COSTLY IN LIVES.

Waikato Times, Volume 111, Issue 18640, 19 May 1932, Page 12

COSTLY IN LIVES.

STUNTING IN THE ATP A HEAVY TOLL. 74 DEATHS LAST YEAR. In the year just ended there have been 41 fatal aeroplane accidents m the R.A.F., resulting in 74 deaths, in 1930 there were 43 accidents, wdn 63 deaths; and the year hetore 3 . with 42 deaths. The totals of accidents exclude Ihose causing only injury. There were 75 squadrons m 1929, 78 in 1930, and last year the number has been increased by new units previously authorised to an effective 79, Although in the absence of complete official returns concerning the amount of flying precisq calculations cannot be made, it appears that the R.A.F. record with regard to fatal accidents has changed for the worse in the past two years (writes Major G. C. Turner in the Daily -Telegraph). Between 1926 and 1929 there was a steady Improvement, but this, apparently, has come to an end.

In the past four years the para chute has become a standard service equipment, the slotted wing has be come general in service machines, and on the mechanical side there has been a steady improvement. In short, then: ought to have been a reduction in the number of casualties—not an iftcrease. It is impossible to find light on tie matter from any general analysis. Uf the causes of accidents, seven collisions in the air were responsible for 13 deaths. Four fatal accidents were definitely due to aerobatics at low altitude. Aerobatics at low altitude ought lo be forbidden. Any pilot who indulges in what Air Vice-marshall WebbBrown described recently as “ one of the most vulgar forms of swank ” ought to be court-martialled. A good punishment would be transfer-to nonflying duties for six months. Often no serious notice is taken until after a fatal crash. There are two reasons for a laxity which is observable at some, not all. R.A.F. centres. One is giving of ,ver> heavy responsibilities to very junior, officers, mere lads. They may be brilliant pilots, but they should not have authority in a matter which needs older, and more experienced heads. There is no real comparison with the Navy; the young officer in command of a. destroyer is not encouraged to do “ stunts." •

That brings me.to the second point. In the R.A.F., although low flying and low . aerobatics are on tile one hand -discouraged, they make up some of the programme of the R.A.F. display, ’and the youngsters who delight the spectators there are in some cases thereafter, vested .with, .the .control of flight discipline .at, an .aerodrome.. - I would strongly urge (lie abandon menl. of low aerobatics at the R.A.F. display, if the public realised the tremendous- risk incurred they would no! expect them. The display would no! suffer from their abandonment fu\ they have no part in war training. Many accidents are due to collisions in the air, and some of these accident,, are due to formation flying. Oneought never to admit the inevitableness of accidents, and it is deplorable to hear an ofllcer of exalted rank, as' I have heard one, speak of “ a patch of bad luck ; but formation Hying does entail certain slight risks. These risks, however, are increased by tho excessive closeness of much of the formation flying. 1 Very close formations have onlv spectacular, no real military, value. In uar formations would be comparatively loose, for machines could nol altend to their defence, and could not easily deploy, if the pilots were absorbed by the artistic perfection of llie formation. . In practise, it is true, close formation is easier than a far more perfectly Jntervalled wide one; all the more need lo practise the latter.