GRAPHIC STORY

Southland Times, Issue 22159, 30 October 1933, Page 7

GRAPHIC STORY

BLENHEIM AIR CRASH EVIDENCE AT INQUEST PILOT’S NERVE AND SKILL (Per United Press Association.) Blenheim, October 28. A graphic story or a tragic flight in an uncontrollable aeroplane was told at the resumed inquest this afternoon into the death after a crash at the Blenheim aerodrome on September 24 of Edgar Thomas Maindonald, of Rcefton, 29 years of age. The Coroner, Mr E. J. Hill, in returning a verdict of accidental death, said that the evidence disclosed that the pilot, A. E. Willis, deserved commendation for the presence of mind, aviation skill and nerve he displayed. “In my opinion,” said the Coroner, “he did everything humanly possible in the circumstances. With a less experienced pilot 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 Maindonald and Mr A. E. L. Scantlebury, Blenheim, the surviving passenger, Bert Cummings, of Ikamatua, near Reefton, who has 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 befbre the accident and was then in good order. It flew only one and a-half hours afterwards before the crash. The medical evidence was that death was due to a fracture of the skull.

PASSENGER’S STORY Bert lan Cummings, contractor, of Ikamatua, who was a passenger in the plane, described how they left Blenheim on the morning of Saturday, September 23, for Wellington where they spent the day. On the following morning they left on the return journey to Blenheim. 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?

“I noticed that the plane was inclined to dive as soon as the power was shut off.”

“Did the pilot try to draw your attention to anything after you noticed that the plane was not behaving as usual?” “He tried to but we could not hear what he was saying. We realized something was wrong and concluded that that was what he vzas trying to tell us.” “From the time the machine behaved strangely what policy did the pilot adopt? “He kept shutting his engine off and putting it on again and the plane came down in a series of steps.” “That continued up to the time of the crash?” “Yes.” “What was the last thing you remembered?

“Hitting the ground. My next conscious recollection was being in hospital.” “Have you any idea of the elevation you were at when the pilot last shut off power?”

“I don’t know. I was well down in the cockpit by then.” “You realized what was coming? You tied yourself up in a ball ready for the crash? “Yes.”

Pilot’s Explanation. The pilot of the ill-fated plane, Alexander Escourt Willis, stated that on the day preceding the crash he piloted the same machine to Wellington with the deceased and Cummings as passengers. They returned on 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 that they were all functioning normally except for the backward movement of the stick which raised 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. Then I throttled back the engine and the machine went into a steep dive. Immediately I opened the throttle again wide, the nose came up gradually and the machine levelled out. Then I decided that 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. Its course was too erratic to follow. I was rolling about inside when the machine came to rest. I pulled the passengers clear then ran for assistance.

Question of Inspection. Cross-examined by Mr O’Regan witness said that he 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, a period of 38 hours, except by himself. The reason was that the Marlborough Club’s ground engineer happened to be absent from Blenheim.

Controller’s evidence. Squadron-Leader T. M. Wilks, Controller of Civil Aviation, gave evidence of. an inspection of the damaged machine made on the afternoon of the accident. He described tests made which disclosed that one of the control cables was detached from the crank lever. On investigation amongst the debris in the rear of the fuselage he located a broken shackle pin and a split pin such as would be used for securing the cable to the lever. There was nothing to show that it was the actual split pin that had been in the shackle 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 I 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. Pilot Praised. “I want your opinion of whether the pilot did everything possible to make the landing with the least ill effects.” “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 engineers’ inspection had been made before the flight and the controls had been found to have 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, Wellington 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 by N.Z. 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-Lieut. Bolt, the Wellington Club’s ground engineer, should be called. The Coroner, however, said that he had made up his mind as to how deceased met his death and there was no need to call Bolt in the present proceedings. He then delivered the verdict as stated.