THE SHENANDOAH

Waikato Times, Volume 99, Issue 16654, 20 November 1925, Page 8

THE SHENANDOAH

EVIDENCE AT INQUIRYe

Army observer recalled. Lieutenant Joseph B. Anderson, aerologist of the Shenandoah, was recalled as witness before the Board of Inquiry and denied Captain Heinen’s assertion that danger signs were "shrieking” before the airship was drawn into the squall which destroyed her.

He insisted that the storm was of purely local nature, and unusual in its formation, and declared J,hat there was no visible evidence oPaanger preceding the wreck. Lieut. Anderson cited a newspaper interview with Dr. W. J. Humphreys, meteorologist of the Weather Bureau, to back up his assertion. Dr. Humphreys was said to have declared that* vertical currents of about. 45 miles an hour, with sharp boundaries, were possible in clear air. “I feel perfectly confident,” Lieut. Anderson said, "that even under cloudless skies there can be rapidly rising currents which a ship can mn into without noticing at any great distance its effect on wind direction and velocity.” “Do you think.” he was asked, "that Ihc vertical current which carried the Shenandoah aloft was in the form of a whirl or vortex?” "I am not certain as to the vertical current which carried the Shenandoah on its first ascent,” Lieut, Anderson replied. "Really, any rising current in the free air, if continuous for an appreciable length of time, would tend to become a whirl. lam not prepared to say whether this was noticed in the first ascent; but in the second ascent it was noticeable that the direction was changing, as I stated in my previous testimony. The most vivid picture I have, in the control car, was Joffray, the rudderman, leaning his whole weight on to the. wheel, trying to hold the ship on its course.”

Differs With Heinen.

The Court asked Lieut. Anderson i r he was aware of that part of Captain Hoinen’s testimony in which he referred to the weather effect upon Ihe ship. He acknowledged that he was. and said:—

| "I disagree in the major points that ! lie has stated —namely, that there ; were danger signs on all sides. J disagree for several reasons. In the first place, in his testimony he re- ' ferred to the fact that we had recently run around or avoided a thunderstorm. We had not encountered a thunderstorm during the night. I presume he refers to Hie time when we ran south to avoid this apparent squall. As I recall, in my testimony 1 staled that after studying the apparent squall cloud, I advised Captain l.ansdowne it was perfectly safe to fly under it, and he changed course, and did fly under the northern edge of it, and the air was not confused and not, bumpy. When he came out of it the air was not confused by thunderstorms either present or forming, as I believed Captain Heinen gathered from newspaper reports. His next point, that the first danger,sign, as lie calls it, was when we first noticed the ship drifting to the right, I take exception to because it is perfectly normal that once wc began steering on our original course, after having run south, our drift must necessarily have been to the right, since the winds were south-westerly. That in no way constituted the first danger sign. As I see it, if this had constituted a danger sign, we had been having danger signs all night, at times when the sky was perfectly clear, because when I turned in about 1.30 I am quite positive the ship was at, that time showing a drift to the

right,. » "At the time in his analysis when he points out that the ship drifted to the right and constiuted a danger sign, if wc had been over Columbus, where the winds were also southwest, and if we had turned south, wc would have drifted to the left, as he points out. Then had we resumed our westerly course we would again have had a drift to Ihe right. It could not possibly have constituted a danger out there, because they never did have a thunderstorm that day or night. It' we had been over Pittsburg, Marietta, or any other point within the limits of the low pressure area, that is, anywhere within the south-easterly limits of the low pressure area, we would have drifted to the right if we were steering the course set.” During the morning session Captain Heinen was recalled to the witness stand to verify his testimony..

When this bait been completed he requested the Court to have expunged from the records a statement made the day before by James Work, civilian chief draftsman of the Naval Air Station... Work told the Court that on the evening of the day on which the Shenandoah was destroyed he had remarked to ills wife in commenting upon a statement by Captain lleinen that the wreck was “murder,” “that this man is a liar and knows he is a liar.” “He has assumed that I have made such a statement as quoted by him, Captain lleinen said, “and might be justified, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt when he calls me a liar But I do not think he can prove the , foundation of his expression. “As long as this term was applied to me in private I would only be rather sad of having lost a friend. But since this comes up in open court where it will get the attention of the widest publicity, I am iorced to fight this and seek mcarvs and ways to have an apology made to me, as I may be flattering myself that the Court up till now will have realised the sincerity of my purpose—of my fight. 1 ask the protection of the Court.” The Court granted Captain Heinen's request. Colonel C. G. Hall was the last witness called. He was asked if he would have done differently from Captain Lansdowne had he been in command of the Shenandoah on the morning she was wrecked. He replied, “I would, not.” The Court adjourned. '