WHEN AN AEROPLANE crashes, the all-too-frequent procedure is to blame
the pilot. It is so much easier and safer than to blame 'an official or a Ministry. No more blatant case of this practice has come to my notice than the report of the court investigation into the accident to a Viscount at London Airport in January. A take-off was being made in a fog and the pilot turned on to a disused runway and collided with a contractor's barrier. The pilot and co-pilot are accused of having been 'over-confident.' The court conveniently neglects the central fact that there are Ground and Runway Controllers at London Airport. If those titles mean anything, the pilots were acting under orders when they moved on to the disused runway. When they were given clearance to take off, therefore, the responsibility rested upon these controllers. This egregious document admits that there was a lack of co-operation and lack of full information among the controllers; it admits that London Airport runways and taxiways were inadequately marked and inadequately lit by international standards, yet it places no blame on the Ministry or its officials. Perhaps the most fatuous remark in the whole report is that a continuous white line recommended by ICAO to guide pilots in bad visibility 'would involve considerable expense both in its installation and maintenance.' It appears that, in the opinion of the court, the safety of air passengers and crews is of so little importance that a white line cannot be afforded at a £20,000,000 airport. How convenient for this court that there were two pilots to shoulder the responsibility for the shortcomings of the Ministry and its officials!
• * *
Previous page
