the part of the pilot, Commander Harris, in that without fully appreciating the circumstances, he allowed the aircraft tc get into such a position regarding the weather prevailing that extrication became beyond his capabilities and the right wing struck the water. Should Have Stayed in Clear Area The board was of the opinion that the accident could readily have been avoided by the pilot remaining in the area of clear visibility until conditi ins 'over the airfield became suitable for landing as they, in fact, did some five minutes after the impact. It did not consider that any disciplinary action against the pilot was warranted. The board consisted of Messrs. H. J. Thompson, S.M. (chairman), R. A. Kirkup and Wing Commander J. M. de Lartge. It sat at Palmerston North on Mav 7.

The board’s findings on specific questions were: — 1. There were no acts or omission in the functioning of the ground organisation services which contributed to the accident. 2. There was no breach of the require ments of the air navigation regulations which contributed in any way to the accident. Lack of Experience

3. As it seemed to the board that lack of experience was a contributing factor, the remedy to avoid the recurrence of such an accident appeared to be an increase in the minimum requirements -specified in the air navigation regulations for "B“ licensed pilots. 4. It also considered that care should be taken to stress to pilots the characteristics and limitations of their instruments. Particulary during the instrument flying phase. 5. Referring to the safeguarding of aircraft wreckage, the board stated that it considered it highly desireable that aircraft after the accident should be kept free from all inter ference until an investigation authorised under the regulations had been completed. Effect of Interference

It was not suggested, of course, that there should be any restrictions which would in any way prejudice or delay any action necessary for ensuring the safety of passengers and crew and of the aircraft and its contents, but it was obvious that any interference with instruments or controls in the aircraft would render futile any attempt to obtain data of value from such Instruments or controls.

The board suggested that in all cases of an accident coming within the scope of the air navigation regulations arrangements should be made by the department to ensure that the aircraft was completely free from interference until all the necessary investigations had been completed and that such arrangements could possibly be made in conjunction with the Police Department.

During the inquiry it appeared that there had been an unauthorised interference with the wreckage before the departmental investigation Subsequent evidence placed before the board satisfied it that there was no tampering with anything in the aircraft which affected the deductions concerning the cause of the accident, and there was no suggestion whatsoever of any attempt by the owners or staff to cover up any evidence concerning the accident.