Tragic Air Venture

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 665, 17 May 1929, Page 9

Tragic Air Venture

FLIGHT OF SOUTHERN CROSS Kingsford Smith’s Evidence TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR START (United P.A.—By Telegraph — Copyright) SYDNEY, Thursday. TAKING full responsibility for . the Southern Cross starting when it did, Squadron-Leader Kingsford Smith, at the opening of the inquiry at Sydney yesterday, defended the decision to hop off, and described the equipment taken on the machine, claiming that all the necessary precautions were taken.

The Committee of Inquiry was set up by the Federal Government to investigate the forced landings of the Southern Cross and the Kookaburra, also the loss of the search airplane DH9A The tribunal comprises BrigadierGeneral L. C. Wilson, solicitor, of Brisbane; Captain G. Hughes, president of the New South Wales Aero Club; and Mr. C. N. McKay, president of the Victorian Aero Club. Mr. J. H. Hammond. K.C., assisted the committee. Squadron-Leader C. E. Kingsford Smith was the first witness called. He said that on March 27 a telegram sent by Captain Chateau from Wyndham asked the flyers to delay the start of the flight until they received a message from him that conditions were favourable. A telegram was sent from Sydney to Captain Chateau advising him that the Southern Cross would take off on March 31. Mr. Hammond then read a telegram from Wyndham saying: “Weather fine. Drying winds.” That was sent on March 30, but witness said he thought he received it on March 29. Another telegram from Captain Chateau was read saying: “Cannot believe the Southern Cross would leave without definite O.K. from me. Conditions unsafe. Must be recalled.” TOOLS ABOARD PLANE Cross-examined by Mr. Hammond, witness said the equipment on the Southern Cross included three pairs of pliers, three screwdrivers, three spanners, a new pair of propellers, but no hammer. There was no occasion for a hammer in the air.

Some tools were taken from the monoplane before they left Richmond. The emergency wireless set was removed before the flight because there was no need for it. Its life was only four hours, and its weight was a matter of importance. They left out everything not actually required. Mr. Hammond: Why did you not take the same precautions on that trip as you did on

the Pacific (light? Witness: We took all the necessary precautions. Even if one engine failed we could have flown 1,000 miles on the other two. The sandwiches and coffee we had when we left Richmond were sufficient for a flight 50 ner cent, longer than the one to Wyndham, but when we landed we had only seven sandwiches and a flask and abalf of coffee. LOSS OF RADIO AERIAL Counsel: When did you lose your radio aerial? Witness: Half an hour after our departure. Why did you not attempt to affix another? —We considered the risk of landing for too great. The emergency rations which were on board the mach-

ine when we left America were re- i moved without the knowledge of my- ! self or Flight-Lieutenant TTlm. Then you had no emergency rations | at all? —By accident we had none, but j we thought we had. Had you fixed on any emergency ground in Australia?—Yes. Oodnadatta. You could have fixed your aerial there? —Yes, but the ground is rather small for a take-off. DRAMATIC MESSAGES Further telegrams which passed between Wyndham and Sydney before the flight were then produced. Some referred to alternative landing grounds at Wyndham. One message advised the airmen to carry emergency supplies of food and water. Kingsford Smith was then questioned about the charts they carried. He said the mission stations at Drysdale and Port George IV. were not shown on the maps, although these had been recommended as the most comprehensive that could be procured. Witness went on to relate the text : of dramatic messages which passed be- j tween Ulm and himself when both realised they were in difficulties. One j message from Ulm said: “Let us find some sort of landing ground with the idea of saving the bus intact. We can then secure help by means of our wireless.” Smith read the draft of a message he had written for the wireless operator McWilliam to send out. In this he explained their latitude and added: “Starving. Only 10 minutes’ supply of petrol. Send airplanes. Now landing near Glenelg River, 25 miles from coast.” Continuing, Smith said he accepted the full responsibility for starting when they did. He still believed they did. the right thing. He next told the story of the perilous landing on the fringe of the mud flat, and the crew’s experiences until they were found. He emphasised the fact that everything humanly possible was done to attract either air or ground rescue parties. All the men were hysterical and emotional, said witness, when the airmen in the Canberra found them. NEWSPAPER CONTRACT Mr. Hammond then produced a contract between the airmen and the Sydney “Sun” newspaper and Melbourne “Herald.” This provided that £SOO should be paid to them for the exclusive story of the flight if they beat Bert Hinkler’s record, but only £250 if they did not do so. Smith said he did not know what be 1 came of the telegram received immediately before they left Richmond. Possibly it was in his flying kit which he had left at Wyndham. Mr. Hammond: Why did the Southern Cross take the uncharted and more | risky route to Wyndham instead of going to Darwin? Witness: Because with a heavilyloaded monoplane it would have been totaly impossible to take off again at Darwin. Smith spoke highly of the instruments on the Southern Cross and of his colleagues. The inquiry was adjourned until tomorrow morning.