Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 12, 2020 22:55:48 GMT 12
AEROPLANE HITS TANK
PILOT APPEARS BEFORE COURT-MARTIAL
ACQUITTAL ON ONE CHARGE
“I cursed the aircraft,” declared Trooper V. H. Sherborne, when he related before a court-martial yesterday how, during manoeuvres near the Waimakariri river on January 5, a Royal New Zealand Air Force aeroplane had come straight at the tank which he was driving, touched the turret of the latter, and left behind a small piece of the fuselage.
Sherborne was giving evidence at the court-martial of Flying Officer Francis Kenneth Woodward, R.N.Z.A.F., who was in charge of the aeroplane at the time of the incident. Woodward was charged with: (1) An act in flying at West Melton likely to cause bodily injury to persons in that, being captain of an aircraft, he flew it so as to collide with a General Stuart tank, thereby causing danger of bodily injury to his pupil, L.A.C. Norman Rupert Overend, also to his passengers, L.A.C. Charles Blackwood Cornish and W.A.L Annie May Denley; (2) negligently damaging the aircraft to the extent of £22; (3) an act to the prejudice of good order and Air Force discipline, in that he flew the aircraft at a height below 250 feet, contrary to Air Staff training instructions, which directed that instruction in low flying was to take place at a height of 250 feet.
The court-martial was constituted as follows:—President, Wing Commander H. L. Tancred, A.F.C.; members, Squadron Leader S. L. Gilkison, Squadron Leader V. G. H. Gee, Flight Lieutenant D. E. Hopwood, and Flight Lieutenant J. M. S. Ross; prosecutor, Pilot Officer J. E. Farrell; defending officer. Flying Officer R. S. C. Agar; judge-advocate. Pilot Officer J. P. McVeagh.
The accused pleaded not guilty to all charges. He also pleaded condonation in each case, but this was overruled by the court.
He was found not guilty on the last charge of acting to the prejudice of good order and discipline. The decisions on the other two charges will go forward to the confirming authorities for consideration.
Trooper T. M. Green, who was with tanks on manoeuvres near the river, told how he had seen the aircraft coming directly towards him. “I ducked down,” he said, “below the level of the turret. A small piece of the aircraft fell down beside me.” He added that there were other machines flying just as low that day.
The driver of the tank which Woodward’s machine touched was Trooper Sherborne. He said that just before he saw the aircraft, flying low and on an even keel, coming towards him, he had received orders to stop his tank. “I stood up in the turret," he explained. “I expected the pilot to have plenty of clearance over the top. I ducked instinctively just before he came towards the tank. I then heard a dull thud as if something had hit the top of the turret.” The witness added that the padding on the tank was torn, and that a fragment had dropped from the aeroplane.
L.A.C. Cornish, one of the passengers, said that L.A.C. Overend was the pupil but Woodward was piloting the aircraft during the approaches. Questioned by the president, the witness said they had flown over the tanks at from 20 to 30 feet Overend declared that Woodward had come down as low as from 15 to 20 feet while demonstrating operational low flying.
Condonation Plea
In support of the condonation plea, the defending officer said that Woodward had been allowed to continue his work as instructor from the date of the mishap until the present. That, he submitted, showed that the authorities had every confidence in his ability.
A letter had also been received from an authority high in the Air Force, he added, commending Woodward for his action in landing an aircraft which had suffered a defect in the air.
Woodward, when giving evidence on the condonation issue, said that after the incident he had been called before the Chief Flying Officer at his station, who gave him “a bit of a chat by way of a reprimand,” and ordered him two days extra orderly officer’s duty. The Court ruled against the defence on all charges.
Flight Lieutenant Guy Rogers said that Woodward had reported the damage to him on his return. He said the accused, was somewhat vague as to what had happened. Witness said he had never told Woodward that operational low flying was to be demonstrated at below 250 feet. Witness described Woodward “as a sound instructor and a sound pilot.”
W.A.I Denley, who was a passenger in the aircraft, said that Woodward had piloted it over the low-flying area, but she did not feel a bump as if it had hit an object.
Accused's Evidence
Woodward, in evidence, said that he recalled flying over some tanks, but denied that he had dived towards them. He had been an instructor since 1942, and had acted, he believed, in accordance with previous instructions. He said he had no intention of making a demonstration at from 10 to 15 feet in order merely to “work off a little steam.” He had never been told that he was not to demonstrate operational low flying below 250 feet. Woodward said that when he was demonstrating low flying he usually did so at from 20 to 30 feet, but he did not let his pupils do that, as a rule, because of their inexperience.
In reply to his own counsel, Woodward said that he had never seen any instructions regarding low flying. Addressing the Court on behalf of Woodward, Flying Officer Agar denied that there had been any negligence. If found guilty of negligence in charge of aircraft, he said, Woodward would in future find it difficult to obtain the confidence of his pupils. The Air Force could ill afford to lose such a man, upon whose training several thousand pounds had been spent. He asked that the accused be acquitted on all charges.
PRESS, 16 FEBRUARY 1943
PILOT APPEARS BEFORE COURT-MARTIAL
ACQUITTAL ON ONE CHARGE
“I cursed the aircraft,” declared Trooper V. H. Sherborne, when he related before a court-martial yesterday how, during manoeuvres near the Waimakariri river on January 5, a Royal New Zealand Air Force aeroplane had come straight at the tank which he was driving, touched the turret of the latter, and left behind a small piece of the fuselage.
Sherborne was giving evidence at the court-martial of Flying Officer Francis Kenneth Woodward, R.N.Z.A.F., who was in charge of the aeroplane at the time of the incident. Woodward was charged with: (1) An act in flying at West Melton likely to cause bodily injury to persons in that, being captain of an aircraft, he flew it so as to collide with a General Stuart tank, thereby causing danger of bodily injury to his pupil, L.A.C. Norman Rupert Overend, also to his passengers, L.A.C. Charles Blackwood Cornish and W.A.L Annie May Denley; (2) negligently damaging the aircraft to the extent of £22; (3) an act to the prejudice of good order and Air Force discipline, in that he flew the aircraft at a height below 250 feet, contrary to Air Staff training instructions, which directed that instruction in low flying was to take place at a height of 250 feet.
The court-martial was constituted as follows:—President, Wing Commander H. L. Tancred, A.F.C.; members, Squadron Leader S. L. Gilkison, Squadron Leader V. G. H. Gee, Flight Lieutenant D. E. Hopwood, and Flight Lieutenant J. M. S. Ross; prosecutor, Pilot Officer J. E. Farrell; defending officer. Flying Officer R. S. C. Agar; judge-advocate. Pilot Officer J. P. McVeagh.
The accused pleaded not guilty to all charges. He also pleaded condonation in each case, but this was overruled by the court.
He was found not guilty on the last charge of acting to the prejudice of good order and discipline. The decisions on the other two charges will go forward to the confirming authorities for consideration.
Trooper T. M. Green, who was with tanks on manoeuvres near the river, told how he had seen the aircraft coming directly towards him. “I ducked down,” he said, “below the level of the turret. A small piece of the aircraft fell down beside me.” He added that there were other machines flying just as low that day.
The driver of the tank which Woodward’s machine touched was Trooper Sherborne. He said that just before he saw the aircraft, flying low and on an even keel, coming towards him, he had received orders to stop his tank. “I stood up in the turret," he explained. “I expected the pilot to have plenty of clearance over the top. I ducked instinctively just before he came towards the tank. I then heard a dull thud as if something had hit the top of the turret.” The witness added that the padding on the tank was torn, and that a fragment had dropped from the aeroplane.
L.A.C. Cornish, one of the passengers, said that L.A.C. Overend was the pupil but Woodward was piloting the aircraft during the approaches. Questioned by the president, the witness said they had flown over the tanks at from 20 to 30 feet Overend declared that Woodward had come down as low as from 15 to 20 feet while demonstrating operational low flying.
Condonation Plea
In support of the condonation plea, the defending officer said that Woodward had been allowed to continue his work as instructor from the date of the mishap until the present. That, he submitted, showed that the authorities had every confidence in his ability.
A letter had also been received from an authority high in the Air Force, he added, commending Woodward for his action in landing an aircraft which had suffered a defect in the air.
Woodward, when giving evidence on the condonation issue, said that after the incident he had been called before the Chief Flying Officer at his station, who gave him “a bit of a chat by way of a reprimand,” and ordered him two days extra orderly officer’s duty. The Court ruled against the defence on all charges.
Flight Lieutenant Guy Rogers said that Woodward had reported the damage to him on his return. He said the accused, was somewhat vague as to what had happened. Witness said he had never told Woodward that operational low flying was to be demonstrated at below 250 feet. Witness described Woodward “as a sound instructor and a sound pilot.”
W.A.I Denley, who was a passenger in the aircraft, said that Woodward had piloted it over the low-flying area, but she did not feel a bump as if it had hit an object.
Accused's Evidence
Woodward, in evidence, said that he recalled flying over some tanks, but denied that he had dived towards them. He had been an instructor since 1942, and had acted, he believed, in accordance with previous instructions. He said he had no intention of making a demonstration at from 10 to 15 feet in order merely to “work off a little steam.” He had never been told that he was not to demonstrate operational low flying below 250 feet. Woodward said that when he was demonstrating low flying he usually did so at from 20 to 30 feet, but he did not let his pupils do that, as a rule, because of their inexperience.
In reply to his own counsel, Woodward said that he had never seen any instructions regarding low flying. Addressing the Court on behalf of Woodward, Flying Officer Agar denied that there had been any negligence. If found guilty of negligence in charge of aircraft, he said, Woodward would in future find it difficult to obtain the confidence of his pupils. The Air Force could ill afford to lose such a man, upon whose training several thousand pounds had been spent. He asked that the accused be acquitted on all charges.
PRESS, 16 FEBRUARY 1943
