|
Post by smithy on Feb 3, 2017 10:44:45 GMT 12
Hello all,
Just trying to find some further info about this airman. He was one of the first pilots assigned to the newly created 485 Sqn but was transferred in August 1941. I'm hoping someone here has info about his post 485 career.
Thanks!
Tim
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Feb 3, 2017 12:29:00 GMT 12
From RNZAF Routine Orders for 30 June 1942:
NZ40780 AC2 SMITH, A. B., ACH(GD), on return from Overseas is posted to R.N.Z.A.F. Station, Rongotai, forthwith.
Note that he has been much reduced in rank!
Errol
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 3, 2017 15:25:54 GMT 12
Ouch!
|
|
|
Post by noooby on Feb 4, 2017 3:10:33 GMT 12
Wowsers! I wonder what he did or what happened??? ACH? What is that Errol? Is that like a GSH in the present day RNZAF? What was his rank at 485? If he was a Sgt Pilot, then really it is only one rank down to LAC/AC (LAC not being a rank, but rather a classification). But still, there MUST be a story behind it.
|
|
|
Post by smithy on Feb 4, 2017 8:01:07 GMT 12
Thanks for that Errol. He was only with 485 for 4 or 5 months being posted away in August '41. I had a suspicion that he may have been in trouble because I was unable to find virtually anything about him after 485. The loss of rank and transfer back to NZ seems to support that. If you dig up anything else let me know.
Thanks,
Tim
|
|
|
Post by noooby on Feb 4, 2017 9:58:44 GMT 12
I'm not saying this is the reason, but what happened to people labelled LMF (Lacking in Morale Fibre). A Typhoon book I read recently says they were moved out quickly to prevent morale suffering and some were interned. I wonder if there were demotions associated with that as well, especially if you are holding a rank above your substantiated rank.
This is certainly an intriguing mystery!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 4, 2017 10:11:41 GMT 12
ACH? What is that Errol? Is that like a GSH in the present day RNZAF? ACH was Aircraft Hand. They had several classifications of ACH, the most commonly seen being ACH (GD), as in General Duties. That could mean anything from fueling and pushing aeroplanes around to peeling spuds. So yes, much the same as a GSH, although they did not have to be old, nor experienced ex-servicemen. And by the way I don't think they have GSH's any more. Just civvies.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 4, 2017 10:18:49 GMT 12
I knew one airman here in Cambridge who's been training as a pilot at 2EFTS, and was doing pretty well, but he did something naughty (he would not tell what) and was confined to station over the weekend as a punishment by the school's CO. He said after work he went to the station YMCA and was drowning his sorrows in a milkshake when a WAAF he'd never met before started chatting to him, and he said she felt sorry for him. She suggested he sneak off the station with her and go home to her place for dinner with her and her parents. She finally convinced him to come, and he decided to risk it. So off he goes and arrives at this place for dinner, meets the WAAF's mother and they settle down, then Dad gets home. It's the same school CO who confined him to the station!! Oh dear. He was taken off the training programme, made a lowly ACH (GD), and ended up on No. 6 Squadron as a water handler for the Catalinas in the Solomons. Although he was still bitter he didn't get to become a pilot, he loved his work mooring the flying boats. His greatest claim to fame was telling Admiral Halsey to "F*ck off" to his face, accidentally while trying to moor his Catalina, and the admiral cracking up laughing.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 4, 2017 10:22:36 GMT 12
I came across a case of another pilot who'd flown prewar with the TAF and a year or so into the war was Court Martialed, and stripped of rank, and then thrown out of the service, simply for flying too low on a flight within New Zealand. It really surprised me that such a harsh punishment was dished out for this when a) they were crying out for experienced pilots, and b) everyone was doing a bit of low flying. I guess they made an example of him. The decisions in wartime are sometimes a bit baffling.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 4, 2017 10:40:00 GMT 12
I am guessing this pilot was Austin Bruce Smith, born 16 June 1916, died 25 Jan 1990?
|
|
|
Post by angelsonefive on Feb 4, 2017 10:56:14 GMT 12
"He was only with 485 for 4 or 5 months being posted away in August '41."
I would not necessarily assume that he was posted from 485 Sqdn for some misdemeanour or failure. Given the period, with Fighter Command taking the battle to the Luftwaffe and following Boom Trenchard's advice to " lean into France ", 4 or 5 months in a front line fighter squadron would be a pretty reasonable tour of duty I would think.
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Feb 4, 2017 12:31:45 GMT 12
I am guessing this pilot was Austin Bruce Smith, born 16 June 1916, died 25 Jan 1990? Very likely so, though I note that the Routine Order recording his enlistment gives his dob as 21.6.16. Errol
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Feb 4, 2017 13:51:00 GMT 12
Being caught low flying without specific authorisation is still a very serious misdemeanour in most air forces I would imagine, and most particularly if caught "at it" during your flying training course. Many trainees indulged in this sport as "low flyers", and such sportsmen, when and if identified, were more-or-less instantly taken off flying courses and tossed out of the air force during WW2 when they had an abundance of keen new trainees coming down the pipeline. That was largely why training aircraft frequently had (and still do) large identification "code numbers" painted on their fuselage sides or under the wings. However in peacetime, particularly if the trainee has had a lot of taxpayers' money invested in his/her training, they may be sent to a service punishment facility for a few weeks to cool their heels and then maybe they MIGHT be returned to flying training if they are lucky, and know that any repeat performance would be the end for their flying aspirations. One such pilot in WW2 was the pilot of a Harvard, one of two who came to grief in the seaward Kaikouras in 1942. Although not strictly speaking low flying, the two pilots were supposed to be on separate exercises and should not even have seen one another, but they conspired beforehand to head through the mountains in a game of tail chasing, as this was much more fun. The other pilot was killed when they flew up a valley they could barley climb out of, but the second pilot managed to crash land on a flattish area near the tops, and eventually wandered out of the hills a day or two later, and was found by astonished civilians in a weak condition. For his troubles, he was sent to the RNZAF's only "facility" for wayward young pilots for a few weeks, which happened to be at Harewood. Out hero was eventually returned to a later flying course, duly passed out, and became quite well known flying fighters with the squadrons in the South Pacific. He eventually became a well-known commercial pilot flying, I think, Bristol Freighters. Another Leading Aircraftman (trade of airman pilot under training) in May 1941, was also flying out of Woodbourne but this time in an elderly Vincent, and with a class mate aboard for "mutual training" purposes, but as this aircraft had no inter-communications system fitted, he was really just a passenger. They were actually on a cross-country navigation exercise, across Cook Strait and then to various way points around the lower North Island before returning to their station. Our friend in the front cockpit decided to call in at his parent's house at Kairanga, near Ohakea, which was near his exercise route anyway, but on flying low around his parents' house he blundered into a wireless aerial which he had either forgotten about, or had been erected since he lived there. The wire got wrapped around his propeller, and he ended up cash-landing in a paddock not far away. The aircraft was badly damaged and was later written off, but the two occupants escaped any injury. Later on being questioned as to exactly what he had been up to, the 18-year old pilot decided that coming clean was the only option open to him, so told all, and was duly sentenced to two months detention at the Recruit Training Depot at Harewood. Apparently his interrogators at Woodbourne were impressed by the young man's honesty and willingness to accept full responsibility for the incident, and he was in due course returned to Woodbourne on a subsequent course to complete his training. This young man was T S F (Terry) Kearins, later F/L Kearins, French Croix de Guerre with Silver Star, and member of 485 Sqdn. Not quite the same thing, but some Board members might recall an incident in the late 1970s (or early eighties), when a Wigram student (repeat student) pilot on a wings course at Wigram was involved in a civil flying accident, when he broke quite a few club (and civil aviation) rules in a Cherokee that he obtained one fine day for a solo flight. I hasten to add he was also a civilian student pilot, therefore not authorised by law to carry any passengers. After an innocent departure from Harewood, he tootled to a nearby (unauthorised by the Club) private strip, picked up a couple of (waiting) passengers (acquaintances of his) and proceeded to the Mount Hutt ski-field for a bit of sight-seeing. Unfortunately he got a bit slow and a bit low and ended up splatted on the mountain slopes, although, from memory, not too much in the way of injuries. I think the Cherokee was a write-off. The RNZAF decided that, based on this performance, they did not require this student's services any longer, and he was also taken to court on civil aviation charges. So ended a promising flying career. The idea of going tough on student pilots caught indulging in low flying was to (hopefully) scare them off from even thinking about such activities, but it did not always work as desired by the authorities. Even relatively experienced pilots have been caught out by various circumstances when low flying, although if the flight was authorised as such, they were often only considered to be guilty of exhibiting poor judgement should they have struck something such as a structure, or a tree or a hillside. Sometimes, of course, they were killed. Low flying by inexperienced pilots has always been seriously discouraged for very good reason. Dave D
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 4, 2017 15:13:49 GMT 12
The difference with your examples and my first one is that my second was actually a fairly experienced and senior pilot. He was also on an operational squadron. I get the impression the RNZAF used it as an excuse to get rid of him as there were several other cases of pilots of a similar level and even some more senior who did similar unauthorised low flying, and actually ended up crashing, and they got off unblemished.
The case of the two Harvards tail chasing in the Kaikoura hills, is that surviving pilot the same one that was marched out in front of the entire school at Woodbourne and had his brevet and epilettes torn off by G/C Caldwell? I think that is how the story went. It was detailed in Bryan Young's excellent autobiography "Beckoning Skies", he was in the assembled audience.
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Feb 4, 2017 15:34:29 GMT 12
Of more recent times, there was an example of a pilot on continuation flying in an Aermacchi, who indulged in a bit of low flying and was subsequently court martialed. He was found guilty and awarded a stay of seniority, along with a financial disincentive. His accomplice, in the rear seat was also convicted of "conduct prejudicial" and similarly dealt with. Somewhere I have a newspaper report of this.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Feb 4, 2017 16:25:30 GMT 12
Dave The presumed legal case taken against Sgt pilot Smith would not have been the doing of the RNZAF; he was entirely under RAF administration (like all RNZAF members under the EATS/BCATP, as well as RCAF, RAAF, SAAF, etc.), although in serious disciplinary cases, as well as serious criminal cases, the RNZAF would assist in seeing that the defendant was well represented and that the justice meted was "fair" from an RNZAF point of view. I myself have wondered what happened to Mr Smith, but it must have been pretty serious from a service point of view (if it was in fact a purely service matter). Probably best not to speculate when we know absolutely nothing of this case. However the other pilot (the one in the Kaikouras case) was quite well known, and popular, and he most certainly not humiliated in front of a parade or any such thing - it is possible that he was even congratulated on saving his own skin in a very serious situation by displaying "superior airmanship when it mattered", but of course THAT is pure speculation too! He was LAC J C (Jack) Voss, and date was late March 1942. He could not have lost his "Wings" as these had not yet been physically awarded (although he was technically qualified as having completed the ITS stage of training, and passed his ITS exams). The unknown person of whom you speak must have been some other unfortunate.
Often more experienced pilots who confessed to low flying offences would receive severe reprimands (usually a good bollocking from the CO or CFI, or even station commander), or lose seniority, usually 3 or 6 months depending on the heinousness of their crime, or may even have their "wings" withdrawn for a period, and sometimes reversion to non-commissioned rank (for officers only) for a period to reconsider their flying behaviour. Sergeant pilots risked being "reduced to the ranks" and reclassified as an LAC, or even lower, and remustered to boot (such as AC2 ACH/GD), although sometimes the luckier ones were eventually permitted to revert to their original rank after a "suitable period" as a non-pilot. Some officer pilots, usually considered for convenience to be assumed to know better than to commit such acts, were sentenced to be dismissed from the service for serious flying offences, typically low flying. In New Zealand, fairly late in the war, a group of four officers (all trained instructors, but details withheld to protect the innocent) suffered this fate for landing (by design) in a nice paddock and having an unauthorised picnic, although they had a watertight excuse - they were bored with flying for the RNZAF, so they solved that problem for all concerned! David D
|
|
|
Post by isc on Feb 4, 2017 20:13:44 GMT 12
One local gentleman during his flight training from Wigram got into a bit of low flying around his parents home, and arrived back at Wigram with part of the families hedge in the undercarriage of the Tigermoth, and land ok, I'm not sure of the extent of the punishment, but he completed his training about a year behind the rest of the group he started with, went to Canada, then UK, think he may have gone to 75 Squadron, did one operational mission, then spent the rest of his time in the UK ferrying POWs. isc
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 4, 2017 22:21:16 GMT 12
Dave The presumed legal case taken against Sgt pilot Smith would not have been the doing of the RNZAF; he was entirely under RAF administration (like all RNZAF members under the EATS/BCATP, as well as RCAF, RAAF, SAAF, etc.), although in serious disciplinary cases, as well as serious criminal cases, the RNZAF would assist in seeing that the defendant was well represented and that the justice meted was "fair" from an RNZAF point of view. I myself have wondered what happened to Mr Smith, but it must have been pretty serious from a service point of view (if it was in fact a purely service matter). Probably best not to speculate when we know absolutely nothing of this case. Whilst I agree with you, I hope it did not look like I was speculating on Smith's case. I have no idea what he did to get severely demoted, it may have had nothing to do with his flying. I have found the passage from Bryan Young's book, on Page 37. The "Drumming Out" that he witnessed was in March 1942, just after he and his course arrived at Woodbourne, was for a student on a previous course who had just three weeks to go before the course was over. The pilot who was in the wrong had been tail chasing in the hills just like your case, but it states they were in a gully close to the station when the first plane hit the hill, killing the pilot. The second pilot pulled up and out of the gully and did not crash, like Voss. He obviously got back to the station safely but was Court Martialed and punished with a drumming out of the service. It was not Keith Caldwell as I'd mis-remembered doing the stripping of insignia, Young states it was a "Flight Sergeant 'Bomber' Brown, a monstrous great Englishman". All the flying personnel were paraded three sides of the drill square, the fourth side made up of "drums shrouded in the air force flag". The prisoner was marched onto the square, halted in front of the drums, and Brown marched up to the prisoner and proceeded to "tear all items of insignia, wings, buttons, the lot from his tunic."
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 4, 2017 22:29:43 GMT 12
Hmm, and now that I look it up, the Voss/Heaps incident was also in March 1942. Puzzling.
|
|
|
Post by smithy on Feb 5, 2017 8:35:27 GMT 12
"He was only with 485 for 4 or 5 months being posted away in August '41." I would not necessarily assume that he was posted from 485 Sqdn for some misdemeanour or failure. Given the period, with Fighter Command taking the battle to the Luftwaffe and following Boom Trenchard's advice to " lean into France ", 4 or 5 months in a front line fighter squadron would be a pretty reasonable tour of duty I would think. Thing here is that 485 was deemed a "novice" squadron and her first operational period was given a fairly softly-softly approach, mainly convoy patrols and defensive scrambles, especially whilst still flying the Mk.Ia. 485 didn't begin offensive ops until the end of June and even then they weren't exactly thrown into the thick of the Circus ops like some of the more experienced squadrons in 11 Group. Also if we look at Smith's peers in 485 at the time, most postings were of experienced officer personnel to other squadrons as flight commanders. Whilst it's possible that Smith's transfer was routine if we really look at it, it doesn't scream of rotation out of frontline duties for rest or for instructor purposes. Whilst it's perhaps possible I would argue against the fact that Smith's fall from grace is from a low flying incident. Smith by this stage was not a trainee pilot but a squadron assigned pilot and fully trained. Standard procedure for low flying infringements at this stage of the war for an operational pilot was loss of rank or period of ground duties, or in many cases, to be overlooked. I remember talking with Doug Brown and he telling me he could get away with far more whilst operational on 485 than he could whilst instructing. I can't help but think with Smith that there is the possibility of a civil misdemeanour. Brian Carbury lost his King's commission in the RAF for bouncing bum cheques, even though he was one of the most successful pilots of the Battle of Britain. Smith's sudden loss of rank and shipping back to NZ (for a qualified operational pilot) seems to suggest a serious matter and one which goes against how the RAF and RNZAF treated "typical" aircrew misdemeanours.
|
|