§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Margesson.]
§ 11.17 p.m.
§ Lieut.-Commander FletcherI beg to call the attention of the House to the circumstances in which the late Mr. Nair met his death in attempting a transatlantic flight. May I say, in the first place, that I am grateful to the Minister for consenting, at somewhat short notice, to be here to reply? I wish to raise this matter in a manner which will not cause any pain to the relatives and friends of the late Mr. Nair; nor do I wish to impute blame to the Air Ministry in this matter, but merely to suggest that the rather confined regulations by which they are bound need strengthening. Mr. Nair left Croydon on 28th October, in a Miles Hawk single-engined aeroplane. He had the very ambitious object of making a double transatlantic flight. He proposed to fly from Dakar to Brazil, and then to return to this country via New York. He had accomplished less than 200 miles of this great project before he crashed at 2012 Rouen, and was killed. This man, who was attempting this double transatlantic flight, had had no experience whatsoever of flying outside England.
Some time after May of this year, Mr. Nair went to an aerodrome at Reading, where he bought an aeroplane from Messrs. Phillips and Powys, a firm which is said to have behaved quite properly throughout in this matter. He went up in this machine with Mr. Hackett, who is the instructor of the firm in question. On landing after this flight, Mr. Hackett told Mr. Nair that he certainly could not fly the machine. In spite of this, Mr. Nair insisted on going up alone for a solo flight, and at once proved that Mr. Hackett was right by crashing, after which he spent three weeks in hospital. On coming out, he gave orders for the old machine to be repaired or for a new one to be built for him. Mr. Hackett again told him that he could not fly, and I understand, although I am subject to correction on this point, that Mr. Hackett communicated with the Air Ministry and asked them if they could do anything to take away the "A" licence which Mr. Nair possessed, or somehow stop him. Mr. Hackett found that the Air Ministry could do nothing. The Reading aerodrome authorities, who also appear to have behaved very properly, refused to allow Mr. Nair to fly the machine away from the aerodrome but he got a friend to fly it for him to Croydon.
I now come to the Cinque Ports Aviation Company, Limited, with whom Mr. Nair at one time had business relations and, again, I am told that this company tried with the Air Ministry and with Croydon aerodrome to get Mr. Nair stopped from attempting this flight as they also knew that he must infallibly and inevitably crash if he undertook it.
Apparently Croydon could do nothing about the matter except to stop him taking off with an overload of petrol. Everybody concerned with this matter knew that the flight must end fatally if it were attempted, and they made every representation they could to this end to the Air Ministry and to other authorities. But nobody it seems had any authority whatever to stop Mr. Nair from setting out on this flight. Quite apart from the question of the pilot, I feel that we have to consider the danger to other people and the danger to property. He might have 2013 crashed on a house at Croydon; he might have crashed on a road full of children coming out of school, or he might have set fire to some building. These questions have to be considered. I understand the Air Ministry have the power to suspend the certificate of air-worthiness under certain conditions, but I would ask if those powers cannot be extended to prevent a person who cannot fly from attempting such a flight as this. People who wish to drive motor cars have to learn and have to go about branded with the letter "L" and be passed out by an inspector. You could not leave this country for a cruise round the world unless you held a master's certificate. Yet a man can set out on an Atlantic flight although the people who know, say that he is quite unable to fly the machine.
I hesitate to ask questions at this late hour, and I know that it may not be convenient to reply now, but I would like to ask how questions of insurance are affected in this matter and what are the conditions under which a man can obtain an "A" licence. I would particularly ask why Mr. Nair did obtain an "A" licence, although more than one inspector reported that he was quite unable to fly. I will leave the matter at that and I think public opinion in this country will want an answer to that perfectly plain and simple question—why a man who is not able to fly is yet able to leave the country on such an attempt as this which ended in disaster, as everyone knew it must?
§ 11.23 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Air(Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): The hon. and gallant Member yesterday asked me a Supplementary Question with regard to the provision for obtaining "A" licences. I wish to make it clear to the House and to anybody reading the OFFICIAL REPORT, that I was perfectly able and willing on that occasion to answer the Supplementary Question, but you, Mr. Speaker, in the exercise of a discretion, which I am not of course, questioning for a moment, decided that it was better to move on to the next question. To take the particular point which the hon. and gallant Member raised last about the test for the granting of licences, provision is made for a practical flying test and a technical examination. In that we are 2014 assisted, and have been assisted for a great many years, by the Royal Aero Club's inspectors. Then, there is a medical examination, carried out by an ordinary practitioner, but in accordance with standards laid down by an international convention. Finally, there must be evidence of three hours' solo flying during the last 12 months. With regard to the question of insurance, I am afraid I cannot answer that at the moment, but I am not quite certain offhand whether it really is a question which would come within our competence and responsibility.
The case obviously cannot be considered merely by itself but must be considered in relation to general procedure. Mr. Nair had a correct "A" licence. The hon. and gallant Member mentioned the analogy of a motor car. I will not pursue that analogy because analogies are apt to get confused. I thought of using it myself in support of my argument, but he got in first. The particular points are, first, the general suitability of the provisions for obtaining an "A" licence, and, secondly, whether special action should have been taken in the case of Mr. Nair. Mr. Nair obtained a licence some five years ago and in accordance with the provisions sufficient time had elapsed to require him to re-qualify with the full qualifications when he obtained, a second time, a licence this year, 1937.
The question then arises as to whether the provisions for obtaining an "A" licence are sufficient. Undoubtedly there may be a good deal of division of opinion on that matter. Suffice it to say that these provisions have obtained in a great number of cases and for something exceeding 15 years, and I think that, on the whole, they have worked extremely well and adapted themselves to the general need of those particular pilots who wished to obtain them.
Now comes the question of Mr. Nair's particular case. It is quite true that we were notified through what I would call unofficial sources. We had opinions expressed as to Mr. Nair's incompetence to fly this particular aeroplane. The hon. and gallant Member and the House would not expect me to disclose the particular sources of the unofficial information which we had. I cast no doubt at all in this case on the bona fides of the people who communicated with the Air Ministry on 2015 this matter, but I would ask the hon. and gallant Member and the House to consider the implications of assenting to the principle of the Air Ministry intervening and taking away or suspending a man's licence, duly granted, on unofficial representations. I think in cases where the bona fides are not as good as in this case an extension of that system might be very dangerous indeed. The Gorell Committee report said that the State had no peculiar responsibility to safeguard the life and limb of users of private aircraft except in so far as their activities were an actual or potential danger to the general public. It may be argued that anybody who goes up in an aircraft and is not fit to fly is a potential danger to the general public. But in this particular instance the hon. and gallant Member named the Atlantic flight. There the question of the certificate granted to a particular aircraft comes in. An aircraft that is granted a certificate of airworthiness has possibly certain 2016 restrictions, and there was no such certificate of airworthiness in this case for the performance of the Atlantic flight.
I will now come to the general question of how much in respect of particular cases—and after all, the best organised regulations go wrong sometimes—one is to interfere with a system of regulations which has proved itself to be working on the whole very satisfactory for a great number of years. I certainly take note, without in any way giving any undertaking, of what the hon. and gallant Member has said and I feel that off-hand one must be convinced far more fully of the inadequacy of the present "A" licence conditions before one can consider the question of altering them substantially or questioning their adequacy by any possibility of temporary suspension or revision.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'Clock.