Add New Content


Please log in or register to add new content.

Login

Report Inaccuracies


Southwick Air Disaster: Coroners' inquiries


Transcript of a two inquest reports


Sunderland Daily Echo
31 May 1917

The Aeroplane Smash
Inquests on Southwick Victims
Aviator’s Evidence
12,600 Miles Without Accident
Distance Misjudged Through Sun
Sympathy of Jury & Public

The inquests on the bodies of the victims of the aeroplane accident at Southwick on Thrusday evening last were held today. There were two inquiries, owing to some of the deaths having taken place on the scene of the catastrophe and others at the Sunderland Infirmary.
The first inquiry was commenced at eleven o’clock in the boardroom of the Southwick Urban District Council on the bodies of Elizabeth Curry (49) 28 Grosvenor Street, Southwick; and Robert Spargo (11) 27 Nelson Street, Southwick. It was conducted by Mr R.A. Shepherd, the Deputy Coroner for the county division, which includes Southwick. Mr John Graham, the Coroner, was present at the opening of the inquiry, but had to leave shortly afterwards owing to another engagement.

Lieut. Philip Thompson, the aviator who was driving the aeroplane at the time of the accident, attended, together with a number of members of the Royal Flying Corps. He was represented by Mr W. H. Bell, who appeared also on behalf of the Southwick Food Economy Campaign Committee. Others present were Supt. John Yeandle (Jarrow Division), Rev. J. R. Shortt (Rector of Southwick), Rev. P. Canfield (St. Hilda’s Roman Catholic Church), and Dr C. F. Brears.

The first witness called was the Rev. Father W, Smith, of St Hilda’s Presbytery, Southwick. He stated that about 8:45pm last Thursday he was present at a food economy meeting at the top of Stoney Lane, and was one of the speakers. They had a rolley for a platform. Just at that time an aeroplane came in sight travelling from east to west, and at a fairly good height. The machine was travelling in the direction of the Green, and the airman apparently had the engine shut off, although he could not definitely say. It was also his impression that when the airman reached about the centre of the Green the engine was started again and the machine commenced to rise. Almost immediately he saw it strike the top of the flagstaff, which was at the end of the upper portion of the Green. The impact broke the propeller, and so stopped the engine. One of the wings appeared to be broken and seemed to lift up, while the other came along curved. Ultimately the machine crashed to the ground about a yard or two behind the rolley, and pulled up at the Co-operative Stores premises, breaking the drapery department window. As soon as possible he jumped off the rolley, and the first thing he saw was the body of the boy Spargo, and near the Stores he saw the body of Mrs Curry. There were a number of police and ambulance men about, and the injured people were conveyed to the surgeries of Drs Brears and Carruthers.

Food Committee and Airman

Replying to further questions by the Coroner, the witness said there had been various rumours that the airman was flying over the meeting.

The Coroner: On Monday, the 21st, did the Food Committee decide that you should interview the officer of the Flying Corps about flying? – Yes.

The Coroner: Did you go and see him and make the request? – Yes; I asked him if there was going to be any flying, not to fly before a certain time, so as not to draw the people away from the meeting, not to fly before eight o’clock.

The Coroner: That if they did so that they should keep the people in Southwick? – That was the object.

The Coroner: What reply did the officer made about that? – He did not make any promise. I suppose if I may put it he acted like a gentleman, and he did not directly refuse. He said the flying would depend upon the night and circumstances.

The Coroner: If the weather was suitable? – Yes, if it was suitable.

The Coroner: He made no definite promise to fly over the meeting? – He did not.

The Coroner: The rumour became pretty current, and it was not contradicted? – It was not. We were only too pleased to get a good crowd for our meeting.

Further examined, the witness said the aviator had previously passed over the meeting, and once before from east to west. He appeared to have perfect control of the machine.

Replying to Mr Bell, the rev. gentleman said it was a very fine night. The sun was shining brilliantly, and was low down in the west at that time. The aviator would be facing sun when flying up the Green. He thought the flagstaff was about 60 feet high, and the vane of it was missing.
This concluded the witness’s evidence. He then said he would like publicly to convey the deepest sympathy of Mrs Davison and family to the airman. He though it ought to be publicly known that they sympathised with the airman in the matter.

James Charles Scott, manager at Messrs Alexander’s Bottleworks, and residing at Carlisle Terrace, said he was present at the meeting, and saw the accident. So far as he could see the pilot managed his machine skilfully.

Sergeant Flynn, of Durham County Constabulary, who was present at the meeting, said the attendance of the public was about 300. The aviator passed twice over the meeting before the accident occurred, but he was on those occasions not directly over it, but a little to the right. At that time he was flying fairly low. Returning about a quarter to nine, the aviator planed down to a low altitude. He then endeavoured to rise in order to clear the top of the flagstaff, but struck it. This damaged his propeller, and the machine struck the store and came down among the people. Going to the spot, witness found Mrs Curry and the boy Spargo lying dead, and he removed their bodies to the mortuary. The airman walked away from the machine after the accident, and went into a house in the vicinity. He appeared to be no worse for the accident except that he might be suffering from shock, and he was able to walk unassisted.

Witness produced the weather vane – a ship – which had been at the top of the flagstaff. It was found after the accident on the roof of a house 37 yards from the flagstaff. The exact height of the flagstaff was 50 feet, and the distance from it to where the aeroplane fell was 114 yards. So far as witness could see the airman had perfect control of his machine till it struck the flagstaff.

By Mr Bell: The flagstaff was not damaged and the flag remained flying, but it dropped to half-mast.

The Aviator’s Evidence

Philip Thompson, the aviator, stated he was a lieutenant in the Royal Flying Corps, and was 19 years of age in March last. He joined the corps on April 22nd 1916, and on July 14th following qualified as pilot. From July 18th until Nov. 24th 1916, he was in France and during that time acted as pilot. He had done 180 hours flying, which was equal to 12,600 miles, without any previous accident. On Thursday last, at 8:25pm, he left the aerodrome on a machine to carry out a test of a newly-fitted gun. The machine was a single seater. Passing over Southwick he saw a crowd on the Green and came down to see what was happening. He passed over the Green twice, flying upward and towards the open country a few hundred yards distant. Then he proceeded towards the sea, skirting the town and flying at a height of about 1,500 feet. Having successfully carried out the gun test he circled over Sunderland at a height varying between 1,300 feet and 2,300 feet. In returning towards the aerodrome he again passed over Southwick and planed down again towards the fields, passing over the Green. The sun was shining in his eyes rather brightly and it was fairly windy.

Did you come down lower than usual? Asked the Deputy Coroner.

“Yes,” was the reply, “I did not intend to be below the level of the houses.”

What caused you to come down lower? – The sun got in my eyes, and I misjudged the distance. As soon as I realised that I tried to rise to clear the flagstaff.

Did you observe the flagstaff before when flying over? – No. I think I was a bit more to the right on the previous occasions.

This was the first time you noticed it? – I never saw the flagstaff until I hit it.

It caught your left wing? – Yes.

Did it make the machine absolutely out of control? – Yes.

Do you remember anything more after that? – No, not until I got out of the machine.

Did Not Know Of The Meeting

Had you any knowledge of this meeting at southwick? – No.

You were not asked nor was it suggested to you to fly over it? – No.

You had not heard of that suggestion? – No.

If it had not been for the flagstaff you would have been able to clear the house? – Yes, easily.

You had plenty of speed? – Yes. I was going about 105 miles an hour at the time.

Captain Joseph Clifford Griffiths, flying station commander, said that on the 23rd inst., the Rev. Father Smith called upon him and stated that they were having a food demonstration at Southwick, and suggested that if there was to be any flying it should not take place before eight o’clock. Witness made no promise to fly over the meeting, and did not mention the matter to the aviator. On the day of the accident he was returning by car from Southwick, accompanied by Lieut. O’Neil, about 8:35. He saw Thompson flying over Sunderland at a height of about 1,500 or 2,300 feet. On reaching Southwick witness had to pass through a large crowd that had congregated on The Green. Just before reaching the end of the Green, he heard a crash, and on looking round saw that the biplane had a “side spin,” a technical term for it going sideways. The left wing of the plane was severed, and was held on to the body by the bracing wires. The machine then crashed down, and he was not sure whether or not it first struck the Stores before dropping on to the people. Witness was unable to get near owing to the crowd. Lieut. Thompson was a careful and a very good pilot, having had considerable experience, including four months in France.

Machine In Perfect Order

Witness proceeded to state that he was out with the same machine on the afternoon of that day as far as Easington, and found it in perfect order, also the engine. The machine was later taken to the aerodrome, and, on examination, he found that the engine was split right down the centre, having evidently struck something very hard, concrete or stone. Other portions were also damaged. There was absolutely nothing faulty about the biplane prior to the accident. He thought the bottom portion of the plane had struck the flagstaff.
Replying to Mr Bell, the witness said the engine was place in front of the aviator.

Mr Bell: That would tend to make observation more difficult? – Yes, you have to put your head out the side.

Lieut. Thos. M. O’Neil corroborated with witness.

Lieut.-Colonel Frederick Graham deposed that he was in the neighbourhood at the time, and saw the airman flying. Just as the biplane was rising he noticed the left plan flapping as if it was damaged through striking something, and the machine immediately went over on one side “like a bird with a broken wing.” Witness could not see the flagstaff from where he was standing. Thompson appeared to have perfect control of the biplane. He knew the officer to be a careful and steady man.

This concluded the evidence.

Coroner’s Summing Up

The Coroner said that there were numerous other witnesses he could have called, but did not propose to do so, as it would simply be a repetition of what they had already heard; and he did not think they would carry the case any further. He had no doubt that some of the jury, if not all, were present at the time of the accident, and would thus be in a position to appreciate the value of the evidence. He was glad that the Rev. Father Smith had been able to refute the rumour as to the airman being there to specially fly over the meeting. If that had been so it would have been the duty of all parties concerned to see that proper precautions were taken to safeguard the public who attended the meeting. It was, however, quite clear that the airman was not here for that purpose. There had been an interview, and that was with the object of seeing that there should not be any flying before eight o’clock, also that if the airmen did fly they should remain about Southwick, so as to keep the people in Southwick. That was all. Continuing, Mr Shepherd said they were in the midst of a great war, in which the Royal Flying Corps were playing a very important and highly successful part, not only in fighting the enemy abroad, but also in helping to protect our coasts against hostile aircraft. It was very necessary that they should have the protection of the Flying Corps in this country, for such was very much emphasised recently by the attack on the South-East Coast. That being so it was necessary that the Flying Corps should carry on their work under all conditions and situations in order to become perfectly efficient in their work. At the same time they must have regard to the safety of the public, and must not expose them to unnecessary risk. He then proceeded to review the evidence in detail, and observed that the airman had possibly misjudged the distance and knew nothing about the flagstaff until striking it. The striking disabled the machine, and he knew nothing more about it until finding himself against the Stores. In the course of descending he killed two person outright, and injured several others, three of who afterwards died. He was, however, glad to say that the injured were going on all right. It was for the jury to say whether the considered there had been any criminal negligence on the part of the airman. For them to come to that conclusion they would have to be satisfied that he manoeuvred his machine in a reckless manner, regardless of all consequences. Now, he thought it would be absurd to say that he did so, because he would be running a terrible risk to himself. All the evidence seemed to point to the fact that the accident had resulted from flying too low in a limited space, where there was a crowd of people, and unexpectedly having to deal with a flagstaff. If it had not been for the flagstaff he would have been able to have risen high enough to clear all obstructions. Unfortunately the machine just struck the top and became disabled. It seemed that it was the result of bad luck, and the sun caused him to misjudge the distance. He appeared to have been a very clever aviator, and had thorough control of the biplane. He had had four months flying in France, which was a long life for an aviator there. He (Mr Shepherd) was quite sure nobody regretted the accident more than the airman, and he (Mr Shepherd) must add that he also felt very sorry for him, and was sure the jury likewise did so. In conclusion he observed that he did not think there was any ground for suggestion that there had been any negligence whatever, apart from misjudging the distance, but it was for the jury to say.

The Verdict

The jury then retired to consider their verdict. After a few minutes absence they returned, and the foreman said: We find accidental death is both cases, and exonerate the airman from all blame. The jury would like to express their sympathy with the bereaved, also the airman. There has been a fund opened for the relief of the bereaved, and we would like to hand over our fees to that fund.

Sympathy With The Airman And The Bereaved

The Rev. J.R. Shortt, alluding to the statement made by the Rev. Father Smith that a bereaved family had asked him to express their sympathy with the airman, said a similar request had been made to him by the family of John Connolly. They felt very strongly on the matter, and had made a request to the speaker (through Mrs Shortt) that a letter should be sent to the aviator and the corps, making known to him their feeling on the matter. He (Mr Shortt) had written as directed, and had also added the assurance that he personally shared the feelings of the family in question.
Mr Bell, on behalf of the officers connected with the corps, expressed their deep regret at the accident. No one could regret more than Mr Thompson that he had been the unfortunate cause of the fatalities, and the expressions made by the Rev. Father Smith and the Rev. J.R. Shortt would be a great comfort to him. He (Mr Bell) could assure the relatives of the deceased that Mr Thompson was exceedingly sorry he should have been in any way associated, although following his military duties, with causing the deaths, and although exonerated from blame the sad occurrence would be to him a life-long regret.

The inquiry then concluded.

1 June 1917

The Aeroplane Smash
Inquest on Southwick Victims
The Sunderland Inquiry
Eye-Witnesses’ Accounts
Coroner and Jury Against Flying Over Towns

Coroner J F Burnicle held the adjourned inquest at the Police Court yesterday afternoon on the bodies of Jno. Connolly, John Thompson, and George Davison, three of the victims of the aeroplane accident at Southwick last Thursday night. – Mr W. H. Bell represented the airman (Lieutenant Philip Thompson), who was in attendance with several military officers.

Paul Matthew Heppenstall, of 3 Abbey Street, Southwick, outside manager of a glass works, gave evidence that he was a member of the Southwick War Savings Committee, and had to do with the arranging of the meeting on May 24th. The meeting was to take place on The Green, and a rolley was provided for a platform, but he did not go on to it. He first observed the aeroplane about 8:30, travelling from westward to eastward high up. It returned about ten minutes later, and again went back towards Sunderland. On returning to Southwick for the third time it was lower than on the previous occasions. Before reaching The Green it came down to about 50 or 60 feet above the ground, and was rising again when it struck the model of a ship on the top of the flagstaff. There was a flag flying some eight or nine inches below the model. The latter took the form of a vane, which with the stand was about six feet in height, or about that much above the flag. After striking the staff, the machine became out of control, and fell upon the people behind the rolley. Connolly was struck by something that fell about 20 yards before reaching the Stores. The witness spoke to the prompt attention accorded the injured, as detailed at the earlier inquiry.

The Coroner: Was it an arranged thing that the airman should come to the meeting? – Well, no. One of our members was going up to the grounds, and it was arranged that he should ask them not to come and take away the people from such an important meeting, as had been done nightly.

The Coroner: that is just the opposite to asking him to the meeting? – They were to be asked if they did come not to come before the meeting time. If possible the evening flight should be so arranged as not to take away the people from the meeting.

Police-Sergeant Flynn gave evidence similar to that given at Southwick.

The Fatal Vane

Police-Sergeant Robert Cooper was also at the meeting, and agreed with the previous testimony. He did not think the vane would be visible to the man in the aeroplane until he was right down to it. He saw Connolly lying about twenty yards from the Stores, while the other two men were lying nearer the building, and the three were removed to the Royal Infirmary.

By the Jury: The airman was just beginning to rise when he struck the vane.

Captain J. C. Griffiths was the next witness, and he emphasised the fact that no promise was made for the airman to fly over the meeting, nor did he tell Thompson anything of it. The airman was an excellent pilot, and not inclined to be rash.

In answer to a Juryman, the witness said it was against military orders to make any promise with regard to flying.

Lieut. P Thompson, the airman, likewise repeated his version for the affair given earlier in the day.

Coroner’s Comments

The Coroner said he did not think it was necessary to call any further evidence, as they had probably heard sufficient to enable them to decide how the men came by their death. Several witnesses had been called and there were one or two questions which appeared to have been raised in the minds of the jury as to how the airman came to be so low down. They had, he thought, entirely disposed of any question regarding the military having arranged to give exhibitions of flying. What seemed clear was that if there was to be any flying that night it should be at the time of the meeting and not at another time, and so take the people away. Whatever their intention or desire the question appeared to have gone no further, and even the airman, he understood, knew nothing about it. He was attracted by the crowd, and largely out of curiosity went over the meeting a second time to see what it was all about. It was unfortunate that just when he got into position the sunlight so interfered with his vision as to prevent him seeing the flag. Even had he seen the flag he would probably not be able to see the vane above the flag. As soon as he found that he was not able to see the airman began to rise, and in doing so struck the vane and was damaged. The only question the jury had to consider was whether in descending as he did there was anything in the shape of negligence of such as character that they ought to deal with it. The jury would bear in mind that there was sufficient power and speed – even if the engine had broken down – to have enabled the airman to clear the buildings, and there were also references to his being a very careful pilot. On the whole he did not think they would be likely to suggest that there had been any negligence, but that what did occur was accidental. He (the Coroner) must add that there had been a great deal of attention drawn to airmen in the town and district by their flights, and he would suggest to those who were responsible for that kind of thing that they should make it a rule or an understanding that an airman should not descend below a height sufficient to clear buildings round about. They all knew it was a matter of necessity for airmen to practice manoeuvring under varied circumstances, but he would suggest that as far as possible such should not be done over the crowded parts of the town, he thought that those in authority would understand and act in that matter. If the jury were satisfied that the occurrence was accidental that would imply that the plane was carefully and skilfully managed.

After a consultation in private the jury returned a verdict of accidental death, and added that they entirely agreed with and wished to emphasise the remarks of the Coroner concerning the manoeuvring in towns.

The Coroner: I think Captain Griffiths will take a note of it. I quite agree with the view.

Mr Bell said he would like to express the regret of every person connected with the Flying Corps, more particularly on behalf of Lieut. Thompson, at what had occurred. They also sympathised very much with the relatives of the bereaved ones.

The Coroner: I agree entirely with the jury, and sympathise with the relatives and airman.

The Foreman (Mr Graham) said the jury also endorsed the remarks made by Mr Bell.

The inquiry then concluded.

Date: 31 May 1917, 1 June 1917

Author: Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette

Contributed by Durham County Record Office

Comments on this story


Comment

There are no comments on this story yet.