N.Z. AIRMAN'S TRIAL

Grey River Argus, 7 February 1941, Page 8

N.Z. AIRMAN'S TRIAL

TARANAKI FATALITY Negligence Charges [Per Press Association! NEW PLYMOUTH, February 6. The Air Force Court Martial sitting at the New Plymouth Training School has reserved its decision on serious charges preferred against Flying Officer R. Parker, arising from the death on December 6 last of Leading-Aircraftsman M. S. Best, who apparently was struck by the undercarriage of a descending plane near the east boundary of the landing ground. Parker, who was 1 instructor to a pupil' in his plane, was charged with neglect in Hying, causing loss of me; and, alternatively, was charged witn an act of Hying causing loss of hfe, and also causing damage to the mr ; craft.

For th e prosecution, Flying Officer Jackson explained that the accused could be guilty of one, but not of both, alternative charges. He suggested that the evidence tended to show guilt on the first count, the third charge automatically following. The test of negligence was what a reasonably-skilled pilot would have done under the circumstances of the landing. He suggested that the weight of evidence was that a reasonably skilled procedure had not been practiced. Tracing the events contributing to the fatality, Flymg Officer Jackson said that it had been established that the plan e was handed over by the pupil to Parker for the landing. The plane came down too low from a side slip. Witness said they could see only the upper wing at a certain spot. It was obvious that the plane at that moment was very near the ground, if not touching it. Another witness said that it touched and rose again The prosecutor, tracing lh e course of the left-hand side slip in coming in. said that Parker had admitted that the plane was too low He thought he did not touch the ground, but that he might, have hit something. He proceeded to lift the plane and kind The bulk of the evidence showed that the plane had either skimmed, or actually touched, the ground. Marks in the vicinity were attributed to a tail skid. The trainee with Best did not se c lhe accident, or notice the plane touch, because he lay flat on the ground. The defence stressed that the evidence was vague. It stressed two points—that no person on the busy aerodrome saw or heard the plane strike the ground, and neither did. th e pilot, the pupil, or Best’s companion see it strike. An Engineer Officer and Flymg Officer Tilson had produced a plan of the locality, with marks, but neither was prepared to state that the marks wer ( , made by the plane. The significance of the marks was queried by the defence, it being contended that the direction in which the plan e was travelling would make them impossible. It was moreover pointed out that there was no evidence the starboard wing was lower, though the right-hand wheel was alleged to have caused the fatality. It was suggested that Best and his companion sat by a high fern, out oi sight from t,h c air, because they had left the rifle range at 9.30 a.m., and the accident happened at 11.15 a.m., th P distance travelled being only yards. Several pilots flying, and others landing and taking off had all stated they kept an efficient lookout, but not. one saw a person or persons near the eastern boundaij There was evidence of a distinct down draught that morning. The eastern boundary was not clearly defined. The defence submitted tnat it would be unfair and dangerous m hold Parker guilty of negligence or directly responsible for the fatality