SOUTHERN CROSS LANDING UNPREMEDITATED.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 25 June 1929, Page 3

SOUTHERN CROSS LANDING UNPREMEDITATED.

COMMISSION FINDS ERRORS OF JUDGMENT. ulm and McWilliams SEVERELY CENSURED LACK OF INITIATIVE. Received Monday, 8.5 p.m. SYDNEY, June 24. The Air committee’s report was issued to-day. It states there was no evidence placed before the committee of inquiry which would support rumours and public allegations that the forced landing of Southern Cross on April 12 was premeditated. There was nothing to impugn the honesty of the crew dr any member- thereof... The evidence showed the crew intended to fly to Wyndham on Miirch 31 and made every effort to Mo so and although through certain errors of judgment and defects of organisation, they failed to accomplish their object, there was nothing to lead the committee to the belief that tin' forced landing was the result of a prearranged plan.Nitm committee Expressed the opinion that that aeroplane ran into adverse, weather, depriving the crew ofciv cry means of ascertaining the exact position, which resulted in their being completely, lost and the exhaustion.'uf -it he petrol,' necessitating an >m media to landing. _ •_ '. Contributory causes were insufficient weather reports ami their inability to receive, during their aerial ’ flight, ad lice of Captain Chateau’s warning message of March 30, recommending-their immediate return.

The committee considered it was an error of judgment that Southern Crus.i had not carried tools, such a.. hatchet and hammer, as the possession of a hatchet would have enabled them te start their friction drives several days earlier and would have enabled them to make huger smoke lires. The crew should also have used their 18 gallons of oil for the purpose of supplementing tlm (ires. Their failure to make use or this valuable medium was inexplicable. The c.oinmittee found ihe crew wa',jusjihed in remaining with Inc machine, rather than in sending- out patties to search for the Port George mission station. McWilliams Blamed. The committee said it was saiislied that Southern Cross was in first-class order and the condition of Ihe instruments thoroughly ollicient. lit regard to Me William’a claim that, the loss ot the receiving aerial was not of muterial inrportanee, as he could not after ten hours’ dying, receive messages owing to deafness, the committee could not accept this explanation. Evidence was produced that for the last seven hours of the New Zealand to Australian flight and the PerthAdciaide flight, numerous messages were received by this 'plane on an inferior radio set. The committee felt the real reason for not returning do Richmond utter losing the aerial was the reluctance o! (he commanders to dump the bulk ot them petrol in order to make such a funding salt; ami anticipating no trouble on their journey, they took the risk of proceeding without any means of reception. This proved an error ot judgment, because they ran into adverse weather, about which they could nave been advised had the receiving set been intact. Reasonable care was not taken to ascertain whether emergency rations were on the machine before departure. Such rations would have enabled the crew to maintain full vitality after the forced landing and to make greater ell'orts to communicate with the outside world. The committee considered certain adjustments to the receiving set could' have been made on the spot, which would have, enabled it to have been used as a transmitting set. There was an alternate method of transmission available by connecting the receiving batteries to' the transmitting' sot. The committee was surprised at .McWilliams’ lack of knowledge as to the adaptability of the apparatus under his control, particularly in view of his recent position as an instructor in the Union Company’s school in New Zeal land.

Tho committee attributed the failure of the crew to communicate by wireless after the forced landing to ignorance and lack of initiative on the part of McWilliams.

Him Unreliable. Concerning the evidence of three witnesses as to Flight-Lieutenant Ulm’s alleged suggestion of getting lost in Central Australia as a means to publicity and finance, tho committee expressed the opinion that some such remarks were made by Ulm but probably were not made as a serious business proposition. This opinion, together with misleading evidence regarding wireless reception in the air, had caused the committee to regard the evidence of I lm with some suspicion and particularly so in tho matter of his diary, which contained internal evidence that it was uo daily record but obviously written for publication-. The comlnitt’ce considered Ulm’s account of the crew’s weakness was exaggerated. There was, however, no evidence from which tho committee could infer the crew of Southern Cross-took any stop# to conceal their position £o avoid being found, Tho report dealt with the Kookaburra tragedy and paid tribute to the gallant efforts of various Air Forehand private aviators to find the lost crews. The committee submitted a number of recommendations for the future control of long-distance flights. Tho committee also expressed the opinion that Kookaburra was unsuitable for long flights, while the primary cause of the tragedy was - a faulty compass, causing Anderson to lose direction, engine trouble, necessitating a forced landing and inability to rise again and lack of equipment to clear a runawav