§ 20. Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked what number of fatal accidents have taken place among the Royal Flying Corps during the last year, and the number of officers and men engaged in that branch of the Service; and if he can state the number of officers and men in the French Army engaged in the same service, and the number of fatal accidents during the past year?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely)During the past year there have been five fatal accidents, involving the loss of eight lives in the Military Wing, which, on 13th May, consisted of seventy-four officers and 682 men. From statements which have been made in the Press it appears that in the same period in France there have been thirteen fatal accidents, involving the loss of seventeen lives; the number of officers and men employed in the aeronautic branch of the French Army amounts to 1,174.
§ Sir C. HUNTERCan the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why there are so many more accidents than last year in our Service in proportion to the number employed?
§ Colonel SEELYI do not think the hon. Baronet can have heard the figures I have given or he would not have drawn that conclusion.
§ Mr. LEEIs it not a fact that the number of accidents is over 10 per cent. of the number qualified?
§ Colonel SEELYFrom the information in my possession, to which I have given some attention, I believe we have had fewer fatal accidents in proportion to the number employed than other countries. Of course, I cannot be certain, because the figures are not published at all.
§ 21. Mr. JOYNSON - HICKSasked whether it is the intention of the War Office to confine orders for aeroplanes in future entirely to those built under contract to Government design, or whether, as is the custom in the Navy, promising machines of other designs will be bought and tested by officers of the Royal Flying Corps?
§ Colonel SEELYThe reply to the first part of the question is in the negative and to the second part in the affirmative.
§ 23. Mr. JOYNSON - HICKSasked whether the aeroplane upon which Lieutenant Arthur met his death on 27th May is of the same type as the machine which collapsed with Lieutenant De Havilland in April last; and, if so, what was the result of the inquiry, if any, into the latter accident?
§ Colonel SEELYThe reply is in the negative.
§ 24. Mr. JOYNSON - HICKSasked whether the seventeen aeroplanes which flew before His Majesty the King last week represented the full strength available of Squadrons No. 3 and No. 4 Royal Flying Corps, with the addition of one belonging to Squadron No. 2?
§ Colonel SEELYThe reply is in the negative.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSCan the right hon. Gentleman give us no information, except a negative reply, as to the proportion which came from the other squadron?
§ Colonel SEELYI think it would be better if we dealt with that matter in debate.
§ 26. Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked by what date it is expected that any one squadron of the Royal Flying Corps, Military Wing, will be brought up to the full strength of the establishment in personnel and materiel?
§ Colonel SEELYI am not prepared to state by what date the equipment of the squadrons of the Royal Flying Corps will be complete.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSWill the right hon. Gentleman answer the question, whether at the present moment there is one single squadron properly equipped?
§ Colonel SEELYI propose to make a full statement to-morrow with regard to the Royal Flying Corps squadrons. To 867 explain it now would take up a considerable time, and I think it would be more convenient to the House for me to make a statement to-morrow.
§ 35. Mr. SANDYSasked whether, on 19th March, 1913, the strength of the Royal Flying Corps, Military Wing, was 126 officers and 680 men, whereas on 1st May the strength was reduced to 76 officers and 651 other ranks; and, if so, on what ground the reduction in numbers has been made?
§ Colonel SEELYThere has been no reduction in numbers. The figures given on the 19th March included the officers under instruction and those in the Reserve and Special Reserve.
§ Mr. LEEDoes the number given now include only officers which have been passed as efficient pilots?
§ Colonel SEELYI do not quite know what the hon. Member means by "now." I shall be glad to give him any information required. The difference is that in one case the figures asked for included the Special Reserve, and in the other case they did not.
§ 29. Colonel YATEasked whether, now that the Military Wing of the Royal Flying Corps has been on an established basis for some months, he will state what steps are taken to ensure that the flying officers possess a sound practical mechanical knowledge, apart from theoretical knowledge, before they are granted their pilot's certificate; and whether officers are expected and encouraged to diagnose and rectify simple causes of engine failure such as sooted plugs, choked carburetter, or defective lubrication for themselves without handing over the faulty engine to the attentions of the skilled mechanics, which latter step means loss of time pending the mechanic's arrival and loss of experience to the pilot?
§ Colonel SEELYAll officers of the corps have a thorough mechanical knowledge. A practical knowledge of engines forms one of the subjects in the examination that all officers pass before graduating at the school. The reply to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.
§ 32. Mr. SANDYSasked for the numbers of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Royal Flying Corps stationed at South Farnborough, Salisbury Plain, and Montrose, respectively?
§ 37. Mr. AMERYasked how many aeroplanes are available for the use of the Royal Flying Corps at South Farnborough, Salisbury Plain, and Montrose, respectively?
§ Colonel SEELYI will reply at the same time to Question 37. It is not considered to be in the interests of the public service to publish the detailed distribution of strength or materiel of any branch of the Army.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSAre we going to have that information to-morrow? I gathered in answer to my previous question that the right hon. Gentleman was going to make a statement to-morrow.
§ Colonel SEELYNo Sir. None of my predecessors would ever give the detailed distribution of the Army at home or abroad and I certainly am not going to create a precedent.
§ 33. Mr. SANDYSasked whether all expenses of officers or others engaged in cross-country flights are being defrayed by the Government; and whether all claims of expenses in connection with past cross-country flights have been now settled?
§ Colonel SEELYThe reply to the first part. of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, nothing is known at the War Office of any outstanding claims.
§ 38. Mr. AMERYasked what extra pay is now being given to officers and men engaged in aviation work?
§ Colonel SEELYThe hon. Gentleman will find the detailed information he requires in Army Order 131, of 1912, a copy of which I will gladly hand to him.
§ 22. Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the Army branch of the Royal Flying Corps is now in possession of the 148 effective aeroplanes which he foreshadowed; and, if so, how many of them are English and how many are of foreign manufacture?
§ Colonel SEELYI will reply at the same time to Question No. 36. There have been considerable delays in delivery, and in consequence the total number of aeroplanes has not reached the number required owing to delays in delivery, which 869 were considered possible, as indicated in my previous statement. The present numbers amount to 126, of which sixty-nine are of English make. Of the 126, thirty-one are in various stages of repair.
§ 31. Mr. SANDYSasked the number of airships at present in possession of the War Department?
§ Colonel SEELYThree.
§ 39. Mr. AMERYasked the date on which the first of the twenty officers who qualified as flying officers before the Central Flying School started obtained such qualification; and whether any alteration has been made in the tests since that date?
§ Colonel SEELYThe reply to the first part of the question is that on the 26th July, 1910, this officer obtained the Royal Aero Club certificate. As regards the second part of the question, the military flying test is much more exacting than the Aero Club certificate.
§ 40. Mr. STEWARTasked whether an order was given in March last to an aeroplane firm to supply a number of aircraft, some of them of a very old pattern and others of an experimental type; if so, how many of these machines have since been flown and approved by the Royal Flying Corps; and how many have been condemned?
§ Colonel SEELYSeven machines, some of which were not of the latest type but were considered to be very suitable for instructional purposes, were ordered from a firm in March. Of these four have been handed over to the Corps, two are under test at the factory, and one has been rejected and returned to the firm.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSMay I ask if these old machines were included in the total of 101 which the right hon. Gentleman gave us some two months ago?
§ Colonel SEELYSome of them are quite new. Some, at least seven of the machines to which reference is made, were considered specially suitable for instructional purposes, and all those machines were included, as I stated, in March last.
§ 57. Sir J. D. REESasked whether any provision is made for appointing civilian aviators to the Royal Flying Corps; whether officers of the Army cannot be permanently appointed thereto; and whether it is impossible to appoint applicants for 870 temporary attachment on probation to that corps because the number of aeroplanes is insufficient?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker)Civilians are appointed to the Royal Flying Corps for four years' service, either with the Reserve or with the Military Wing. It is not proposed at present to appoint officers of the Army to the Corps for more than four years. The number appointed is determined, amongst other considerations, by the number which can be thoroughly instructed at the Central Flying School.
§ 41. Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for War whether, at the inquiry into the fatal accident to Lieutenant Arthur, on Tuesday, 27th May, at Montrose, it was stated that there was an old fracture in the machine which had not been sufficiently repaired, and which was the cause of the accident; and, if so, whether he will take steps to cause a complete and regular examination to be made of all machines used by the Royal Flying Corps?
§ 53. Mr. FELLasked what was the age and history of the aeroplane which collapsed at Montrose; how many flights had previously been made in it, and had it ever met with an accident or been damaged previously; and, if so, where were the repairs executed?
§ Colonel SEELYI would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs on 2nd June.
§ Mr. FELLDoes that reply tell us the number of flights previously made on this machine which has broken down?
§ Colonel SEELYIt is a very full reply given with regard to the accident. I do not think we have any record of the number of flights made by each machine. I will inquire, but I should think probably we have not.
§ 42. Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the report of the Royal Aero Club committee on the accident which caused the death of Lieutenant Rogers-Harrison, in which it was stated that the aircraft had structurally deteriorated since it was originally built in 1911, and that its 871 condition at the time of flight was precarious; and how many other machines now being used by the Royal Flying Corps, Military Wing, are in a similar condition?
§ Colonel SEELYMy attention has been drawn to this report, but it cannot be admitted that any machine which is in a precarious condition is allowed to be used by the corps. Every machine is most carefully inspected before a flight is made.
§ 52. Mr. FELLasked if any aeroplanes in use by the War Office have been in accidents or been damaged and repaired; and, if so, how they are tested previously to flying to ascertain that there are no hidden flaws or weak spots in them resulting from the damage
§ Colonel SEELYSome of the aeroplanes in use have been damaged in accidents and have been repaired. They are thoroughly tested previously to flying; the tests applied depend upon the amount of repair that has been found necessary.
§ Mr. FELLDoes not the right hon. Gentleman consider that machines which have been broken up should not be repaired, but entirely destroyed?
§ Colonel SEELYIt would be an absurd rule to make that any damage done should not be repaired. It would never be accepted anywhere. Of course, in the case of spars, where they are repaired they are stronger at that point than elsewhere. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the greatest care is taken in the matter.
§ Mr. FELLIs there not a chance of flaws existing in machines that have been repaired, which would not be the case with new machines?
§ Colonel SEELYI do not think you could take that as a rule at all. I shall be glad to make a statement on the subject to-morrow, if the House cares to hear it.