SEAPLANE DISASTER

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21300, 2 April 1931, Page 15

SEAPLANE DISASTER

AN INEXPERIENCED COMMANDER REFUSES TO GIVE UP CONTROL INJURED PILOT’S EVIDENCE. (From Oub Own Correspondent.) LONDON, February 19. A strange, not to say alarming, condition of affairs was revealed at the coroner’s inquiry into the seaplane disaster involving the loss of nine lives in Plymouth Sound on February 4. It was shown in evidence that the captain of the boat, Wing-commander Tucker, was a novice in seaplane management, and had been put under the tuition of a junior officer in the squadron of which he was already in command. The first witness, Squadron-leader J. H. Oscar Jones, commanding No. 209 Squadron, stated that on Wednesday, February 4, he gave instructions for the flying boat Irish 111 to proceed on a flight. The Coroner: Were you quite satisfied that the flying boat was in order for flying?—Absolutely. In detailing the machine, who did you place in charge? —Each of the three aircraft has its fixed crew, the head of which is the first pilot, and captain of the aircraft. In this, case it was Flight-lieutenant Ely. He was in complete charge. When the boat left was there any suggestion that anyone other than Flight-lieutenant Ely would be in charge of the controls? —None at all. Who was the more experienced pilot of the two, Wing-commander Tucker or Flight-lieutenant Ely ?—Flight-lieuten-ant Ely. Wing-commander Tucker was solely under instruction. How long had he been under instruction?—Ever since he came he had remained under instruction. He came on August 25 last or practically when the flying boat came. Squadron-leader Jones said that he had flown more with Wing-commander Tucker than anybody. He had found Tucker to be, if a little over-confident, promising. PILOT’S UNPLEASANT POSITION. The Coroner: Would you consider him promising enough to be placed in full charge of the flying boat? —Not for a long time. That means that on this occasion the machine would not be in charge of an experienced man? Had Wing-com-mander Tucker been in complete control, the machine would not have been in charge of a sufficiently experienced man. Do I understand that when this accident occurred Wing-commander Tucker was in control ? —Commander Tucker was flying the aircraft under the supervision of the first pilot. Had you yourself been on board, would that have been permitted by you?—-Most certainly. I should have remained in the aircraft, probably inside the hull, leaving the management of the nirciaft to the first pilot. Had you yourself been on board you would have been subject to the first pilot? —I may be a senior officer, but when I am in somebody else’s boat I am more or less a passenger. Has Flight-lieutenant Ely ever complained that Wing-commander Tucker had wanted to do the flying and take charge when it was against his (Ely’s) wishes? —Yes. Has Flight-lieutenant Ely ever been censured by Wing-commander Tucker? — Yes.

Squadron-leader Jones added that on two occasions he noticed the unwillingness of Flight-lieutenant Ely to _ take Wing-commander Tucker into the air. TO FLY UNDER SUPERVISION. Mr F. Edgar Bowden (representing the Air Council) explained that the machine had a dual control, and one pilot could control the other. It could be controlled from either side.

In reply to further questions by members of the jury, Squadron-leader Jones said that the controls were geared with each other. If one pilot wanted to do something the other pilot was not doing, he could wrestle with the controls and could upset the pilot who was in charge. It was always well understood that Commander Tucker was not to fly as first pilot for some time; he was only to fly under supervision of a first pilot. “ I remember Ely complaining.” added the Squadron-leader, “that Commander Tucker had tried to land, as we term it, * out of the wind,’ and that, furthermore, when Ely tried to rectify him Tucker tried to knock his hands away.” Flying-oflicer Charles Ryley, one of the survivors, said that at the time of the accident, he was sitting in the front of the boat, in the front gun cockpit, in front of the pilots. During the entire flight Flight-lieutenant Ely was in the first pilot’s seat, and Commander Tucker in the second pilot’s seat. During the first landing and firing practice Flight-lieutenant Ely was doing the manipulation, and then Wing-com-mander Tucker took over. The Coroner: Did you notice why the change was made after the firing practice was over?—l suppose Commander Tucker wanted some practice at flying. There was no reason. When about to land did you notice anything happening between the two pilots?—On two occasions Flight-lieuten-ant Ely showed that he wanted to take control of the machine. Commander Tucker waved his hands, indicating that he did not want to give up the control. Did that convey to you that Commander Tucker refused to allow Flight-lieutenant Ely to have control?—lt did. FLIGHT-LIEUTENANT ELY’S EVIDENCE. The evidence of Flight-lieutenant Ely was taken at the Royal Naval Hospital. “ On completing*the air firing,” he said, in the course of his evidence, “ and about eight minutes before the crash, Commander Tucker at his own request took over the control from ’ me. I then took my hands off the control, and he signed to me that he had taken over. While he was approaching to land I made two attempts to regain control. On the first attempt Commander Tucker shook his head.” The coroner; He signified ho wanted to retain control? —He tapped me on the shoulder, and I thought it was a signal for me to take over control. Afterwards he indicated that he -wanted to carry on in control. When did he knock your hand off the control? —Later. After doing that did you place your hands lightly on the w'hecl in order that you should be in a position to correct any errors? —No, that was the first occasion when he tapped me on the shoulder, and then as we were coming round to get in the direction for landing I again signified to him that I wished to take over the control by placing my hand on the wheel. Was it then that he knocked your hands away?—Yes. Did you take that as an indication that you were not to interfere? —Yes. LOST SIGHT OF THE WATER. When you were about 15 feet from the sea level you formed an opinion?—Yes. It seemed to me that Wing-commander Tucker had completely lost sight of the water, because instead of flattening out he pushed the stick (control) forward to approach nearer to the water before flattening out. Then what did you do?—I at once grabbed the wheel and pulled the control back, but though I saw the nose of the machine start to come up, it was too late, and the boat struck the sea and crashed. To the average pilot was the state of the sea quite easy for landing?—Yes. And if you yourself had had full con-

trol, do you think, in all the circumstances, you would have landed safely? —Yes, I do. Was it in accordance with your wish that Commander Tucker was attempting to land the flying boat?—No. Why did you not wish him to land the boat? —Because I did not feel confident of his landing. Had he ever landed the boat before ? —Yes, quite a number of times. The Coroner: Had he landed the boat during that number of times quite safely? Flight-lieutenant Ely paused for_ a moment, and then replied: “ Yes, with the exception that on one previous occasion I had to take his controls away from him.” Was that the occasion on which he reprimanded you? —Yes. Was that reprimand only just a casual one while flying, or was it entered in the records? —It was merely his expression of his opinion after we had landed. HAD TO OBEY HIS RULING. After further evidence concerning the relations of the two officers a juror asked: “Do you think Commander Tucker resented taking instructions from a junior officer?—l think he must have done up to a point. You did not feel justified in attempting to force Commander Tucker to give up control? —No. I thought he was going to make a perfect landing until my instinct told me just before it happened that there was going to be a crash. Did you have the right to endeavour to assume control? —No. He was my senior officer, and I was in his hands, and had to obey his ruling. But you had been detailed to give him instruction? —Yes. It placed you in a very difficult position? —It did, and it always does. The Coroner: The main question seems to be: Did you have the right to insist on taking control? —I think not. THE VERDICT. The jury’s verdict was as follows: “ We agree first that the cause of the deaths was by accident, in the case of eight by drowning, in the other case as certified by the doctor. Second, from the evidence to which we have listened we are of the unanimous opinion that the cause of the disaster was an error of judgment due to the inexperience of Wing-commander Tucker, who retained control for landing in spite of the clearly-indicated wish of Flight-lieuten-ant Ely to regain control. “The jury recommend for consideration that in future any commanding officer appointed to a squadron should receive his full flying instruction in flying boats at a station other than that to which he has been appointed to command.”