BLENHEIM AIR CRASH

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIII, Issue 285, 30 October 1933, Page 10

BLENHEIM AIR CRASH

EVIDENCE AT INQUEST. COMMENDATION OF PILOT. Per Press Association. BLENHEIM, Oct. 28. A graphic story of a tragic flight in an uncontrollable aeroplane was told at the resumed inquest this afternoon into the death atter the crash at the Blenheim aerodrome, on September 24, of Mr Edgar Thomas Maindonald, of Reef ton. The Coroner, Mr E. J. Hill, in returning a verdict of accidental death, said the evidence disclosed that the pilot, Mr A. E. Willis, deserved commendation for his presence' of mind, aviation skill,' and the nerve he displayed. “In my opinion he did everything humanly possible in the circumstances in which, with a less experienced idiot, the tragedy might have been much more appalling.” Sergeant C. Petersen conducted the inquiry on behalf of the police, while Mr P. J. O’Regan, Wellington, with Mr C. T. Smith, Blenheim, represented Mrs Maindonahl, and Mr A. E. L. Scantlebury, Blenheim, represented the surviving passenger, Mr Bert Cummings, of Ikamatua, near Reefton, who had just been discharged from hospital. Formal evidence disclosed that the aeroplane had been thoroughly examined by Flight-Lieutenant Bolt, of the Wellington Aero Club, at the request of the Marlborough Aero Club, on the 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. Bert lan Cummings, contractor, of Ikamatua, who was a passenger in the plane, described lrow they left Blenheim on the morning of Saturday, •September 23, for Wellington, where they spent the day, and the following morning left on the return journey to Blenheim. Mr Willis piloted the plane on both occasions. On the way to Wellington the ’plane functioned perfectly, and also on the way back up to within a few minutes before landing. The sergeant: What did you notice then?—“l noticed that the ’plane was inclined to (live as soon as the power was shut off.” Did the pilot try to draw your attention to anything after you noticed the ’plane not behaving as usual ? “He tried, but we could not hear what the was saying. We 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 ’plane 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 the pilot last shut off the power? —“I don’t know. I was well down in the cockpit by. then. I realised what was coming.” PILOT’S EVIDENCE. The pilot of the ill-fated ’plane, Alexander Estcourt Willis, stated that on the day preceding the crash he piloted the same machine to Wellington with deceased and Cummings as passengers. They returned on the Sunday. The sergeant: Prior to leaving Wellington did you test the controls?— “Yes.” The Coroner: Including the elevator control?—“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 opposite 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 the 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 were all functioning normally except the backward movement of the stick, which raises the elevator. I looked over my shoulder and could see that the elevators were not functioning. “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 me, that something was wrong. I_ then throttled back the engine and the machine went into a steep dive. I immediately opened the throttle again wide. The nose came up gradually and the machine levelled out. I then decided the only way to get down was by working the engine and coming down in a series of short dives, which I did. When the machine was over the aerodrome I gave the engine 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 inside it when the machine came to rest. I pulled the passengers clear and then ran for assistance.” Cross-examined by Mr O’Regan, witness said lie was aware that a passenger machine must be inspected by a licensed ground engineer every 24 hours. In this case it had not been so inspected since the Friday before the crash, 38 hours, except by himself. The reason was that the Marlborough club’s ground engineer happened to be absent from Blenheim. INSPECTION OF MACHINE. Squadron-Leader T. M. Wilkes, Controller of Civil Aviation, gave evidence of an inspection of the damaged machine. He described the tests made, which disclosed that one of the control cables was detached from the bell crank lever, and, on investigation among the debris in the rear of the fuselage, he located a- broken shaeklepin and a split pin, such as would be used for securing the cable to the lever. 1 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 plane.” The Coroner: To what do you ascribe the accident? —“That is what 1 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 the first place.” I want your opinion of whether the pilot did everything possible to make a landing with the least ill-ef-

fects. —I think he put up a very excellent show: Mr O’Regan : None of us is here to say anything to the contrary, sir. The sergeant: If the cable had been disconnected he could not have left Rongotai ? —“No.” If the* ground engineer’s inspection had been made before the flight and the controls had been found to ha.ve been functioning, it is reasonable to say that the plane would have been certified? —“Yes.” 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 all right?—“Not a daily one.’ Replying to Mr Scantlebury, the witness said that the split pin he found had only one wing bent back, the other being broken off where it would come through the shackle pin, and he took it that such a pin would be rejected by a ground engineer if the defects showed when the pin was put in. Examined by Mr O’Regan, witness said that the departmental inquiry which had been conducted at Blenheim, AVellington and Christchurch had not yet been concluded. It was not a public inquiry, and the relatives of the passengers were not represented, but the finding would be 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 bv 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 the inquest was of great public importance, Flight-Lieutenant Bolt, the Wellington Club’s ground engineer, should be called. The Coroner, however, said he haß made up his mind as to how deceased met his death, and there was no need to call Flight-Lieutenant Bolt. He then delivered the verdict as stated.