HC Deb 11 May 1948 vol 450 cc2085-94

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wilkins.]

10. 11 p.m.

Mr. Rankin (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Some 15 months ago I raised the question of safety arrangements in civil aviation. I do so again tonight. Today I read the speech which I made on that occasion, and if I had to deal again with this subject as I dealt with it then, I should not alter a single word of what I said on that occasion. I also read the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. It was a good reply and I will start by quoting his concluding words: We shall not be satisfied until we reach that high standard of efficiency in which accidents will be things of the past, and we can achieve the fullest confidence of the public."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1947; Vol. 433, c. 749.] What has happened since then? Take-off, landing and flying speeds have all increased since that date. I doubt if safety has increased in the same measure. The last half dozen accidents which have taken place have involved the finest type of British and American aircraft so far as design is concerned; in fact machines constructed and guaranteed to fly the Atlantic on three engines, have crashed on four. If we look at the last three major accidents, we find that in the Berlin air crash all those in the aircraft were killed, in the Star Tiger all were drowned, in the Pan-American Constellation crash at Shannon Airport, all were burned to death. I freely admit that two of these cases are no concern of my hon. Friend, but I quote them because of their effect on the public and because the type of craft in use is the type which is being used also in our own services.

In order to bring the problem that faces us nearer home, I asked my hon. Friend's Department to prepare me a return covering the number of accidents which had taken place, the principal causes, and also the numbers who have been killed or injured in these crashes. They were most helpful, and I warmly appreciate their consideration in this matter. The answer, I may say, will be published in HANSARD tomorrow.

The return covers the period almost from the date of my speech 15 months ago, that is, 1st January, 1947, to 30th April, 1948. The return shows that so far as notifiable accidents are concerned there have been 26 on scheduled flights and seven on non-scheduled flights, making a total of 33. On the charter services, on passenger services, there were 21, and on non-passenger services 15, making a total of 36.

Air-Commodore Harvey (Macclesfield)

In fairness to the charter companies the hon. Member should say that in the 21 accidents there have been only one or two fatalities.

Mr. Rankin

If the hon. and gallant Member will give me a chance, I am coming to that point. The total number was 69 in 16 months, which is an average of four a month, or one a week. The return covers the principal causes, and does not cover all accidents. It is worth while comparing this with the world position. In the first quarter of this year, the total number of aircraft casualties, either partially or totally destroyed, in the world, exclusive of the Soviet area, for which figures are not made public—[Laughter.]—Hon. Members may laugh: I am not making a propaganda point about that, but simply stating it as a fact—the number of aircraft casualties was 296, which works out at the rate of three per day. There were 280 killed, out of a total casualty list of 522 or four a day, which gives our figures a good standing, but which should not cause any feeling of complacency.

When we look at the reasons for the accidents, we find that those due to human error of judgment were in the three Corporations, 22, and in the chartered companies, 29, giving a total of 51 out of the 69. That is a fairly serious state of affairs, and it suggests that the captains of our planes, these modern craft, are carrying heavy responsibility. I believe that in skill and experience they are unequalled, but the loading of the cockpit with all manner of aids—some of which are very necessary—is throwing a load on to their shoulders which, perhaps, is too heavy to bear. When we look at causes due to mechanical failure we find there were two accidents in the services of the three Corporations, and six in the services of the chartered companies. In four accidents involving Corporation planes every individual passenger and crew was killed, but there was no accident in the chartered companies' planes in which all were killed. Accidents involving death to either passengers or crew were five in the case of the three Corporations, and three in the chartered companies, making a total of 12 in which the entire passenger and crew personnel were wiped out or partially destroyed, and that gives a ratio of one out of every six. That is a point which should be very seriously noted. Basically the reason is that the search for higher speed because of military requirements is incompatible with the safety on which civil aviation must depend.

So long as civil aircraft is dependent on converted or potential bombers it cannot be sufficiently safe. May I emphasise in passing, from the safety point of view, the flying boats on the Trans-Oceanic routes. Our experience of what happened to that old type of American flying boat in the North Atlantic shows that, with the flying boat in use, every passenger, in my opinion, who went down with the Star Tiger would have been alive today. I would suggest that never again should any flying boat cross any ocean when the weather ships are lacking.

My second point deals with fire. Its consequences are appalling and its frequency disturbing. I would ask why diesel oil is not being used more widely today. I may be told that the type of engine prevents that. I suggest that the engine could be adapted. I am told it would mean a heavier load, because, for each brake horse power developed in the diesel we have 1.3 pounds weight in the engine as compared with one in the Merlin. But whereas .5 pounds of petrol are required for every horse power developed per hour in the Merlin we only need .35 pounds in the diesel, so that what we lose in increased engine weight we gain in the decreased weight of fuel. In addition, due to the lower fire point of diesel oil, the fire hazard is much less than it is with petrol. In fact, so far as safety is concerned, diesel oil is twice as safe as petrol.

My third and final point on safety features is the location of the airport. I wish to deal specifically with the airport which I know best, and which I use regularly, the Renfrew Airport. I would put this point to my hon. Friend. Does he consider that that airport is now safe for aircraft carrying the high-powered motor units of today? I have long advocated the Renfrew Airport but is it safe for the more powerful types of machine that we are using? I have quoted the large number of accidents due to the human error of judgment. Let one error of that nature happen to a pilot who is coming in to land at Renfrew with a fast moving machine—of course, I am dealing with bad weather conditions—and he is among the hills before he realises it.

In addition, he is denied the help given by ground Control approach. We have greatly increased the pilot's responsibilities by the more complicated mechanism of the aircraft. Let us not add to that responsibility by using airports which now present dangers that did not formerly exist.

10.23 p.m.

Air-Commodore Harvey (Macclesfield)

I am sure that the House is glad that the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Rankin) has raised this matter, but I think he has given the impression that the British record is a bad one. That, to some extent, is rather unfortunate. We have had our share of accidents, some of them most unfortunate, but nevertheless, looking over the period and comparing it with the United States of America, the British record is not a bad one. Generally speaking it is very good.

I agree with the hon. Member when he refers to the speed of aircraft—

Mr. Rankin

Surely the hon. and gallant Member would agree that I did give a world comparison in order to show that our record is better than the world record.

Air-Commodore Harvey

It was not altogether clear, and when the hon. Member quoted the 21 accidents to the Charter aircraft I know that many of these were near-misses and not really accidents at all. It is not fair to class it as an accident if an aircraft taxis into the hedge at the end of the landing ground; that is quite different from killing a loadful of people, and one should differentiate to get the situation clear.

I believe manufacturers should spend more time in trying to reduce landing speeds—top speed can well remain where it is for the next few years—and in bringing about achievements to bring landing speeds down. That is important. The hon. Member referred to the fact that pilots have a great load of responsibility. That has always been the case—even before modern aircraft the pilot had to contend with engines which cut out every 50 miles, and his job has always been a very difficult one. The hon. Member also referred to the difficulties at Renfrew. I know those difficulties, because I was stationed there when it was a much smaller aerodrome, and on one occasion I finished up in the churchyard.

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary, in reviewing this matter as a whole, to try to see that we get back the efficiency in radar which we had during the war. I know of his difficulties in dealing with personnel and of getting equipment, but it is important that, where aircraft are flying at high speeds in the Highlands, they should have every conceivable equipment to help bring them into the aerodrome with no chance of error. My final point is, in the selecting and arranging for the employment of control officers, will he try to raise the pay of those men so as to get the best men who are available, in order that they can render the service which the pilots want?

10.27 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn (Great Yarmouth)

In the two minutes I have in which to add my views to those of my hon. Friend, I would like to say how glad we were that there was a resurrection in the churchyard at Renfrew and that we have the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) still with us. I am also glad that we did not have three by-elections after what happened to hon. Gentlemen opposite yesterday. These accidents should bring home to us that in this Debate we are discussing what is the most important transport topic in the world.

We have to do something about it. I must say the Minister of Civil Aviation set about doing something somewhere about last August, I think, in the committee to investigate accidents and many Members in the House—and people in the outside world, too, among the potential passengers and the people regularly using our air routes—were hoping that this gathering of experts, who are all gathering together our knowledge, by this time would have been able to give some information about these matters. But the last time we discussed this subject in the House we had no satisfactory answer, and the Minister still seems to refuse to let us know what the experts have decided. I think it is high time that this House should claim, on behalf of ourselves as potential by-election candidates and so on, that the general public really should know what has happened about this accident committee, and should know how we can assure that the general public in this country and in other countries—because we are hoping to earn dollars and other currency—can travel much more safely even than has been shown by the figures put forward tonight. I hope we shall get a much more satisfactory answer than that given the last time that this Debate was introduced.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Edward Granville (Eye)

I think we should all thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) for raising this subject tonight. I would like to ask the Minister a question about all the technical development and research of one sort or another about which we hear a great deal, and which is going on not only in his Department but also under the Ministry of Supply. A great deal of progress has been made. I would like to ask when the result of this hard work, and this very good work, by these experts is going to be applied. They have been working—these backroom boys—for a long time, and have made great strides forward. Considerable development has to be applied to the design and construction of aircraft and airports. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether this fine machinery, which is being produced after all the hard work, is to be applied in the near future?

10.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren)

This is one of the occasions on which one is rather sorry that the limit of a few minutes which is imposed rather restricts debate, and that hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate have been equally as restricted as I shall be in replying. In regard to the figures which were quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), I would observe that I once asked for figures in a Department with which I was associated, and the clerk who had prepared them came in and said, "I have prepared these figures. What do you want to prove, Sir?" That illustrates how figures in relation to anything are sometimes rather misleading unless one takes into account the factors to which the figures are related. We must first agree that this continually increasing stalling speed is prejudicial to safety, and that there must be, as the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) said, a determination on the part of the aircraft industry and of all who are associated with it so to improve design and perhaps also to get an increased cruising speed without increasing the stalling speed, and that is possible. One must call attention to the fact that speed is only one factor in relation to safety, and it is a factor which cannot be isolated.

What do we mean by speed? Cruising speed and stalling speed are two different things. I think that in fact my hon. Friend was referring to take-off and landing speed. Cruising speed is a factor which tends towards safety, particularly over long distances, particularly in bad weather and particularly in flying against head winds, etc. The high performance which cruising speed gives an aircraft enables the safety factor to be developed. A bigger point, which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield, was that in association with speed the development of aids is required or even the development of aeronautical science whereby navigational aids, approach aids, landing aids and communications are developed. They are equally as important, in fact they are more important than speed because the more they are improved the less does the increase in speed become a factor associated with the danger of accidents.

The operational efficiency has to be related to what in the main are the causes of accidents. Had my hon. Friend proceeded to develop the figures with which he has been provided, and which will be available to the House as a result of his non-oral Question, he would have seen that of the 59 accidents to which he referred 51 are attributable to the human error. The latest statistics of our American friends do not give the actual figures, or at least I have not seen the total figures, but they state that 74 per cent. of notifiable accidents are attributable to the personal error, as they call it.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper (Middlesbrough, West)

Does my hon. Friend think that excuses them, because does he not realise that, taken a little further, it shows that the personal factor can be eliminated, or largely reduced by proper training, and seeing that the standards are adhered to?

Mr. Lindgren

That is a point to which I was coming, but training has no relation to speed. The fact is that when it is the human element which is the greatest contributor to accidents, then surely the immediate necessity is to concentrate on those means which will tend to reduce—because I do not suppose we can altogether eliminate human error with mechanical aids—the faults inherent in human operation. It is equally obvious that the development of the training of the individual who has to carry out these complicated operations is vitally important; and the standard of aircrew training in all its branches, not only that of pilots, is the key to the problem of human error.

The other points raised related to the flying boat. I do not want to enter into a controversy in this short time in regard to the feelings which are held between protagonists on either side of the flying boats versus the land plane, but I think equally that it is unfair to use a single instance of a happening in the North Atlantic as a proof that this would happen on all occasions. My information, from those who are supposed to know, is that on the North Atlantic in particular the land plane is a much safer plane than the flying boat, and that the general conditions obtaining in the North Atlantic are such that a flying boat's chance of survival in a sea is no higher than that of a land plane.

Mr. Cooper

No.

Mr. Lindgren

Immediately there comes in the question of a difference of opinion. A point was also raised in regard to the low flashpoint fuel. There has been a controversy in the Press recently, which I think was slightly exaggerated, with regard to the development of the propeller turbine engine as against the reciprocating engine. The development of the former would enable a fuel to be used which is of lower flashpoint than that used at present.

So far as Renfrew is concerned, I would remind the House that it is the responsibility of all using any airport not to accept on to it aircraft which are unsafe in operation on that airport. So far as the Dakotas and Vikings now using Renfrew are concerned, it is a safe airport. The load of an aircraft is an important consideration in this respect. One of the runways at Renfrew is a few feet short of the standard length required for a Viking, but the standard is set for a Viking fully laden. Vikings using Renfrew are laden below capacity, the weight of the aircraft is less, and so Vikings can safely land in the smaller space there. No one will say that Renfrew is an ideal aerodrome. It has a number of obstructions which make it difficult of approach from certain directions under certain conditions, but it is an airport which is considered to be safe for the aircraft which are licensed to operate there.

I am sorry I cannot now go into my hon. Friend's question about the last statement, but I will have a chat with him about it. I cannot deal with it now because time is up.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.