HC Deb 10 December 1958 vol 597 cc327-8
25. Mr. Steele

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what inquiries he has made about the cause of the recent accident when a Scimiter jet aircraft crashed over the side of H.M.S. "Victorious"; and why the information given in the official Admiralty statement, following the inquest, was not made available earlier.

Mr. R. Allan

A Board of Inquiry which was set up to investigate this accident established that the arrester wire broke because a small valve was accidentally left open when the arrester system was charged with hydraulic fluid during the ship's refit. In accordance with normal practice, the coroner was shown the findings of the Board of Inquiry. Owing to a misunderstanding, he thought that the cause of the breaking of the wire as shown in these findings was secret. In fact, the Admiralty would, at any time, have produced a witness to give the cause in court, if it had been asked to do so. The matter has now been cleared up to the satisfaction of the coroner.

I should like to take this opportunity of expressing again to the widow and relatives of this gallant officer the deep sympathy of the Board of Admiralty in their tragic loss.

Mr. Steele

I appreciate the latter remarks of the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary, with which the whole House would agree, but surely some explanation is necessary of the extraordinary behaviour of the Admiralty in this matter. Is not it a fact that the misunderstanding must have been created by the impression given by the Admiralty to the coroner before the inquest? Did not this statement made after the inquest make the coroner feel, as he said, that he had been bamboozled by the Admiralty?

Mr. Allan

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right in trying to find trouble here. It was a genuine misunderstanding. The coroner thought that he could not disclose what was in the findings and that they were secret. In fact, we would have made this information available through the ordinary processes of the court, had we been asked. Of course, we could not have issued any statement before the inquest.

Dr. Bennett

Has my hon. Friend any information he can give the House about how it was that the pilot was unable to get out of the aircraft?

Mr. Allan

It is not possible to answer my hon. Friend's supplementary question very briefly, but perhaps the House will forgive me if, in all the tragic circumstances of this case and the publicity which attended it, I do try to answer.

There was nothing wrong with the ejector system in the aircraft. It could have been used; indeed, it could have been used even after the aircraft had been submerged, for a few seconds at any rate. It is clear, however, that Commander Russell never intended to eject at all. He had removed his helmet and oxygen mask and was trying to get out in the normal manner. To do this, of course, he had to open the hood. He could have done this electrically, but, the circuits being under water, the mechanism would not operate. An alternative method was to blow the hood off by an explosive charge. This is done by pulling a handle. This handle must be pulled vertically; if there is any backward pull, the mechanism becomes fouled. This appears to have happened in this case. I may say that steps are being taken to correct this.

In the circumstances, Commander Russell had to try to open the hood manually. Despite the angle of the aircraft, he managed to do this, but, unfortunately, he had not undone either his dinghy lanyard or the leg restraint straps which are intended to hold the pilot in his seat in the event of ejection. It appears that he had insufficient time or, perhaps, strength to undo the lanyard and the straps before the aircraft sank.